Bil Browning

Bush supports DADT

Filed By Bil Browning | April 06, 2007 12:15 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics, The Movement
Tags: Don't Ask Don't Tell, George W. Bush, military, Peter Pace, war

Big surprise here... President Bush supports discrimination against gays and lesbians. Shocker, no?

Asked about recent comments from the military's top officer that homosexuality was "immoral," Bush said, "I will not be rendering judgment about individual orientation."

But, he added, "I do believe the 'don't ask/don't tell' policy is good policy."


Isn't that nice of him? He won't render judgement... But by supporting Don't Ask Don't Tell, Bush is "rendering judgement" if he believes that the only way for gays and lesbians to serve in the military is for them to keep an integral part of their lives secret. Would he dare to tell Muslim or Pentecostal recruits that they could be in the military as long as they never mentioned their faith? If they never participated in any religious ceremonies? If they didn't act on any of their religious beliefs? Now let's change that to race and see where it leads us...

I love me some Bill Clinton, but this has to be one of the stupidest policies every implemented during his presidency. You'd think that Bush would be so desperate for troops that he'd be ecstatic to be able to kill two birds with one stone: he'd get this soldiers for Iraq plus with the death rate of US troops, he'd be able to eliminate some of those pesky "perverts."

You know, I'll never understand why anyone would want to join the military. It's never appealed to me. But I've never understood why someone would want to be a Republican either, so I think of them along the same lines. It's not for me, but if someone else wants to do it they should have every right to do so. Which, come to think about it, is pretty much what I want from straight people - the general attitude of "It may not be for me, but you should be allowed every right that I get."

For those who were in the military, what made you join? Especially pre-DADT...


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Bil,

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but your last paragraph is incredibly ignorant and inflammatory. You make a sweeping statement that straight people don't believe in individual choice and freedom ... I can assure you that a good percentage of us do.

I would also offer that Republicans are generally vilified on this blog or otherwise not seen in a very positive light. I think it was in poor taste to equate being a Republican to being in the military given the stance of Republicans on this blog.


It's fine to not fully understand why someone would want to join the military, but it is rude to state that in the way you have. Many of the men and women who joined did so for the very thing you ask of people: to allow people to live their lives the way they want to.

It occurred to me as I hit "post" that I'd left out a disclaimer about me last sentence. I meant the people of this country, not the idea of spreading democracy around the world (though some may join for that reason).

Mr. Browning,

Like Dave I am not picking a fight though that may be the result because I want to defend myself against your unfair remarks. Also, to preface, I'm a huge supporter of repealing DADT. I think the policy is tantamount to federally sanctioned discrimination. I am also a Republican...

First,
"he'd be able to eliminate some of those pesky 'perverts'" is a blatantly unfair comment. Bush has made mistakes and I can completely understand why you don't like him... I disagree with him on many issues too. But that doesn't give you the right to call him a homophobe especially in such a mean spirited manner. By the way, you've got your facts mixed up too. The war in Iraq has one of the lowest casualty rates of any war we've fought in history.

Second,
You pretend like you're taking the moral high ground by saying that Bush is unfairly rendering judgment on people who identify themselves as homosexual. At the same time, you are unfairly rendering judgment on Bush by assuming his intent in keeping the policy is one of hate. However, there are some valid reasons for keeping DADT on the books (even though there are better ones to repeal it.) One is that a pretty substantial amount of high ranking officers don't support repealing DADT (49%.) They could backlash by leaving the military if the policy was implemented (A 2000 poll suggests this number stands at 25% of officers.) They could also choose to look the other way when harassment occurs. Because the potential safeguards of DADT would be eliminated homosexuals would have no recourse.

That being said, I do agree that DADT should be repealed but I wish you wouldn't exchange one form of discrimination for another by attacking Republicans.

Nick

P.S. Before you say you were "just kidding" or "exaggerating for effect" know that I am aware this might be the case. But kindly think about what you say before you say it and please defend DADT's repeal by its merit. You just may come off sounding like a more reasonable guy ;)

"You pretend like you're taking the moral high ground by saying that Bush is unfairly rendering judgment on people who identify themselves as homosexual. At the same time, you are unfairly rendering judgment on Bush by assuming his intent in keeping the policy is one of hate."

BOO HOO! Poor Bush is misunderstood! What is a powerless and helpless leader-of-the-free-world like him to do?

And if those officers quit the military because someone who's higher ranking (in this case, Congress) makes a good decision that they don't like, well, then I guess we can see where their values are. But I think you're wrong about officers being so homophobic that they'll up and quit the military just because they don't like the gays. I personally think that they're better than that, but you're free to disagree.

what's your point? I'm just saying Bill is making an unfair and unbased claim. regardless of who bush is, I just think it's stupid to call anyone a homophobe when it's probably not true. We just got through a national debate about comments Don Imus made, any reason Bill should magically be given the pass to call someone a "gay hater"?

Look, Bill is denouncing discrimination and then propagating it. That's the bottom line. Rather than turning this into an anti-bush thread, either defend Bill or don't.

About the actual DADT debate, I agree with you, I think I made that clear in my previous post. I'm just making the point that, while I think DADT is a bad policy, you can be opposed to it without being a homophobe.