With the clear support for repeal of DADT in almost every demographic imaginable, and clear calls for repeal from Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, and the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, it’s almost incomprehensible that this Administration, through its Department of Justice, is continuing to defend the constitutionality of the law. Joe @ Americablog:
DOJ had to go the extra mile to show just how valid the DADT law is. It’s hard to miss the section titled:
Because Congress Could Rationally Have Concluded That The DADT Policy Is Necessary To Maintain Unit Cohesion, Accommodate Personal Privacy, and Reduce Sexual Tension For Military Effectiveness, LCR’s Facial Due Process Challenge Fails
They only right-wing talking point they left out is the “we’re in two wars” argument.
It’s incredible that the administration cannot even respond to questions about strategy for repeal - see Barney Frank’s statement calling for the Obama administration to come clean about its intent:
[T]he Administration has been ambiguous about it, and that ambiguity has allowed some to interpret Secretary Gates’ argument for a delay in implementation as a delay in adopting the legislation. I believe that the Administration should make clear that it supports legislative action this year, and that while implementation is being worked out, it will carry out the policy in the way it was originally intended, which would reduce the number of discharges, in my view, by over 90%.”
Joe hits the nail on the head here:
I’m sure the usual apologists will jump to the defense of the Obama administration, even as it becomes more and more clear that the Obama administration has no intention of working to repeal DADT, or enacting ENDA, or repealing DOMA. This also begs the question of what the DOJ’s LGBT liaison, Matt Nosanchuk, does all day. Didn’t this set off some warning bells? Perhaps he has as much sway as the LGBT liaison at the White House, Brian Bond—which isn’t much.
Speaking of Bond, this is what he said back in November 2009 when I interviewed him at the Equality NC Annual Conference:
Again, this president has not backtracked on any of his commitments; and at some point the bloggers and the readers there I hope they will trust this president and work with him, work with us to achieve true equality. We’re working on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell…we’re working on ENDA; you’re going to see mark up in the House next week on ENDA. These are important pieces of equality legislation for our community.
...The reality is, in some situations there are going to be times when you’re going to have to trust us because there are some things that you can’t necessarily put the specific timeline out there. Again, this is a president that means what he says and does what he says.
So which part of the above makes any sense to you, given we have an administration that alternately sends out negative messages such as this brief or doesn’t even respond to queries from Barney Frank about when the President plans to push for legislative repeal? I guess it depends on what this admin defines as “means what he says and does what he says.”
Perhaps that definition has been cleared up by Obama DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler, who went to court to repeatedly cite quotes from retired Gen. Colin Powell’s 1993 statements about gays in the military—views he has since very publicly reversed. WTF?
“This is pretty shocking,” said Richard Socarides, the White House liaison to the gay community under President Bill Clinton. “When Powell said this 18 years ago, it was inflammatory and incendiary. ... [Powell]’s now said this stuff isn’t even true anymore.”
This is ridiculous. And if you think I’m reading too much into this pantomime BS the White House is doing, take a look at Tuesday’s White House briefing that landed in my inbox, where Robert Gibbs does yet another tap dance that proves President Barack Obama has no problem letting the LGBT community twist in the wind on this. Kerry Eleveld of The Advocate tried yet again to extract something resembling an answer from Gibbs.
Q Over successive weeks, Congressman Barney Frank has asked the White House to clarify whether it would like to see legislative action taken this year on “don’t ask, don’t tell.” He’s said that direction from the White House has been muddled, and then at one point said that you guys were actually sort of ducking whether or not you wanted to see legislation action taken on repeal. Would the President like to see that law—
MR. GIBBS: Well, Carol, I would just say this, I don’t think what Admiral Mullen and Secretary Gates have enunciated on this appears muddled to anyone. I don’t—there is a process that’s in place to move forward on the President’s commitment to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
I don’t—Admiral Mullen is the first chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to sit up in front of Congress and say that the law ought to be repealed—not somebody who is retired, not somebody who is long past their commitment of serving their country, but somebody who sat up there and said that. And Secretary Gates and the commission at the Pentagon have taken some important steps.
We’re following that process. We’ll see where the legislative road takes us as we continue to build support to keep the commitment that the President has made.
Q So the President would feel perfectly comfortable letting the next Congress take that up?
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, we’re going to follow the process and the path that are underway with the clear direction that the President has given to repeal this.
Well what is the damned process? We don’t even know where the legislative road is, let alone what direction it is going. What does the President intend to tell Congress to do, if anything, and what is the timeline, since he suggested in the State of the Union that DADT was as good as gone this year?
Does Gibbs need his lips oiled like the Tin Man to utter what the administration intends to do when asked a direct question? Mixed messages and dodges like this have generated strong responses from SLDN and HRC. They are below the fold, as well as some speculation on my part—and some fresh video—as well as a few things readers to look out for going forward.