DADT Before the US Senate

Gee, no posts since Saturday.  My excuse is that I have been studying for class and doing home repair stuff.  Well, actually, gathering materials for home repairs.

I think this Stephanie Vallejo article gives us the basic situation with regard to DADT,♠ but after that it gets murky.  For example, what does this mean?

The repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy is included in a much bill that authorizes $726 billion in military spending next year.

"Much larger bill" perhaps?  Delete "much" as not adding anything?  I don't know.

Then there is this paragraph:

The House earlier this year approved a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell."  The Senate's committee report also included the ban, so Republicans would need to pass an amendment to remove it.  By using the filibuster, Republicans prevented Democrats from voting on the bill.

I am betting the responsible Senate Committee Report included a repeal of the ban.

There is this paragraph, which masks some important information:

In addition, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has called for repeal of the policy, has called for a Pentagon review on how such a repeal could be implemented. That review is due on Dec. 1.  Several senators, including Brown, have said they want to wait until that review is completed before voting on the repeal.

Secretary of Defense Gates has said that he would like the US Congress to hold off on repeal of DADT until after the DoD review is done.  That would be after the mid-term elections, when there might be less pressure on some Senators to oppose repeal, especially if the SecDef says his review says it is OK to repeal.

Most interesting to me is that the article has the name of Matt Viser at the end, with Mr Viser's EMail address—maviser@globe.com.  I wonder what gives?  I am blaming the editors.

I am waiting to see what Senator Scott Brown does in December.  In the mean time, comments by Senator John Kerry are just fluff, considering his total inability to respond in a timely manner to constituent letters and EMails.  His remarks are not part of an attempt to inform constituents or to enter into a dialogue with them.  His remarks are more like making sure he is wearing the right shirt, suit and tie combination, so he will look good.

Incidentally, the so called "Dream Act" also died in this vote.  That was the plan to give US citizenship to anyone who arrived in the US before the age of 16, had lived here five years, had a high school diploma or a GED and had two years in the US military or two years of college and was under 35.  It does have the taint of amnesty.  Piecemeal implementation of amnesty is not immigration reform.  It is more like the Health Insurance Reform recently passed by the US Congress and signed by President Obama.  That is to say, it doesn't fix the fundamental problems and it doesn't provide true fairness to all parties.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  That is short for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the vernacular for the current policy with regard to homosexuals serving in the US military.  If you are looking for my opinion on this issue, I say we should follow the lead of Secretary of Defense Gates.  But, we should also pay attention to John Nagl (retired Lieutenant Colonel of Armor, PhD from Oxford), who talks about the issue here.