Subscribe to Breaking NewsWithers: Obama isn’t serious about terrorism
And neither were Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton. Their words about fighting those who despise modernity were just that. Pretty notes lacking substance.
If President Obama were serious about terror, he would be putting the ground game in place to get rid of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” He would do what any leader does with a difficult topic. Make an argument. Engage the public. Instead all we have are crickets.
Lieutenant Daniel Choi is a West Point grad, served time in Iraq, and is fluent in Arabic. However, he’s gay so his services are no longer needed. So with two wars going on and the constant threat of terrorist attacks, the Commander-in-Chief is sending a fine foot solider home.
Obama wasn’t around when DADT was signed but he’s sitting behind the big desk now so he takes the hit. From all indications Obama is going to take the hit without even a mumble. Knowing his team they will probably wipe out all words that even hint gay from the White House web site. Sure he has a long list of things to do, but making an argument for getting rid of DADT is not that complicated. And the few fundies who would throw up a stink (hey there Sean “mustard-gate” Hannity), would come off as nutty. There is no reason why soldiers like Choi should not be allowed to defend their country. For goodness sakes, the Confederacy allowed black soldiers to serve and last time I checked the Confederate States of America wasn’t too keen on black freedom.
This is not an issue with President Obama’s cautious and deliberate nature. I can give him a pass (reluctantly) for being mum on same sex marriage. The battle has fallen to the level of the states and presently there seems no groundswell to make marriage a federal issues (unless I’m misreading the rhetoric) ; however, if Obama cannot defend Choi and others like him then he is no different from the guy enjoying the retired life in Texas.
Excellently)))))))
At all personal send today?
Carl Jennings, the VAST majority of people discharged for being gay were–drumroll–discharged for being gay. Not for other disciplinary issues, not for any other reason. So what bug has taken up residence in your colon that you feel the need to make such a snide, petty, unmerited comment?
“…however, if Obama cannot defend Choi and others like him then he is no different from the guy enjoying the retired life in Texas.”
One significant difference. Obama actually won the election rather than stealing it. Still, so far he has shown he can talk a good talk, but the walk leaves much to be desired.
Sorry Carl R Jennings, As long as people in critical positions in the military are being evicted from the military because of their sexuality, neither our President nor any military leader is not serious about the war.
“However, he’s gay so his services are no longer needed.”
Are you sure that’s really the issue? There may be things not being revealed. Gay rights isn’t the most important issue Obama is having to face at the moment.
He’s been a quivering mass of jello so far , no backbone yet !
While the repeal of DADT must go through Congress (because it is a law, and not a policy) I DO agree that our president could get the ball rolling. He IS after all, the commander in chief.
As far as I am concerned, any military brass that argues the issue, should get a swift kick in the @ss as they are handed their walking papers on the way out of the pentagon door!