Attention, Mr. President, More Danger Ahead
Aubrey Sarvis
Huffington Post
March 24, 2009
If they have a gauge to measure the frantic level at the White House, it's probably spinning like a top right now. And if they're not frantic, they ought to be.
In Sunday's New York Times Frank Rich, quoting from a letter to the editor in the newspaper last week, asks if this is President Obama's "Katrina moment." The comparison of the handling of the present economic crisis to the government's notoriously mishandled response to the hurricane that destroyed New Orleans is guaranteed to send the president's staff into panic mode.
In the street -- and I mean Main Street, not Wall Street -- the outrage index has gone off the charts. The administration seemed inexplicably unprepared for -- indeed, they seemed surprised by -- the populist anger caused by the billions in government bailouts of failing banks and the millions in "retention bonuses" paid from that money to A.I.G. executives who'd already left. The White House is now busy playing catch-up in a situation they should have been anticipating weeks ago.
Mr. President, if I may address you directly, you've got another situation looming ahead that also should come as no surprise. It is not the same order of magnitude as the global financial meltdown, but like that meltdown it is predictable and it has the potential to be exploited for political gain -- not your political gain but your opponents'.
In five weeks the House Armed Services Committee will begin hearings on your Defense Department budget for 2010. Senate hearings will follow. You have a choice. You can take the lead and put language calling for repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the legislative budget -- or you can wait until your opponents bring it up. The opposition, which may be loud and ugly, will be out to ambush you, Mr. President. Alarmingly, there have been no signs that your administration is prepared for that.
Polls consistently show that some 80 percent of the American people believe qualified men and women should serve openly in the military regardless of sexual orientation. Aside from everything else, like fairness and justice, military readiness demands it. The country could ill afford to lose those 65 translators of Arabic, Farsi, and other languages critical to our mission who were discharged not because they were failing at their jobs but because they were gay. We are fighting two intractable wars and the military is firing highly skilled people because they are gay while admitting convicted felons!
Mr. President, we know you favor getting rid of Don't Ask, Don't Tell but we've seen no signs that you're prepared to take the lead at a time when leadership is demanded. The Secretary of Defense said last week that he'd had "one brief conversation" with you about it. He said that he and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are "discussing" it. That's not encouraging. When you send your defense budget to the Hill, you've got to be clear on where you stand. You must be ready to take on your opponents, because your opponents are certainly ready to take on you.
Today it almost looks as if you're not only avoiding the issue but hoping it won't come up. Remember the ostrich with its head in the sand?
Some of those on the other side want to keep Don't Ask, Don't Tell on the books, and some want to exploit it for their own political gain. I need hardly point out that their gain is your loss. They want to embarrass you, and if they see an opportunity to drive a wedge between you, Defense Secretary Gates, and the Joint Chiefs, they will seize it. They don't like your favorable numbers and they'd enjoy taking you down a notch or two.
Don't let them. You most especially but also your Defense Secretary and the Joint Chiefs must be prepared to lead and immediately counter any ugly messages of fear and hate with the message that this law makes no sense at a time the military needs all the qualified men and women it can get. It is absurd to act as if a convicted felon makes a better soldier than a man or woman who is openly gay. But the absurdity of an argument never prevented its being used.
The opposition -- though small -- is organized and repeats, loudly, the same tired old arguments they made 16 years ago when Congress gave us Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and the same arguments they made without success against President Truman when he integrated the military in 1947. Mr. President, you cannot concede -- you must not concede -- the advantage to the opposition.
There is already talk on Capitol Hill that the opposition is ready to set you up. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is only the pretext. If you don't frame that debate, if your administration remains silent or you fail to lead, then your hands are most likely tied on getting repeal in this Congress and this miserable law becomes your miserable law. In the process, you will look weak, the opposition strong.
You don't want that. The American people don't want that. But your opponents do want that. It doesn't have to happen. You just have to show that you will lead the way.
03-24-09 By Aubrey Sarvis, SLDN Executive Director |
6 Comments
Comments for this entry are closed.Bill Adams in Dallas Texas on April 24, 2009 at 07.31 am
Please have enough respect for our gay men and women serving in the armed forces to take away this craziness. It is time for “Don’t ask don’t tell” to end.
Tom Carpenter in Los Angeles on March 31, 2009 at 06.32 am
Mr. Pietrangelo: Your comments do not warrant a response. You know the one about a man who is his own lawyer? Just keep talking…..
James E. Pietrangelo, II in Cleveland, OH on March 29, 2009 at 12.29 pm
In fact, just in time to corroborate my point, I just received yesterday a service copy of a letter in my Supreme Court case, Pietrangelo v. Gates. The letter was from Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court asking for a third extension for the government to reply to my petition. Elena Kagan is the Gay, former head of Harvard whom Obama picked and whom the Senate just confirmed for US Solicitor General, the person responsible for arguing cases on the government’s behalf before the Supreme Court. In this letter, dated March 23, 2009, SG Kagan asks for the extension to coincide the government’s response in my case with their response in Witt v. Dep’t of the Air Force. SG Kagan then goes on to say that her office “is engaged in consultation with the Department of Defense and with other components of the Department of Justice to assess the legal and practical significance of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Witt.” This clearly means that Obama and Kagan do not believe DADT to be unconstitutionally discriminatory, and will continue to support DADT, because such assessment means the government is determining how it can avoid the Supreme Court even hearing this case in the first place.
James E. Pietrangelo, II in Cleveland, OH on March 27, 2009 at 09.11 am
Mr. Carpenter: You yourself—if I recall correctly—served in the military and are currently a civilian lawyer, yet you know nothing about professional ethics. There is no professional rule WHATSOEVER about or against an attorney who is not currently serving in the military calling the President a “bigot.” None. In fact, as you should know as an attorney, the First Amendment squarely and absolutely protects such speech. Thus, my comment is not unprofessional in any legal sense. Nor is it unprofessional in any moral sense. The charge of bigotry is completely true. Putting aside Barack Obama’s long endorsement of Rev. Wright’s anti-White and anti-Semitic rhetoric, which certainly counts as bigotry and which you completely ignore, Barack Obama is as a matter of record opposed to Gay marriage and has done nothing since being sworn in—though he had the power to immediately issue an executive order neutralizing DADT—to end DADT, both of which positions SUPPORT discrimination. As for “political sense,” if “political sense” means putting your own political interests above civil rights of others, and of appeasing cowardly and double-talking politicians like Obama (and other Dems and Republicans), you can have it. I’ll stick to actually fighting for Gay equality. The only people who should be ashamed are you and Mr. Sarvis.
Tom Carpenter in Los Angeles on March 27, 2009 at 03.45 am
Mr. Pietrangelo: As a former Army JAG officer and present member of the bar, your calling the President a “Bigot” is beyond the pale. You should be ashamed of such a baseless and unprofessional comment. As to the substance of your diatrabe, Mr Sarvis continues to lead in a smart and strategic manner. He understands the need to work with the administration in a productive way. I suggest you return to throwing hand grenades into the litigation arena, a forum you may be more qualified to work in and comment on. You clearly have no political sense.
James E. Pietrangelo, II in Cleveland, OH on March 24, 2009 at 03.08 pm
Mr. Sarvis, if I may address you directly, President Obama has suckered you in, like millions of other Americans. You keep cheering him and cheering him on in these posts to do the right thing, when the truth is—and you and I both know it—that Obama won’t take the lead. Why do we know it, because he has done nothing—nada, zip, zero, nyet—to repeal DADT. As you so rightly pointed out in a past post, he has only taken steps (studying the issue, dialogue, etc)which, in political parlance, mean nothing will be done. By continuing to coddle President Obama, you fail as the leader of one of the premier Gay rights organizations. When will you say “enough is enough”? Your voice carries weight and respect. Please use it to denounce President Obama for supporting discrimination. Perhaps at least we can shame Bigot Obama into action.