Obama endorses 'don't ask, don't tell' compromise in congress. DADT is over!!!!!

[stevenleser]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/24/AR2010052403681.html?hpid=topnews

President Obama has signed on to a "don't ask, don't tell" compromise between lawmakers and the Defense Department, the White House announced Monday, an agreement that removes a key obstacle to repealing the military's policy banning gays and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces.

Under the compromise, worked out in a series of meetings Monday at the White House and on Capitol Hill, lawmakers will proceed to repeal the Clinton-era policy in the next several days, but that action will not go into effect until the Pentagon completes a study about implementing the repeal.

.
.
.

Gay rights advocates hailed the White House decision as a "dramatic breakthrough" that they predicted would dismantle the policy once and for all.

[WeDidIt]

1. DADT is not over yet

Still huge hurdles to leap yet and you know the Republicans will put up roadblocks.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

2. Looks like we need to put our trust in Nancy. She said that she would work to end

DADT by the end of this year. Let's see what happens.

[Cha]

4. Write letters to Nancy in support of

repealing..and thank her!

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/contact/contact.html

[Pirate Smile]

5. Today they were reporting that the House is the harder push on this vote, not the Senate.

Nancy's good though. I have no doubt she'll get it passed.

[bluestateguy]

Many Blue Dogs are retiring. Their votes can be gotten.

Amazing how once you don't have to worry about reelection, you can actually do what is right, rather than what is popular with conservative white Southern men.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

7. That doesn't surprise me because House districts tend to be more ideologically homogenous

than states as a whole, so those Dems from conservative districts may be too wimpy to go along with the repeal. Don't need to worry about the Repukes. They'll just fall in line with whatever the party apparatus wants.

[PopSixSquish]

27. Nancy Can Count Votes and She Knows Which Buttons to Push

I have hope...

[Radical Activist]

54. Obama did give the Pentagon a December deadline.

So it looks like he was serious when he said it would happen this year.

[bluestateguy]

3. It is?

When I see him sitting at his desk in a bill signing ceremony I'll get much more excited.

[Teka]

68. Exactly

And there still will be no excuse for not getting this done last year.

[Arkana]

6. Looks like Nancy was telling the truth.

[vaberella]

39. Has Nancy lied yet?! That's my girl. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

42. No, she was spot-on that "Impeachment has been taken off of the table." eom

[vaberella]

43. What President was impeachment even on the table for?

I'll assume Bush. And really, I sincerely doubt she had a strong enough Congress for impeachment.

[ShortnFiery]

45. She could have done this ... she could be hailed as the LEADER who helped to save the

functioning of our democratic republic. But nobody in Congress has the courage to do what's right by the people if it, in the least way, harms the God Almighty Profit Margins of Corporate America.

[vaberella]

51. As for the first part, she's done a great deal to be hailed as a LEADER.

AS for the last part on Congress. I agree with you 100%. She's working with chickenshit congressmen and women (well a good number of them) on the Dem side---as for the Republicans---they're not even worthy of being chickenshit.

[bvar22]

63. Here's a good one from the vault:

"Speaking in San Francisco the day after adjournment of the Republican-controlled 2005-06 Congress, Pelosi declared -- as she had throughout her party's successful November election campaign -- that "my highest priority, immediately, is to stop the war in Iraq."

bvar22
Cursed with a memory and a conscience

[stevenleser]

65. Seems like that is happening. Another promise fulfilled. Thanks for pointing that out

I'm glad we are getting on the same page.

[bvar22]

66. Oh Yes!

That Pelosi promise was made in 2005....5 years ago, and all that has been done is to follow thew SOFA agreements negotiated by Bush the Lesser in 2007.
Pelosi can NOT take credit for the Bush SOFA agreement.

You have set a pretty LOW bar for what qualifies as a promise kept.
The FDR administration fought and won a World War on two fronts in less time than it has been since Nancy said, "my highest priority, immediately, is to stop the war in Iraq."

Here's another:
Didn't she promise numerous times that the HCR Bill would contain a "Public Option"?

[vaberella]

89. They made a positive move to end the war in Iraq.

Unfortunately not under Bush as the year 2005-2006 indicates, but that was the first thing on the agenda ---was to work out a time line for leaving Iraq under President Obama.

[bvar22]

91. Except that they haven't. Reality contradicts your post.

The "timeline" you refer to was established by Bush the Lesser in the SOFA agreement, NOT Obama. If you are going to praise the current "time line", praise George Bush, because that is to whom it belongs.

[msongs]

8. it is NOT over yet - they can study it for 20 years, Obama could suspend all

ongoing investigations and prevent opening any new ones with one sentence. He didnt do that DID HE?

Msongs

[Teaser]

9. and he didn't call in Aquaman either.

damn him. Damn him straight to hell.

[stevenleser]

17. Please see my links for the anti-Obama naysayers below.

I think they say it all.

[stevenleser]

29. No, they cannot. Please see this link. The Secretary of Defense has mandated 12/1/2010 as the end

of studying http://www.defense.gov/news/CRTOR.pdf

[backscatter712]

56. My guess is that this is face-saving for the Pentagon.

The Pentagon didn't want to get a slap in the face by being overruled by Congress, but painted themselves into a corner with this "study", and knew the outcry from the GLBT community was getting louder and louder.

So this is the face-saver - "allow" them to continue their "study" until the end of the year, but after that, DADT goes away.

I think we've won!

[QC]

10. Is he going to suspend the dismissals while the Pentagon does all that studying?

If so, then this is a real breakthrough.

If not, then not so much.

I hope it's the former.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. Me too

Although I don't know how DADT could be repealed and he keep things the way they are now (or were before DADT). Once DADT is repealed, however, I suspect that he would have a freer hand in terms of suspending dismissals, something which I'm pretty sure he can't do now- with DADT in place. :shrug: This is welcome news in any event.

[Prism]

82. He can suspend dismissals right this second

He actively chooses not to. And if you don't believe me, take Speaker Pelosi's word for it:

“We all look forward to the report on the review of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy by the Defense Department. In the meantime, the Administration should immediately place a moratorium on dismissals under this policy until the review has been completed and Congress has acted.”

http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1671

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

47. "not so much"

He's ending the law. Any way you shake it, whether the practice stops now or a few months from now, he's getting the bill repealed. That's a breakthrough, period.

[dionysus]

50. glad to see you've already deemed it a Bad Thing (tm)

:rofl:

[stevenleser]

64. Yes, perhaps we should total up how many dismissals would occur from 2011 on without a repeal?

Nah, that would be too fair.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jefferson_dem]

12. Progress...

Not quite there yet but this is excellent news.

[stevenleser]

13. Some links for the anti-Obama naysayers...

http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2010/05/white-house-endorses-dadt-vote-this-week/

http://glaadblog.org/2010/05/24/crucial-dadt-vote-approaches-mainstream-editorial-and-opinion-pages-weigh-in/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+glaadblog+%28GLAADBlog.org%29

[treestar]

14. Cue responses saying it is too little, too late

You know it will happen.

[Political Tiger]

20. Yep,

They should be complaining because according to them Obama should be working on nothing but the Gulf spill 24/7. I mean, didn't you hear, Obama had the audacity to take 10 minutes out of his day to talk about basketball, which is, to many on DU, an impeachable offense, so how dare Obama take time from plugging the oil leak to work on this!

[zipplewrath]

15. What do we do in the interem?

Are they going to stop the investigations and expulsions? Study their brains out, but stop the witch hunts in the mean time. We don't need some sort of "get 'em all before it's over" effort going on.

[impik]

16. People unrec this???? Lame losers, Obama drink your milkshake.

[backscatter712]

18. I know, don't count chickens, but still, THIS IS AWESOME NEWS!!!

If this pans out, this is cause for celebration!

O8) :hippie: :party: :toast: :bounce: :beer: :fistbump: :headbang: :yourock: :applause: :woohoo: :patriot:

[jenmito]

19. Rachel Maddow reported it as "Breaking News" about 15 min. ago! K&R.

[xchrom]

21. Recommend - about damn time. First step but a good one. Nt

[HughMoran]

22. almost...

Let's hope the votes go smoothly.

[johnaries]

23. YES! But I'm sure it's not over yet. There are some in the Pentagon

who will "drag their feet" as much as they can to delay it as long as they can.

I can understand that it will take some time to implement if you want to do it right. But I have no doubt that some will delay it beyond any reasonable expectations.

[stevenleser]

26. Nope, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is on board

In February, he said repeal "comes down to integrity – theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs IS the pentagon. If anyone screws around with implementation of this, they are history.

[johnaries]

31. I hope you are right. I don't doubt that the Chairman is on board,

but I don't want to underestimate the power of the opposition to manipulate the beauracracy.

Don't get me wrong, there is much celebration to be had because we know that it WILL be done.... I'm just afraid that it won't happen as quickly as we would like. Hell, it already has taken longer than it should have.

I guess what I'm saying is that we should celebrate this milestone, but that doesn't mean we should "relax" just yet. The efforts of Obama and the Dem Congress and all of the rest of us are starting to show some payoff, and that is much cause for celebration! But, "it ain't over 'til it's over."

Just sayin'.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

24. Yeah, I think that might be a *tad* premature.

[stevenleser]

25. It's pretty much a done deal

1. They have the votes
2. The current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is on board. His statement in February:
"...repeal "comes down to integrity – theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."
3. The current Secretary of Defense is on board.

Estimates are that the Pentagon will take no more than half a year to implement.

[boppers]

28. No more than half a year?

Have a timeline for a similar military change:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology

8 freaking years.

[stevenleser]

30. Yes, 12/1/2010 is the last possible date for study. See this directive

http://www.defense.gov/news/CRTOR.pdf

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lynne]

32. So, "Compromise" is now defined as "Over"?

That's quite some dictionary you've got there!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

48. The "compromise" is only on the timeline.

The law will be repealed.

[tranche]

33. k/r

This seemed to have sunk. You'd think there would be more discussion of this on this site.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SpartanDem]

35. It's not over until they vote on it.

[political_Dem]

37. I hope so. DADT could be the first domino to fall. And then, the others will.

These are tremendous times. It is time to seize the moment before the GOP and their Teabagging monsters get the chance to further steer our country into the toilet with their oppressive ideas. :(

[Prism]

38. All that pressure we were told not to apply is working?

Hrm. This will require a new narrative.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Radical Activist]

55. And all the accusations that Obama abandoned the issue and would never do anything.

Yes, this will require a new narrative.

[Prism]

75. Oh lord, they had to back him into a corner to get sideways movement

He's kicking and screaming and doesn't even want the repeal. All this language does is absolve Congress of any responsibility and allows the President to get around to it whenever he feels like.

And given the hurdles being attached to the compromise, a full repeal may yet be years distant.

This compromise is Congress saying "We're tired of waiting on you. You want to do it all yourself on your own time? Enjoy. We're done."

Which is a pretty sharp rebuke from his own party. They're telling him his ass-dragging on DADT is no longer acceptable. They're placing the sole responsibility for repeal on his shoulders.

So when he drags ass yet again, and takes forever to clear the dozens of hurdles being placed in the compromise, the whole "But Congress. . . " excuse won't wash.

And then what will you guys use to explain why equality isn't too pressing?

[Radical Activist]

77. Obama never backed off doing it his year.

Gibbs has repeated that timetable every time he's asked. And this article indicates Obama agreed to the compromise, so it's hard to interpret that as some kind of rejection of Obama. It looks like further evidence that he's going to follow through on doing it this year, as has been stated repeatedly. I think you're trying to hard to see the worst motivations when there's every reason to believe he's following through.

When Congress tells the President he can repeal DADT, and the President has consistently said he's going to repeal it, that's a GOOD thing. There's no reason to believe he was "backed into a corner" because he has always been in favor of repeal, and despite the writers crying wolf, there's never been evidence of him backing away.

[Prism]

79. I pay attention to this issue outside of how it relates to the President's PR

Every single Congressman who has gone to the President and asked him to take up DADT repeal has been shrugged off. Members of Congress have been steaming back and forth to the White House for 16 months, and the irrefutable message has been "Delay, delay, delay. It's an election year!"

Congress has asked and asked and asked. Speaker Pelosi finally said "If you really don't want to do this, then stop the discharges."

That's pretty significant. The Speaker publicly called him out on his dithering.

Do you know something Speaker Pelosi doesn't? Because this compromise is the result of a fed-up Congress who are not in the mood to work within the President's eternally delayed time line.

[Radical Activist]

80. Publicly called out?

Then there will be a link and direct quote from somewhere, right?

"Eternally delayed" is a misleading statement. He gave the Pentagon a deadline of this year and has repeated that he'll take action this year many times. A specific deadline to deal with something in a way that gives it more institutional legitimacy is not an eternal delay. I've seen enough groups pass off rumors to get people riled up that I view this with skepticism.

[Prism]

81. There certainly is

From Speaker Pelosi's website on April 30th

“We all look forward to the report on the review of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy by the Defense Department. In the meantime, the Administration should immediately place a moratorium on dismissals under this policy until the review has been completed and Congress has acted.”

http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1671

Now, can you imagine how any other minority constituency would feel when the Speaker of the House has to publicly call out a President from her own party to do something about this? That the President has let it go on and on and on, and Congress has finally dispensed with decorum and deference and declared "Enough already!"

Eternally delayed isn't a misleading statement. First we got the "lot on his plate!". Then HIR. Then all of a sudden needed a study. There are dozens of studies the administration could cite at their leisure. They don't need one more. This was the "Until After The Election" Study, where the President wouldn't have those pesky gays mucking up his midterms.

No deal. And how insulting is that?

This compromise has tons of categorical language about when DADT may actually fall out of use. There is no final date. There is "When the President feels like . . ." when amorphous readiness and cohesion conditions are met, etc. Basically, whenever they get around to it.

And on DADT, whenever this President feels like getting around to it has not been a winner for the community.

The man is the Commander in Chief. There is no more institutional legitimacy than that. The American People are on board. The Sec of Defense and Joint Chiefs claim they are on board.

What, exactly, is the need for this compromise? There is none. This is the President delaying even more.

The community has said enough. Congress has said enough. Speaker Pelosi has said enough.

Join us, won't you?

[Radical Activist]

83. “We all look forward to the report on the review of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy"

Wow! What a blistering attack! She's looking forward to the review and to Congress acting?!?! I can't believe she would say such harsh things!

You're trying way too hard. What you quoted is nothing like what you're claiming. You're being dishonest by ignoring that Obama set out a specific deadline (not eternal delays) and the story in the OP indicates that he's going to meet that timeline.

Some of us believe in advocacy without misleading exaggerations. Join us, won't you?

[stevenleser]

84. "Some of us believe in advocacy without misleading exaggerations. Join us, won't you?"

You wouldn't think that would be asking a lot, but...

;-)

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Prism]

86. It was a public repudiation

Speaker Pelosi asked the President to do what this administration and its apologists have repeatedly claimed he simply cannot - a moratorium on discharges.

It's a rebuke in politicalese.

Read the language of the compromise again. There is no deadline. There is "when certain conditions are met". No deadline.

And just to let you know, advocacy is putting pressure on the people in power to make them move on your issues - it is not protecting them. For 16 months, the same people with the same excuses have pushed against the LGBT community and our allies on this.

Against. Oppose. Different direction.

That's not advocacy you're engaged in.

[Radical Activist]

90. Obama has been saying THIS year for a long while.

The timeline isn't about language in the compromise. Obama gave the Pentagon a deadline of this year for looking at DADT. The deadline comes from Obama, which to any fair minded person, is an indication that he wants it to actually happen.

More evidence of what has been obvious all along...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=313599&mesg_id=313599

[Radical Activist]

92. And yes,

Obama should stop discharges under DADT while the policy is being reviewed. Pelosi is right to criticize him. But, that's very different from saying Obama abandoned his commitment to repeal DADT. It's that logical leap and unfair accusation that myself and many others will take issue with.

[Vinca]

40. I do not - and have never - understood DADT.

It's not as if gay people are not already in the military. Repealing it doesn't mean suddenly there will be gays. It's a matter of allowing people to be honest. What's to study??

[backscatter712]

61. It was a Clinton-era political compromise on the issue that completely backfired.

Clinton tried to end discrimination against gays, but the GOP went apeshit, and the Pentagon went apeshit, so DADT was the compromise - in theory, if gay servicemembers kept quiet, the military wouldn't go after them.

Of course, when Bush became president, he abused DADT to persecute gay servicemembers at an accelerated rate (after all, DADT said nothing about being outed by third parties, and when that happened, the persecution hammer came down with gusto...)

Hopefully, the deal that Obama and Congress have crafted with the Pentagon puts an end to this.

[zipplewrath]

76. Alot

And that's what worries me. Don't "trust" the military to do this "correctly".

Just because they "repeal" DADT won't mean they can't still mess with you.

1) Did you ever lie/distort/omit/ information on a form during DADT? That was illegal. It still is unless someone provides for some sort of "amnesty".

2) They won't be discharged. However, can their career options be limited by being excluded from some forms of service? Women are still currently excluded from certain positions. Will they do the same to gay men?

3) Will discrimination against members be prohibited?

4) Will they now be allowed to force you to document your orientation as part of the enlistment/application process.

5) How will it affect on base housing assignments?

6) Will chaplins still be required to assist all military members?

7) What about survivor notification, dependent rights, children?

This study is about alot of things and it could be about how to maintain DADT in everything but name.

[ShortnFiery]

41. Don't hold your breath. I won't believe it until IT HAPPENS. eom

[vaberella]

44. This is your second post like this on a similar thread.

I think we got your input the first time.

[ShortnFiery]

46. OK, this also applies to your side.

:shrug:

[vaberella]

53. What side? I only posted a response to your post and another on Nancy P.

And thanked Ruggerson for his post, since I saw his post first. So, I'm not getting your point.

[robinblue]

71. ah, the posting police.

[Jennicut]

52. This is pretty big, actually. I hate Lieberman, he is my Senator. But he may

help us in the Senate on this. I am wondering which will be harder, passage in the House or in the Senate.

[backscatter712]

57. Seeing that they've announced a deal...

It looks like they've wrangled the requisite number of votes.

Besides, it's gonna get attached to a military appropriations bill, so it's not going to be able to be filibustered.

I've got a good feeling about this.

[stevenleser]

60. Exactly, it's over. All over, that is, except for the hand wringing of those who are upset at

a positive achievement for the administration. I find their protestations fascinating.

[ShortnFiery]

62. Uh, NOTHING significant with regard to legislation has happened yet.

It's merely "happy talk." I'll believe it when DADT is LEGITIMATELY repealed, not before.

[stevenleser]

73. Sorry "ignored" I cannot read your response. n/t

[Unvanguard]

78. It will be harder in the Senate almost certainly.

Mainly because of the sixty-vote total they need to break the filibuster. Getting 217 or whatever in the House should be easier; they need zero Republicans and can afford not to have a few dozen conservative Democrats.

[SunsetDreams]

67. K&R, woohoo !!!

[donco6]

70. We'll see.

Let's keep an eye on it. A lot has to happen before it's "over."

[racaulk]

87. This is a tad premature.

A big step in the right direction, to be sure, but DADT is certainly still in effect.

[DCBob]

88. One big question is whether the Senate Repugs will try to filibuster...

If not then I am sure the votes are there.. if they do fili then all bets are off.