Former Vice President Dick Cheney, who served as defense secretary under President George H.W. Bush, expressed support for the repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy, which President Barack Obama has asked Congress to work on this year.What he said.
Cheney told ABC’s “This Week” that 20 years ago when he was secretary of defense, the military was a strong advocate of the policy that bans gays from openly serving in the military, but that “things have changed significantly since then” and he anticipates that ultimately “the policy will be changed.”
“I think society has moved on,” Cheney said the policy shift is partly “a generational question.”
48 minutes ago
46 comments:
Wow.
Adm Mullin and Darth Vader. That is the difference between Bill Clinton's attempt and now.
I think it might actually happen this time.
Dick Cheney supports repeal because he's the father of a lesbian, Mary Cheney. He's allow sympathy for his daughter to cloud his judgement. Meanwhile, those of us who have actually served in close quarters with other men are still opposed.
At least Cheney's position isn't politically motivated, unlike those of the current leadership.
Cheney's judgement is clouded due to his lesbian daughter, Mary Cheney. And while Cheney has been a SECDEF, he has never served a day in uniform. Meanwhile, those of us who have served in close quarters with other men are still opposed to repeal.
At least Cheney's position isn't politically motivated, unlike that of the current leadership.
Hmmmm....it deletes my first reply and then posts it. This is either a conspiracy or my stuff is so good, the server won't let it go. :-P
Why would you insist that gay people close to you lie to you? Perhaps we shouldn't allow people to talk about their personal lives at all? What did you do this weekend, could be banned. That way those that you're in close quarters with don't need to lie to protect your fragile sensibilities.
Nice try, but nobody requires them to lie and you know it. They are not required to reveal their sexuality and the armed forces are forbidden to ask, hence the name 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' As for what I did this weekend, I worked. Last time I checked, my job description is in compliance with the law.
Philo, when people ask me what I did over the weekend, and when I ask people what they did, the answer never involves who we slept with or didn't sleep with. Just what kind of conversations DO you have on the job?
In fact, since your imagination appears to be challenged by this difficult question, let me help. YMMV.
1. I hung out with friends and we went to a movie.
2. A bunch of us got together and celebrated my mom's birthday. It was good to see family again.
3. I did yard work and fixed the back gate.
4. I watched NASCAR.
5. I watched the Olympics.
6. I shopped for food and ran errands.
7. I went pub crawling and got totally wasted, dude.
8. I went to the gym and worked out.
9. Got together with the gang and we went out to eat at the new sushi place.
10. Worked. Bummer.
11. Bought a new sofa to replace the one the pomeranian chewed. (If you don't tell them it was in "dark cocoa with fabulous turquoise throw cushions embellished with brown and ecru tassles" they'll be none the wiser...)
12. My best friend and I went and looked at cars. I need a new one. Any suggestions?
13. My sister dragged me along shopping and then we went out for coffee.
14. Went to my nephew's birthday party. Want to see a picture of him? He's two! Neatest little kid in the world!
Got it? None of it needs to be a lie. None of it involves telling what body part A you insert in whatever slot B. Which for some reason is the ONLY detail so many gays insist on confronting near strangers and total strangers with at the beginning of any conversation. Why is depriving the world of information they're really not interested in such a "lie" in your world?
I KNEW there had to be another NASCAR fan here! AWESOME race yesterday!
Sober, it's a given that gays have been on subs before. I've heard far too many revelations here and other places. If the same gays that served honorably before and hidden were to now step out, what exactly would change in THEM? THEY are not the problem. It's the people that are screaming, "NOT IN MY NAVY!" that are the problem. As long as the gays are following the regulations against sexual harrasment that are already on the books there will be no problems.
Now, I know the next thing you're going to say is that I don't have a dog in the hunt, since I've never served. Wrong. It's MY Navy too, the one that keeps my family and myself safe, so I do have something to say. Also, I don't think anyone here will ever question my passion for the Navy...I give a damn. I just see this as an issue with the people who want it to be one, not an issue with the ones who want to serve alongside you.
I wonder if the loons who demonize Cheney will reference his opinion on this particular issue?
You betcha. Evil incarnate when talking about terrorism and the Middle East, but when it comes to gays in the military? A kindly and wise sage.
Ummm....no Byron, I was not going to say that. You know that I've spent a lot of time in the yards....NEWCON, PSA, Regular Overhaul, SRAs, etc. My experience is that yardbirds who spend a lot of time with the crews, work well with the crews and get along find themselves as part of the crew. We had several guys at EB who rode us during sea trials who were like that. If the boat went down, they died too. So they were part of the brotherhood, at least until we were delivered to the Navy. That would be you here.
As for homosexuals on any of my three crews, I know for sure we had one. He outed himself after he went UA for a week to go beat up a guy who was messing with his boyfriend. He was gone 24 hrs. later and needed to be gone. Another guy was question mark, but he never made a move on anyone in the crew and most of us thought his gayish schtick was funny (a long story) and he never outed himself, so there weren't any problems. If there were others, they kept it to themselves and there was peace and harmony, at least from that angle.
The big issue here isn't as much as there are homosexuals in the ranks as much as what the PC Police will do if gays and lesbians are allowed to come out in the open. That's something Dick Cheney hasn't considered and the current leadership would encourage. For that I say "NOT IN MY NAVY!"
BT
Ummm....no Byron, I was not going to say that. You know that I've spent a lot of time in the yards....NEWCON, PSA, Regular Overhaul, SRAs, etc. My experience is that yardbirds who spend a lot of time with the crews, work well with the crews and get along find themselves as part of the crew. We had several guys at EB who rode us during sea trials who were like that. If the boat went down, they died too. So they were part of the brotherhood, at least until we were delivered to the Navy. That would be you here.
As for homosexuals on any of my three crews, I know for sure we had one. He outed himself after he went UA for a week to go beat up a guy who was messing with his boyfriend. He was gone 24 hrs. later and needed to be gone. Another guy was question mark, but he never made a move on anyone in the crew and most of us thought his gayish schtick was funny (a long story) and he never outed himself, so there weren't any problems. If there were others, they kept it to themselves and there was peace and harmony, at least from that angle.
The big issue here isn't as much as there are homosexuals in the ranks as much as what the PC Police will do if gays and lesbians are allowed to come out in the open. That's something Dick Cheney hasn't considered and the current leadership would encourage. For that I say "NOT IN MY NAVY!"
BT
Ummm....no Byron, I was not going to say that. You know that I've spent a lot of time in the yards....NEWCON, PSA, Regular Overhaul, SRAs, etc. My experience is that yardbirds who spend a lot of time with the crews, work well with the crews and get along find themselves as part of the crew. We had several guys at EB who rode us during sea trials who were like that. If the boat went down, they died too. So they were part of the brotherhood, at least until we were delivered to the Navy. That would be you here.
As for homosexuals on any of my three crews, I know for sure we had one. He outed himself after he went UA for a week to go beat up a guy who was messing with his boyfriend. He was gone 24 hrs. later and needed to be gone. Another guy was question mark, but he never made a move on anyone in the crew and most of us thought his gayish schtick was funny (a long story) and he never outed himself, so there weren't any problems. If there were others, they kept it to themselves and there was peace and harmony, at least from that angle.
The big issue here isn't as much as there are homosexuals in the ranks as much as what the PC Police will do if gays and lesbians are allowed to come out in the open. That's something Dick Cheney hasn't considered and the current leadership would encourage. For that I say "NOT IN MY NAVY!"
BT
Gee, three posts this time. CDR, please feel free to delete the duplicates. :-[
sobersubmrnr and DeltaBravo - I think you're being disingenuous when you argue that all gays have to do is avoid graphic descriptions of sex acts. Any suggestion that they have a same-sex significant other is equally prohibited. And here's another problem--if you're a likable guy or gal and appear to be single, your buddies and often even your chain of command will try to fix you up, ask you why you're single, etc. There is no shortage of well intentioned but nosy people out there in the fleet, no penalty to them for asking, and nothing to prevent your answer from being used against you if you answer their inquiries honestly. I kind of wonder where you've worked that these conversations DON'T happen. But, I'm sure you never talk about your significant other at work.
As has been said here, living in close quarters tends to heighten one's awareness and sensitivity to the habits and foibles of others. After living in an eight man JO jungle on the Kitty Hawk for 6 months I was tempted to murder a roomie with a permanent sniffle and the guy who attracted vermin with his gedunk. We were all officers and gentlemen, imagine an eighteen year old E-3 living in a 56 man compartment stacked three high and sharing it with a openly gay guy making lewd comments and being protected by the PC police. What if he's your shop supervisor and writes your evals?
I like Cheney and agree with him on most things. But, he hasn't been there and tried to keep good order and discipline on a pressure cooker with 6,000 sailors. It's bad enough we've decided adding women was worth the disruption, do we really need this too?
I can back up what Anon was saying about having your peers and chain ask questions/try and set you up...in my 5 months at my current duty station I've had 2 people in my chain and three of my peers do just that.
Anon,
I'm single, never been married (came close once), in my 40s and am not gay. I have had friends try to set me up on dates many times and have turned them down for the simple fact that I don't like blind dates and prefer to hunt on my own. This is a non-issue.
Again, I'm with Old NFO and other sceptics here. I live in Europe, and while I am not a military man, I have plenty of firsthand experience that when you give a finger, you end up losing an arm.
Repealing DODT = Less Unit Cohesion = Less Combat Effectiveness = Higher Casualties
If someone is making lewd comments wouldn't that be covered under the sexual harassment regs?
Dick doesnt want to waterboard them does he?
I love how the finger always gets pointed to the "child producing Christians"... sloppy work Mike.. what you meant to say was the colloqial "Breeders" eh?
DADT will probably be repealed and as the numbers of actual combat arms retainable continues to drop after the 8 years of heavy rotation, and the gays never truly show up in the numbers their benefactors claim, the DADT will be reviewed..
Maybe they can dig up Phib's blog for the record because many here like me have said why it is bad and why is harmful.
lets also take a review at the no shit combat to support ratio of our divisions. lets disect it and see how many of the door kickers and life takers are gay or want to serve with gays... they are the ones that matter most...
DB,
what about :
15. Had a wizard of oz party makeover
16. Went shopping for shoes
17. Went to a taping of Ellen
18. Went to Fire Island
Those are gonna kind tip me off, but I am a caveman....
You owe me a new keyboard. PAIN!
Depends. How does Navy handle when 'protected classes" make comments against Whitey?
We know what happens when "nonprotected classes" make objectionable comments. Is it a two-way street?
Will it follow similar trajectories?
When the diversity thugs get finished I'm not expecting that things will go well for those who don't want to hear lewd comments in close quarters.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html
As one of those despicable "breeders" from a family of "breeders" I have to remind you that the military draws heavily from the children of currently serving members for its future warriors. They have a lot of influence whether their children follow their footsteps into the service.
Read from a lovely liberal source a little of the tip of the iceberg. They've said it all nicely here, but this is from those "couples" that gays parade as their "norm" who just want to be "married like heteros." We aren't discussing the lifelong partiers and their habits and promiscuity. I'm telling you, base housing will never be the same again if you repeal DADT.
And a lot of those "GOD FEARING MARRIED CHILD PRODUCING CHRISTIANS" won't want that kind of openly practicing environment on the other side of the too-close wall. Since gays won't be producing tomorrow's recruits in the same numbers as us "child producing Christians" I guess that just leaves them to what? Stare at someone's beautiful 14 year old son as he rides his skateboard in front of the family quarters? When people can be open about things, it changes well behaved people tremendously. Mike, be honest. What do you think the outcome is if Gunny's son complains to dad that the guy next door is creeping him out by staring at him? Now that it's obvious he's allowed to tell the world he's gay, every look becomes suspect. Gunny can't march up to him and have a talking to about it. After all, it's just based on "feelings" from a teenager. But it undermines cohesion, respect and good order and discipline. Will Gunny get lambasted by the CoC for raising a little homophobe? Does he tell his son to ignore all his instincts? You think I'm blowing it out of proportion? NO! As the mother of daughters I deal with this a lot. You parents of sons can join the fun. It's subtle. It's corrosive. I know what I'm talking about. I live in a town in the south that is famous for "embracing the lifestyle." It affects everything in the city.
continued..
Mike, look up the figures of "the lifestyle." The average life expectancy is much lower... due to drug and alcohol usage, disease, violence (within the community too!) and depression and mental issues that go with the "lifestyle." It's not a group that wholesale is begging to be able to marry and settle by the fireside like those horrid "ol' fashioned god fearing married child producing Christians" you seem to look down on.
Maybe we can leave the HIV/AIDS discussion aside too. That's a whole 'nuther can of worms, which while it isn't limited to the gay community, is much more prevalent. Anyone want a battlefield transfusion from Cpl. Steve after he's been joking about his anonymous encounters and his many boyfriends? Read the NYT article and see the level of promiscuity tolerated in the community. I promise you, few women would tolerate from their husbands such behavior.
19. Went to NYC, saw Rent, and went to cast party afterwards
Ok, AR, what about the false accusation by the gay guy to besmirch someone in the division. Women get away w/ it, what makes you think gays won't. Societal norms and upbringing keep me from punching a woman in the snoot for telling lies about me to further her career, but a gay MAN may not be so lucky. I have seen the stacking of the legal deck first and second hand and am disgusted by it. Having protected classes is and will cause problems, to the demise of other's careers and health and sure as sh*t does NOT promote team unity. Despite what the young AF officer thinks, I've seen the "untouchables" get away w/ all sorts of crap due to the PC nature we've assumed. The repeal of DADT will make it worse IMHO.
right. LT B, we actually agree on this point. this is what I was talking about in the other threads where a person can face a board for being outed by a third party (I've seen it happen...though mercifully they were retained.)
However, I don't think the answer is repealing DADT, as a repeal would give less ammo to a false gay claim. I think the answer is to crack down on false accusations. Male female gay or straight.
Earlier today I heard this subject being discussed on the radio and the subject of loss of talent came up. The figure of 10,000 dismissals since DADT was adopted in 1993 was thrown out there. Considering the size of the entire US military, and the 17 year time span, that doesn't seem all the large. I particularly enjoyed the claim that we would lose a lot of Arabic speaking interpreters. I've heard that claim several times, is that really a big problem? Are homosexuals more likely than others to be Arabic interpreters? If so, considering the attitude of observant Moslems toward homosexuals, are we going to deploy them to Arabic speaking countries? Just wondering.
DeltaBravo - is there any negative stereotype of the gay community you DON'T buy into? Just wondering, because you seem to have hit them all. Your suggestion that gays are any more promiscuous than the average single Sailor or Marine is laughable. Does that change when heterosexuals get married? Most of the time, but definitely not all of the time. There are plenty of open heterosexual marriages out there in the Fleet, plenty of couples that occasionally bring in a second female, and plenty of cheating going on. I have seen it all. I agree with you that we shouldn't be looking down on anyone. People in glass houses, etc.
Sorry you don't like it, Mr. X. My experience is colored by the atmosphere in the town I live in and seeing how it filters into the local high schools. It's "cool" for middleschoolers age 14 and under to announce they are "bi" now. At least here. Actually, I love when my girls hang out with teenage boys who have come out to their peers. It's good. I don't have to worry about that little boy and my daughter. They make wonderful friends. I don't hate gay people. Not at all.
Mr. X, you answered your own complaint... marriage DOES stop a lot of the idiocy. But as the article I posted by the NYT (that bastion of ol' fashioned god-fearing Christian marriage) says, the homosexual community lives by different standards. I don't "buy into" anything. I just call it like I see it.
For the record, I think gay guys are wonderful. They give me my very best haircuts. They are loving and funny and sweet. Fabulous friends! The actuarial tables are probably not as kind as I am though. Read the obituaries in my local paper.
I never said I was against gays serving. I am against the repeal of DADT because it isn't a wall that keeps gays out of the military if they'd just shut up and do their job and live their lives according to prevailing standards. DADT is a wall that keeps out their army of diversity do-gooders, lawyers, social experimenters and all those in our culture who would undermine a finely-tuned military culture that is constructed around the notion of taking a widely diverse civilian US population from all social and geographic and ethnic backgrounds and turning them into a functioning cadre of cooperative servicemen. If we're going to keep diversity and "do it your way" and civilian mindsets in the military, then why do we even have Parris Island and uniforms and basic training anyway?
Gays need to join the military like everyone else with the idea the military will change them, not that they will change the military. I'm not convinced that will happen if you repeal DADT. Repealing DADT combines the worst of two worlds: a strident agenda by homosexual activists, many who oppose "traditional values" that most military people ("breeders") I know live by, and a diversity-forward culture within some areas of the military that promotes inequality over efficiency, teamwork and unity in the name of a vague "diversity" that benefits the few at the expense of the majority. Add these together and you're asking for trouble. It lets in the floodgates for what else?
Once you take the lid off that bottle, and it turns into a disaster, how do you put the genie back in the bottle?
Apparently so (to my surprise).
As of 2007 the US had discharged 58 arabic linguists under Don't Ask Don't Tell - several were bounced from DLI after a 3 am "moral and welfare check" found them in the wrong rooms. Another had sent an incriminating note to his BF over a government network. This count doesn't include NYNG LT Choi (in the news recently), who also speaks Arabic.
Here's some analysis that would seem to support your position:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2010/02/dadt_discharges.html
Granted, a discharge under DADT isn't the exactly the same as a temporary duty loss/deployment waiver due to a medical condition but the orders of magnitude involved are interesting.
"<span>Despite what the young AF officer thinks, I've seen the "untouchables" get away w/ all sorts of crap due to the PC nature we've assumed."</span>
I've seen it too. Female cadet got a full blown DUI and still managed to commission, male cadet got a public intox and was promptly kicked out. However, AR is right. The solution it to get it out in the open and crack down on false accusations for everyone.
By the way, the AF folks at my school were NOTHING compared to the NROTC unit as far as "untouchables" and special treatment goes...the stories I could tell...
USAF Mike,
I imagine you are telling those stories from your vast experience. However, you might want to consider listening to a few others from people in the operating forces, where the stakes are considerably higher.
I have seen more than one man have their 16 or 17-year careers ended short of retirement because of petulant and vindictive "untouchables" who would not hesitate to get ahold of their EO/DACOWITS rep to bring extreme pressure on a command.
Wait'll we have DACOGITS. Another pipeline for "untouchables" to whom commands will give their "total and unequivocal support" to ensure that such fair and equitable treatment such groups are known for continues.
URR,
I have seen damn good men in the position of responsibilty to influence actual warfighting go down for bullshit accusations when the "offended" party didnt like the answer.. the IG has a habit of throwing the baby out with the bathwater to get rid of a "problem".... crock of shit and it only leads to good men going home and more NKO sensitivity for the rest of us....
<span>DB,</span>
<span></span>
<span>EXCELLENT POINT... My son will not be encouraged to join this circus.. I have served enough for him....</span>
MTH,
I don't care how many men followed them, or how many battles they won, the Military is no place for insensitivity!!!!! >:o
Well, I guess Tom Hanks was wrong then... evidently there IS crying in baseball!
MTH, honest people can disagree over whether this is a good idea or not. I like your suggestion that a few years into this experiment we can pull up these old posts and see who was right and who was wrong after all. I hope I'm wrong. But my opinion is based on how the world has botched women's integration into the services and all the diversity stuff and the lowering of standards to retain people... (picture the "retention rates" and how letting people serve openly gets turned into "they aren't being retained in high enough numbers or reenlisting in high enough numbers" and how that will get turned into recruiting drives and added incentives to keep numbers up.) The problem is, it ALL gets turned into a numbers game. If they can be isolated, quantified and graphed, someone will find a way to do it and then make the numbers the end all and be all.
Don't we have better things to worry about?
Well, I don't think that is realistic. The cowardice in DC shows me that they will not apply the rules equally and punish equally across the board. Look at the BG that said he'd court martial women and their sperm donors that get impregnated in a war zone. Crabbing backwards w/ great alacrity and speed! Hang them out just enough to feel the breeze then suck them back up into the prenatal vagina. Leadership at its finest. Harumph!
Post a Comment