Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 5:51 PM ET, 11/16/2010

Let senators see the don't ask don't tell report -- now

By Jonathan Capehart

If you're following the drama -- and it IS drama, y'all -- over the repeal of don't ask don't tell, you know that a big report is due from the Pentagon on the matter on Dec. 1. But twice in as many days, two respected senators have called on the defense department to release the study early. I'm all for that. Let's see it and get this show on the road.

Yesterday on MSNBC's "Andrea Mitchell Reports," Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) said he hopes "the Defense Department can find a way to issue this report that they've got pretty much done, but going through clearance now, as quickly as possible and certainly before December 1st." Then today, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he asked Defense Secretary Gates to release the report early.

So much to do to repeal the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military, so little time -- in the lame duck session, I mean. The Pentagon could move things along if it released its study before Dec. 1. Defense spokesperson Geoff Morrell said this afternoon that's not going to happen.

I urge the Pentagon to reconsider. Levin is the chair of the committee that has oversight of the Defense Department. If he wants to see the report, he should.

By Jonathan Capehart  | November 16, 2010; 5:51 PM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Should Obama really decline to run for a second term?
Next: TSA's 'junk' bond helps keep us all safe


Sorry, Capehart. Your personal lord and savior, Barack Obama, has finally succeeded, after two years of trying, to sabotage and kill DADT repeal.

Keep blindly spinning and cheering.

Posted by: uh_huhh | November 17, 2010 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, Capehart. Your personal lord and savior, Barack Obama, has finally succeeded, after two years of trying, to sabotage and kill DADT repeal.

Keep blindly spinning and cheering.

Posted by: uh_huhh | November 17, 2010 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Thank you JESUS that we have people in our military who don't cave to a "writer" throwing a hissy fit. They will get to it after they finish protecting your #$s today, ok?

Posted by: dcjayhawk2 | November 17, 2010 6:26 AM | Report abuse

Release the report. I'm looking forward to another one of John McCains temper tantrums. The man is one serious walking talking embarrassment.

Posted by: notfooledbydistractions1 | November 17, 2010 7:30 AM | Report abuse

It's hard to avoid the suspicion that the Department of Defense is stalling, and with a bad motive. They know that their report won't provide any justification for keeping Don't Ask Don't Tell, but they want to keep the policy as long as possible because they just don't like gay people.

Posted by: equalrights | November 17, 2010 8:16 AM | Report abuse

The report is to be finalized and released by Dec 1. The call for an early release is pure politics at the expense of genuine defense considerations.

The Democrats tried to go ahead without the report, showing they don't care if it has a detrimental effect. Politics demands it.

Posted by: kitchendragon50 | November 17, 2010 9:28 AM | Report abuse

There was a time when it was believed that blacks weren't suitable for the armed services also.

This belief that somehow gays serving in the military will be detrimental for morale is preposterous!

Posted by: JAFO2 | November 17, 2010 9:54 AM | Report abuse

What would happen if every gay person in the military stepped up to their CO, turned in their ID, Dog Tags and weapon and said,"I will no longer lie"?

Posted by: mrobertson011 | November 17, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

No offense but what is waiting another 14 days for DOD to release the report. As it stands DOD is to release the report on 1 Dec. I am a retired Navy Chief Warrant Officer and personally am against repealing the policy but it isn't up to me. I just hope that they listen to the troops and if they have no problem with it so be it. Now my question is when will they change the Uniform Code of Military
Justice to remove the articles against homosexual activity or are we just to ignore them? When will we deciede if we allow only gays and lesbians or bisexuals or transsexuals. And if we allow transsexuals in will they have to be completly transformed from the old sex to the new sex, if not will they be classified on their born genitals or their man made sexual organs? These are all questions that need to be answered before doing this type of social engineering on the military.

Posted by: RICHDIET1 | November 17, 2010 11:03 AM | Report abuse

mrobertson011; all,

IF that happened, the US armed forces would lose PERHAPS as much as ONE percent of our "foxhole strength" & the service-members who "outed" themselves would, if the "brass" has any GUTS (which, these days, i seriously doubt) the members would be IMMEDIATELY separated from the forces, with a GENERAL DISCHARGE under "less than honorable conditions" (on the basis of fraudulent enlistment).

otoh, you are 100% correct. = the "gay members" DID lie to enter the armed services and they should LEAVE active/reserve duty, forthwith
if they engaged in "homosexual behavior", while in the forces, they committed a criminal offense punishable, under the provisions of the MCM & UCMJ, as a FELONY.

face it, hardly anybody in the US military forces (with the obvious exception of the LYING homosexuals, discussed above) sees homosexual CONDUCT as either "acceptable in the forces" or even DECENT, morally.

otoh, the end of DADT won't happen anytime soon (IF EVER!) as the Commander-in-Chief, BHO, has NO GUTS & is INCAPABLE of doing anything that MIGHT cost any DIMocRAT to lose even one vote.= in the case of DADT, he's smart enough (while FAR from a "mental giant" - he can, however, read a teleprompter well.) to KNOW that issuing an exceutive order (or signing a public law) allowing "open service" by homosexuals would FINISH his political career & that of MANY of the DIMocRATS in the HoR & Senate.= FACT!

"mrobertson": you really should "get the message" that FEW voters over the age of 50, despite what they may tell some pollster, see homosexual BEHAVIOR as an "acceptable life choice" and even minimally acceptable, morally.
my guess is that you & your like-minded members of the "gay-friendly group" will just have to wait for all of us "old folks" to die to, perhaps, get what you want.

yours, TN46
USA, Retired

Posted by: texasnative46 | November 17, 2010 12:31 PM | Report abuse

The obvious bigotry in many of the posts is disgusting. I was in the service in a time that included blacks and we had no trouble. That there were gays amongst the men I served with did not cause me concern nor was it mentioned. Get over it!

Do I get to express my opinion as as an ex-service member? I do and approve of the repeal. Harry started it in the forties and he had the guts, especially being from Missouri.

Posted by: wallyb | November 17, 2010 12:34 PM | Report abuse

JAFO2 There was a time when it was believed that blacks weren't suitable for the armed services also.

This belief that somehow gays serving in the military will be detrimental for morale is preposterous!


Posted by: lyn3 | November 17, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

JAF02; lyn3; all,

as "a person of color", i, too, am OFFENDED/DISGUSTED/APPALLED that anyone (at least those of us, who have "a greater than room temperature IQ") would compare skin color/tone/complexion (which you are born with & CANNOT be changed) with homosexual BEHAVIOR.
(it is possible that homosexuals are born homosexual BUT their sexual BEHAVIOR, especially that which is engaged IN PUBLIC, is NOT inborn.)

to all: IF you think that hetrosexual males/females should have to live/undress/dress/bathe/use the toilet/sleep in open bay barracks with homosexual members, do you also believe that hetrosexual WOMEN should be required to share the same facilities/quarters as hetrosexual MEN?
it is the SAME "problem"!
(let's make it PERSONAL for you, "Parents": would you want the armed services to FORCE your 17-19YO daughter to share "open bay living quarters" with 10 hetrosexual males of the same age?)

just my opinion, as a former GI, who has lived IN a barracks.

yours, TN46
USA, Retired

Posted by: texasnative46 | November 17, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

OK, take a breath, I remember hearing the phrase no "fratty with fatty, fratty is frowned upon". Meaning, keep your urges to yourself. If one of you "has ta", take off base and out of uniform. So personally, if I have ta, they have ta, get it? If you want to leave the post and go dress up as aunt Mary and play house with uncle Larry, God bless you, its your business. I'm for civil unions too, with benefits, no to the whole religion thing,... please, religions in general have enough problems. But when you put the uniform back on, your supposed to be in control of yourself and that includes controlling your urges. Dismissed.

Posted by: elcigaro1 | November 17, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

I am thrilled that TN46 is back again, and I am even more thrilled that you continue to cede ground to that terrible homosexual agenda.

First you allow that the repeal of DADT may occur: "... the end of DADT won't happen anytime soon."

And then you concede the true reality that young people don't buy into the prejudices of the older generation when you write, "... FEW voters over the age of 50 ... see homosexual BEHAVIOR as an 'acceptable life choice' ... my guess is that you & your like-minded members of the 'gay-friendly group' will just have to wait for all of us 'old folks' to die to, perhaps, get what you want."

I don't think we will have to wait for either you or I or the other "old folks" to die for DADT to die, but I do thank you, TN46, for acknowledging a reality that you would not have conceded a few years ago.

Progress is sometimes slowed-- and when it's slowed real people are hurt-- but progress is never stopped. It's only a matter of time before DADT is ended.

Posted by: tttvance | November 18, 2010 1:46 AM | Report abuse

For gosh sakes, lyn3, stop with the caps.

At least this time, in contrast to your previous posts, you didn't throw out your nonsensical diatribe about AIDS and "degenerate" acts and "special rights" for gays, ad nauseum-- although you did once again seem confused about "sexual orientation."

Two points: One, we "gay-friendly" people (another way of saying "humanity-friendly") believe that treating gays fairly and with dignity is a civil rights issue.

Second, we do not make believe we have all the answers as to why human beings are made the way they are, and why they say and do what they say and do.

I can't explain, for example, why you seem so fanatically upset about gay people. I can't explain why my friend TN46 chooses to be, as he puts it, "OFFENDED/DISGUSTED/APPALLED" (more caps, for goodness sakes) because JAFO2 compared the civil rights of gays to the civil rights of African Americans.

But at least I see some progress and growth on the part of TN46 when he writes, "... it is possible that homosexuals are born homosexual...."

lyn3, I'm waiting to see some progress in you. (The correct use of when to use caps would be a step forward.)

Posted by: tttvance | November 18, 2010 2:33 AM | Report abuse


first, i couldn't care LESS what you think about my admittedly "peculiar" typing style. - i type to suit ME & nobody else.
(in the event that you are really offended & not "just running your mouth", to NO good purpose, you are welcome to just "scroll on by".)

2nd, i have a homosexual 2nd cousin (to us southerners, that's close/"blood" family), who was POSSIBLY born homosexual.= we grew up together (about 20 months apart in age) & Robert S. is dear to me & the rest of our family.===> fyi, he "was in charge of" my wedding & was invited and went to both my kid sister's & my wife's "batchelorette parties". = we simply accept him as "another of the family's girls".
(i'm not prepared academically to KNOW and/or say for sure one way or the other if it's "nature" or "nuture" in his case & i seriously doubt if you KNOW either. = as his mother, my first cousin, LIKED him just that way, it very well could be "nuture", as she often said that she wanted "a girl-child" & dressed him in "pretty, lovely clothes", i.e. "dresses", until he went to public school.)

BUT having said all that, let me also say that my belief & that of most "normal people" believe that Robert's appearance & his BEHAVIOR is "peculiar" at best & "un-natural" & frankly IMMORAL at worst.
fyi, i would NOT want Robert to be "a member of the forces", even if he wished to serve as a GI.

so you see, you "know NOT & know NOT that you know NOT" about such things, even in the rural southland/"Bible Belt". = i think that you are unlikely to be able to understand "reality", as you have "an agenda" & PREJUDICES that blind you to FACTS, that disagree with those prejudices. - and that's a PITY.

yours, TN46
USA, Retired

Posted by: texasnative46 | November 18, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

characters remaining

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company