Why Is It At All Suprising

by Little Miss Attila on February 14, 2010

. . . that Dick Cheney thinks Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be changed? This is the guy whose daughter-in-law was the first same-sex partner at official state dinners in any Presidential administration.

Of course Cheney thinks that the change should be considered as soon as the military authorities figure out how to implement a new approach. And given the fact that the Israelis and the British have managed it, there’s really no reason we can’t. (I say this in full confidence that the passive-aggressive sort of queen—the hostile, bitchy type—won’t make it through boot camp in the first place. Those guys aren’t, of course, representative of gays: they just happen to be the most visible face of gayness for some, due to the flame factor.)

But of course to admit that the Bush Administration was the most gay-friendly Presidential administration in history would disrupt Teh Narrative that the GOP is hostile to gays.

{ 2 trackbacks }

Instapundit » Blog Archive » LITTLE MISS ATTILA: “Why is it at all surprising that Dick Cheney thinks Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell …
February 15, 2010 at 12:02 am
GayPatriot » Of course, Cheney Favors Repealing DADT
February 15, 2010 at 9:42 am

{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }

ponce February 14, 2010 at 9:42 pm

Yes, I remember how much Bush lobbied to get states to legalize gay marriage. Poor W.


Just Some Guy February 15, 2010 at 12:13 am

But Cheney is the face of the administration that did in fact delay gay rights in the military for eight years after Clinton punted it. Be serious and admit that. I’m a conservative Republican, and I can admit that.


David Emami February 15, 2010 at 12:24 am

Yes, yes, because supporting gay marriage is the only possible yardstick that could exist to determine that.


rosignol February 15, 2010 at 1:04 am

Clinton punted, Bush didn’t change Clinton’s policy.

Really, while I think that the Bush’s hostility to gays is greatly exaggerated, I didn’t expect him (or any other Republican) to get out in front of the issue, especially considering that 1) gays are pretty solidly in the D camp, and 2) W did have quite a lot of other stuff on his plate, a fair bit of which was important to people who voted for him. Take that into account, and it’s pretty easy to see why “DADT” was a very low priority for Bush.

I dunno what Clinton’s excuse was.


Sara February 15, 2010 at 1:28 am

Just Some Guy: In terms of Cheney and homosexuals, from what I’ve heard and read, he was the one who was holding Bush back on the most awful anti gay measures, like a federal marriage ammendment. Whatever you think of the man, that’s an achievement.

In terms of Bush and LGBTs, the only real positive I can come up with is that he was the first American politician who was actually comfortable around people who were transgendered.


cthulhu February 15, 2010 at 1:30 am

W’s administration was not necessarily the “friendliest toward gays”, but it was probably the “best for gays” — because it repeatedly treated being gay as no big deal.

Gay marriage wasn’t on the front burner, nor was a repeal of DADT — but there weren’t witch-hunts and persecutions, and the “toe the line to the Gay Agenda, or we’ll out you!” crap was significantly dampened.

Similarly, in W’s term, we saw a talented Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, and Secretary of Defense who were (in order) black, black and female, and older than dirt. This can be contrasted with the current situation where we have a black AG (who is incompetent), a female Speaker of the House (who is incompetent), and a female DHS Secretary (who is incompetent). The best thing to do about race, gender, or age is not to put them in the front of the parade and let qualifications bring up the rear.

If Cheney can say, “my daughter’s partner gets a place at my dinner table”, what more “acceptance” need there be? If a “friendly” administration results in overreach and backlash, is it really that friendly — or just more subtly hostile?


Charles Collins February 15, 2010 at 1:38 am

Even back in 2000 both Cheney AND Bush didn’t seem to mind gay marriage, if it were decided by the state legislatures. The only reason Bush came out in favor of the federal amendment wasn’t because he opposed gay marriage, per se, but because he thought it should not be decided by the courts. People like to go after him as a homophobe, but it really was never a big issue for him.


SissyWillis February 15, 2010 at 2:38 am

Brilliant little gem of a post. 🙂

As I always say, DON’T MESS WITH MY DICK!


Bill February 15, 2010 at 2:53 am

Say whatever you want about Bush and Cheney – everyone is positive they know everything there is to know about them and thier minds are now permanently closed.

And whatever you do, don’t fill them in on the biggest secret of all: that Ronald Reagan was possibly the most pro-gay president in US history.

Their heads will expode.


Muggins February 15, 2010 at 3:24 am

When I was stationed in Fort Carson during the Vietnam War, two guys were caught having anal sex in the barracks. The sergeant in charge told everybody to keep it quiet so as not to cause legal actions against the perpetrators. A fight broke out in the barracks not 5 minutes later when one of the accused took offense at a comment. Now that the military is being forced by civilians to let gays be legal in the armed forces, will there be sex in the barracks? It seems like a crude thing to ask, but men aren’t allowed in women’s barracks because of the sex potential. Yet gays will be allowed in the barracks where they are sexually attracted to their same sex? And where does the military now draw the line? Will men be able to speak of their love of men? Will there be engagements? Will they be allowed to hold hands? Kiss? Sleep together? How many men will now be busted and punished in the service because of the sex element that civilians are introducing in the barracks?


anon February 15, 2010 at 3:51 am

If it wasn’t for that right-wing extreme Administration packing conservative extremists into the supreme court, we would have repealed the sodomy laws by now.


hdgreene February 15, 2010 at 3:57 am

Pete Williams worked for Dick Cheney for years (he was The Pentagon Press Chief during the first Gulf War) before joining NBC News.


JorgXMcKie February 15, 2010 at 4:26 am

Yep, yep yep, ponce and justsomeguy, ol’ Slick Willie only had 7.5 years to deal with DADT and get all gay friendly, and he did, well . . .nothing. And Obama will get on that hard promise to end DADT, well just after he closes Gitmo [i.e. never].

That Bush sure was a bad one. If only there was a caring Dem in the WH!! Then we’d aee some gay-friendly action!!

[Don’t you ever get tired of swallowing all those liberal lies?]


RJ February 15, 2010 at 5:25 am

Let’s see… both Obama and Jawn Kerry both hold/held the same views on SSM that the “evil” Bush Admin did, yet they are seen as allies? Or that other “good Democrat” John “I’m not comfortable around those people” Edwards? Clinton had Dem majorities in both houses upon his election yet didn’t advance the ball, either?

With “friends” like those the LGBT community could do worse than “enemies” such as Dick Cheney…


I R A Darth Aggie February 15, 2010 at 6:56 am

So…how much is Obama lobbying states to push gay marriage?

Don’t forget that Obama being on the ballot in 2008 brought out a strong black voter turn out, who voted against gay marriage proposition on the California ballot. He did encourage them to vote for the measure, right?

JorgXMcKie asks:
[Don’t you ever get tired of swallowing all those liberal lies?]

That’s not what they’re swallowing, but DADT.


Little Miss Attila February 15, 2010 at 7:55 am

Yeah, yeah, IRA.

It’s worth pointing out that it wasn’t just George W. Bush himself who was comfortable with the transgendered; Condi Rice has also been a friend to TS academicians in her primary career (hanging out in the Ivory Towers).

Muggins, I see your concern, and I take it seriously. But:

1) The vast majority of gays aren’t there to scope out the man-flesh; they are there to do a job. They want to serve their country.

2) The Brits and the Israelis have worked some of this out, already.

3) A lot of the military people we’ve lost were working in non-combat jobs, like being interpreters. And some of these guys were Arabic interpreters, back in the early 2000s, when we really, really needed ’em! So I realize there is a cost either way–allowing gays to admit what they are will have a cost. But requiring them to lie has already cost us a lot.


submandave February 15, 2010 at 9:42 am

LMA: While I don’t necessarilly share Muggins’ concerns, I do understand them. From my perspective as a former submariner and 20+ yr active/reserve officer, my major concerns with repealing DADT are that it is more likely to be done in a politically driven way than is good for the services.

For one, there are many good soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen who have legitimate privacy concerns, but these are almost universally dismissed as being over-reacting or excessively sensitive. If female service members expressed similar privacy concerns about unwanted sexual attention while forced to live and bath in close proximity to male members, would these same folks be as tin-eared? Many of these concerns may be unfounded, but it is willful ignorance to pretend that unwanted homosexual advances will not be more common in a military where gays may express their sexual preference without fear of discharge. Failure to openly address this only sets the stage for an environment where either such advances are perceived to not be as discouraged as they should be or where the potention to improper and potentially illegal responses to these advances are more likely.

Secondly, I have real concerns that inappropriate consentual homosexual activity may be less vigorously prosecuted than inappropriate consentual heterosexual activity simply by virtue of a desire to not be perceived as acting in a discrimatory fashion. Before anyone attempts to off-handedly dismiss this, I have personally witnessed cases of female members and male members being treated distinctly different for identical infractions due to a fear of the command being seen as sexist. This is not an argument against either female or gay service members, but when one group (male sailors) see another group (female sailors) being given defference in disciplinary matters it is adverse to good order and discipline, affects unit cohesion and serves to case aspersions the service of all in the group observed to receive preferrence. If possible, I would prefer to see similar discrepancies avoided when DADT is repealed. In neither case, though, will I hold my breath.


submandave February 15, 2010 at 9:49 am

And BTW, LMA, the well publicized interpretter gay purge in the 2000s ignored an important point: the vast majority of separations under DADT were a result of violations of DT, not DA. DADT has become well-known in all services as a kind-of “Get Out of Jail Free” card. In a desire to not punish a person just for being gay, separations under DADT are routinely handled as administrative or general discharges, keeping the members’ record clean. As a result, being “gay” has become a loophole to leave the service early without any negative repercussions.

In truth, eliminating this easy out is one factor that has the JCS and service secretaries so much behind the proposed repeal.


Watney February 15, 2010 at 9:51 am

Gays in the military must be decided on a military basis not some sort of social movement. The burden of proof that there will be no adverse impact on unit cohesion, readiness and good order is on those who promote the change. The evidence must be conclusive in that the anticipated benefits are so small given the tiny population of gays and lesbians in the country from which to draw.


Jason February 15, 2010 at 10:01 am

Probably the best post I’ve read on the question of DADT is here:

It addresses some of the points that were brought up in this thread.


Zendo Deb February 15, 2010 at 3:59 pm

80 percent or better of the LGBT community voted against Bush in both elections. The contributions were at least that skewed – probably worse (actually it may have only been 75% in the second election – I don’t have notes in front of me.)

So, under those circumstances, why would any rational individual think the Republicans were going to do anything for the LGBT community? They would hand the Dems a political victory for no gain because it was the right thing to do? Get real.

Washington is all about politics and money comes long before what is right and wrong. That is true on both the Left and the Right.

And although the Left likes to believe that Cheney and Rove ran everything, Cheney was only Vice President – you know, the position that has almost no power.

As far as Clinton “punting” on DADT, he also threw gays under the bus (repeatedly) on marriage. And told everyone else to do the same. Bill Clinton is about getting elected (or he was anyway) which is why he got he did. twice. That and the choice of Bob Dole, an out of touch geezer, who looked a lot like McCain now that I think about it, made it easy for people to vote for the 3rd party.


Jake February 15, 2010 at 4:37 pm

As a young First Lieutenant in the Marines, I helped one of my Marines (a very attractive 19 year old African-American girl) deal with a host aggressive older lesbians who harassed and sexually assaulted her in the open squad bay of the barracks in Okinawa, Japan. None of the senior officers in our regiment would touch the issue, knowing it would end their careers. Eventually I convinced a full colonel to ship her back the US so that she could have some peace. It was horribly unfair and my guess is that she left the service as a result. So all you folks out there who so easily declare what the military should and should not do… maybe you should think about what actually happens in open barracks when people cannot be separated by sexual orientation. And had any of those senior officers tried to prosecute those lesbians, you can bet your life that there would be people in forums like this who declared them to be “homophobic”.


el polacko February 16, 2010 at 12:33 am

well bush DID, repeatedly and in the SOTU no less, call for enshrining discrimination against gay folks in the constitution (even if he never really did anything to further the noxious proposal.) and the republican party platform has had some kind of nasty things to say about their fellow citizens who happen to be gay…so it’s tough to blame a lot of gay people for feeling like maybe the republicans weren’t really all that much in their corner.
whenever cheney was directly asked about his personal opinion on gay rights issues he was very supportive but would follow-up by claiming to be a helpless pawn in the scheme of things. of course, there are any number of grand old partiers who have no problem with gay citizens…it would just be nice if they weren’t afraid to say so publicly and maybe they could even, occasionally, vote to secure equality for everyone. so far, i’m not seeing that.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: