Text of the DADT "Compromise" between Hill & White House . . .Loads of nebulous "ifs and whens"

Yes, indeedy, this will change a lot of lives. If and when the studies are ever agreed to and 'unit cohesion' can be guaranteed. And Military readiness! And recruiting! Whatever. We could have just waited for the military "study" for all this does.
====

TEXT OF BILL AT LINK

via John Aravosis

After talking to a number of sources, it seems that what was proposed by the Hill, and agreed to by the White House, is the following - I'm summarizing the document above, which is the latest version of the compromise being discussed

The House and Senate will pass legislation this year that provides that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will be considered repealed if and when the following happens:

1. The Secretary of Defense receives the "study."
2. The President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs certify that:
- They have considered the recommendations in the study
- DOD has prepared the necessary policies and regulations needed to implement a repeal
- The implementation of the repeal is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.

Current policy will remain in place until the above conditions are satisfied. And if the above conditions are never satisfied, the current DADT policy will remain in place.

There is nothing in the legislation that says the repeal must happen. Read More...

http://gay.americablog.com/

====

UPDATE

Joe and I are still talking to various folks, behind the scenes, to try to figure out what we think of this. At first blush, I will make one point. If we don't accept this compromise, then it is very likely that nothing will happen on DADT for several years to come. Simply because we are going to lose seats in the fall congressional elections, and possibly even lose the House. Both scenarios mean nothing will likely happen for years to come.

If we do accept this proposal, it at least preserves the option for repeal next year (via administrative action).

I'm still thinking this through, in terms of how much I do or don't support this proposal. But I do know that this proposal preserves the option to repeal next year. Not accepting it pretty much kills repeal next year, and for years to come. And the administration would probably like nothing better than for us to walk and just let this die.

Sooner rather than later.

But oily, slippery ifs and whens are very typical of
this admin.

That's the excuse they always use to kick the can down the road. And nothing in here about suspending discharges while this all takes place.

I swear, these people could school Bill Clinton himself.

:mad:

:cry:

1. They have the votes
2. The current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is on board. His statement in February:
"...repeal "comes down to integrity – theirs as individuals and ours as an institution."
3. The current Secretary of Defense is on board.

Estimates are that the Pentagon will take no more than half a year to implement.

How's that?

I'll leave the job of researching how many potential discharges are in progress to you. While you are at it, please also research how many discharges would happen between Jan 1, 2011 and Jan 20, 2016 if it was not repealed this year. - Thanks

/ignored go peddle it on FOX

Right? This repeal of DADT is a bad thing then? Because that is what I am getting from you.

And pragmatic, too. Really pragmatic.

Including affirmative language that clearly states that gays and lesbians can openly serve is another. And what about bisexuals and trans? Have you seen the suggested language?

is offensive.

Let's not get carried away here.

you'll pardon me if I celebrate later?

at which point the White House can sadly inform us that they "just don't have the votes", and then use the issue as a 2012 election slogan ("We repealed DADT!") without any risk of being criticized for actually letting gay people openly serve.

Brilliant strategerizing there, Rahm.

*sigh*

And nothing ends up changing.