Robert Gibbs, April Ryan and DADT
Well one of the things that inspired this blog entry was this White House Press Briefing where Robert Gibbs has a very unprofessional and sort of assholish reaction to White House veteran reporter April Ryan...who gets all sanctimonious about a really REALLY stupid question about the social secretary and if she's 'invited' herself to the state dinner? Really April? is that what you're getting all huffy about? But back again
at the same briefing, Gibbs was asked about DADT by a resourceful Advocate reporter:
Q Some people have analyzed the number of troops available to deploy and said that sending 30,000 troops is tantamount to deploying nearly every U.S. Army brigade possible. Given that about 10,000 soldiers are already in stop-loss, do you know where Defense Secretary Gates is with his review of softening the discharges on "don't ask, don't tell"?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I have not heard an update from the Secretary on that. I know that obviously the President wants that policy changed. In terms of -- I mean, obviously it's not just Army. This is Army and Marines, as well as -- well, Army and Marines. They are -- this was very specifically asked in terms of whether force flow options would interrupt either Marine or Army policies that have been instituted to give longer breaks for tours of duty and then return home. The Joint Chiefs, to a commander, all told the Commander-in-Chief that they could meet the force requirement without interrupting what they had instituted in order to provide that time at home and away from the tour of duty.
Q But the troops are stretched thin. I mean, it's not --
MR. GIBBS: No doubt. And I think that the President was very clear in wanting to see the Joint Chiefs to, quite frankly, ask them very directly whether that was the case. There's no doubt that there has been for many, many years a strain on our forces; that that strain has caused repeated tours. And only recently has Secretary Gates and others instituted policies that ensure that we had time outside of a theater of war and that they believe was necessary to maintain an all-volunteer force, which they think obviously is tremendously important, as well as just dealing with the stress physically and mentally on them.
He screwed April Ryan and then he totally dismissed this pertinent question with a non-answer. I realize that he is now sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and I'm not real pleased with that decision and obviously the Obama administration isn't making DADT a big priority, ya he gave the directive to 'investigate' what it would take to end the policy... but in terms of real authentic stopping the ruining of thousands of dedicated American lives by this horrific policy hasn't happened. Neither has EDNA. Ya they passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act. It would be nice to have legislation that's not predicated on the violent outcomes of hatred but you know hey, that's just me. I agree with and totally endorse the recent DNC boycott that a bunch of prominent gay blogs have started. Count me in on that one.
Oh ya, and I work with a bigot. Plain and simple. I would go and put more personal details, but it's really not about that at this point. I have no vendetta with this dude, the sad part is that he's probably queer himself and hates himself so much that he has to act out re:gay things....but really? it's 2009 going into 2010 people...is someone being gay that big of a hurdle?
at the same briefing, Gibbs was asked about DADT by a resourceful Advocate reporter:
Q Some people have analyzed the number of troops available to deploy and said that sending 30,000 troops is tantamount to deploying nearly every U.S. Army brigade possible. Given that about 10,000 soldiers are already in stop-loss, do you know where Defense Secretary Gates is with his review of softening the discharges on "don't ask, don't tell"?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I have not heard an update from the Secretary on that. I know that obviously the President wants that policy changed. In terms of -- I mean, obviously it's not just Army. This is Army and Marines, as well as -- well, Army and Marines. They are -- this was very specifically asked in terms of whether force flow options would interrupt either Marine or Army policies that have been instituted to give longer breaks for tours of duty and then return home. The Joint Chiefs, to a commander, all told the Commander-in-Chief that they could meet the force requirement without interrupting what they had instituted in order to provide that time at home and away from the tour of duty.
Q But the troops are stretched thin. I mean, it's not --
MR. GIBBS: No doubt. And I think that the President was very clear in wanting to see the Joint Chiefs to, quite frankly, ask them very directly whether that was the case. There's no doubt that there has been for many, many years a strain on our forces; that that strain has caused repeated tours. And only recently has Secretary Gates and others instituted policies that ensure that we had time outside of a theater of war and that they believe was necessary to maintain an all-volunteer force, which they think obviously is tremendously important, as well as just dealing with the stress physically and mentally on them.
He screwed April Ryan and then he totally dismissed this pertinent question with a non-answer. I realize that he is now sending 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and I'm not real pleased with that decision and obviously the Obama administration isn't making DADT a big priority, ya he gave the directive to 'investigate' what it would take to end the policy... but in terms of real authentic stopping the ruining of thousands of dedicated American lives by this horrific policy hasn't happened. Neither has EDNA. Ya they passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act. It would be nice to have legislation that's not predicated on the violent outcomes of hatred but you know hey, that's just me. I agree with and totally endorse the recent DNC boycott that a bunch of prominent gay blogs have started. Count me in on that one.
Oh ya, and I work with a bigot. Plain and simple. I would go and put more personal details, but it's really not about that at this point. I have no vendetta with this dude, the sad part is that he's probably queer himself and hates himself so much that he has to act out re:gay things....but really? it's 2009 going into 2010 people...is someone being gay that big of a hurdle?
Comments
Post a Comment