It's the right thing to do.

I still have an empty place in the pit of my stomach.

Thanks for tracking this, Dominic.

Now LGBT personnel can be discharged for other reasons - legitimately - but not due to DADT because the Congress gave control over the Pentagon.

Democrats thump their chests for making this someone elses problem - and still allow LGBTs to get the shaft.

And the gays will line up and smile...duhhhhhh

Kill, baby, kill.

Oh, I did not just say that. No, I didn't. That was just the elephant under my chair.

Well, this is not my ideal way to go about this. It delays repeal for an unknown time, and leaves the military an out. They'll probably take years to implement it, and gays will continue to get kicked out for a while.

But realistically, this seems like the best option at the moment. There are not enough votes in the Senate for an outright repeal of DADT, and if the Democrats loose seats in the midterm elections (almost a certainty), we'd have even less chance of repealing it after November.

So I'm grudgingly accepting of this. I just hope the military doesn't drag its feet for years.

To be replaced with BJCO, blow job for the commanding officer.

roll call shows Reichert voted against it.

@6) Thanks. It's fixed. I'd plugged that clause in at the wrong spot.

So what happens in December when the Pentagon's *study* reveals (SHOCK: DRUDGE SIREN) that integration will DESTROY our nation's military?

on to the senate's dysfunctional grandees. whee.

The America I fought for in Vietnam is perilously close to the cliff.

I know the Founding Fathers never dreamed of armed homosexuals fighting on behalf of a Marxist homosexual.

I predict the elite homosexuals will join with the SEIU to form one of the most brutal secret armies (like the one called for in the health care bill) that will force children to convert to homosexuality at gunpoint.

Lord Basil, you moron, armed homosexuals have been fighting on your behalf since the country was founded, and they continue to do so right this minute.

The only thing that will change is that we will be able to do so openly, not in the closet.

oh, Lord Basil, you with your sexy sexy talk! wuh-wuh-WOOF! rRRarr!

YEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!

@10: wooOOOoooOOOOo....
L. Badizzle, you give me the tinglies in my special places.

Hey LB, you know who hates you and your ilk?

Ron Mothafuckin' Paul, baby!

Peace, Liberty, and Prosperity!!!

@10, Gaylord Tarragon, that is one elaborate fantasy you have there of armed homosexual soldiers pointing a gun at you and forcing you to do all sorts of unspeakable gay acts. Just be careful not to get too much lube on your Soldier of Fortune magazine. The cheap paper does not hold up well.

This is yet another non-binding political move with an election coming up. Yes, maybe if the Pentagon thinks it is okay we might try to come up with a strategy to see if repealing DADT will not cause too much harm and maybe the armed forces will go ahead with it if they think it is acceptable. I will believe it when I see it.

It still amazes me that a country that blah, blah, blah's about freedom of speech and liberty for all, basically has a gag order on a large part of it's people. Hypocrisy aside, this is a good thing for our country.

When I heard that Rep. Patrick Murphy was an Iraq war vet, I assumed he was gay and had come out after leaving the military or he was booted under DADT. He's straight but smart enough to know when a just cause needs someone to lead the charge.

He also gives one hell of an interview - http://tinyurl.com/33yyzff

This Murphy has a hard time remembering any time previously that I have been prouder to be one.

More like they punted the problem to the Joint Chiefs…

The repeal bill will require the President, the Defense Secretary, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to each certify in writing that a repeal would not harm military readiness before it would take effect. (Which in any case will not happen until after the Pentagon completes its review of how to implement a repeal.) So all they have to do is to wait for the review to be completed and then act disappointed when the Joint Chiefs say that, based on its results, they can not certify that that a repeal would not harm military readiness, and listen to the President expresses his deep disappointment that based on their assessment the law prohibits him from lifting the ban. His hands are simply tied!!! (Poor man… he’s just powerless.)

See how that works?… It’s off the back of Democrats in Congress… Hell, it’s even off the Presidents back, and completely in the hands of the Joint Chiefs, who are unelected and not subject to political influence.

And, even if fully ratified, it still doesn’t include any language prohibiting the Pentagon from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation… (Such a deal!)

Now that’s fierce advocacy at work for you!...

(But at least it will shut the faggots up for the election cycle!)

It's been inevitable for 22 years.

Wake me when the Democrats ram it thru on a 50 vote majority with VP Biden casting the deciding vote.

Because bipartisanship is just another way of saying "won't get anything done".

The only positive in all of this is that this is a an election year, come November the people will be able to clean the House. As Senator Jim Webb rightly said, there's no reason for the political process to pre-empt the comprehensive study underway. The report hasn't been made yet and the generals who run the arms services are saying we should first learn of the findings. The harm the could be done to present and future recruitment and cohesion issues are not to be taken lightly, because our nation's security is on the line.

@23 - during the RNC convention.

@22: Loveschild, Jesus loves you. Everyone else agrees that you're an assbag.
Seriously? You think that repealing DADT will hurt incumbents' chances this fall? Last time I checked, a pretty solid majority of America (including Dumbfuckistan!) supported the repeal.

Is repealing DADT really in LGBT soldier's best interest? Is dying to protect a country where you're a second class citizen really that great? Is dying to preserve the freedom of those who'd happily send you to a concentration camp really all that wise? What's in it for the LGBT soldier to serve openly? Abuse and humiliation at the hands of their fellow soldiers?