Comments on: Bill Clinton Talks About His Role On DADT and DOMA

By: Duncan

Duncan — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:28:29 +0000

Quo, don’t listen to people berating you for hating yourself. We all do that, and we must learn to live with it.

But of all the dubious things I have read from you, this one takes the biscuit. A field-ration dry biscuit.

The only rationale you have given is the pragmatic one that assumes everyone else is a homophobe. It’s just like the argument made that Obama should not be chosen in the primaries because in such a racist nation the Democrats would then go to lose. Basically, it forms a vicious circle by which not only the discrimination persists but everyone is confirmed in their low opinion of each other.

So either find a better reason or admit that the fact that this policy excludes gays without actively harming them (one might think looking from the outside) is clouding your judgement.

By: Ben in Oakland

Ben in Oakland — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:53:59 +0000

“I hold that position for many reasons, one of which is that letting gays into the military will help to produce a backlash against homosexuals over the long term, even if it doesn’t seem to immediately cause problems.”

As if we haven’t been getting backlashed by homobigots for 2000 years or so.

Actually, quo, since the closet is the enemy, I suspect that once gay people are serving openly, only a few homobigots will be visible.

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:51:23 +0000

Quo,

Believing in what you say doesn’t mean that your comments are any less outrageous, provocative, or annoying.

I sincerely hope you’ll learn to stop hating yourself.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:59:51 +0000

Quo,

You are a either a troll or just plain stupid…I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Many nations allow their gay and lesbian citizens to serve openly and there hasn’t been any issues or backlash.

Keep digging in your box of hate to find a better reason that gays and lesbians shouldn’t be allowed to serve.

By: JimInMa

JimInMa — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:46:37 +0000

Maybe it *is* a good idea to keep gays out of the military… keep them here and safe from harm :-)
Of course, ya gotta respect these people even more because they’re willing to risk their necks for a country that doesn’t even want to give them the same rights afforded to people’s little doggies.

By: Quo

Quo — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:57:04 +0000

Mike,

“But you are an obvious troll, and you know that already.”

Trolls are people who say outrageous and provocative things simply to annoy others and get attention. That isn’t me, because, believe it or not, I actually believe what I am saying. I honestly do think that homosexuals should be forbidden to join the military.

I hold that position for many reasons, one of which is that letting gays into the military will help to produce a backlash against homosexuals over the long term, even if it doesn’t seem to immediately cause problems.

By: andrew

andrew — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 06:06:53 +0000

I’m with Lane here. And, in a way, this helps remind critics of Clinton the context of those decisions – right now he gets the bulk of the blame, fair or unfair.

By: cd

cd — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:10:33 +0000

Thanks for standing up Lane. It takes real courage to confront power.

But that’s not what Lane did.

By: mikeksf

mikeksf — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:58:51 +0000

Thanks for standing up Lane. It takes real courage to confront power.

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:29:43 +0000

From Clinton’s point of view, he appears to be correct when saying that DADT arrived at his desk with a veto-proof majority from both houses. As far as I’m able to determine — and if someone knows differently, please chime in — the 1994 Defense Authorization Act appear to have arrived on the Senate floor with the ban already in place. The 63-33 vote that readers have mentioned was to defeat an amendment to that bill that Sen. Barbara Boxer offered which would have allowed the president to decide the policy on gays in the military. DADT therefore arrived on the President’s desk as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, which passed the Senate on a 77-22 vote. Since there’s no such thing as a line-item veto, DADT legally arrived at his desk with a veto-proof majority.

His DOMA defense is much less convincing. He still hasn’t explained why he bragged about signing DOMA to right-wing audiences. That certainly did not arrive with a veto-proof majority.