Really? Filibustering the defense appropriations act so that we can “study” (read: delay) repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” instead of just repealing it now and accepting the inevitable?
I’ve not known anyone in the military who didn’t know full well who in their unit was gay and not a one of them particularly cared. It’s my distinct impression that if the brass tells the rank and file, “Do not discriminate against gays. That is an order.” then the bulk of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines will follow that order. The military integrated racially long ago and maybe there are still problems here and there but those are handled on a case by case basis.
Let Americans serve, who are able and willing to serve. It matters not if they are male or female; it matters not if they are black, white, brown, or so on; it matters not if they are Christian or Jewish or Atheist; and it matters not if they are gay or straight. All that matters is that they wish to serve the United States of America. Let them serve with honor and let the rest of us honor their service.
Yes, I think it really is as simple as that.
Really? Clogging up the defense appropriations bill with a ton of unrelated, unnecessary, shitty crap that you want to shove down people's throats?You want to pass a repeal of DADT? DO IT AS A STAND-ALONE BILL.You want pass something else, like a stealth-amnesty-by-another-name crapwad? DO IT AS A STAND-ALONE BILL.Don't hold military appropiations hostage to your poison-pill crap. And when you do, don't be surprised when your poison-pill crap gets filibustered and you get to explain why you are trying to hold military funding hostage for your poison pills.
Wow. Usually Mike reserves this sort of venom for Muslims and anyone who fails to agree with the proposition that all 1.1 billion Muslims on the planet should be hunted for sport. This makes me wonder if his true objection to including DADT repeal in the appropriations bill a is purely one of parliamentary procedure.
You posted something particularly venomous.Playing politics with the military is wrong. Plain, simple, to the point. IT IS WRONG.But it's not the party out of power that is doing so. It's the party in-power, who have dishonestly stuffed the defense bill with a dozen or more amendments that usually are considered poison pills in the hopes that they can parlay this into a set of ads and talk show hit pieces about how "republicans hate the military, see, they are filibustering military appropriations."And you fell for it hook, line, and sinker.
Gee, it's not like DADT was initially created in a defense appropriations bill or anything. Wait…
DADT is only a "poison pill" to those who find it poisonous.Nothing stopped the Republicans from passing the appropriations bill – except that they loves them some DADT. If they didn't care, they could have called the Democrats' bluff. It's only holding the bill 'hostage' in the same way Cleavon Little held himself 'hostage' in Blazing Saddles.
Thing is, this won't hurt the Repubs because those in districts where there are enough gay voters and Republicans have a chance of winning, the Repubs can just point to the fact that ~they~ don't use underhanded backroom deals to pass legislation.The public is jaded on the whole process: Ear Marks. Irrelevant Ammendments. Tacking to Must Pass legislation. The whole thing stinks, and We, the People are getting fed up with it. I could run a monkey for congress with the promise that every key unique idea would be it's own bill.It's why "Soandso voted no" is losing traction with people. We don't know what ~else~ was in that bloody bill!
Playing politics with the military is nothing new. War is politics, plain and simple. All war is political in nature. If there are no politics involved, then it is just a fight. Armed conflict does not graduate to the status of war until political objective is introduced. The military is under control of a civilian government, as mandated by the Constitution. So the military is under political control, period.Obama signed into law a bill that allowed carrying firearms in National Parks, precisely because it was attached to another bill. So now I can legally defend myself against grizzly bears and banjo-playing cannibals when I hike in National Parks. Would he have signed it had it not been attached to that other bill? Maybe not. But the point is, it got done. Sometimes, the end justifies the means.