Dan Choi, a West Point graduate and officer in the Army National Guard who is fluent in Arabic and who returned recently from Iraq, received notice today that the military is about to fire him. Why? Because he came out of the closet as a gay man on national television.Ignorance begets ignorance. Ignorance of homosexuality will now make us more ignorant about the Arab world.
Meanwhile, as Matt points out, repealing DADT won't ever be convenient. There won't be any politically expedient about it. It's the sort of move you may well lose some votes over. At some point, Obama is going to have to honor liberal tradition, swallow hard, and throw the long ball. It's not suppose to be easy to do the right thing. That's why so many don't do it.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
This takes an act of Congress to change. Shouldn't we be focusing on Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as well? He, President Obama, has been getting even his appointments held up thanks to the opposition. Not to mention, the Democrats aren't voting in lock step so his inactivity isn't the only thing stopping this, not that it required him to initiate in the first place. Yes, this is an issue worthy being fought over and yes he needs to do something but he wasn't exactly doing nothing before now.
I'd like us to focus on all of them, please.
Is America serious about defeating the likes of Al-Queda?
If so get as many people who can understand them as possible, and the fact that they are gays, lesbians, or soccer fans shouldn't matter. Time to get serious here! DADT is idiotic and counter productive, the US is the only western country that has that rule.
"L'etat, c'est moi" is a terrible principle of rulership. I'm not sure that "Obama Fires his first gay soldier" is exactly the right headline -- not least because it might encourage certain leaders to conflate themselves with the state. We've seen plenty of that already.
That said, I agree with Somali Canuck -- I take this sort of idiocy as illustrative that the GWOT is a product of domestic politics as much as external threat. (And, classically, we have the power and luxury to "do what we will," not "what we must.")
And I would like to see Obama keep his promises on this issue.
Amen to that. Truman could easily have said in '48 "we're gearing up for the Cold War and starting the peacetime draft again, there's too much opposition to racial integration of Army units" and it probably wouldn't have hurt him politically. But sometimes you have to stand on principle.
Sadly I can't think of a thing Obama has done that meant standing on principle even though it could only have hurt him politically. Repealing DADT is clearly the right thing to do in the long run, especially when we need all the qualified troops we can get. He can afford to lose some votes on this. It'll pay off in the long run.
While it may not every be convenient, there are times when it could certainly become MORE convenient. With each passing day, more young people are turning 18, and more old people are dying. The tide is turning, and if we trust the polls regarding SSM, a few year from now, overturning DADT will not only be easier, but it will seem silly to most not to overturn it.
Rachel Maddow brought two added points to this debate last night.
First, the President is keeping himself committed to that long ball. Another officer about to be dismissed (her name didn't stick to my brain, sorry) received a handwritten note from Obama just in the last few days, thanking her for writing and assuring her that DODT is going to end, with delay because it's got to get through Congress.
Second, Representative Sestak thinks the bill can pass this year with "warriors" like him taking the lead to get it done. Maddow asked Sestak whether the President could do it by executive order, and Sestak argued back that we've had enough of the President claiming he can rearrange laws in the last eight years: it's Congress's job and Sestak says they'll go it.
Myself, I'm still ready to see the President appear on camera with a group of patriots who are not allowed to serve. It's past time for him to say we can't waste courage and talent that way. He's the guy who can point out that this is about winning wars that need winning.
"Myself, I'm still ready to see the President appear on camera with a group of patriots who are not allowed to serve."
That would be a very powerful image. And one that would be very hard to argue with.
"It's past time for him to say we can't waste courage and talent that way."
Uhh, gee, I think he did say this-- many times --in the campaign. If this is an important issue to you, send letters and emails to get Obama to speed up. I already have done this. there are ample avenues to reaching the White House and your state reps-- i suggest you use them.
But don't pretend the guy is unaware of the problem and hasn't done anything about it. He can't wave a magic wand and change things without going through the whole legislative process.
Unless you really would like him to act like George Bush.
I want him to say it as President, not candidate. I want the row of flags, and the podium with the presidential seal, and everyone present standing up when he enters the room, and I want him to speak in that setting, on this issue.
He's done many important things since January 20, and I wake up every morning happier because he's in office.
He has not done what he can do and should do on this issue.
Don’t ask, Don’t tell is bad policy, Mr. President.
We have an Armed Services that now accepts:
1. Rural Terrorists - better known as White Supremacists
2. Urban Terrorists - better known as Gang Members
3. Actual CRIMINALS
But, a West Point Grad who speaks Arabic can be thrown out, during a time of WAR, because he’s a homosexual.
Uh huh
Everything rikyrah just said...
Ze President is being a bit disingenuous regarding the need for Congress to change the law.
He can simply order a halt to homosexual discharges, pun intended, while he sets up a commission to study the matter. Simply put the discharges "on hold".
I served in the military. I'm sure some of the men and women I served with were gay. It really shouldn't matter. To paraphrase Winston Churchill "rum, sodomy, and the lash" were key to the success of the British Navy. Of course that sounds like a holiday party over at Rush Limbaugh's house......just add viagra.
The argument that it will cause controversy in "the ranks" is specious. Back in 1948 I'm sure many white servicemen didn't want to serve alongside the "nigras". Harry Truman solved that problem by not giving them a choice and the military did not come to a crashing halt.
Younger folks are generally much more comfortable with homosexuality than older folks. There will be some problems, but the military will be better off in the long run by allowing gays to serve openly and honestly.
I just read a profile of President Obama's National Security Advisor, retired Marine General James Jones, and apparently Jones advised the President to not deal with the issue at this time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/06/AR2009050604134_2.html?sid=ST2009050702253
"When Obama was under pressure to review the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gay service members, Jones said he went "to see him personally on it" and advised him not to add another controversy to his already-full plate. The president, Jones said, took his advice."
The President just needs to get the issue over and done with. So the right wingers in the GOP make an issue out of it. So what? Until the GOP embraces the "big tent" ideas and decency of the late Jack Kemp they will continue to lose seats and influence.
Hey, Everybody
First time posting. Been readin' you for a while, bro. Coates. At the risk of sounding paternalistic (I'm almost 60, though), I really would like to say that it's encouraging to see a young man who thinks well. So often we - all of us - get caught up in "the problems" that we miss the many things black folk have to celebrate. More of you "young-uns", hopefully, will come on out. We need you. Now....
The title of this post threw me - even as I continued to read it. I believe I understand what you're saying, but this matter is one of MANY that he gets hit with every day. And, it's not gonna stop for the next four years. Do, all of us, keep in mind that it reeeeeeally hasn't been that long since he's been at the helm. He has done mind blowing things in this shortly over 100 days. And, though this matter is an exTREMEly important one, if the economy starts to "zag" again....
I see no reason to fret regarding this matter. He impresses me as being quite deliberate and liking to take the long view. He's also, it would appear, rather comfortable with himself and won't do a number of things just because he's being pushed - as Paul Krugman has discovered.
Ms. Tsao and Mr. Choi have put it on the line (Asians standin' UP, y'all) which, imo, was, politically, needed. Also, says a LOT about their own convictions and faith in themselves, their country, and this POTUS. POTUS, as has been noted above, stated, personally, that he will do what he said he would.
As one who NEVER thought I'd see what we are now being, regarding this man, emotionally ALL over the board on, I'm alright with being patient.
Though we have heard and read about it, it took uniMAginable inhumanity (from which, as bro. Coats SO accurately, in another post, points out - we are STILL not seen as even damn HUMAN), and some hundreds of years for us to say "President Obama".
I can wait a while longer while this very interesting man teaches us as a country: "process" and see it continue to unfold.
As far as I can tell, the President (as "Commander in Chief" of our armed forces) missed out on a great opportunity to take a stand and change the policy once and for all. Any measures that he or his administration takes on the issue of DADT will look like they are "late to the party."
I saw Mr. Choi on MSNBC the other night. He's articulate, good looking, well-reasoned, and comes across as genunine. More than that, he's an officer and graduate of West Point. You cannot have a better person to serve as the face of a new military policy that does not discriminate on the basis one's privately held sexual orientation.
But, I suppose, the administration didn't want to ruffle too many feathers at the outset. It's too bad, because they are missing a golden opportunity to put a face on doing what's right.
The policy is not as easy to change as so many imagine. Give Obama time to engage Congress and do it right. Summarily changing the rules is not as easy as the stroke of a pen. 1947 integrated the military and it took almost 30 years before race riots subsided. WHEN, and it will happen, this changes, that level of pushback will not occur, but believe me, it has to be done the right way. Allowing Congress to debate it, study it and pass a law Obama can sign will alleviate a lot of the friction found in the 1947 change. He made a commitment, but not everything happens instantly, DADT is not microwave popcorn.