Obama sends handwritten letter to gay soldier ousted from the military promising to repeal DADT.

[kpete]

Source: Think Progress

Obama sends handwritten letter to gay soldier ousted from the military promising to repeal DADT.

In January, Sandy Tsao, an army officer based out of St. Louis, MO, told her superiors that she is gay — a violation of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law. Tsao then wrote to President Obama, urging him to change the DADT policy: “I do hope, Mr. President, that you will help us to win the war against prejudice.” On May 5, Tsao received a handwritten letter from Obama with a pledge to repeal DADT at some point:



In the letter, Obama wrote that he is “committed to changing our current policy” but that “it will take some time to complete (partly because it needs Congressional action).” Yesterday, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), who has sponsored legislation repealing DADT, discussed the issue with Rachel Maddow, saying, “I’d like to see us move it by this summer, and I think we can.”

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/08/obama-dont-ask-dont-tell/

[meegbear]

1. Dawn breaks over Marblehead ...

about time Barack!

[Skinner]

2. Nice.

:thumbsup:

[bigworld]

3. I continue to be impressed by this president

as a leader and as a person.

[appal_jack]

17. word-up. n/t

[47of74]

4. That ought to cause some head explosions on the right

Specifically Bill-O-the-Clown, the Mannity, the Fat Ass Drug Addict, and Glenn "Harold Hill" Beck.

[musicblind]

18. Don't forget that disgusting creep Michael Savage

who is currently barred from England because of his hateful rhetoric.

[DWilliamsamh]

26. The letter in the OP will cause some head exploding on the left....

Namely the heads of all those (and some here on DU) who are convinced Obama is a homophobe who intends to do nothing at all to improve the state of equal rights for homosexual Americans.

[No Elephants]

47. I don't care whether or not Obama is a homophobe inside his own head. I care what he does. He

made a campaign promise to repeal DADT. Contrary to his statement, this does not require Congressional action. He is CIC. He can sign an executive order. Instead of doing that though--or even sending legislation over to Congress--he consulted with his military advisors and asked them what to do. Guess what they told him? Not ready. Gee, how could anyone have seen that coming?

Now that another flap has arisen, he is saying Congress has to deal with it. Well, that's not true, either. And even if it were true, why hasn't he sent legislation over? From Democrats, Bush got signatures on the Iraq War Resolution, the WOT Resolution and the Patriot Act, including provisions that were later declared unconstitutional.

Do you believe that Obama cannot get legislation on DADT introduced, if that is what, he, as CIC and leader of his party, wants?

When DADT is repealed, I'll rejoice--and then say "About frickin' time!" Unless and until that happens, I'm waiting.

BTW, I don't believe that Obama is a homophobe. He's a politician. And since you took a snarky swipe at your fellow DU posters, istead of at the policy or the delay in getting repealed, I'll reply in kind. He's a politician, which will no doubt shock the Obama worshippers here who seem to think he's a spotless, selfless saint and matinee idol in one. Snarking at a class of DU posters is not my typical posting style, but how do like that shoe when it's on your foot? (Reply #4 took a swipe at hateful talk show hosts on the right. You chose to attack your fellow posters.)

On edit: Would you be so smug and willing to wait until people got damned good and ready if it were your orientation, your love life, your right to marry, your desire to sign up for the military, even though you are out, or your career in the military forcing you to live a lie? Or your son's or daughter's?

[DWilliamsamh]

63. So because it hasn't happened in the first 110 days....

That means the promise is broken? You do realize it will take congressional action to repeal the policy right? Con. Joe Seatak (USN Ret. Admiral) has authored a bill to do just that and Obama has said he will sign any bill that makes it to his desk that repeals the policy.

As far as suspending investigations - if is they don't investigate - when someone "confesses" to violating the UCOMJ there is no choice but to follow the code as written. That is also a part of the rule of law. I seem to remember the mantra "rule of law" from somewhere. Now where was that?

DADT needs to be repealed, and the UCOMJ needs to have all anti-gay provisions removed as well. Until that happens however the law, inside and inside the military must be followed. And I am not smug about this issue. I believe in full rights of citizens for ALL citizens regardless of any factor of birth or choice in there life that is personal and effects no one else's right to live there lives as they see fit. The work has to be done is all. Nothing is instant, except coffee and that crap sucks.


On edit:

P.S. I know he is a politician. I never thought he was an angel or a savior. And because of this - I know it will take more than a couple months to get action on all the things we want out of a Democratic President with almost unbreakable majorities in congress - especially when it takes getting a bill through congress. Me personally, I was pissed about DADT when it was first implemented and have hated it ever since. Just because someone doesn't share your particular demographic doesn't mean they don't stand in solidarity with your (or anyone else's) quest for justice.

[No Elephants]

84. You do realize you are wrong about Congressional action, right? And justice delaryed is often

denied. Justice is certainly being denied every day on this issue to people who have to live a lie or lose their careers, like this precious woman. Since Inaguration Day, that has been Obama's responsibility.

Please read the thread.

[DWilliamsamh]

91. Congressional action IS required....That is why Sestak authored a bill

An executive order can effectively stop investigation - the active seeking out of violations. But again, if someone confesses in a public forum, they aren't leaving military authorities much of a choice, even in the face of an order ending active investigations. The current law needs to be changed but it is the law and must be applied. That is what a nation of laws is all about. And aren't we all here crying out for a different law to be applied to the former administration?

[No Elephants]

92. No. Obama can suspend enforcement of DADT with an executive order. That would be

consistent with the Constitution, which makes him Commander in Chief. Sestak has a perfect right to introduce a bill and I commend him for it. That does not mean, however, that Obama cannot impose a moratorium on discharges over DADT. Among other things, the DADT statute does not specify a period of time within which a discharge must occur. And if the moratorium bothered Congress so much, it could amend DADT to set a period of time. Somehow, I don't think Congress would though. Not to mention that Obama could veto the amendment and they'd never get the votes to override.

This would not be at all like Bush saying laws of Congress do not apply to him, or to Bush's ignoring the Constitution. This would be Obama acting within a sphere where the Constitution gives him unlimited power, admitting he is bound by DADT, but suspending discharges, which DADT does not prevent him from doing. Given we are losing troops while in two wars and having trouble recruiting them, no one could fault Obama for suspension of the discharges, especially as he ramps up in Afghanistan.

Heck, if Lincoln could suspend habeas corpus on Americans, then Obama can suspend discharges to keep necessary troops.

[DWilliamsamh]

97. And If someone confesses to a violation of the law?

The President can't just suspend enforcement of law. At least no President should be able to do that. And no one here should be advocating such. Or are you suggesting he act like the previous resident of the Oval office?

On edit:

The information below is of great importance as it makes a legal case for the President being able to legally suspend discharges that are detrimental to troop strength. Along with the above and my general point in this thread - I hope the President does what ever is legally available to him to stop any discharge the legitimately falls under the law.

[No Elephants]

94. P.S. A statute specifically allows the POTUS, aka CIC, to suspend

discharges otherwise provided for by law. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/12305.html

(I'm guessing this is the same statute Bushco used for stop loss, but I am not sure.)

[DWilliamsamh]

98. THANK YOU!!!

See I wasn't just being pig headed - this is the first I have heard of this section of the law in Question. I stand corrected. I agree - Obama should use whatever remedy he legally has available to him to suspend such discharges. I would imagine there has to be a "reason" (outside disagreement withe the law - and he has repeatedly said he disagrees with it) to suspend such a discharge - and certainly retaining a talented translator when the military has so few would seem to be such a circumstance.

Again - thanks for the information. I always appreciate learning something new! :toast:

[No Elephants]

100. You're welcome. I would go further than the translator though. We cannot

afford to lose any troop for simply refusing to live a lie when we are surging in Afghanistan, mired in Iraq, all but ignoring genocide in Darfur, on the verge of Who knows what in Pakistan, etc. and having lots of trouble recruiting. We've stop lossed troops for 1, 2 and 3 extra tours. That's just dangerous. So, I would not limit the use of this statute to translators.

However, I do believe the CIC would have had Constitutional power to act upon the above facts, even if this statute never existed. We're in damn bad shape, "troop-wise." Since it does exist, though, that is a moot point.

[DWilliamsamh]

102. Agreed...

We need every able-bodied man and woman willing to do their duty with honor. I have always felt that way. Like I said private e-mail to you, I will be calling and writing The White House to say so.

[Zhade]

95. No, it's not. You're WRONG.

NT!

[DWilliamsamh]

99. Please see my response to the post above...

Even though you are being unnecessarily rude, I stand corrected by the information provided above - I hope the President will use all legal means available to him to suspend any discharges that meet the requirements of the clause giving him that power.

To reiterate - DADT needs to be repealed as soon as possible. I am proud to say that my congressional Rep. (and former admiral) has authored a bill to do just that. One more reason to be glad I voted for Sestak

[Mari333]

5. hooah!!nt

[DS1]

6. If you look at his signature sideways, it looks like a dude cracking a whip

We got Indiana Jones as our President!

[WillParkinson]

7. Right...seems to totally contradict this one, doesn't it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3867890

I'm sorry. I've had lip service from politicians for 25 years. I don't expect this to be much different.

I hope it will be, but I'm not about to get my hopes up anymore.

[jody]

10. Believe only what a politician has done, never what she/he promises. n/t

[No Elephants]

49. And also

this. http://thehill.com/business--lobby/push-to-end-dont-ask-dont-tell-faces-hurdles-2009-03-30.html

[goclark]

8. K and R

A President that listens and is working as hard as he can on millions of important things at one time.

He took the time to show that he cared.
One of the things in life that I highly value is a hand written letter that is sincere.

Wonder what the response would be from John McCain or GW ~

[No Elephants]

48. Probably a political move of one kind or another, much as Obama has been making. Why do you as\k?

[Stinky The Clown]

9. Why is this still an issue?

Answer: Because no one has actually done anything about it.

Bullshit has always walked and action has always talked.

[Jansen]

11. ?

should be bullshit talks and action = walk or ?

[JonLP24]

12. I have no doubt the house of representitives will act. The Senate is the problem

Either way, K&R.

[No Elephants]

50. The unwillingness of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States

of America to abolish the policy with an Executive Order is the problem.

[msanthrope]

13. Come on congress!!!! It's your job to LEGISLATE AWAY DADT! n/t

[No Elephants]

52. Not really. Please see Replies 30 and 48. Truman integrated the Armed Forces all by his

lonesome, with the proverbial stroke of a pen. Obama could have done the same in less time than it took to handwrite a letter to this troop.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

14. This proves that Obama is a secret Muslim!

Those radical islamists love the gays!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[No Elephants]

53. No, it proves he is a political animal. Otherwise, he would have signed an executive order before

marching down Pennsylvania Avenue, as Carter did on his Inauguration Day with amnesty.

[jeremyfive]

15. And We Are Supposed to Support the Troops? Can't Do It.

As long as the military bigotry machine is still targeting our gay citizens for special punishment, the U.S. military is a organization of shame and hatred--there is no honor present anywhere.

Support the troops? I'd love to--show me an organization of courage, valor and honor. Obviously, they fall far short.

[Psephos]

22. The military didn't cook up this policy.

It was actually drafted by Colin Powell in 1993, under the direction of WJC, who did it upon advice of his pollster.

The Democratic Congress then enacted the policy into statutory US Code. Bush went along with it after WJC left the WH.

I'm sure there are plenty of people in the Pentagon who don't relish the idea of gays openly serving in the military. But I am equally sure there are plenty who are fine with it. In any case, the Pentagon carries out the policies given it by the President and the Congress.

In short, if you deny support of the troops over this, you are targeting its victims, not its progenitors.

[Captain Hilts]

44. And Sam Nunn. Nunn and Powell. nt

[No Elephants]

54. Yep. It's another one of those triangulation thangs with which Clinton and Morris "blessed" us.

(The edit was to put in the quotation marks, before someone tells me this is not a blessing. I know. I know. I know.)

[DWilliamsamh]

27. As a veteran of the US Army, and an advocate of gay rights...

Inside and outside the military I respectfully say to you:

You are an ass.

Individual soldiers (ie the troops) have almost nothing to do with making policy. To be sure there are a fair number of homophobes in the military - just like everywhere else.

[Captain Hilts]

45. Many gay troops are surprised how supportive their colleagues are...

when they run into trouble on this. I remember reading this about a Naval Academy middie who was kicked out.

I read a Navy discussion board and those guys are almost uniformly conservative, older and white, and they all remember gay guys in the USN and said they didn't care about it at all so long as the guys did their jobs. Most are submariners where you shower by yourself and pee by yourself, perhaps that changes attitudes or perhaps submariners are more enlightened.

[DWilliamsamh]

66. Submariners have been called many things, enlightened was never one of 'em!

LOL. But seriously, most troops I ever served with didn't give a rats ass what someone "was" as much what someone "did." As long as what they "did" was their duty they were cool. Apparently the guys below the ocean felt the same way as the ground pounders.

[Captain Hilts]

77. Goldbrickers are THE most hated! nt

[Zhade]

96. Well, I don't support the troops -- unless they're home.

I won't support killing innocents, even by "mistake".

[panzerfaust]

16. Bravo

[FiveGoodMen]

19. Bookmarked.

[No Elephants]

55. Good thinking. Bookmark it to see how long it takes before this finally goes beyond lip service.

[robinlynne]

20. nice! and one more reason for us to support Sestak for Senate!

[No Elephants]

56. Yep. That and the other great reason. He's not Specter.

[myrna minx]

21. K&R n.t

[24601]

23. While it takes Congress to change DADT, it takes only the

President to stop the effects during his term. He has every authority to reserve original jurisdiction for all cases on DoD and can require each discharge have his approval - and he can defer a decision as long as he wants.

[No Elephants]

58. He can do better than that. He can suspend enforcement of the policy. In fact, I think he

can probably repeal it. Congress probably had no Constitutional right to enact it in the first instance. If Clinton wanted this (despite HIS campaign promises to the GLBT community), he should have signed an Executive Order in his Constitutional capacity as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America. This is not a money issue. It does not belong in appropriations bills.

[24601]

87. The constitution is explicit giving Congress the Article I Power

to regulate the military.

From Art I, Section 8: "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;"

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section1

But that's the "what" while the President, as CINC, prescribes the "how.

[greeneyedboy]

24. Sestak was great on Rachel's show. Gave me hope for once. n/t

[livefreest]

25. mind over chatter

[tomm2thumbs]

28. Don't ask, don't tell about your religion - it is a 'choice' afterall

Let's level the playing field around here

[Wednesdays]

29. K&R

:kick:

[t0dd]

30. It is a lovely letter and all

But someone tell me what is stopping him from enacting a moratorium to prevent further discharges? As someone else said, he can make it so each discharge requires his approval.

He likes gay people because we vote for him and donate our money to him. But he is no fierce advocate for our civil rights. They are not a priority to him by any stretch of the imagination. He'll unfortunately continue to dangle the carrot of false promise in front of us until 2012. Call me cynical, but our movement has experienced tremendous success recently with all the state-level gay marriage victories. And what type of response from the White House? Absolute silence. Oh, except that our President "respects" the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court but continues to support the idea of civil unions. How lovely.

Why are people blind to this lack of effort? Because the legion of pro-Obama zombies feel he can do no wrong. They'll tell you he is too focused on the economy. But is taking some time to focus on a discriminatory law that infringes on the civil rights of millions of Americans really that wasteful a distraction? He has taken time out for stem-cell research, funding high speed transit, subsidizing lenders of student loans, etc. But he has not done one thing for the gay community. Oh, but we'll be patient! Don't you worry.

What will happen next? Months will pass, and no action will be taken on this. Our military will continue to enforce this asinine policy. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs will continue to give empty responses on when substantial repeal efforts will be conducted. More honorable soldiers will suffer the serious injustice of being deprived the right to serve in our military because of who they are. But most importantly, it will finally dawn on people that maybe, just maybe, Obama is the not the fierce advocate for gay and lesbian civil rights he advertised himself as.

[eridani]

31. Wonderful!

Wondering if anything can be done for her retroactively. Also that translator.

[Fumesucker]

32. I recall the backdown on FISA and telecom immunity..

I'll believe it when the ink is dry on Obama's signature on the legislation and not an attasecond before.

[readmoreoften]

33. I'm sure that makes up for the financial devastation.

But then again DADT's only one more excuse to toss out soldiers when their cost outweighs their use value to the US government.

[DUlover2909]

34. That's my Prez! Good news.

I love it!:grouphug:

[No Elephants]

59. What, you didn't know he could write a letter? This was a campaign promise he made and has

not yet acted on. Moreover, the letter is dishonest. He could end enforcement of DADT with an executive order, the same way that Truman ended racial segregation in the military.

[jonnyblitz]

35. BIG. FUCKING. DEAL. actions speak louder than words. I am

sure a copy of this "letter" will be posted in every thread criticizing Obama's lack of action on this issue from here on in as somehow PROOF of action. :crazy:

[theHandpuppet]

36. Exactly right

If Obama really wanted to lead on this issue, he wouldn't send "private" letters that are obviously intended to be publicly circulated among a select crowd, even containing the pre-emptive excuses about why it will take so long and the Congressional opposition he might face if he ever gets around to actually doing something.

If Pres. Obama wanted to make a positive statement about the civil rights of millions of gays in this country, he can do it publicly and do it now. Why so silent even as states such as Iowa and Maine pass laws recognizing the basic civil rights of their GLBT citizens? Why so silent when Marion Berry declared there would be civil war on the streets of D.C. if gay marrige was recognized in the district? Why not speak out publicly on the firing of the gay translator? What a perfect segue that would have provided for the battle to repeal DODT.

Count me among the unimpressed.

[LostinVA]

39. +1 -- the soldier was still discharged from her CAREER

When a supermajority of Americans wants this overturned, there doesn't ahve to be a "let's wait and see and discuss" attitude. Just fucking do it. The same for ANY civil rights issue -- just fucking do it, like Johnson did.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rosesaylavee]

37. Good start.

Looking forward to seeing this poorly devised and unconstitutional legislation GONE soon.

[No Elephants]

60. What start? He had made a campaign promise to end DADT. He could have done so with

an executive order on day one. I don't think this letter is anything new.

[rosesaylavee]

72. Well. I disagree.

There are a lot of things he could muscle thru with Executive Orders. The last guy did that despite public opinion otherwise and Congress' backing and the results are that many if not most of them will be reversed by the end of this year. I think it's better to move slowly to get more people on board. The states are certainly leading the way with legally recognized marriage for everyone and we are heading toward a critical mass of accepting the idea that there are family and friends who are not wholly accepted in our community and that that is very very wrong. Especially wrong for our family and friends who are serving the country, risking or making the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf. I think I do understand your disbelief and impatience and hope that this will change sooner than either of us think.

Peace.

[No Elephants]

75. Executive orders regarding the military are definitely the province of the Commander in Chief,

thouogh, unlike the way that Bush abused them.

And while Obama "move slowly" on this issue, people are losing their careers and/or avoiding entering the military to begin with. Tha is not only a violation of equal rights, but an issue of our safety. We do not have enough troops that we can afford to lose any, and our dearth of Arabic speaking troops is especially severe.

Truman did not wait for a consensus to integrate the military. He just recognized a grievous wrong and corrected it because it was his moral and Constitutional responsiblity so to do.

Unlike TRuman, though, who simply woke up to an injustice and acted to remedy it. Obama made a specific campaign promise on this.

He CAN do this by Executive Order. Therefore when he allows this troop to lose her career and tells her it "needs" Congress, he is attemting to deceive her.

The states don't have to lead the way on this issue, nor can they. It's the military of the United States. That is the sole bailiwick of the feds in general and the Commander in Chief in particular.

Building consensus with the neocons is a joke. Have you seen how the Republicans react whenever anyone attempts anything with them, other than total surrender?

you don't delay human rights for political cover, especially if you can remedy something with a strong of a pen.

Besides, this was a specific campaign promise and elections have consequences. Besides, it's not all about consensus. The POTUS is supposed to lead, no more so than when he functions as Commander in Chief. And, no matter what, attempting to deceive a troop who has just lost her career bc he broke his campaign promise is beyond the pale.

Bottom line, though, your post said this was a "start." It is not a start. His campaign promise was the start.

Not sure what disbelief you are referring to. These are facts that are a matter of record or a matter of law. I am not relying on belief.

Peace to you as well.

[rosesaylavee]

103. You are very right.

I was wrong. This is a basic human right and it needs to be addressed now. Thank you for the correction and your kindness in pointing it out to me.

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Words are cheap

A politician's words are the cheapest of all. The recipient will still be without a job and stripped of all benefits. Let me know when he DOES something. A politician made a promise?!?! Wow! We know that all political promises are golden, always kept in a timely manner, exactly as promised! I mean, when has a politician ever broken a promise, right DU?

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

61. Actually, DU is divided into at least three ideological groups. one thinks Obama can do no wrong.

Another thinks he can do no right. A third takes it issue by issue and applies some facts and some analysis.

Within each group are jerks who cannot tolerate opinions other than their own and knee jerk post with name-calling and obscentities.

Guess which group is the least impressive or persuasive.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muffin1]

51. He promised all would be treated equally under his leadership.

Black/white, old/young, gay/straight....why is he being so silent on equal rights for gay people now?

Don't get me wrong, I admire Barack Obama a great deal, but it just seems like there is an "asterisk" in my head whenever I think about him. DADT is wrong, wrong, wrong...and he's smart enough to know that.

Millions are feeling disenfranchised in this country, and just because it doesn't affect some on this board, doesn't mean it's not important.

[graywarrior]

40. Wow.

That got me emotional.

[Buzz Clik]

41. No way! What will we bitch about now.?

As if ....

[No Elephants]

62. Was anyone "bitching" that Obama was not writing enough letters? Because that's the only new thing

discussed. And please see Reply # 48.

[Fluffdaddy]

46. Good Job Mr. President

[Hepburn]

57. You know, the "no gays in the military" rules have never made sense to me.

What makes a gay person any less of a soldier? :shrug:

Like being gay could effect one's bravery? Ability to shoot well? Intelligence? Stamina?

How the hell is being gay connected to any other trait?

Someone please explain to me how sexual orientation is connected to being in the military?

:shrug:

[No Elephants]

64. This makes even less sense. Gays are welcome in the miltiary as long as they are closeted. Explain

THAT one to me. please.


Gays have always been in the military and I am glad about that, assuming that is what fulfills them. Nonetheless, I can make better arguments for excluding them entirely than I can for welcoming them into the military as long as they live a lie.

[Hepburn]

67. Excellent point in your post.

Which points out the utter foolishness of the govt's position:

Gays are a threat to the military, but if a gay person does not talk about being gay, he/she is no longer a threat.

Talk about a total lack of logic and utter bullshit? But, then, we are dealing with the U.S. Govt!

:hi:

Edit for typo.

[No Elephants]

68. Thanks. Thing is, it is not only talking. There was an incident where a a troop was seen in

Walmart, standing on line, with a life partner.

You REALLY have to live a lie, not just refrain from chatting about your orientation.

[Hepburn]

69. OMG....

....because two people are at WalMart and they are the same sex and they are shopping together and buying things...that violates the Dont Tell bullshit?

Yep, you are right...it is living a lie. Horrible, just horrible. And really, really stupid, bigoted and just plain fucking silly...and mega insane.

IMO, being gay has absolutely NO connection to how well anyone performs his/her job or how he/she lives his/her life.

Wow...what you posted surprised me! I have always been sensitive, at least I thought so, to gay issues even tho I am a straight person. But...it seems each day I am learning another way my gay brothers and sisters have been hurt.

Geeeeeeeeeez, this has to stop!

[No Elephants]

70. IThe article that I read did not say. what the clue suposedly was. I assumed that one may have had

an arm around the other or that they were holding hands. It had to have been more than two people of the same gender standing on line together. As I recall, two females were involved and one was in uniform, but I am not willing to swear to my recollection of those specifics. I'm lucky I remember Walmart.

[Hepburn]

73. Shit....

...my best gal pal and I are often walk arm in arm, etc. We are really, really close. I cannot imagine having a sister with whom I am closer. Good thing I am not in the military ~~ I would have been long gone for hugging and holding hands with another straight female.

What total bullshit to put people through horse manure like that because they love and want to be with someone of the same sex.

Awful...just plain awful.

[No Elephants]

74. There was no question that the troop was gay, though. There was also no question

that this was not about her "blabbing." On her own time, she was with her partner and their body language, whatever it was, indicated that they were lovers. BOOM! Career over.

On edit. I googled. The partners were kissing while on line.

I have to believe, though, that someone was out to get her.

Oddly, one of the seven values of the army is "integrity," yet the military lives a lie on this issue and insists that gay people live a lie as well.

Great website on this issue. http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/category/government-politics/military-dont-ask

[Hepburn]

76. Thank you for the info...

...I am going to the website after I this post.

IMO, it is criminal to me the way gays are treated by our supposedly free society. The RWs and the homophobes all want to talk about how "chosing" to be gay is "immoral." Well, I say the way gays are treated is what is immoral.

JMHO...:hi:

[No Elephants]

83. You're welcome and I agree.

[No Elephants]

65. This is a letter in which the President tells a troop that he still intends to keep

his campaign promise, then lies about why he has not already done so.

In light of the reality, this is a very telling thread.

On edit: BTW, the headline is wrong, too. There is no promise to repeal. There is an expression of intent to keep a commitment to end DADT. That is not a promise. Also, a President cannot repeal a statute. Only Congress can do that. So, if it were a promise, it would be a promise not to veto a bill by Congress repealing the DADT law.

However, the reality is that Obama can both reinstate this troop and sign and executive order forbidding the military to enforce DADT.

Lead on, Commander in Chief. Give your fans something authentic to cheer about.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ohio2007]

79. Obama To Fire His First Gay Arabic Linguist ( Huff Po)

Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard who is fluent in Arabic and who returned recently from Iraq, received notice today that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he came out of the closet as a gay man on national television.

Some readers might think it unfair to blame Obama. After all, the president inherited the "don't ask, don't tell" law when he took office. As Commander-in-Chief, he has to follow the law. If the law says that the military must fire any service member who acknowledges being gay, that is not Obama's fault.

Or is it?

A new study, about to be published by a group of experts in military law, shows that President Obama does, in fact, have statutory, stroke-of-the-pen authority to suspend gay discharges. Obama could simply invoke his authority under federal law (10 U.S.C. §12305) to retain any member of the military he believes is essential to national security.

Or he could take advantage of a legal loophole. The "don't ask, don't tell" law requires the military to fire anyone found to be gay or lesbian. But there is nothing requiring the military to make such a finding. The president can order the military to stop investigating service members' sexuality.

An executive order would not get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell" law, but would take the critical step of suspending its implementation, hence rendering it effectively dead. Once people see gays and lesbians serving openly, legally and without problems, it will be much easier to get rid of the law at a later time.



snip

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-belkin/obama-to-fire-his-first-g_b_199070.html

[Buzz Clik]

80. Yes, I saw this inaccurately titled article on a thread earlier this week.

It doesn't answer my question in the slightest.

And, to be honest, unless you are moderating this thread/forum, you really aren't in a position to answer my question.

And, to extend this fit of honesty even further, the moderators have a history of not answering such questions, either. They quote the rules and ignore PMs.

[ohio2007]

90. Looks like "they" deleted your question. I take it you didn't like my answer so

the rest of the board members will have to remain in darkness as to what you could have possibly asked ....

;)

...don't tell

You'll just get the thread locked or parts trimmed away.

I only offerred a possible way the laws could be changed.

lol

Maybe the board mods don't want change

[Moochy]

82. Calling those you disagree with "splinter groups"

benign? sounds pretty malignant to me.

[No Elephants]

86. At least half the posts on the thread support Obama and

the rest criticize him. Ergo, posts were not deleted based on the position taken, whether pro or con.

Maybe your posts were not as benign as you seem to recall now?

BTW, I worked very hard for Obama, too. And I donated my legal limit to him, starting December 2007. Doesn't mean I am not going to speak my mind when he is being dishonest to a troop who lost her career bc of him. Doesn't mean I won't cheer him when he is doing the right thing, either.

It's about doing the the right thing, not about Party or heroes. That is perfectly consistent with being a Democrat.

[Autumn]

81. Now thats a President

:fistbump:

[No Elephants]

85. Writing a dishonest letter to a troop who lost her career for being honest is praiseworthy? Did you

read the thread?

[Autumn]

88. I read the letter and the OP not the thread

and Obama says he is committed to changing the policy. That is one hell of a lot more than bush ever did. He has a lot to work on. Am I disappointed because it isn't changed yet? Yes. Will I criticize him if he doesn't? Hell yes. It's going to be a long first four years.

[No Elephants]

89. Sure is.

[RufusH]

93. I'll be impressed when he puts his signature to something more than a nice note.

Like signing away the discriminatory DADT.

Not holding my breath.

I will still hold out hope though.

[No Elephants]

101. IMO, a dishonest note to a troop whose career you've ended is not even a nice note..

[RufusH]

104. Good point.

[Joe2131]

105. repeal!