Kerry Eleveld of the Advocate, continuing to question White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs directly about LGBT issues, asked Tuesday if a review of the DADT policy was something President Obama took into consideration in choosing the New York GOP Congressman for the position of Secretary of the Army.
Full text [and video] of the exchange is below:
The Advocate: On the nomination of Rep. McHugh — Last year, during the "don’t ask, don’t tell" hearings, he expressed a deep desire to move forward with a review of the policy and he said, "I would hope and encourage both the Department of Defense and the various services to reconsider the reluctance they have displayed to this point." Was a review of the policy something that the president took into consideration with this nomination and will Congressman McHugh be encouraged to move forward with talks inside the department?
Gibbs: I think it’s obvious from those statements and other statements that Congressman McHugh has made that he and the President are in agreement on changing the policy they both don’t think is working for this country right now. And it’s a priority of the president’s and I think for any number of reasons we have a nominee that we hope will be confirmed quickly and will have — ah, based on his background and experience — will help to improve the lives of the Army.
It’s important to note that President Obama, during last year’s campaign, consistently stated that he was in favor of the REPEAL of "Don’t Ask Don’t Tell" while his White House Press Secretary has recently begun using the new phrase "favors changing the policy" when discussing the President’s position on DADT, as he did today when he talked about Secretary-designate McHugh’s position.
"Change" and "repeal" are quite different. What does the President favor now? Why does Robert Gibbs continue to say President Obama is "in favor of changing the policy" when the President is on record, repeatedly, as saying he favors its repeal?
18 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
I don’t like Robert Gibbs repeated use of the phrase “favors changing the policy.” Obama is on record as favoring its repeal. Has Obama’s view changed? Or is Gibbs mischaracterizing it?
Parsing of words: the strong determination of the word ‘repeal’ has changed to the abstract ‘changing the policy’ effectively accomplishing a few possible unstated goals:
Back Burner the issue. Excuse: Too much on The President’s plate right now to deal with another issue.
Recant previously-stated position (repeal) on the policy.
The question is: How could DADT be ‘changed’ in any equitable way?
I cannot think of a way to ‘change’ DADT that would make it acceptable. Can you?
I for one sure hope Our Military can get passed it’s fears and get rid of DADT for once and for all! At the same time they should institute a rule that does away any stigma with being Gay or Lesbian and allows our friends to serve openly just as many countries do. We need them, many of their talents are in short supply in the Military.
No, I can’t.
The difference between “change” and “repeal” is vast enough that it is a conscious difference in word choice on Gibbs’ part. The next set of questions for him should highlight this difference, and give him an opportunity to expand on it.
Maybe it’s a simple explanation…like, “That statement is now inoperative.”
Much I’ve read about DADT says that “diversity” training and acceptance seminars are exactly the WRONG way to implement a repeal of DADT. We don’t need individual servicemembers to get past their prejudices — we need to order them to do so. The military is a hierarchical command structure; it doesn’t care how you feel, it cares if you follow orders. Servicemembers ordered to serve alongside lesbian and gay servicemembers don’t have to like it; they simply have to follow orders.
That is exactly what worries me.
Been there!! Uncle Sam owns your ass for the length of your enlistment and you Will do as you are Told by your superiors! Obama needs to just use a Presidential order ordering that our Military make it so!
My feeling: the new “change the policy” parsing is a deliberate political calculation. I just don’t believe that President Eleventeen-dimensional underwater chess, No Drama Obama is letting his official spokesman just shoot off his mouth any-old-how. Repeatedly.
And even if the Pres wants Congress to repeal DADT (which apparently is an actual law), he can still be out in favor of REPEAL, and there are ways he could exercise his Unitary Executive Powers to make his intent and good faith clear.
JMO, of course!
Funny Wheelie Diva
My initial reaction was “w00T!” So thank you for sharing your insights and illuminating the nuances, Teddy. We’re standing right beside you.
Apparently there’s an actual law on the books, unlike with racial integration. But you’re right: CinC tells the Brass “this is how it is”, the Brass implements the orders. There are things the pres could be doing to keep his promise, and he is not.
Not to mention that, by all the accounts I’ve heard, units that know one (or more) of their members is gay actually just do their f-ing jobs anyway.
Funny Wheelie Diva
“I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt
he could start with 10 U.S.C. 12305: Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation
(emphasis mine)
To paraphrase Lieutenant John Kerry: ”Who will be the last soldier to be mustered out for a mistake?”
Not the same, of course, since presumably those mustered out would be welcomed back once the law, and the policy, changed. But still — who is going to be the commander who spends the last million dollars to throw out a perfectly well-qualified Arabic translator, just to see her/him re-instated the following week?
The President can put an end to these separations and investigations while the Congress and the Pentagon dither about how to implement the new policy. And he can do it with the stroke of a pen. And he should.
Since Obama’s brand is change, perhaps that’s why. I’ll believe it when it happens.
Amen.
hey there, how are you?
Read how the integration of the black and white units was handled. Smiley can change DADT in ten minutes that it takes to write a note and fax it to the Pentagon. Impeachment should be on the table, he has lead the country long enough to be charged with war crimes. Every soldier killed in Iraq and Afghanistan should have a medal struck, “killed by a lying two bit Illinois politician with less guts than a chickenhawk.”