Reducing Republican plans to spur the economy to “tired slogans about cutting regulations and spending”, the New York Times editorial board on Wednesday accused Senate Republicans of engaging in “economic vandalism” for their “unanimous decision . . . on Tuesday to filibuster and thus kill President Obama’s jobs bill”.  Citing conclusions reached by a group a selected group of economists, the Times editors ignore Republican concerns about the package’s cost and similarity to the Democrat’s stimulus, er, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

They also ignore economists, including the two who just won the Nobel Prize in economists, who have “separately produced empirical data that Keynesian stimulus theory is highly questionable.”

That Democrats’ costly stimulus, as we recall, worked wonders to restore our economy, keeping unemployment only a point or two above the rate forecast by the administration’s economic team had the package failed.  (And even as these editors fault Republicans for their “lack of serious ideas” or offering up “an ash heap of used ideas,” they fail to note how the president’s current package is merely a scaled down version of the failed “stimulus.”)

Citing not a Republican legislator — or even a GOP political strategist — but instead a representative of the president’s reelection campaign, Times editors contend Republicans seem

content to run out the clock on Mr. Obama’s term while doing very little. On Tuesday, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, accused Republicans of trying to “suffocate the economy” in hopes that the pain would work to their political advantage.

Problem with this talking point is that Republicans are willing to support items on the president’s economic agenda when they are consistent with conservative principles.  Just this week, House and Senate Republicans overwhelmingly supported three free-trade agreements that the president also backed.   (more…)

There is some good news today; the administration certified the final repeal of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell:

Service members today welcomed a key milestone in repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), as President Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, formally issued their certification to the Armed Services committees of both houses of Congress, signifying that the military is ready for the transition. In 60 days, as prescribed in the law passed by Congress and signed by the President last December, repeal will be final.

So much better to have the military certify this than have a court mandate it. The president dilly-dallied on this one, delaying this day. But, with pressure from left-wing gay bloggers and indeed some principled congressional Democrats as well as at least one Senate Republican, he finally acted.

One reason Obama succeeded where Bill Clinton failed was that the Illinois Democrat, unlike his Arkansas counterpart, made this a military issue rather than a gay rights’ issue.  Whereas Clinton moved to repeal the ban while standing beside Barney Frank, Obama sought to repeal the legislation Clinton signed by dispatching his top military aides to Capitol Hill.

Kudos to all those who worked hard to make this day come to pass.  Our nation will be more secure when it can draw on the strengths and patriotism of gay men and lesbian who wish to serve the country which has given us so many opportunities, chief among them, the ability to live free.

It’s already beginning.  Some in the media (as well as their allies in the Democratic Party) are already trying to credit Barack Obama as the man who single-handedly tracked down Osama bin Laden, okayed the risky operation to eliminate him, clandestinely went into Pakistan to face him in his lair where he, while an adoring team of Navy SEALs looked on, strangled him with his bare hands while the terrorist brandished a knife, crossbow and submachine gun.

Heck, Joy Behar thinks we should just cancel the 2012 election.

In article that doesn’t mention the contributions of any other administration official — or any member of our armed forces — the AP anoints Obama the mastermind of the operation:

By secretly sending a team of special operations forces into an enemy fortress in a suburban neighborhood of a sovereign country, President Barack Obama chose the path of greatest risk, but also greatest reward.

There were so many ways it could have gone wrong.

Meanwhile, a dubiously-sourced piece, widely referenced on conservative web-sites, suggests that CIA Director Leon Panetta was the real driving force behind the operation with the president little more than a spectator.  I’m with Glenn on this, “The story might be true, but I’ll need a lot more convincing. This is telling too many people what they want to hear.”   The supposed Washington insider contends that Panetta, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, General David Petraeus, and Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper spearheaded the operation.

Now, from everything I’ve read, it appears there is some merit to this argument, as it is clear Clintonistas Panetta and Hillary as well Bush holdovers, Gates and Petraeus, were pushing this type of operation.  But, none of them could give the final go-ahead.

We may never learn the names of many of the others responsible for its success, interrogators at Guantanamo and other U.S. detention facilities, CIA agents who worked with persistence and determination over nine years to pursue countless clues (many leading to dead ends) and, of course, those brave Navy SEALs who carried out their task so professionally. (more…)

Leon Panetta has always conducted himself with dignity on the public stage. And in this exchange with Brian Williams, he comes off as a pretty stand-up guy, not milking the dispatch of Bin Laden to partisan ends and giving credit to the immediate past president and his team for their efforts in tracking down the Saudi-born terrorist.

In this video, he indicates that our intelligence officials gained some information that would later help us track down the hide-out of the Al-Qaeda leader through, um, well, “enhanced interrogation techniques“.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

VIdeo via Gateway Pundit.

When asked, Doug Powers reports, “whether or not advanced interrogation techniques helped get Bin Laden,” Attorney General Eric Holder “said he didn’t know.”  You’d think an official of an administration which has been most critical* of such polices would have given an unequivocal response (in the negative) if they hadn’t helped.

Of all the Democrats the president could have tapped to take over from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Panetta seems the best choice. He acknowledges truths at odds with his party’s anti-Republican talking points and acknowledges the accomplishments of Republicans as well as the merits of their policies.

RELATED:  Ed Driscoll alerts us to this observation in Investor’s Business Daily, “If President Bush had not invaded Iraq, President Obama likely would not have found Osama bin Laden. The al-Qaida operative who fingered bin Laden’s courier was caught in Iraq helping terrorists in 2004″.  Ed’s initial roundup on the death of Mr. Bin Laden also has a plethora of pithy points and interesting links.

ALSO RELATED AND WELL WORTH YOUR TIME:  Michael Barone contends that to get bin Laden, Obama relied on policies he decried.

*UPDATE:  Peter Wehner reports: “After all, Barack Obama was a fierce critic of EITs [Enhanced Interrogation Techniques] during and after the 2008 campaign.“

Even as information comes our showing Obama’s hesitation in the run-up to Sunday’s successful operation to kill Osama bin Laden and as the White House bungles in providing that information, the fact remains that the operation succeeded.  And that President Obama gave it the go-ahead.  While many people contributed to its success, most notably Navy SEALs, the president deserves a great deal of credit.  And I for one am hesitant to criticize him on this — or other matters — at present.

Let this be a moment of national unity when we all rejoice that the man who declared war on the United States first in 1996 and then again in 1998 has, thanks to our men at arms, lost the ability to declare war on anyone.  I agree with Allahpundit that it’s ”fitting” for the president to visit Ground Zero on Thursday to “mark Bin Laden’s demise by paying his respects on the public’s behalf. And if that respect-paying just so happens to produce a 24-karat photo op for his upcoming campaign, well, that’s his reward for icing the man Americans hate most.”

That blogger eminds us that the immediate past president would likely have

. . . have done the same thing and, yes, unquestionably, the left would have screeched about “politicization,” but I would have taken his side then so I’ll take The One’s side now. So much goodwill has he earned in the last 24 hours, in fact, that not only are Republican leaders congratulating him but even — gasp — Donald Trump is patting him on the back.

The President of the United States should be allowed to get some political capital out of his accomplishments.  And yet when a Republican does it, we see the mainstream media castigate him for politicizing national security or whatnot.  Recall how back in 2004, when then-President George W. Bush released his first ad, the media went apoplectic that he used an image from 9/11 — as if it were blasphemy, violating some sacred compact, to show that good man’s determination in the face of attack. (more…)

The more we learn about the operation that successfully dispatched Osama bin Laden to the nether regions, the more we see just how truly American an operation it was, not just in the determination to see it through, but in the fact that leading figures in both political parties played a key part in carrying it out.  So, as Jim Geraghty puts it, “rejoice. America always gets her man, sooner or later.”

From the White House, we learn that “for years”, the CIA was gathering “leads on individuals in bin Laden’s inner circle, including his personal couriers.”  Detainees had identified a certain man

. . . as one of the few al Qaeda couriers trusted by bin Laden.  They indicated he might be living with and protecting bin Laden.  But for years, we were unable to identify his true name or his location.

Four years ago, we uncovered his identity, and for operational reasons, I can’t go into details about his name or how we identified him, but about two years ago, after months of persistent effort, we identified areas in Pakistan where the courier and his brother operated.  Still we were unable to pinpoint exactly where they lived, due to extensive operational security on their part.  The fact that they were being so careful reinforced our belief that we were on the right track.

Emphasis added.  Four years ago, George W. Bush was president.  So, this operation began to blossom in the previous Administration.  But, it wasn’t until the incumbent Administration when it bore fruit.  In August, “U.S. teams located” Obama’s residence (well, his residence as until yesterday.  Thanks to the Navy SEALs, he has a new home today!)

But, “the first strands of information that ultimately led to the killing of Osama bin Laden” may have emerged has far back as 2003 with the capture of “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks”.  Even after locating the compound, ”C.I.A. analysts spent the next several weeks examining satellite photos and intelligence reports to determine who might be living”  there.  By March, they were convinced it was the refuge of bin Laden lived.  On the 14th of that month, the president “held the first of what would be five national security meetings in the course of the next six weeks to go over plans for the operation.” (more…)

I’m with Academic Elephant on this one:

But now we have OBL, and it is an opportunity for us to prove ourselves as Americans. For those of us on the right, we should simply thank God for a CIA Director who took the time to develop the appropriate plan, a Secretary of Defense who lent him sufficient man and firepower, and a President who was decisive enough to pull the trigger at the right moment. This sort of leadership should not be parsed or resented. For their part, our fellow citizens on the left might consider giving up the relentless drumbeat of “war crimes” for those who did so much of the long and lonely work to make this possible. Even with the so-called “harsh” interrogation techniques used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, it took years to put together the pieces. How many honestly regret those techniques this morning, or that we had Guantanamo to house KSM and his colleagues for further reference?

RELATED:  Did enhanced interrogation lead U.S. to Osama bin Laden? Yes, apparently they did.

UPDATE:  Jennifer Rubin:  ”This is anAmerican victory, triumph shared by two presidents and a magnificent accomplishment for all the military and intelligence officials who worked to see this day.”  Ditto that.

Via a variety of text from readers and friends, on Sunday night, I learned that good news that Osama bin Laden has been dispatched to join Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler in the lowest circles of Hell. I join former President Bush in congratulating President Obama and the men and women of our armed forces who accomplished the deed. In a statement, Bush said:

Earlier this evening, President Obama called to inform me that American forces killed Osama bin Laden, the leader of the al Qaeda network that attacked America on September 11, 2001.

I congratulated him and the men and women of our military and intelligence communities who devoted their lives to this mission. They have our everlasting gratitude.

Our intelligence community and the Navy SEAL Team Six who carried out the operation deserve the bulk of the credit, but they could not have done it without the authorization of the President of the United States.  This one Barack Obama got right.

Good job, Mr. President.

UPDATE:   Over the Washington Examiner, Philip Klein has some background on the operation that go Osama.  The president has met five times with his national security team since they learned about the compound last February and gave the go-ahead for operation this past Friday.  (Read the whole thing.)

Sorry, couldn’t get a copy of this song with actual footage from the Wizard of Oz. Still it does express the sentiment of all Americans tonight:

UP-UPDATE: From the president’s speech:

As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not –- and never will be -– at war with Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.

Indeed.

UP-UP-UPDATE:  ”Evil,” John Podhoretz writes, “has been met, and defeated.” On the same blog, but in a different post, Abe Greenwald reminds us, “It is not in the American DNA to waver, to give up, or to shirk its responsibilities. The U.S. meets its challenges.” (more…)

Wonder if this has anything to do with General David Petraeus taking over in Afghanistan:

American and Afghan forces have been routing the Taliban in much of Kandahar Province in recent weeks, forcing many hardened fighters, faced with the buildup of American forces, to flee strongholds they have held for years, NATOcommanders, local Afghan officials and residents of the region said.

A series of civilian and military operations around the strategic southern province, made possible after a force of 12,000 American and NATO troops reached full strength here in the late summer, has persuaded Afghan and Western officials that the Taliban will have a hard time returning to areas they had controlled in the province that was their base.

Let’s hope this leads to more successes in the Afghan theater — and  hope as well that further victories may cause the president to reconsider his commitment to start withdrawing our troops in July 2011.

While the commanders in the field and the brave men and women who executed the plan deserve the bulk of the credit, we should also acknowledge President Obama who wisely chose to put Petraeus in charge of Afghan operations.

Back when I met lefty lesbian blogress Pam Spaulding on my cross country journey, we talked about doing regular Point-Counterpoint blog posts where one of us would address a topic of the day and another would respond.

Well, even though the editors of the Hill had little knowledge of our conversations, they did ask each of us to weigh in on whether or not “gay-rights issues are being adequately addressed by the Obama administration and this Congress.” Neither Pam nor I had seen each other’s pieces before they were posted.

Here is the beginning of my post (written in haste last Friday):

Unlike most gay activists, when it comes to politics, I have a very small “gay agenda.”  I believe Congress needs to repeal Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell (DADT) and allow the Administration time (say no more than six months) to find a means to implement repeal without compromising unit cohesion or military effectiveness.  And I believe the federal and state governments should recognize same-sex civil unions (or domestic partnerships or marriages or whatever they’re called) while granting same-sex partners of government employees the same benefits that different-sex spouses in traditional marriages currently receive.

Other than that, the government should leave us alone to live our lives as we please.

With this as background, let me address the question of the day:  is the Obama Administration and the Pelosi-Reid Congress adequately addressing gay rights issue?

And the answer is well, sort of.

You can read the rest, including Pam’s piece, here.

There are few men alive more trusted today to win a war that General David Petraeus.  Not only has he thought long and hard about developing battlefield strategies to combat the rise of terrorism in the current era, but he has battlefield experience — and had it had even before the successful “surge” in Iraq, a plan that he developed and implemented.

Now, many have concerns about the timeline the president proposed for Afghanistan, having our troops out by a certain date next year, but Obama did tap Petraeus to lead our efforts in that troubled land.  And his testimony today before the Senate Armed Services Committee shows that the general wants to win this war (even if his boss won’t use the term “victory”)

Gen. David Petraeus cautiously endorsed President Barack Obama’s exit plan for the Afghan war on Tuesday, leaving himself room to recommend changes or delays as he interviewed for the job of commander of the stalemated war.

Petraeus, the emergency replacement following the sacking of the previous commander, told a Senate panel that Obama wants him to provide unvarnished military advice. Petraeus has previously said that he would recommend putting off any large-scale withdrawal if security conditions in Afghanistan can’t sustain it.

Obama has said troops will begin to leave in July 2011, but that the pace and size of the withdrawal will depend upon conditions.

Emphasis added.  That the president wants unvarnished advice from a military man like Petraeus goes well for the future of this war.  The line above about withdrawal depending upon certain conditions suggests Obama has shifted a little in its insistence on a speedy conclusion to this operation.

The choice of Petraeus suggests as much.  Indeed, some other things the general said indicated Petraeus’ focus on victory:

Petraeus also promised to “look very hard” at the rules of engagement governing troops in Afghanistan, if confirmed as the war’s next top commander. (more…)

I can’t say I disagree with the president on this one:

President Barack Obama ousted Gen. Stanley McChrystal as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan on Wednesday, choosing the embattled general’s direct boss — Gen. David Petraeus — to take over the troubled 9-year-old war, a source told The Associated Press.

Do like that he’s putting Petraeus in charge of Afghanistan.  McChrystal’s loose lips may redound to the nation’s benefit.

A friend who works for the federal government alerted me to a memo she received from the Office of Personnel Management informing federal employees about “the opportunity for same-sex domestic partners to apply for coverage under the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP)”:

OPM issued a proposed regulation on September 14, 2009 to allow same-sex domestic partners to apply for coverage under the FLTCIP. The final regulation was published in the Federal Register today (June 1, 2010). The final regulation is unchanged from the proposed regulation. It adds a new section (5 CFR 875.213) expanding the definition of “qualified relative” to include same-sex domestic partners of eligible Federal and U.S. Postal Service employees and annuitants. Like all “qualified relatives,” same-sex domestic partners will be subject to full underwriting.

We believe allowing same-sex domestic partners to apply for FLTCIP coverage will help agencies address the family needs of a diverse workforce and enhance the Federal Government’s ability to compete with the private sector for talent.

Emphasis added.  Seems the government is following the lead of the private sector.  As we have often reported here, an increasing number of private corporations offer benefits to same-sex partners of employees.

The documentation requirements are pretty lax: “Eligible individuals will need to provide documentation (a ‘declaration’) that they  meet the definition of ‘domestic partnership.’”  This declaration is the only required documentation.   Now, to be sure, I think this is a pretty lax requirement, I understand that many states still do not recognize domestic partnerships (or civil unions) as I believe they should.  Perhaps, they should require proof of such registry for states which allow such registration.

That said, this is definitely a step in the right direction and commend the Administration for moving forward on this.

And this isn’t the only action the federal government is taking on behalf of same-sex couples.  Glenn Reynolds alerts us to this report, WSJ: IRS Grants Gay Couples Equal Tax Treatment Despite DOMA.

Okay, so there appears to be a really big break in an issue which greatly concerns me when I have little time to address.  In between losing to my fifth eldest nephew in Ping Pong and celebrating with my third eldest niece who just become Bat Mitzvah, I have been having heart-to-hearts with my baby sister and talking myth with my mother while connecting with my older sister and reconnecting with college friends in New Jersey and having a wonderful dinner with a guy I dated in 1995 (who now lives in the Big Apple), we learn that the Administration has reached a compromise on repealing Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell as Nick reported here.

From what little I’ve read, my evaluation is that while this may not be an ideal solution, it does appear to be a step in the right direction.  Left-of-center blogress Pam Spaulding offers a somewhat skeptical perspective here and here.

Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director of GOProud, 

. . . urges conservatives in the House and Senate to support the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal compromise that was reached yesterday.  While this compromise isn’t perfect, it does take an important first step in removing the Clinton-era ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy and returns the decision-making authority for the policy regarding gay service to the Department of Defense and the Commander-in-Chief.

 We believe strongly that Congress should not be involved in micro-managing military personnel decisions.  Those decisions should be made by our military leaders – not by opportunistic politicians.

 At the end of the day, conservatives should support a policy that best serves our men and women in uniform and our national security, and this compromise will insure that such a policy is implemented.

Seem that at least one Republican will be voting in favor of repeal.

In the coming days, let’s hope some reporters ferret out how this came to pass.  Looks like someone in the Administration is committed to doing the right thing.  And keeping the promises candidate Obama made on the campaign trail.

While the U.S. delegation to the United Nations did nothing to block the election of Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, they did stand up to the angry oligarch today:

The U.S. delegation walked out of a United Nations conference on nuclear nonproliferation during a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in which he asserted Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes and slammed Western powers, especially the U.S., for allowing Israel to maintain undeclared nuclear weapons. . . .

The U.S. delegation filed out of their seats in the hall of the U.N. General Assembly a little less than halfway through Ahmadinejad’s 35-minute speech. The French were missing altogether from the opening session of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference. There were also protests outside the U.N. against Ahmadinejad’s presence there.

Given that “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to take the podium later in the afternoon”, she’s likely at the United Nations right now.  I wonder if she lead the American exodus from the conference.

In any case, whoever is responsible for the walkout deserves our heart-felt appreciation.  And kudos to the Administration for countenancing such an action.  No American sit silently while the Iranian hegemon launches into an angry outburst against nations, unlike his, committed to freedom and opposed to aggression and oppression.

While we’re more focused now on domestic issues, our brave men and women in uniform are still fighting the good fight in Iraq and getting the bad guys:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced today the deaths of Abu Hamzah al-Muhajir, more commonly known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, al-Qaida’s top leader in Iraq, and Hamid Dawud Muhammad Khalil al-Zawi, or Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the head of the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq. The two were killed during a nighttime raid on what the U.S. military described as an al-Qaida safe house, U.S. forces in Iraq said in a statement confirming the deaths of the two leaders.

Two terrorists dead.

United States Forces-Iraq Commander Gen. Raymond T. Odierno called their deaths “potentially the most significant blow to al-Qaida in Iraq since the beginning of the insurgency”.  While Odierno is leading an operation begun when George W. Bush was president, he’s doing it during Barack Obama’s watch.  The bulk of the credit may belong to our service members on the ground too, but by dint of his role as Commander in Chief, the president also should accolades for this successful operation.

Kudos, Mr. President, for continuing to take the fight to the terrorists.

UPDATE: Max Boot reports that “Even before [these terrorists'] demise, Odierno noted on Fox News Sunday, security trends were positive“:

First quarter fiscal year ‘10 was the lowest number of incidents we’ve had in a quarter, the lowest number of high-profile attacks, the lowest number of indirect fire attacks, the lowest number of civilian casualties, the lowest number of U.S. force casualties, the lowest number of Iraqi security force casualties. So the direction continues to be headed in the right way.

Okay, so far be it from me to criticize the president without his usually doting obsequious press-corps in tow. But for all the paparazi man-of-state cum cause celebre has carved out for himself, half a cheer to this guy for spending a few quiet hours with his wife and daughters, the two latter who likely are the only ones left in the nation with hero worship less than that of the White House press corps themselves.

Perhaps, a week past the holy time of Easter, we can give our First Father this one moment to himself to share with his brood.

Naturally, of course, those of us on the Right will be more prone to allow that to the man who, to us, doesn’t necessarily embody the salvation of mankind itself. To the Left, naturally, any moment away from the spotlight of their own desperate clinging to metaphysical greatness above their own selves will be tatamoun to a slap on the collective face.

All place idol-worship in the correct perspective, no?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

It now appears most of the forward motion in the Obama Administration on scaling back Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell comes from appointees with Republican backgrounds.  Last week, we reported that the only Bush appointee in the Obama cabinet, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, had approved new rules making it harder to discharge gays from the military.

Now, we learn that

The secretary of the Army, John M. McHugh, said Wednesday that he was effectively ignoring the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law because he had no intention of pursuing discharges of active-duty service members who have recently told him that they are gay.

Mr. McHugh, the Army’s civilian leader and a former Republican congressman from upstate New York, said that he had initiated the conversations with service members in recent months as part of the Pentagon’s review of how best to carry out a repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, which requires that gay service members keep their sexual orientation secret or face discharge.

Seems if Obama wants to get something done, he turns to a Republican.

While this is a step in the right direction, it appears only to apply to conversations openly gay soldiers have with the Army Secretary.  Still, that he will allow such exchanges indicates he’s willing to listen to such service members, a necessary step toward understanding the concerns and learning how best to allow their service while continuing to maintain the army’s effectiveness.

The New York Times headline, Secretary of the Army Says He Will Not Pursue ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Discharges, does seem to miss the mark, not accurately summarizing the article’s content.

Chalk one up for a Bush appointee in the Obama Administration:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates Thursday approved new rules that will make it harder to discharge gays from the military, calling the changes a matter of “common sense and common decency.”

Gates announced new guidelines for how the Pentagon carries out the 1993 law banning gays from serving openly in the military — rules which essentially put higher-ranking officers in charge of discharge proceedings and impose tougher requirements for evidence used against gays.

The new guidelines go into effect immediately and will apply to cases already open.

Here’s something which shows just how reprehensible the ban has been:

To discourage the use of overheard statements or hearsay, from now on any evidence given in third-party outings must be given under oath, Gates said. Cases of third-party outings also have included instances in which male troops have turned in women who rejected their romantic advances or jilted partners in relationship have turned in a former lover.

So, up until now, someone cold ruin a military career based on an accusation not made under oath?  So, people may well have used a bad law to get at rivals.

“Nathaniel Frank, a senior research fellow with the Palm Center, which supports a repeal of the ban, said it is unclear how much of an impact the new guidelines would have because regulations already restrict third-party allegations.”

Still, this does seem a step in the right direction, toward repeal of the ban.

First, a major hat tip to the folks at the leftie blog, Think Progress, for posting the video embedded below.  General David Petraeus, them man widely admired on the right, the man who, we believe, was the real man of the year in 2007 and who, I believe, would make a fine presidential candidate in two years time, now says “the time has come to consider a change to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,”

The good general is exactly right that this should be done in a “thoughtful and deliberative manner,” not the willy-nilly manner in which the the Clinton Administration tried to enact it..

According to the folks at Think Progress:  ”This week, the Pentagon’s Office of the General Counsel is also expected to release the results of its 45-day review of how Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell could be implemented in a fairer manner.” Seems the process has been pretty deliberative so far.  Let’s hope it leads to repeal before the year is out.