Michael Hamar

Obama Needs to Fire Gates Now!

Filed By Michael Hamar | May 11, 2010 4:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics, The Movement
Tags: Barack Obama, broken campaign promises, DADT repeal, Douglas MacArthur, gays in the military, Harry Truman, insubo, lies and liars, rdination, Robert Gates, U.S. Military

Contributor's note: I live in the Norfolk, Virginia, area and know many discharged under DADT. Hence, my emotions on this issue are high.

Robert Gates.jpgI have previously drawn the parallel between Harry Truman's firing of General Douglas MacArthur for insubordination and what appears to be Defense Secretary Gates' insubordination on the issue of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. After Gates' latest in your face insubordination, if Obama does not fire Gates, then we can more or less assume that Obama is tacitly supporting Gates' efforts to throw LGBT service members under the bus - all the while hoping to avoid having to exercise any leadership and delaying the issue until next year.

At that point, of course, if the Democrats lose a number of seats in Congress in the November midterm elections, Obama will then use the reduced control of Congress as a further excuse to hang LGBT Americans out to dry. As I have noted before, at this point, I have no confidence in anything Obama says on LGBT issues. Sadly, I fell for Obama's campaign act of being different from other politicians. At this point, the only difference I see is that he's a smoother liar.

Here are highlights from CNN on Gates' figuratively flipping the bird to Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, et. al., who want Congressional action this year (I also find it telling that Gates' comments indicate he doesn't care for the feelings, careers or lives of LGBT service members. Only straights apparently matter in his book):

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is pushing back against liberal criticism that he trying to slow walk the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Rather, Gates told CNN the change needs to be done in a way that does not disrupt the armed services.

Legislating a change to the policy before the military's review was done "would send a very negative signal to men and women in uniform that their views on this and how it should be done, don't matter," Gates added.

Howard Dean, former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, recently called on President Obama asking for "immediate action" on the planned policy change. In the open letter to the president, Dean expressed concern that the Defense Department could, "indefinitely delay the possibility of moving forward with the repeal of DADT until the Pentagon completes a review of the policy."

The Palm Center has previously issued a position paper that indicates that Gates' delayed and dragged out process is absolutely the wrong way to proceed. I'd also note that if Harry Truman had Obama's lack of guts, the U.S. military might well still be segregated on racial lines.


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.


By the way, how are our 2 wars going? How many troops are in those 2 wars contrasted to the deployments when Obama took office? Don't forget to count all the lucrative private support contracts and civilian deployments. I seem to remember a candidate that was forceful about ending those engagements.

Given what I know about the situation (which is little) I would rejoice to see Powell be brought back to replace Gates if you need a holdover from the Bush era.

Like this isn't Obama's plan, he's the one that came up with the ridiculous "study" that would take the whole clusterf*ck past midterms when there will be no chance in hell of having enough votes to do this.

A study, mind you, that was totally unneeded given that there are already 20 studies on the subject that all say the same thing in the end: desegregate now, waiting does nothing.

This is now are longest running and most expensive war ever. Originally we only sought out Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda, that expanded to include nutralizing Iraq with its WMD's and 'freeing' Afganistan from the Taliban.

Looking for so few people... are we targeting Osama with old age? Is that the new super weapon?

Obama should have laid down his executive order the first day halting DADT and directing Congress to repeal it. Thats called LEADERSHIP. Now all I hear is namby pamby hand ringing from every corner on why they can't do this or that...

"Actions, deeds and results, not shirking, explainations or excuses. Get it done, get it done now!" ~ Navy Cheif saying.


are we targeting Osama with old age?

hahahahaha.

>> f Obama does not fire Gates, then we can more or less assume that Obama is tacitly supporting Gates' efforts

I believe Bingo has been called.

Face it, he's probably getting a lot of heat from the DNC *not* to do anything until after the midterms... or beyond, for that matter.

If the Dems keep up their fine effort of accomplishing jack squat, I doubt that they'll have a majority to worry about anymore. 'Just not a Republican' really only takes you so far as a political strategy.

Yeah, I'm thinking this is what the White House wants as well. Push till after midterms by getting the Pentagon to say it needs to study the situation or something. It didn't matter what the excuse was - the White House doesn't want this before midterms.

Of course, it could have gotten a good buffer zone if it just pushed for repeal in 2009....

Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com | May 11, 2010 10:09 PM

"Ambinder acknowledges that Bush critics were right that the terror alerts were being manipulated for political ends (he has no choice but to acknowledge that now that Ridge admits it), but still says journalists like himself were right to scorn such critics 'because these folks based their assumption on gut hatred for President Bush, and not on any evaluation of the raw intelligence'. ... The reason journalists such as Ambinder saw no such evidence wasn't because it didn't exist. It existed in abundance; you had to suffer from some form of moral, intellectual or emotional blindness not to see it. It's because they didn't want to see it, because -- as Ambinder said -- they trusted the Bush administration as good and decent people who might err but would never do anything truly dishonest."

That's gay "Salon" columnnist, civil liberties attorney, and winner of the I.F. Stone independent journalism award Glenn Greenwald writing last fall about "Atlantic" writer Marc Ambinder's apology-that-wasn't-an-apology for previously having smeared Bush critics when the truth was revealed about the Bush Reich exploiting terror alerts.

But it could just as easily have been written about Ambinder's similar, "how dare anyone doubt them" defense of Obama Inc. [Jim Messina, Messina's boss Rahmn, BO himself] in relation to DADT repeal two weeks ago:

"Does Obama favor gay rights, and do his actions support those beliefs? Yes. Is there a conspiracy inside the West Wing to block progress? I've found no evidence that there is."

Of course, that was written before Gates went on CNN yesterday and effectively called EVERYONE "stupid" who disagreed with him, and before Gates and Mullen ripped off their masks of wanting repeal to happen in that letter written a week ago at the request of primordial House homohater Ike Skelton and the White House backed them up—"evidence" that seemed to finally wake up many in Gay Inc., who had been refusing to see the, yes, conspiracy that was transparent as early as their Feb. 2nd Senate Armed Services Committee testimony.

Which brings me back to your post. On the one hand you wisely write, "As I have noted before, at this point, I have no confidence in anything Obama says on LGBT issues. Sadly, I fell for Obama's campaign act of being different from other politicians. At this point, the only difference I see is that he's a smoother liar." and on the other about "what appears to be Defense Secretary Gates' insubordination on the issue of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. After Gates' latest in your face insubordination, if Obama does not fire Gates, then we can more or less assume that Obama is tacitly supporting Gates' efforts to throw LGBT service members under the bus."

Even if one missed the White House statement endorsing the contents of the Gates/Mullen/Skeletor letter a week ago, why give Obama ANY benefit of the doubt at this point, after his refusing for weeks to respond to requests that he declare support for inserting repeal in DEFAUTH or repeal THIS year by SOME method? Why soft pedal the alternative, imagining that he might only be "TACITLY supporting Gates' efforts to throw LGBT service members under the bus" rather than explicitly and enthusiastically? One can't be guilty of being insubordinate if one is actually following one's orders.

Respectfully, I submit that such hesitation is the result of the same problem Greenwald saw in Ambinder who:

"trusted the Bush administration as good and decent people who might err but would never do anything truly dishonest."

It's a cancer that keeps coming back just when one thinks others have been cured.

Mountains are being written about Elena Kagan's lack of a "record." I disagree with that, but what there is to see about her for those genuniely wanting to look is subatomic to what is visible from three years of Obama watching.

It is not just what the Obama Nostra does or does not do that is so enraging...it's not just the smoothness of their lies you noted but their ease, their ability to be caught standing astride the latest victim of their political murder and say with a straight face [or a gay one in the case of Brian Bond and John Berry], "WHAT body?"
With Charles Schultz' passing we'll never see a fresh cartoon panel featuring Peanut's diva Lucy, but she'd be right at home working for BO: "Snow falls up, Charlie Brown. Snow falls up!"

Even before he was sworn in, his paid shills [and volunteer shills through Obama Nation] were making excuses for what they knew would be Obama's betrayal of his primary campaign promise to start personally fighting for repeal as soon as he took office.

The meme was "he doesn't want to make the same mistake Clinton made of moving too quickly." As you mention, the Palm Center tried to shoot that myth down: it wasn't that Clinton moved too fast but that he moved too slowly and left time and a vacuum during which opponents created a gigantic coalition that killed the idea of lifting the ban.

Of course, at best, Obama made the same mistake; at worst, he made THE DECISION to give time for opponents to unite. That the coalition is relatively small compared to 1993, what it has in common is what was the one variable that defeated Clinton more than any other: open opposition from the DOD, specifically Colin Powell. [His SECDEF, Les Aspin, simply undercut Clinton.]

The critical difference is that while Clinton simply ran into the Pentagon wall after winning the election, Obama announced months before he even had the nomination that he was yielding control of the timing of a repeal effort to the Pentagon.

I am one of those who still believe that Clinton could have blown that wall down by firing Powell for what was unquestionably insubordination, and survived it by creating respect for showing Commander-in-Chief balls as Truman did when he fired legendary-in-his-own-time MacArthur even in the midst of war. MacArthur got ticker tape parades, fifty ovations when he addressed Congress, and encouraged to run for President himself. Truman got booed at ballgames and some called for his impeachment, but the firing stuck and MacArthur, much to his own surprise, did, in fact, as he had disingenuously mused, "just fade[d] away."

Powell was a military Munchkin contrasted with MacArthur but "the draft dodger" was afraid of challenging the phony hero of the first Iraq invasion.

But again, the difference is that while it might have been a lack of balls that first led Obama to empower Gates [whom, again, SLDN had urged him not to reappoint] to control DADT, empower him he did. He may betray his LGBT allies with the ease of changing TV channels, but he's not about to betray those who are nothing but his co-conspirators: Gates and Mullen.

The evidence is there in abundance; all one has to be is willing to see it.

ANOTHER GODDAMNED DISERTATION, SHORTEN THE RANT I MADE IT TO THE SIXTH LINE NOT INTERESTED IN THE REST.

Bill Perdue Bill Perdue | May 12, 2010 1:39 AM

We should fire Obama and the Democrats.

Blaming this on Gates is simply a way of condoning the criminality of the WH and Congress.

Campaigning to become Warlord of the National Security State in 2008 Obama declared his intention to keep troops in Iraq to control the oil and made the contradictory promise to withdraw them by the summer of 2010. (He has until June 21, 2010 at 7:23 am EDT - think he'll make his deadline? )

The withdrawal promise was a typical Democrats' lie. McCain, rather more honestly, promised a century of war.

Obama promised a vast Vietnam style escalation in Afghanistan and said he'd attack Pakistan. Civilian death tolls in the AF-PAK war are skyrocketing. But Obama and Gates want more - the Democrat WH is demanding an extra $33 billion plus unspecified and hidden amounts for spying, kidnapping, torture and murder, all official US policies since the time of the Clinton Administration.

Congress has already spent over $345,000,000,000.00 killing civilians and motivating new waves of terrorists in Afghanistan and roughly $708,000,000,000.00 committing genocide in Iraq. Meanwhile Obama and the Congressional Democrats, with the bipartisan and gleeful support of Republicans are busting union contracts, cutting social programs and imposing austerity.

The occupation of Iraq, a highly advanced country with a large. well educated and enraged anti-American population that's determined to keep their oil, is doomed. So is Obama's re-invasion of Afghanistan, the 'graveyard of empire'.

Obama and his Cabinet have now joined Clinton and Bush and their Cabinets' as war criminals. Are partisan LGBT Democrats still loyally following Obama's march to mass murder. You Betcha!

The guy's a Republican holdover from Bush. We expect anything different?

Thank you for childish rants that advance nothing.

michaelinnorfolk reply:

You are certainly entitled to your views as am I. Sadly, I don't see you or your organization advancing the repeal of DADT whatsoever.

Don't be sad. We are collecting signatures on a letter to Senator Jim Webb, key member of the Armed Services Committee, encouaging people to contact him by phone, etc. to get his vote lined up.

Where is the letter? What is the phone number? Who are the other members of the Senate Armed Services Committee? Can you forward a copy of the letter to mckenzie_market@mckenzievalleymarket.com please.

I should have been more specific. It is a letter from Virginia clergy to Senator Webb, as our senator who has yet to take a public position, and needs to be pushed to support repeal.