Gates signals Obama may veto DADT repeal over jet engine funding

[Bluebear]

The House of Representatives passed the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" path to repeal as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act. You'll recall that lawmakers also defied the threat of a presidential veto by voting to fund a second engine for the controversial F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Over the Memorial Day weekend the President issued a veto threat. And appearing this morning on Fox News Sunday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it remains a possibility. "As I told the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Defense Subcommittee it would be a serious mistake to believe the President would not veto a bill that has the C-17 or the alternative engine, just because it had other provisions that the President or the Administration wanted."

When asked if he believed the President would veto the bill "even with" DADT repeal, Gates said, "I think so."

http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2010/06/watch-gates-says-obama-could-veto-dont-ask-dont-tell-repeal.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[havocmom]

2. So, that was a CHA rider?

Cover His Ass so he has an excuse? :banghead:

[Bluebear]

5. Yeah, the ol' C-17 poison pill.

Military: Sorry, our "study" says NO!

Congress: Oh well, we tried!

Obama: Yes, we can!

And we'll be back to square one.

[TheWraith]

48. Oh, bullshit.

So if he vetoes it, Congress sends him back a military approps bill as before except without the extra engine. It's not like if we don't pass this version, there's no defense bill.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[DFLforever]

6. He's been 'transparent" for quite awhile.

These are nothing new.

[Bluebear]

8. Put me on ignore so you don't have to see my "transparent" threads. Bye!

I'll do the same for you and say nice knowing ya.

PS Wellstone would be APPALLED at all of this.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

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

[dflprincess]

7. That which we call Blackwater by any other name would still stink

(apologies to Shakespeare)

[Fumesucker]

9. Could it be that he's passionate about equal rights for gays?

Interesting that you can't see his point of view given who you have in your sig picture.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Fumesucker]

21. That sounds like something Bishop Tutu or MLK Jr would say..

:eyes:

Luke 6:42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.

[TriMera]

26. Wow, I'm about to see if the ignore function really works.

Bye!

[Bluenorthwest]

28. Donnie McClurkin, is that you?

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Bluebear]

11. I had to sign out to see what simpleton is defending Blackwater & vetoing DADT. Surprise!

It's you!

PS Blackwater changed its name to "Xe", genius.

Bye again!

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Deep13]

13. But he's still willing to veto the repeal, regardless of the reason. nt

[KonaKane]

24. What if he intends to turn around and advocate it again....

this time not held hostage to another big money defense bill? I have seen nothing that says he will give up on it if it unfortunately gets taken down to foil this defense pork.

Shouldn't we give him the benefit of the doubt first before accusing him of wanting to torpedo the repeal of DADT?

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Oh my, defending Blackwater because they changed their logo?

The title of this OP is : Gates signals Obama may veto DADT repeal over jet engine funding.
That states that he might (not is set to) veto the reapeal over jet engin funding (not on its own merits). I challenge you to show what in that very clear title insinuates what you claim it does. It says "over jet engine funding". Right there. Clearly.
What is 'disingenuous' about this perfectly factual title? Be specific.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Bluebear]

27. Defending Blackwater & telling gay men they have hard-on's and 'not in a good way'....

this is our current state of affairs here.

[KonaKane]

31. False, and false again.

Just because you say I was defending Blackwater (which was false) does not make it true.

I have no idea of your sexual orientation, nor do I care. "Having a hard on" for someone is a colloquial term for dogging them. I'm sure you know this, and are copping the victimhood thing.

[Canuckistanian]

35. I don't give a shit what Blackwater calls itself these days

It's still the most loathsome company that ever existed.

Hitler could have changed his name, too. (Screw Godwin)

I'll keep calling it "Blackwater".

[Bluebear]

60. You said it!!

[Radical Activist]

37. More spin and misleading titles to fire people up.

Typical for this poster.

[girl gone mad]

38. More ad hominem and substance free attacks to try and change the topic.

Typical for this poster.

The headline is straight from the web site the OP linked to, genius.

[Radical Activist]

39. And it's misleading spin.

Suggesting Obama wants to veto DADT is dishonest. It's just so routine for writers to try getting people angry with an overreaching headline. It's not even the only piece like this the OP has posted today.

[girl gone mad]

44. The headline does't make that suggestion.

But many people will reach that conclusion because Obama has failed to fulfill his promises to the people, time and time again. When he is willing to accept insane compromises to pass legislation favorable to banks, oil companies, the insurance industry and other political insiders, but appears eager to veto legislation favorable to a big segment of the population over a relatively minor funding issue, then perhaps the ire is well deserved.

[Radical Activist]

46. You know

I'm probably reacting to the last dozen similar posts from this poster and a few others more than this article. I'm reacting to the last dozen threads and comments along the lines of, "Obama breathed funny and an unnamed source says it means Obama is backing down on DADT." It's irritating and I can see through the disingenuous tactic being used.

[EFerrari]

54. When we go a few years without a gay person being killed in this country for being gay,

then let's have a conversation about negative expectations, all right?

[EFerrari]

53. Bluebear's title is LESS dramatic than the original, not more.

Did you bother to check before you posted your smear?

[tularetom]

4. Congress knows more about fighters than the Sec of Defense?

Not that he knows very much, but I've gotta believe the only people who want this thing are the people who make them and sell them to the military.

And as we all know, those are the same people who own Congress.

[Deep13]

12. Doesn't matter. Congress is ultimately responsible.

And frankly, I would be surprised if the members of the armed services committees did not know more about this than the SoD.

[Deep13]

10. So after watering it down to a point where it is contingent on a DoD study...

...Obama now has an excuse to kill the DADT repeal altogether. Frankly, regardless of the rhetoric, I think Obama's religious background makes him personally hostile to gay rights and he just doesn't care if gay interests are thrown under the bus for the sake of moving to the right. (Let's face it, there is no "center" anymore since under the present definition, Nixon and Reagan would be too far to the left.)

[xchrom]

15. Teh Awesomeness of Fierce. Nt

[katandmoon]

16. Who didn't see something like this coming? I sure did.

[Bluebear]

22. Read above thread & see how gays are treated even here anymore.

The new DU, the new Democratic party, I don't know what it is anymore.

[katandmoon]

32. I don't either. Maybe I never did. I sure don't know WTF Obama is.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

18. nevermind

nevermind,

[LeftyMom]

29. Oh, there he goes with his fierce advocatin' again.

I'm real fucking impressed, myself. :eyes:

[jp11]

30. Well he should veto it if has the C-17 or alt engine then issue an executive order to repeal DADT.

Let the bill get reworked or whatever and proceed with DADT's repeal per the schedule laid out.

[Bluebear]

33. So he could order an executive order now, why the wait?

[jp11]

36. I think Gates wanted the study to analyze the 'best' methods to

institute a repeal as well as make people who are all up in arms about it destroying our armed forces happy by showing them it won't do that. Then the bill passed pending the review being completed and having the President, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff all approve it so I can see him sticking to that plan. Also it is still possible the C17 and alt engine can be taken out of the bill before it goes to President Obama to sign.

Why he didn't use Executive Order to repeal DADT earlier, I'd guess he was being politically cautious and or listening to advisors/joint chiefs, but I don't know for sure.

[TheWraith]

49. You can't change statute law via executive order.

It requires an act of Congress.

What's the big deal? The bill goes back to Congress and gets the extra pork stripped out, then passed again. It's not like it hasn't happened a hundred times before.

[TriMera]

51. "The Big Deal"...

Every day that this drags on we lose more and more trained (at the expense of taxpayers)and highly qualified individuals from our Armed Services for no reason. That's the "big deal".

[TheWraith]

55. Unfortunately, every decision made in the Oval Office has consequences.

Every day that the economy isn't revitalized, millions of people are living on the edge of losing their homes.

Every day that public health isn't being prioritized, we've got obesity, kids getting hooked on cigarettes, et al.

Every day that we aren't stamping out poverty, more young people are being recruited into gangs, black marketeering, prostitution.

There are about a million things that need to be done, and no way that they can all happen at once.

[walldude]

56. No but a persons basic human rights might be a good place to start

We are a year and a half into this presidency. It has not been politically expedient for him to repeal DADT so he hasn't. It's easy to make excuses, it's hard to do what's right. This should have been one of the first things on the agenda.
Funny how when it's not my rights being violated I'm not in a big hurry to get the law changed. I can't even imagine what it feels like to be treated like a second class citizen. To be treated like I have some disease and that I need to kept away from other people. . Frankly what I see in threads like this is a persons basic human rights being treated like they are some political tool and I see a bunch of people not only happy with that, but defending it harshly enough to get their posts removed. It's sickening, and it's no wonder we are failing as a nation.

[Fearless]

34. This is surprising? I think not.

[IOKIYAL]

40. I look forward to all the "I was wrong" comments when this "signal"

turns out to be nothing.

[donco6]

42. I'll not hold my breath when the reverse turns out to be the case.

Because we've seen it many, many, many times.

[TriMera]

50. Yeah...

cause, you know, it's all about you. It's not about other people's civil rights and honoring the sacrifices that are being made by gay people on a daily basis.

[Bluebear]

52. +

[walldude]

57. Yes and the GLBT community looks forward to the day when they are treated

as equals. When they are not treated like they have some disease that disallows them to interact with other humans. They look forward to the day when their basic civil and human rights aren't treated as some political tool or as an annoyance on some political blog. They look forward to a day when they are no longer dismissed by people like you who seem to feel that "these people" are in the way of your political ideology.

[Bluebear]

59. +

[tammywammy]

43. Congress shouldn't attach it to the defense bill

Repeal DADT on it's own, the President has been very forward on his stance of a second engine for the F-35. This way DADT can get repealed and the President can veto the second engine.

[jonnyblitz]

45. that's what i was thinking. nt

[depakid]

47. Maybe not- but that's what Congresses do when they want something that the executive doesn't

That's as old as the US government itself.

[dsc]

61. two things

One the orginal policy was passed this way and two, we don't have the 60 votes needed to pass it stand alone but we do have the 50 needed to pass it as part of the budget.

[tammywammy]

63. Ahh, well that makes sense

I just this is between a rock and a hard place. Obama's been very much against this second engine, we're looking at half a million next year, probably $2 billion total for an engine. On one hand you have the repeal of DADT (which is very important) and on the other reducing the military budget (cutting an "unnecessary" second engine).

That's a tough spot, I mean I can see many democrats upset that he'd be signing on to the second engine, at quite a bit of cost, and well at the same time as a betrayal for not overturning DADT. Kind of a damn if you do damn if you don't.

I hope Congress attaches it to another bill, only so that this situation as it is now doesn't come to pass.

[Unvanguard]

65. It's being done that way for political reasons.

It passed a straight up-or-down vote in the House, but the same may not be true in the Senate, with the filibuster. Passing it this way gives a shield for the Democrats from more socially conservative areas.

[tekisui]

58. If it comes to a veto, it will be a failure of leadership.

This will not look good for an Administration who claims to be a fierce advocate of GLBT rights.

[eridani]

62. Well then--just attach it to something else, ferchrissakes! n/t

[Unvanguard]

64. If it contains that ridiculous waste of money, he should veto it.

It is past time that we got serious about cutting back on unnecessary military spending; this is a progressive issue, and it is something that we should be supporting the president about.

They will pass some version of the Defense Authorization Act: they have to every year. The final version should--must--include the DADT repeal provisions, and at this point there is no reason to believe it will not. The F-35 issue is separate.