Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Sheehan Apologizes for Lies

Uncategorized

by Brian Leubitz

A while back, I mentioned retired general John Sheehan, who tried to pin a particularly gruesome incident in the recent Balkan conflicts on the Dutch military’s policy of letting gay and lesbian soldiers serve openly.  He even went so far as to say that a Dutch general had told him that the gays were definitely a problem. Trouble is, he made it all up.

After pretty much being called a liar by the entire Dutch government, he has now recanted his statement. He’s written a letter fessing up to his lies. He basically looks like a cat with the family pet canary in his mouth.

In it, Sheehan said he was “sorry” for remarks made at a Senate hearing earlier this month where he argued against plans by President Barack Obama to end a ban on allowing gays to serve openly in the US military.

“The case in point that I’m referring to is when the Dutch were required to defend Srebrenica against the Serbs,” he said at the time, referring to the Dutch UN peacekeeping force deployed to protect Bosnian Muslim civilians.

Sheehan claimed that Dutch leaders, including the former chief of staff of the Dutch army General Henk van den Breemen, had told him that the presence of gay soldiers had contributed to the fall of the enclave which led to the massacre of nearly 8,000 Muslim men and boys.

“To be clear, the failure on the ground in Srebrenica was in no way the fault of the individual soldiers,” states Sheehan’s letter, dated Monday and addressed to the now retired Van den Breemen.

“I am sorry that my recent public recollection of those discussions of 15 years ago inaccurately reflected your thinking on some specific social issues in the military,” said the letter, a copy of which was given to AFP by the ministry. (AFP)

To many of these right-wingers, this is how you do it. You throw out the biggest lie you can think of, in this case that the gay soldiers caused a genocidal massacre in Bosnia, and see if anybody calls you on it.  If somebody does, you make this little amends and continue to try to make up other lies in other forums.  And if nobody calls you on it, great, then you get to have the big lie spread around virally. Soon, you’ll be able to quote some authoritative source as the lie swirls around in the media.

So it is important that we watch these right-wing anti-gay zealots, and fortunately there are some great groups that are doing this work.  Media Matters for America has done a lot of work to debunk the crazy statements of the far right, and has even combined some of the many myths surrounding Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell into one, easily readable document.  Check it out here. But we cannot rely on a single organization alone.  You might hear some of these lies floating around everyday conversation, and it is up to us to debunk this garbage.

The best antidote for the lies that the anti-gay leaders spread is simply more knowledge. We all must do our part to spread the truth about our community.

73 Comments

  • 1. Harriet Forman  |  March 30, 2010 at 4:16 am

    So, by any chance was this letter of apology submitted to the Senate committee where he uttered the original lies?

  • 2. Bob  |  March 30, 2010 at 4:35 am

    And which major news outlets published the letter, how in the face is it for local citizens? Maybe someone could do a local mail out to faith based groups, or at least make sure it shows up on their websites.

    We can't forget there are allies inside religious organizations, who can use this type of information to bolster their challenge of status quo.

  • 3. Bill  |  March 30, 2010 at 4:36 am

    One would assume that retired general John Sheehan has a modicum of intelligence in order for him to have achieved such a high-ranking military position of a general.

    That is what makes this kind of sad. This 'general' seems too stupid to understand what he has done to his own legacy.

    Instead, retired general John Sheehan hates LGTB citizens SO much, that he is willing to cast any positive highlights of his military career aside, instead choosing to be remembered in history books as the general who fought to keep innocent, qualified, intelligent people from serving their country simply because he hated them. And he did so by telling outright LIES in front of the whole world. That kind of cancels out the all-star career which preceded his homophobic, untruthful, self-exposing testimony.

    Seriously, he was so stupid in what he CHOSE to say that if I were like him and painted every HETEROSEXUAL with the same brush, I would wonder how heterosexuals make it across the street. Especially the anti-our-own-gay-creations variety.

    It leaves me speechless that the vast majority of heterosexuals hate their gay kids SO much, that they actively seek to abuse them via society and the law.

    Heterosexuals love to call LGTB people 'a waste.'

    But, come on now folks, take a look at reality.

  • 4. Bill  |  March 30, 2010 at 4:37 am

    We will hear nothing but crickets chirping from the crazy right-wingers on this.

    (Crickets chirping is equal to a retraction on Fux News.)

  • 5. jc  |  March 30, 2010 at 4:41 am

    anyone else find this as delightful as i do?:
    http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Catholic-League-

    i find the child molestation absolutely sick and inexcusable but i am pissed that the church finds a way to demonize homosexuality as an excuse for this.

  • 6. Kathleen  |  March 30, 2010 at 4:45 am

    Here's an article that has a link at the bottom to the original letter: http://www.metroweekly.com/news/last_word/2010/03

    It was only an apology to the Dutch General to whom he had attributed the remarks. Seems to me he has a lot more apologizing to do.

    And once again, we see that someone gets away with this by just writing it off as a misunderstanding. If Sheehan really thought that's what had been said, some 15 years ago, wouldn't he have had a duty to clarify what exactly had been said before testifying, under oath, to the US Senate?

  • 7. Kathleen  |  March 30, 2010 at 4:46 am

    I just hope this isn't the end of it with Sheehan. I think he needs to be brought to task over this, not just write a letter to one individual.

  • 8. Ronnie  |  March 30, 2010 at 4:48 am

    then how do they explain all the little girls that are getting molested as well in the baptist churches……cherry picking Hateros…..<3…..Ronnie

  • 9. Richard A. Walter (s  |  March 30, 2010 at 4:50 am

    And Sheehan's letter of "apology" is supposed to make everything better? WRONG ANSWER! What really needs to happen is that Sheehan needs to be brought back onto the active duty roster and courtmartialed for Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer, demoted to buck private, fined a total of his entire military salary and the pension he has collected to this point, and then given a sentence in Leavenworth followed by a dishonorable discharge.

  • 10. Ronnie  |  March 30, 2010 at 4:51 am

    From what I posted on the previous tread about this "apology" letter…..

    (me) yeah…ok…whatever you write Sheethood ( mean Sheehan)……in that sentence I see its not the fault of the individual soldier but the fault of the higher ups….the sentence can be filled in one of two ways……since we already know how he thinks….

    1.) ” the failure on the ground in Srebrenica was in no way the fault of the individual heterosexual soldiers.”

    or…

    2.) “the failure on the ground in Srebrenica was in no way the fault of the individual soldiers.”……then would add……”It’s the fault of the higher ups for allowing openly gay soldiers to serve”….

    YOU KNOW THAT’S WHAT HE’S THINKING…because…umm…he said it…..f-ing Hatero…..

    “As a result of the letter, the gay rights group Pink Army said it would drop its threat to sue Sheehan.”
    (me) not a good idea….but to each his/her own……<3….Ronnie

  • 11. GAYGUY  |  March 30, 2010 at 4:57 am

    I believe they call what he did…PERJURY!! He should be held accountable on that level and be thrown in jail for this CRIME!!!

  • 12. dieter  |  March 30, 2010 at 5:10 am

    This was NOT an apology at all….he slyly worded it to appear as though it were, but he did not once in this letter say anything that contradicts his thoughts that the gays were responsible. this is a very popular word game among republitards.
    like when they call you a name..they say "I am sorry you were offended by the name I called you." that is not an apology at all.
    they are just saying I am sorry YOU were upset..not that they were sorry for their actions. republitards are going to destroy this nation unless we get off our lazy democrat asses and VOTE. It is a sad fact that young people and democrats and liberals are the smallest group of people who actually vote…every time we have a gay rights issue to vote on..you can go to any gay bar in town and see all the gay boys drinking and dancing…no time to vote.
    the republitards are charged up…most of them actually go vote. only WE can change that. I fear though that as history has always shown…the dems will not go out and vote, and then spend the next 4 years complaining about our rights not being there. It is our OWN fault. Period! there are more dem registered voters by far than repubs. there is no reason at all to not win EVERY election, or vote. we do it to ourselves.

  • 13. Ronnie  |  March 30, 2010 at 5:27 am

    “I am sorry that my recent public recollection of those discussions of 15 years ago inaccurately reflected your thinking on some specific social issues in the military,”

    (me) I'm sorry I lied about what you were THINKING…you know because I am psychic and I thought I was reading your mind accurately……pft….yeah ok Sheethood(I mean Sheehan)……<3….Ronnie

  • 14. Bill  |  March 30, 2010 at 5:29 am

    Gay people are the 'catch-all' excuse for heterosexuals.

    Sometimes, I wonder if God placed gay people on earth specifically to be the scape-goat for heterosexuals.

  • 15. Bill  |  March 30, 2010 at 5:29 am

    If there WAS a god, that is. ; )

  • 16. Phil L  |  March 30, 2010 at 5:30 am

    It sounds to me like he should be called out for both his oriignal purjurious statements AND this farce of an apology letter.

    Ronnie and Dieter are right; he worded it so that he can still place the blame on homosexuals in some way – be it through the bashing of the higher command or through some of the "individual soldiers".

  • 17. Bill  |  March 30, 2010 at 5:31 am

    He owes the LGTB community an apology.

    Like the rest of heterosexual America.

    Of course, this will be lost on him AND them.

  • 18. Ryan  |  March 30, 2010 at 5:38 am

    Emphasis on spreading the knowledge. Sometimes the lies reach larger audiences than the debunking.

  • 19. Billy  |  March 30, 2010 at 5:44 am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV5PbrTySxY

  • 20. Bill  |  March 30, 2010 at 5:44 am

    "What really needs to happen is that Sheehan needs to be brought back onto the active duty roster and courtmartialed for Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer, demoted to buck private, fined a total of his entire military salary and the pension he has collected to this point, and then given a sentence in Leavenworth followed by a dishonorable discharge."
    _________________________________________

    Sorry. They only do that kind of thing to GAY soldiers.

    Guess we're out of luck.

  • 21. Billy  |  March 30, 2010 at 5:47 am

    Even if the relationship you have is "legal", apparently that's not good enough for some people. What *really* constitutes a family? Apparently, the YMCA has the answer!
    http://www.akawilliam.com/ymca-denies-family-disc

  • 22. dieter  |  March 30, 2010 at 5:51 am

    The quote of the day from
    Miss Betty Bowers…
    America's BEST Christian:

    "I will do as I am called to do by the Lord Jesus, as expressed in the words I ventriloquize for Him in my head. As with all American Christians, His every encouragement, quite coincidentally, is completely consistent with my own selfish needs, even when the pesky suggestions He mumbled in the Gospels might seem to indicate otherwise. Frankly, the first thing on my list is to patiently ask Jesus to stop praying to Himself. People are starting to talk." – America's Best Christian, Betty Bowers, in an interview with Instinct Magazine.

  • 23. dieter  |  March 30, 2010 at 5:55 am

    This lovely pastor of the "no homo mayor" fame…says all us gays should be put to death! because the bible told him that.
    grab a barf bag and be repulsed by the 7 worst minutes of video ever!.
    thankfully youtube yanked this video promptly!
    http://www.bilerico.com/2010/03/dove_no_homo_mayo

  • 24. Audrey  |  March 30, 2010 at 5:57 am

    Speaking of misinformation, I have a piece up on the Ms. Magazine blog about what Prop. 8 defenders don't want people to know. I name check this site–and am enormously grateful to everyone here for the truth-telling and discussion that takes place.

    Here's a link to my piece: http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/03/29/what-p

  • 25. fiona64  |  March 30, 2010 at 5:58 am

    Because they are idiots who do not grasp that:

    a) Child molestation is about *access* and power

    b) Just because an adult male molests a juvenile male, it does not mean that this is a "homosexual" incident.

    c) Most pedophiles self-identify as straight

    or any of the other things that research has demonstrated about the matter.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 26. fiona64  |  March 30, 2010 at 5:58 am

    It's the "dad apology" — "I'm sorry you were offended."

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 27. fiona64  |  March 30, 2010 at 6:02 am

    Great article! I've shared it on my Twitter feed. :-)

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 28. Kathleen  |  March 30, 2010 at 6:08 am

    Here's an article with more detail. Apparently, this isn't a state-wide policy: http://www2.journalnow.com/content/2010/mar/22/co

  • 29. Audrey  |  March 30, 2010 at 6:19 am

    Thanks, Fiona!

  • 30. Ronnie  |  March 30, 2010 at 6:28 am

    How about grab a law suit for threatening gay people, violating freedom of religion, and violating separation btw. church and state…..then also maybe we should also burn him at the stake for publicly violating a three of the seven deadly sins…..greed, pride, wrath…..I'm just saying…..<3….Ronnie

  • 31. dieter  |  March 30, 2010 at 6:33 am

    NBC makes it official:

    Nbc has announced that it has signed the "Advocate" gay news magazine to their programming line-up wherein NBC will air a NIGHTLY news program. All gay news..all the time.

    I knew the peacock would come through.

  • 32. Richard A. Walter (s  |  March 30, 2010 at 6:36 am

    Yes, and this piss-poor excuse for an "apology" is part of why he deserves time in Leavenworth, a demotion to buck private, and a dishonorable discharge, along wth a fine totalling everything he was ever paid by the overnment, from his military salary to his pension. That and a complete brain cleaning to remove the filth of prejudice.

  • 33. Richard A. Walter (s  |  March 30, 2010 at 6:38 am

    Thanks, Billy! one of my favorite short documentary videos.

  • 34. Richard A. Walter (s  |  March 30, 2010 at 6:39 am

    Not if we all get together and raise such a stink that they are faced with no other choice!

  • 35. Richard A. Walter (s  |  March 30, 2010 at 6:43 am

    @fiona64–thank you for pointing out what I have tried to educate so many others about as an adult survivor of incest at the hands of my adoptive "father".
    @Ronnie. Not to mention the fact of the pedophilia cases now coming to light in Italy involving Catholic priests who maolested deaf children of both genders.

  • 36. Richard A. Walter (s  |  March 30, 2010 at 6:45 am

    Actually, Bill, I think the LGBTQQIA community was placed here to show the Hatero community how to live, and that is why we are so hated by them. Ever notice how those who are the most at fault try to blame everything on those who are actually walking the walk? They know that htey are not doing the right thing, so they trump up any excuse to blame us for what is going wrong.

  • 37. Richard A. Walter (s  |  March 30, 2010 at 6:48 am

    Thanks, Dieter! I am going to their website now to find out times for my area, and which local station.

  • 38. fern  |  March 30, 2010 at 6:56 am

    Let's not forget that in French (France & Belgium) Flemish and Dutch (Belgium & Netherlands) calling someone a faggot has nothing to do with the person being gay.
    Like a coward is called a pussy in a slanguish English, faggot applies in French and Dutch, and the Dutch general might well have said something like that out of frustration, is troops being handcuffed without resistance.
    He might have said "that's what the high commands gives me to fight with, a bunch of pussies" but probably said faggots instead. A bit like when McAuliffe was asked to surrender in Bastogne (battle of the bulge) he answered nuts the Germans never knew he meant balls. Was ist mit nützen???

  • 39. David Kimble  |  March 30, 2010 at 7:30 am

    Thanx, Audrey – I left a comment – hopefully it will be shown soon! Great Article! <3 David

  • 40. fern  |  March 30, 2010 at 7:33 am

    Dieter the only thing I can say is that in a few gay bars once it was known I was not gay I felt ostracized and the worst happened in a lesbian bar in L.A. where my girlfriend almost had to protect me we didn't know it was a lesbian bar, I'm not generalizing here the point is not about the good times I had in gay bars I love bars and to me they are important I see them as a social barometer of the country I'm in, it's true that on the whole people are a bit uncomfortable with outsiders in their local bars.
    As for the video I won't thank you, I like anti gay videos when they're stupid funny but I don't like stupid stupid.

  • 41. Audrey  |  March 30, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Yes, David, I saw your comment. Big thanks!

  • 42. David Kimble  |  March 30, 2010 at 7:42 am

    I just found this video –
    [youtube =http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u4CXlIYjyE&hl=en_US&fs=1&]

    I was raised listening to these kind of songs, so I really appreciate it – hope you do too! <3 David

  • 43. dieter  |  March 30, 2010 at 8:25 am

    HERE IT IS PEOPLE!!!
    Obama in an unreported move today…DEFENDED DADT ……
    saying that DADT IS constitutional.
    and that his administration is planning on continuing to defend it.
    He just told us all…DADT is not going anywhere.
    and he did it all in secret.
    http://gay.americablog.com/2010/03/obama-justice-

  • 44. dieter  |  March 30, 2010 at 8:37 am

    another link hitting mainstream media….Obama just sold us OUT for good!
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35196.h

  • 45. dieter  |  March 30, 2010 at 9:26 am

    A song dedication to all the republicans, and christian whackjobs, by my favorite drag group!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2kZKI7pSHs

  • 46. Bill  |  March 30, 2010 at 9:37 am

    He's only sorry that his ego got trampled by us fags.

  • 47. Carvel  |  March 30, 2010 at 11:35 am

    Even his apology is not valid. He never said he lied, he never said from the quotes that the people involved did not say what he claims they said. He only stated according to the quotes that:

    “To be clear, the failure on the ground in Srebrenica was in no way the fault of the individual soldiers,”

    “I am sorry that my recent public recollection of those discussions of 15 years ago inaccurately reflected your thinking on some specific social issues in the military,”

    This is bull droppings. All he is saying is that the individual soldier is not responsible and his memory of what he heard them state did not reflect what they thought it meant.
    That is the biggest piece of political double talk I have heard from a military man who is sticking to his guns and politely saying I heard it and you said it, but I am sorry that you didn't think it meant what I heard. And oh, by the way, the common soldier is not to blame.

    This is just more double talk from the side of the DADT people who had the same lame arguments as to why Blacks could not serve in the military along side of white soldiers. And we all know how that policy of not allowing them to serve has served us well these last 150 years up until the present. (oh, you meant they did change that one despite the testimony that they could not do it. My mistake.)

    This was not an appology, this was an I am sorry that you didn't say what I heard you say and that you don't really know what it means, but I do letter of I am sorry that you don't remember what you said and know what it means.

  • 48. Bob  |  March 30, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    Okay, can someone please respond to Dieter's post about Obama, selling us out, I'm freakin out already, did Obama defend DADT?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

  • 49. Ronnie  |  March 30, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    I'm not saying yes and I'm not saying no….I read the links he posted 5 times….I don't know what to make of it…..it has me on the fence…..I 'm just going to go with…. if this is true….Obama will have to answer for it in a very public way ……the same way he announced working on repealing it…..and then we can decide whether or not to move up the Civil War II…..and you know that is inevitable…..no matter what Haggie says about inevitability….ehehehehe…..

    although the links he posted do have me questioning….not freaking out….just a little more aware and sleeping with one eye open, so to speak…..you know?……<3….Ronnie

  • 50. Bob  |  March 30, 2010 at 1:41 pm

    gotcha Ronnie, thanks, I'll chill down a notch and sleep with an eye open, Obama better put up, or, he's declared civil war,

  • 51. Lesbians Love Boies  |  March 30, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    I think it's all pretty confusing…especially these two paragraphs:

    Tracy Schmaler, a Justice Department spokesman, reiterated the administration’s opposition to the don’t ask, don’t tell policy, and its goal of repealing “this discriminatory law.”

    “In this case the Department is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged,” she said. “The Department does not pick and choose which federal laws it will defend based on any one Administration’s policy preferences.”

    Seems like a contradiction!!??!!??. I guess I will have to wait until tomorrow to actually understand…it is late :)

    Hi everyone!

    Love Barb

  • 52. dieter  |  March 30, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    Not only did Obama defend DADT..he used the oral argument that Colin Powell used 17 years ago…and he never mentioned that Colin has recently stated that he was wrong before and thinks DADT should be repealed. Obama sold us out in a sad attempt to get re-elected. I am absolutely voting republican. just to fricken show the demoncats that I would rather vote for an honest bigot than a lying "advocate."

  • 53. dieter  |  March 30, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    Justice Department Uses Colin Powell Comments To Defend 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'

    not only this..in the strangest thing ever…HRC even declared today that the white house had made a grave error. HRC traditionally kisses Obama's ass, and when even THEY present a written press release stating that the white house sold us out..then you know it is serious.

  • 54. Lesbians Love Boies  |  March 30, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    I sincerely hope you are just ranting "i will vote republican."

  • 55. Ronnie  |  March 30, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    Hi LLB…aka Barb….kisses….mmmmmuah!!…hehehe…<3….Ronnie

  • 56. dieter  |  March 30, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35196.h

  • 57. dieter  |  March 30, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    I have already changed my voter status with the voters registrar.
    I am done.
    maybe when all the dems get kicked the f*ck out, they will finally grow some balls and do something. I am willinig to put up with 4 years of Republitards…just to get my point across that this is IT!
    we keep voting for the dems so why would they bother doing anything for us. They assume the gays are a given. I have posted a republican yard sign, and am actively recruiting everyone in my neighborhood to do the same. like I said..4 years of hell is worth getting a response from the democants.

  • 58. Kathleen  |  March 30, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    Four years of a republican administration is one thing, but be sure you're willing to put up with what that could mean for the composition of the Supreme Court.

  • 59. dieter  |  March 30, 2010 at 2:28 pm

    Kathleen, let me explain it this way:
    If you were managing a sports team and you had 10 really good players who were rude and obnoxious, and 10 really bad players who were really nice, and really said they liked you alot…as long as you keep putting the bad players in the game just because they are nicer than the good players…if they know they are always going to be allowed to play..they never ever learn how to play the game… why should they bother making the effort? but if you let the rude players play every game and BENCH the bad players…eventually the bad players are going to quit the game altogether…or learn how get good at the game.
    It is time to bench the democrats…until they learn to play the game.
    It's time to make them stop assuming they are always going to be allowed to play by us.

  • 60. Ronnie  |  March 30, 2010 at 2:57 pm

    wouldn't it just be easier and less bothersome not to vote at all….I mean putting the repubs back in power Is going to make things way worse especially if the reich gets the power and force us all to be christian, re-criminalzie homosexuality, forcefully repeal the hate crimes act, and forcefully change the constitution to read marriage is blah blah blah…..No…. better to have a party that the majority of it practices tolerance then a party where the majority has no tolerance and is splitting every which way into racists and homophobic groups….At least the dems are not actively putting anti-gay bills on the table over and over again like the repubs and the reich are…..whatever….I would rather not vote then vote for the reich…..<3….Ronnie

  • 61. dieter  |  March 30, 2010 at 3:30 pm

    Do not understand why anyone is afraid of the republicans. after all they are sorely mistaken by thinking that gays and liberals do not also own guns, and some are prepared to use them.

  • 62. Ronnie  |  March 30, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    The problem is that if we are to use them the way the majority of the repubs and reich want to….we would be wrong but they would be right…..case in point….over 20 people who are for equality get arrested for non violent civil disobedience and protests just days before the reich violently protest, spitting at senators and what not and shouting out derogatory names and threatening them, destroying public and private property…..no arrests….

    Its not that "they are sorely mistaken by thinking that gays and liberals do not also own guns, and some are prepared to use them."….because you would be right in saying that and I agree…but its that…..to them we don't have the right too return their gestures, because we will not conform to what they want us to be….it all comes down too they are allowed to do it to us but we are not allowed to do it to them…..because everything they do is right and we are wrong…..they are delusional, egocentric, condescending, and narcissistic…plain and simple….they really don't think that we will strike back when pushed far enough….and what do I have to say that?…..

    "You want to test that theory?"……I don't own a gun….but thanks to the boy scouts I know how to use one….and if I had one I would be prepared use it……what I don't understand is that is easy to ignore our abilities but I don't get how they ignore 65 thou trained gay and lesbian soldiers who are also on edge right now….again they are delusional….they really do think that they are untouchable…..so I ask them again…..

    "You want to test that theory?"…..touch…touch… tooouch…oops…<3….Ronnie

  • 63. David Kimble  |  March 30, 2010 at 11:56 pm

    Thanx, Dieter for posting the story with links. From my appraisal (after reading both articles), it appears the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing. Allow me to explain a little further – I have little doubt of the truth presented in either article, wtih that said, it seems abhorrent a Democrat could speak-out of both sides of their mouths, yet this seems to be the case. Out of one side (to our community), we hear the traditional speech, that says, yes we support your views and will do everything possible, if elected…yet under the cover of "law writing and defense", they do something else completely opposite. Don't forget, where we got DADT from – it was from Clinton/Gore.
    <3 David

  • 64. Chamisaguy  |  March 31, 2010 at 12:10 am

    Here's another link to information about the Dept of Justice "full-throated" defense of DADT and the Administration's continuing hypocritical positions of defending DADT in court whie alleging to support repeal and change in DADT:
    http://ow.ly/1sFcD

    Read the comments to the news, as well.

  • 65. fiona64  |  March 31, 2010 at 12:12 am

    It is a confusing position — but here's the deal. The Justice Department is required to defend the law until it's changed. Pres. Obama wants this law repealed — but until it is, the Justice Dept. has to toe this particular line.

    It's ridiculous, obviously. Unfortunately, this is not something Obama can undo unilaterally because it was a law, not just an executive order.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 66. fiona64  |  March 31, 2010 at 12:12 am

    Um, No. Obama did not do that; his justice department did. There is a difference.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 67. Richard Walter (soon  |  March 31, 2010 at 12:33 am

    Yes, and never let us forget that politicians are masters of the art of speaking out of both sides of their mouths. That is why Lt. Choi and Mr. Pietrangelo had themselves handcuffed to the White House fence.

  • 68. Chamisaguy  |  March 31, 2010 at 12:38 am

    The DOJ/Administration's (yes, they are one and the same — the DOJ attorneys serve the White House) "defense" of DADT as required could have also been lukewarm…minimally filling the requirement to uphold a legal piece of legislation. Unfortunately, the Administration does not see DADT as unconstitutional, apparently — yet.
    I thought when the uproar over the Administration's/DOJ defense of DOMA last year blew up , the White House vowed to "be more careful" in its future legal briefs so as not to appear quite so hypocritical or contradictory.

  • 69. dieter  |  March 31, 2010 at 4:38 am

    Fiona…..you are WRONG. The DOJ is NOT required to defend anything. while it has been tradition to do so, it has never been required. look it up, and you may want to see just how many times Mr. Bush did exactly the opposite of what Obama is doing, and how many times he adamantly REFUSED to defend many laws. That is a fact. I will try to get a few instances on when he did this. and it is in fact Obama doing this. Obama himself stated he wanted to defend the law.

  • 70. dieter  |  March 31, 2010 at 4:45 am

    Fiona…a few examples of where DOJ refused to defend current laws:

    We suspected this betrayal was coming, so we read up on the law. In fact, George W. Bush (ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta – "The U.S. Department of Justice has notified Congress that it will not defend a law prohibiting the display of marijuana policy reform ads in public transit systems."), Bill Clinton (Dickerson v. United States – "Because the Miranda decision is of constitutional dimension, Congress may not legislate a contrary rule unless this Court were to overrule Miranda…. Section 3501 cannot constitutionally authorize the admission of a statement that would be excluded under this Court's Miranda cases."), George HW Bush (Metro Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission), and Ronald Reagan (INS v./ Chadha – "Chadha then filed a petition for review of the deportation order in the Court of Appeals, and the INS joined him in arguing that § 244(c)(2) is unconstitutional.") all joined in lawsuits opposing federal laws that they didn't like, laws that they felt were unconstitutional. It is an outright lie to suggest that the DOJ had no choice.

  • 71. Jo Jo  |  March 31, 2010 at 4:58 am

    I'm thinking Obama knows its a lost cause to try and prove it unconstitutional, and is just going in for the repeal. I am keeping a close eye on this though not sure what to think. Hopefully is is just trying to avoid opening a can of worms while this thing is repealed. He seems to be smart. Lets just hope HRC stays on him…. I am glad they stepped up and made a statement against this. Not sure I would make a big deal out of it just yet until we see that its not gonna be repealled before November then we need to worry lots….. keeping my fingers crossed….

  • 72. Jo Jo  |  March 31, 2010 at 5:03 am

    If its not the the Militarary Readiness Act of 2010 that will be voted on in May or June I doubt Obama will get my vote again. Its important for the Active Groups to stay on him till he follows through with his promise. This foot dragging is getting old.

  • 73. tire dimensions&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    Inet Reader…

    […]follow the other links to read more[…]…

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!