It’s as if Chuck Todd is reading Queerty. He quizzed Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on the Obama administration’s seemingly paradoxical conclusion that it can move on Guantanamo by executive order, but not do the same for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Gibbs said the report isn’t true, and that the White House will work with Congress to deal with detainees.
But more striking is what Gibbs said about speculation over Obama’s choice of words in this statement from yesterday’s GLBT address at the White House: “But I say this: We have made progress and we will make more. And I want you to know that I expect and hope to be judged not by words, not by promises I’ve made, but by the promises that my administration keeps. And by the time you receive â (applause.) We’ve been in office six months now. I suspect that by the time this administration is over, I think you guys will have pretty good feelings about the Obama administration.”
Did Obama mean after four years in the White House we can expect to see Don’t Ask Don’t Tell repealed? Or eight years? Gibbs believes it’ll be the former. “I think that is the case, yes.”
andy_d
In any event, I’ll believe it when it happens. I’ve had it with the hot air and empty promises. In other words – PROVE IT! WALK THE WALK!
AlanInSLC
@andy_d:
I don’t see you changing the world or even our culture in 6 months time, so to expect immediate responses is a bit annoying to read. It takes time, planning, and a lot of thought into making a change that will give full civil rights to a group of people all while dealing with the haters who want none of the changes that we deserve. It has to be done in the right way with making sure there aren’t any loop holes that can be used against us. Give some effort and be patient.
Fitz
@AlanInSLC: BS. It takes time to get the legislative process rolling, but as several constitutional academics have pointed out: he could do a stop-loss order TODAY. Or 6 months ago. He could do like Truman and Eisenhower, if he had the will to. Our country is in financial trouble and war(s)… spending money on discharging talented service people because of this is offensive on several levels. He is obviously trying to pander to the powers that be– it’s a weak man’s hand.
galefan2004
Ok, so Obama wants us to wait 3 years? Even then, he just assumes that the House and Senate will stay Dem controlled in 2010 so that he can actually make that progress in 3 years. It doesn’t look good.
galefan2004
@Fitz: No, he is just stuck in the mud. The powers that be right now completely support DADT being ended. Hell, 75% of the country supports gays serving openly in the military. Its our largest demographic of support.
jjm16
more promises, please
Cam
I’ll believe it when I see it. Politicians are politicians. Continue boycotting fundraisers and holding HRC’s feet to the fire every time they try to sell us out and this will continue to move a lot faster.
The NYTimes just had an op-ed in which they said that although the White house claimed the Stonewall celebration had been planned for a long time it looked more like damage control since it was only announced AFTER a host of big name gay donors pulled out of a fundraiser. So the press is finally noticing.
SM
Once again people fail to see the Obama Administration is working on DADT and trying to find solutions until the law is changed! You all act like everything is so easy.
———
Pentagon mulls easing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ law: Gates
7 hours ago
ON BOARD A US MILITARY AIRCRAFT (AFP) â The Pentagon is considering how it might ease the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law requiring gays to keep quiet about their sexual identity or face expulsion from the military, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday.
“One of the things we’re looking at is, is there flexibility in how we apply this law,” Gates told reporters aboard a military plane.
The Pentagon boss said he discussed the issue last week with US President Barack Obama and that there also has been discussion among senior military and legal counsel about possible changes in how they apply the law, which he described as “very restrictive.”
“We’re talking about how do we move forward on this, achieve this objective which is changing the policy.”
Gates added: “What I discovered when I got into it was it’s a very restrictive law. It doesn’t leave much to the imagination, or a lot of flexibility.”
The defense secretary said one possible modification might be consider the circumstances under which a service member is “outed” in determining whether or not he or she must leave the military.
Gates offered as an example “when we’re given information from someone with vengeance in mind or blackmail, somebody who has been jilted.
“If somebody is outed by a third party, does that force us to take action?” he said.
“That’s the kind of thing we’re looking at — seeing if there’s a more humane way
Movement Guy
Using stop loss is a horrible idea. You can’t use a policy that has been roundly trounced as damaging to the military and our service people to keep gay people in. If Bush hadn’t used stop loss to keep people serving 4 and 5 tours, we wouldn’t be in two wars right now, because a draft would have been necessary.
As Audre Lorde said, “the master’s tools, will not unmake the master’s house.”
Vanhattan
@AlanInSLC: Ha ha ha, lol, lmfao.
Know any more funny jokes? đ
Civil Equal Rights NOW, not tomorrow, not next year, not next election, NOW. WTF is so hard for you to understand that I have been waiting my entire life and I will not wait any longer! No Excuses.
LEAD, FOLLOW or get the fuck out of my way.
SM
@Vanhattan:
I’m no military expert but I don’t think DADT is a civil right.
DADT was something that was put in place to PROTECT GLBT people in the military from superiors going after them. I don’t understand why everyone is angry at Obama for keeping what protects LGBT people in the military in place until Congress can change the laws in military conduct.
(((head spinning)))
Movement Guy
@SM:
Because DADT hasn’t protected anyone. At some points in its 16 year history, there have been more dismissals under DADT then before it was enacted. It’s a terribly policy.
Bill Perdue
“Gibbs: Obama Will Have DADT Repealed By End of 1st Term”
Right.
Just as soon as [img]http://antzinpantz.com/kns/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/whenpigsfly.jpg[/img]
Steve
The only question that matters to Obama is, will this demographic group support the Democratic party at the next election?
The question we should ask him is, does the Democratic party want our support next year, for the midterm election?
If so, he needs to complete at least one of our items before then. By his behavior during the first five months of his term, he has broken our trust and lost our support. It will take a lot of work to get that trust and support again.
Promises about what he will do after the next election have no meaning. He broke the promises that he made before the last election, and actually did exactly the opposite in several cases. What is required is signed legislation. Nothing less will do.
Cam
@SM: You said “I’m no military expert but I don’t think DADT is a civil right.
DADT was something that was put in place to PROTECT GLBT people in the military from superiors going after them. I don’t understand why everyone is angry at Obama for keeping what protects LGBT people in the military in place until Congress can change the laws in military ”
_____________________________________________________________
It was not put in place to “Protect Gays” it was put in place as a compromise and it has failed miserably to protect gays. The number of dissmissals under DADT has skyrocketed and is much much higher than they were before the policy went into effect.
Additionally, you say that it isn’t a civil right. So…..you would say that being descriminated against in a federal law would not be a civil rights issue? Look SM, I get it, I really do, you are a fan of Obama. I was to, and still am to a certain extent, however, you can’t use the fact that you admire a politician as an excuse to twist facts around so it looks better for them. It does nobody any good. People aren’t stupid and know when they are being handed a line of bull, and if politicians are not made to keep their promises then they soon become just another typical dishonest Washington insider.