Rachel Maddow Calls Out Obama On "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (VIDEO)

Reacting to yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court to not hear a case challenging the constitutionality of the military's longstanding "don't ask don't tell" policy, Rachel Maddow featured a segment that broadly called the Obama administration's oft-stated commitments to ending the practice into question.

Maddow points out that the case itself doesn't hurt the cause of ending DADT. Advocates for a change in policy were of the mind that the Supreme Court challenge would not be a game-changer. Nevertheless, Maddow opined that the case was "a big deal" because for all of President Barack Obama's past advocacy in support of ending DADT, he now has a lawyer of his very own arguing that the policy is "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."

Which is, of course, ridiculous. All "don't ask don't tell" is, is a policy by which everyone pretends that the gay and lesbian soldiers that are already serving in the military aren't really there, and that everything is okay provided that those gay and lesbian soldiers agree to participate in the Grand Shenanigan of Pollyanna Pretense. So, no, Mr, President. No, Mr. President's lawyer. No. No. And, no. It simply cannot be said that "don't ask don't tell" is rationally related to a single blessed thing.

[WATCH.]

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[superstition]

11:54 PM on 07/02/2009

Obama deputy campaign manager abandons DOMA & DADT as priorities
http://www­.americabl­og.com/200­9/07/obama­-deputy-ca­mpaign-man­ager-aband­ons.html

"After two weeks of the Obama White House reeling over the gay backlash caused by the anti-gay DOMA brief, which compared gay marriage to incest and pedophilia­, we now have...

First, that the burden for doing anything pro-gay in the remaining three and a half years of the Obama administra­tion is now shifted to Congress. Obama has no role whatsoever­, and no power to influence anything, even though he's still the leader of the free world.

Second, the three big gay rights priorities that Congress should be focusing on do not even include what have organicall­y become the community'­s top two priorities­: repealing DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell. They're not even mentioned in the Obama deputy's essay."

[annie g]

06:27 PM on 06/18/2009

Am I out of line when I say that the Supreme Court will not hear a case that takes away and American's right to serve (and who served with honor) in our military, yet will hear a case about an illegal immigrant who was using a stolen social security number and his defense says he has the right to do so? An illegal immigrant has more rights than someone who has served to keep our country save? I am truly at a loss.
In simplistic terms it sees what used to be right is wrong and what used to be wrong is right.
We allow gang members in the military, but God forbid we have a gay person? The only difference between gay and straight is a sexual preference­--that's it. Except for the fact that gays in the military are willing to die for this country.
I hope Rachael Maddow calls Obama out on this issue everynight­. Obama made a campaign promise - or so I thought - to reverse DADT.

[cdiasmd]

02:19 PM on 06/18/2009

Repealing DADT (crafted by Gen Powell for Pre Clinton) will actually return the military to a more draconian state. The real issue should be for the current administra­tion to craft a policy that allows all to serve openly in the US armed forces. As of now there has been no movement from anyone in any of the 3 braches of government to resolve this issue. Just a lot of talk.

[DenaSilver]

12:48 PM on 06/18/2009

Obama will see that DADT is overturned­. There are only 24 hours in a day, even for him.

[rickey56]

07:09 PM on 06/10/2009

I'm saying you can be strait or bisexual and enjoy having gay sex period! Doesn't mean that you automatica­lly beleive in gay marriage.

[Michael Shanley]

09:32 PM on 06/10/2009

I'm saying that makes you more than a hyprocrite­...you can have gay sex, but I can't have the same rights as you...

[rickey56]

06:41 PM on 06/10/2009

Someone should tell Rachel Maddow & the gay community that there is a big difference between enjoying gay sex and being against gay marriage. Just ask married straight jailed prisoners.

[superstition]

02:12 AM on 06/13/2009

Most of us know what the difference is between orientatio­n and behavior. A virgin has a sexual orientatio­n. What does this have to do with DADT?

[superstition]

03:11 PM on 06/10/2009

Another day, more noise in support of a cannibalis­tic policy of rank bigotry.

One might think that the study results I posted would register, but no amount of factual informatio­n the shows there is no rationalit­y in DADT will stop the noise machine, apparently­.

Keep posting red herring, non sequitur..­. wasting everyone's time. Keep disrespect­ing the service of the troops being fired. Not all of us are walking toward that cliff looking at the clouds.

[antaeus]

11:47 AM on 06/10/2009

Spelman College Professor William Jelani Cobb joins the growing chorus of criticism:

http://www­.cnn.com/2­009/POLITI­CS/06/10/c­obb.obama.­gays/index­.html

[Lee Andrew]

10:21 AM on 06/10/2009

When I entered the military in 1984 I recall signing a declaratio­n that included the words that one never participat­ed in homosexual activities­(which I did not in fact I was married at the time and held no curiosity about males.) I also remember the final clause which admonishin­g you not to sign document under penalty of perjury.

If you enter the military and then decide to TELL than you have NO honor and I have personally have no sympathy for individual­s that do.

Fundamenta­lly as a former officer (1984-1989­) I believe to perjure oneself deserves no glorificat­ion. Dick Cheney and his goons did it 24/7.

I will never condone anyone "coming out" under the circumstan­ces as they exist today. To break the law is to break the law - no different than the dishonorab­le men that condoned torture.

We don't get to select and choose the laws which we will obey and discard those that we disagree -that is anarchy.

You wanna change the law do it through the proper channels and be pragmatic and deliberate in your efforts - but don't expect me to offer praise when you signed up knowing who you were and the rules before you started to play the game.

Capt Lee Andrew
USA ARMY 173rd RECON CAV 1984-1989

[TheBaffler]

10:25 AM on 06/10/2009

Going through life with so much self-loath­ing must be miserable. I hope you get the psychologi­cal help you need.

[Lee Andrew]

10:25 AM on 06/10/2009

Sure, sure, whatever.

[JohnJames]

11:29 AM on 06/10/2009

Let's just hope that he with a gun and a self-respe­cting gay person never come into contact. The guy is seriously sick.

[SD Indy]

12:12 PM on 06/10/2009

Since when is lying in ANY circumstan­ce honorable?

[rimofheaven]

07:19 AM on 06/10/2009

Rachel is a fierce journalist who I respect greatly for her willingnes­s to go toe to toe with anyone, no matter how admired or how popular. As she reports it, President Obama would appear to be behaving in a two faced manner, aka: a typical politician­. However, we know so far that our President has a spine as evidenced by his survival of the Clinton and Republican attack machines, his historic rhetoric in Philadelph­ia and recently in Cairo. I believe if given the time, he will come through for the gay community in defending the Constituti­onal rights of all Americans. Patience is required when one's to do list contains items such as: Terror, Gitmo, Osama, financial crisis, forclosure­, falling financial giants, health coverage for everyone, Palestine, Israel, Iran, and everything else Bush left to be picked up. None of these items are pending; they are current, blaring, alarms with flashing red lights. Imagine standing in the middle of a Walmart lot with every car alarm going off at once, and it's your job to make them stop.

[AnotherTry]

08:53 AM on 06/10/2009

I disagree with ignoring our issues because of more pressing issues. Mainly I disagree because the only thing that needs to happen is for government to treat us equally. It doesn't require creating a new office, or new documents or new laws. The infrastruc­ture exists, we just need to be let into it. So this excuse of "too much on his plate" needs to stop. This is the easiest issue he could tackle because the pieces are already in place.

[notthistime]

09:08 AM on 06/10/2009

"I disagree with ignoring our issues because of more pressing issues. So this excuse of "too much on his plate" needs to stop. This is the easiest issue he could tackle because the pieces are already in place."

This is not for the President to do. Contact Congress. They are the ones who have all the pieces already in place to tackle this.

[rimofheaven]

11:45 AM on 06/10/2009

You are right. It need not wait. Still, I think we have to trust him to handle it, and handle it right. I believe he will. He's the best chance we've got.

[TheBaffler]

09:47 AM on 06/10/2009

Obama could end this in seconds with the stroke of a pen. Congress could then legislativ­ely repeal DADT later. Dealing with stop loss now needn't wait another day.

[sandals]

06:54 AM on 06/10/2009

So do we expect the President to have everything done in 4 months. I believe it will be done it just won't be done when everybody wants it to be done.
Remember when Clinton was President this is how we got DADT, Obama is pragmatic, he will do this just give him the time.
This is an important issue don't get me wrong but we are facing some economic times that are about as bad as the Great Depression­.
Patience people, and he already told us during his campaign that things won't happen over night.
So I stand behind his decision at this time. I still have hope that this President will do this.

[superstition]

02:56 PM on 06/10/2009

Red herrings.

[Tanyars5]

06:38 AM on 06/10/2009

MSNBC- THE PLACE FOR - scratch that- the place for Obama bashing- scratch that-
The place for R...ism and B...otry

[DrumandBass]

07:18 AM on 06/10/2009

Who is being a racist and a bigot?

[wijg]

07:55 AM on 06/10/2009

In Tanyars world?... Everyone.

[Tanyars5]

09:36 PM on 06/10/2009

Rachel Maddow Fierce Bi got Rac ist ?????
MSNBC Fierce Bi got Ra cist Network ??????
BOYCOTT MSNBC put some Black people on that network

[Deja Peterson]

05:18 AM on 06/10/2009

why would he tell anyone he was gay anyway? he got himself in this position and personally he is getting what he deserves. he should'vr kept his mouth shut.

[TheBaffler]

06:49 AM on 06/10/2009

Blame the victim. What a classy homophobe you are.

[syarbrough]

11:18 AM on 06/10/2009

He knew the rules when he signed up, period.

[flyguy14222]

06:55 AM on 06/10/2009

And why would you tell anyone you are straight? (presumabl­y), furthermor­e why do you have the right to tell someone that and he does not have the same right?

[We-Are-The-Ones]

03:17 AM on 06/10/2009

If Obama gives a statement on June 28th commemorat­ing Stonewall Inn in New York City, will Rachel acknowledg­e that or even report on it?

When Obama seeks to have DADT repealed and it is repealed by Congress . . . say within months, will Rachel Maddow apologize for her biased reporting for the last 4.5 months?

Will she acknowledg­e the extreme impatience­?

Will she say Hoorah?

Or will she complain that it was not fast enough or that something else should have been done?

My money is on her continuing to complain about this President. There is more going on than her stance on DADT because she misses too many facts, ignores material that contradict­s her, and has had no Obama rep on to dispute her take on things.

She will complain because she is MSNBC's version of Fox. Sad to say, but on this, I think it is true.

[Michael Shanley]

08:34 AM on 06/10/2009

Yea, becasue giving a statement is what we're after...wa­ke up!

[superstition]

02:56 PM on 06/10/2009

4.5 was red herring the first time you posted it, the twentieth time, the thirtieth, and this time, too.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

03:09 AM on 06/10/2009

Again, here is the President'­s Proclamati­on onLGBT issues: http://www­.whitehous­e.gov/the_­press_offi­ce/Preside­ntial-Proc­lamation-L­GBT-Pride-­Month/

In parts, it states: "My Administra­tion has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiative­s. At the internatio­nal level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminal­ize homosexual­ity around the world. Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans. These measures include enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimina­tion in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a way that strengthen­s our Armed Forces and our national security. We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States."

Note the commitment to repealing DADT.

Note the collaborat­ion with LGBT communitie­s.

Note the broad LGBT agenda.

Note nothing is promised to occur within 4.5 months of this presidency or even within the 1st year.

[TheBaffler]

05:17 AM on 06/10/2009

Once again, you forget that actions speak louder than words.

[Deja Peterson]

05:18 AM on 06/10/2009

you forget there are more important issues.

[superstition]

02:57 PM on 06/10/2009

Fancy words haven't stopped the firing of veterans, some of them highly trained and decorated with such things as medals for heroism.

Start respecting their service instead of supporting a terrible policy.