|
This belongs to you. Take it back...
U.S. Military 
Wed Jan 27, 2010 at 20:04:24 PM EST
|
CNN:
President Obama will ask Congress Wednesday night to repeal the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that bars gays and lesbians from openly serving, White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod told CNN.
The request will be included in the president's State of the Union address, Axelrod said.
The issue has been a source of contention for heavy hitters on both sides of the issue, who are lining up for a fight.
In a message to Pentagon leadership, Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said it's time to repeal the law.
"As a nation built on the principal of equality, we should recognize and welcome change that will build a stronger more cohesive military," said Shalikashvili. His letter was sent to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, who supports repealing the policy.
You can watch President Obama's State of the Union address at the White House website.
[Update]: Per NYT:
Gays in the Military | 10:16 p.m. The president also renewed his call to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." He placed a timeframe on it, but it was not exactly clear whether the process would begin or end in 2010. "This year," he said, "I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are."
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 06:54:48 AM EDT
|
|
One of the progressive issues that Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has taken up is the fight to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT).
In a diary on Daily Kos, Sen. Gillibrand stood firmly against DADT and said that she would actively work to repeal the policy that discharges (or fires, which is more appropriate) members of the military who are openly gay.
Recently, Gillibrand announced that she was circulating an amendment that would be attached to the defense spending bill which would institute a moratorium on firing members of the military who are openly gay.
Unfortunately, as of today, such an effort is on hold.
Gillibrand has decided to pull the amendment because support was lacking for a moratorium and she did not have the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster.
Gillibrand, the freshman senator appointed by Governor David Paterson after President Obama tapped Hillary Clinton to head the State Department, signaled last week she would introduce the reform as an amendment to a Defense Department reauthorization bill.
The amendment would place an 18-month moratorium on the military gay ban, also known as "don't ask, don't tell," the law that prescribes discharge for gay and lesbian service members who do not remain celibate or closeted.
While the measure was supported by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, Gillibrand said the bill became a non-starter after her office shopped it around.
"She's not going to pursue the moratorium amendment at this time," Matt Canter, a Gillibrand spokesman, told the paper. "She was working for about a week to assess support among her colleagues for the measure. It does not appear that we're going to have the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster."
...
A bill that would repeal the military gay ban is sponsored by Pennsylvania Representative Patrick Murphy, an Iraq veteran, in the House. Senator Kennedy is expected to sponsor the Senate version.
President Obama says he supports repeal of the law even as the administration has fired 313 gay service members, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a group that lobbies for repeal.
I have no criticisms for Gillibrand here. She did everything she could do in trying to find support for the amendment. Unfortunately, it appears that fellow members of the Senate (including members of our 60-seat, alleged "filibuster-proof" majority) don't see it the same way Gillibrand does. Gillibrand sees DADT as discrimination and believes it is wrong. Apparently we have senators who think otherwise, even on our side.
It is time for DADT to come to an end. It has done far too much damage to good people like Dan Choi. It's good to see Gillibrand at the forefront, but we need more support.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Tue Jun 02, 2009 at 16:02:17 PM EDT
|
|
I mentioned yesterday in my interview with Congressman Eric Massa that he was attacked by the Republicans for voting against our troops and veterans.
I was able to obtain a copy of the mailer that was sent to residents of the 29th congressional district by the NRCC. The mailer features Abraham Lincoln's likeness and a quote from Lincoln that reads, "To care for him who shall have born the battle and for his widow and for his orphan."
Here is the rest of the mailer:
The NRCC attacked Massa for voting against all of these items, yet they did not specify what bill. All they would refer to the legislation as is a "bi-partisan bill" and claiming that Massa sided with "special interest extremists" instead of our troops.
The bill that the Republicans are attacking Massa over is the Iraq War supplemental that was passed in mid-May. The bill passed with bi-partisan support - it was a 368 to 60 vote - and when he voted against the bill, Massa explained why.
"I will not have my vote held hostage by line items to fund military projects while at the same time funding the UN. These are two very different issues and I will not vote to combine them. While I did support several line items in the bill, there were a few specifics which deeply troubled me. For example, during the recession, I cannot support sending $836 million to fund the United Nations, $109 to train and equip Palestinian security forces and up the to $429.5 million in foreign aid to Pakistan.
"For over four years prior to being elected to Congress, I promised to vote against any additional funding for the Iraq war without a clear and immediate plan of withdrawal," said Congressman Eric Massa. "Regardless of which party is in power, I could not in good conscience vote for any additional Iraq war funding. The Iraqi people want us to leave and I think we should begin redeploying American troops out of Iraq immediately. I've always promised to stand up to my party when I disagree with them, but yesterday I had to stand up to both political parties."
It is shameful that the party who had Walter Reed happen under their watch and other failings now is trying to take the high ground when it comes to who is voting for or against our troops. The Republicans who came up with this mailer probably didn't serve their country. Eric Massa did for 24 years. There are plenty of veterans who are currently serving in Congress who deserve our respect. They don't deserve attacks and claims that they are against our troops and veterans.
The Republicans have tried over the last few years to label Democrats as the anti-troop party. Look at how that's worked out for them. Labeling other Americans as against our troops is despicable. No one is more patriotic than the other. So let's quit this game of trying to get a leg up on who loves their country more.
Massa had his reasoning (which I agree with) for voting against this legislation. This wasn't about our troops. This was about funding the war efforts abroad, which included funds that Massa did not agree with. In his statement, he made that clear.
Massa did say that there were plenty of good programs in the bill, but that he could not vote for a bill like this with so much spending in it without a full exit strategy. Essentially for Massa, if there is no exit strategy, he's voting against it.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 13:07:13 PM EST
|
|
Veterans For America (VFA) was originally founded by Vietnam War veteran Bobby Muller as the Vietnam Veterans of American Foundation (VVAF). VFA is described as the following:
"Veterans for America is an advocacy and humanitarian organization. The primary mission of VFA is to ensure that our country meets the needs of servicemembers and veterans who have served in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). VFA focuses specifically on the signature wounds these conflicts: psychological traumas and traumatic brain injuries. VFA concentrates much of its attention on the needs of those who are currently serving in the military since the majority of those who have seen combat in Iraq and Afghanistan are still in the military and under the care of the Department of Defense."
VFA has authored The American Veterans and Servicemembers Survival Guide. But recently, it was a report VFA authored regarding Fort Drum which has garnered the most attention.
Last week, the VFA released its report on the mental health issues facing soldiers at Fort Drum. Following the report, Sen. Hillary Clinton issued a press release regarding the findings and Rep. Jack Murtha will be visiting Fort Drum today.
I reached out to VFA's Jason Forrester to discuss the report and what these findings mean, not only for Fort Drum, but the whole military. Forrester is the Director of Policy for VFA and is VFA's chief legislative liaison. Below the fold is the interview I conducted Thursday with Forrester.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 2578 words in story)
|
|
Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 17:31:25 PM EST
|
|
The cost of the war in Iraq is quite a topic. But how about how the costs of the war affect New York?
The National Priorities Project compiled the data regarding every U.S. state and locale and their contribution to the war in Iraq.
Also, 2013 Is Too Late is a website whose message is simple: 2013 is too late to get out of Iraq. That is in response to the top three presidential candidates who refused to guarantee that they would be completely out of Iraq by 2013.
More on the flip.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 291 words in story)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
