Mullen and Obama

A friend writes:

Did you see what Adm. Mullen said when McCain challenged him on his testimony on DADT saying that he was not in command of troops? Or at least not in direct command?

He said this:

"With all due respect, Mr. Chairman and Sen. McCain, it is true that, as chairman, I am not in charge of troops. But I have commanded three ships, a carrier battle group and two fleets. And I was most recently a service chief myself. For more than 40 years I have made decisions that affected and even risked the lives of young men and women.

"You do not have to agree with me on this issue. But don't think for one moment that I haven't carefully considered the impact of the advice I give on those who will have to live with the decisions that that advice informs. I would not recommend repeal of this law if I did not believe in my soul that it was the right thing to do for our military, for our nation and for our collective honor."

If the White House sends this guy out with a mission, and he doesn’t just follow orders, but reaches into his own heart to explain why those orders are right, and stands up to a hypocritical bully, and they throw him under a bus, no one in the world has enough money to bribe me to vote for Barack Obama again.

I will just tune out and wait for you to advise me on who to support in the Democratic primary that I will be pissed off if we do not have.

Read More...

Cranky John McCain

Wonderful write up on the ass John McCain made of himself at today's Senate Armed Services DADT report hearing. From HuffPost Hill:

McCain really brought the cranky at today's hearing: First he complained that there wasn't enough time to adequately address the issue. In an effort to placate his colleague, committee chair Carl Levin added an extra minute to each senator's allotted time and Robert Gates pledged to stay an extra half-hour. Then McCain used his extra time to question Gates about the Wikileaks controversy, moments after whining about the cramped schedule. Despite an opening statement that accused the Pentagon report on gays and lesbians in uniform of being flawed, McCain cited a section showing opposition to DADT repeal among Marines. We don't know who forgot to put raisins in John McCain's oatmeal this morning but...yeesh...that is one cantankerous senior citizen. May God be with the pimply checkout clerk that has to deal with John McCain and an expired coupon book.

Read More...

Rumors of White House cave on tax cuts, DADT, Dream and more

We are hearing from multiple sources that this is true. Read More...

No DOMA, ENDA or DADT, but how about a panel at a conference?

From National Journal:

HELP FOR GAYS. Eager to soothe jagged relationships with an impatient gay community, the White House is dispatching two senior members of its personnel office, as well as Fred Hochberg, the chairman of the U.S. Export-Import Bank, to hold a workshop with gay rights leaders and donors in town for the annual Victory Fund Gay and Lesbian Leadership Conference. A workshop will include advice from White House officials on how to “enhance your application and boost your chances for nomination or appointment,” the conference program promises.

Read More...

Old John McCain thinks surveys are still conducted by Pony Express

Some people still think surveys are conducted via the Pony Express, apparently. Read this incredibly naive statement by John McCain, the lead Republican bigot trying to bully gays because he lost the presidential election:

“What I can say now, however, is that in addition to my concerns about what questions were not asked by this survey and considered in this report, I am troubled by the fact that this report only represents the input of 28 percent of the force who received the questionnaire. That is only six percent of the force at large. I find it hard to view that as a fully-representative sample set, but I am nonetheless weighing the contents of this report on their merits. What appears clear at this time is that the survey and anecdotal data underlying this report do not lead to one unequivocal conclusion, which is no surprise considering the complex and difficult nature of this issue."

Beyond naive. First off, a 28% response rate is HUGE for any survey. Second, in 2010, as compared to 1864, you only need a few thousand people to answer a survey in order to get a good sample. Third, if lifting DADT was such a big deal that hundreds of thousands of troops would quick - McCain's claim - wouldn't you think those troops would at least answer a five minute survey about that decision, a survey that could effectively kill that decision? In fact, 72% of the service members didn't respond to the survey request because they didn't care. That's a huge data point. Read More...

Joint Chiefs chair Admiral Mullen DADT testimony

ADMIRAL MIKE MULLEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Sen. McCain and distinguished members of this committee.

My personal views on this issue remain unchanged. I am convinced that repeal of the law governing Don't Ask, Don't Tell is the right thing to do. Back in February, when I testified to this sentiment, I also said that I believed the men and women of the Armed Forces could accommodate such a change. But I did not know it for a fact. Now, I do.

And so what was my personal opinion is now my professional opinion. Repeal of the law will not prove an unacceptable risk to military readiness. Unit cohesion will not suffer if our units are well-led. And families will not encourage their loved ones to leave the service in droves.

I do not discount for a moment the findings in the Johnson-Hamm survey which indicate resistance to repeal by those in the combat arms and irregular warfare communities. I do not find these concerns trivial or inconsequential. Nor do I believe we can afford to ignore them. Given that this reluctance arises from the ranks of the very troops upon which much of the burden of these wars has fallen, we would do well to pay heed and to move forward in a deliberate and measured manner.

Whatever risk there may be to repeal of this law, it is greatly mitigated by the thorough implementation plan included in the study, the time to carry out that plan, and effective, inspirational leadership.

These are the things I know for a fact. These are the things the study tells us. Now let me tell you what I believe.

I believe our troops and their families are ready for this. Most of them already believe they serve or have served alongside gays and lesbians. And knowing matters a lot. Those who said they knew they were serving with a gay or lesbian were consistently more positive in their assessment of the impact of repeal across all dimensions – cohesion, effectiveness, retention, even privacy concerns.

Our families feel the same. Most of our spouses know at least one gay or lesbian and very few of them believe repeal of the law would have any effect on family readiness.

This tracks with my personal experience. I’ve been serving with gays and lesbians my whole career. I went to war with them aboard a destroyer off the coast of Vietnam. I knew they were there. They knew I knew it. And what’s more, nearly everyone in the crew knew it. We never missed a mission, never failed to deliver ordnance on target. Readiness was not impaired. What mattered most, what made us a crew, was teamwork and focus on our combat mission.

Back then, of course, it was a different time. Society on the whole wasn’t as accepting or as tolerant as it is now. So, we didn’t speak of such things or of how little it really mattered that the Sailor next to you was gay. But America has moved on. And, if you look closely at this study, I think you’ll find that America’s military is, by and large, ready to move on as well.

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. But I believe and history tells us that most of them will put aside personal proclivities for something larger than themselves and for each other.

There is a special warrior bond in combat, a bond formed not by common values, as some have claimed, but rather by the common threat of the enemy, hardship and peril.

“Numberless soldiers have died, more or less willingly,” writes J. Glenn Gray in his book, Reflections on Men in Battle, “not for country or honor or religious faith or for any other abstract good, but because they realized that by fleeing their posts and rescuing themselves, they would expose their companions to greater danger.”

It is those greater dangers that still motivate the heroism and comradeship our troops exemplify today.

That's why I believe the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will pass with less turbulence – even in the combat arms world – than some predict. In fact, it may be the combat arms community that proves the most effective at managing this change, disciplined as they are. It’s not only because our young ones are more tolerant; it’s because they’ve got far more important things to worry about.

The experiences of other militaries would seem to bear that out. Our study looked at 35 other militaries that chose to permit open service, including those of our staunchest allies. In no instance, was there widespread panic or mass resignations or wholesale disregard for discipline and restraint.

Some will argue we are different, of course. None of these foreign armies face the unique global demands we do. And none are charged with the leadership roles we bear. True enough. But many of them fight alongside us in Afghanistan today, and they fought with us in Iraq. Gay or straight, their troops patrolled with ours and bled with ours. They have certainly shared with ours the fear and the loneliness and the horror of combat.

I don’t recall a single instance where the fact that one of them might be openly gay ever led to poor performance on the field. My sense is that good order and discipline, far from being cast to the winds when one of these governments changed the policy, was actually reinforced and re-emphasized.

It’s clear to me that our troops expect the same. They expect that whatever change we make to the current policy will be accompanied by rigorous training and high standards of conduct. In fact, the report indicates that one of the factors distressing to those who oppose repeal are fears that new policies will not be implemented fairly, evenly and dispassionately.

Let me be clear: nothing will change about our standards of conduct. Nothing will change about the dignity and the fairness and the equality with which we treat our people. And nothing will change about the manner in which we deal with those who cannot abide by these standards. The military is a meritocracy, where success is based on what you do, not who you are. There are no special classes, no favored groups. We may wear different uniforms, but we are one.

There are some for whom this debate is all about gray areas. There is no gray area here. We treat each other with respect, or we find another place to work. Period. That’s why I also believe leadership will prove vital.

In fact, leadership matters most. The large majority of troops who believe they have served in a unit with gays and lesbians rate that unit’s performance high across virtually all dimensions, but highest in those units that are well-led. Indeed, the practical differences between units in which there were troops believed to be gay or lesbian and those in which no one was believed to be so, completely disappeared in effectively-led commands.

My belief is, if and when the law changes, our people will lead that change in a manner consistent with the oath they took. As one Marine officer put it, “If that’s what the president orders, I can tell you by God we’re going to excel above and beyond the other services to make it happen.”

And frankly, that’s why I believe that in the long run, repeal of this law makes us a stronger military and improves readiness. It will make us more representative of the country we serve. It will restore to the institution the energy it must now expend in pursuing those who violate the policy. And it will better align those organizational values we claim with those we practice.

As I said back in February, this is about integrity. Our people sacrifice a lot for their country, including their lives. None of them should have to sacrifice their integrity as well.

It is true there are no – is no Constitutional right to serve in the armed forces. But the military serves all the people of this country, no matter who they are or what they believe. And every one of those people, should they be fit and able, ought to be given the opportunity to defend it.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I believe now is the time to act. I worry that unpredictable actions in the court could strike down the law at any time, precluding the orderly implementation plan we believe is necessary to mitigate risk. I also have no expectation that challenges to our national security are going to diminish in the near future, such that a more convenient time will appear.

And I find the argument that war is not the time to change to be antithetical with our own experience since 2001.

War does not stifle change; it demands it. It does not make change harder; it facilitates it.

There is, to be sure, greater uncertainty today and our forces are indeed under stress. And I know the Chiefs are concerned about this. So am I. But I do not believe the stressors currently manifesting themselves in the lives of our troops and their families – lengthy deployments, suicides and health care – are rendered insurmountable or any graver by this single policy change. Nor do I believe that simply acknowledging what most of our troops already know to be true about some of their colleagues threatens our ability to fight and win this nation’s wars.

Quite the contrary. Today’s young leaders are more attuned to combat effectiveness than in any of the last three decades. Tempered by war, bonded through hardship, the men and women of the United States Armed Forces are the finest and most capable they have ever been. If there is a better opportunity or a better generation to effect this sort of change, I don’t know of it.

One final word. And with all due respect, Mr. Chairman and Senator McCain, it is true that, as Chairman, I am not in charge of troops. But I have commanded three ships, a carrier battle group and two fleets. And I was most recently a Service Chief myself. For more than 40 years I have made decisions that affected and even risked the lives of young men and women.

You do not have to agree with me on this issue. But don’t think for one moment that I haven’t carefully considered the impact of the advice I give on those who will have to live with the decisions that that advice informs. I would not recommend repeal of this law if I did not believe in my soul that it was the right thing to do for our military, for our nation and for our collective honor. Thank you.

Read More...

Gates want Senate to pass DADT repeal. Warns of Court action

Watching the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, it's clear John McCain wants to be the leading homophobe in the Senate. He claims he doesn't want the hearing to be political -- and reiterated his complaint that the report doesn't answer the question of whether the law should be repealed.

Secretary Gates hit back with what has become a powerful argument: The Senate should repeal the law, because if that doesn't happen, the Courts will do it. And, he cites McCain's opening statement to make his point:

The Log Cabin Republican's DADT lawsuit threw a wrench into the Obama administration's strategy on DADT. Now, it's being used for leverage.

Reminder: Live tweeting from the hearing room are @KerryEleveld, @GetEQUAL and @DavidHallDC. Also, keeping track is @IgorVolsky. Jillian Weiss at Bilerico and over at Pam's House Blend, Sue Fulton and JD Smith are liveblogging. We'll keep providing highlights -- and lowlights. Read More...

DADT report hearings begin today as GOP blocks action. Obama apparently not making calls.

UPDATE @ 9:06 AM: Hearings have begun. Live tweeting from the hearing room are @KerryEleveld, @GetEQUAL and @DavidHallDC. Jillian Weiss at Bilerico and over at Pam's House Blend, Sue Fulton and JD Smith are liveblogging. We'll provide highlights -- and lowlights.
__________________
Today at 9:00 AM ET, the Senate Armed Services Committee holds it first hearing on the Pentagon's DADT report. Today's witnesses are Secretary Gates, Admiral Mullen and the authors of the report: Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson and General Carter Ham. The Senate Armed Services Committee will livecast the event here. The hearing will also be broadcast on C-SPAN 3.

The hearings play out against a very contentious backdrop in the Senate. All 42 GOPers, including our alleged allies, signed a letter stating that there will be no action on anything until they get their way on taxes and spending. That, of course, means the Defense bill with the DADT language.

Ed O'Keefe and Ben Pershing at the Washington Post touched base with key Senators. We're still hearing the same messages from McCain and Collins:

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the committee's ranking Republican, was reading the report, a spokeswoman said. He disagrees with how the Pentagon reviews the issue and has called for a new study.

The GOP lawmakers' vow to block non-spending bills "definitely raises the stress level and adds another complication into the mix," said Alexander Nicholson, executive director of Servicemembers United, a group pushing to end the ban. "But I think there is some hope."

Activists want Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to stand by her promise to vote with Democrats on the measure if Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) allows for the introduction of Republican amendments.

Kevin Kelley, a Collins spokesman, said, "Preventing a tax increase and keeping the government operating are her top priorities, but passing a defense authorization bill is also a priority."

Other senators signaled uneasiness Wednesday.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who has not declared his position on the matter, said that if the percentage of combat troops opposed to ending the ban was significantly higher, "that raises concerns for me."

Collins, of course, won't define her exact demands so she can always blame the process. And, yeah, it's not only Republicans who are problems. Besides Manchin, don't forget, homophobe Mark Pryor (D-AR) said over the weekend that he won't support any legislation with the DADT language -- and the gays are sinners.

Time is running out. And, let's not forget that the White House crafted this strategy. It was deliberate. The White House brain trust, led by Rahm Emanuel and Jim Messina, wanted the DADT vote after the midterm elections. They really do think that dealing with gay issues is a problem. I call that political homophobia. It's also political stupidity. The same people who concocted the DADT strategy also put together the rest of Obama's agenda. Look where that's gotten us.

Obama really needs to step up. Yesterday, Chris Johnson reported:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he’s unaware of any attempt by President Obama to convince fence-sitting senators to support “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal following the release of the Pentagon report on the military’s gay ban — but said Defense Secretary Robert Gates has made calls to influence lawmakers.

Asked by the Washington Blade on Wednesday whether the president has been reaching out to senators following publication of the study, Gibbs replied, “Not that I’m aware of.”

That's really disturbing. Given the problems the President has with his base, one would think that if he were engaged, the White House would want us to know.

If repeal is going to happen, the President needs to put some skin in the game before it really is too late. That means using the bully pulpit -- and calling Senators. He's apparently not doing either.

We need to pressure the President to engage. Sign our letter to Obama here. Read More...