Why the President is unwilling to halt DADT suspensions...

[Clio the Leo]

.... according to Gibbs at least. He was just on Hardball and explained, for the first time that I've heard, why the President is reluctant to sign an executive order putting a freeze on DADT suspensions.

We all know that the President cant simply change the law, Congress has to. He is of the opinion that by putting an effective freeze on suspensions, it would as Gibbs said, "exacerbate the situation" and stall any legislation in Congress. It if was temporarily not a problem, then Congress would have an excuse to NOT act on it. The issue would be pushed back and pushed back until the next guy came along and reversed the order. Essentially what the President wants is for the issue to be a thorn in the side of Congress until THEY do what only THEY can do.

Like I said, this was the first time I'd heard the admins. answer to this question and I encourage everyone to watch Hardball at the second hour, or watch the clip online when it becomes available and judge for yourself. ;)

[Peacetrain]

1. Yep.. Obama will let the generals

ask for repeal, (with that a little coaching ;) and then challenge congress to overturn. It is established law.

[flpoljunkie]

12. Don't think Congress feels any particular pressure to repeal DADT.

No way would our cowardly Congress repeal DADT or DOMA next year--the 2010 election cycle--unless the Joint Chiefs recommended it. Perhaps Obama is working on this. We have no way of knowing.

Obama seems to be telling LGBT citizens they cannot expect anything done for another couple of years--but they will be pleased with his administration by the end of his first term.

[babylonsister]

33. Skelton to hold hearings on Don't Ask, Don't Tell

This is from June 25:

http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/06/25/skelton-to-hold-hearings-on-dont-ask-dont-tell/


Skelton to hold hearings on Don't Ask, Don't Tell
@ 2:49 pm by Hill Staff

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), the chairman of the House Armed Services indicated that he will hold hearings on the repeal of the controversial ban on openly gay people serving in the military.

Skelton responded to some pressure from other Democratic members who want to see the law, known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell, repealed. President Obama promised during the campaign to reverse the law, but Congress has to pass legislation for that to happen.

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Fund issued a statement praising the Democrats who challenged Skelton:

"We applaud Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) for respectfully challenging the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), to take action on the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which repeals 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and replaces it with a policy of nondiscrimination. DADT needs more attention in the House (and Senate)," said Aubrey Sarvis, the executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. "Rep. Polis was joined in the colloquy by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA), who also called for action on repeal. We are pleased Chairman Skelton agreed to hold additional hearings and to engage the Pentagon and White House."

–Roxana Tiron

[flpoljunkie]

34. Let us hope they are some time in the near future, since no time frame was given.

[babylonsister]

38. Yes, I noticed that. Hopefully this summer after this vacation and

before their next. :crazy:

[sisters6]

2. What a lame excuse. Can't the Pres. multitask??

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Perhaps you should read the excuse before pontificating on it?

[mikiturner]

6. His argument wasn't that he's got too much to do

His argument was that an executive order, while providing a short term fix, would not be something that is lasting. As the o/p said, the order would allow congress not to do anything. And if a Repub president is elected next time, that order would likely go away, reinstituting "don't ask." It's actually a legitimate argument as far as it goes, though unsatisfactory in the short term.

[mzteris]

10. obviously he IS

multitasking much more efficiently and effectively than people want to give him credit for.

[Cha]

13. Perhaps you should read your own

post before spewing "lame".

[vaberella]

46. You don't have a damn clue. It's not about multitasking---it's the fact an executive order

will actually give Congress---who put these problems in effect an excuse not to get things done. Ugh...why are you still here?!

[Barrymores Ghost]

51. Well, yet another one leaves the protective shelter of its bridge. n/t

[JTFrog]

68. What lame reading skills.

:eyes:

[ZombieHorde]

4. I am not sure why he has not acted on this, but he has shown some leadership on this issue today.

I hope that he continues to show leadership on the subject of civil rights.

[Cha]

17. It's pretty clear in the OP why

he hasn't and he said basically the same at the GLBT Reception this afternoon.

[backscatter712]

5. Interesting.

And he is seeing a few moves ahead. Obama can order no enforcement of DADT now, but yeah, it would get backburnered in Congress, and the matter would see little attention until the next Republican asshole weasels his way into the White House. Then, GOP asshole would start the anti-gay pogroms again, and we'd have nothing done at all.

So yeah, it looks like Obama's pushing this on Congress in such a way that they're under pressure to take action, and the nice thing about that is if Congress repeals DADT and DOMA, even if a Rethug gets in the Oval Office again, it will be next to impossible for him to try to persecute gays in the military.

It is a shame that people like Lt. Choi and Lt. Col. Fehrenbach have to go through hell in the meantime. I hope that their high-profile cases will push Congress to act.

[Cha]

19. It is a shame about the now of

Lt Choi and Lt. Col. Fehrenbach but I've read that they will be reinstated and that is encouraging.

[nosmokes]

28. What about the four years of gays serving in the military openly w/o a problem?

That would certainly be an argument for getting rid of the ridiculous DADT, no?

The only legitimate reason for not signing an Executive Order now is timidity in playing politics.Audacity of hope my ass. I hope for audacity.

[LooseWilly]

64. What convinces you that "it would get backburnered in Congress"?

I mean... more backburnered... and, considering the importance for everyone of the Healthcare overhaul, Financial Regulations, etc. ... isn't the fact that Obama could suspend the investigations/dismissals so that Congress could afford to backburner DADT repeal... without having to live with the scores, or even hundreds, of servicepeople being dismissed in the meantime... isn't that worthy of consideration?

Am I the only one that thinks that Obama ought to suspend investigations/dismissals under DADT (10 USC 654) precisely so that Congress can take some more time with repeal?... Am I the only one who believes that there is enough support in Congress to repeal DADT that, especially with the revocation prospects of an Executive Order, they will actually take action... especially the 77 that sent that open letter to Obama?

Or am I just taking crazy pills?

[MNDemNY]

7. A well tailored "excuse" (Tailored to fit the actions)

[mzteris]

9. so this doesn't make sense to you?

You'd rather a temporary RIGHT F'ING NOW "fix" that can be overturned - or delay gratification long enough to get a permanent and more meaningful resolution?

[katandmoon]

27. I would like to hear a gay service member who faces imminent booting from the service for being gay

To answer this question.

[mzteris]

55. i'm thinking they'd rather the war be won,

than the battle....

[Skittles]

60. they'd rather the leader stand up for them RIGHT FUCKING NOW

[mzteris]

75. sounds to me like he is -

by ensuring it's done in such a way that it can never happen again.

[MNDemNY]

32. I'm sorry, i just do not believe that this was a "strategy".

Other then one tailored to appease.

[flpoljunkie]

36. Obama's response today boils down to 'Trust me.'

Trust that 'by the end of his administration' that gays will be pleased. Later, rather than soon, he seems to be saying.

But I say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I've made, but by the promises that my administration keeps. And by the time you receive -- (applause.) We've been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration. (Applause.)

[jumptheshadow]

39. Yep

When he supports gay marriage then I will be impressed.

When the next marriage case comes down the pike and the Feds issue a toothless, non-insulting brief, or better yet, do not mount a defense of discrimination, then I will be impressed.

When Obama actually spends political currency on DADT then I will be impressed.

I am not impressed with him making empty promises and playing to the egos of a bunch of well-connected people by throwing them some crumbs and a White House visit.

When he can stand in a room of gay men without bringing his wife, then I will be impressed, and he will stop reminding me of Julien on The Shield.

Until he delivers in a very real way for my community, I will admire him for the many good things he has done but remain singularly skeptical of his motives and intentions when it comes to GLBT issues.

[marimour]

80. "When he can stand in a room of gay men without bringing his wife" WTF?

Maybe his wife actually wants to be there to support the issue. This is probably the dumbest thing I've heard anyone say about this subject lately.

[vaberella]

48. Not true.

when DADT and DOMA were in passed it was by many of the same fools that are in Congress today and they still have a lot of power. You put in an executive order such as that in regards to DADT and/or DOMA---we have a Congress who can slow down the process of repealing these awful laws. Its not about appeasement, it's about how to deal with a political process that deals with a division of power.

If he's going to get any repealing done he can't afford to have these people slow down the process or halt it---like they're doing with Gitmo. I don't understand why most people here don't understand that or can't see what's going on. Already the Senate is screwing Pres. O on health care, they've screwed him on Gitmo...and they want to do more. He's having a tough fight ahead and he's trying to maintain leverage---that's not hard to understand.

[dgibby]

8. I wish the Admin. would get out ahead of these stories.

It would save a lot of angst and prevent all these flame wars.

I'm not talking about only DADT, but this is a perfect example. They have to know that DADT, DOMA,etc, are hot topics. Think how much controversy they could have avoided if they'd announced his rational BEFORE everyone went to DEFCON 1.

I think most people are reasonable, and if given a legitimate rationale for the Administration's actions/decisions, would be more apt to be more supportive.

[Clio the Leo]

18. lol, well, there's something to be said for .....

.... having a little faith in the administration, IMO. ;)

It's not the President's fault if folks want to go off half-cocked over topics we are uninformed over.

[jumptheshadow]

57. And some of us...

should read "Conduct Unbecoming" by Randy Shilts to become informed on how many lives have been ruined by this policy. The ignorance of the suffering caused by the witch hunts in the military is appalling. If people read and knew more, they would hold both the President and the Congress to the fire.

[Cha]

21. Actually, I've read this before

and I don't think anything would keep some of these flamewars from happening. There's flamewars on here that have the correct info in the body of the OP but the OP is some bogus negative shit that somebody found on the net.

I know the president is trying as hard as he can to make this right but he wants it done in a way to make it permanent.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

24. Maybe they should've got out ahead- no argument there

But it seems like it should've been pretty obvious from the get-go not to mention the fact that a lot of us have been trying to make virtually the same argument- that whatever one POTUS does via executive order could easily be undone via executive order by the next POTUS, whereas an act of Congress would be MUCH harder to overturn and/or re-establish. Also, while progressive groups and GLBT organizations would hail an executive order, it would give the Repukes a plum opening to start up their damned "culture wars" again and drag a few uniformed officers and generals out behind the mikes to screech about President Obama's *unlawful* use of executive authority and how he's going to war against "our fighting men and women". It would also help "gin up" their base- as a referendum on President Obama- just in time for the 2010 elections. I don't really care personally what they have to say about anything nor do I think they have the same power/influence as they did back in 1993-1994 but it would just seem to me to be better for President Obama to work with military leaders behind the scenes to bring everybody together on the issue (which he apparently seems to be doing), bring in an Army Secretary who is in favor of ending DADT (which he is also doing), and getting legislation repealing of DADT through Congress that he can sign. It is arguably a longer process but IMHO it would be a MUCH more sensible and successful route in the long-term.

IMHO once DADT is repealed by Congress and signed by President Obama (presumably), there won't be any going back to it EVER in the absence of an Iran-like theocratic revolution or the election of a Republican supermajority in our country (neither of which is likely to happen IMHO). Once DADT falls and GLBT individuals are serving the military openly (as they already do in so many other countries) and everybody realize that the institution hasn't been damaged (or turned into a pillar of salt), there simply won't ever again be the will (or the votes) to (re-)instate DADT let alone a ban on gay and lesbian service members.

[MiniMe]

37. Obama did say it a few months ago, but nobody was ready to listen

[hileeopnyn8d]

26. I understand that feeling

and have thought that myself over a number of issues. However, I think the Administration welcomes and almost invites the vocal pushback because it forces those who have no personal stake to actually hear why these laws need to be repealed. Article upon article, interview upon interview with high-ranking military stating that it needs to be repealed brings the issue to the livingrooms of people who would otherwise not even have a clue.

It even gets coverage from right-wing media, because right-wingers like to watch liberals eat their own. That and they get to trot out the broken promises meme, but either way, it's getting coverage from sources who instead of bringing out their cast of bigots focus on Obama's base turning against him.

In a way, he's expending his political capital and giving Congress cover by allowing himself to be the target of the outrage. I just hope Congress gets a move on. It's time.

[MiniMe]

35. I heard it 2 months ago, and I posted it in response to several threads

But nobody wanted to listen. So it didn't matter if it was out there or not. I'm glad that this is out there, I think the flame war needed to play out.

[Cha]

11. Thanks, I got the same

impression from listening to Obama talk about it at the GLBT Reception in the White House, a little while ago.

[Clio the Leo]

14. Could the President reinstate discharged members....

... if the law is repealed?

I realize this notion does not help them pay the bills right now, but I'm curious.

[Pirate Smile]

16. I hope the FBI or CIA are contacting them - especially the linguists.

[Cha]

22. I wrote upthread that I'd read

on DU awhile back that they could be reinstated..I know it made me feel good. I really don't see logically why they couldn't be.

[vaberella]

45. I'm sure the President has that power and is collecting the name.

Considering that he phrased his comments about officers that were on Rachel Maddow's show.

[Clio the Leo]

50. I have visions of a "reinstated service members" White House reception...

... dancing in my head. :)

[vaberella]

56. That would be sweet. It would be gay night at the White House. ^_^ n/t

[Pirate Smile]

15. I just started a thread on this but I'll add it here too:

"After listening to President Obama's speech at the LGBT pride event in the White House and Robert Gibbs on Hardball, it is clear that they think the continued use of DADT in firing gay members of the Military is necessary to keep up the pressure to get legislation through Congress for him to sign. Anything else can just be reversed by the next Administration.

A stay releases the pressure valve and lets Congress think they don't need to act to stop this disgraceful law."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8502070

[TheWraith]

20. Which is exactly what many of us have been saying for weeks.

And which I happen to agree with him on. A temporary solution now is not worth giving up a permanent solution later.

[HopeOverFear]

23. I don't care if an executive order gets overturned later, I want it NOW

:sarcasm:

(when you type it out, you see how little sense it makes)

[katandmoon]

30. And it is 100% certain that an EO would get overturned after 8 years of successful

gay integration in the service, of course, right?

[O is 44]

66. Why would you not support law to fix this?

It is much tougher to overturn law then it is for a Republican President to sign something stating he will honor the exsisting law of DADT. I understand the urgency but people have not just started to be kicked out of the military these past 6 months this has been a long on going problem. I am with the President on this one get the law repealed.

[vaberella]

43. It's not that it will get overturned later---it could be used as a way not to get things done now.nt

[izquierdista]

25. It worked SO well for Truman

I mean Congress jumped RIGHT in and pulled down all those "colored" signs at the War Department, didn't they? :silly:

Obama is getting into a hold-your-breath contest with a blue whale on this one. :thumbsdown:

[Political Tiger]

29. Get real! There was no law banning African-Americans

from serving openly in the military, now was there? The comparison is BOGUS because African-Americans had been serving in the military all the way back to the Revolutionary War. In fact, African-Americans served in every single war this country has ever been involved in. African-Americans were never thrown out/discharged from military service for being black.

What Truman did was integrate the military and mandate equal treatment of service members who were already legally serving their country. He wasn't waiting on Congress to send him legislation making it legal for people of color to openly serve in the military as it wasn't illegal for them to be there in the first place. You don't see the difference?

[izquierdista]

31. No, I don't

What I do see is a leader follower waiting for someone else to do the right thing. In other words, "the buck DOESN'T stop here".

[JTFrog]

69. You obviously have a thing for dictatorship.

:eyes:

[Skittles]

71. more like leadership

[LooseWilly]

40. Did you write this before the Jared Polis clip?

I can't help but notice that openly gay Congressman Jared Polis says that he would like Obama to take the extra step of suspending investigations that are preliminary to dismissals under DADT.
Jared Polis clip
I can't help but think that a Congressman has just as much of a grasp of the way that Congress works... and that if he doesn't feel that suspension will inhibit action on the part of Congress, then maybe it isn't likely to contribute to Congress not taking action. He also pointed out that Colin Powell and Sam Nunn, authors of DADT, now feel that the law needs to be repealed.

On the other hand, there's the Gibbs clip. Gibbs argues that it might distract Congress... but in light of what Jared Polis has said, I find that argument less than compelling.

It may be the paranoia talking... but the fact that Obama's Chief of Staff was a senior advisor in the Clinton administration:
Rahm Emanuel
"Following the campaign, Emanuel became a senior advisor to Clinton at the White House from 1993 to 1998. In the White House, Emanuel was initially Assistant to the President for Political Affairs and then Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy. He was a leading strategist in the unsuccessful White House efforts to institute universal healthcare and many other Clinton initiatives."
... to me suggests that the single most compelling reason behind the inaction that Gibbs is trying to justify as a Congressional strategy (a strategy which an openly gay Congressman, meanwhile, disagrees with)... is a simple phobia of a repetition of 1994... and an assumption that it was Clinton's efforts at allowing LGBT individuals to serve openly in the military that was the cause of the 1994 fiasco.

I think I know how my theory could be tested... if Jared Polis promises the Obama Administration that he will personally work to make sure that Congress won't put off work on DADT indefinitely... which is what I thought was the content of that open letter that 77 Congresspeople, including Polis, already sent to the White House... does anyone really believe that Obama would suspend the investigations and dismissals?

I invite everyone to send a letter to Polis suggesting that he make just such a promise to Obama...

[mikiturner]

41. Does anyone know if there is some legislation

Working its way through right now?

[Clio the Leo]

49. Aside from the Matthew Shepherd bill ....

.... I dont believe there is currently anything on the table. Although Barney Frank, Gillibrand and others are expected to start the ball rolling soon.

[LooseWilly]

52. If the ball is expected to start rolling soon, and there's the Matthew Shepherd bill too...

What's the reason not to suspend investigations/dismissals?
If Congress is moving on the issue, then there is no need to worry that Congress won't move on the issue... right? And that leaves what justification in its wake for inaction?

[Clio the Leo]

53. Well first, read this....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8502045&mesg_id=8502045

and then read this re: the Matthew Shepard bill....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_Act

especially the words, "The bill was first introduced into the House of Representatives on April 3, 2001"

And, in comparison to DADT and DOMA, it's not even a controversial bill. It's been 8 years and still nothing.

And dont give too much credit for the brain trust that makes up the Congress. Who could forget this little gem...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/virginia-foxx-story-of-ma_n_192971.html

... not exactly the crowd who are going to follow the lead of an openly gay Democratic neophyte. (Polis)

[LooseWilly]

63. Ok, now you can read this...

http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/11626/77-members-of-congress-call-for-dadt-repeal-in-letter-to-the-president

It has the full text of the letter sent to Obama by the 77 members of Congress. Polis may be a neophyte, but Barney Frank, John Conyers, Pete Stark, Barbara Lee, and a whole lot of other Congresspeople on the list can hardly be called neophytes. And, while we're on the subject... if Congress is tied up working out the details of, and passing of, Healthcare bills, Financial Regulation bills, Pollution Cap and Trade bills... and those are all obviously very important issues... well, then my question is: Why would Obama resist using his executive authority, under the terms of 10 USC 654, to suspend the investigations and dismissals, as these 77 Congresspeople asked him to do, in order to give the Congress the Time that they need to repeal DADT while simultaneously handling all of the other bills that Obama is pushing??? and to be able to do so without further dismissals under DADT... especially in light of the statistics of support for the repeal of DADT that are described in the letter?

Just saying... the speech today seems like an attempt to staunch the hemorrhaging of support from the LGBT community, without actually being willing to take an action that all of those around him who were around Clinton when DADT was first passed probably remember as being horribly politically costly for Clinton. I think they are simply too afraid to do it... and I am crossing my fingers that the administration will prove me to be a fool before 2011, or 2013... or 2015...

In fact, i double dog dare Obama to make me look like a fool here...

[Clio the Leo]

65. It's not that Congress is ACTUALLY tied up doing other things....

.... because they are just as capable of multi-tasking as the President is (save John McCain of course.) But they'll use that as their excuse. "Since the President has suspended the discharges, let's hold off until the fall term .... we really gotta get this Michael Jackson National Holiday Bill passed. We can work on DADT in the spring....."

I'm gonna say this ONE more time in hopes that it sticks ..... without the pressing need of folks being wrongfully discharged, they wont have the motivation.

Sure it was terrible that those kids in Birmingham were attacked by police dogs .... but would the Civil Rights Bill have ever passed if Johnson had simply cut off funding to the local police?

[LooseWilly]

67. So now you are saying that Congress isn't actually busy with the Healthcare, and other legislation?

Really?... And you're also saying that Obama wouldn't climb metaphorically up their collective ass if they went ahead and interrupted work on Healthcare, Financial Regulation... and all the other "Big" work Obama wants to get done, in order to handle DADT???

Do you really believe that? Can you even say it with a straight face?

As ruggerson has so helpfully pointed out... they have crafted HR1283... which Obama has not endorsed. So... say it one more time... and maybe you'll find that I'm rubber and you're glue... (puerile I know... but your little shot of "I'm gonna say this ONE more time in hopes that it sticks" is beyond puerile and into snotty territory, so what the hell?...)

"without the pressing need of folks being wrongfully discharged, they wont have the motivation" ??... really?... looks like they've already handled the drafting of a bill... now they just need to get it passed... If Obama would endorse it, that might help. If he'd suspend investigations/dismissals under his authority under 10 USC 654 (DADT)... that would really help out those who are liable to be dismissed while the political fight goes on to get the votes (shouldn't be too hard of a fight... would be even less hard if Obama would invest some of his political capital... as he has promised to do... so, with that in mind, why not suspend investigations/dismissals?)

Failure to endorse, and failure to suspend investigations/dismissals are obvious declarations of priorities. Will he fail on these two points?

Ohh, and I hope that this response "sticks" like you thought your repetition (ad nauseum) would.

(And... a Johnson allusion?? Really?? Johnson didn't ask Congress politely to draft legislation... he used every possible trick of manipulation, browbeating, arm twisting, and probably even blackmail/extortion to get his shit passed... surely you're not trying to imply that Obama is doing the same for DADT or any other LGBT issues???)

[Clio the Leo]

47. Polis can not personally guarantee that he can move an entire legislative body...

.... single-handedly.

And while I will GLADLY admit that Polis knows more about the inner workings of Congress than you or I do, his seven months of knowledge pales in comparison to what THIS guy knows....



... for whom Robert Gibbs ALSO speaks.

Incidentally, that photo of Biden being sworn into the senate was taken two years before Polis born. I dont say that to discount his age, he's only two years younger than I am, but to state the obvious, Joe Biden was in the United States Congress a long a** time and perhaps knows a thing or two on how to get things done. ;)

[LooseWilly]

70. But Joe isn't the one calling the shots just now.

He's VP and working a supporting and advisory role. There's no way to know what he's really thinking... because I don't think that he's fool enough to gainsay Obama... to do so would be political foolishness. That said, to suggest that his not gainsaying the President is evidence of his agreement with Obama's positions... seems to me to be disingenuous... rather it suggests that he is not so thoroughly in disagreement that he is willing to sacrifice everything he's worked for in order to speak out against Obama... and rightly so, as Obama isn't that wrong... which likewise doesn't mean that he's right...

That said... I think the 77 Congresspeople who wrote the open letter to Obama can potentially move the Congress. And the 150 co-signers of HR 1283 are even more able to move the Congress... but no... it's easier for some to assume the worst of Congress, and therefore justify the Obama argument that blames all failures on Congress... and thereby exonerates Obama of any wrong doing or inaction.

I think that your argument is a form of apologism. And using the VP, who can't speak out for himself without being seen as betraying his President, is a particularly onerous form of apologism...

[vaberella]

42. Obama said so in his speech today. He mentioned about how certain actions would cause problems. n/t

[KJETS]

44. midterms

for sure

[geek tragedy]

54. Yeah, because he's been pushing Congress soooo hard

to repeal it.

[IndianaGreen]

58. We call this a pile a horse manure in Indiana, and porqueria in Latin America

Now they are insulting our intelligence!

[Skittles]

59. fucking LAME

[Teaser]

73. quite the argument

.

[Skittles]

76. says it all

it's lame, apologistic bone-throwing BULLSHIT

[Baltoman991]

61. I brought

this argument up last week and it wasn't well received. Obama is exactly right. He signs an executive order to temporarily repeal DADT and Congress gets let off the hook. Let them earn their pay and draw up the damn bill.

I read somewhere last week that 77 members of the House are in favor of repealing and I'm sure many more are as well so it's time to put their words into action.

[hughee99]

62. He's saving it for 2011 when he needs their support again...

if he does it now, there's a chance they'll forget about it in the next few years, but if he does it in '11 or '12, he'll campaign with it.

As with any issue and any constituency, promise something during your first run, deliver it (if you can) just before the second election and you get 2 votes with one promise.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

72. I don't buy that. It would be one thing if DADT was very popular and was going to

cost Congress people a lot of political capital and guts to stand against it. But DADT isn't popular. Most people support its removal. There is no reason for Congress to drag their feet on it.

[trayfoot]

74. This seems entirely logical to me.

[Odin2005]

77. I see some DUers seem to want a dictator for a president as long as he's our dictator.

Obama can't change laws, that's Congress's job. he can't suddenly snap his fingers and repeal DADT.

[deadlyaj]

81. The gay advocates are doing nothing but slowing momentum ...

they are ruining their own chances

[Prism]

78. So they're sacrificing soldiers' careers because they lack the political will

I am mortified to hear people praising this as a brilliant move. I'm not one to play grand marshal at the patriotism parade, but this is a deeply, deeply unpatriotic act and the worst kind of cynicism when it comes to honoring the sacrifice and service of LGBT individuals in uniform.

In theory, we have a promise that perhaps one day this will be done. In practice, we have lives and careers being shattered.

And people are ok with this? Beyond belief.

Although I am pleased the administration admits upfront that they have many options to halt the discharges tomorrow if they so chose. I know we've been having that argument around these parts for several weeks now.

They simply do not choose.

I also think this is the latest slapped together rationale for why they're punting this to Congress. This is about the 18th different explanation offered for what is happening with DADT. If this administration had a plan, was "thinking several moves ahead", and was getting ready to dazzle us all with the razor sharp execution of this policy, I do not think we'd be met with this kind of confusion, inconsistency, and ignorance between the different departments and officials of the executive branch.

I honestly believe they meant to maybe, possibly, potentially get around to a DADT solution next year, but recent political pressure (that many here would like to have quite silenced) is forcing the administration to move sooner than expected. That is the only rational explanation I can find for the massive amount of mixed messages and contrary explanations radiating from so many different people and departments in government.

Because the only other explanation would be sheer incompetence, and I don't think anyone here who defends the perpetuation of discrimination so vigorously in the name of partisanship would much like entertaining that possibility.

[dsc]

79. That is bogus

He could simply suspend the policy until a certain date (say the beginning of the next Congress) which would both give us the temporary fix and keep pressure on. If I can think of this surely someone can.

[GivePeaceAchance]

82. Exactly, he's not trying to overrule the congresses authority it is in itself disrespectful...

Now yes the law itself is disrespect but changing laws is an arduous process, whether folks like it or not.