E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS From NBC's Ken Strickland
The fight to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell is getting a bit nasty between the Senate offices of Majority Leader Harry Reid, Joe Lieberman and Republican Susan Collins, all of whom support ending the ban.
It's gotten so contentious that Lieberman released a written statement defending Collins against "baseless allegations" from Democratic aides that Collins is blocking the bill.
"Senator Collins has been working in good faith to achieve an agreement on the process to move forward with the defense bill that contains the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" he said.
Collins received a call from the president yesterday on the matter, according to sources with knowledge about the conversation.
In remarks to reporters on Wednesday afternoon, Lieberman called on Reid not to hold a vote to bring the bill to the floor this evening -- which Reid indicated was "likely" earlier today -- until Collins and Reid reach an agreement.
What's the deal?
While Collins strongly supports repeal, she is reluctant to bring the larger defense bill that includes the DADT provision to the floor without being given assurances that there is a "fair and open" process. In other words, she wants to make sure that senators have to opportunities to debate and vote on several amendments to the sweeping legislation.
Lieberman says he and Collins have been working with Reid's office to negotiate an agreement to bring the bill to the floor in the fast-waning days of the session.
As details of the talks have emerged, however, it's evident that those negotiations haven't been going well.
Democratic aides say Reid has made a reasonable offer that Collins won't accept: 15 amendments, 17 hours of debate, and room to negotiate more.
Sources close to Collins dispute that claim, suggesting that the Maine senator's discussion with Reid was not that cut and dry.
And Lieberman says the Democrats blaming Collins don't know what they're talking about.
"I categorically reject reports by uninformed staffers who have suggested" Collins is not working in 'good faith,'" Lieberman said. "I call on those responsible for such baseless allegations to stop immediately and instead work to get to an agreement to bring this critical bill to the floor for Senate action."
Lieberman says if an agreement can be reached to get the defense bill on the floor, he's confident the votes are there to repeal the ban.
"It is now more clear than ever that we have 60 or more votes in support of repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' so it is vitally important to reach agreement on the right process to move forward," he said in his statement.
Reaching a so-called "time agreement" with Collins and Lieberman isn't Reid's only obstacle to getting the bill to the floor. Last week, Republicans told Reid in a letter that they are collectively committed to blocking any bill from coming to the floor that doesn't address extension of the Bush tax cuts or funding of the government.
Reid said earlier Wednesday it was "likely" he would call for a vote to bring the defense bill to the floor tonight. That would happen after series of votes currently scheduled to begin at 4pm ET.
Leave a Comment:
I really like it when people, who are not born-again Christians, quote scripture. The law wasn't given for us to live by but show we were sinners unable to get right by following them. Homosexuality is only one of many sins we commit today. Homosexuality is no greater sin than lying, coveting, fornication, adultery, stealing, murdering, pride, divorce, rape, and many more. God did not create men to have sex with other men. He created man and woman; male and female not two males or females. No person on earth came from a homosexual union. Men can't get other men pregnant and the same goes for women. Homosexual want full acceptance of their lifestyle, which will happen one day, so will will soon be accepting of pedophiles. We as a nation are worried about DADT when we should be worried about our moral decay as a society and nation. We are doing much more destruction of ourselves than our enemy could ever possible do.
Thankfully your bigoted cult is irrelevant to our secular law.
And thank 'God' skrekk.
Also Mike you're arguing is a prime example of a slippery slope. You claim that acceptance of homosexuality will snowball into acceptance of pedophilia which is completely unfounded. I would love to hear how homosexuals are causing the 'destruction' of society.
Two men getting it on in the apartment next to me, its over, everyone will now burst into flames and catch HIV...
The only thing gay men bring to our society is class and new clothing lines, some of which you're probably wearing right now.
I'm going home to my loving wife. I don't care what you liberal turds think. We don't want fags in our military. Thats as plain as I can put it. Don't bother commenting, I will not see it and don't really care what your opinion is on this subject. I have mine, you can have yours. Obama is a waste of flesh and we will vote his dumb butt out in 2012. Believe that.
" Don't bother commenting, I will not see it..."
That's the open mind we have all come to love and respect about the religious righties, eh gang?
DRIVE by--------- you libbies/homosexuals are making unwarranted assumptions, again.
You opinion, on anything , is without value.
Gee, what an insightful reply -- and stupid!
'Put fingers in ears and talk loudly', Don in a nutshell.
The Bible was not written in 700 AD. No Biblical scholar would ever, ever agree with that. The Bible is a collection of Books written at different times by different people. But the latest of all the books of the Bible were written before 100 AD. That's only 70 or so years after Jesus' death.
Please, do not give your opinion as fact. Do some research.
If you were serve in an Iraqi village and your squad got to pick one of two interpreters who would you choose?
A straight man that was trained in Arabic when he enlisted and received a passing grade.
A man that wants to marry a man in VT, Is of Iraqi decent, and is a trainer.
Go ahead COLLINS, you are in your last term, may as well have a good time.
You have payed footsies with the Obama's of the world, one time to many.
We removed a lot of republican incumbents in the primaries this year,
We have no compunction about doing the same in 2012.
Do you live in Maine?
That is of no concern to you, I can live anywhere, and travel there, devote my time time to the senatorial race and send lots of moneyto the Republican national committee predicated on not supporting Snow or Collins.
John-It sounds like you want a Kingdom, not a Republic. No one can have an idea that differs from yours?
Louisiana Don -- You are one of the most bigoted, hateful men I have ever seen try to write, and I seriously doubt that Jesus would approve of your nasty comments and beliefs. I do think that perhaps you doubt your own masculinity. As for the military, they are not generally known for their deep thinking and intelligence. Anyone who wants to serve should be allowed to do so, and not have to deal with a bunch of ignorant soldiers like yourself.
Allowing homosexuals open access to the U.S. military will work every bit as well as accepting them into the Roman Catholic clergy has.
I suspect it will work just as well as it has for all of our allies who allow open service. None of them have had any issues.
The US military is now the best trained, best armed and most experienced military, in the world.
Why would we want to lower our standards, at this point?
Except that they are NOT accepted into the RC clergy. I think you were trying (unskillfully) to equate gays and pedophiles. Remember the overwhelming majority of pedophiles are male heterosexuals.
Lets try to keep religion out of this for a bit. I myself am wondering how this will affect the military's effectiveness. Its been a while since I was in but I can see some problems. Most that I served with would not have any problems with gays serving that they couldn't put aside professionally while on duty. There would not be a lot of commadre off duty however; social groups would form. But I did know a quite a few soldiers that would have a had a huge problem with serving along side of openly gay service members. Not saying it is right; not saying that some wasn't homophobia; not saying it wasn't intolerant religious views. Just stating a fact. This would cause strife in some units and would lead to violence and other problems. Does anyone consider the demographic makeup of the people serving? I am not making a judgement about homosexuality. Ideally it would be great if everyone could be accepted regardless. Realistically that won't happen overnight. There will be fighting. There will be inappropiate and unprofessional behavior. I saw it when women began to have a more active role. Any rapid change like this will cause problems. I am not saying there won't be a time that this will be accepted. But if we don't phase social policies in slowly and generationally you are asking for trouble. It is easy to sit on high and make idealist decisions but its effects must be considered. You can change a policy or law overnight but you can't change peoples core beliefs that way. Not defending or denouncing openly gay service members. Its not a matter of right and wrong to me, its a matter of approaching it realistically. Now might not be the right time to drastically change policy. Admittedly I am going by my experiences 15 years ago; maybe it is a more acceptable social group now. But we need to make sure that this won't be a mistake too soon.
Rand produced an interesting report discussing the implications of repealing DADT in the military. Part of the report was discussing the process of desegregating in the late '40s and the effects on military cohesion, readiness, etc. Their conclusion was that there were a few bumps in the process, but if the same policies are followed in this instance, that the transition would be pretty painless overall.
Brief report: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG1056.sum.pdf
Casey, Collins, Amos, Skelton, Mixon, McCain, and Conway are total morons. The people lifting the ban will affect is gay Americans, and I'm pretty sure they're OK with it. And I don't think changing a policy that should never have been in place in the first place is exactly rushing things. And if people would quit the military because gays are allowed to serve openly, I say good riddance to them. Let those bigots go find a company in the private sector that segregates workers by sexual orientation, race, religion, gender, etc.. Good luck finding that. They'll all have to go work at Catholic churches. And the chances they’ll find unacceptable behavior is way greater at a Catholic or Mormon Church than in the military. And what if gays left the military or didn't join because heterosexuals are allowed to serve openly? Where will they find replacements for the hundreds of thousands of brave gay Americans serving now? Bigots are such disgusting, repulsive cretins. And it is patently unfair that gays and their loved ones should suffer the devastating effects of discrimination while the bigots and their loved ones go about their daily lives as if nothing is wrong. Bigots need to start being made to face severe consequences for their actions. Maybe once bigots and their loved ones are made to pay for their repulsive behavior, they'll think twice before engaging in it again. Anyone coming into contact with Casey, Collins, Amos, Skelton, Mixon, McCain, Conway, or their loved ones (except McCain’s wife and daughter), should take any action possible to make them pay.
Well, for one thing people just can't quit the military. And hundreds of thousands of gay Americans serving now? That number is a bit inflated for sure. It is a force made of volunteers; no one has been forced to serve since Vietnam. You are passionate in your views and even indirectly advocate violence against representives that you disagree with (anyone coming into contact with...should take any action possible to make them pay). Do you not realize there are soldiers on both sides that feel as passionately as you do? And how does that turn out? Face it; the military does have members that for whatever reason (religion, homophobia, core values) strongly despise gays. It is what it is. I would have to ask, why would an openly gay person ever enlist in the military knowing the enviornment that exists? Out of patriotism? A few I am sure. But a lot more for the same reasons as hetros; education, a job, travel...etc. They enlist with thier eyes wide open the same as women and blacks did before them. It takes time change the way people think. You don't change peoples core beliefs overnight, bigoted or not. It is a long battle over generations. You have to move slowly or face the outcome. Its not just about right, its about the right time.
Gay people are at your gyms. They are at your swimming pools. They are everywhere. They are your sons and daughters. They are your nieces and nephews. You bigots do great damage to your own relatives and friends every day. They have always been there. They were the uncles and aunts that never married, and lived often unhappy lives.
In other societies, even ancient societies, they flourished. Art and science also flourished due in large part to their impact. Remember that when you read Plato or listen to Tchaikovsky.
I concur, the military may be as flawed as the roman catholic clergy if it continues to release heroes based on sexual orientation. We can put that on our gravestones, 'Would have known better, could have been sutured, could have been saved, could have been rescued, could have been ...'.
Do we rally want a military inferior to the world because we're dismissing qualified professionals based on a feeling?
Someone once said, "keep your church out of my government and I'll keep logic and reason out of your church". Try it.