Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 3:25 PM ET, 11/30/2010

Sec. Gates's blunt message to the Senate and Sen. McCain

By Jonathan Capehart

My editor popped into my office to ask "What's the headline?" out of the release of the long-awaited report on the repeal of don't ask don't tell. The answer was pretty easy. Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants the Senate to repeal don't ask don't tell before the courts force him to eliminate the policy. He urged that it be done during the lame-duck session and that those standing in the way "are rolling the dice that this policy will not be abruptly overturned by the courts."

Got that, John McCain?


The courts haven't been shy about dictating military policy. In October September, a federal judge declared the ban on gay men and lesbians serving openly in the military unconstitutional and ordered it to cease enforcement immediately. And other judges are almost certain to come to similar conclusions the longer Congress waits to repeal don't ask don't tell. To have the courts do what Congress won't would be a nightmare for an institution that runs on process, rules, predictability and order. Here's what Gates said:

I believe this is a matter of some urgency because, as we have seen this past year, the federal courts are increasingly becoming involved in this issue. Just a few weeks ago, one lower-court ruling forced the Department into an abrupt series of changes that were no doubt confusing and distracting to men and women in the ranks. It is only a matter of time before the federal courts are drawn once more into the fray, with the very real possibility that this change would be imposed immediately by judicial fiat -- by far the most disruptive and damaging scenario I can imagine, and the one most hazardous to military morale, readiness and battlefield performance.

Therefore, it is important that this change come via legislative means -- that is, legislation informed by the review just completed. What is needed is a process that allows for a well-prepared and well-considered implementation. Above all, a process that carries the imprimatur of the elected representatives of the people of the United States. Given the present circumstances, those that choose not to act legislatively are rolling the dice that this policy will not be abruptly overturned by the courts.

The Pentagon Working Group's study is now the 23rd on the subject of gays in the military. The results are not surprising. Allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly would not harm the armed forces. An overwhelming majority of those in uniform think such a policy change isn't a big deal. While there are predictions of short-term discomfort, there is certainty that repeal would be a success over the long-term.

The ball is now in the Senate's court. Republicans must bring McCain along or be willing to leave him behind to help pass this historic legislation. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) must bring it to the floor for a vote. To fail to do so would be to cede to the federal courts Congress's authority over and responsibility for military policy. As the leader of the armed forces of the United States made clear, that's not acceptable.

By Jonathan Capehart  | November 30, 2010; 3:25 PM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama, Republicans and kumbaya?
Next: What's with Obama and summits?


Sec. Gates naively thinks appeals to national security will sway the right. They will view this as they view all public policy questions, as a means to fire up the base and smear their opponents.

The right wants the courts to overturn the ban and throw the military into chaos. They then will blame liberals (viz, anyone to the left of Der Fuhrer) for the mess. America can expect this from the party whose stated paramount goal is to see Obama fail. They will burn the village to save it; no, they'll burn the village to further their lust for power. They know how successful Hitler was in burning the Reichstag and then blaming the Communists. That's the right's game plan for America.

Posted by: Garak | November 30, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

The simple solution is to force McCain and Graham to filibuster the defense appropriations bill and hammer them for
not supporting the armed forces during a time of war until they capitulate.

Time for the Democrats to play hard ball like the right.

Posted by: joejoe2000 | November 30, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Why do we have to wait for Grampa Munster/McCain? After releasing Sarah on us I can't understand why we would ever pay any attention to this gelded maverick ever again on any subject. The republicans continue to prove that they have no interest in the interests of our country. From the START treaty to DADT they truly believe that our country must be made to suffer for having the audacity to put Obama in the White House. They care only about regaining control over our government so they can give tax cuts to millionaires and cut business regulations so they can wreck the economy and move the money from the middle class to their bosses.
When will Americans wake up and send this party home once and for all?

Posted by: johnrf | November 30, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Given that gays voted by a majority for the recent Republican take-over, Republicans might see this as a good time to put differences aside.

Posted by: jav1231 | November 30, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

HA! I love all the comments against gays in the military! They think that military service is the same as a civilian job. Try being in the same tent as a that, in the middle of the night, makes a pass at that burly 200 pound Marine! The funniest part of the whole thing that NO ONE has addressed: The UCMJ (uniform code of military justice-Military Law) provides for prosecution for sodomy and "unnatural acts". The Separations and Retirement Manual provides for discharge for homosexual, to the homosexuals that expect sexual freedom in the military: Go for it! See you in jail or out of the Military with a bad discharge....or welcome to celebacy! ha ha ha ha

Posted by: mickey644 | November 30, 2010 5:12 PM | Report abuse

Is the 23rd study on the topic the one Senator McCain has really been waiting for... or is their another one?
Can Senator McCain hear The Defense Secretary now?

Posted by: kiterider | November 30, 2010 5:14 PM | Report abuse

The "Right" is Wrong - for Americans of all walks of life. They are anti-everything. They are also traitors of the first order. They want the U.S. to turn into a dictatorship with people from the "Right" in charge - of course.

I have a message for the "Right". Leave this country so the rest of us - free thinking Americans - can live the life allowed us by the Constitution. The Constitution. Yeah, that "piece of paper" - as George W. Bush puts it - that we honor and live by?

Posted by: thinknblink | November 30, 2010 5:23 PM | Report abuse

The real reason DADT is not repealed (and the other causes of the gay community are not advanced) is because of Obama.

He is a mild homophobe, and his religious upbringing poses a minor problem. The major problem is that he is afraid of the social conservative backlash and any negative publicity.

DADT would be gone if Obama did NOTHING. Let's take inventory.

He was elected with a pretty good mandate.
He had a big majority in the House, and a supermajority in the Senate.

A federal court ruled that DADT was unconstitutional.

All he had to do was... NOTHING, and DADT would be gone.

But no, he wanted to end it legislatively.

Despite the overwhelming majorities he enjoyed (no other President in the last several decades enjoyed such majorities), he could not even get it to a vote!

And now, with the last elections, he cannot.

So he cannot repeal a policy that

1. The public agrees should be repealed
2. The defense secretary agrees should be repealed
3. The Chairman of the JoC agrees should be repealed
4. A federal court finds DADT unconstitutional

and now

5. The military rank and file agree that it can be repealed.

So, what exactly will it take this two-faced President to repeal DADT, or at least force a vote so that the hypocrites on the Senate floor can be made to display their bigotry?

Posted by: HumanSimpleton | November 30, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

McCain has gone completely senile. The sad part is the way he has used his military experience to build himself up, all the while showing nothing but contempt for the service of gay and lesbian patriots. Last time I checked both gay and straight soldiers bleed and die in defense of their country, too bad Mr McCain is so wrapped up in his personal predjudice to recognize that.

Posted by: MarcMyWords | November 30, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

The Marine Commandant has already issued his statement that homosexuals are not welcome in the Marines. Back when Clinton ushered in the ruse of "don't ask, don't tell" it was just a liberal nose under the tent, now we have the whole stinking camel and we will be cleaning up one dung pile after the next. Only liberals can reconcile evolution and homosexuality and ram both through the school system as valid. Bring it on.

Posted by: woks-90093 | November 30, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

I will make a bet. This to all who think this will not work. Even money. Put up or shut up.

Posted by: larry19461946 | November 30, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

This is all a bunch of nonsense. If Congress repeals don't ask don't tell, then it would go back to the pre-Clinton era, wherein Gates would set the rules. But if he tried to prevent flaming homosexuals from flaunting their right to have naked military sex in the middle of the day in Firdusi Square, the U.S. Supreme Court could overrule him, in theory.

Posted by: stanlippmann | November 30, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Over 70% of Americans support a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. This report that shows a repeal of DADT would be virtually harmless is another nail in the coffin of DADT.

Republican politicians need to stop trying to shove their social beliefs down the throat of the majority of Americans.

Posted by: paulflorez | November 30, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Military service is validation. To those 'wrapped in the flag' patriots, military service makes you a real American. Thus "draft dodger" was such a strong accusation at he start of the 'Culture Wars'. Of course, they've conveniently forgot that when Kerry (bona fide war hero) ran against Cheney (the draft dodger, other priorities) and Bush (drunk in Alabama chasing debutantes) but it still carries weight. When Blacks returned from WWII and were denied their civil rights, it was the end for Segregation. The minute gays can claim service and medals, only the most extreme religious extremists will be able argue for gay 'Segregation'.

It must be hard for them to embrace their demons.

Posted by: thebobbob | November 30, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Many years ago, we allowed woman on ships. The whole Navy had to revamp all the sleeping quarters for women. Gay men and women are known, and they get caught trying to do whatever in those berthings and elsewhere. The young 18 year old from the middle of America is confronted by a naked bull and intimidated. Or wakes up when drinking alcohol only to find one in their pants. Seen this repeatedly while serving my 32 years. Then the beat down happens. Whatever.

So, now what? Approve it and revamp all the berthing areas on ships so that straight men and women have their berthings, then gay men and women have their berthings (4 total per ship).

I compare it to men and women sleeping, showering together as if COED, while the opposite sex (straight or gay, depending) watches you and perhaps makes advances.

This is all crazy.

Lastly, I work with hundreds of Sailors. Not one that I have questioned ever saw this so called SURVEY. So who was surveyed?

Would YOU want your Son or Daughter to live in a COED berthing with the opposite sex (or those whose sexuality is that of the opposite sex) and having to deal with it?

Not in my world. Life on a SHIP is hard enough, without the extra DRAMA.

Posted by: GregBoo | November 30, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Do it now. Way past time.

Posted by: 82ndairborne | November 30, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Dear GOD, isn't this stupid issue over YET?!?!?! I feel like we've been arguing about this idiotic policy for about 100 years. LET GO, scardy cats, and embrace the 21st Century...(since you apparently couldn't handle reality in the 20th Century)

Posted by: Gal_Friday | November 30, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

I served along side of gay men during the Vietnam war. We weren't serving in combat, but if we had, I know that these men would have served bravely and honorably.
One became a trustworthy friend to me and my family and his sexual preferences were never discussed or were never an issue.

Posted by: wdalton1us | November 30, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

The safety of America is what we should be concerned about. If we start giving attention to other issues then that is what is going to take precedence. Why give attention to something that is irrelevant to what the priority of thought should be? Do we want a safe America? or do we want what some think is a morally good club of people who will be role models to our children? Grow up people. We have developed into a divisive, culturally different society where nothing will agree. In this case these individuals swore to an oath to protect our shores. Let them do that.

Posted by: craigphillips2 | November 30, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

What's the hurry? Let the House and Senate take a few months to READ and CONSIDER the report. This is how DEMOCRATS pass legislation ... without reading what they are voting on. But that's not how Americans want government to behave, and that was one of the messages that Americans sent on November 2.

Posted by: penniless_taxpayer | November 30, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Here's the headline "Soldiers Don't Give a Rat's Backside About Gays. Sen. McCain Still Afraid of This New-Fangled Invention Called 'Fire'"

Posted by: Moderate4USA | November 30, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

mickey644 fantasized: "Try being in the same tent as a that, in the middle of the night, makes a pass at that burly 200 pound Marine!"

I have two words for you: CLOSET. CASE.

Posted by: Manwolf | November 30, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

How much truth do we need to make an informed decision?

Posted by: Grant_x | November 30, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

We are collectively a nation of cowards, setting an "us" above a "them," and each time denying it. "They" directs "us."

Being "above" is more important to us than almost anything else.

Gen. Omar Bradley upon receiving the order from President Truman to integrate the armed forces stated it would not happen until it happened in society. He erred on two levels: He had been ordered, and he was wrong.

US society took another several years, and an order from the US Supreme Court it could not ignore.

Posted by: khmaio | November 30, 2010 6:30 PM | Report abuse

Have you noticed how the right has now completely changed their stance from us taking advice from Sec. Gates and the US Armed Forces Generals? Doesn't anyone find that amusing?

Fact is, our soldiers fight and sleep next to homosexuals and bisexuals every single day. Fact is, it's not hurt the armies that already have passed it. Fact is, the code of conduct is still in place (and if the idiot above thinks every gay man and woman is into sodomy, he's insane). Fact is, there will still be policies and procedures for sexual harassment (any direction). Fact is, homosexuals are already serving.

Posted by: jimhinco | November 30, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

DADT and DOMA are both winding their way through the court system. Both are bad pieces of legislation, pressed by people promoting fear and bigotry. Both should be repealed or overturned. I think the Congress should spare itself the embarrassment of yet another judicial chastisement.

Posted by: OldUncleTom | November 30, 2010 6:48 PM | Report abuse

We do need opportunity for all. Having grown up near several gay communities, having gay relatives and interacting with numerous gay acquaintances helps me to better understand their perspectives. Having served in two branches of the military on the enlisted side, and serving all over the world, I understand that the military is nothing like the 9-5 jobs many Americans possess. The major concern I have is that sufficient safeguards do not currently exist (UCMJ notwithstanding) to protect very young and in many cases not yet mature men and women under conditions and circumstances not yet fully understood by the general public that will arise. Due to the rigid structure and hierarchy within the military, abuse of power can and does occur. Sexual abuse is no exception. With the freeing of restriction to openly gay men and women, a new level of potential abuse factors may emerge. Unless well considered safeguards are built in, thousands of young men and women, gay and straight in the years to come, particularly in the enlisted ranks, will be victims of abuse who might otherwise never have been. The effects and impact of these kinds of abuse over the lifetime of these young men and women will echo throughout their lives.

Posted by: dgoethe59 | November 30, 2010 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Ridiculous! It might be charitable to suggest that Capehart forgot to listen to the press conference before writing this column, but the truth is that this is a partisan piece of spin. I DID listen to the press conference and Gates was quite clear on the conclusions of the report: all claims of "low risk of harm" to the military depend on the implementation plan. What he ACTUALLY said was that repeal of the law must be preceded by a period of "preparation" (Gates's word). Gates couldn't even say how long the preparation would require when asked, but he was clear over and over that failure to heed the preparation period would invalidate the low risk assessment. Why is that hard for the left-leaning press to understand and report? Instead, all I see on Google News is absurd and sensationalist characterization of what Gates actually said. Perhaps the reporters wish they could have spoken for Gates because the reporting, beginning with this Capehart piece, is dishonest. Thankfully I was able to listen to the "raw" feed on the XM Radio POTUS channel to cut through the media bias and decide for myself. The REAL story is "significant harm to the military likely from haphazard repeal of the 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' law."

Posted by: expat_metro_resident | November 30, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

expat_metro_resident wrote: The REAL story is "significant harm to the military likely from haphazard repeal of the 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' law."

BS. Based on what evidence? All you have is your prejudice.

Posted by: Manwolf | November 30, 2010 7:08 PM | Report abuse

John McCain is not relevant. He switches sides easier that a chameleon changes color so his opinion on anything has no validity. McCain needs to think about retiring to one of his 7 homes if he can remember where they are.

Posted by: inewsmaster | November 30, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

McCain spent so much time kissing up to the right wing bigots of the GOP that he has morphed into one of them.

He has to be one of the all time hipocrites, and there have been plenty of them, in the history of the Senate.

Posted by: WESHS49 | November 30, 2010 9:55 PM | Report abuse

McCain has to rank as one of he biggest hipocrites to ever appear on the floor of the United States Senates and there have been a lot of them

Posted by: WESHS49 | November 30, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

A reply to: "HumanSimpleton"

True. Obama has been a big disappointment for those who thought he was going to bring REAL change to Washington D.C. He has turned into another "corporatist" from a party that also has become a "corporatist" party.

The Republicans have gone to the "Funny Farm" so they don't count as a party of and for the people. All that matters to Republicans is the corporate bottom line. When they say they "want their country back". What they really mean is they want Bush and his super rich friends to get more of the American pie.

Republicans who are against the repeal of DADT are the same Republicans who think they are the real Christians in the world. I mean, why would God bless them with so much money if they weren't? That's how they think. Money equals, God loves them and hates everybody else - and that's it!! No room for negotiations. The same applies to anything that is "other". That's why they oppose repeal of DADT or, for that matter any Gay rights.

My question is: What is society suppose to do with Gay people? Burn them at the stake? Maybe, beheading like the Muslims would be the correct course of action. But, if we did that "the terrorists will win". Hmmm... I think the "Right" has a problem.

In the 1950's, if you were Black you had a similar problem. Sometimes being Black would cost you your life. But now, abusing Blacks can get you thrown in jail - and rightly so.

Gays are going through the same battle for equality that Blacks had to go through except, they don't have a Martin Luther King to bring this issue to the forefront. What Gays need is a leader who will rally the "troops". Harvey Fierstein where are you?

Posted by: thinknblink | November 30, 2010 10:09 PM | Report abuse

I say leave McCain behind. He has a lot of work to do kissing Palin's backside

Posted by: Jose5 | November 30, 2010 10:44 PM | Report abuse

>The "Right" is Wrong - for Americans of >all walks of life. They are anti->everything.

No more so than The Left. The Left is anti-gun, anti-corporation, and anti-flat tax (to name just three topics).

Way past time for gays to openly serve in the military. I served nine years with gay service members who were both in the closet and out. They were fine service members and didn't affect anyone else's job in the least. Let's not forget that the last successful subjugation of Afghanistan occurred under Alexander the Great, and *he* is alleged to have been gay; apparently gayness is no impediment to military victory. Perhaps our own generals might consider converting in order to win.

Posted by: segodnya | November 30, 2010 11:17 PM | Report abuse

Don't really understand this logic. Congress should immediately overturn dadt before the courts overturn it, like there's a guarantee it will be overturned? So far, as i recall, it is only a couple of liberal judges that have ruled against dadt. No appellate court has ruled as of yet. Even if that happens, you can't rely on the 9th circuit as a barometer as it is so frequently overturned by the SCOTUS, it's not funny. So, why should congress panic into passing anything at this point. Why shouldn't they just let the court game play out to where it ends and then see what, if anything they need to do?

Posted by: termiteavenger | November 30, 2010 11:19 PM | Report abuse

"So, why should congress panic into passing anything at this point."

The thought is that the next Congress will be so irresponsible that it won't legislate at all. The report just released by the military is something of a game changer. Further rulings against DADT in the absence of legislative repeal are now certain.

Posted by: fzdybel | December 1, 2010 12:06 AM | Report abuse

In reply to: "seegodnya"

The "Left" is all that but, with the exception of them being anti-corporation. Obama has turned into a Wall Street Corporatist. Many Democrats in the Senate are the same.

The old Democratic Party died with LBJ and had a slight revival with Jimmy Carter. Clinton started out as anti-corporatist but, then changed after the 1996 election and became a corporatist as well as pro Wall Street. He was instrumental in repealing the Glass-Steagall act which allowed Wall Street to turn into a casino.

As far as winning any "converts" over to the other side (turning gay), I don't think our generals would appreciate that kind of suggestion. Beside, when Republicans get caught in an extra-marital affair many times it is someone of the same sex - even though they say they are not gay. Senator Larry Craig being one example.

Posted by: thinknblink | December 1, 2010 3:09 AM | Report abuse

we hold these truth's to be self evident that all men are creatred equal. i didn't see where this gives the right wing the right to exclude people that their religion or fear doesn't like. right wingers love their constitution until they actually read it and discover they can't discriminate at will.

Posted by: blinwilly | December 1, 2010 7:26 AM | Report abuse

Lets sort this out. We have the Senior Senator from AZ. bowing to the lead of his junior Senator, Kyl, while ignoring the Senior Republican in the senate and on the committee, Senator Lugar.

You also mention Senator Graham who just because he managed to serve in the military with out being outed over his own sexuality thinks the policy is OK.

What ever these three say, McCain, Kyl or Graham, You won't find a speck of truth involved.

Posted by: timothy2me | December 1, 2010 7:36 AM | Report abuse

I thought at the time that Don't Ask Don't tell was disingenuous. Our government was subjecting young men and women to pretense - demanding that they pretend to be someone they were not. That resulted in many being discharged from the service they loved because their sexuality was discovered.
It was unfair and it was wrong and it is time to change it. Those 25% of "tough he-men" who object can get used to it or leave the service.

Posted by: Kansas28 | December 1, 2010 7:44 AM | Report abuse

To fail to do so would be to cede to the federal courts Congress's authority over and responsibility for military policy.

Reading the statement from Sec. Gates And the tone of this and other editorials it is clear the courts have already usurped the power of the Executive and Legislative branches and what is being asked for is a rubber stamp on the court's policy demands.

Posted by: plysle | December 1, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Those who are against repeal of DADT evidently believe our military is less capable than that of other countries in being able to fully integrate openly gay and lesbian personnel.

If they believe openly serving is detrimental to unit cohesion and battle effectiveness they must refuse assistance of the military of any country that permits gays and lesbians to openly serve. If they truly believe this then then must believe they are endangering our military personnel by relying upon the military of these other countries in fighting our wars.

They can start by telling Great Britain to leave Afghanistan because they are endangering our personnel and the mission.

Posted by: FauxReal | December 1, 2010 9:40 AM | Report abuse

To me Sodomy is an unatural act and always will be no matter what the outcome will be.
This is but another nail in the coffin holding what is left of our morals.

Semper Fi

Posted by: bilmul83 | December 1, 2010 10:12 AM | Report abuse

I guess we could let gays run the military and the rest of them can go home. That would really get the Republicans in a boil.

Jokes aside, I can't understand why anybody in their right mind would want to join the service. But I suppose if some of them want to go get shot at, it ought to be done fairly. Any red blooded American who wants to die for the Grand Ayatollah, or fighting for a colony in Afghanistan, should be able to do so.

Posted by: fdoleza1 | December 1, 2010 10:15 AM | Report abuse

The decadent state of the American Liberalism is perfectly exposed by how they get in a lather about a thousand or so gays that have to be discreet to be in the military, yet there is hardly any concern about the upwards of a million deaths caused by our invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Google "Casualties of the Iraq War" and see the Wikipedia entry.

Posted by: independent123 | December 1, 2010 11:02 AM | Report abuse

"before the courts force him to eliminate the policy"

Who will be the five Supreme Court justices that will break centuries of precedent and rule that Congress does not have complete control of the military?

Secretary Gates' logic for the need to repeal DADT is flawed at its core.

Posted by: blasmaic | December 1, 2010 11:04 AM | Report abuse

It's just icky !

Posted by: carlbatey | December 1, 2010 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Granpa McCain has not flip-flopped to pander to Palin's intolerant theocons who characterize the repeal as a free-for-all for stereotypical flaming gay behavior in the military. If these judgmental Huckabees had ever served, they know commanders have always demanded soldiers act like soldiers. This will not change no matter what Rove tells Fox News to say about it.

When did we let the 25% of Americans take over the country through their boorish bullying in the name of poor old Jesus?

Posted by: areyousaying | December 1, 2010 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Does anyone writing opinion pieces at the WaPo fact-check what they are writing?

Case-in-point; Jonathan Capehart writes, "The Pentagon Working Group's study is now the 23rd on the subject of gays in the military. The results are not surprising. Allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly would not harm the armed forces. An overwhelming majority of those in uniform think such a policy change isn't a big deal. While there are predictions of short-term discomfort, there is certainty that repeal would be a success over the long-term..."

However as reported by L.A. Times, there are many in uniform presently who do have concerns:

"...Lawmakers who favor that current law are likely to seize on data in the study, which was completed by more than 115,000 troops and 44,200 military spouses, that showed that military personnel in combat units, especially those in the Marines and Army, have greater concerns about serving with homosexuals than other military branches.

At least 40 percent of combat troops raised some concerns. Among Marines, the smallest of the services and the most conservative, the number rose to 58 percent...",0,4826467.story

I have many friends and family who are gay. This is not much of an issue for me personally and would support the military leaders's decision. Yet, to gloss over facts to report a bias column that supports the writer view and leaving out such data is a disservice to all Post's readers.

Posted by: Conservator | December 1, 2010 11:52 AM | Report abuse

oops typo: Granpa McCain HAS flip-flopped..

Posted by: areyousaying | December 1, 2010 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Not until we give more tax cuts to billionaires! The most important issue facing this country is how to give more tax cuts to billionaires! I can't wait until those tax cuts trickle down to us regular people.

Posted by: miknugget | December 1, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

"Don't believe the phony liberal media reports that 70% of troops support open homosexual service, because that statistic included 'mixed' feelings. A closer reading of the fine print in the newly released Pentagon survey shows our troops answered as follows:

Q45. If you had a leader whom you believed was gay or lesbian, 9% positive, 91% negative or mixed effect on unit's performance.

Q68c. 85% of Marine Combat Arms, 75% of Army Combat Arms, 64% overall say Negative, Very Negative, or Mixed impact on unit trust.

Q90. 29% would take no action if assigned open showers. 71% would shower at other times, complain to leadership or chaplains, don't know or do "something else" [including violence.]

Q81. 24% will leave the military or think about leaving sooner than planned. [One half million troops will QUIT early, destroying national security.]

Q80. 6% will positively recommend service to others after repeal. 94% feel negative, mixed, no effect, or don't know about recommending military service to others. [Destroying recruiting efforts.]

Q66. If open homosexuality impacts combat performance, is the impact....9% positive, 91% negative or mixed impact.

Q71. 11% feel positive or very positive about open homosexuality in field environment or out at sea. 60% negative or mixed. 19% no effect.

Q73. 5% say repeal would positively boost morale. 41% say negative or mixed impact morale. Rest no effect or don't know.

"In summary, the real stats prove our nation faces a NATIONAL SECURITY DISASTER if Don't Ask, Don't Tell is repealed, and open homosexual aggression is forced upon our troops against their will."

Posted by: lyn3 | December 1, 2010 12:02 PM | Report abuse

For the commenters (like bilmul8) who think that "sodomy" somehow goes against religious or moral principles, I would remind you of its definition. Sodomy includes not only anal sex but also oral sex, and each of these sexual practices can occur between two men, two women, OR a man and a woman. The argument that those sexual acts are not "natural" is neither here nor there. Don't tell me that men and women don't engage in consensual sodomy. With the current Code of Military Justice, there are quite a few heterosexual military members who could be prosecuted for these acts, but of course since they're straight, the military turns a blind eye.

Also, if people like Mickey took the time to READ THE REPORT, they would see that one of the recommendations is to transform the Code of Military Justice so that consensual sodomy is not a prosecutable offense.

If the military were really concerned about preventing unwanted advances, they would take more seriously the astonishingly high reports of rape/sexual assault of women by men in the military.

Posted by: graphchick1 | December 1, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Sadly the insane rush to force 85% (or more) of the population to adhere to principles set forth by 15% (probably less) of the population is soon going to affect the defense of our nation.

I expect that our military will lose a good portion of the best of the best of them just so a very few can feel superior to the rest. A sad day and probably coming far too soon.

And it's not that gays could not serve admirably and well beside their straight counterparts, but that once again there is a rush to FORCE the policy of a few upon the majority. I think this is a case where the "winners" are only those who have never served themselves.

Posted by: robinTX54 | December 1, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

There's no getting past the fact that republicans are mostly bigots.

Posted by: jbowen431 | December 1, 2010 8:45 PM | Report abuse

The belief that gays in the military will make unwanted passes toward their fellow soldiers is laughable, and unfortunately very sad. As a young 17 year old female heterosexual recruit in this great country's army, I spent much more time trying to thwart advances by my male superiors than anything. The amount of heterosexual sex assualts is astounding in this DADT military. It's deplorable that people would believe that just because one is homosexual, one is attracted to all people of ones same sex. People, please educate yourselves. Gays have died along with straights to protect our country. Its time people.

Posted by: amw_72 | December 2, 2010 10:32 AM | Report abuse

Over 70% of Americans support a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell. This report that shows a repeal of DADT would be virtually harmless is another nail in the coffin of DADT.

Republican politicians need to stop trying to shove their social beliefs down the throat of the majority of Americans.

Posted by: paulflorez | November 30, 2010 5:38 PM

in reply to Paul, Democrats need to stop shoving their beliefs down American throats for votes. Gays were ridiculed, looked down on, bullied,no one wanted to be around one much less have one for a buddy when i served 15 years ago. For Gates and all the yes men under Obama, trying to pass anything to gain votes, and not worry about unemployment, social security, economy is nothing short of failing politically. This report released that was just done has had conflicting numbers who approve or disaprove since its release. The left and good old MSNBC have twisted and warped the numbers for their advantage in favor or not for Gays. Schultz and Olbermann, and Maddow have their own agenda's as opinionated Shock jocks, ( as if anyone didnt figure that out).

Posted by: purplehaze15 | December 4, 2010 3:36 AM | 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