This. He’s just using them.
As for the “there are more important things to take care of” argument; that’s an excuse that can go on indefinitely. There’s always going to be something more important.
Bah. I’m sure Truman heard that the military had a white culture as an argument against integrating the armed forces. I don’t think the military has any more right to a macho culture than it does to a white culture.
Is this the same man Colbert mentioned while in Iraq?
I can’t believe we are really living in a time and place where no one has to answer for this. Who is telling this man, face-to-face, ‘Thanks for all the years of service, you’re gone’?
If anyone is dismissed for being openly gay in the military, it should be the duty of the president to tell each and every one in the presence of their families, loved ones and (former) colleagues.
That macho military culture didn’t want blacks. That macho military culture didn’t want women. Guess what? It still has a macho culture with blacks and women. It’ll still have a macho military culture with gays. It already does, in fact.
Let’s not worry a little thing like gays is going to change 234 years of tradition.
Dunno who Colbert saw.
Interestingly Fehrenbach did get some face time with Obama.
Soldier: Obama told me ‘we are going to get this done’ (watch video at link)
Whack-a-Mole, you said in your parenthetical that Fehrenbach was losing veterans benefits. I cannot see how that would be, as he was being recommended for an honorable discharge.
Of course he would lose retirement benefits, but those are a different set of benefits and are administered under not only different rules, but thoroughly different cabinet departments of the government.
Not that this makes this case any more right or just - it doesn’t. But when discussing these sorts of matters, terminology is pretty important.
I certainly do not know the ins-and-outs of military retirement and benefits and such.
The way I read it was he would receive benefits by getting an honorable discharge but because he is fighting the discharge he forgoes those benefits. Looks like a carrot-and-stick thing from the government. Go quietly, don’t cause a fuss and we’ll throw you a bone. If you whine about it then you get nothing.
Again, that is just how I read it. I do not know how it works.
That’s pretty fucked up. When they keep lowering the standards for druggies and criminals, too. I can’t wait until a few decades from now when (hopefully) being gay will just be a non-issue, and the morons sputtering about fags and making convoluted justifications to discriminate are recognized as such.
He also promised to end warrantless wiretapping, rendition, and to implement net cuts to the budget and adopt pay-as-you-go leglislation to end chronic deficits.
He also promised to immediately implement a policy where all leglislation would be posted online for public scrutiny for at least five days before a vote. In fact, his administration has become even more secretive than the last one.
He also promised new rules that would prohibit former lobbyists from serving in his administration, and to implement a new rule that anyone leaving his administration could not work as a lobbyist for at least two years. He broke both promises.
He promised not to raise any taxes, in any form, on anyone making less than 250,000. After becoming president, he quickly signed new excise taxes on tobacco that primarily hit low income people. And it’s clear now that he intends to increase taxes on the middle class.
At least in the case of those ‘net budget cuts’, it’s now pretty clear that he never had any intention of doing so. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he changed his mind on wiretapping and rendition after learning more details in his presidential briefings, but it’s completely clear that his plan for the U.S. budget at no time included ‘net budget cuts’. In short - he lied.
I think that keeping his word is very low on his list of priorities, and the fact that he said he supported the repeal is not a reliable indicator of how he truly feels on the subject.
I think you would probably better off using the word used instead of using. For something like DADT it would have been better served had he pushed it right from the start and therefore would have had two years until the midterms, and four years until the next presidential electlion.
Now he is the encumbent and probably does not require the percentage of voters that the rainbow crowd brought forth, or he did the math and while they were all for him, they did not actually vote in droves for him
While I can understand that there may be more pressing practical problems, so far he does not appear to be committing to the moral side of his election platforms , as to why somethings were going to be changed DADT was one , I believe.
Declan
No, it means he wanted to be elected. Kind of like the guy who says, “Of course I love you.”
He’ll get to it when he gets to it, maybe, but for now he’s gotten what he wanted.
Are you suggesting that male homosexuality isn’t masculine? Because if you are, there are a couple bars I could recommend you visit the next time you’re in my neighbourhood that just might change your mind.
I would never be so stupid as to suggest that. But that’s how it’s perceived. Has anyone here actually talked to a grunt soldier about homosexuality in the military?
These guys have a very macho culture, especially Marines. I suspect that as the ranks get higher, especially among college-educated commissioned officers, attitudes get a little bit more tolerant (in terms of personal beliefs) but when it comes to the grunts on the ground, the guys who go in right out of high school, those guys are by and large not going to know or care about butch leatherdaddies or Spartan warriors. In their mind, gay = effeminate, weak, and unfit to be a fighting man.
There is nothing in Obama’s background or other political positions that would indicated he wants to keep DODT in place. I just don’t get all the Obama hate on this subject since, as has been pointed out numerous times, Congress has to appeal this law. Whenever Bush brushed aside the law, there was an outcry here. If Obama did the same thing, I hope there would be a similar outcry, even if people were sympathetic with the outcome.
This is one that Big B is going to foist off entirely onto Nancy and Harry. If Congress sends him a repeal of DADT, he’d probably sign it, but he’s going to let the folks on the Hill be the ones who do the (figurative) bleeding and dying over it.
Bill Clinton should have never signed off on DADT in the first place, that law was adopted in reaction to a huge froofraw that was raised on the originally-floated idea to eliminate the existing policy (and at the time it was policy, not law) that “gay” was per se incompatible and deleterious to military service. He was getting pounded on that, it was costing valuable time and concentration. So to get out from under the brickbats, he agreed instead to this lame “compromise” that ostensibly would prevent the brass from going on fishing expeditions, but makes * “we’ll all just look the other way and pretend the issue does not exist, if everyone will just shut up and NOT call attention to it”* the Law of the Land. Now we’re stuck with it.
To be quite fair, it turned out 1st-term Clinton didn’t even have enough political capital to pull off his ostensible #1 policy priority (healthcare reform) with a supposedly same-party Congress in 93-94. Heck, Clinton ended up later also signing DOMAct under the guise of defusing calls for an actual DOMAmendment! (For context, this was all before the Lawrence case, Bowers v. Hardwick was the latest, at the time)
(Of course, President JRDelirious would have said: “Look, General, in case you did not get the news bulletin, I am the constitutionally elected CinC. If tomorrow I say the Marines change from Dress Blues to Blue Dresses, all I’d want to get back from you on the matter is a smart salute and a loud Yes Sir.” This is why I am NOT in high elected office.)
Of course, that presumes that the people he is shafting in this term will still come out and vote in 2012.
Yes, but it’s the right thing to do. Is Obama going to avoid doing the right thing every time a quarter of his party disagrees?
It’s perceived negatively.
That’s why you make it a fucking order and tell people if they don’t like it they can find a civilian job.
I was in the Canadian Armed Forces in the early 90s when this same issue came up. Lots of tough guys with big mouths talked about how it’d ruin the Forces if they let the damned faggots in, blah blah blah. Then the order comes down; This is the policy and if you don’t like it, that’s too bad. Live with it or get out.
People learned to accept it very quickly.
The fact that from the beginning * he’s shown disrespect to gays tends to create an understandable resentment and cynicism.
- Recall that homophobic preacher who was invited to speak at Obama’s inauguration ? People like me who complained were told we were being oversensitive, that we’d see what Obama was really like once he got into office. Well, I’ve seen, and he doesn’t look especially friendly to gays to me.