Pentagon surveys troops on DADT (again)

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

My understanding is that DADT is a law passed by Congress.

If any President/CIC were to issue such an order defying that law, it could be an impeachable offense.
Maybe my understanding is not correct, so enlighten me...

Look up the definition of impeachable events for our president and enlighten yourself.

One of the issues Obama campaigned on was elimination of DADT.
Obama has said he wants Congress to overturn DADT.
Obama has had several opportunities to take the route of issuing an order as CIC,
but instead he has taken the route of formally appealing (via the Dept of Justice) the issue up thru the federal courts.

So, I ask you very specifically: why do you believe Obama is refraining from issuing an order as CIC to overturn DADT ?

Because in the shadow of the elections he was not about to do another thing that would jeopardize votes. He promised to get it repealed and he has not done so. Just like he promised to close Gitmo, which he has not. It could overturned in the short term with the stroke of a pen and then let the courts deal with it. In the mean time it would send a clear signal where he stands on the issue and then pass it off to a final arbitrator. In the mean time those in Congress can take the time to form a bill that would support his edict.

[morethanpretty]

Obama presses for repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the lame duck session

Updated: Thursday, November 4th, 2010 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

On the day after the November elections of 2010, President Barack Obama outlined a few of his hopes for a final, lame duck session of the 112th Congress before the Republicans take control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

One of those hopes is to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the policy that prevents gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

Obama noted that a military review is expected to be released in December that discusses the implications of ending "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

"I will expect that Secretary of Defense (Robert) Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral (Michal) Mullen will have something to say about that review. I will look at it very carefully," Obama said. "But that will give us time to act, potentially during the lame duck session, to change this policy."

"We need to provide certainty and it's time for us to move this policy forward," Obama added. "And this should not be a partisan issue. This is an issue, as I said, where you've got a sizable portion of the American people squarely behind the notion that folks who are willing to serve on our behalf should be treated fairly and equally."

We should be clear that repealing the policy is hardly a certainty -- there remains plenty of room for legislative maneuvering, because the policy repeal is part of a larger defense authorization bill. And if the repeal isn't enacted during the lame duck session, its prospects do not improve when Republicans take control of the House next year

Here, we wanted to note in this update that the 2010 elections haven't stopped Obama's attempts to keep this particular promise. Its rating remains, for now, In the Works.

From here

[TheMercenary]

On the day after the November elections of 2010....

As I stated...

[classicman]

convenient timing

[classicman]

Originally Posted by morethanpretty

From here

I'm wondering why Politifact quoted a source from a blog post quoting a letter from candidate Obama dated Feb 28, 2008. Shouldn't they be using something more, uh whats the word, concrete or current or something. That just seems pretty weak.

[Lamplighter]

Come on Classic, at least quote MTP's link fairly:

St Petersburg Times
PolitiFact.com

Obama presses for repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the lame duck session

Updated: Thursday, November 4th, 2010 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

On the day after the November elections of 2010, President Barack Obama outlined
a few of his hopes for a final, lame duck session of the 112th Congress
before the Republicans take control of the U.S. House of Representatives.
<snip>

[classicman]

Go to the sources at the top of the page Lamp...
You'll see what is listed as sources. I wasn't taking a shot at MTP at all.

[classicman]

Oh, and on a side note - I think his letter is more political fodder than anything else.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by classicman

Go to the sources at the top of the page Lamp...
You'll see what is listed as sources. I wasn't taking a shot at MTP at all.

At the top of that same web page there is an ad for Quiznos pizza.
Should we also "wonder" if Obama is selling pizzas from the White House ?

MTP gave a quote and a valid link to that quote.
At the bottom of that article is it's list of sources,
none of which include the blog or letter you reference.

Sources:

The White House, Press conference by the president, Nov. 3, 2010

E-mail interview with Michael Cole, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign

E-mail interview with Inga Sarda-Sorensen, communications director, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

As I stated...

Originally Posted by classicman

convenient timing

While I wish he'd use more of the levers of power available to him, the timing of this is irrelevant, as it is not the first time he has said this. Why is it notable that he said on the day after the election the same thing he'd been saying repeatedly before the election?

[classicman]

Barack Obama Campaign Promise No. 293:
In the Works
Share this:
Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy

Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military.

Sources:
Obama letter to the LGBT (lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transexuals) community
Subjects: Gays and Lesbians, Military

This is the part I am referring to. I tried to tell you where it was and went further to specifically state

Originally Posted by classicman

I wasn't taking a shot at MTP at all.

[morethanpretty]

Classic: that is the source for the Obama promise, not the article. The article sources are at the bottom of it like Lamp stated.
The website is saying they got the Obama promise from the blog, not any of the information for article.

[classicman]

Ok - gotcha - That makes more sense. My bad.
Thanks for that MTP and thanks for the screenshot. I couldn't make that happen after 20 tries.... Doh!

[Lamplighter]

Sec Defense's 400K questionnaire is being "run up the flag pole".
Unfortunately, it seems conclusions are being leaked, but no data.

I, personally, am surprised that while the manly Marine General Amos
objects to repealing DADT, the Navy is reported to be OK with it.
"... it is not a matter of sleeping accomodations"

But I don't see why it has become a "Republican" issue, except for being Sen McCain's last hoorah.
I think the real issue is identified in this article... a matter of leadership.

NY Times

Little Harm Found if Gay Ban Is Lifted
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: November 11, 2010

WASHINGTON — The draft of a new Pentagon report comes to the conclusion that repealing
the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law will not cause overall harm to the military
but might cause temporary disruptions, people familiar with the report said on Thursday.
In the case of any temporary disruptions, the draft report says they can be mitigated with effective leadership.

<snip>also said the report did not recommend separate housing for gay service members.
But they said the report showed that a number of active-duty service members remained opposed to openly gay service,
with the largest proportion in the Marines and the Army.

Over all, however, they said the report showed that a majority of active-duty service members
and their families did not care if gay men and lesbians served openly.

Some gay rights groups have said the president should issue a “stop-loss” order,
like those used to keep troops past their commitments in the military,
to prevent further discharges of gay men and lesbians.
But lawyers familiar with the issue said that such a move would be viewed as a gimmick
and that there were questions about the president’s authority to act in this case.

[classicman]

Some gay rights groups have said the president should issue a “stop-loss” order,
like those used to keep troops past their commitments in the military,
to prevent further discharges of gay men and lesbians.
But lawyers familiar with the issue said that such a move would be viewed as a gimmick
and that there were questions about the president’s authority to act in this case.

He should just do it and let them sue him about it - I'd love to hear their arguments against. Fuckin' jerkholes!