Gay Patriot Header Image

Gates’ DADT Memo to Skelton Not as Horrific as Gay Left Wants You To Think

Defense Secretary Bill Robert (d’oh! thanks, Kurt…I do decaff) Gates’ letter yesterday to Ike Skelton, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee urged Congress to postpone any legislative action on reversing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

Here’s the main part:

I believe in the strongest possible terms that the Department must, prior to any legislative action, be allowed the opportunity to conduct a thorough, objective, and systematic assessment of the impact of such a policy change; develop an attentive comprehensive implementation plan, and provide the President and the Congress with the results of this effort in order to ensure that this step is taken in the most informed and effective manner.

What the Secretary was saying is just what I’ve said many times (and speifically here): The military doesn’t change it’s toilet paper without an exhaustive investigation into its impacts on effectiveness and performance.

Naturally, the Leftist blogosphere is apoplecitc. The paragon of measured and rational thought, Pam Spaulding calls the letter “incredibly offensive and craven”. Then she goes on to completely miss the point I make above by basically dismissing the role of the Pentagon in the recinding of the rule.

What’s more, by choosing to demonize Gates (and the entire Pentagon, apparently), she’s alienating an ally who’s already stated his desire to see DADT repealed. It’s the unhinged lunacy of people like Pam and other “advocates” who clearly put “gay” “rights” above National Defense who are debasing the actual discussion.

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell should be repealed and gays and lesbians allowed to openly serve. But it needs to be done because it’s in the best interest of our defense, not because it’s unfair. What’s more, if we make this change simply because it’s the “fair” thing to do, we’re setting a very dangerous precedent: That our National Defense decisions are not a carefully determined series of choices based on what will best protect our Nation and her interests; rather they’re politically and socially motivated reactions to certain civillian cultural pressures. That is no way to run a military nor defend a country.

Would that such vocal opponents had more rationality behind their arguments, we’d likely have solved this long ago.

(As a self-promoting whore, I’d like to once again direct you to my series on the topic from a few years ago.)

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Share

30 Comments

  1. Shouldn’t that be Robert Gates?

    Comment by Kurt — May 1, 2010 @ 11:05 am - May 1, 2010

  2. The military doesn’t change it’s toilet paper without an exhaustive investigation into its impacts on effectiveness and performance.

    Naturally — how else are Officers going to use their baaaad-ass virtuoso PowerPoint skillzes?

    (Or so I’ve been told more than once by people actually in the military… it’s all about PowerPoint oneupmanship.)

    Comment by Throbert McGee — May 1, 2010 @ 11:33 am - May 1, 2010

  3. I bet you’re a handsome whore

    Comment by rusty — May 1, 2010 @ 11:49 am - May 1, 2010

  4. I have my doubts that a DADT repeal amendment can make it, considering the number of socially conservative Democrats on the HASC.

    Comment by NYAlly — May 1, 2010 @ 12:03 pm - May 1, 2010

  5. So, ColoradoPatriot, you believe that DADT should be repealed to enhance our national defense? And who do you think will believe that?

    I’ve pointed out before on this site that our military has performed SPLENDIDLY in combat since DADT was passed. Clearly, not allowing gays to openly serve in the armed forces has NOT harmed military readiness or performance. So, just how would allowing gays to serve openly enhance a military that is already the best in the world?

    Your support for repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell IS about “fairness” and bringing the military into line with “certain civillian cultural pressures”. And I suspect the same is true for other gay “conservatives” as well. Be honest about it!

    Comment by Seane-Anna — May 1, 2010 @ 2:01 pm - May 1, 2010

  6. Actually their anger is justified, even if a tad hyperbolic, for two reasons:

    1. It stems from yet another broken promise by the Obama Administration. What the gay left has come to realize is that all the sweet nothings that Obama titillated them with in 2008 and early 2009 were mostly just that: nothing. They were used, lied to and tossed aside when their worth was not considered enough to risk carrying through on promises. The game has become clear to most folks that the Obama Administration is trying to run out the clock and avoid having to make a risky decision before the midterms, which if polls are to be believed really isn’t. Conservatives know exactly what that’s like, having experienced it ourselves on several occasions.

    2. The study conducted by the Pentagon was supposed to be about how repeal would be implemented, not whether the ban would be repealed or left in place. It seems pretty clear that the goal posts have been moved by the Obama Administration and this study is merely an excuse.

    It’s very simple to resolve this matter: enact repeal legislation with a provision that either full implementation will be at the discretion of the SecDef over a set period of time (couple of years perhaps) or that the law will remain in effect only as long as the SecDef annually certifies its necessity for military readiness. Nobody would be entirely happy with this buut it does put the onus on the Pentagon to justify excluding openly serving gays with Congressional scrutiny in place. problem solved. We’ve done this before with other controversial pieces of legislation, the act to move our embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem comes to mind. The president can waive the requirement for national security reasons annually, which to date both Presidents Bush and Obama have chosen to do.

    Comment by John — May 1, 2010 @ 2:20 pm - May 1, 2010

  7. DADT–what part of illegal don’t you understand?

    I’m not sure why this blog is calling for the repeal of an ESTABLISHED LAW which is integral to our country’s defense.

    I think any gay person who is illegally serving in our armed forces should be forced to quit. In fact, I think anyone who looks like they could be gay should be forced to show their “straight” papers.

    I think that anybody who shows up to a rally protesting DADT should be considered an accessory to an illegal act.

    I think Gov. Breuer of AZ should be in charge of rooting out these criminal lowlifes who bring AIDS and drugs and child molestation into our military service.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 1, 2010 @ 3:34 pm - May 1, 2010

  8. Wow. Seane-Anne, as many mindless Leftist trolls who frequent GP to distract from actual debate as I see here, I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a blatant (and as easily demonstrably ignorant) display as I find in your comment above. Seriously.

    My argument about repealing DADT has absolutely zero to do with fairness. In fact, I point out very explicitly so (and have many other times since). That you are unaware of that seems a very clear sign that you chose to spout off here without having read a single word I’ve written on the subject. You are clearly speaking from either willful ignorance or laziness. Perhaps both. Truly amazing.

    Please read my writings on the subject before you make further attempt to classify my position. You are 180 off, totally.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — May 1, 2010 @ 4:19 pm - May 1, 2010

  9. John:

    I disagree, if only in shades.

    1. While President Obama has certainly let the “gay” “rights” “community” down on many of his pandering promises from the campaign trail, I think it’s fair to say that he’s gone a long way toward moving the ball on this issue. Keeping in mind, of course, that it’s Congress who must make the move, not him (or by extension, his Pentagon). That noted, however, that the Pentagon has been looking into it says something. To that, I’d refer to your characterizing it as hyperbolic (the angst, that is). For some “activists”, anything short of instant repeal would send some folks into a tizzy. I’d submit that the vast majority of these folks have very little appreciation, understanding, or tolerance for how the military works and what would be entailed in this change. Bottom line, they’re not being reasonable about the process and need to chill the hell out.

    2. It doesn’t seem clear at all that the goal-posts have been moved. Not based on this letter. I can guarantee you that the military is looking at the how as well as the if on this issue. After all, while the Congress (one hopes) will ask the military its opinion on a move like this, ours wouldn’t be the ultimate military machine it is if it just waited around for the decision to be made before planning out how to implement it. Once again, I recommend we all chill out.

    Of course, if one already concludes 2 from your post, 1 is a clear next step. So not sure how to persuade anybody to be reasonable if he or she is determined to see this letter as Pam does.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — May 1, 2010 @ 4:28 pm - May 1, 2010

  10. it needs to be done because it’s in the best interest of our defense, not because it’s unfair. What’s more, if we make this change simply because it’s the “fair” thing to do, we’re setting a very dangerous precedent: That our National Defense decisions are not a carefully determined series of choices based on what will best protect our Nation and her interests; rather they’re politically and socially motivated reactions to certain civillian cultural pressures. That is no way to run a military nor defend a country.

    Ding! Ding Ding! Ding! Ding!!! We have a winner!

    Thank you for saying that! It needs to be said much more! The left, the gay community, and even some on the right have their priorities way outta whack, and they apparently forget (or never knew) that the purpose of the military is to 1. defend the country 2. defend the country and 3. defend the country. But thank God being fair has nothing to do with it.

    As a self-promoting whore…

    If you really are a self-promoting whore, you should consider inserting the fact that you are a gay service member into this post, and then send it off to others to link to. You’re exactly right, your priorities are spot on, and yours is a perspective that people should hear more.

    Comment by American Elephant — May 1, 2010 @ 6:23 pm - May 1, 2010

  11. I think Gov. Breuer of AZ should be in charge of rooting out these criminal lowlifes who bring AIDS and drugs and child molestation into our military service.

    I had thought that there wasn’t anything you could possibly say that was more despicable and beneath contempt than what I’ve seen you post before. I stand corrected.

    Comment by John — May 1, 2010 @ 6:26 pm - May 1, 2010

  12. Nick: I would agree with you that many who opine on repeal “have very little appreciation, understanding, or tolerance for how the military works”. I’d argue though that this exists on both sides though, because as much as you can point to absurdities from the left one can easily do so on the right, as Ashphenaz’ twaddle here demonstrates. It certainly is true that action by Congress is needed if repeal is to move forward, this is certainly the excuse the Obamaniacs are using, yet leadership of the president as head of the party in control of Congress has always been seen as critical. He has provided very little and if reports are to be believed, which I find credible, his administration has actively worked against repeal before the midterms despite his promises. The goal posts have indeed been shifted because this study was supposed to be about how to implement repeal, not whether repeal should occur or not. This letter signifies a shift that was apparent even before by Administration actions against repeal that have been reported on. That Obama lied and has used folks is no surprise to me, that’s a glaring defect in his character I saw in 2008, but it is taking the gay left by surprise. If anything positive has come out of this at least their seeing the man as many others like myself have seen him is something.

    Comment by John — May 1, 2010 @ 6:39 pm - May 1, 2010

  13. Seane-Anna, it’s obvious you didn’t read the post before commenting. What CP wrote was spot on (couldn’t have said it better myself). You remind me of a little kid who puts their fingers in their ears and goes “la la la la” whenever someone speaks. Just go away, please. Take Asspenis with you; you deserve each other.

    Comment by Jim Michaud — May 1, 2010 @ 6:56 pm - May 1, 2010

  14. I’m not sure how having gays in the military hurts the defense of the country, it just seems to be a stupid issue that is drawing attention, money and man power. I think it would make the military better because it allows them to focus on other issues besides rooting out gay service members. The military does spend a good amount of money and hours on the issue because of the policy, and if they just lifted the ban, they money and manpower to go to other internal issues.

    Comment by darkeyedresolve — May 1, 2010 @ 7:23 pm - May 1, 2010

  15. And yet:

    I think Gov. Breuer of AZ should be in charge of rooting out these illegal immigrants who bring murder and drugs and disease into our country.

    is somehow OK with you. If it’s prejudice against gays resulting in unjust laws, it’s despicable. If it’s prejudice against Hispanics (legally here or otherwise), then it’s fine. You are one reprehensible little bigot, aren’t you?

    I had thought that there wasn’t anything you could possibly say that was more despicable and beneath contempt than what I’ve seen you post before. I stand corrected.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 1, 2010 @ 9:12 pm - May 1, 2010

  16. Does anyone know if Ash has an illegal alien pool boy he’s sleeping with?

    It’s the most obivious explination…

    Seena Anna. One can argue that our military has done splendedly before DADT. Indeed, Von Steuben didn’t rock the boat…

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 1, 2010 @ 9:20 pm - May 1, 2010

  17. I think Gov. Breuer of AZ should be in charge of rooting out these illegal immigrants who bring murder and drugs and disease into our country.

    Insofar as it relates to Arizona alone and falls under her powers as that state’s governor, sure.

    is somehow OK with you. If it’s prejudice against gays resulting in unjust laws, it’s despicable. If it’s prejudice against Hispanics (legally here or otherwise), then it’s fine. You are one reprehensible little bigot, aren’t you?

    There really is very little difference between extremist idiots on the left or the right, as your comments here demonstrate. Both certainly do enjoy using projection to cover their own bigotry such as the stereotyping you frequently employ – a very noticeable trait of bigots like yourself. I do not condone discrimination against Hispanics or any other person. I don’t consider all Hispanics or illegal immigrants to be murderous, drug addicted or traffickers, let alone filthy disease carriers as your comments here suggest. Some are while most are not, just like every other group. I have questions about some aspects of the new Arizona law but overall its goals are laudable. I even support a guest worker program, but whatever we decide to do in that regard I also support controlling our borders. With that in mind I hope any illegal Irish in Arizona will be at greater risk of being found too, though I suppose they mostly prefer New York and Chicago. Now run along Ash and come back when you have something far more clever.

    Comment by John — May 1, 2010 @ 10:07 pm - May 1, 2010

  18. Anyone wish to join our group: Gay and Lesbians Tea Partiers for Freedom?

    http://teapartypatriots.org/Group/Gay__and__Lesbian_Tea_Partiers_for_Freedom

    Comment by teapot — May 1, 2010 @ 11:02 pm - May 1, 2010

  19. John, he seems to think his nitwit stunt of deliberately conflating legal immigrants with illegals, then metaphorically putting words into your mouth is clever, instead of a painfully obvious straw-man argument.

    Comment by Casey — May 2, 2010 @ 12:14 am - May 2, 2010

  20. And yet, it worked. One for me.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 2, 2010 @ 10:19 am - May 2, 2010

  21. Present.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 2, 2010 @ 10:30 am - May 2, 2010

  22. it worked

    ??? To do what?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 2, 2010 @ 10:31 am - May 2, 2010

  23. 18: Indeed. The irony is that I strongly support legal immigration, with emphasis on legal. Heck, the more people with needed skills or wealth we can attract to come to this country the better off we are in the long run. I’m sympathetic to the illegals and undoubtedly would do the same as them in their situation but if we exchanged places I’m quite sure they would do exactly what I am doing by supporting efforts to control our borders. Americans and those we decide to allow in legally come first before anyone else just as it is for every other nation.

    Comment by John — May 2, 2010 @ 11:31 am - May 2, 2010

  24. 21: Make an ass of himself online again. Some people thrive on the “excitement”. Rather pathetic and sad actually…

    Comment by John — May 2, 2010 @ 11:31 am - May 2, 2010

  25. I think the process for legal immigration should be simplified and the amount of red tape reduced. But I think the border and the visa program need to be fixed first. People coming in on tourist/student visas and then not leaving is as much of a problem as people sneaking over the border, but it doesn’t get as much attention.

    Comment by V the K — May 2, 2010 @ 11:56 am - May 2, 2010

  26. Here’s the point–both gays in the military and undocumented workers are suffering from unjust laws made for another situation in another time and place. It is also illegal for gays to be married in AZ–I think that rather than deport married gays, it would be better to change the unjust, outdated laws. And I think the same is true of DADT, DOMA, and our immigration system.

    Whew! That WAS exciting!

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 2, 2010 @ 2:19 pm - May 2, 2010

  27. What’s unjust about keeping folks from wandering into your country? Can you name any other country that doesn’t? Can you name another country that doesn’t require you to “show your papers”?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 2, 2010 @ 3:06 pm - May 2, 2010

  28. Apparently the Iroquois Nation allowed people to “just wander into” their country.

    Also, the Mexicans allowed Americans to “just wander into” their country (hence the Mexican War).

    The French allowed Americans to “just wander into” what became the Louisiana Purchase.

    And Israel “just wandered into” Palestine.

    Comment by Ashpenaz — May 2, 2010 @ 5:45 pm - May 2, 2010

  29. Here’s the point–both gays in the military and undocumented workers are suffering from unjust laws made for another situation in another time and place.

    Whoa, that was it? That act of moral equation was the point? My goodness, what a false, therefore inappropriate and retarded, “point”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 2, 2010 @ 6:39 pm - May 2, 2010

  30. The paragon of measured and rational thought, Pam Spaulding

    You apparently know a different Pam Spaulding than the one I know of.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — May 3, 2010 @ 8:48 pm - May 3, 2010

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.