Gay Patriot Header Image

US District Court Upholds “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 10:08 pm - April 24, 2006.
Filed under: Gays In Military

Via Servicemembers Legal Defense Network

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has granted the government’s motion to dismiss in Cook v. Rumsfeld, a constitutional challenge to the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual service members. The decision, from Judge George A. O’Toole Jr., was released on April 24.

Text of full decision can be found here.

Here’s more from the Associated Press:

U.S. District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. on Monday dismissed the suit filed by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, based in Washington, D.C.

“Don’t ask, don’t tell” has been upheld by appeals courts in several other jurisdictions.

In his ruling, O’Toole cited the authority given to Congress in establishing the country’s military policies.

“Deference to Congressional judgment is of even greater importance in a case such as this one where the legislation challenged was enacted pursuant to Congress’ authority over the national military forces,” O’Toole wrote.

“In Congress, there were hearings by committees of both Houses at which the arguments for and against the policy were aired and debated. The resulting legislation was the end product of a focused process of debate and deliberation.”

One of the reasons the service members filed the lawsuit in Boston is because the appeals court here — the 1st Circuit — has never been asked to rule in a case involving the policy. Steven Ralls, a spokesman for the servicemembers network, said they would likely appeal the ruling, although a final decision has not yet been made.

“We’re obviously disappointed in the court’s decision,” said Ralls.

Obviously this is a significant setback to overturn this Clinton-era policy. There is legislation slowly gaining traction in Congress to overturn the ban. To pass, that would require Republican votes. To secure Republican votes, that would require a Republican gay organization that has some clout on Capitol Hill. It might also be nice to have traditionally Democrat gay organizations (HRC, NGLTF, Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund) actually put some skin in the game and (*gasp*) meet and donate to Republicans on this issue. But alas, the fight for gay marriage and the ignoring of political reality trumps all in our community.

But hey, at least the SLDN had actual names of plantiffs in their lawsuit, unlike the early public relations ejaculators over at Log Cabin.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

86 Comments

  1. Changing the policy through the legislature would seem to be better, in the long run, than having it declared unconstitutional, even if that would be faster.

    I think it will be a harder sell than the actual difficulties of integrating openly serving gays would warrant. Even people committed to equality are likely to be swayed by “shower” concerns.

    I think that when it happens it will definately be a case of, “what was all the fuss about?”

    Comment by Synova — April 24, 2006 @ 11:13 pm - April 24, 2006

  2. I knew the moment I started reading this post that somehow Bruce would manage to get in a dig against the Log Cabin Republicans. And, of course, he didn’t disappoint me. So petty.

    Comment by Trace Phelps — April 24, 2006 @ 11:56 pm - April 24, 2006

  3. I think the gay community – and most of the left generally – have lost site of the idea of democracy. The glitterati on the left coast are so used to looking down on the “fly over country” and the people that live there they can’t imagine trying to convince anyone their position is right – anyone aside from a judge that is.

    I guess it was a real shock to them that all these marriage amendments passed (and not all in red states either). But it shouldn’t have been.

    They don’t have a plan outside of “sue” to deal with DADT because they don’t have plan outside of “sue” for anything. In terms of actually lobbying to get laws passed, and lobbying both sides of the isle, they wouldn’t know how to get started.

    As for bringing any message to heartland, the gay, lesbian, bi, transgendered community has nothing but contempt for the heartland. And it shows.

    Comment by Zendo Deb — April 25, 2006 @ 1:36 am - April 25, 2006

  4. Introducing America and San Francisco.

    Comment by rightwingprof — April 25, 2006 @ 8:40 am - April 25, 2006

  5. I stand corrected people on the right do have a sense of humor. :) While legal remedies tend to annoy some people as being a forced solution, it is a distinction without a difference if one also believe that a legislative change is a forced change.

    Not sure I would agree with the courts, I could be mistaken but at the time the legislation was written, it was basically based on the premise that gay, lesbian, or bi will present a threat or make the so called straight members uncomfortable. (I find the use of the term homosexual in the directive curious as I am sure it was meant in the DSM defined manner.) That the serving of gays and lesbians would not just threaten the culture of the Armed Forces, but also find each member a possible mate, is plain folly. I believe similar arguments were used to keep women from serving.

    I don’t know I think the courts should grow some nuts.

    Comment by ralph — April 25, 2006 @ 8:46 am - April 25, 2006

  6. Bruce, good post –again. Since Nick’s posts on this subject –as well as comments by people like Calarato and Gramps– and engaging three good friends of mine in further discussion who are in or just recently out of the service, I’ve come to support a repeal of DADTDH –a legislative repeal.

    You’re 100% right –until the radical elements in our community step aside and let the better choice of a moderate, pro-GOP voice speak for this cause, it ain’t going nowhere. And that isn’t the LCR.

    Like with a lot of issues, the silent majority of gays have allowed the GayLeft radicals to speak without tempering, dominate the debate, injure our community’s reputation and have failed to achieve meaningful reform… instead, they’ve alienated the very power centers we need to find common ground with in order to secure success.

    You’re right; this isn’t going to be an issue “won” in litigation ala the enviro-radicals or the ACLU type strategies of the past. We need to build a solid base in the Congress and that isn’t happening as long as we’re all identified by the voices on the GayLeft.

    Thanks for a good post.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 25, 2006 @ 9:30 am - April 25, 2006

  7. it is a distinction without a difference

    No, it is not. One is Constitutionally warranted; the other is not.

    Comment by rightwingprof — April 25, 2006 @ 11:08 am - April 25, 2006

  8. Clinton era bill that was passed by a republican controlled house and senate, i know you just forgot to mention that, glad to help!

    Comment by Robert Bayn — April 25, 2006 @ 11:21 am - April 25, 2006

  9. Clinton era bill that was passed by a republican controlled house and senate, i know you just forgot to mention that, glad to help!

    Actually, Republicans did not take control of Congress until the 1994 election cycle.

    DADT, as I recall, was passed in 1993.

    Tell me, Robert; why do you and yours have so much trouble admitting that Clinton and the Democratic Party lied to you and enacted legislation stripping you of rights?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2006 @ 12:43 pm - April 25, 2006

  10. NDXXX, NDXXX…ooooh, let me answer, let me answer for RobertBayn!

    Robert would intone with a grave voice: “It’s because to admit that would undercut the Democrat Party’s near monoplistic hold over the GayLeft, her voice and its agenda? And if the GayLeft leaves the Democrat Plantation, the event might cause other “stakeholders” (read “slaves”) in the Party to question the utility of being a Democrat grass root regular?”

    Kind of like when one speaks about which political party has been the most supportive of gay issues, the GayLeft doesn’t want anything to detract from the mantra of “We R Family… talking ’bout my Demmies and me…”

    I know, don’t quit my day job. But it was fun.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 25, 2006 @ 12:56 pm - April 25, 2006

  11. Don’t ask don’t tell really did not strip gays of rights, rather it was a issue of protection for gays from homophobes that the military is full of.

    But to answer your question, i have no problem with admitting the left is not always gay friendly, but how come your guys on right don’t admit to the same about the right, and it’s constant attacks on gays?

    Comment by Robert Bayn — April 25, 2006 @ 12:59 pm - April 25, 2006

  12. What exactly are you commenting on here Bruce? The lawsuit? Or is this just another of your tired tirades against LCR and HRC? I don’t belong to either organization, nor do I approve of many of their actions, but I don’t need to be in a constant state of drama-queen hysterics about them as you seem to.

    And why the back-handed “compliment” -AKA smear of SLDN?

    But hey, at least the SLDN had actual names of plaintiffs in their lawsuit

    I notice that you don’t make any mention of their honoring Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL) at this years national dinner.

    But I guess that wouldn’t fit in with your usual stereotyping of all gay organizations as “Liberal”, so you had to throw that inconvenient fact out.

    SLDN is doing a lot of things you should be giving them credit for. You might not like the lawsuit, but they are also the ones responsible for the pending legislation to repeal DADT, which is another thing you leave out. Their education and PR campaigns have also been effective.

    Fortunately you are posting in the Blogosphere where people such as myself can check your facts and attempt to keep you honest. And fix your spelling errors.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — April 25, 2006 @ 1:04 pm - April 25, 2006

  13. Actually, Republicans did not take control of Congress until the 1994 election cycle.

    DADT, as I recall, was passed in 1993.

    Tell me, Robert; why do you and yours have so much trouble admitting that Clinton and the Democratic Party lied to you and enacted legislation stripping you of rights?

    Actually, the question is or should be how it is that liberals seem to understand the separation of powers when it suits their purposes (though as here, it’s usually off base), but suddenly forget all about the separation of powers when it suits their purposes — like when they try to claim Reagan was a big spender and conveniently forget that Congress controls the purse strings, not the President, or back the castration of the executive branch to the legislative, or complain about “Bush’s” economy, instead of Congress’s economy?

    It’s selective amnesia.

    it was a issue of protection for gays from homophobes that the military is full of.

    You don’t know many soldiers or Marines, do you, bed-wetter.

    SLDN is doing a lot of things you should be giving them credit for. You might not like the lawsuit, but they are also the ones responsible for the pending legislation to repeal DADT, which is another thing you leave out. Their education and PR campaigns have also been effective.

    That’s all very commendable, provided that lifing DADT isn’t yet another mechanism for pussifying the military, as expanding women’s service was.

    Fortunately you are posting in the Blogosphere where people such as myself can check your facts and attempt to keep you honest.

    You wouldn’t know a fact if it walked up to you and kicked you in the ass.

    Comment by rightwingprof — April 25, 2006 @ 2:16 pm - April 25, 2006

  14. Gramps, SLDN’s “…education and PR campaigns have also been effective… they are also the ones responsible for the pending legislation to repeal DADT.” Further “Fortunately you are posting in the Blogosphere where people such as myself (sic) can check your facts and attempt to keep you honest.” OK Gramps, I knew if Bruce even gave a backhanded compliment to the worshiped altar of the SLDN, you’d be in their taking issue with it. Let’s do a quick recap of the SLDN’s “effectiveness” shall we?

    US v Marcum 2oo4 Fed Ct of Appeals strikes down SLDN’s effort to get sodomy restrictions removed from the Military Code. LOST.

    2oo5 effort to get NCIS and others to drop alleged surveillance of gay bars in DC? FAILED.

    Cook v Rumsfeld 2oo6, in US District Ct in Massachusetts (it’s even worse that the case was brought in Massachusetts and they couldn’t win even in that state of pro-gayishness) grants govt motion to dismiss legal challenge to DADTDH. LOST

    2oo6 effort to get Nat’l Security Agency to reverse new rules removing “gay” from actionable condition prohibition on security clearance. LOST

    Hmmm; I’ll grant you it isn’t over till the big Court sings, but that’s not a good track record for any advocacy group. Could it be the quality of legal representation? Maybe.

    But the “partners” in litigation and the SLDN’s association with groups like the NAACP’s LDF, the ACLU, Lambda Legal and others won’t help when that legislative remedy is finally pursued in earnest –hell, that’s going to be a black mark we need to purge. Nor will the fawning attention of GayLeft media outlets like Advocate, 365Gay, Queery.com
    or others.

    I don’t know, Gramps, I’d say the SLDN has NOT been effective.

    A wise man once wrote: “Fortunately you are posting in the Blogosphere where people such as myself (sic) can check your facts and attempt to keep you honest.”

    That was you, Gramps. Just trying to keep you honest and out of the SLDN spin machine. And please, no 7,200+ soldiers helped by SLDN rebuttals, ok

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 25, 2006 @ 2:29 pm - April 25, 2006

  15. Don’t ask don’t tell really did not strip gays of rights, rather it was a issue of protection for gays from homophobes that the military is full of.

    Then if it does not deprive gays of rights, there’s no reason to oppose it.

    But to answer your question, i have no problem with admitting the left is not always gay friendly, but how come your guys on right don’t admit to the same about the right, and it’s constant attacks on gays?

    Would you read them if we did?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2006 @ 2:46 pm - April 25, 2006

  16. Of course i will, and thank you for the link.

    Comment by Robert Bayn — April 25, 2006 @ 2:48 pm - April 25, 2006

  17. That’s all very commendable, provided that lifing DADT isn’t yet another mechanism for pussifying the military, as expanding women’s service was.

    I’m with you 100% on this. I very much want DADT to be lifted, but do NOT want to see this followed by more lowering of standards or PC “sensitivity” bullshit. Let gays serve openly, make them subject to the same standards as straights, and just leave them the hell alone. You cannot legislate away people’s attitudes away, the best you can do a provide a foot in the door and let things develop from there. As for women in the service, I don’t have a problem with it but when I was in it was grating to me that they were not subject to the same physical standards as I was. That is not equal.

    Comment by Average Gay Joe — April 25, 2006 @ 2:48 pm - April 25, 2006

  18. ed. “you’d be in their taking issue with it” was “you’d be in their corner and taking issue with it”.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 25, 2006 @ 2:49 pm - April 25, 2006

  19. Ummm, to pass, the legislation will need Congressional leadership that is willing to schedule a vote on it. And as long as evangelical Christians are considered ‘the base’ of the Republican Party, you can forget about the GOP leadership doing it. You can’t alienate the base.

    Comment by Erik — April 25, 2006 @ 3:15 pm - April 25, 2006

  20. I’d further like to add, you guys are always quick to point out that DADT was a Clinton Administration policy, like President Clinton was the one who instrumented the ban on gays in the military. That is, of course, somewhat deceptive. He campaigned in 1992 on overturning the ban on gays in the military altogether and that is what he sought to do, almost immediately after he took office. However, the southern Democrats in his party wouldn’t vote for it and there weren’t enough Republican votes to pick up the slack and it didn’t have the votes to pass. So they went for a compromise measure which sought to ban the military from asking a soldier if he was gay. Since prior to 1993, the military asked all recruits if they were gay prior to joining. It wasn’t that great a deal, but it was something, instead of nothing. And simply, once the Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994, which many people say was a result of the push to overturn the ban on gays in the military, any chance of Clinton being able to persuade Congress to overturn the ban later in his presidency vanished. With a hostile, conservative Congress, that was out of the question. Lastly, since 1995, the Republican leadership has taken no action on any legislation pertaining to the overturn of the ban on gays in the military.

    Comment by Erik — April 25, 2006 @ 3:32 pm - April 25, 2006

  21. I’d further like to add, you guys are always quick to point out that DADT was a Clinton Administration policy, like President Clinton was the one who instrumented the ban on gays in the military.

    I’m sorry; whose signature is on the bill?

    Furthermore, who refused to veto it?

    Finally, who had promised gays, in exchange for undying support and millions of dollars, that he would automatically veto and never sign any legislation that was antigay?

    I know it’s hard to admit that you and your fellow liberal gays threw millions of dollars away on a lying con man, Erik. But doing so is the first step in your return to sanity, and will prevent you from wasting further tens of millions on people you would define as hateful and homophobic if they weren’t Democrats, especially FMA supporters.

    The one thing the Democrats fear the most are minorities with spines; that’s why they hire blacks to throw oreos and call black conservatives “Uncle Toms” and “house niggers”, and it’s why they pay “gay activists” like HRC and others to shill for them and harass gay conservatives and call them “self-loathing”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 25, 2006 @ 4:09 pm - April 25, 2006

  22. Erik writes “…as long as evangelical Christians are considered ‘the base’ of the Republican Party…” no vote on repealing DADT will occur.

    You know, Erik, the only ones who continue to foist that “E-CHristians are the GOP’s base” are GayLefties and radical Democrats seeking to discredit all GOPers.

    Like Christy Todd Whitman offers, the true base of the Party are small govt, anti-tax, prudent regulation, freedom actualized, pro-military, taxpaying voter-citizens legally in this country.

    You and the balance of the GayLeft may not like it –nor will GOPers who worship at the altar of the fundamentalist Right– but that’s a better description of the GOP base.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 25, 2006 @ 4:30 pm - April 25, 2006

  23. NDXXX writes “The one thing the Democrats fear the most are minorities with spines; that’s why they hire blacks to throw oreos and call black conservatives “Uncle Toms” and “house niggers”, and it’s why they pay “gay activists” like HRC and others to shill for them and harass gay conservatives and call them “self-loathing”.”

    You nailed it to the wall, NDXXX; damn. Nothing works as well as the GayLeft’s intimidation of conservative and moderate gays to stay silent in the face of a losing, impotent, political agenda on the part of the GayLeft. When threatened, they intimidate with the self-loathing taunt or the conservative gays/Bush/GOP parallel with Jews/Hitler/Nazi.

    Even some of the better GayLeft commentators here have done that in the recent past –no need to rush over to BlogActive to find that kind of ranting intimidation.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 25, 2006 @ 4:36 pm - April 25, 2006

  24. He campaigned in 1992 on overturning the ban on gays in the military altogether and that is what he sought to do

    He could have issued an executive order and done it; that’s how the military was de-segregated. He didn’t, because he really didn’t care, as long as it got him the votes to get elected. Clinton has no principles, which is why he governed by the polls. He saw the polls, and ran with his tail between his legs the other way. He not only signed the bill; he refused to veto the bill.

    Get your facts straight, liberal.

    Comment by rightwingprof — April 25, 2006 @ 6:21 pm - April 25, 2006

  25. “Obviously this is a significant setback to overturn this Clinton-era policy”

    Keep in mind that every time Bush mentions DADT, he always commends Colin Powell for putting it together.

    Comment by Kevin — April 25, 2006 @ 8:51 pm - April 25, 2006

  26. NDT:

    I know it’s hard to admit that you and your fellow liberal gays threw millions of dollars away on a lying con man, Erik. But doing so is the first step in your return to sanity, and will prevent you from wasting further tens of millions on people you would define as hateful and homophobic if they weren’t Democrats, especially FMA supporters.

    Well, I agree. And furthermore:

    I know it’s hard to admit that you and your fellow conservative gays threw millions of dollars away on a lying con man, NDT. But doing so is the first step in your return to sanity, and will prevent you from wasting further tens of millions on people you would define as hateful and homophobic if they weren’t Republicans, especially FMA supporters.

    It seems to me that we are completely screwed no matter what Party holds power. Feel free to loathe Clinton as much as you want NDT, but that doesn’t mean that Bush is better. He is just bad in different ways. The only thing they have in common is that they both want my money.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — April 25, 2006 @ 9:01 pm - April 25, 2006

  27. I so very much wish I had the peace of mind, clarity of vision, and depth of wisdom that this north dallas guy has. It blows my mind…

    Love,
    the Slutty Whore

    Comment by jimmy — April 25, 2006 @ 9:09 pm - April 25, 2006

  28. I was kicked out of the military for being gay and was arrested by the MP for the crime of Homosexuality. I understand how the military works, and to you all who think that Clinton was a great guy – he sucked. He was the commander and chief of the military, all he had to do was sign a piece of paper ending the ban but he didn’t and then he took the time to sign the defense of marriage act. And yet our people still support him, why? I really want to know, someone please tell me. I know this has already been mentioned but if anyone would like to see my arrest record for this crime I will show it to you.

    Comment by Mike — April 25, 2006 @ 9:19 pm - April 25, 2006

  29. I know it’s hard to admit that you and your fellow conservative gays threw millions of dollars away on a lying con man, NDT.

    The only problem is, Gryph….we didn’t.

    I didn’t give Bush any money.

    Log Cabin didn’t give Bush any money.

    I gave him my vote, but I hardly minced words on the matter.

    However, HRC, NGLTF, and virtually every other group gave the Kerry campaign tens of millions of dollars — dollars that could have been spent on resisting the very state initiatives that the Kerry campaign endorsed and praised with those gay dollars.

    The ultimate was their calling Kerry “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” for views that they would call homophobic and hateful in anyone else.

    I fail to see your point.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 26, 2006 @ 1:04 am - April 26, 2006

  30. As someone who served in the USN honorably for six years, this is really a bummer. You all should be really pissed about this. (yes, most of the SLDN members/staffers are liberal, but its a good organization that many, MANY active duty military people turn to when dealing with DADT legal issues). Many of our GLBT service members are harrassed to the extreme, and are so ardently pursued in ‘witch hunts,’ that many break down. Some even commit suicide, or try to.

    I agree with one of the previous posts that the best chance for this policy to be overturned will be legislation, rather than in the courts…. But if we continue to fight this arcane, prejudicial, and exPENsive policy buy chipping away at it from both sides, eventually, we’ll get it repealed (it may not be in my lifetime, but some day……)

    Comment by ndtovent — April 26, 2006 @ 8:14 am - April 26, 2006

  31. “I so very much wish I had the peace of mind, clarity of vision, and depth of wisdom that this north dallas guy has. It blows my mind…”

    Yes, it must be wonderful to be NDT. And, he’s NEVER EVER wrong about anything. Golly!

    Comment by hank — April 26, 2006 @ 9:58 am - April 26, 2006

  32. He was the commander and chief of the military, all he had to do was sign a piece of paper ending the ban but he didn’t

    Exactly correct. And he didn’t because he had neither the principles nor the guts to do so. Contrast Clinton with Bush, who stand up for what he believes is right, no matter what the polls say. Principles and guts.

    Comment by rightwingprof — April 26, 2006 @ 10:29 am - April 26, 2006

  33. Yeah, hank. – Jealous much?

    Comment by Calarato — April 26, 2006 @ 11:20 am - April 26, 2006

  34. Many of our GLBT service members are harrassed to the extreme, and are so ardently pursued in ‘witch hunts,’ that many break down. Some even commit suicide, or try to.

    You know, it’s really, really hard for me to express sympathy for these people when gay liberals like SLDN and others sponsor witch hunts of their own for gay conservatives.

    Since I’ve seen gay conservatives like GP harassed by paid political operatives of gay rights groups as I’ve outlined before, including illegally obtaining private information, trying to get him fired from his job, and making threats against his friends and family, my sympathy is pretty well nonexistent for these people.

    Since outing is a tactic that the gay community, including SLDN, not only endorses, but tries to inflict on others regularly, their sob stories about how awful it is — especially when they argue how it isn’t hard on people when THEY do it — just fall completely flat with me.

    And I will gladly make that argument; as long as the “gay community” and groups like SLDN endorse and support outing, they haven’t a leg to stand on in terms of DADT.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 26, 2006 @ 12:40 pm - April 26, 2006

  35. RightWingProff responds to something Mike wrote:

    [Mike]

    He was the commander and chief of the military, all he had to do was sign a piece of paper ending the ban but he didn’t

    [RWP]
    Exactly correct. And he didn’t because he had neither the principles nor the guts to do so. Contrast Clinton with Bush, who stand up for what he believes is right, no matter what the polls say. Principles and guts.

    Mike, I think you are misinformed on this issue. I know it is one that you are personally affected by, but it just wasn’t that simple. And thank you for your service.

    ___________

    RightWingProff of course continues his love of being deliberately ignorant. Prior to DADT, “No gays in the military”, was an administrative policy and thus could be recalled at any time. So yeah, with a “stroke” of a pen, it could have been done. And Clinton was prepared to do exactly that.

    However, he faced rebellion from Colin Powell, who threatened to leave the Administration over the issue, and a number of other high-ranking Generals, etc. They also went behind the back of their CIF to Congress and raised a fuss. I didn’t hear about any complaints from the GOP about that, although today when retired Generals come forward on political issue, they get castigated by the Right. (And correctly so, incidentally).

    And you might want to think about what the actions of Colin Powell and those other Generals did, in souring the relationship between them and their CIF so early into Clinton’s Presidency. If he hadn’t been anti-military before, Clinton certainly would have become so afterward. Instead those Generals confirmed every Liberal stereotype of the military out there. So yeah, for the rest of his Presidency, Clinton tried to screw the military whenever possible.

    Congress became involved primarily because of Conservative Democrats like Sam Nunn, and also because of the GOP minority, which unlike today’s Democratic minority was much, much larger and had a great deal of influence because no legislation of any kind could be passed without at least some of their members support. And the GOP, stung from their fresh election loss of the Presidency, wanted, among other things, simple revenge, and sought to humiliate a Democratic President as quickly as possible. Any Democratic President would have faced the same situation, not just Clinton.

    So Congress did what Congress does, create legislation, and the prior anti-gay administrative policy became law.

    Yes, Clinton could have vetoed it, but he would have had to veto the entire military budget at the same time. If he had done that, you would be here today criticizing him for not being supportive of the military and for being beholden to special interest groups. Oh wait – you do that anyway, so I guess he should have vetoed it.

    So no, Clinton could not have solved it with “a stroke of a pen”. The best he could do, was implement a new Administrative policy that forbid asking recruits what their sexual orientation was, unless there was a “reasonable” suspicion that the person was gay. And BTW, in the present day, “reasonable” has often been interpreted to mean “anonymous rumor”.

    Clinton could not have lifted DADT without breaking the law.

    So, “rightwingproff”, you criticize Clinton for not ignoring the law, and of course many times in th past you and others have gone out of your way to defend Bush for breaking the law today on torture, rendition and many other issues.

    I hope that “rightwingproff” doesn’t stand for “Professor”, because if it does, for an educated man you apparently have an appalling lack of comprehension as to what the difference is between a President, and what a King actually does. A President upholds the law, a King creates it or ignores it.

    Perhaps that confusion is why you are so happy King George is in power, rather than a President who is more respectful and humble in his office.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — April 26, 2006 @ 1:11 pm - April 26, 2006

  36. How do you get that HRC is a “democratic” organization? Yes, they give more money to democrats – probably because democrats have generally (not universally) much better records on gay issues. But people like Lincoln Chaffee and Christopher Shays (just to pick two off the top of my head) come to mind as Republicans they’ve supported.

    Can you name some pro-gay Republicans they’ve overlooked? Particularly, in cases where their opponents weren’t better on gay issues?

    Comment by John — April 26, 2006 @ 1:27 pm - April 26, 2006

  37. Simple, John.

    When was the last time you heard HRC call a Democrat who supported stripping gays of rights “hateful”, “homophobic”, and “evil”?

    Are you even aware of the fact that HRC’s litmus test for candidates was specifically changed so that they could better support and endorse Democrats?

    Put this in your pipe and smoke it:

    HRC can and does endorse and give millions of dollars in time and support to candidates who support antigay state constitutional amendments and legislation.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 26, 2006 @ 1:40 pm - April 26, 2006

  38. Yes, Clinton could have vetoed it, but he would have had to veto the entire military budget at the same time.

    Funny, Clinton had no problem vetoing budgets any time else in his Presidency. Nor does it make any sense that such an avowed hater of the military like him would miss a chance to stick it to his insubordinate Generals.

    I think, instead of spinning elaborate yarns, Gryph, you would do better to admit that Clinton was a hater and a homophobe. It certainly explains his later support of DOMA and his championing of both DADT and DOMA as “protecting American values”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 26, 2006 @ 1:49 pm - April 26, 2006

  39. Congress took up the issue solely because of Clinton’s campaign. He could easily have issued an executive order but he did not, because he has no principles, and he has no balls. After all, despite the fact that Clinton campaigned on welare reform, he vetoed the bill, because he had no intention of doing any such thing. He used it to get elected.

    Clinton, and only Clinton, is responsible for DADT.

    Comment by rightwingprof — April 26, 2006 @ 2:23 pm - April 26, 2006

  40. #34 – So, groups like SLDN complain about persecution, outing and witchhunts, yet they (or their cocktail-party cohorts?) themselves practice in persecution, outing and witchhunts?

    Hmmm. Makes sense. (As a reason to dislike them, I mean.)

    Comment by Calarato — April 26, 2006 @ 2:57 pm - April 26, 2006

  41. It is a shame, really, that what we’ve got now is a situation where homosexuals can serve with various degrees of openess depending on just being lucky enough to serve with people who just happen not to care, are willing to pretend they don’t know, and happen to like you and the job you do… which could all disappear the very next time you change units or someone new is transfered in.

    Comment by Synova — April 26, 2006 @ 5:07 pm - April 26, 2006

  42. Gramps at #35 spins a yarn without even touching the spindle or connecting a single knot… that was some yarn about Clinton, DADTDH and, in the end, jsut an anti-Bush hate rant.

    Is it old yarn? Because it’s all vintage Gramps.

    The part that actually made me laugh out loud: “…(Clinton) faced rebellion from Colin Powell” if he had vetoed the DADT provision. That’s the old saw used by radical GayLeft apologists for anti-gay wimpery of Clinton — like Clinton really liked gays but Gen Powell was just too strong a force to overcome. It’s all Powell’s fault; he’s a GOPer you know; damn Republicans!

    Right Gramps, right. Keep the rocker handy ’cause you’re losing your sanity faster than the wheels on your walker can rotate. SLDN advocate and a Clinton apologist; good God.

    RWP is right again; Clinton had no intention of extending civil rights to gays in the military or in society –like his chief flunky and apologist supreme (no, it’s not Gryph) once said: “We kept all the (campaign) promises we intended to keep.” –George Stephanopolus.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 26, 2006 @ 5:21 pm - April 26, 2006

  43. #38 North Dallas Thirty — April 26, 2006 @ 1:49 pm – April 26, 2006

    Clinton was and remains what we Southerners refer to as a snake-oil salesman. I never believed a word he said, and so I wasn’t disappointed by him.

    Apparently, Andrew Sullivan did believe what he said, and was disappointed by him. If you can find a copy of it, Sully published an article in the Advocate in one of their Oct 1998 issues named Sex, Lies & Us. Probably one of the best things that Sully ever wrote.

    Comment by raj — April 26, 2006 @ 5:29 pm - April 26, 2006

  44. #34 “You know, it’s really, really hard for me to express sympathy for these people when gay liberals like SLDN and others sponsor witch hunts of their own for gay conservatives.”

    If you mean no sympathy for active duty service members suffering while experiencing witch hunts and legal ramifications of DADT, then you’re much sicker than I thought from reading previous posts. Just remember that many of these people (in addition to dealing with DADT bs) are laying there lives on the line in the new ‘vietnam’ and afghanistan to ensure that your arrogant, ignorant ass can rant, rave, and wail to anyone who doesn’t support your views. If you mean ‘sympathy’ for SLDN and/or some of its members, ok, I can understand that, and apologies for the above (didn’t quite understand from the post which group you were referring to).

    …And I realize that there are individuals, and a couple of organizations who’s main purpose is outing (which I DON’T support, btw), but SLDN is not one of them. Since when have they conducted “outing” campaignes? I’ve never heard, seen, or read that about SLDN doing that. Now, if a few of their members or donors are doing it as individuals, that’s not the fault of the organization.

    Comment by ndtovent — April 26, 2006 @ 5:31 pm - April 26, 2006

  45. #42 – ““…(Clinton) faced rebellion from Colin Powell” if he had vetoed the DADT provision…”

    Yeah, and what about, like, that civilian-control-over-the-military thing we have in the States?

    Ooops, I forgot… Liberals are characteristically unclear on that one. They think generals should be able to veto anything – veto a Presidential desegregation order, veto a President-appointed Secretary of Defense, etc… And disaster relief (Katrina) should of course be totally federalized / militarized. And we know how (some) left-liberals loved Saddam Hussein, or at least wanted to defend Saddam’s “right” to stay in power.

    It’s that whole love-hate thing they have going on with the military. Really, a fear-hate thing. Most left-liberals truly hate the military – but also fear it, and hence, in an hypnotized S-M way, are downright attracted to strong dictators and generals. (Castro, Mao, Napoleon…)

    Comment by Calarato — April 26, 2006 @ 7:32 pm - April 26, 2006

  46. If you mean ’sympathy’ for SLDN and/or some of its members, ok, I can understand that, and apologies for the above (didn’t quite understand from the post which group you were referring to).

    Yup.

    I unequivocally oppose outing, and that includes the military doing it as well.

    But SLDN, the Democratic Party, and gay liberals openly promote and support outing and harassment of gays who don’t toe the plantation line.

    That’s why I think they are worse than hypocrites. What they claim to be “defending” others against, they indulge in themselves.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 26, 2006 @ 7:52 pm - April 26, 2006

  47. Bingo NDXXX; you nailed it again.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 26, 2006 @ 8:08 pm - April 26, 2006

  48. NDT mindlessly screams:

    But SLDN, the Democratic Party, and gay liberals openly promote and support outing and harassment of gays who don’t toe the plantation line.

    That’s why I think they are worse than hypocrites. What they claim to be “defending” others against, they indulge in themselves.

    NDT, if you have the slightest shred of evidence that SLDN has ever participated in or approved of “outing” or harassment campaigns then bring it forward and prove it now.

    I suspect you don’t even have a clue as to what their actual day-to-day work is, which is primarily just legal counseling and referrals.

    Your accusations are baseless, underhanded, disgusting and hurtful. -Not to me, but to the people and volunteers at SLDN who I know believe very much in what they are doing and work very, very, hard to do the best they can to help others injured by DADT.

    And unless you can prove your nasty filthy slander, then I demand you apologize!

    Again, not to me, to but the folks at SLDN who day in and day out help others deal with the real-life consequences of DADT, while the only thing you can think of to do is to sit on your ever-widening ass (and I’ve seen the pictures that prove it) and criticize someone else when you don’t know jack shit about what you are talking about.

    Congratulations, its time to move you to my “Tin-Foil Hat Wearing” blog-roll. Apparently being a conservative living in San Francisco has driven you fucking insane.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — April 26, 2006 @ 8:43 pm - April 26, 2006

  49. Keep raising that volume, Gryph (while accusing others of “screaming”). That’ll save your credibility.

    Comment by Calarato — April 26, 2006 @ 9:27 pm - April 26, 2006

  50. North Dallas Thirty,

    DADT did not effect the military’s standing ban on gays in the military. What it did effect was how the military could enforce that ban; Mainly, whether they could ask, as a matter of standard routine, if someone was gay. For 1993, that was a step in the right direction since it muted the ability of the military to conduct anti-gay witchunts. But now, 13 years after that bill was signed by President Clinton, it is time to take the next step and eliminate the ban altogether.

    Likewise, I didn’t waste any money on supporting President Clinton and scarcely even remember his push to overturn the ban on gays in the military, as I was not of voting age during either of his presidental campaigns.

    For someone who is obviously younger than you, I surprisngly can see a lot more nuance than you do. Everything isn’t black and white. The world is full of color.

    Comment by Erik — April 26, 2006 @ 10:42 pm - April 26, 2006

  51. rightwingprof,

    President Clinton was unable to sign an executive order repealing the ban on gays in the military because before before President-elect Clinton had taken office a six-month moratorium on any changes in the military’s policy was enacted by Congress (the Family and Medical Leave Act). That is what prevented Clinton from signing an executive order to eliminate the ban, as promised during his campaign. And yes, a Democrat, Sam Nunn of Georgia, was to blame for that.

    Comment by Erik — April 26, 2006 @ 11:28 pm - April 26, 2006

  52. #39 — I hope rightwingprof doesn’t teach history since he has such a hard time telling the difference between reality and his far, far right view of the world.

    On second thought, I’d like to know where he teaches so I can make damn sure my children don’t enroll there.

    Comment by Trace Phelps — April 26, 2006 @ 11:34 pm - April 26, 2006

  53. North Dallas 30: got any sources? Putting things in italics doesn’t really help verify much of anything.

    Comment by John — April 27, 2006 @ 1:24 am - April 27, 2006

  54. Your accusations are baseless, underhanded, disgusting and hurtful.

    Actually, Gryph, you forgot something — “truthful”.

    I’m not naive enough to believe that you would believe my sources were I to air them in the first place; furthermore, I don’t particularly want them to lose their jobs. I’ll simply say that not everyone at SLDN is particularly wild about their organization’s tactics and who they are paying to do their dirty work.

    Not to me, but to the people and volunteers at SLDN who I know believe very much in what they are doing and work very, very, hard to do the best they can to help others injured by DADT.

    And you would be amazed at how much money and time they spend to try to deliberately injure others.

    I can understand their frustration and anger; after all, they listen to some very bad stories. But at the same time, that hardly excuses their actions.

    You might want to lose some of that innocence, Gryph; they’re definitely taking advantage of it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 27, 2006 @ 1:34 am - April 27, 2006

  55. It is quite simple Clinton capitulated; he could have signed an executive order, end of story. Had he been President in the early 60′s African-Americans would still be paying a poll tax. He probably did the math and the greatest numbr of people arguing to be open were not in the military and were not going to serve and those who wanted to serve would serve anyway. I could let the legislation go through Congress, keep my hands off the whole sordid mess. To those who say we did not go far enough, we can use the small steps arguments from the Civil Rights era. Come 1996, when people start riding my ass about it, I can say it was Congressional legislation.

    I suppose he figured that the middle of the road people were not ready for an executive order and would place in peril any re-election bid.

    Comment by ralph — April 27, 2006 @ 4:56 am - April 27, 2006

  56. Gramps writes “And unless you can prove your nasty filthy slander, then I demand you apologize!”

    LOL. Petulant isn’t compelling anymore than pedantic; adjust the volume Gramps.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 27, 2006 @ 9:07 am - April 27, 2006

  57. NDT says:

    I’m not naive enough to believe that you would believe my sources were I to air them in the first place; furthermore, I don’t particularly want them to lose their jobs. I’ll simply say that not everyone at SLDN is particularly wild about their organization’s tactics and who they are paying to do their dirty work….

    And you would be amazed at how much money and time they spend to try to deliberately injure others.

    Once again, simply prove your accusations. Why is that such a difficult thing to do? Did you mouth off in a fit of blind partisan rage and are to prideful to admit it? I’ve admitted in the past when I have made mistakes. You seem incapable doing so.

    You screwed up NDT. Your mouth got away from you and now you can’t back up your cheesy overblown rhetoric with any actual facts.

    I am not “innocent” I’m well aware that the majority of SLDN’s people are probably rather liberal in thinking and outcome. And I have seen criticisms from others about SLDN taking a too liberal stance on a particular issue. I have never however heard of anyone accusing or complaining about SLDN conducting an “outing campaign”, which is an entirely different scale of offense.

    Again, provide proof. Or admit you don’t really have any and made a more or less baseless allegation. Maybe you have talked to a disgruntled person about the group, but you don’t really know anything, do you? But for you to just shut up about the subject isn’t good enough, the accusation you have made is too serious.

    You are worse than those doing those outing campaigns NDT. You want everyone to tar and feather SLDN just on the basis of your personal prejudices and innuendo about the group being “liberal”, without backing it up with any facts.

    In other words, what you are trying to start is a “rumor campaign”. That should be a familiar phrase to you, and not for good reasons.

    Is this really the way you want to convince others that you are “right”?

    If you come forward with real and verifiable proof that SLDN conducts “outing” campaigns, I will admit I am wrong and I will cease giving any money to the group.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — April 27, 2006 @ 10:52 am - April 27, 2006

  58. Patrick, you might as well try and have a conversation with a pile of rocks.
    “Worse than senseless things.”

    Comment by hank — April 27, 2006 @ 11:43 am - April 27, 2006

  59. Once again, simply prove your accusations. Why is that such a difficult thing to do?

    (sigh) Gryph, I already TOLD you why:

    1) You obviously won’t believe them

    2) There is a strong risk that people would be fired and, to use your colorful prose, “tarred and feathered” for blowing the whistle on matters.

    What has happened is best described as “overzealousness”, as in SLDN decided to try applying “leverage” on certain individuals. Unfortunately, what they chose to do fell well into the range of “extortion” and “blackmail”. One of the planners must have seen too many spy movies, because part of it was creating staged photos with men in compromising sexual positions — just like the Soviets allegedly used to do with married men and women, under threat of “do as we say or we show this to your spouse”.

    In short, they tried a retaliatory campaign — investigate someone for being gay and we’ll give them what they need to finger YOU as gay and paint it as retaliation for spurning your advances.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 27, 2006 @ 12:13 pm - April 27, 2006

  60. a six-month moratorium on any changes in the military’s policy was enacted by Congress

    Irrelevant, or can’t you read the Constitution? The President is the Commander-in-Chief, and his authority supercedes Congress.

    On second thought, I’d like to know where he teaches so I can make damn sure my children don’t enroll there.

    You have children? God forbid. What kind of little pussified panty-waisted government dependents they will be.

    Clinton capitulated; he could have signed an executive order, end of story. Had he been President in the early 60’s African-Americans would still be paying a poll tax

    Yes, and he would have campainged on revoking the poll tax, then spent his time “feeling their pain” and other such sensitive, castrated crap, as he did for eight years.

    Comment by rightwingprof — April 27, 2006 @ 12:55 pm - April 27, 2006

  61. NDT:

    1) You obviously won’t believe them

    NDT, at this point it is your credibility that is in doubt, not those of your sources.

    Unless you provide more information, I have no way of knowing or verifying the accusations you have made and those who have made them. I have know way of knowing whether these things things occurred or are just employee griping. And if what you say is true, were the people responsible held to account? Were they disciplined or fired?

    Do your sources have any intentions of EVER coming forward? Even after they move to another job? This is the time of the Army of Davids after all. They could even just blog about it.

    You should know BTW, that I believe Steve Ralls sometimes does read this blog, so any “cover” may have already been blown. I’m also thinking of simply asking him, and the other members of the board, if this ever happened. He may not respond however, as even though I’m a member of their “Patriot Circle” tier of donors, I’m still very minor so I have no real leverage with them. He has written to me once before on another matter brought up here.

    2) There is a strong risk that people would be fired and, to use your colorful prose, “tarred and feathered” for blowing the whistle on matters.

    If you are truly so concerned with this NOW, then why did you publicly make the accusations in the first place?

    And at this point, your “evidence” is still only hearsay, so why did you make the accusations? Did it serve some other purpose? Such as blaming yet another calamity on Democrats and Liberals? Your favorite people to hate? Did this cloud your judgment? Answer.

    In short, they tried a retaliatory campaign — investigate someone for being gay and we’ll give them what they need to finger YOU as gay and paint it as retaliation for spurning your advances.

    In retaliation for what? Is someone besides the usual suspects attacking SLDN? Right now the only person I see attacking anything is yourself.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — April 27, 2006 @ 2:23 pm - April 27, 2006

  62. Gramps, thanks for taking the volume down a bit -you do sound less petulant. At least you didn’t use bold highlighting and capital letters this time. That’s progress.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 27, 2006 @ 2:45 pm - April 27, 2006

  63. Wow. NDT, you might as well have just attributed your information to space aliens, because what you’re saying is no less credible. How is anyone supposed to tell the difference between “somebody told me and I’m not telling you who” and “I’m just making it up?”

    Comment by John — April 27, 2006 @ 3:12 pm - April 27, 2006

  64. Do your sources have any intentions of EVER coming forward? Even after they move to another job? This is the time of the Army of Davids after all. They could even just blog about it.

    My sources have a genuine conundrum, Gryph.

    On the one hand, they believe wholeheartedly in SLDN’s mission and do not want to destroy the group. They genuinely like their jobs and, in repeated conversations with me, express that it gives them great satisfaction to follow through on that mission.

    On the other hand, they are disgusted by some of the tactics they are seeing and are questioning what the goals of the organization really are. Their impression is that several people are obsessed with revenge against politicians, active-duty officers, and other gay people and have reached the point of regularly rationalizing extremely unethical and dangerous behavior and activity as “helping the cause”. They are also frightened that this will only get worse with the rejection of the court case.

    Their hope is that, by airing this, the guilty parties will be encouraged to re-evaluate what they’re doing and that SLDN itself will reiterate, both externally and internally, that it does NOT support retaliatory outing, or indeed outing of any sort that isn’t voluntary.

    I promised them that I would keep their confidence and that I would make the charges known publicly.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 27, 2006 @ 3:41 pm - April 27, 2006

  65. #58 – Indeed he might, hank, for all the sense Gryph sometimes makes. Indeed he might.

    Or how about, say – you? hank, remember that time you made a big screaming denunciation of NDT as a “racist” (and other names I believe) and you could not back it up?

    So, hank, perhaps you like it when Gryph adopts your style or tactics, eh?

    Comment by Calarato — April 27, 2006 @ 4:02 pm - April 27, 2006

  66. #63 – John, that’s a fair question.

    NDT’s charges are new and alarming and, absent any evidence or specific examples, one should indeed take them with a large grain of salt. (no offense NDT).

    On the other hand – I can honestly say that in several months of examples where I’ve been watching, NDT has always been honest and reliable in his intellectual methods. This is the first time I’ve ever seen him fall back on a “they told me in confidence and I can’t tell you” type of claim.

    Also in several months here, I’ve personally seen several of NDT’s opponents (including both Gryph and hank, at times) be DIShonest in their intellectual or argumentative methods, on several occasions each.

    In one particular instance of Gryph’s that I remember, Gryph even mocked the very concept of apologizing (after Gryph was caught red-handed in being illegitimate or wrong on something). I haven’t ever seen NDT do that. I have seen NDT give apologies before, where they were due.

    And, although I believe in “innocent until proven guilty”, from a pure logical standpoint, Gryph’s claim (“lady X is virtuous; she never does anything behind closed doors where you and I won’t see”) is not inherently that much more plausible than NDT’s claim.

    If Gryph does believe in his own claim so strongly: then why would Gryph need to awkwardly or unskillfully bring in remarks about NDT’s ass, in #48? What does NDT’s ass have to do with any of this?

    So personally, I factor in all of the above. For now, I will simply file this one in the back of mind mind under the category of “open question”.

    Maybe NDT is right, and maybe he’s wrong. If he were right, and if SLDN were to keep it up or not change their ways, SLDN would probably get into some kind of trouble eventually. So perhaps we’ll see.

    Comment by Calarato — April 27, 2006 @ 4:26 pm - April 27, 2006

  67. I just don’t get it.

    When SLDN fails to achieve any meaningful progress on reforming or repealing DADTDH, their defenders say it’s everyone else’s fault… Congress, the WH, the Prez, the public, the Courts, the military leadership, Slick Willy, etc etc etc.

    If the majority of voters support a repeal of DADTDH –as SLDN supporters maintain– why is it so hard to get it repealed? For the majority public advocacy groups with a short-term issue, that’s called impotency.

    Why is it that a special interest group like SLDN on the Left, who hitched their wagon to the Democrats team, gets to keep its credibility while continuing to do business as usual? Failure after failure after failure; hell, they can’t even get military special investigation units to stop surveiling gay bars in DC and elsewhere.

    I’d think at some point, the GayLeft represented in the SLDN would demand demonstrable progress or success. Oh wait, before they can do that we need to get a more sympathetic leadership into the WH, Congress, etc etc etc. Ahh, the end game: destroy GOP majorities.

    I really think the SLDN is all about playing to the culture of victimhood >>and we all know that’s the psycho-defective element that holds the Democrats together. It’s a shame the SLDN’s Board doesn’t hold its staff accountable. Worse yet, the people who contribute to the group are enabling a continued impotency and misdirection on the issue; we need to support Congressional candidates who will repeal the act… forget the enviro-ACLU-abortion strategies of using the Courts to achieve results not accessible in the political arena.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — April 27, 2006 @ 4:43 pm - April 27, 2006

  68. #66 – Not at all, hank.

    Here (and downwards, of course) is where you fling ‘racist’ at NDT and then, for “evidence”, can produce only certain comments of NDT’s where he argued AGAINST racism.

    After we caught you on that, I believe you further called NDT an “asshole” (I haven’t re-read the thread). Rather than apologize. Indeed, your tactics remind me of ones I’ve seen Gryph use before.

    It took me a couple minutes in the search facility – but worth it, given that you are challenging my word now. Consider yourself exposed, hank.

    Comment by Calarato — April 27, 2006 @ 4:55 pm - April 27, 2006

  69. #69 – P.S. And for the record – just to be absolutely, 100% technically correct on these things – hank, perhaps you did only say NDT produces “racist ravings”, rather than he “is a racist”. I admit it. Big whoop.

    My point was and is: you gave NDT a further direct name, where your apology should have been. So don’t try to tell me you’re not like Gryph or that #65 is a crock. And that’s enough time on this. Bye now.

    Comment by Calarato — April 27, 2006 @ 5:08 pm - April 27, 2006

  70. Caralato:

    If Gryph does believe in his own claim so strongly: then why would Gryph need to awkwardly or unskillfully bring in remarks about NDT’s ass, in #48? What does NDT’s ass have to do with any of this?

    Bruce says:

    I’m just trying to be provocative and have y’all think outside the MSM box.

    “Mission Accomplished”.- Gryph
    —-
    Besides which, I’m not the one posting semi-nude pictures of himself accompynied by political commentary. Granted its a novel approach journalism, but NDT has to expect that I’m going to rib him about it until the end of time. Thats what bitchy queens do.

    I will take back the part about the “widening” ass however. His is rather cute for being a right-wing nut case.

    ____________________

    NDT, iaccompaniedf you have any further details on this issue you are more comfortable providing to me by e-mail, please do so.

    Although SLDN does not have branch offices as such, it does have groups in major cities. Can I assume however that you are talking about the National HQ as far as this issue is concerned? Or is this problem in a local group?

    I’m surprised you have not done a full blog post on this. Are you planning one? I will want to post about this on my blog, but I will hold off until you post first if you wish, since this is your “story”.

    I will think about and decide whats next over the weekend. It is a conundrum.

    But a few immediate thoughts: The “cat” is now out of the bag, so further silence on the part of your sources may now be irrelevant. SLDN is not a vast organization, so I would suspect that someone is going you guess your sources identifies eventually. So they may want to come forward openly now. Whether SLDN survives this is out of their hands now.

    NDT, is it possible that your sources are using you in some way to further an in-house office fight? How much do you know them and how much do you trust them and their motivations?

    For now, I will say that I may be wrong about SLDN and that NDT may be right. I will also suspend for now my monthly donation to them. (which isn’t a lot). There’s more to be revealed I guess.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — April 27, 2006 @ 5:15 pm - April 27, 2006

  71. #71 – Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt! Copout.

    Or does the MSM feature pictures of NDT’s ass? Checking my Newsweek and NYT. Nope, didn’t think so.

    Gryph, I am going to call you names now. Over time, here and on many occasions, you have been a coward and a hypocrite.

    And, as I explain in #39 and #67, that would be why you have lost so much credibility in this place. I would find your attacks on NDT more persuasive if your places were reversed – i.e., if, over time, he had built up something of a track record of being a coward and hypocrite, while you had not.

    Comment by Calarato — April 27, 2006 @ 5:41 pm - April 27, 2006

  72. Sorry, meant to say #49 and #67.

    Comment by Calarato — April 27, 2006 @ 5:41 pm - April 27, 2006

  73. “For now, I will say that I may be wrong about SLDN and that NDT may be right. I will also suspend for now my monthly donation to them. (which isn’t a lot).”

    OK, maybe I should have waited to the end of your post. I will have to admit, that is getting a little bit better.

    Comment by Calarato — April 27, 2006 @ 5:48 pm - April 27, 2006

  74. P.P.S. But by all means – DON’T suspend your monthly donation. If you believe in them: you believe in them.

    It will be interesting to see if NDT will give us something more / better on this – and of course, he hasn’t thus far (which is why we’re here).

    Comment by Calarato — April 27, 2006 @ 5:53 pm - April 27, 2006

  75. Calarato. I have no need to speak to you ever again. I don’t want to go back and look yup all the VILE things you’ve said about me and/or other people here. You’re a waste of time.

    Comment by hank — April 27, 2006 @ 6:43 pm - April 27, 2006

  76. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is so bad, why doesn’t your man Bush see to it that it’s repealed? Better yet, he could just use an executive order to abolish discrimination against gays in the military? Why don’t y’all ask him to do that? Or is it that you really don’t want gays in the military?

    Comment by Nolajeff — April 27, 2006 @ 6:53 pm - April 27, 2006

  77. And, as I explain in #39 and #67, that would be why you have lost so much credibility in this place. I would find your attacks on NDT more persuasive if your places were reversed – i.e., if, over time, he had built up something of a track record of being a coward and hypocrite, while you had not.

    The truth is Caralato is that I simply get tired of you after awhile. Thats all there is to it.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — April 27, 2006 @ 7:32 pm - April 27, 2006

  78. Believe me – I know the feeling, and then some!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by Calarato — April 27, 2006 @ 8:00 pm - April 27, 2006

  79. So, where we’re leaving it, then (or at least where I’m leaving it):

    (1) You’re willing to concede that NDT COULD know something you don’t and to wait for more.

    (2) You have no real excuse for your ridiculous demands and insults on NDT in #48 – though you have half-apologized for one of them, at least this time.

    Comment by Calarato — April 27, 2006 @ 8:10 pm - April 27, 2006

  80. Caralato:

    (2) You have no real excuse for your ridiculous demands and insults on NDT in #48 – though you have half-apologized for one of them, at least this time.

    I’m just trying to be provocative and have y’all think outside the MSM box.

    -Bruce

    What part of “provocative” don’t you understand? If Bruce can go around insulting everything and everyone around him to purposely stir up a fuss, I don’t see why I can’t.

    If you have a problem with that C, you need to take it up with Bruce, not me.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — April 28, 2006 @ 12:35 pm - April 28, 2006

  81. Wow, Gryph, is your thinking slow today.

    First of all – This is Bruce’s house, not yours. You can say anything you want, in your house.

    Second, and more important to me personally:

    Bruce doesn’t rely on the cheapest, most pathetic foul language and lame (2nd-grader) efforts to hurt others’ body image to provoke them into thinking. You do. (See #48.) And then, “thinking” isn’t what you provoke.

    Gryph, as a blogger, you don’t hold a candle to Bruce. I know that rankles for you. Kindly take it up with yourself. Longtime observers here know that’s what you need to do. Make peace with that guy in the mirror first, Gryph. The mirror.

    #79 was a lame half-indication that I’ve spent enough time on you here and won’t be back – Let me state it clearly and officially in this comment – bye now.

    Comment by Calarato — April 28, 2006 @ 1:26 pm - April 28, 2006

  82. OK, in order, after a night which I will say was at the least interesting:

    Can I assume however that you are talking about the National HQ as far as this issue is concerned? Or is this problem in a local group?

    It is a combination. Apparently it’s a collaboration between some people at National and a few of the local groups; the national folks have been the ones getting a few unsavory elements involved.

    I’m surprised you have not done a full blog post on this. Are you planning one? I will want to post about this on my blog, but I will hold off until you post first if you wish, since this is your “story”.

    I don’t like putting up blog posts where I can’t definitely reveal information. The skepticism you have (healthily) provided is warranted just by the nature of the story, so I’ve been taking a very slow approach to this.

    But a few immediate thoughts: The “cat” is now out of the bag, so further silence on the part of your sources may now be irrelevant. SLDN is not a vast organization, so I would suspect that someone is going you guess your sources identifies eventually. So they may want to come forward openly now. Whether SLDN survives this is out of their hands now.

    Actually, this is information to which, according to my sources, most people at SLDN would have access if they were looking and paying attention. Furthermore, as I mentioned, they strongly believe that the mere fact that this is known or talked about publicly will put an immediate stop to it.

    NDT, is it possible that your sources are using you in some way to further an in-house office fight? How much do you know them and how much do you trust them and their motivations?

    That could be a possibility. However, remember, I do HR for a living, and I usually can recognize someone trying to use third parties to facilitate a fight. This doesn’t look like that.

    And honestly, what I’ve gotten has been very conflicted. One of my sources was horrified that you were stopping your donations — indeed, emphatically said there was nothing funny going on in the California local groups and that they could seriously use the money. I don’t think that sounds like people trying to favor internecine warfare; it’s more like people wanting to expose what they know is wrong, but without starting a civil war.

    Anyway, I told my sources what I had done and where to look; we’ve decided that it’s probably best to sit back a few weeks and wait to see what happens.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 28, 2006 @ 1:40 pm - April 28, 2006

  83. #50 by Erik. Kudos, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    Comment by ndtovent — April 28, 2006 @ 4:54 pm - April 28, 2006

  84. defend Bush for breaking the law today on torture, rendition and many other issues.

    Bush has broken no laws, other than in your sick and twisted imagination.

    Comment by rightwingprof — April 29, 2006 @ 9:19 am - April 29, 2006

  85. #50: How hilarious.

    Clinton’s campaign promise was that he would completely eliminate the ban on gays in the military and that he would not sign, and indeed would veto, any antigay legislation.

    There are no “shades of gray” or “nuance” in that statement.

    The promise was black and white, and Clinton broke it out of sheer greed and homophobia.

    You are trying to make “shades of gray” because doing so rationalizes a Democrat’s spitting in the face of the gay community and laughing at them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 29, 2006 @ 7:08 pm - April 29, 2006

  86. #60 rightwingprof — April 27, 2006 @ 12:55 pm – April 27, 2006

    >>>a six-month moratorium on any changes in the military’s policy was enacted by Congress

    Irrelevant, or can’t you read the Constitution? The President is the Commander-in-Chief, and his authority supercedes Congress.

    I’ve read the Constitution. I’ve also read the Federalist Papers (FPs), which purported to explain the Constitution and the Founders intentions.

    What you seem to ignore is that Article II of the Constitution also requires that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Those laws are, of course, the laws that were passed by congress and signed into law, or if vetoed, be passed by congress over the veto. So, if, as Erik indicated, a law had been enacted that placed a 6-month moratorium on any changes in the military’s policy (which may have been enacted before Clinton took office), that provision of the Constitution would apparently have required that Clinton conform to that law if he were to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

    I will acknowledge that there may be a tension between that and the provision of the Constitution that the president be the CinC of the Army and Navy, but that provision is explained in the first paragraph of FP74:

    THE President of the United States is to be “commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE of the United States.” The propriety of this provision is so evident in itself, and it is, at the same time, so consonant to the precedents of the State constitutions in general, that little need be said to explain or enforce it. Even those of them which have, in other respects, coupled the chief magistrate with a council, have for the most part concentrated the military authority in him alone. Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority.

    http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm

    What appears from this paragraph is that the CinC provision was primarily intended to concentrate the power to command the army and navy in a single person during time of war. That would not necessarily have meant that that person had the authority to circumvent the requirements of laws enacted by congress.

    I suppose that Clinton could have attempted to circumvent the law cited by Erik if he had wanted to, and had the issue tested in court. Of course, he wouldn’t have wanted to.

    Comment by raj — April 30, 2006 @ 11:53 am - April 30, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.