If It’s Good Enough For the Goose, It’s Good Enough For These Assholes

They just never ever stop:

Just hours before President Obama plans to sign on Wednesday the repeal of the military’s 17-year ban on gays serving openly in the armed forces, Republicans appear to be trying one last legislative maneuver to block the change.

Republicans in the Senate have filed an amendment to a sweeping defense spending bill that would require the four military service chiefs to be part of the certification process called for in the bill that repeals the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

That would put Marine Corps chief General James Amos, a vocal opponent of the repeal, in line to delay or potentially prevent its implementation. The amendment was filed late Tuesday to the defense measure, which could be voted on in the Senate on Wednesday.

Advocates of repeal scrambled late Tuesday night to assess the potential impact of the amendment and to prevent its inclusion in the otherwise uncontroversial military spending bill. A senior Democratic aide in the Senate said “this would be a poison pill for DADT repeal.”

The solution is easy. Vote the bill down. Filibuster it. Do all the things they said they would do and did to the Defense Authorization bill when the DADT repeal was included. If the DADT repeal needed to be in a separate bill, then so does this horseshit.

And if nothing else in the Senate changes, anonymous amendments and holds need to go. Period.

56 replies
  1. 1
    valdivia says:

    fuck them. fuck them. fuck them.

    wow.

  2. 2
    John Arbuthnot Fisher says:

    Isn’t anyone else concerned about the idea of having four active members and leaders of the military “certifying” legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president?

  3. 3
    Calouste says:

    And if nothing else in the Senate changes, anonymous amendments and holds need to go. Period.

    Fixed that for ya.

  4. 4
    Ija says:

    @John Arbuthnot Fisher: \

    What happens to civilian control of the military? Are we going to be a military dictatorship now? Obama should just fire Amos.

  5. 5
    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century) says:

    it’s only an amendment. it will easily be voted down.

    better yet, the dems can filibuster the amendment, so it would require 60 votes.

    lastly, the irony — the reactionaries didn’t want DADT attached to the defense bill, now they want DADT attached to the defense bill.

    but that’s mccain. always preening and pulling a stunt. I surprised he isn’t calling for a suspension of the 2012 election so he can have a white house meeting on the matter.

  6. 6
    freelancer says:

    The solution is easy. Vote the bill down. Filibuster it. Do all the things they said they would do and did to the Defense Authorization bill when the DADT repeal was included. If the DADT repeal needed to be in a separate bill, then so does this horseshit.

    This. The lame duck session has been surprisingly successful. Wait til they have a stake in the game, a responsibility to govern, and use Nancy’s gavel upside their heads if they won’t pay the troops.

  7. 7
    General Stuck says:

    Sooner or later, dems are going to have to go to the mat with these crazy motherfuckers. They no longer care about this country, nor any vestige of doing politics with any honor. They want to force a national collapse, if they don’t get all of it their way. And even amiable dems won’t be able to stop them with appeasement short of surrendering all of their elected power.

    If you do not believe the core base of the republican party is in full revolt and is engaged in a barely disguised civil war, albeit marginally disguised and within the rules, then you aren’t paying attention. There is a black president in the WH, and they are confident they can break anything they want, and he will get blamed for it by the populace at large, the white majority populace . It is playing the race card on steroids, and all in.

  8. 8
    Mike in NC says:

    That would put Marine Corps chief General James Amos, a vocal opponent of the repeal, in line to delay or potentially prevent its implementation. The amendment was filed late Tuesday to the defense measure, which could be voted on in the Senate on Wednesday.

    As a recently retired Navy puke, I honestly don’t understand the USMC’s infamous level of homophobia. Just rent Clint Eastwood’s stupid “Heartbreak Ridge” if you need to know what I’m saying here. What a bunch of girly-men!

  9. 9
    Petesmom says:

    Or, the Commander in Chief could just fire Marine Corps chief General James Amos’s ass.

  10. 10
    YellowJournalism says:

    @valdivia: Personally, I prefer, “Fuck those fucking fuckers.”

  11. 11
    MikeJ says:

    Is their argument now that any time we pass legislation that affects federal employees that those employees should get to approve or disapprove it?

    That would be an interesting stance for a republican to take.

  12. 12
    Calming Influence says:

    John, if you keep this up you’re going to need a vacation from your vacation.

  13. 13
    valdivia says:

    @YellowJournalism:

    hhis.

    yeah I went a little over the top there eh? They just make me soooo angry.

  14. 14
    YellowJournalism says:

    @valdivia: I honestly thought you were holding back. They’re that bad.

  15. 15
    valdivia says:

    @YellowJournalism:

    :D

    this is why I hang out here!

  16. 16
    Anya says:

    John, did I not read ten posts ago that you were on vacation?

  17. 17
    General Stuck says:

    OT

    Obama drafts EO for indefinite detention. Bad , bad move. Without declaring them POW’s and everything that comes with that. Even if the wingers are blocking bringing them from coming here for trial. I cannot defend this.

  18. 18
    The Dangerman says:

    @Anya:

    John, did I not read ten posts ago that you were on vacation?

    But he meant it!

    Sorry, couldn’t resist.

  19. 19
    PS says:

    The Times story has been UPDATED — check the link (posting in a hurry):

    “Don Stewart, a spokesman for Mr. McConnell, said late Tuesday night that an objection from a senator had been registered to the last-minute amendment and that it would not be included as part of the defense authorization bill.”

  20. 20
    dmsilev says:

    Joe Lieberman to the rescue (and man does it feel odd to write that phrase):

    A last-ditch effort by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to complicate the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was blocked Tuesday night after Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) objected, Senate aides said.

    Repeal advocates have long viewed such an amendment as a poison pill. Presumably, this is what prompted Lieberman’s objection. A spokesman for the senator did not immediately respond to an e-mail query Tuesday night. The stripped-down defense bill is proceeding on a unanimous consent basis after most of the controversial aspects were stripped out. Even if such a bill somehow passed with an amendment that threatened “don’t ask” repeal prospects, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) would likely refuse to bring it to the floor.

    dms

  21. 21
    jwb says:

    @Anya: “John, did I not read ten posts ago that you were on vacation?”

    Clearly, because he’s on vacation and doesn’t have to write for the blog, he now has time to post.

  22. 22
    PS says:

    Sorry I didn’t link and block-quote but speed seemed to be of the essence (and I am rusty). Note: Anonymity works both ways, since apparently Anonymous2 scotched the attempt by Anonymous1 to mess thing up. Have another drink to celebrate.

  23. 23
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    You know I could admire their sticktoitiveness and determination if it wasn’t in cause of being such complete and utter, copper-clad, first class shits with no other redeeming qualities.

  24. 24
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @General Stuck: Do you have a link? This does not sound like a good thing.

  25. 25
    Calming Influence says:

    @General Stuck: “Innocent until proven guilty, except when accused of terrorism.”

  26. 26
  27. 27
    amk says:

    John, you need a vacation. Jus’ sayin’.

  28. 28
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @General Stuck: I think there has to be a better solution. The fact that periodic reviews would be required is an improvement on the current situation, but I think the ACLU lawyer is right when he said this would normalize and institutionalize the detentions. Right now, I can’t say what I think we should do, but I am not comfortable with this.

  29. 29
    kt says:

    Ultimately, doesn’t this sort of stuff fall under the President’s jurisdiction? He is the CIC after all. I know he can’t declare war unilaterally (nudge, nudge, wink wink) but I honestly don’t know if Congress has jurisdiction here. Anyone know?

  30. 30
    AxelFoley says:

    @General Stuck:

    There is a black president in the WH, and they are confident they can break anything they want, and he will get blamed for it by the populace at large, the white majority populace . It is playing the race card on steroids, and all in.

    Sums it all up. Helps that they have a media willing to do their bidding and “progressives” who don’t have this President’s back.

  31. 31
    General Stuck says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    It is one thing to leave it in limbo pending continuing efforts to move them to the US for trial, but quite another to put it into official policy with the presidents signature, in effect, Obama thumbing his nose at the concept of Habeous with an EO.

    I don’t know why Obama just doesn’t bite the bullet and declare them POW”s and ending what has been a schizoid policy started by Bush, to bounce back and forth calling the WOT a war when it suits one purpose, or not when it suits another purpose.

  32. 32
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @General Stuck: POW might be the way to go. I mean look how well it worked out for John McCain.

  33. 33
    General Stuck says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    Ha!

  34. 34
    Suffern ACE says:

    @MikeJ: It does seem like this would have created a fourth branch of government over DADT.

  35. 35
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @General Stuck: The reason he can’t do that is there are a number of the prisoners that cannot be sent anywhere else. Unless we turn Gitmo into a new state with all these people as members, there’s nowhere to put them especially since Congress will not fund their relocation.

  36. 36
    PanurgeATL says:

    Well, never ever stopping is why the GOP has been so successful (well, politically, anyway). It’s a lesson the Dems can stand to learn (a better one than “triangulation”, anyway).

  37. 37
    empty says:

    OT or maybe not

    John you better watch out. They’re onto you. Really.
    From Monitoring America by Priest and Arkin on how technologies developed for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being used against American citizens in the “homeland.”

    In the Colorado Information Analysis Center, some investigators were following terrorism leads. Others were looking into illegal Craigslist postings and online “World of Warcraft” gamers.

    So this “away on vacation” trick aint gonna wash anymore. They’re onto your terroristic “World of Warcraft” activities.

  38. 38
    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century) says:

    @General Stuck: this is nothing new, he said this over a year and a half ago.

    —————–

    “We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country,” Obama said. “But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States.”

    the president was boxed in by cases inherited from the Bush administration in which possible prosecution had been irretrievably compromised by coercive interrogation.

    The president stopped short of saying he would institutionalize indefinite detention for future captives.

    “The issue is framed pretty exclusively in terms of existing Guantanamo detainees,” said Tom Malinowski, the head of Human Rights Watch’s Washington office. “There is a big difference between employing an extraordinary mechanism to deal with legacy cases compromised because of Bush administration actions and saying we need a permanent national security regime.”

    ———————

    as for POW status, this signals that the US will indeed completely withdraw from Afghanistan in 2014. The thing is, if a detainee is designated as a POW then he has to be released once the conflict is over.

  39. 39
    General Stuck says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    Yes, I understand Obama has been put in a bad situation trying to resolve this Bush era bullshit. My only beef is putting the WH stamp of approval as official policy something that runs directly counter to the very important concept of Habeous Corpus. He can declare them POW’s and afford the benefits of such a designation, and continue his efforts to either bring them here, or find some host country to send them.

  40. 40
    General Stuck says:

    @Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century):

    as for POW status, this signals that the US will indeed completely withdraw from Afghanistan in 2014. The thing is, if a detainee is designated as POWs then he has to be released once the conflict is over.

    I don’t think it has everything to do with our presence in Afghan. Nor any withdrawal from there. The AUMF, as well as the UN, has noted this conflict resides in more places than just Afghan, and will continue for some time. And you can’t release these folks with no place to send them. All POW status means is that we are following some semblance of lawfulness, until the problem can be resolved. I don’t like the POTUS declaring our right to detain people, just because we think it’s necessary, or want to.

  41. 41
    Mike in NC says:

    Obama has been put in a bad situation trying to resolve this Bush era bullshit.

    He should also make a statement that, “I am directing the Secretary of Defense to close the following military bases in the state of Kentucky…” to get turtle-man’s attention.

  42. 42
    Jay says:

    This whole thing definitely had Sen. McBigot (R-AZ) written all over it. Good on Lieberman for stepping up, though.

    With that out of the way, who do y’all think is the best Dem. to take on Joe in ’12?

    Rep. Joe Courtney has said he is considering, but he comes from a weird district (CT-2 carried Perot once) and really has but one issue, his dogged support of submarine construction, that can ramp up his statewide recognition. I’ll bet Lowell Weicker would caucus with the D’s, but he’s, like, 278 years old.

    Rep. Chris Murphy (CT-5) has been increasing his fund-raising, but he is young and fine where he is, in a seat that could swing R if he left (the insufferable Nancy Johnson was there for-bloody-ever, but she won a lot of races just by being pro-choice and, for some reason, appealing to seniors).

    Rosa DeLauro, New Haven’s Rep and a former Dodd COS, has enough state recognition to cruise. She has the fire to be another Feingold in the upper chamber.

    I really don’t think the state GOP is going to field anyone solid, and Linda McMahon is dumb enough to think she won’t have to self-fund.

    Maybe Joe’s numbers will remain awful enough to give any true Democrat any easy time, but I wouldn’t say anything’s for sure around here. Ned Lamont just blew a big lead in a Gubernatorial primary, and McMahon dogged Blumenthal way too long for my comfort.

  43. 43
    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century) says:

    @General Stuck: well, what is the practical difference btwn pow status and indefinite detention?

  44. 44
    General Stuck says:

    @Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century):

    If you believe that practical includes legal as well, and that we should be doing what we can to be lawful. Then there is your answer, plus POW status has some practical aspects as well, or guidelines for treatment and rights, that may or not be currently, or in the past followed.

  45. 45
    Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century) says:

    @General Stuck: this is one of the few times i’m not trying to be confrontational and rather am asking a sincere question. i don’t see a difference in substance versus form, other other than release upon end of a conflict. in any event this should be easily overturned by scotus. it’s a form of “make me do it” in forcing the executive branch to designate them pows and/or forcing a trial/release.

  46. 46
    General Stuck says:

    @Mike Kay (Democrat of the Century):

    Ask yourself what is the purpose of closing down Gitmo in the first place. It is to begin changing negative world opinion that the US was acting like a lawless world thug during the Bush years. It is also important to start changing our opinions of ourselves, damaged from Bush’s presidency. Of particularly giving the middle finger to the bedrock of civilized democracies. Being you don’t lock up people indefinitely by decree. Whether or not, such a POW designation actually changes much the physical conditions these people are being held under, I don’t know, and is not the point I am making. If that is what your question is about.

  47. 47
    burnspbesq says:

    I expect that General Amos will uphold the highest traditions of the Corps by managing a seamless implementation of DADT repeal. He had his chance to say his piece, he said his piece, the other view prevailed. Marines don’t whine. Marines get it done.

    The decision’s been made, General. You’ve got a mission. XQT.

  48. 48
    Yutsano says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Marines don’t whine.

    Not in public anyway. They all like to think they’re Superman but they do occasionally have their human moments.

    Marines get it done.

    Indisputable. When it absolutely positively has to be destroyed overnight. One of their many unofficial mottoes.

  49. 49
    Nethead Jay says:

    @Jay: From your description Rosa DeLauro sounds like the one to encourage and Courtney possibly someone to avoid. Aside from Rep’s, are there any outside people that seem to be looking at this?

    And what’s going on with Lamont? Full disclosure, I supported him back then, chiefly due to intense hatred of Lieberman plus he seemed sensible, but haven’t really followed him since.

  50. 50

    They don’t need to filibuster the bill; they just need to block the amendment. Unlike DADT repeal, this amendment isn’t in the bill, and it would take action by the Senate to add it.

  51. 51
    Jim Pharo says:

    Is there some reason this insubordinate subordinate cannot be simply removed from his post by his Commander in Chief? Or is that only for Republican Commanders in Chief?

  52. 52
    Ron says:

    @joe from Lowell: It got blocked by Lieberman. That guy may be overall a jerk, but gotta give him credit where it’s due. He’s a big reason that DADT got repealed.

  53. 53
    Poopyman says:

    @Ija: This. Simply this.

  54. 54
    Cheryl from Maryland says:

    @Yutsano: USMC = Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children.

  55. 55
    Annelid Gustator says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent): I keep seeing this. There are two restrictions as I understand it: we cannot transfer prisoners to certain nations, and we cannot expend US funds to transfer prisoners to the US.

    There has to be a way around it.

  56. 56

    It was a McConnell amendment , according to this source, and Lieberman blocked it:
    http://www.politico.com/blogs/.....ocked.html

Comments are closed.