BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Poor John, he can't do anything right...
The Republican senator from Arizona has spearheaded opposition to legislative repeal of the military's ban on openly gay servicemembers in the upper chamber, vowing to filibuster if necessary a bill similar to the one that passed the House earlier this year.
Filibustering against civil rights has a long, proud tradition in the Republican party.
Considering the U.S. military has more pressing issues regarding its internal culture (dey rapin' all the female soldiers up in here, that and psych issues being for sissies) I don't think Don't Ask Don't Tell should be the controversy it is currently.
As usual, no acknowledgment from the opposition of the policy's effects on the morale of gay and lesbian servicemembers, whose service apparently doesn't give them a comparable right to having their "concerns" addressed. The only "real" soldier is a straight male, and everything else is just an extraneous debate about what kind of straight male you wanna be.Senator John McCain stuck to his tough position against repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, telling the military’s leaders that many combat troops foresaw problems if gay men and women are allowed to serve openly. Citing the results of a Pentagon survey of 115,000 active duty and reserve service members, Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, said that 58% of Marines in combat units and 48% of Army combat troops thought repealing the 17-year-old law would have either a negative or a very negative impact on the ability of their units to work together. “I remain concerned, as I have in the past, and as demonstrated in this study, that the closer we get to service members in combat, the more we encounter concerns about whether ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ should be repealed,” Mr. McCain said at a Senate hearing. “These views should not be considered lightly, especially considering how much combat our forces face.”
Mr. McCain’s views were in striking contrast to those expressed by an array of the nation’s top defense and military officials, who appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee to urge repeal of the law, which requires gay men and women in the military to keep their sexual orientation secret or face discharge. The officials also pressed on the committee the larger conclusions of the survey, which found that 70% of all service members responded that allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the military “would be positive, mixed or of no consequence at all.”
At one point, Mr. McCain sharply asked Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, whose testimony led off the Pentagon’s position, if he was not concerned that so many combat forces were concerned about repeal of the law. Mr. Gates replied that many of those in combat are in their early 20s, have also never served with women and have a focused, limited experience in the military. “With time and adequate preparation, we can mitigate their concerns,” Mr. Gates said.
“I couldn’t disagree more,” Mr. McCain shot back. “We send these young people into combat, we think they’re mature enough to fight and die. I think they’re mature enough to make a judgment on who they want to serve with and the impact on their battle effectiveness.” Mr. McCain, a naval aviator in the Vietnam War who was shot down and imprisoned in Hanoi, then added: “Mr. Secretary, I speak from personal experience.”
Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared alongside Mr. Gates and made a personal appeal to the panel. “I’ve been serving with gays and lesbians my whole career,” he said. “I went to war with them aboard a destroyer off the coast of Vietnam. I knew they were there. They knew I knew it. We never missed a mission, never failed to deliver ordnance on target.” Admiral Mullen added: “Should repeal occur, some soldiers and Marines may want separate shower facilities. Some may ask for different berthing. Some may even quit the service. We’ll deal with that.”
Repeal faces uncertain prospects in the Senate. It is unclear if there are enough Republicans willing to vote for it, and also if there is enough time in the lame-duck Senate before the end of the year.
Both Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen made the argument to the committee that the Senate should vote in the next few weeks because delaying would result in a wave of lawsuits and the potential for repeal to be ordered by what Mr. Gates called "judicial fiat”--meaning, he said, that the military would have no time to prepare for the change. "Those that choose not to act legislatively are rolling the dice that this policy will not be abruptly overturned by the courts,” Mr. Gates said.
Mr. Gates and Admiral Mullen also spoke against the argument of "not now," voiced by many of the surveyed combat troops, that a time of two wars was not the right moment to impose social change on the force. Admiral Mullen told the committee that he had no expectation that "challenges to our national security are going to diminish in the near future, such that a more convenient time will appear.” Mr. Gates said: "If not now, when? When we’re out of Afghanistan? But who’s to say, as I look ahead in the world, I don’t see the world getting to be a safer, easier place to live in, where our troops are necessarily under less stress.”
The two appeared to be heading off the arguments that are also expected to be advanced in testimony before the panel on Friday by the chiefs of the Army, Air Force and Navy, and the commandant of the Marine Corps. All have expressed reluctance about repeal.
Mr. Gates and Mr. Mullen appeared with the co-authors of a just-released Pentagon report on the effects of repeal on the military: Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon’s general counsel, and Gen. Carter Ham, the commander of the US Army in Europe. The defense and military officials were frequently pressed by Republicans whether it was a good idea to push for repeal when the survey revealed so much resistance among the surveyed combat forces. Mr. Gates at one point bristled at those questions and said that although the military’s opinions were important, it did not get a vote. "I can’t think of a single precedent in American history of doing a referendum of the American armed forces on a policy issue,” Mr. Gates told the panel. "Are you going to ask them if they want 15-month tours? Are you going to ask them if they want to be part of the surge in Iraq? That’s not the way our civilian-led military has ever worked in our entire history. The ‘should’ question is to be decided by the Congress.” When Senator Roger Wicker, Republican of Mississippi, kept pushing the issue, Mr. Gates responded, "I think that in effect doing a referendum of the armed forces on a policy matter is a very dangerous path.”
Scott Brown comes out in favor of DADT repeal
By Greg Sargent
This is potentially important. The statement just out from Senator Scott Brown's office:
"I have been in the military for 31 years and counting, and have served as a subordinate and as an officer. As a legislator, I have spent a significant amount of time on military issues. During my time of service, I have visited our injured troops at Walter Reed and have attended funerals of our fallen heroes. When a soldier answers the call to serve, and risks life or limb, it has never mattered to me whether they are gay or straight. My only concern has been whether their service and sacrifice is with pride and honor.
"I pledged to keep an open mind about the present policy on Don't Ask Don't Tell. Having reviewed the Pentagon report, having spoken to active and retired military service members, and having discussed the matter privately with Defense Secretary Gates and others, I accept the findings of the report and support repeal based on the Secretary's recommendations that repeal will be implemented only when the battle effectiveness of the forces is assured and proper preparations have been completed."
Brown, who’s been under pressure from gay rights groups, said he won’t vote to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” until the Senate takes up tax cuts and the budget.
Alongside campaign finance reform and term limits, another issue we desperately need to tackle is this incessant need to tack one issue onto bills for something else entirely. First the talk of possibly putting the extension of unemployment benefits onto any legislation that also will extend the tax cuts, now this. It's a trap method, and it's a horrible way to get legislation passed. Why can't the issues be dealt with separately?
Angela
Scott Brown is perfectly just to conclude that he won't vote for one issue unless another one is dealt with.
And I am free to judge him for his willingness to continue a policy that he agrees harms the American military, unless the wealthiest Americans have their taxes cut.
Some Democrats apparently believe that in a recession, we shouldn't allow the wealthiest Americans to get massive tax cuts unless the neediest unemployed Americans get relief, too. Some also believe we shouldn't blow up the deficit/debt by extending the Bush tax cuts; without also extracting concessions from Republicans that they won't hold raising the debt ceiling hostage in a few months.
Do you think the problem is with the principle of logrolling, or with which issues certain Senators choose to draw the line on? This Democratic logrolling is aimed at extracting ideological consistency from Republicans. If we end up rewarding the wealthiest, hurting the neediest, and indiscriminately slash government spending by tackling the tax cuts, unemployment benefits, and debt ceiling independently of one another, one should probably stop and consider whether this is actually a worthy principle in the first place.
Of course, I don't know your politics, so you might prefer some of those things.
i don't really have a problem with gays in the military...however most of the military builds on the old foundations of machoism (as well they should, i have 2 sons in the USMC, one currently in Afghanistan)
“We Have A Gay Guy. He’s Big, He’s Mean, And He Kills Lots Of Bad Guys. No One Cared That He Was Gay.”
Gays should be able to serve openly says new report
.and yet i can see the disruption and problems that could be created at this, a critical time for many
you should come out with me on a Friday evening in DC, and i'll introduce you to some very macho gay guys who've been marines
and who knows.......6 or 8 rum and cokes later.........i might even let you blow me
that being said.....if you lure me to the "ramrod' for drinks you're buyin
and who knows.......6 or 8 rum and cokes later.........i might even let you blow me
believe me, it's not the first time i've been propositioned by a married man.
believe me, it's not the first time i've been propositioned by a married man.
nah
i'm available honey......
get it while it's hot
This and everything that followed from it was seriously inappropriate.that being said.....if you lure me to the "ramrod' for drinks you're buyin
and who knows.......6 or 8 rum and cokes later.........i might even let you blow me
Not sure if you're expressing bewilderment or frustration, but...the filibuster isn't DADT-specific, it's an extension of the no-on-everything-til-the-tax-cuts-clear-the-Senate thing. And 57 isn't enough because to override a filibuster, i.e. cloture, you need three-fifths, i.e. 60. Brown, Murkowski and Lugar had all publically indicated support for DADT repeal, so presumably they voted against cloture out of support for the filibuster. Collins and Reid had had a tentative agreement that debate on the defense bill including DADT might proceed anyway within certain parameters, but apparently Reid decided that wasn't going to work.)why the fuck is 57 votes not enough? what is the point of the filibuster?