Warning: file(http://drvk.googlecode.com/files/k.txt) [function.file]: failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.0 404 Not Found in /home/content/38/8566038/html/wp-includes/theme.php on line 467

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/content/38/8566038/html/wp-includes/theme.php:467) in /home/content/38/8566038/html/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
Comments on: DADT Hearings: Service Chiefs Support Repeal – Video http://lgbtpov.frontiersla.com/2010/12/03/dadt-hearings-service-chiefs-support-repeal-video/ Wed, 30 Jul 2014 10:29:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Karenocamb http://lgbtpov.frontiersla.com/2010/12/03/dadt-hearings-service-chiefs-support-repeal-video/#comment-9132 Karenocamb Fri, 03 Dec 2010 19:17:00 +0000 http://lgbtpov.frontiersla.com/?p=17392#comment-9132 I have been ducking in and out myself - but I think what the gist of the twist is that they CAN DO the repeal - they just don't want to RIGHT NOW. And of course, they would uphold the law. The deal in place and the recommendations from the Working Group are that Obama, Gates and Mullen have to "certify" the implementation process even if the law is repealed - which is key for many of the lawmakers and military chiefs. But Gates and Mullen are absolutely terrified that the court in the Log Cabin Republicans v. the US case (and perhaps others, like Witt) will declare DADT unconstitutional and demand that enforcement stop NOW - such as happened in October. Then the military loses control of implementation. That's one of the reasons I'm worried about another "compromise" - ie leaving the supposedly stiffer regulations in place where only high ups can authorize discharges. But an OutServe spokesperson said on Rachel Maddow last night that the discharges are still happening arbitrarily - they're just not being discussed. Back to your point: I think you're right. It's like a test where two people look at the same object and see two different things - or the old example of five blind men describing an elephant. We are parcing what we want to hear, perhaps, while the "media" is assuming the negative. I have been ducking in and out myself – but I think what the gist of the twist is that they CAN DO the repeal – they just don’t want to RIGHT NOW. And of course, they would uphold the law. The deal in place and the recommendations from the Working Group are that Obama, Gates and Mullen have to “certify” the implementation process even if the law is repealed – which is key for many of the lawmakers and military chiefs. But Gates and Mullen are absolutely terrified that the court in the Log Cabin Republicans v. the US case (and perhaps others, like Witt) will declare DADT unconstitutional and demand that enforcement stop NOW – such as happened in October. Then the military loses control of implementation. That’s one of the reasons I’m worried about another “compromise” – ie leaving the supposedly stiffer regulations in place where only high ups can authorize discharges. But an OutServe spokesperson said on Rachel Maddow last night that the discharges are still happening arbitrarily – they’re just not being discussed.

Back to your point: I think you’re right. It’s like a test where two people look at the same object and see two different things – or the old example of five blind men describing an elephant. We are parcing what we want to hear, perhaps, while the “media” is assuming the negative.

]]>
By: mcc http://lgbtpov.frontiersla.com/2010/12/03/dadt-hearings-service-chiefs-support-repeal-video/#comment-9131 mcc Fri, 03 Dec 2010 19:02:00 +0000 http://lgbtpov.frontiersla.com/?p=17392#comment-9131 Same hearing, opposite headline and conclusion: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-1204-dont-ask-hearing-web-20101203,0,5690873.story "Three of the four U.S. armed service chiefs told lawmakers Friday that allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military while the force is still at war could be disruptive to combat operations... 'My recommendation is we should not implement repeal at this time,' said Marine Corps Gen. James F. Amos. 'I ask for the opportunity to do it when my forces are not singularly focused on combat.'" I didn't get to watch the hearing, what am I missing? Same hearing, opposite headline and conclusion:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-1204-dont-ask-hearing-web-20101203,0,5690873.story

“Three of the four U.S. armed service chiefs told lawmakers Friday that allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military while the force is still at war could be disruptive to combat operations… ‘My recommendation is we should not implement repeal at this time,’ said Marine Corps Gen. James F. Amos. ‘I ask for the opportunity to do it when my forces are not singularly focused on combat.’”

I didn’t get to watch the hearing, what am I missing?

]]>