DADT is gone, huh?

[dsc]

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/06/27/Air_Force_Confirms_New_Round_of_Discharges_Under_Dont_Ask_Dont_Tell/

The Pentagon confirmed Monday that more service members have been discharged under “don’t ask, don’t tell” pending certification of the policy’s repeal, with one individual’s discharge approved as recently as Thursday.

A total of four airmen have been discharged under the policy in the last several weeks, Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez confirmed Monday.

end of quote

This law passed in December of last year which is over 6 months ago. Now we hear that Gates won't certify prior to leaving. Let's say that it takes Panetta one month to certify (remember Gates couldn't do so in 6) it will be at least the end of October before DADT will be gone. Just how many discharges are we going to have in the meantime? Oh, and as an added bonus, while we dither we increase the chance that the House will find some way to force Obama to go back on this by attaching amendments to budgets, debt limits, or god knows what else. This should have been done months ago.

[Me.]

1. Was This Just A Ploy To Shut People Up?

[Arctic Dave]

2. Like I've said before, it's only on paper.

Saying they are "working on it" is just pure BS to placate people.

[Tx4obama]

3. DADT is not completely gone. Congress passed the bill to repeal it, Obama signed the bill

The repeal of DADT is still in the implementation process and will be completely gone sometime in September/October.
But I am sure that you already know that.

Now, do you have a link that shows that the four service people did not use the DADT policy to 'get out of the military'?

Suggesting that President Obama will reverse his decision on DADT is ridiculous.

[ClarkUSA]

5. With that one stroke of the pen, he's already done more for LGBT civil rights than any other POTUS.

[Ken Burch]

15. I hate to think what you'd ve settled for in the Civil Rights era.

"It's enough to get CLOSER to the White drinking fountain! And now, you only have to stay out of the first THIRD of the bus!".

That's exactly what the half-repeal of DADT is. It doesn't do what is required...getting the service to treat openly gay service members as equals. Equality can never be won in gradual steps.

[ClarkUSA]

20. What are you going to say when DADT repeal goes through in September/October?

Thanks to the efforts of President Obama, who does indeed bow to the Japanese emperor because he is culturally gracious, unlike some Americans.

[dsc]

22. I will be thrilled if it does

but the simple fact is Mullen leaves about that time which could mean yet another delay. This should have been done months ago.

[Ken Burch]

31. What the hell does the Japanese emperor have to do with this?

And that won't really be repeal, because, among other things, it will still bar the survivors of gay service members who fall on the battlefield from getting the benefits the surviving spouses of heterosexual servicemembers get...and if that's the case at the start, we can assume it will never be corrected, since justice can never be achieved in steps.

Also, as I understand it, those survivors will still not be allowed to attend the military funerals or be handed the flags.

This is not a minor point.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

55. This is where the goalposts were to start with

The only acceptable result is full equality. Nothing short of that is worth anything.

[ClarkUSA]

61. Funny how there were no goalposts until President Obama came into power.

That said, President Obama is still the most pro-LGBT president in terms of results than any other American president in history. And when DADT is repealed in September/October, I'm sure he will not be finished.

[Ken Burch]

66. there were always goalposts

n/t.

[ClarkUSA]

69. I don't recall any during the Clinton years at all, even after his signing DADT and DOMA into law...

... much less when Bubba approved anti-LGBT ads in 1996.

[dsc]

72. as usual you just don't know what you are talking about

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-07-31/news/1993212018_1_mixner-sam-nunn-clinton

July 31, 1993|By Carl M. Cannon | Carl M. Cannon,Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Twenty-one months ago, Los Angeles businessman David Mixner introduced about 20 of his fellow wealthy gay activists to a man who'd been a friend of his for 25 years -- Bill Clinton.

At a private home in the Hollywood Hills, Mr. Clinton, then governor of Arkansas, assured the group that if elected president he would stand up for gay rights and pledged to rescind the ban on gays in the military.

Impressed with Mr. Clinton, members of the group, known as Angle, endorsed him for president, encouraged other gays to do fTC the same and subsequently helped raised tens of thousands of dollars for his election.

end of quote

note the date

As usual you have no clue what you are talking about. That is what happens when straight, entitled people refuse to listen to those of us who have lived through the era.

[ClarkUSA]

77. 20 people? Gimme a break. Pres. Obama is being subjected to goalpost attacks 24/7...

... and also before his first year was out.

Where was the 24/7 outrage when Bubba didn't repeal DADT during the years after he signed it into law?

[dsc]

78. that is one link

No I didn't decide to link a bunch. I mean really. I have to not only find one example but I am supposed to find dozens for you and do all your homework? well fuck no.

[ClarkUSA]

80. FYI, I wasn't speaking to you originally. I didn't ask you for anything, so don't act as if I did.

Once again, I hope someone will answer this question:

"Where was the 24/7 outrage when Bubba didn't repeal DADT during the years after he signed it into law?"

Don't trouble yourself.

[Ken Burch]

74. Then you don't recall reality. There was MASSIVE outrage

that Clinton sold out military gays and signed DOMA. No one in this party really thought that either step ever gained him any votes.

[ClarkUSA]

79. I do. I didn't ask whether there was outrage that "Clinton sold out military gays and signed DOMA."

I asked why wasn't there 24/7 loud and public pressure from the Democratic base that Bill Clinton repeal DADT ASAP as there was with Pres. Obama.

[Ken Burch]

82. There was a lot of pressure.

Give the "double standards" thing a rest. And give the "no goalposts" thing a rest. Neither were true.

[ClarkUSA]

84. Prove it.

Prove that that there was a similar 24/7 loud and public pressure from the Democratic base that Bill Clinton repeal DADT ASAP as there was with Pres. Obama.

[Ken Burch]

89. You wouldn't accept ANYTHING as proof of that.

The whole question is a set-up on your part.

The difference between the Nineties and the present is that the LGBT community is better organized and politically stronger...NOT that anyone made a conscious decision to let Clinton off the hook.

[Jakes Progress]

75. What is your deal?

Did you not get invited to something in the 90's? You find a way to bring Clinton into every thread regardless of topic or subject. Your obsession is showing.

[ClarkUSA]

81. D'oh!

Yeah, there's no reason to bring up Clinton into a DADT OP. :sarcasm:

Are you trying to censor me?

Am I not allowed to speak the truth about Bubba's lousy legislative track record and his historic LGBT civil rights sellout status as compared to President Obama's stellar legacy so far?

If you don't like what I say about DINO DLC Bill, then put me on ignore.

[Ken Burch]

83. Please stop implying that everyone who pressures Obama now let Clinton off the hook then.

It simply isn't true.

[ClarkUSA]

86. That's a strawman fallacy. Quote where I said that.

However, prove that there was a similar 24/7 loud and public pressure from the Democratic base that Bill Clinton repeal DADT ASAP as there was with Pres. Obama.

[Jakes Progress]

95. Again with Bill. You got it bad, dude.

Obama is just an extension of the Clinton programs, but a little more right. Don't pretend that your distaste for all things Clinton has anything to do with policy. You condemn the same policies under Clinton that you praise under Obama.

[ClarkUSA]

113. lol! Yeah, you're right. There's no reason to bring up Clinton's lousy LGBT legacy into a DADT OP.

:sarcasm:

Are you trying to censor me? Am I not allowed to speak the truth about Bubba's lousy legislative track record and his historic LGBT civil rights sellout status as compared to President Obama's stellar legacy so far?

If you don't like what I say about DINO DLC Bill, then put me on ignore. BTW, I'm not the one who has it bad for Bill. :eyes:

[Jakes Progress]

115. You should stop using the word "censor" until you know what it means.

Stop playing "poor me". You bring up Bill or Hillary on any topic for any reason.

If you are going to bring up the LGBT issues from the Clinton era (shameful indeed) then you have to know it is no different than how it has gone down under Obama (also shameful)). Obama is such an extension of the Clinton policies and priorities that it is ludicrous that you try to contrast these two identical administrations.

[ClarkUSA]

116. You didn't answer my questions: 1. Are you trying to censor me?

2. Am I not allowed to speak the truth about Bubba's lousy legislative track record and his historic LGBT civil rights sellout status as compared to President Obama's stellar legacy so far?

If you don't like what I say about DINO DLC Bill, then put me on ignore.

<< Don't pretend that your distaste for all things Clinton has anything to do with policy. You condemn the same policies under Clinton that you praise under Obama. >>

Prove it.

Or is this a classic example of projection re: "your distaste for all things" Obama? :rofl:

[Jakes Progress]

118. Your use of that word is offensive.

Censorship is a bad thing. People have suffered from being censored. You using that word on an open forum to refer to someone telling you how silly you are is offensive to the people who actually do suffer censorship.

We get it that you don't like Clintons. There are plenty of reasons not to. It's just that sane people don't defend Obama by trashing Clinton since they are so much alike.

Or is this a classic example of projection re your baseless, but total adoration of all things Obama. That would explain why you don't seem to understand what a goof it is to hate Clinton's policies while trumpeting Obama's.

Why ignore you? Would my not pointing out your problems make you happier?

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[yardwork]

117. Well then you must not have been paying attention.

[dsc]

60. they won't?

I knew about the benefits but not about the funeral or flag. I find that unbelievable. Do you have a link for the funeral thing?

[ClarkUSA]

71. Prove it.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

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

[Tx4obama]

33. It is not a half-repeal of DADT. The repeal of DADT is in the implementation process.

I don't see anyone complaining about the 30 day wait period in NY before any same-sex marriages can take place. Where is the outrage there regarding having to wait 30 days?


Edited to fix typo.

[Ken Burch]

37. He didn't have to keep letting them do DADT discharges right up til repeal is in force

The prez had nothing to lose by saying "stop processing any discharges during the implementation period".

And I assume you'll at least agree that he'll have a moral obligation to order the reinstatement of any of those discharged during the implementation period once whatever follows that is in place.

It's not like he HAD to let the Pentagon have a few more rainbow scalps before the gay hunt ended.

[Tx4obama]

57. The four people REQUESTED to be discharged. Why would they want to be reinstated?

So, are you saying Obama should force the four people that used the loophole to get out of the military be returned against their will?

If anything I think that they should be thrown into the brig for not keeping their promise to serve.

[Raine1967]

76. What would you consider the Civil rights era?

This is something I am very curious about. I have heard a lot of people say this, and I would like to know what that era chronologically entails.


Last time I checked, it didn't end, but for curiosity sake, when do you think it began? And, actually, Let me ask you... do you think that the civil rights era is over?

[Tx4obama]

30. You are 100% correct! n/t

[Pab Sungenis]

114. Unless he actually issues the certification

then that signature means no more to LGBT*.* than one on a birthday card.

[dsc]

6. I gave a link

if you were to damn lazy to read it, that seems to be your problem, not mine. As to your other point, 6 months seems to be plenty of time to get this certification done. The fact is there is nothing at all stopping the House from making adding people to the certification process part of raising the debt ceiling or part of the defense bill (which they already have). Would Obama agree to that to stop the economy from impoding? I don't know but neither do you.

[Tx4obama]

21. According the link the four service people requested to be discharged.

Excerpt:

"Harper said that all four individuals discharged had made voluntary statements regarding their sexual orientation and had asked to be “separated expeditiously.”"

So, if anyone wants to put the blame on anyone for their discharges, the blame lies at the feet of the four service people.

[dsc]

25. I didn't say they hadn't requested discharges

but the fact is this policy should have been gone months ago and these people shouldn't have been able to request discharges under it. I am glad you finally bothered to read the link.

[vaberella]

47. Actually you're being extremely disingenuous then. There is a stop on discharging for DADT.

However, these people wanted out and used it. It's up to them. However, the stop is for those who out themselves---they won't be punished under the law---even though the law is still awaiting official repeal. If they requested, it's actually their own dirty dealing that they want out.

And yes they could have requested to be discharged under this law---there is no precedent and the law is still in effect.

[dsc]

52. No it isn't up to them

The military could have, and should have, said to these four. Ladies and Gentlemen you signed a contract and you will live up to it. We aren't discharging people for being gay anymore. You are officially real live adults who get to live with what you did.

[Tx4obama]

29. The link you gave shows that they 'wanted out of the military', what I asked for was ....

" ... a link that shows that the four service people did not use the DADT policy to 'get out of the military'?"

Is there a link where they say they 'wanted to stay' in the military, and/or a link that shows that they were pushing out?

It is not my fault that you didn't read my original question properly.

[dsc]

35. I never, not ever, said they wanted in

I provided a link, which presumedly correctly states the circumstances, which you were too damn lazy to read.

[JoePhilly]

4. Obama hates gay people!!!!!!

:sarcasm:

[Cali_Democrat]

7. I'm puzzled by your post

Why would you feel the need to post a sarcastic remark that Obama hates gay people?

[Bluenorthwest]

9. That poster types that all the time.

nt

[JoePhilly]

12. Who said DADT was "gone"??

DADT was repealed, and a process was announced for fully ending it. And that process is not complete yet ... and so DADT is not yet "gone".

And so, I have to wonder why an OP is needed to declare that it is not "gone"?

Given the process that was outlined, the fact that it is not yet "gone" is not new news.

My more basic question ... is the process moving in the correct direction? I think so.

A complete end to DADT needs to happen. And as it does, it makes sense to ensure that those in the military who are against that change, understand that they can't try to subvert this reality.

[dsc]

16. you haven't a clue which direction it is moving

and neither do I. It has been 6 months and a man who has been defense secretary for over 5 years couldn't get it done. Why? Until we know that, we have no clue what direction DADT is moving.

[JoePhilly]

17. Yes ... its going to be reinstated any second!!!!

[dsc]

19. what possible reason is there for it taking 6 months

if there isn't some problem with certification. One or two months would be reasonable. Three or four, slow but OK. Over six, is worrisome. Is there a hold out somewhere? I haven't a clue, but you don't either.

[JoePhilly]

23. Because the US military is a huge bureaucracy ....

Soldiers take orders.

And when a question arises, they want to know what the specific ORDER is.

and building those out takes time ... you pretend to know that 2 or 3 months is "reasonable", and 3 or 4 is slow. And 6 months is "worrisome"

How do you know that? You an expert on changing the culture in huge organizations????

No. You made it up.

[dsc]

32. What orders

DADT didn't take this long to impose BTW. The order would be simple. Stop discharging gay folk. This issue has been studied, studied again, and studied some more. Oh, and why would we think then that Panetta wouldn't need say 6 more months?

[Ken Burch]

34. Funny...it didn't take six months to impose the original ban on gay servicemembers back in the day

That was just put in place and everybody was expected to simply get it from Day One.

[Tx4obama]

36. Perhaps it's because they misplaced their magic wand

You know - the magic wand that they could have waved and ALL the troops could have been trained in 2 seconds flat, instead of having to create guidelines, training materials, and taking the time to educate the troops.

[Ken Burch]

39. It's not like the discharges had to go on while the education went on.

The troops could've have learned to live with reality without having gays be kicked out right up until the deadline. There was no need to let the military keep having sacrifices to the god of homophobia right up 'til the bitter end.

[Tx4obama]

41. And they would not have if the four people had not requested to be discharged.

No one was 'kicked out'.

Read the article. The four people WANTED to be discharged.

[dsc]

44. and that shouldn't have happened

they should have been told, gentlemen and ladies you are adults. You signed a contract, and we are holding you to it. There is no gay exception to being an adult held to your word.

[Ken Burch]

45. It hasn't just been about those four people.

They military has still been actively gay-hunting the whole damn time.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[polmaven]

97. You've got a link

to back up that statement, I presume....I would like to read it.

[BklnDem75]

98. Care to back that up?

[dsc]

43. what training?

Seriously. This isn't rocket science. We will no longer discharge gay people. Don't call gay people names. Don't beat up gay people. It takes me maybe 5 minutes to get a similar message across to algebra 1 repeater students. Remember this was an issue for at least 2 years so certainly they can't claim surprise.

[Tx4obama]

58. Oh good lord...

Info regarding the training is on the net.
There's a slideshow somewhere on the net with a power point presentation, etc.
There are articles regarding the training sessions.
There are more issues that were covered than the couple you listed in your comment.
You know how to use Google, I am sure you can find the info on your own.

Sure it was an issue for at least two years, but that doesn't mean that they were authorized to create the guidelines, create the training program, or train anyone before Congress passed the repeal.

I am done with the discussion now, it is becoming ridiculous.

[dsc]

63. the military is famous for planning to do all sorts of things they presumedly have no intention of

doing. We have plans to invade Canada and Mexico for instance. They couldn't plan for something they presumedly knew they would be doing. Again, there aren't very many issues here. Maybe it took oh an hour to train people.

[Ken Burch]

18. Dragging it out and retaining measures of unequal treatment

can NEVER lead to the opponents of DADT repeal understanding anything remotely like that. To believe that, you'd have to believe that the passage of the meaningless Civil Rights Act of 1957 made the Klan learn its lesson.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Still going on. People are slandering Dan Choi, discharges

continue, the slander mongers claim that DOMA is no longer enforced, yes, DOMA. 'No more discharges and DOMA no longer enforced, why is Choi still crying for a pony!' they demand mendaciously.
They will say anything to avoid the facts of the matter. So the facts have to be put right out there.

[DURHAM D]

10. The way its going we may have marriage equality before DADT is gone.

The American Medical Association came out in support of marriage equality today. Meanwhile, Pat Robertson said God is going to destroy America because it is allowing same sex marriage.

a girl can get confused...

[Tx4obama]

11. No one is slandering Choi, If anyone is guilty of slander then it would be Choi.

Choi tweeted out a 'fake' quote that he attributed to President Obama.
Some folks believe that Choi shouldn't LIE in public about Obama, and in my opinion it is totally appropriate for us to expect Choi to apologize for his dishonesty.

I am a great supporter of 'FACTS'.


Edited to fix typo in subject line.

[dsc]

13. yeah you sure supported the facts I brought out from your source

no wait, you did no such thing. It was perfectly OK with you that your source lied to our faces. You had no problem at all with that conduct.

[Tx4obama]

38. The original source is Choi's Twitter page.

http://twitter.com/ltdanchoi

The false tweet was tweeted by Choi.
The false tweet is on Choi's feed.

Choi typed it, Choi lied.

That is a fact.

[CakeGrrl]

42. People still think we aren't actually seeing what Choi tweeted?

:wtf:




:crazy:

[Tx4obama]

59. Apparently so. n/t

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[vaberella]

48. What does Choi have to do with this? These people wanted to be discharged. n/t

[Ken Burch]

14. The point is proved once again...you can't achieve justice through increments.

Compromise in the cause of liberation is never liberation at all.

There simply is no meaningful halfway point between just and unjust.

[Jakes Progress]

28. But, But. Everybody needs to just wait.

It's not like everyone os poor or gay or anything. As long as you're white, straight, and employed, everything is hunky dory. We've gone from "Change" to "Wait" as the party motto.

[vaberella]

49. What are you talking about? There was a stop on discharges for DADT.

But this is a law of the land---and will be for a few more months. These people pushed for the discharge under the law and people are getting upset when these people used the law to their advantage. Why? I'm not understanding it. Don't get upset at the law----get upset at the people using the law to their advantage and manipulating the system. Of course when the repeal is officialized this won't be used as a plausible excuse..

[Tx4obama]

24. The four individuals wanted out of the military, they were not pushed out..

Excerpt from the link in the OP:

"Harper said that all four individuals discharged had made voluntary statements regarding their sexual orientation and had asked to be “separated expeditiously.”"

[dsc]

26. where did I say they hadn't

put up or shut up.

[vaberella]

50. You should have clarified it.

The way you make it seem it's as though the federal government had them removed through nefarious ways or the un-civil DADT. They themselves used the law to their advantage and by stating that would have given an new angle to your post. Actually you probably would not have gotten so many posts.

[dsc]

51. why I provided a link

the people were discharged under the policy. If he or you are too damn lazy to read why is that my fault? We also do have limits which I abided by.

[Thrill]

40. They told you when they signed the bill it didn't start

right away.

[CakeGrrl]

46. Correct. Either the OP didn't realize that or

well, otherwise what is the point of this when the administration said it wouldn't be immediate?

I guess in the meantime one can speculate how the President can still screw it up.

:eyes:

[dsc]

53. actually this was one of my problems with the bill

and I was told by the likes of you, this is no big deal, it is only a technicality, it will be a matter of weeks or maybe a few months at the most. Here we are with it being 6 months and no sign that the first step of this is anywhere near done. Yes, I did expect that no one would be discharged, no matter what the circumstance, and yes, I figured the first step would be done by now.

[Tx4obama]

62. Maybe your surprise should be directed at the people that are using DADT as a loophole

to get out of the military.

Blame those dishonorable service people that aren't living up to their promise to service, and not the Congress or President Obama.

I am shocked that members of the military are stepping up and voluntarily signing statements that say they are gay and then requesting to to discharged immediately. It's disgraceful - throw them in the brig!

[dsc]

70. actually I have said what should be done with them

as usual you just make up shit instead of reading what I wrote. But for the record this is what should happen to them. THEY SHOULD BE TOLD THAT THEY ARE ADULTS WHO SIGNED CONTRACTS AND WILL BE EXPECTED TO ABIDE BY THEM. THERE IS NO GAY EXCEPTION TO HAVING TO ABIDE BY CONTRACTS. I sincerely hope this was big enough for you to actually read this time.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[AtomicKitten]

65. Do you realize the Congressional GOP are trying to delay/reinstate DADT?

Instead of railing against the very deliberate repeal process President Obama has put in place which is almost at completion, it's the GOP's efforts to delay/reinstate DADT you should be concerned about.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

73. If the repeal had already been fully implemented, reinstating DADT would be impossible

It's ONLY the gradualism that has given the gaybashers their chance to keep persecuting gay servicemembers.

[AtomicKitten]

92. Forewarned is fair-warned.

A new GOP push to delay repealing DADT is on
http://ynative77.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/a-new-gop-push-to-delay-repealing-dadt-is-on/

GOP lawmaker to introduce amendment to delay ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/05/gop-lawmaker-to-introduce-amendment-to-delay-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal/

Five GOP Presidential Candidates Would Reinstate Don’t Ask, Don't Tell
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/06/13/244431/five-gop-presidential-candidates-would-reinstate-dont-ask-dont-tell/

[phleshdef]

85. The military wasn't desegregated until 6 years after Truman gave the order.

And the President said there were more formalities to deal with before the repeal would take effect.

If you were going to complain about this, then you should have done it the day he signed it. Its been common knowledge that this is the way it would work since day 1.

[AtomicKitten]

94. 6 months < 6 years

[boppers]

87. Kicking people out because of DADT is gone.

These people are volunteering to go, using DADT as the official reason for their separation.

[dsc]

88. No it isn't

the fact they asked to be kicked out for being gay doesn't negate the fact they are being kicked out for being gay.

[boppers]

90. "they asked to be kicked out"...

That's a very strange kind of logic there.

Are people who decide to retire victims of age discrimination, then?

Lets swap words to make the point:
"the fact they asked to be kicked out for being old doesn't negate the fact they are being kicked out for being old."

[Tx4obama]

91. They were not kicked out.

The four individuals forced the military via legal means to discharge them.
They used the loophole to have their lawyers get them out of having to fulfill their contract to serve.
That does not equate to being kicked out.

[CakeGrrl]

93. EXACTLY.

They SOUGHT to utilize the loophole.

If they had not taken that action, they would still be in service, as doubtless other LGBT remain in service now.

[dsc]

102. as they would be if the military just said

we aren't going to discharge you, get back to work.

[dsc]

100. No one was forced to do anything

they could have lost the paperwork for months. They could have told them no they didn't believe they were gay. They could have said we aren't discharging for that reason anymore. Instead they just kicked them out.

[BklnDem75]

103. So your stance is they could've lied?

[dsc]

104. I think the preferred option would be to say

we aren't discharging for that anymore. But if they didn't want to do that, then lose the paperwork in the big Pentagon beauracracy.

[BklnDem75]

105. It's still a lie and a bad one at that

Anyone seeking a discharge at this time knows perfectly well the window is open to do just that. These four didn't just wander in and asked if it was ok if they get discharged.

[dsc]

106. paperwork gets lost all the time

I would prefer them to honestly say we won't discharge you for this. But failing that just drag it out and then find the paperwork after the policy has been changed.

[BklnDem75]

107. So it's a pro-military stance you're taking

You want them to disobey the law until the right law comes along.

[polmaven]

99. Uh, when did the order of the months of the year change?

Leon Panetta is expected to be sworn in immediately after Secretary Gates retires on June 30, 2011.

You stated that, if it takes Panetta one month to certify, it will be "at least the end of October before DADT will be gone." Since when does October follow June? :shrug:

[dsc]

101. It will take 60 days past certification for DADT to disappear

that is 2 months. Next time know what you are talking about before being a smartass.

[polmaven]

108. OK, so July 1 plus 60 days

is the end of October? Or do you somehow know that Panetta will not certify until the end of August? You seem pretty certain. Can you let all of us in on the info?

[dsc]

109. I said that I think Panetta would take one month as an assumption

given that Gates had 6 months and still isn't done that seems a generous assumption. That carries to July 31, two months gets you to the end of September which is what I said.

[polmaven]

110. I quote....

it will be at least the end of October before DADT will be gone.

.

[dsc]

111. I should have said beginning you caught me on a typo

but that was with the very generous assumption that panetta can do in one month what Gates couldn't do in 6 months. Frankly I can't see a way that he won't take at least 2 which puts it where I said it would be, end of October.

[polmaven]

112. Secretary Gates will pass on

his determinations to Panetta, I'm sure. I think it will be certified within a very short time. Panetta will not be starting from scratch, after all.