Obama to delay repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”
posted at 7:09 pm on November 21, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Patterico applauds a prudent move, as do I.
Actually, I’m applauding the fact that he’s further antagonizing the left. But prudence, too!
Repealing the ban was an Obama campaign promise. However, Mr. Obama first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress, the advisers said.
“I think 2009 is about foundation building and reaching consensus,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. The group supports military personnel targeted under the ban…
The incoming administration is well aware of how President Clinton botched the same issue 15 years ago. Shortly after taking office in 1993, the president ordered the Pentagon to rescind the regulation that excluded gays…
Ban proponents say removing the restriction would hurt recruiting by discouraging conservative, religiously oriented youths from signing up.
“It’s true that many in the military have looked the other way and served alongside people they know are into homosexuality,” Mr. Knight said. “But that is with the ban in place. Open acceptance would change the atmosphere entirely. If fraternization is a problem now between men and women, imagine the conflicts with openly gay officers who no longer have to be reticent.”
Isn’t the culture of the military going to encourage that reticence anyway? I’ve always thought that was a much greater deterrent to coming out than the feds’ policy. Exit question: How does this shake out vis-a-vis the economy? If the recession’s still in effect a year from now, does this push The One further away from tackling this issue, lest the subject imperil him with disgruntled centrists, or does it encourage him to embrace it as a way of trying to energize his base? Exit answer: Depends on how many concessions he’s made to the left by then.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Progressives heads to explode in 4… 3… 2
Kini on November 21, 2008 at 7:13 PM
I’m pretty sure losing your career is the greatest deterrent. It’s not like there’s a lot of different places you can go into after a general discharge, unless your skills are directly transferrable into the private sector.
apollyonbob on November 21, 2008 at 7:15 PM
Spirit of 1776 on November 21, 2008 at 7:15 PM
If DADT were repealed, there would be some interesting DoD policy decisions to make regarding military spouse benefits (such as joint assignments, base housing, spouse hiring preferences, etc.) if a gay couple were to marry in a state where it is legal, like Mass or Conn.
Jim62sch on November 21, 2008 at 7:17 PM
Funny isn’t it? Socialist, baby murdering Marxist spawn of Osama and Marx is actually, erm, being a centrist.
Grow Fins on November 21, 2008 at 7:18 PM
So no change in:
* gays in the military
* Guantanamo
* SecDef
* intelligence agents who torture
* warrantless wiretapping
* pro-Iraq war appointees
And that was just this week.
Maybe they thought “change you can believe in” just had a snappier ring than “status quo ad infinitum!”
Chuck Schick on November 21, 2008 at 7:21 PM
For what it’s worth, most of the people I know in the military don’t care about DADT either way. I think it’s served its purpose, and at this point could stay or go.
BadgerHawk on November 21, 2008 at 7:21 PM
hooray! more arabic translators will be kicked out because of their orientation! america will continue to discriminate and be less safe at the same time! oh happy day!
Noneya on November 21, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Grow Fins, isn’t it great how he’s doing such a fantastic job at keeping his campaign promises? Integrity you can believe in! Are there any of his constituencies he won’t manage to piss off within the next six months?
Promise anything to get elected…what a lying douchebag.
Jim62sch on November 21, 2008 at 7:23 PM
I wonder the GLADD members even know about this yet… they have too busy “protesting” supporters of Prop.8 and the mormons…
I am sure they will let us know when they get the memo.
beththebaker on November 21, 2008 at 7:23 PM
You’d be surprised how in demand veterans are in the civilian sector right now, and how many job specialties transfer over nicely. Some of the only jobs that don’t transfer well are the really cool ones, like Ranger, M1 driver or Apache pilot.
BadgerHawk on November 21, 2008 at 7:24 PM
Yes. Despite everything he’s ever done, and despite everything he’s ever said, it looks like he’s all for following the Clintonian Policy of triangulation.
He’s shown that he’s a better Clinton than Hillary or Bill.
I dunno if I’d be proud of that, but … hey! At least it’s an accomplishment, right? :D
apollyonbob on November 21, 2008 at 7:25 PM
I’m wondering though – is it a general discharge or an OTH?
apollyonbob on November 21, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Won’t matter to the left — McCain was far more gay friendly (lest they forget the anti-gay blacks who campaigned in the primaries in SC) and yet they voted based on party alone.
Why not a party that will just leave you alone with some money left in your pocket!
David
LifeTrek on November 21, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Yeah, you’re absolutely correct on that. An upside would be that the colleges who refuse to allow ROTC on their campuses would have their fig leaf ripped away. Right now their stated excuse is that the military discriminates against gays (even though a Democratic Congress is responsible for DADT, not the Department of Defense).
We all know the real reason they don’t want ROTC is that they hate the military on general principles, but it would be nice to take away their “official” excuse.
I wonder if President Obama will yank federal money from schools that don’t allow ROTC or recruiters on their campuses?
Jim62sch on November 21, 2008 at 7:27 PM
At least we get another couple of weeks of the crazy lefty loons sashaying in the streets.
HornetSting on November 21, 2008 at 7:27 PM
The ones I’ve seen have all been honorable discharges.
Jim62sch on November 21, 2008 at 7:28 PM
ahhh more like a Clintonista every day.
johnnyU on November 21, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Yes. It’s called spinelessness.
How’d that one turn out?
Chuck Schick on November 21, 2008 at 7:29 PM
http://www.durex.com/cm/sexual_wellbeing_results_part2.asp
ninjapirate on November 21, 2008 at 7:29 PM
I am sure the homosexuals will just sit idily by, and respect the rule of law, and the decision of Mr. Obama, President Elect, the Office of……………
………… right after the Proposition 8 daily riot.
Seven Percent Solution on November 21, 2008 at 7:30 PM
I believe Obama is making a mistake here, because an overwhelming majority favor gay people serving in the military. In a recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll, 91 percent of people aged 18-29 were supportive of allowing gays to serve openly, as were 85 percent of all women, and 73 percent of all men. Yes, Clinton’s being prematurely bold on this issue may have contributed to the outcome of the 1994 election, but in 1992 only one third of the population thought open gays should serve in the military.
It’s generals fighting the last war.
thuja on November 21, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Any reaction from Andrew Sullivan yet? He must be crushed – first Obama and Biden are against same-sex marriage, and now this?
Jim62sch on November 21, 2008 at 7:31 PM
I think it’s honorable, actually, but I’m not sure. It’s actually kind of difficult to get kicked out for homosexuality too. Statement, act or marraige. That’s it. You can hang out at a gay bar or march in a gay parade if you want to and not get the boot.
I’ve known two gay people in the military, and I was happy to serve with both.
BadgerHawk on November 21, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Damn! If I’d a known that The One was gonna be this busy throwing folks under the bus I mighta signed on for all that hopey changey stuff!
Bruno Strozek on November 21, 2008 at 7:32 PM
I think it fits:
BHO is practicing the policy of “Don’t ask. Don’t tell.” on the policy of “Don’t ask. Don’t tell.”
progressoverpeace on November 21, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Somewhere there are already gatherings of lefties bemoaning the loss of the hoped-for HopeAndChange similar to the Earth Firsters bemoaning the exeunt trees.
eeyore on November 21, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Oh okay. Well I suppose AP’s right about the culture being more of a deterrent than the discharge.
I almost said something like this – but remember, homosexuals are not a monolithic group. And we’re talking about homosexuals in the military. They’re probably more responsible and less likely to riot than the moonbats in San Francisco.
apollyonbob on November 21, 2008 at 7:33 PM
Holy Bat Crap.
HornetSting on November 21, 2008 at 7:34 PM
That’s actually kind of good to hear. It’s kind of a lame reason to get kicked out of the military in my opinion, unless the person is actually causing some kind of disruption.
Especially if they happen to know Arabic :P
apollyonbob on November 21, 2008 at 7:35 PM
as someone who was in the military there are a host of factors involved in Don’t ask Don’t tell. Its not a simple matter and for all the attacks on it, couldn’t one argue that don’t ask has worked?
rob verdi on November 21, 2008 at 7:35 PM
sad little troll…..
If McCain had defeated your idol, how many of us would be trolling over at Huffpo or KosTurds?
Janos Hunyadi on November 21, 2008 at 7:36 PM
The Left will learn that was politicians promise during campaigns and what they actually implement are usually two different things.
DADT won’t be repealed because it is already tacitly admitting gays in the military. To go further, would be to antagonize all those 18-25 testosterone-fueled boys for whom homosexuality is like gamma radiation. The combat military works on the principle of unit cohesion, based as it is on the idea of the kind of male bonding that takes place amongst young adult males who engage in dangerous activities, either be it for recreation, or work. The give and take between the boys is balanced. And respect for superior rank is maintained by the notion that the man himself is not flawed. To insert open homosexuals into the mix, destabilizes that, decreases the respect, and threatens the cohesion, which in turn threatens the efficacy of the unit. That is not theory, that is common sense. Take four 19-year old kids, tell them to work in close quarters, and then tell them an homosexual is joining them. Not only will there be resentment and hostility, but it will not function like a 5-man unit. It will function as a 4-man unit with a spare wheel. That can cost someone his life, and perhaps most likely, that of the homosexual.
Gays have to understand that it is not a question of right or wrong, it is question of human nature. The defense of the realm can not be compromised by creating challenges where human nature serves as an obstacle, instead of an asset. Male bonding serves as an asset in combat. Inserting open homosexuals turns the asset of human nature into a liability.
For gays, this is a civil rights issue. But the military is not a civil organization, nor can its mission be compromised by high minded notions of equality even if it was.
keep the change on November 21, 2008 at 7:36 PM
Well,
I spent many years as a Navy Aircrewman. 2 guys I flew with (on separate crews) were both gay. I could’ve cared less, and that was the attitude of virtually all of my shipmates. The only things that were important to us were that we could rely on each other. I never felt that I couldn’t rely on either of them, and I know they trusted me to do my job.
The whole issue of homosexuals serving openly is way past the time it needs to be dealt with & gone. Anyone who is qualified and is willing to take the oath and serve is alright in my book.
My own son is overseas with an airborne unit. He and the men in his platoon don’t see what the fuss is either. If they have what it takes to be a soldier, sailor, airman or marine, then they should be allowed to serve without fear of discrimination.
We have enough enemies hating on our military, both overseas and at home. Let’s end this foolishness.
That’s my 2-cent’s worth, as a veteran and as a taxpayer.
Respects,
AW1 Tim on November 21, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Clearly, I am way behind the curve here.
On the other hand, WTF?!
At that point, how do they count?
Count to 10 on November 21, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Yeah, I went to ROTC at a very liberal school. We had to put a lock box on or flag because someone tried to cut it down one day. We had rocks thrown at our building during our new student orientation one year. I got spit at (not on) once. The anti-war groups tried multiple times to get us banned from campus. Most of the students were cool though, and we had a very pro-military guy running the school, so that helped.
My favorite was this girl who called me a baby killer. I looked at her and said “Awesome line, but you’re 30 years and a half dozen wars late”. She just kind of stood there with this dumb look on her face before I turned and continued on my way.
BadgerHawk on November 21, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Well, homosexuality is illegal. Don’t ask, don’t tell is Clintong’s executive order that illegally and unconstitutionally caused the law not to be enforced.
federale86 on November 21, 2008 at 7:38 PM
You better get on it, Count.
HornetSting on November 21, 2008 at 7:41 PM
This is true. Long ago, when I was in a student government and had the gay rights enthusiasm you’d expect from a young homosexual, I voted against a meaningless resolution to kick ROTC off campus over DADT. Many of the students voting for the resolution were explicit that the gays were just a good excuse to attack the military. My argument against their resolution was it is good for ROTC to be on campus so that we can a watchful eye on the military–which you’d think the left would like. For my efforts, I was denounced as a traitor to gays. The next semester, ROTC members swept the student government election and for my efforts I got chair of the funding committee, the only position with any power in the student government.
thuja on November 21, 2008 at 7:43 PM
I agree with the posters above that say, on the whole, the rank and file troops don’t really care about this issue. In my opinion, the primary opposition is from the older generation currently filling the general’s spots…they are mostly Baby Boomers, a generation that is pretty homophobic compared to Gen Xers, broadly speaking. When the Gen Xers move up, there will be less resistance.
There would be negative blowback among conservative households, though – I think fewer of those parents would encourage their children to enlist, or even discourage it. And conservative/social con households are vastly over-represented in the military, relative to their proportion in the population.
Jim62sch on November 21, 2008 at 7:43 PM
well, wait till he delays shutting Gitmo and withdrawing from Iraq.
rob verdi on November 21, 2008 at 7:44 PM
To barrow a line, “Oh, yeah, I’m a real Don Jon, all right. The ladies don’ wan’ me.”
Count to 10 on November 21, 2008 at 7:44 PM
I’d be too busy drinking kitten blood.
/sarc
Y-not on November 21, 2008 at 7:45 PM
They’re condom sellers, most of the other surveys have lower totals… I just used that one for fun…
ninjapirate on November 21, 2008 at 7:45 PM
“Male bonding serves as an asset in combat.”
1) So women shouldn’t serve either?
(In case you haven’t noticed, most military jobs are not direct combat)
2) Didn’t the looming integration of blacks into the military affect the ‘bonding’ of the men? To most white men in the 40’s the idea of sharing a toilet, drinking water, and dining hall with black men was anathema.
3) Doesn’t it bother you that if there ever were a draft, people could just call in gay? “Sorry you don’t want me; you can go die. I don’t have to.”
ashleymatt on November 21, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Oooh, snark.
Grow Fins on November 21, 2008 at 7:46 PM
I don’t recall this being of ANY import during my 6 years,regardless if there WERE any gays seving with me, it just never came up. Most of the guys I served with were just good people, doing the best they could.
irongrampa on November 21, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Your 2 cents and that of your son’s are pretty close to my experiences. I know some people in the military have a big problem with possibly getting rid of DADT, but most don’t.
Well worded, but are you basing that off of your military experiences or just a general opinion? I can see there possibly being an issue with some soldiers serving under a gay CO or Platoon Leader, but that’s about it. You could also keep combat arms ’straight only’. Women can’t serve in them for a number of reasons either.
BadgerHawk on November 21, 2008 at 7:46 PM
How far back is he pushing reparations?
SouthernGent on November 21, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Incorrect on one point – the Democratic-controlled Congress of 93/94 enacted DADT, not the President.
And yes, sodomy is still illegal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice…though it prohibits all oral/anal sex, straight or gay. It’s rarely enforced, though – usually only when it’s part of an associated crime, like adultery or rape (statutory or otherwise).
I don’t know if the military anti-sodomy laws have been challenged under Lawrence v. Texas yet.
Jim62sch on November 21, 2008 at 7:49 PM
On the actual topic at hand, I’m inclined to let the individual branches, divisions, and even units define their own requirements on the matter.
Overall, I hesitate to show any favoritism or disfavor based on something as nebulous and mutable as one of these “identities,” but I am just fine with kicking someone out for actual behavior. Is it possible to cover the matter to everyone’s satisfaction based on provable behavior alone?
Count to 10 on November 21, 2008 at 7:50 PM
I think they’re still on the books, and were worth a good laugh when I first learned about them.
BadgerHawk on November 21, 2008 at 7:51 PM
He proves to be smarter than the “smartest president, Bill Clinton”, by not making it his first priority, no matter how one feels about the topic.
That Gargantuan bus is bulging, and bulging. Boy, have the rats been had.
Schadenfreude on November 21, 2008 at 7:52 PM
meh, I got that beat…
Again, as a gay dude speaking, I belive “DADT” works fine. The US military should not be used for a social experiment, especially in time of war.
This decision really needs to be placed with the military commanders.
Of course, there are many more gays in the military than you might believe…but when you serve your country, you do so as an American…not a gay American.
JetBoy on November 21, 2008 at 7:53 PM
I think the general population fraction is around 2%, and there may be a selection effect for those whole sign up, so the odds against never finding one aren’t exactly huge.
Count to 10 on November 21, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Heh,
If the sodomy laws under the UCMJ were enforced, we wouldn’t be able to field any military force. :)
Good lord, the entire 6th fleet would be in the brig, especially after one night’s liberty at Subic Bay.
Even when I was in, those laws were only enforced as another poster mentioned above, in conjunction with other offenses in order to have extra cards to play in making a deal with the accused.
AW1 Tim on November 21, 2008 at 7:55 PM
?!
That’s downright sick.
Count to 10 on November 21, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Not only are conservative young men more likely to sign up for military service than our progressive, enlightened urban types, who have nothing but contempt for the whole idea of a national military to begin with, but if open homosexuality is accepted, it will open the door to a whole new type of recruit, the kind that military has not seen.
You inject Richard Simmons into the mix, and all hell will break lose onboard. Gays that are not expressive in their behavior don’t mind DADT. For them their sexuality is no one’s business, so they have no desire to broadcast. But for the more militant gays, (militant, ironic eh?)homosexuality is an existence that demands recognition. That is where the wheels will come off vis-a-vis the other men.
keep the change on November 21, 2008 at 7:55 PM
In before the first homosexual person sues the government for alleged abuse received while in the military.
Enoxo on November 21, 2008 at 7:56 PM
This is a perfect example of EmanuelBergen with his hand up ObaMcCarthy’s back working his mouth.
csdeven on November 21, 2008 at 7:57 PM
That makes sense to me.
keep the change on November 21, 2008 at 7:58 PM
Especially when felching lessons become part of basic training.
csdeven on November 21, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Well, they have me beat. And, for the record, the servicemen I’ve dated have been exemplary.
It's Vintage, Duh on November 21, 2008 at 8:00 PM
I agree with your post. I have slept with more men than I can ever recall. It’s not a fact I’m proud of at this point in my life, but many of them WERE in the military and married. It just was the way it was (and still is)
SouthernGent on November 21, 2008 at 8:02 PM
Before I posted here, I got down my copy of the Manual for Courts-Martial to check the sodomy article, and noticed while flipping through it that we still have a specific article prohibiting dueling. And the Code was revised as recently as the 1980s.
Personally I think dueling should be brought back for certain things. Congress should pass a law that says Todd Palin is allowed to duel anyone who slanders his wife…that would help improve the press coverage, I think. Andrew Jackson would agree with me.
Jim62sch on November 21, 2008 at 8:06 PM
At the risk of appearing silly, I do want to point out that I’m a gay man over thirty who has had three sexual partners. And two out of the three were long run romantic attachments.
Call me loser, call me whatever. I don’t regret my sexual restraint that is consistent with my Judaism.
thuja on November 21, 2008 at 8:06 PM
That was really uncalled for.
SouthernGent on November 21, 2008 at 8:09 PM
You call three restraint?
Count to 10 on November 21, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Who’s this, the Chastity Police?
JetBoy on November 21, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Set your DVRs, Laura is about to enter the ring with Kondrake on the Factor about her being the problem with the Republican Party.
Shes.Not.Happy.
broker1 on November 21, 2008 at 8:12 PM
No, just a guy that winces in sympathy every time Alla sends up one of his “beta-male” posts.
Count to 10 on November 21, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Dude, you’re an alpha male man-slut.
Dude, you’re totally beta.
BadgerHawk on November 21, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Did you take a break from posting for a while?
And don’t mind the crude humor of cs. You should see the golf joke.
BadgerHawk on November 21, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Holy Crap! They guy that screamed at Mukasey calling him a tyrrant from the back of the room was a friggin Federal Judge? Justice Richard Sanders?
broker1 on November 21, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Why would conservatives’ heads explode? He’s not breaking any promise he made to us nor is he violating any of our principles.
baldilocks on November 21, 2008 at 8:17 PM
OMG!
SouthernGent on November 21, 2008 at 8:19 PM
Only the effeminate males would be a problem.
Socmodfiscon on November 21, 2008 at 8:19 PM
You know, I can’t even begin to sympathize with people like this. Its not about the chastity, it more like “How do you people have the opportunity?”
Count to 10 on November 21, 2008 at 8:21 PM
Heh. A liberal arts degree at a major party school presents a lot of spare time and opportunities.
BadgerHawk on November 21, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Going out to the clubs…meet someone, get to talking, dancing, by 3am it’s “your place or mine”.
JetBoy on November 21, 2008 at 8:24 PM
Ingraham totally PWONING Kondracke, by the way.
SouthernGent on November 21, 2008 at 8:25 PM
I want to see it. Hopefully AP posts it this weekend.
BadgerHawk on November 21, 2008 at 8:26 PM
*Grumble, grumble*
…always got to be things I hate doing…
Count to 10 on November 21, 2008 at 8:27 PM
Mort Kondracke needs to be put out to pasture, along with his lover, John McCain.
HornetSting on November 21, 2008 at 8:27 PM
UH Lover=LOVE…the thread got me thinking….
HornetSting on November 21, 2008 at 8:28 PM
O/T Laura Ingraham is hammering Mort on O’reilly
thomasaur on November 21, 2008 at 8:28 PM
I didn’t say I took advantage of all those opportunities. I’m just saying they were there for people who wanted to do so.
Gotta go, wife just got home from work. Have a good night.
BadgerHawk on November 21, 2008 at 8:30 PM
heh
Alpha…Beta…it’s all in the attitude.
JetBoy on November 21, 2008 at 8:33 PM
As a woman who served, I would radically curtail the role of women in the military or at least roll back some policies. The PC method in which women have been integrated into the services has harmed readiness in many cases.
Maybe, but racial “phobia” is different from sexual preference “phobia.” Being black doesn’t require any action or desire on a given person’s part–in spite of what retards like Harry Belafonte might say. Being black isn’t sexual in nature (I know that you know this, but it needs to be stated outright). I can’t “black” a white person nor can he “white” me.
There are people who would use any method to avoid a draft–legitimate or not. Why would it matter if one of the illegitimate methods happened to be lying about being gay?
baldilocks on November 21, 2008 at 8:35 PM
Ya huh… Eminem & Michaeeel
Socmodfiscon on November 21, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Repeal to what? No gays in the military? I’m okay with that.
Lawrence on November 21, 2008 at 8:52 PM
At that point, how do they count?
Count to 10 on November 21, 2008 at 7:38 PM
soundingboard on November 21, 2008 at 9:00 PM
why does the government continue to placate homophobes and religious bigots? the military doesn’t placate racists anymore, do they? so why is this ok?
Noneya on November 21, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Race/ethnicity and sexual preference aren’t the same and, therefore should not be address identically.
baldilocks on November 21, 2008 at 9:05 PM
Hey, the military didn’t make the policy…it was put in place by a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President. Complain to them. If they ordered the military to integrate gays, the military would salute and do it tomorrow.
Jim62sch on November 21, 2008 at 9:06 PM
I sat there looking at that for a while, thinking “21? What is the significance of 21?”
Then I remembered a crude middle-school joke.
Tell me you didn’t mean the number of fingers and toes a man has, plus one.
Count to 10 on November 21, 2008 at 9:08 PM
You presume too much to call them homophobes and bigots.
Count to 10 on November 21, 2008 at 9:10 PM
being gay is no different than being black, people are just born that way.
Noneya on November 21, 2008 at 9:14 PM
Would you cut that crap out. We are not born heterosexual or homosexual. We learn these thing, not just at adolescence, but threw out life.
Count to 10 on November 21, 2008 at 9:18 PM
Call me when someone come to the Gayfrican continent and sells them for slaves and commits genocide on that continent to take over Gaydan. And I’m talking about in the twenty-first century.
baldilocks on November 21, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »