Because it would take too long: “Petraeus says he has an eight-minute statement on #DADT, but Levin says that would take up a committee’s members entire question time.”
UPDATE: Petraeus did speak, but without that lengthy statement, in his first public remarks declaring an actual position. He says: “I believe the time has come to consider a change to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. But I think it should be done in a thoughtful and deliberative matter that should include the conduct of the review that Secretary Gates has directed that would consider the views in the force on the change of policy. It would include an assessment of the likely effects on recruiting, retention, morale and cohesion and would include an identification of what policies might be needed in the event of a change and recommend those polices as well.” Of course, you critics are going to focus in on the word “change,” aren’t ya?
Jon
Queerty leave Levin alone. He is our true friend.
Jaroslaw
Since Levin is from my state, I should know whether he is a friend or not (and I don’t) so I’ll take your word for it Jon.
However, having said that, the military has been supposedly “studying” the Gay question for 50 years and DADT has been around for 20, I can’t imagine that an 8 minute statement is going to hopelessly derail the committee’s timeframe.
Cam
So our civil rights are contingent on asking people in the force how they would feel about letting us in? Ok, then could we please go back to the time a few years ago when the Citidel was forced to admit women…I believe that this idea was universally panned by employees and many of the students, I don’t remember anybody saying that they shouldn’t allow women in because some of the students didn’t want it. All these delaying tactics are ridiculous, including him trying to take up the questioning time with a prepared speech so congress couldn’t point out any flaws in his plan.
Lanjier
Why can’t they suspend the discharges? This is all the game of whack-a-mole. Gays have some whacking to do in the 2010 election.
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
This is functionally meaningless. What Petraeus ACTUALLY said is, “It’s time to STUDY changing DADT.” He’s just been pulled off the bench to continue Coach Obama’s “run out the clock” strategy.
“As a boy Barack Obama began playing basketball, and he never stopped.” – “The Audacity of HOOPS,” Sports Illustrated.
[img]http://thehostages.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/obama-basketball.jpg[/img]
His basketball coach brother-in-law believes it helped him get elected, ticking off the basketball-crazed states he won over Repugs. There are multiple YouTube videos dedicated to nothing but film of him playing. He’s repeatedly taken time from working on his “full plate” to comment during televised games, predict who’s going to win this or that one, get on a basketball court himself whenever he can, often enough that he’s been criticized for only playing all male games.
Everything that has happened since he first began backtracking in 2008 on his repeated promises to start fighting for repeal THE DAY he took office indicates he’s convinced that actually fighting for repeal will cost the Dems midterm votes so all he’s done, as with many issues, and most gay-related ones, is blow air kisses at it. As so many of his other misjudgments over the last 14 months, this one doesn’t stand up to analysis. Despite the huffing and puffing of the Trogs like John McShame and the cowardice of repeal fence sitters in Congress grasping for any excuse not to vote to end DADT [and Obama/Gates have given it to them], with the consistent wide margins of public support for repeal, there is no reason to believe that support for repeal would cost a SINGLE seat in Congress that the Dems would OTHERWISE win.
Running out the clock in basketball involves using a “lead protection offense in the late stages of a game – that is, go into a ‘stall’ mode by holding the ball and passing sporadically.”
THE CLOCK RUNNING OUT: time left until midterm elections after which chances of repeal will equal those of the proverbial snowball in Hell.
LATE STAGE IN THE GAME: Obama did not directly call on Congress to even “WORK” on repeal until after the first year of his Presidency; only ten months before the clock runs out.
WHO’S IN THE LEAD: true opponents [no matter WHAT they SAY] of repeal, from Gates on down.
THE STALL: while delaying addressing Congress directly, over that year Obama repeatedly passed all responsibility to them. “Hey, don’t look at me! I’m just a guy living in a nice house who signs things. Excuse me, I gotta play some more hoops now.” Then the game strategy switched to “holding the ball”…sending his subordinate SECDEF Robert Gates and Gates’ subordinates to Congress to tell them, just like Petreaus, they MUST NOT REPEAL until AFTER they’ve completed “The Study” which ONLY certifiable idiots and homohaters ACTUALLY believe in and, ooops, surprise, surprise, will only be done, at the earliest, by December 1st…one month AFTER the buzzer has sounded on repeal for years.
Go back and read transcripts of recent Congressinal testimony and note the number of times Gates, Mullen, and “study” cochairs Johnson & Ham hedged re The Study = Repeal.
Why isn’t anyone hearing the sound of that ball being bounced on the hardwood floor, the whoosh of the passes from one Pentagon Team player to another, all to the ticking of the elections countdown clock? WE’RE being played in the process, clapping like trained seals whenever another brass asshat claims he “supports” the IDEA of repeal…without noticing that the more important thing each of them say in way or another is “run out the clock, stall, hold, pass, hold, stall.”
NO MORE STUDIES!
NO MORE STALLS!
NO MORE EXCUSES!
FREEZE DISCHARGES IMMEDIATELY!
REPEAL as fast as Congressional procedures permit.
AndrewW
The headline is misleading.
The General actually said:
I believe the time has come to consider a change to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
Big difference.
Yet Another
@AndrewW:
You must be new here.
soul_erosion
@AndrewW: you’re absolutely right, Andrew, it’s all about semantics, the General also says, “..what policies MIGHT be needed in the EVENT of a change,”(I’m surprised he didn’t fumble & say “in the UNLIKELY event.”) I can almost hear Rahm Emanuel whispering in Patrauus’s ear before he entered the hearing, “…don’t worry, we’ll lose a few seats in the house & Senate in November so it probably won’t even come up for a vote and this time don’t use the word ‘personally’ and make sure you insert the word ‘consider’ before you say ‘change’ and whatever you do, don’t even think about using the word REPEAL!”