Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Obama's Gay Dodge

I saw this on Republicans United today. Here's the whole article if you want to read the entirety (I'd recommend it).

Obama's Gay Dodge
by Meghan McCain

...On Saturday night, President Obama addressed the largest gay-rights group and promised to end the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in the military, emphasizing that his commitment to achieving equal rights was “unwavering.” The support he received from the crowd was overwhelming.

But my response to this speech and my message to the gay community is this: Stop rewarding the president’s speeches. Because for me, that’s all it is—pretty words delivered by a beautiful orator.

Obama offered no timeline for phasing out this policy and, as usual, no real specifics. But the president verbalized his commitment to ending it—which is not insignificant. Unfortunately, I am a bottom line type of girl and I see no bottom line here. During the election, Obama pledged that the very first thing he would do as president would be to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Although I thought it was an ambitious promise, I believed him. It's now almost a year into his presidency and other than making speeches, nothing has happened.

Let me tell you a little something about what I know about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: I have two brothers serving in the military and as far as I’m concerned, when an Arabic translator is kicked out of the military for being gay, it quite literally makes my brothers and our troops less safe. For me, Don't Ask, Don't Tell isn't just an equality issue. It is also a national-security issue...

Now, I cannot speak for my brothers, but I know many men and women who serve in the military. Let’s give them more credit. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, I suspect it could be said that there is no homophobia in foxholes either. I find it hard to imagine that when a soldier is in a Humvee fighting terrorist insurgents, that the thing on his mind is who his fellow soldier chooses to sleep with when he’s off duty.

What’s more, the gay community can no longer place all the blame of marriage equality and Don't Ask, Don't Tell on Republicans. Yes, the Republican Party has a long way to go. But right now, we have a Democratic president and a Congress with a Democratic majority. The Republican Party can no longer be the only scapegoat for the arrested development of gay rights in this country. This is a president who made promises to the gay community—hold him responsible.

Of all the things I worry about in my life, my country's national security is by far at the forefront. I am a daughter of a famous military hero and the sister of two soldiers. Mr. President, Don't Ask, Don't Tell makes my family and this country less safe. Put a timeline on repealing it, stop making speeches, and show me the bottom line.

--------------------

I think this says it all. Republicans are generally pretty tough on gays, but Democrats squarely shoulder the blame right now. And "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is ridiculous and does harm our national security.

7 comments:

TRUTH 101 said...

I figured you would have had a load of comments on this James.

I also wonder why the Commande in Chief, with just a stroke of his pen has not ended this despicable policy preventing Gay Americans from openly serving their Country.


I wonder why he hasn't ended other policies he said he would end as well.



Bush got elected twice by only appealing to his base. No reason to think President Obama wouldn't get his two term also by doing what he told his base he would do. The right is going to fight him no matter what he does. Why worry about them being happy?

Susannah said...

I'm not sure that this is something to jump up & down about. It's now painfully clear that BHO made 'pledges' to just about anyone who fell under his spell - telling them what they wanted to hear in order to quench their thirst for GWB blood. Seems as though he's not exactly what he presented himself to be.(I would say, "I told you so..." but that might be construed as gloating. I assure you, being proven correct here is NOTHING to gloat about.)

As for the Don't ask, Don't tell schtick. Does it really do HARM to our Nat'l security? I mean is it an imminent threat? (Of course not.) Is our commarade/apologizer/appeaser-in-chief an imminent threat to our Nat'l Security? Um, yeah. Ms. McCain is barking up the wrong proverbial tree on this.

TRUTH 101 said...

Obama, seems to me anyway, to be pandering to the right in some misguided ideal of "bipartisanship." They are going to fight or obstruct no matter what he does anyway. The health insurance bill in the senate finance commitee is in reality useless so Baucus, or whoever, could get Olympia Snowe to vote for it. Now spokespeople can claim a victory for bipartisanship. It's a defeat for everyone that doesn't have and can't afford health insurance though.


There is much he could do as Commander in Chief with just a stroke of his pen. I hope he starts pandering to the people that voted for him and drops his charade of "bipartisanship". The right isn't going to vote for him anyway. Many on the left may find someone else to vote for. Or stay home in 2012.

James' Muse said...

Susannah: I know he broke promises. All politicians do ("read my lips...."). But I'm calling him on it.

But "Don't ask, Don't Tell" it DOES hurt national security. One of our top intelligence experts on Al-Qaeda was fired because they found out he's gay. I'd call THAT a national security risk. Let's cut our top people because they happen to date someone we don't approve of when they're off duty.

As for Obama harming national security: you really don't have proof of that. Quite the opposite, in fact. The FBI just rooted out a couple of terrorist cells last month. And the right constantly reminds us that no additional attacks happened after 9/11 on Bush's watch. But by that logic, Obama is off to a better start: NO attacks have happened. We are farther along in Obama's presidency than Bush was when we were attacked. So by the logic used by the right, Obama has kept us safer in his first year than Bush did. Immiment threat? Please, Susannah. You are suffereing from Obama derangement syndrome. He may be a disappointment, but he is not a threat. He is our Commander in Chief, and he's doing a damn fine job of keeping us safe (pirates, terrorist cells, and everything else we don't know about). My problem with him is his domestic policy more than his foreign, and his broken/delayed promises and skewed priorities.

James' Muse said...

Truth: You're right. He needs to do what he promised us. He may get disliked by the right, but like you said, he will be anyway. If he just DOES what he said he'd do, opposition be damned, he may not get reelected but in ten or twenty years history will remember him as a President who got stuff done that he thought was right. But right now, he's gonna down as an empty promise. Unless he turns this around, and quick, he won't have my vote. I'll vote a third party in 2012.

Susannah said...

James~ I assume your whole thing about 'keeping us safe' logic was tongue-in-cheek, so I'll just pretend you didn't go there...

"Immiment threat? Please, Susannah...He may be a disappointment, but he is not a threat."
You could argue that 1 person being fired (for perceived injustice) is a National Threat...Okay.

However, looking @ the big picture: How long has McCrystal been waiting to get reinforcements he desperately needs for his troops in Afghanistan?? Perhaps they would argue that they face imminent threat daily, while the POTUS twiddles his thumbs, playing politics.

Meanwhile, N.Korea is launching missiles, Iran has obtained nuclear weapons, threatens/verbally bullies Israel on international stages & BHO has done/said nothing except receive awards for admittedly having done nothing...so much for those awards, huh?

Really, James, which "threat" is more imminent? Which has the larger scope of influence?

Oh, I'm sorry, my ODS must be getting in the way. BHO has done some things...managed to usurp control over our financial institutions, auto industry, etc., etc. (read: 'blah, blah, blah' here), and is desperately seeking to MANDATE that every citizen, regardless of their choice, personal preferences, or even legal status as a U.S. citizen get health insurance - a policy which he's more than happy to have written up for them by Nancy, Harry, et. al.

Imminent threat? No, not really...?

Nah, I must be wrong...Hey, he takes Michelle on far-out dates, & even installed a White House beer garden, right?

James' Muse said...

Sorry for taking so long to respond, kind of took a "blogging break."

so I'll just pretend you didn't go there...

No, I DO think it makes us "less safe" to fire a top intelligence official, one of our best guys, because he lets it slip that he likes other guys.

As for McChrystal, we don't really know what their classified conversations entail. Generals almost always want more troops. We are privy to their strategy meetings, so I really can't comment here.

Domestically, none of those things you mentioned (bailouts, beer gardens, trips with his wife) are national security concerns. They may not be good for us, which is a matter of political opinion, but they aren't going to make us more suscepible to attack, i.e. national security. But firing top officials that are directly responsible for our security because of who they are attracted to WILL make us less safe.