Tweet
Louise posted the video in my earlier entry, but you have to read this to believe it. Just landed in my inbox:
Q A federal judge in California has made it clear she’s not going to — probably — uphold the stay of the injunction of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and the President said recently that “don’t ask, don’t tell” will end on his watch. Is he, or will he, put pressure on Harry Reid — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to push for a vote during a lame duck session, one. And two, depending on what happens after the midterms, how does the President see ending “don’t ask, don’t tell” if he has diminished majorities or no Democratic control?
MR. GIBBS: Well, first and foremost, in terms of — the process obviously with the judge will render on her own ruling. That then likely goes to a three-judge panel to consider. And we’re certainly monitoring developments, as is the Department of Justice.
The President believes that the policy will end under his watch precisely because in the defense authorization bill pending in the Senate is a provision that would repeal what the President believes is unjust, what the President believes is discriminatory. It’s passed the House. The President will push for defense authorization to be passed containing that provision when the Senate comes back for the lame duck.
We have obviously a lot of important business in that legislation. The repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is certainly one of those aspects. My sense is if you can get through a filibuster — and again, everything takes 60 votes these days — that there are a majority of U.S. senators that believe, as the President does, that this policy isn’t right and that it harms our national security.
So the President will work during the lame duck to ensure that that bill is passed and that what’s passed the House and what’s passed in the Senate can end up on his desk for his signature. But again, I think if we can get passed the procedural hurdles, that a majority of the U.S. Senate believes as the President does that it is time for this policy to change.
The courts have — the courts in a number of different instances out West have determined that the lifespan of this policy is coming to its natural end. I think that that was recognized in the House. I think it will be recognized in the Senate and the bill — the law will be repealed.
He continues dancing below the fold.
Q Can I follow? If the President believes that, then why doesn’t he repeal it now? Is he just waiting until after the election?MR. GIBBS: Well, we can’t repeal it now because, one, the Senate is not here. Remember, the law that was passed in the early ’90s does not give the power to repeal the law to the Commander-in-Chief. It’s a congressional action that can only be durably repealed through another legislative action.
I think the President was asked last Thursday at the town hall, why not simply sign an executive order like Harry Truman. The law that was passed, I guess in 1993, does not afford for executive action to remove the law.
Q Well, where does the Justice Department stand on –
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, as we said last week, we believe the law should be repealed and we believe that, as the Pentagon studies a process for an orderly transition, that we think will come to pass in repeal of the law.
Q Did the judge nullify the law?
MR. GIBBS: Yes.
Q Well, then there is no law anymore.
MR. GIBBS: Again, the earlier answer that I gave, which is we believe that a process has to be put in process for that orderly transition.
Q Since the Justice Department is officially appealing the case, is it necessarily true that the President believes that “don’t ask, don’t tell” is a constitutional law?
MR. GIBBS: Again, I have enumerated for you the belief — the President’s belief that it’s unjust, it’s discriminatory, and that it harms our national security.
Q Well, you’ve never enumerated for us his belief on the constitutionality of it.
MR. GIBBS: I haven’t.
Q I’m confused, though. If it does end up in Congress under a filibuster, would you guys force a filibuster? Because you’ve never done that before.
MR. GIBBS: Force a filibuster? I don’t know what –
Q Where you actually — you were saying that if it goes — if you can get through a filibuster, a Republican filibuster in Congress. You’ve never actually forced a filibuster before. You’ve never vetoed or called the Republicans’ bluff on anything.
MR. GIBBS: Well, maybe I’m confused at what you’re –
Q — if he doesn’t have 60 votes.
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, the President will work to try to get 60 votes –
Q But if he doesn’t would he force a — will you force the Republicans to filibuster it?
MR. GIBBS: The final passage of the bill? Again, there has to be a vote to take — it’s in the underlying bill. It’s in the base bill. I think you can go back and find Republican quotes about the harm of not passing a defense authorization bill in the past and ensuring that we have the necessary resources for our military to do what it needs to do.
12 Comments
*sigh* can’t say anything, won’t say anything… same old, same old from the admin.. why listen to a re-run when you already know all of the lines?
Yes or no?They should press him with a simple yes or no question that he can’t worm his way out of:
“Does the president think DADT is unconstitutional? Yes or no? Don’t think about it! Yes or no? I’m prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over.”
Cookie if you get the reference
lol i needed a good dose of farcethanks Pam!
Answer
That’s the only “answer” you will get, a plausibly deniable YES.
Anything remind you of this from “The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas”?
Cuban Missile Crisis IIRC
As I wrote in an earlier thread….
We continue to be poorly served by reporters who are either too incapable of phrasing questions in a way to inhibit the ease with which Gibbs ducks and dives, too uninformed to ask the right questions period, or too afraid of losing the WH press pass if they push too hard. [Only a reporter with a high national profile would be insulated from that.]
As noted, Gibbs used said TWICE that Obama believes the ban hurts “national security” – TWO PERFECT EXCUSES for any reporter to say something like, “So, he’s choosing to continue HURTING national security?”
Not only did no one do anything like that, but they failed AGAIN, for the umpteenth time to shoot down Gibbs’ predictable song and dance [read: LIE] about the alleged limited options Obama has by pointing out that federal law 10 USC 12305 specifically empowers any President to override any law to stop any discharges in the interest of national security. Do they even know?
After Gibbs repeatedly demonstrating that the subject is just too irrelevant to Obama, Inc., for him to come prepared with better answers [dodges], we finally got a clue he IS in discussions now by his mentioning that their next step would be appealing to a three-judge Circuit Court panel. That’s legal “inside baseball” most people aren’t aware of: only three of the Circuit’s judges are required to rule on an intitial appeal. Either side may appeal their decision to the entire court ["en banc"], which in the 9th is currently made up of 26 judges among 28 seats.
Just like the Supremes, the en banc Circuit Court can refuse to allow the appeal from the 3-judge panel decision [which would accelerate an appeal to the Supremes]
In the Witt case, the 3-judge panel ruled to send it back to the District level; the Court en banc denied the Air Force appeal; and the ODOJ chose not to appeal to the Supremes but went back to the District level where they lost. Before the current court contretemps, I expected them to just reinstate her as the government did Watkins, Meinhold, Cammermeyer, and Elzie, et al., but now I fear they’ll fight it not to give signal they’re willing to admit even a single person would cause “enormous consequences,” blah blah blah.
And, yes, goddamn it, I’m going to post this again: Obama making clear he DOES think it’s “constitutional” over a year ago. Will someone PLEASE forward it to Ms. Eleveld?
At this point, Gibbs and his boss are actively insulting us–insulting our intelligence, if nothing else. The policy has been struck down. It is done, finished, over, kaput, extinct, finito, deader than John Cleese’s parrot. All that remains is to put the headstone in place. There is no need for repeal, legislative, executive or otherwise. And we all know it. Congressional repeal is the political equivalent of beating a dead horse–not only beating it but flaying it and dancing among the bones. But Obama will keep on stalling any forward movement as long as he has a breath in him. Christ only knows how massive his inertia and obstructionism will be when/if DOMA and ENDA ever come up for serious action.
I believe my head will explode now.I need a graphic for that.
Ah. Created exploding head graphic to express my feelings. Definitely need this animated graphic I created from a Mars Attacks segment…
I LUV IT!!!!!!!!!
The Obama Administrationand the current sitting Congressmembers and the JCS are all constitutional cowards. They have all been sworn to uphold the constitution, yet they balk at doing just that.
I would call them all traitors for failing to live up to their sworn oaths.