Quick, grab your handcuffs and run to 1600 Pennsylvania, where “Congressional leaders, gay rights advocates and Pentagon officials are meeting at the White House” this morning “to discuss an emerging deal” to repeal DADT. I am pretty sure this means Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Patrick Murphy are stuck in traffic behind the Salahis.
Update: The meeting discussed a proposal that would “repeal the current statute this year, but implementation of repeal would not take place until after completion of the Pentagon’s working group study in December. Further, repeal would require certification from President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Joint Chiefs Chair Admiral Mike Mullen that the new law will not have a negative impact on readiness, recruitment, retention and other key factors that affect the military.”
Vito Oliver
“I am pretty sure this means Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Patrick Murphy are stuck in traffic behind the Salahis.” LMFAO that made my day.
Larry Sheldon Whitt
Who are the Gay rights advocates in this meeting? I sure hope they have Gay Rigths on their minds and not a future in politics.
Cam
To all those people who keep telling gays to stop bitching and moaning. Well hey, nothing was going to get done, we bitched and moaned, and pressured Congress. Now the White House and Pentagon had to have a meeting because it became apparent that Congress was being pressured to do something.
As for what #2 Larry Sheldon said, Larry, totall agreement, if HRC goes in there and sells us out, I feel like a class action suit would need to be filed against them to have them give back every dollar anybody has donated.
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
WHY, Queerty, did you leave out the most important passage from that Advocate article:
Which ACTUALLY means THE AUTHORITY TO KEEP DISCHARGING GAYS WHENEVER IT SUITS THEM.
I hope Kerry Eleveld is wrong, as she so often is, but if she’s right, that’s the INSANE proposal from the previously brilliant Palm Center which gay groups officially rejected two weeks ago.
This is a WORD GAME as phony as claiming in 1993 that DADT itself was a “compromise” or “interim solution” when it was really no different than the previous ban in the most important way: outed gays were discharged before; outed gays are discharged now.
This surrender to bigotry is NOT “repeal”…it’s simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic! Like the integration of blacks and women, the Pentagon will only stop discharging gays when they’re FORCED TO, when that power is ripped from Robert Gates’ cold, [politically] dead hands like Charlton Heston’s rifle!
ANY gay person who agrees to this is BETRAYING every gay servicemember now and for the last 60+ years, discharged or not, and every gay servicemember who sacrificed his/her career to out themselves to fight it!!!!!!
[img]http://02b4964.netsolhost.com/images/509_1OBAMA-WHOM-DID-WE-ELECT.jpg[/img]
AndrewW
This is just a “political show.” They’re just trying to create the appearance that something is happening.
No, Cam – this is not the result of “people complaining,” this charade began back in February before GetATTENTION’s silly stunts.
Cam
No. 5 · AndrewW
This is just a “political show.” They’re just trying to create the appearance that something is happening.
No, Cam – this is not the result of “people complaining,” this charade began back in February before GetATTENTION’s silly stunts.
__________________
No Andrew, actually this meeting was held as a direct response to Congress moving to deal with DADT in the upcoming authorization bills, even though the PREVIOUSLY said they would wait.
AndrewW
@Cam: To create the appearance that they are trying to make a deal. It’s all part of the script that was written in February. It’s naive to think politicians are responsive.
Bill Perdue
I smell a rat.
It’s name is HRC, or Obama, or Pelosi or all of the above.
JamieMcG
@AndrewW – Just wondering – what else is in the “script” you’re referring too? Because if this was all planned before anyone stood up and started saying something, I’d love for you to let us all know what’s going to happen next. I’m dying for a cliffhanger. As you seem to have the inside track on how this is all going down, please tell us what’s up!
D'oh, The Magnificent
That’s essentially the compromise that has been pushed for some time. If that’s the case as you describe, it essentially means that we have won.
AndrewW
Back in February it was decided that it would be deferred until after the mid-terms. The Pentagon “study” was the mechanism.
This week’s supposed “compromise” is intended to appear like an “effort,” but it will fail in the Senate and the House will NOT consider it. But, the players (who are living off the continuation of the issue) will be able to say “we gave it a good shot – now, please donate.”
That script was written in February.
D'oh, The Magnificent
I thought this was the compromise that involved a deadline. If that’s not the case, then this is not a good deal.
B
No. 11 · AndrewW wrote, “This week’s supposed “compromise” is intended to appear like an “effort,” but it will fail in the Senate and the House will NOT consider it.”
We’ll see what actually happens, but one good thing about “certification from President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Joint Chiefs Chair Admiral Mike Mullen that the new law will not have a negative impact on readiness, recruitment, retention and other key factors that affect the military” is that it neutralizes most of the arguments against a repeal. If McCain tries to come out publicly against it, his previous statement about allowing a repeal of DADT if top military leaders want a repeal will be thrown in his face, and he’ll be branded a “flop flopper”, the last thing he needs.
It neutralizes public concerns about weakening the military and will make it harder to explain away opposition as being due to anything but bigotry.