<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen speaks out for repealing DADT</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/05/26/23042/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/05/26/23042</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 21:17:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: TampaZeke</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/05/26/23042/comment-page-1#comment-69233</link>
		<dc:creator>TampaZeke</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2010 20:18:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=23042#comment-69233</guid>
		<description>You might want to reconsider this headline after reading Mullen&#039;s statement today.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You might want to reconsider this headline after reading Mullen&#8217;s statement today.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason D</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/05/26/23042/comment-page-1#comment-69231</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2010 19:50:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=23042#comment-69231</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s rather interesting considering what else was said by Mullen yesterday as well(bold/italic is mine):

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said yesterday that he’s comfortable with proposed legislation that seeks to repeal the law that bans gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military &lt;b&gt;because it includes “very clear language” that gives senior leaders the final say in &lt;i&gt;whether&lt;/i&gt; it’s implemented.&lt;/b&gt;

Notice the word &quot;whether&quot;? As in &quot;if&quot;?

he goes on to say..

&quot;“That was what was behind making sure we surveyed our people and our families -- to understand … the potential impact,” he told the group. “And I, as a senior military leader in the country, feel obligated to make sure I understand that, so &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;should&lt;/i&gt; it change,&lt;/b&gt; I can lead that and understand what the impacts are.”&quot; 

another statement that this is hypothetical, that Mullen still controls whether it happens or not.


&quot;“That trigger is to certify &lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;whether&lt;/i&gt; we should move ahead with that change,&lt;/b&gt; even if the law were to repeal it,” he told a reporter following the session.&quot;

http://www.defense.gov//news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59356</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s rather interesting considering what else was said by Mullen yesterday as well(bold/italic is mine):</p>
<p>The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said yesterday that he’s comfortable with proposed legislation that seeks to repeal the law that bans gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military <b>because it includes “very clear language” that gives senior leaders the final say in <i>whether</i> it’s implemented.</b></p>
<p>Notice the word &#8220;whether&#8221;? As in &#8220;if&#8221;?</p>
<p>he goes on to say..</p>
<p>&#8220;“That was what was behind making sure we surveyed our people and our families &#8212; to understand … the potential impact,” he told the group. “And I, as a senior military leader in the country, feel obligated to make sure I understand that, so <b><i>should</i> it change,</b> I can lead that and understand what the impacts are.”&#8221; </p>
<p>another statement that this is hypothetical, that Mullen still controls whether it happens or not.</p>
<p>&#8220;“That trigger is to certify <b><i>whether</i> we should move ahead with that change,</b> even if the law were to repeal it,” he told a reporter following the session.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://www.defense.gov//news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59356" rel="nofollow">http://www.defense.gov//news/newsarticle.aspx?id=59356</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PW</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/05/26/23042/comment-page-1#comment-69229</link>
		<dc:creator>PW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2010 19:38:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=23042#comment-69229</guid>
		<description>Exactly what do they need to study? What else do they need to know in order to figure this out?  Here are the facts at hand:

1. We are at war.
2. We have skilled people who want to serve.
3. We have a law/policy that discharges competent people for stupid reasons.

Solution: Get rid of the bad law/policy.

This is not rocket science, DADT is a bad idea. Time to  get rid of it once and for all. No more studies, no more   delays, and NO MORE EXCUSES!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Exactly what do they need to study? What else do they need to know in order to figure this out?  Here are the facts at hand:</p>
<p>1. We are at war.<br />
2. We have skilled people who want to serve.<br />
3. We have a law/policy that discharges competent people for stupid reasons.</p>
<p>Solution: Get rid of the bad law/policy.</p>
<p>This is not rocket science, DADT is a bad idea. Time to  get rid of it once and for all. No more studies, no more   delays, and NO MORE EXCUSES!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Edwin</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/05/26/23042/comment-page-1#comment-69204</link>
		<dc:creator>Edwin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 May 2010 03:14:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=23042#comment-69204</guid>
		<description>Where was the troops input in 93 when the politions put this law into effect?
They power rolled it right over Clinton and that was another stupid law this country put into effect.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where was the troops input in 93 when the politions put this law into effect?<br />
They power rolled it right over Clinton and that was another stupid law this country put into effect.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
