Dems on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”: Cowards Then and Now.

Back when the primary was in full swing, I wrote a post contending that Hillary was the better candidate when it came to LGBT issues such as marriage and gays in the military.  Obama supporters who commented, and those I know in “real-life” always responded with sentiments such as “but Clinton got us into the ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ mess in the first place”.  First of all this is not true.  Bill Clinton wanted there to be no ban whatsoever on gays serving in the military.  After all, we have been serving proudly (if not openly) in just about every conflict and every branch of the military since the birth of this nation.  Of course the GOP was adamantly opposed to overturning the ban on gays in the military.  But Clinton had a Democratic majority to work with in congress, so you would think he could have easily passed this reform, which he had campaigned on before being elected President.   Like so many other aspects of the Clinton Presidency, the Obots prefer revisionist history to reality. They claim that Clinton is to blame for the policy we have now, “don’t ask, don’t tell”.  While he did eventually sign the compromise into law, it was Democrats in congress who blocked an outright ban. 

Congressional opposition to lifting the ban on gay and bisexual people in the armed forces was led by Democrat Sam Nunn of Georgia who organized Congressional hearings that largely buffed the armed forces position that has remained unchanged since the 1981 directive.

After backlash from members of his own party, Clinton agreed to a compromise.  While not perfect, the compromise did seem to open a pathway for gays and lesbians to serve legally in the military:

The final result was a Congressional compromise of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” that was later amended to include “don’t harass”. Officially, the compromise dictates that the armed forces will no longer ask recruits about their sexual activity and/or orientation, will not investigate any serviceman or servicewoman’s sexual activity and/or orientation without solid evidence (thus preventing witch-hunts), and self-identified homosexual servicemen and women agree that they will not engage in homosexual sex acts, or do anything that announces that they are a homosexual, i.e. public statements or participate in a same-sex marriage openly.

Once the Republicans regained control of the government this policy was perverted to indeed serve as the basis for witch-hunts to purge gay/lesbian service members, but that was clearly not Clinton’s intention, and in my opinion hardly his fault.  I lay blame with Democrats like Sam Nunn who didn’t fully support Clinton’s promise to end the ban entirely.

Today the Oborg tries to paint Clinton as anti-gay, saying that he backed down in the face of adversity.  To begin with, many of these 20 somethings were still in diapers when this occurred.  They may not remember the hostility towards gays and lesbians in the early 90’s.  Those of us who are old enough to remember can recall that the AIDS crisis was threatening to decimate the gay community.  Many people in our society (not just the military) didn’t even want to shake our hands or drink after us at water fountains out of fear of the disease.  Sodomy laws were still on the books (I wonder if any of these kids even realize that at that time just being gay was technically illegal).  So for Bill Clinton to even make this stand is in my eyes heroic.  He could have very easily ignored his campaign promise when he saw that the political wind was at his face.  But he tried, and when he couldn’t get the ban overturned, he compromised.  If he had had the support of his fellow party members he may have very well been successful. 

Their cowardice then led to the policy that we have now.  They also showed the nation that they had no principles and were easily frightened by a small but vocal minority of religious bigots.  The Obamanuts today will Blame Clinton for losing the congress in ‘94 on this very issue.  But there is an argument to be made that if they had shown themselves to be principled, tenacious leaders who didn’t back down from a fight, Gingrich may have not been as successful as he was. 

Fast forward 15 years to the present.  What is Obama’s position on gays in the military?  You would think he would be solidly against it( don’t ask don’t tell, as it is being applied now), seeing as how almost every industrialized nation in the world has shed such bans without harming military readiness.  It also is a core Democratic principle to uphold rights for gays and lesbians (at least it used to be).  So his position should be clear, right?  not so fast :

In a recent interview with The Advocate, a gay newsmagazine, Democrat Barack Obama stopped short of promising to lead the way for change, saying only that he can “reasonably see” a repeal of the current ban if elected president.

Obama not leading the way for change?  Hmm, guess he only believes in certain kinds of change.  Anyway, Obama has shown that he can’t even keep promises he actually makes (or changes the meaning of them midstream to accommodate prevailing winds).  With such equivocation as in the quote above, it is obvious to me that this means something on the order of “If I can do it without losing any political capital, I might, but don’t hold your breath”.  Again he demonstrates the clear lack of integrity which makes him entirely unsuitable to be President of the United States.

And what about the rest of the Democrats, some of whom are still around from back in 1993?  Nancy Pelosi (from San Fran-freaking-cisco!!!) wants to study the issue:

Davis said she plans to convene a hearing on the issue by the end of the year. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she supports the creation of a panel of military experts to study the issue.

While others are being considered for some very serious roles in an Obama administration:

Last week, Nunn — whose name has been floated as a possible running mate to Obama — told reporters in Atlanta that he thinks it would now be appropriate to revisit the matter.

“I’m not advocating anything — except I’m saying the policy was the right policy for the right time, and times change. It’s appropriate to take another look,” Nunn was quoted as saying by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Yes, that’s the same Sam Nunn who obstructed Clinton’s attempt to overturn the ban in 1993.  Now he is being considered as a running-mate for Obama and Clinton is being trashed for his historic attempt to gain equal rights for the LGBT community. 

To all you sweeties out there:  This is the reason I will never vote for Obama.  He is a liar and a hypocrite.  Don’t you dare talk to me about Roe, or gay marriage, or anything else for that matter.  Your candidate makes broad generalizations and promises to “see what he can do”.  He has no intention of serving anyone but himself and the corporate handlers who own him.  Barack Obama is not a friend to gays and lesbians no matter how much he and his supporters try to tell us otherwise.  When it comes to his positions on gay rights it seems Obama has adopted his own “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.