McHugh on DADT: I have no interest in excluding people ‘otherwise qualified to serve.’
McHugh on DADT: I have no interest in excluding people ‘otherwise qualified to serve.’
After President Obama named Rep. John McHugh (R-NY) as his nominee for Secretary of the Army, progressives have been working to better understand McHugh’s current position on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the ban on gays serving openly in the military. While McHugh still intends to refrain from publicizing his own personal view on the issue until his confirmation hearings, yesterday in an interview with Roll Call, he hinted that he believes it’s time to repeal the ban:
“I have no interest as either a Member of Congress or as … secretary of the Army to exclude by some categorization a group of people otherwise qualified to serve,” McHugh told Roll Call.
He noted that the Armed Services Committee has not considered the policy “in any formal way” since 1993. In the meantime, “certainly, the recruiting-age population’s views have changed on that whole matter,” he said.
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on Tuesday that McHugh shared Obama’s commitment to repealing the ban.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
This is excellent news! Now let’s follow through and repeal discrimination.
PEACE
June 5th, 2009 at 2:40 pmGood for you, Mr. McHugh.
Don’t ask, don’t smell…the Republic mantra.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:41 pmNothing brings about the trolls more so than a thread on teh gays serving in the military. Doesn’t matter if a person is qualified or not – if they’re gay, they’re outta here.
Silly little minded people.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:41 pmWell, maybe a thread on gays in the military having abortions might top it…
Here, trolly trolly trolly… come and get it!
June 5th, 2009 at 2:42 pmIt’s not his personal view that matters, but his professional view. And any clear-headed look at the situation demonstrates that it should be repealed.
This is good news, for anyone interested in a fiscally responsible way to strengthen the effectiveness of our military forces.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:42 pmlol, CFP tries to blame this on Clinton
typical
Clinton implemented DADT to combat the OUTRIGHT BAN that was in place
not a great solution, but it was a compromise
but you keep telling yourself there is some way to blame a democrat and absolve the republicans
you are one silly silly person, cfp
June 5th, 2009 at 2:48 pmC4P is only concerned about the pre-born, and his moniker is a lie.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:48 pmI sense a dodge in McHugh comments, what is the definition of “qualified to serve”. Are gays qualified to serve? In the past they have not been considered qualified.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:48 pmDr. Matt, I wonder if C4P will still be this supportive as our President fulfills all of this campaign promises?
It’s concern is touching, though.
PEACE
June 5th, 2009 at 2:50 pmWhile I served we knew who was gay, and guess what, we didn’t care if they were…
…and that was back in 71′-75′.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:51 pmThis will go out to my entire email and face book group along with a message for them to act and also to pass it along.
If we can’t believe this show how are we going to believe what their sponsors are selling.
http://yourblackworld.com/news/stories2/fox_news_corporate_sponsors.htm
Hannity Edits Clip To Suggest Obama Honored 9/11 Sympathizers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/05/gop-senator-conservative_n_211780.html
June 5th, 2009 at 2:51 pmBuckie Boy, and ditto for 67 – 70…
June 5th, 2009 at 2:56 pmWhen you’re getting your ass shot at, soldiers are soldiers.
C4P,
Peace be upon you.
I’d say that in Arabic, but my language skills aren’t equal to some of my friends here.
DADT aside, how did President Obama’s speech sit with you?
June 5th, 2009 at 2:56 pmUm, If Obama has a commitment to lift the ban then wouldn’t he just have to file an executive order lifting the ban?
June 5th, 2009 at 3:01 pmI said it the other day, McHugh seemed gay to me when he spoke the other day, no that there’s anything wrong with that.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:02 pmI have a question for cons. When your god created the earth 6000 years ago did he also create gay men and women? Or just priests that are child molesters?
June 5th, 2009 at 3:03 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
16. I woke up early and listened to it live. It was a well written and well delivered speech. Kudos to his speech writers. It was not nearly as good, nor likely as effective as Pres. Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall” speech, but was good. Now let’s see if he can progress beyond mere words.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
That wall and the politics behind it was crumbling even as Reagan made that speech — he just took advantage of the situation to give his sheeple a woody.
Smoke & mirrors work really well on you, don’t they?
June 5th, 2009 at 3:04 pmBuckie Boy Says
June 5th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
While I served we knew who was gay, and guess what, we didn’t care if they were…
…and that was back in 71′-75′.
____________________________________________________________
I served 1973 to 1979. I was a photographer, and I’d like to point out that I was NEVER groped in any darkroom by a gay woman.
Too bad I can’t say the same about a number of the straight men I served with, though.
Can we say that unwanted sexual advances are unwelcome no matter who they’re coming from?
June 5th, 2009 at 3:05 pmC4Pee’s moniker is an oxymoron.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:06 pmAlejandro Says:
Um, If Obama has a commitment to lift the ban then wouldn’t he just have to file an executive order lifting the ban?
June 5th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
He could — if he wanted to run things like George W. Bush.
I think the best way to handle it would be to issue an executive order to cease enforcement of DADT, and then have Congress do it’s thing.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:06 pmC4P says:
Now let’s see if he can progress beyond mere words.
Thank you.
I would submit that’s contingent on the amount of foot dragging, hyperbole, obfuscation and outright lies the ‘Incredible Shrinking Party’ regurgitates.
I call it the Speech of the Century. Balancing a progressive solution to 3 disparate entities is quite a challenge, after all.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:08 pmAlejandro Says:
Um, If Obama has a commitment to lift the ban then wouldn’t he just have to file an executive order lifting the ban?
That’s my understanding of it. Of all of the big campaign promises he’s made and has yet to deliver on, this one has no tangible barriers to his ability to do so.
.
ConservativeForProgress Says:
16. I woke up early and listened to it live. It was a well written and well delivered speech. Kudos to his speech writers. It was not nearly as good, nor likely as effective as Pres. Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall” speech, but was good.
That was pretty much my take. Obama’s delivered a few barn-burners, but this wasn’t one of them. Of course, he had a lot of specific ground to cover, so maybe a soaring delivery wasn’t called for. Of course, we weren’t really the audience, the Muslim world was. His use of Arabic and quoting the Qu’Ran seems to have gone over well with them, which may serve to drive a wedge between hardline extremists and more moderate ex-extremist-sympathizers. And all the wingnuts said that having a secret Muslim President would be a bad thing, ha!
.
ConservativeForProgress Says:
Now let’s see if he can progress beyond mere words.
Exactly. As many people in the Middle East have pointed out, his relevant policy positions at the moment are technically unchanged from Bush’s. Mind you, there’s only so much we can do about their issues. The only appropriate role for the U.S. there is as a facilitator and a partner – not a direct actor.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:09 pmAlejandro-
There’s this misconception out there that Obama can simply lift an executive order and be done with the whole thing. That is patently false. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is codified US Law. 10 USC 654 is the code, I believe. The only way to get rid of it is through Congress.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:12 pmYou beat me to it. The percentage of women in the military that have been sexually assaulted or harassed is high. Nobody seems to concerned about them.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:12 pmZimzone Says:
I call it the Speech of the Century. Balancing a progressive solution to 3 disparate entities is quite a challenge, after all.
Well, the century is young, and look who’s been in office for the rest of it so far…
June 5th, 2009 at 3:14 pmAnd if he had the moronic troll would be supporting President Obama instead of bashing him all day. Sure he would.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:16 pmcalchala Says:
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is codified US Law. 10 USC 654 is the code, I believe.
Why, so it is:
Thanks for the correction, calchala. I guess Obama can’t do it with the stroke of a pen.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:17 pmConservativeforprogress –
By the way, your name may be the greatest example of a paradox, then any I’ve seen before. Kudos on that.
As to whether the ban can be lifted by Obama all by himself, that’s patently false. The Palm Center isn’t even saying that. What they are alleging is that Obama has the ability to issue an executive order to temporarily stop troop losses while this goes into effect. From what I’ve understood of the law, 10 USC 654 specifically delineates what should go on and HOW the ban should be enforced. I don’t know whether the executive order would conflict with that or not, but perhaps the Palm Center may be correct. To know for certain, we would need an unbiased observer to let us know for sure.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:18 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
29. You are correct that DADT was codified in 10 U.S.C. § 654. You and Zooey are correct that the only way to permanently get rid of it is through Congress. However, the Pres. can immediately suspend its enforcement through powers granted to him by 10 U.S.C. § 12305.
He could, he could:
However, then he’d have to claim that it was essential to national security to have gays in the military. And I don’t think he could really make that case without really stretching. It would be a very Republican way to behave, claiming extraordinary powers based on a lie.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:21 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
29. You are correct that DADT was codified in 10 U.S.C. § 654. You and Zooey are correct that the only way to permanently get rid of it is through Congress. However, the Pres. can immediately suspend its enforcement through powers granted to him by 10 U.S.C. § 12305.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
ConservativeForProgress Says:
34. Yes, he can. 10 U.S.C. § 12305
June 5th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
C4Pee is all over the map today, ain’t he? *yawn*
June 5th, 2009 at 3:28 pmCoulda sworn ConFauxProg stepped off the flat end of the map an hour ago…
June 5th, 2009 at 3:32 pmConservativeForProgress Says:
You have to read those sections. There is no requirement that he find that “it was essential to national security to have gays in the military.” Those words appear nowhere in the statute.
Read again:
The “who” in this hypothetical scenario would be teh gays.
Jeez, quit playing the “those words don’t appear” game and learn to read things for reals.
.
Zooey Says:
C4Pee is all over the map today, ain’t he? *yawn*
He’s trying to make us mad at Obama.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:36 pmAs ElBruce said, to act as you demand the president act, he would have to behave like a Republican. This “period of national emergency” was determined by a Republican administration as a means to maintain manpower levels without having to consider the third rail of military policy (the draft) and in order to justify countless other “extraordinary powers”.
How long can a “period of national emergency” last, realistically? I mean, after a certain point, doesn’t it just become the status quo and thus, no longer an “emergency”?
June 5th, 2009 at 4:07 pmHow did I know I’d see this thread and sure enough C4P would say something stupid?
Maybe bold might help this time?
HE CANNOT JUST ISSUE AN EXECUTIVE ORDER REPEALING THE BAN WITHOUT UNDERLYING LAWS BEING DEALT WITH.
For christ’s sake how many times does this have to be said? This is not the Bush administration. We did not elect a Legislature in Chief. If he were to act like Bush and simply “order” the law repealed, one he could be reversed and two gays would not be able to server PERIOD.
Apparently our oxymoronic friend doesn’t know to read or really does enjoy regurgitating the same crap. Stop trying to smear Obama about something you obviously have no clue works.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:15 pmwhoops serve* in 44
June 5th, 2009 at 4:15 pmIt’s not just the “period of national emergency” which is the issue here — it’s the wording in § 12305(a) that the President can suspend the separation of “any member of the armed forces who the President determines is essential to the national security of the United States.” The “any member” doesn’t refer to a group or class of people — the legislative history of this section of the statute makes it clear that Congress’s intent was that if an individual member of the armed forces was otherwise to be retired or separated from service, that the President could step in under § 12305(a) and prevent that upon a finding that that particular member of the service was “essential to national security”.
Thus, § 12305(a) doesn’t authorize the President to issue an Executive Order suspending the application of DADT to everyone to whom it might apply; there has to be an individualized finding and an individualized Executive Order for each member of the service to whom DADT might apply. I doubt there’s a lot of time in the President’s day to be dealing with thousands of such Executive Orders — so I have no doubt that he’s working with Congress and the DoD to come up with legislation rescinding the policy as a whole by amending the statute.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:18 pmI don’t agree with DADT or the ban of gays, but
I am VERY glad that Obama does not act like the executive branch is more powerful than Congress or the Judiciary
This needs to go through congress, not be a decree from the President.
Despite Bush and Cheney’s attempts to dismantle it, this IS still America.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:51 pmRepublicans having a nervous breakdown does not constitute a national emergency.
Seems that nickels for anti-gay posts aren’t being payed these days. For a while there it looked like the Army and Marines had a division of keyboard commandos, and they was some ugly dumb-fcuks.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:04 pmElBruce Says
June 5th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
However, then he’d have to claim that it was essential to national security to have gays in the military. And I don’t think he could really make that case without really stretching. It would be a very Republican way to behave, claiming extraordinary powers based on a lie.
____________________________________________________________
It’s a pity our last administration poisoned that well, isn’t it?
June 5th, 2009 at 6:23 pmer wow I just reread my post up at 44 and that last sentence came out wrong. I meant about how it works, meaning military law :)
June 5th, 2009 at 7:51 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
How long can a “period of national emergency” last, realistically? I mean, after a certain point, doesn’t it just become the status quo and thus, no longer an “emergency”?
Stalin comes to mind, for some reason here…
.
misscoleopteramolly Says:
It’s a pity our last administration poisoned that well, isn’t it?
In my opinion, that sort of thing would be a poisoned well whether Bush did it or not.
But Dogfather’s post at 46 is an even more important point. It would require a separate executive order for every single outed homosexual in the military who turned up.
June 5th, 2009 at 9:02 pmI couldn’t understand why my homosexual friends would lie to get into the war. Why they would fight for a country that did not recognize them. But I respected them, if I had had to have someone behind my back, I wanted the real volunteer. No one let me down.
June 5th, 2009 at 10:16 pmthank you seslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet sesli chat
June 6th, 2009 at 4:04 am#53 – GRiLL Says:
———————————————————
“thank you seslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet sesli chat”
June 6th, 2009 at 4:04 am Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
#54 – SaSa Says:
——————————————————–
“Tank You
seslisohbet seslichat sesli sohbet sesli chat”
June 6th, 2009 at 7:32 am
Is anyone else sick and tired of these links to foreign personal hook-up sites?
Why does TP take so long to address these posts, even after they’ve been reported as abuse? I’ve seen these links stay up for days before they’re addressed!
June 6th, 2009 at 11:07 amfilm izle
June 6th, 2009 at 3:23 pmonline film izle
sinema izle
film seyret
film
internetten film izle
porno film izle
porno izle
sex izle
porno
porno film
sex
sikis
filim izle
filmler
izlesene
izle
okey
oyna okey
giyim
yazlik giyim
kozmetik
film izle
klip izle
müzik
They should just add “sesli” and “izle” to the wordfilter.
June 7th, 2009 at 6:29 amI knew he would still be wallpapering this thread. I take the Holocaust seriously enough not to wear it out. I am not nor have I ever been anti-semitic. I’m agnostic. Why in the world would I be anti-semitic? The assertion that I would “forget” or approve of any persecution and systematic murder is anti-social.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:54 amSesli Sohbet
June 7th, 2009 at 5:36 pmSesli Chat
Görüntülü chat