Clinton II Lies About Clinton I and DADT
From Sunday’s Democratic joint press conference*:
BLITZER: Senator Clinton, the question was: Was your husband’s decision to allow this “don’t ask/don’t tell” policy to go forward — he was president of the United States; he could have changed it — was it a mistake?CLINTON: No, it was an important first step, Wolf.
That, as Christina said to Mommie Dearest, is a lie:
Throughout his 1992 campaign and the first days of his presidency, Bill Clinton pledged to end the ban on gays in the military. Facing vehement congressional opposition, he shifted his position in July 1993, when he announced “don’t ask, don’t tell.”Advocate reporter Chris Bull noted that Clinton’s policy “sparked protests in cities throughout the country, and gay legal groups vowed to quickly prepare lawsuits to challenge it.” Torie Osborn, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force executive director at the time, called it “a repackaging of discrimination.”
Bill Clinton broke a campaign promise — end of discussion. It was not a “first step.” It was not a “compromise.” He compromised on nothing except his ethics — something he became very, very good at as his presidency progressed.
Meanwhile, if Hillary Clinton has become so much the politician that she simply no longer understands the difference between “breaking a campaign promise and “an important first step;” if she has become so much the moral defective that she can no longer distinguish between the simplest manifestations of “truth” and “lie,” then what will become of us if she is elected president?
—
*Words have meaning, including the word “debate.” What happened Sunday night was not a “debate.”
—
My only other hasty stitch about the joint press conference is to express my not-new indignation over seeing the four sitting senators hypocritically raising their hand in the unanimous “let’s abolish DADT” lovefest. If Biden, Dodd, Obama and Clinton are all so yippee-ki-yay to abolish this abomination, then why haven’t any of them actually introduced a bill in the Senate to do so? Recall that the House version already exists (although it is languishing in committee) — all any Senator has to do is introduce the same text. So far: bupkes.
Clinton of course gets triple-damned above and beyond Dodd, Obama and Biden, not only for her dyspeptic “Bill was a champion for gays” revisionism, but also because she sits on the Armed Services Committee — precisely where a DADT repeal bill would be debated and where she would be uniquely positioned to champion it — if she truly wanted to.
More thoughts on the debate, the debaters and their all-talk-no-walk blather from Caucus, Republic of T., Politico, Outright Libertarians, PHB, Citizen Crain.
Similar Posts:
- Dodd: I’ll Only Be Anti-DADT After I’m Elected
- Clinton Tries to Conceal Appearance at Gay Function
- Clinton Revs Up the “Throw ‘Em Under” Bus
- They Keep Forgetting, So I Keep Reminding
- Barack Obama, Politician
Filed under: Uncategorized
Hello Kip,
I completely agree with you with regard to Bill Clinton's morality. As a native New Yorker, I'm also seriously concerned about Hillary.
But I wonder if sometimes you're being a tad quick to condemn compromise. As you noted, it was only after Congress – which funds the military and passes the laws – showed serious opposition to the idea of including gays in the military that Clinton scaled back his tactics to cutting out active purging of gays. I doubt he would have gotten even that had he just pledged to "do something" to help gays in the military.
(I myself am currently dubious about gays in the military, but am open to the evidence.)
Clinton was elected president, not dictator. The people who voted for him knew very well (I hope!) that he had to get things done in tandem with Congress (and often other interested parties), including many people who disagreed with him and them. All Clinton could do was push for what he and his supporters wanted – and then take what he could get.
Enough about 1993. Let's move forward maybe a decade and a half, back to the present. We have some people, including you and me, who strongly favor same-sex marriage. We have lots of other people – probably a clear majority of American adults – who oppose it. In fact, I have no doubt that many of them think it's a horrible thing and are against it heart and soul.
Whenever it's come to a vote – including same-sex marriage vs. only allowing marriage as the world has always known it – the latter wins hands down with flying colors.
But what if, at least to avoid hearing about the issue for a little while, and to be able to tell the voters that they stopped gay marriage (at least for the next few election cycles), some legislators, even a chief executive, offer civil unions, with certain rights much like those enjoyed by married couples?
Same-sex couples would immediately have many more rights than they have now, they would have some extra dignity for their relationships – and the country would be able to get used to the idea of Harry &Larry and Louise &Elise right alongside Harry &Louise.
Maybe after a decade or a generation of same-sex civil unions, enough people will come around (or just come of voting age) that in a state or three, maybe New York, Massachusetts and California for example, the people or their legitimate representatives will then establish same-sex marriage.
Then after a decade or a generation, Americans elsewhere may start to get used to two men or two women being just as married as a man and a woman. Not to mention they may not be enjoying a likely "gay drain" of talented people into such states (especially if they're big ones already like NY or CA).
At that point, Congress may pass an Extension of Marriage Act. Or almost every single state may broaden marriage on its own.
I daresay by the centennial of Stonewall at the latest, if not by the middle of this century, we would likely see full-fledged same-sex marriage throughout the majority of these United States.
What do you think?
Jeff Deutsch
Jeff,
I'm with you on Kip being too hard on Bill Clinton for DADT, and have said as much many times. Why one man should take the blame for what an entire Congress did (against the wishes of the one man) is beyond me. Sure he could have vetoed it so that Congress could have spent more tax dollars to do another "veto-proof" vote, but I'm not sure that would have been his best option.
That said, I don't think one should ever strive for compromise when it comes to human rights issues. When you compromise on a human rights issue you are basically saying, you're right that I'm not really quite as human as you, but I was wondering if you could please let me have at least a little bit of what you have. Compromising on a human rights issue devalues the minority making the compromise which generally moves them back a few steps, not forward.
dolphin,
Sure he could have vetoed it so that Congress could have spent more tax dollars to do another "veto-proof" vote, but I'm not sure that would have been his best option.
Bill Clinton should get the blame for being unprincipled at least as much as Congress. Congress was going to spend those tax dollars anyway. Make them go on record as being for a travesty. If he was against it, and thought it unacceptable, he was in a position to send that message. He could've led on the issue. He caved.
The bonus would've been reduced chance to spend those tax dollars on another travesty.