• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mullen fires back at McCain’s ‘don’t ask’ repeal criticism

Tedminator

Member
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
190
Reaction score
99
Location
South Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
grandpa-simpson-shakes-fist-at-cloud1.jpg

Sen McCain at Senate Hearings arguing with the Secretary of Defense Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman

Mullen fires back at McCain’s ‘don’t ask’ repeal criticism - Yahoo! News

In Senate hearings Thursday, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen shot back at Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for implying that Mullen is not in charge of troops and is thus not qualified to say that the military should end its ban on openly gay service. On Thursday, Mullen told McCain:

"With all due respect, Mr. Chairman and Sen. McCain, it is true that, as chairman, I am not in charge of troops. But I have commanded three ships, a carrier battle group and two fleets. And I was most recently a service myself. For more than 40 years I have made decisions that affected and even risked the lives of young men and women.

"You do not have to agree with me on this issue. But don't think for one moment that I haven't carefully considered the impact of the advice I give on those who will have to live with the decisions that that advice informs. I would not recommend repeal of this law if I did not believe in my soul that it was the right thing to do for our military, for our nation and for our collective honor."


..snips..

McCain Spox: Senator 'Misspoke' When He Said Defense Secretary Never Served In Military | TPMDC

McCain dismissed Gates' claim that repealing the military's ban on openly gay and lesbian service members would have little or no effect on military readiness in an interview with NBC News yesterday by suggesting that Gates doesn't really know what ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell will mean for fighters on the ground. McCain, who continues to be opposed to repealing DADT, stated that Gates was not an objective expert on the matter because he's "a political appointee who's never been in the military."

In truth, Gates served in the Air Force as a second lieutenant for two years starting in 1967.

--------


rutroh.. McGranpa is acting up again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: McCain vs The Pentagon

McCain didn't even address the survey findings with this retort... he's just taking swipes at individuals here. Is this truly all he has left?
 
KEY:
McCain is in red
Pentagon Study is in green
Michael Mullen is in blue



In 2006 McCain said the following about Don't Ask Don't Tell:

Senator John McCain said:
"The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it."

On Tuesday the Pentagon released a study indicating that most soldiers felt ending the policy would do no serious harm to the military. I will post a link to the study here. I suggest you go and read the study, it was quite interesting.

Pentagon Study said:
"We are convinced that the U.S. military can adjust and accommodate this change, just as it has others in history."

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen and Bush appointed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates came out and supported a repeal of the bill, saying it's the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen said:
"right thing to do""repeal of the law will not prove unacceptable risk to military readiness" "Unit cohesion will not suffer if our units are well-led, and families will not encourage their loved ones to leave the military in droves"

Senator John McCain said:
"At this time, we should be inherently cautious about making any changes that would affect our military, and what changes we do make should be the product of careful and deliberate consideration"

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen said:
"War does not stifle change, it demands it. It doesn't make it harder; it facilitates it"

Senator John McCain said:
"What I can say now, however, is that in addition to my concerns about what questions were not asked by this survey and considered in this report, I am troubled by the fact that this report only represents the input of 28 percent of the force who received the questionnaire. That is only six percent of the force at large. I find it hard to view that as a fully-representative sample set."

This is absurd. Polls are accurate with a sample of 0.1% of the population, let alone 28% of currently serving military-persons.



DADT1.jpg



36% of military members are currently serving with homosexual or bisexual soldiers.
DADT2.jpg


92.5% of military members won't have their personal readiness downgraded if DADT is repealed.
DADT3.jpg




Opinions? I thought I'd scour the web for a big picture, hope it helps. Just used print screen to get the snapshots. Before you make a decision it's a good idea to read the report, it was interesting, especially Part VII: Survey Results.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
gates nailed his dumb ass
 
gates nailed his dumb ass

I don't see this as a petty political issue where one party can get brownie points over the other, it's an issue grounded in freedom and personal liberty, no matter your sexual orientation. Most notable was the difference in opinion between people who had served with a homosexual or bisexual member of the military and those who hadn't. I don't see any conceivable way that they compromise the military. It's a placebo. Repealing the policy wouldn't put gay members in the military, it would just let those who are already there say they are.

I don't see the difference between having women or LGBT people in the military because, contrary to popular belief, homosexuals don't run around surprise raping their colleagues. The same arguments were used when they didn't want women in the military...
 
ap yesterday:

My Way News - Army, Marine chiefs cast doubt on gay service

it's all academic, ie, moot, anyway---the white house has SOLD OUT

if dadt aint done by the end of the duck it's dead as a doornail

ie, john boehner

politico today:

Some, particularly advocates of causes struggling for oxygen in the dwindling days of the lame-duck Congress such as those seeking repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy banning openly gay members of the military, are asking about the START treaty: What’s the hurry?

White House officials say Obama views START as a “legacy issue”—something that will reflect well on him in the history books. Arms control has been a central foreign policy interest of Obama since his Senate days when he worked closely with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) on containing so-called loose nukes in the former Soviet Union. Lugar is now the leading Republican proponent of ratifying START.

But with Republicans demanding substantial floor time both for START and for the defense bill carrying “don’t ask” repeal language, gay rights advocates fear time is running out for repeal, which would almost certainly be dead once Republicans take control of the House next month.

“In all honesty, we’ve kind of been waiting to be screwed over. It was just a question of whether we’d get screwed over earlier or later,” said Heather Cronk of GetEqual, a group pushing for “don’t ask” repeal. “We’d prefer later,” she joked.

Bipartisan question: Why START now? - Josh Gerstein - POLITICO.com

most maddening is the appreciation on the part of professionals that lower house is not involved in treaty ratification

that is, dems, still in control upstairs, can do START any time

once reid concedes kyl his two weeks of debate and amendments, the treaty will attract significantly more than the 7 republicans it needs to proceed

sometimes, this white house doesn't even appear to understand how a bill becomes a law

it's embarrassing

repeal of dadt is defunct

stay up
 
I have been around military men and women, and partied with them.. and there was a group of Air Force men that I knew, and somebody in their unit was gay. Everybody knew he was gay, but they were all comfortable with it. He would even talk about guys being hot in front of them, and they didn't care.

I know it didn't affect their unit negatively and they supported him..
 
KEY:
McCain is in red
Pentagon Study is in green
Michael Mullen is in blue



In 2006 McCain said the following about Don't Ask Don't Tell:



On Tuesday the Pentagon released a study indicating that most soldiers felt ending the policy would do no serious harm to the military. I will post a link to the study here. I suggest you go and read the study, it was quite interesting.



Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen and Bush appointed Secretary of Defense Robert Gates came out and supported a repeal of the bill, saying it's the








This is absurd. Polls are accurate with a sample of 0.1% of the population, let alone 28% of currently serving military-persons.



DADT1.jpg



36% of military members are currently serving with homosexual or bisexual soldiers.
DADT2.jpg


92.5% of military members won't have their personal readiness downgraded if DADT is repealed.
DADT3.jpg




Opinions? I thought I'd scour the web for a big picture, hope it helps. Just used print screen to get the snapshots. Before you make a decision it's a good idea to read the report, it was interesting, especially Part VII: Survey Results.

Thanks!

On the issue itself, I will go with the leaders. If they say it is OK, they should know. Also other nations which have effective fighting forces already let everyone serve.

That being said, when looking at surveys I like to look at the two extremes to see where people voted. So in most cases there is a slight bias against doing this by the people who voted.
 
It's important to remember that the situation not being affected, or becoming better is a better situation than the status quo, thus the "positively/very positively" "No Effect" and "Equally Positive as Negative" are all saying that repealing the bill will keep the situation the same or make it better.

Banning ethnic kids from public schools would probably increase "school cohesion", because they typically come from lower income families on average (this is just a fact, as shown below). This does not however, make it justified to ban ethnic kids from public schools. I don't see how the argument from military cohesion makes it any less morally abhorrent.

Race_Income.png
 
Last edited:
It's important to remember that the situation not being affected, or becoming better is a better situation than the status quo, thus the "positively/very positively" "No Effect" and "Equally Positive as Negative" are all saying that repealing the bill will keep the situation the same or make it better.

Banning ethnic kids from public schools would probably increase "school cohesion", because they typically come from lower income families on average (this is just a fact, as shown below). This does not however, make it justified to ban ethnic kids from public schools. I don't see how the argument from military cohesion makes it any less morally abhorrent.

Race_Income.png

As I said, I am fine with the change since the military commanders agreed with it.

That being said, I do not agree with your analysis that says a vote for no effect is a vote in favor. I say this for ALL surveys, not just this one. Saying that the middle bar sides with the pro or con side is in the eyes of the person who wants to slant a result. I see this in many political surveys. This allows both sides to claim the middle and both decry they won!
 
Quoting all my charts might make the page a little clogged :/

Well my standard is that all citizens should be allowed in the military unless you can show some serious danger. For example, one may construct an argument that ex-felons shouldn't be allowed in the military because they constitute a serious risk.

Thus the default being that they're allowed in, I would need some actual detriment shown, not just "no effect".

Others many feel differently, but that's my opinion.
 
Quoting all my charts might make the page a little clogged :/

Well my standard is that all citizens should be allowed in the military unless you can show some serious danger. For example, one may construct an argument that ex-felons shouldn't be allowed in the military because they constitute a serious risk.

Thus the default being that they're allowed in, I would need some actual detriment shown, not just "no effect".

Others many feel differently, but that's my opinion.

That's fine, as stated I agree with the change.

You may have also tacitly made my other point in interpreting the survey.
 
Re: McCain vs The Pentagon

McCain didn't even address the survey findings with this retort... he's just taking swipes at individuals here. Is this truly all he has left?

That is generally the only thing left for people that oppose this. The opposition wanted pentagon support and got it; they wanted the release of the study and got it. Now all they have left is name calling and ridiculous assertions (such as a poll sampling 28% of a group was not representative). This has degenerated to a bad argument on the 3rd grade playground. Time to pass this and move on to important things.

McCain was even a proponent of the repeal. Then when he became an opponent, it was conditional opposition pending pentagon endorsement, then the study. Now he is just hopelessly in the camp of the bigots. Someone needs to crucify McCain for his intellectual dishonesty on this subject (in fact, all intellectual dishonest politicians need to be held accountable for intellectual dishonesty.)
 
Last edited:
Re: McCain vs The Pentagon

That is generally the only thing left for people that oppose this. The opposition wanted pentagon support and got it; they wanted the release of the study and got it. Now all they have left is name calling and ridiculous assertions (such as a poll sampling 28% of a group was not representative). This has degenerated to a bad argument on the 3rd grade playground. Time to pass this and move on to important things.

McCain was even a proponent of the repeal. Then when he became an opponent, it was conditional opposition pending pentagon endorsement, then the study. Now he is just hopelessly in the camp of the bigots. Someone needs to crucify McCain for his intellectual dishonesty on this subject (in fact, all intellectual dishonest politicians need to be held accountable for intellectual dishonesty.)

That is, all politicians full stop need to be held accountable for their blatant intellectual dishonesty :2razz:

Anyway, the media apart of the rich elite, why would they want to challenge that power structure? It maintains them. People are challenging the plutocracy, but their voices are only heard locally.
 
Re: McCain vs The Pentagon

Thank Vishnu that McCain lost the election in 2008. His latest soundbite is that the economy is too bad to repeal DADT. It's almost as embarrassing as Brett Favre sticking around too long.
 
As I said, I am fine with the change since the military commanders agreed with it.

That being said, I do not agree with your analysis that says a vote for no effect is a vote in favor. I say this for ALL surveys, not just this one. Saying that the middle bar sides with the pro or con side is in the eyes of the person who wants to slant a result. I see this in many political surveys. This allows both sides to claim the middle and both decry they won!

When it comes to personal freedom, "no effect" is a vote in favor. To think otherwise is about as anti-American as it gets.
 
Re: McCain vs The Pentagon

Thank Vishnu that McCain lost the election in 2008. His latest soundbite is that the economy is too bad to repeal DADT. It's almost as embarrassing as Brett Favre sticking around too long.

I don't see how he's all that much worse than the Democrats. The Republicans are simply more open about their agenda. If you'll notice the Democrats haven't actually done anything productive, they just complain for a few months and then eventually give in, claiming their hands are tied.


When it comes to personal freedom, "no effect" is a vote in favor. To think otherwise is about as anti-American as it gets.

I disagree with the concept of "un-americanism" at it's core. Terms like this were/are largely used in totalitarian governments to shoot down those who challenge the status quo. Anti-Sovietism is a similar instance.

That said, I do agree with what you said, bar the anti-american comment.
 
Re: McCain vs The Pentagon

I don't see how he's all that much worse than the Democrats. The Republicans are simply more open about their agenda. If you'll notice the Democrats haven't actually done anything productive, they just complain for a few months and then eventually give in, claiming their hands are tied.

Yes, the Dems really are a giant cruiseliner of Fail. It's amazing that they allowed the GOP to control congress even as the minority party. The GOP didn't have 60 votes in the Senate when they were the majority yet they managed to be in charge. I swear the Dems could have 90 votes in the Senate and still be pushed around by the 10 GOPers. Pelosi acts like it's the greatest accomplishment that she didn't a pumpkin pie. Reid didn't even try to control the message. The Dems recognize that they have a message problem and that creates an inferiority complex apparently.
 
Re: McCain vs The Pentagon

Yes, the Dems really are a giant cruiseliner of Fail. It's amazing that they allowed the GOP to control congress even as the minority party. The GOP didn't have 60 votes in the Senate when they were the majority yet they managed to be in charge. I swear the Dems could have 90 votes in the Senate and still be pushed around by the 10 GOPers. Pelosi acts like it's the greatest accomplishment that she didn't a pumpkin pie. Reid didn't even try to control the message. The Dems recognize that they have a message problem and that creates an inferiority complex apparently.

Rule 22. The invisible filibuster. Can't really blame Democrats for it.
 
Re: McCain vs The Pentagon

Rule 22. The invisible filibuster. Can't really blame Democrats for it.

They should have let them read the phone book. They half-assed their political game. They had them set up as the Party of No but didn't get any good soundbites out of it. It would have been so smart of them then they could claim, "We have business that needs attention and the GOP wants to play games." Somehow they thought that they would be the losers if the GOP filibustered.
 
Re: McCain vs The Pentagon

They should have let them read the phone book. They half-assed their political game. They had them set up as the Party of No but didn't get any good soundbites out of it. It would have been so smart of them then they could claim, "We have business that needs attention and the GOP wants to play games." Somehow they thought that they would be the losers if the GOP filibustered.

You don't have to read the phone book to filibuster anymore. You literally just need one single GOP senator to sit in his seat and challenge unanimous consent whenever someone moves to go to vote or whatever.
 
Re: McCain vs The Pentagon

You don't have to read the phone book to filibuster anymore. You literally just need one single GOP senator to sit in his seat and challenge unanimous consent whenever someone moves to go to vote or whatever.

Then they should have gotten those soundbites.
 
Back
Top Bottom