Powell Calls For Review, Not Reversal, Of Don't Ask Don't Tell

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Sunday that the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy he helped craft should be revisited, but he would not go so far as to call for a full repeal of the compromise.

"The policy and the law that came about in 1993 I think was correct for the time," Powell said in an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union." "Sixteen years have now gone by, and I think a lot has changed with respect to attitudes within our country. And therefore, I think this is a policy and a law that should be reviewed."

"I was withholding judgment because the commanders of the armed forces of the United States and the Joint Chiefs of Staff need to study it and make recommendations to the president, and have hearings before the Congress before a decision is made," he added. "It is not just a matter of old generals who, you know, are just too high-bound. There are lots of complicated issues with respect to this, and I think all of those issues should be illuminated. And I hope that the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders working with the secretary of defense will give this the greatest consideration and make their recommendation to the president and to the Congress."

Powell, as much as any congressional figure, played the foil in President Bill Clinton's efforts to follow through on a campaign promise that all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, should be able to serve openly in the military. In recent months, he and other key players from the first battle (notably, former Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn) have argued that political realities have evolved to the extent that the armed forces should take a closer look at the policy's purpose and effectiveness. In December 2008, Powell told CNN that it was time to "definitely re-evaluate" "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

By not calling for full repeal, the former Secretary of State and prominent Obama endorser doesn't really do the Obama administration many favors. During the campaign, the president called for overturning "Don't Ask Don't Tell." But he has been slow to act since taking office, even as 250 military servicemen have been dismissed for disclosing their sexuality. Having a prominent figure like Powell provide the cover for a sweeping policy reversal would be a gift to Obama and a boon to gay-rights groups, which have grown increasingly frustrated with the president for dragging his feet on this issue.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[CAMBEL]

Powell said..... "Sixteen years have now gone by, and I think a lot has changed with respect to attitudes within our country. And therefore, I think this is a policy and a law that should be reviewed."
__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­____

the hypocracy here is staggering. So Powell thought that discrimination was right because at the time that was the attitude of the country. Well then did he think that Plessy v. Ferguson or the Jim Crow Laws were right because that was the attitude of the country at the time!?

[Alison Victoria]

CORRECTION.... Shouldn't the adjective in the third paragraph be "hidebound?" I expect that is the word Powell used and it was transcribed incorrectly.

[manlambda]

On a tangent here we have the president asking progressive groups not to take moderate Democratic Senators to task for health care. Kind of blunts the arguments by some on here that the president will continue to support the moderate against the progressives. If as some as suggested on here we support progressives in the primaries over the incumbent that the president wouldn't come out in support of the moderates are sadly mistaken.

[MSNichols]

What is to review? The military either discriminates or does not discriminate. All men (and women) are created equal or or we are not equal.

The truth of the matter is that there are gay men and women in every walk of life and currently serving in the military. The pain and additional stress placed on these valiant individuals is unfair.

It's not like the ban is repealed and the pumps and wigs come flying out of the field packs. My bet is that not many come out with a fan fare. They just continue to live their lives without the fear of discovery and their stress levels come way down.

[CigarGod]

Exactly.
Soldiers follow orders.
They don't get to choose which ones.

Their oath is to protect the constitution.
All American's know that the constitution is for all American's...not just the ones you like.

[CigarGod]

Well, what do you know.
Every single comment I posted yesterday has been removed.

[MSNichols]

They took your cigars and RAN....Mine are gone or not posted all the time. Get's very frustrating!

I read and agreed with your posts yesterday. Keep it up!

[CigarGod]

Have a cigar.

I guess they don't realize that criticizm of O policies/actions, is far more helpful than fawning at his feet all the time.

Save me from the well meaning mollycoddlers.

[nuclearmonkeys]

I don't know why people get so up in arms when we take issue with Obama. It is possible to support someone and still not agree all the time. Let's not be groupthinking repubs

[manlambda]

What has not been mentioned here is Adm. Mullen's statements about DADT and had it would some how harm the families of those currently serving. Again these are the types of people the president is listening to and why he is not pushing for this to end.
I am s.ick of hearing people like We-Are-The-One defending the president on this. There is an easy way for him to affect change but he has chosen not to. He could use stop loss to suspend prosecution under DADT. This does not solve the problem at all but it accomplishes a few things. One it protects our GLBT soldiers immediately. Second while this is in effect it show that the military will not crumble when GLBT soldiers are allowed to serve openly and third it would make it much easier for Congress to repeal DADT by pointing out the sky has not fallen. Unfortunately the president continues to listen to people like Mullen and refuses to show the political courage needed.

[Subvet]

Hey Colon, I'd like to review how you came to the idiotic conclusion that Saddam was running mobile biological labs all around Iraq to avoid the weapons inspectors that your boss Dubya threw out of Iraq so he could bomb the crap out of them. That's the review I'd like to see Colon.

[edgraham]

What you said!

Powell lied about that and has never said a thing to correct that lame performance before the UN. Now he says, "There are lots of complicated issues with respect to this..." It's not complicated unless you are homophobic.

Time for Powell to tell the truth about his involvement in helping the Bush White House drag us into Iraq.

[rabrophy]

Powell is ONLY about Powell.
When it was in Powell's interest to lie for Bush: He lied for Bush
When the War went south he started sniveling about a "Stain on his record"
When it was obvious Obama would win he backed Obama
I don't know Powell's game but Powell will profit

[harriettubman]

I beg to differ. Powell speaks about what is at hand. If he were just for himself he wouldn't have pushed for equal treatment of troops during Desert Storm. He saw the mistreatment among troops in Vietnam and vowed it would never happen under his watch and it didn't.

Bush was Powell's boss. It is a known fact the hell Powell went thru with Cheney & Rumsfeld. You didn't see him go into a second term with any of them either.

When he went "south" as you call it, was when his director/friend from the FBI found out the truth and told him. Prior to that he believed all the intelligence info he received.

He backed Obama only AFTER getting to know what his ideologies were and only then. He's very methodical in that way. I am too.

I suppose the next time your boss tells you something and you later find out it wasn't true, you'll go public with it and expect to keep your job?

[Eric8869]

Colin Powell helped support a policy that discriminated based on the same rationale that was used against integrating black people in the military. Unit cohesion, they won't want to shower together, it will be a distraction etc etc - the SAME arguments.

He was a hypocrite in 1993 and he is barely saying anything now. It is why he is NEVER and will never be a hero to me. A symbol of how far black people have come while discriminating against others shameful.

But it's ok - no matter what his legacy he will forever be known for his speech to the UN trumpeting a war based on LIES. That is is legacy and I don't feel a bit sorry for him.

[jcwtts1]

It is similar but not the same. The basic assumption of DADT, and it is one I disagree with, is that gays in the military are closeted. The policy, supposedly was designed to prevent people from asking them if they were gay and summarily kicking them out. Which is what used to happen up until 1993. After DADT no one in the chain of command was allowed to ask. That didn't stop people from finding out, but the point of the law was to stop soldiers from being discharged, not to discharge more of them.

J

one last thing... blacks were drafted into military service and then segregated out. It is different when there is a draft. White America was saying you have to serve, and you have to get discriminated against. Maybe that is a distinction without a difference now a days. But I thought I would mention it.

[CigarGod]

Point taken, but "stop loss" narrows the difference gap.

[harriettubman]

Puleeze. Enough with the black/gay issue. You should know by now they're two totally different issues. Skin color and orientation are like apples and oranges.

As the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, you have conferences with all military branches to make decisions. They didn't want an openly gay military. I did a non-scientific questionaire myself once and the majority of servicemen said they did not want this repealed. Some things just do not change overnight. Yes, continue to work on it but don't repeal it until it has been thoroughly thought out.

Someone posted on here that he had a gay co-worker in the military and they allowed him separate shower time, etc. This is the kind of issue that will crop up and many more so more studying needs to go into this. Find a solution to this situation instead of saying "just do it." It doesn't work that way with this issue.

[CigarGod]

Except that just like apples and oranges....Gays and Blacks just grow that way.

The comparison of similarities is valid.

[BobSF94117]

Whether skin color and sexual orientation are like apples and oranges or not isn't the point.

Racism and homophobia ARE remarkably similar. That's the point.

[loosely coupled]

This issue is very simple. Just completely stop using sexual orientation for anything, just like we don't even stop to think about what someone's eye color is.

It is simply outrageous that in the 21st century there is a still an active policy that doesn't allow homosexual people to serve in the United States military. Imagine the shame that is felt by those who come from military families with multiple generations of service. Imagine that your father, grandpa, and great grandpa were all Marines, and you as a guy individual are unable to carry out that patriotic tradition simply because of the bigotry and discrimination of ignorant and small-minded individuals.

What a sad state of affairs..

[sense oar sheep]

more importantly, women cannot serve in primary combat roles across the board.

the day women are permitted to serve as f22 pilots, apache pilots, army rangers, usmc recon, army sf, or navy seals is the day sexual orientation will not matter.

i, for one, feel women should be permitted to volunteer for all military positions.

[lovsn12b]

I think,sadly, that THIS one policy has me more upset with Barack Obama than any other - there is simply NO reason that he could not as Commander-In-Chief issue an executive order to STOP forcing gays to leave the military and to restore their rights and pay - this whole policy is stupid and ridiculous.

[Martampa]

My sentiments exactly but my post did not make it thru the moderators. They must be touchy tonight.

[jcwtts1]

Then yell at congress to change the law? I understand why you want Obama exec it out, but his exec would do two things, one, stop all chance of actually changing the law, and two, galvanize the right. They would argue, rightly, that since this wasn't done by exec order, it is an actual federal law, that it should either be changed or repealed, not but into limbo, which is what an exec order does. Further, are you sure people get returned to their duty stations and don't simply stand down and await the clarification of the law? Of ever message you post here, send one to your congressman and your senators. They are the ones that have to move on the issue. Obama will sign a law that repeals both DOMA and DADT, both ridiculous laws. So get congress to change them.

J

[CigarGod]

DADT is limbo.
While granting a reprieve is also a form of limbo, at least they get to keep their jobs until it is decided....or indefinate­ly...which ever comes first.

[ckfan]

"The policy and the law that came about in 1993 I think was correct for the time," Powell said.

Huh? As an AA female I find this comment to be ridiculous. Why was it right in 1993 and not right now? What has changed that made it right in 1993? So when we had policies discriminating against Black soldiers was that ok before it was changed? NO.

DADT wasn't right in 1993 and it's not right now.

[Martampa]

I'm sorry but what does the AA female mean?

[Daly]

African American Female

[GrumpyinAZ]

Baron Von Steuben, the architect of gthe US Army, was gay

[harriettubman]

Ok, and someone like him needs to be on the committee to change DADT. Otherwise, a bunch of hetersexuals will not know what to do and will make a lot of mistakes making these decisions.

[denicci1977]

I disagree with Powell. There should not be a review (for what???), this entire policy is a discrimination and needs to be evaporated. What part of someone being fired from their job because of their sexual orientation is discrimination do they NOT get ?

[harriettubman]

And just what is your quick solution for introducing this into a predominantly male military for showers, housing, marriage, partnership, benefits, room mates, etc? Most states don't even recognize gay marriage but I can see that as an issue in the military too.

[gaydm]

The solution for the problem would be that all the males get over it. We gays already shower with you and have done so for centuries. We already can, and do see your little pee pee's. If some of the troops can not get over it, then discharge them.

[CigarGod]

Powells call for a review was meant as support for Mullens call for a "measured" approach.
Both meant to delay action.

[DMSmith]

He's opening the door for Obama. Someone had to. In considering the situation, they may well come to the right conclusion - that DADT must be repealed.
Consider this one thing, just one: We now have a situation where in seven states gay people can legally marry. That means that a man or women can marry, then enter the armed services to serve his/her country, but NOT be allowed to so much as mention being married, or referring to his/her partner.
Is that strange enough for you?
Let's get looking at this, so we can end it.
NOW.
I have my problems with Gen. Powel, but he's helped open the door.

[GayGrandpa]

It is one side of the coin, legalizing gay marriage and/or letting gays serve openly in the military says it is OK to be gay.

Well...isn't it?

Many Republicans have no issue with this privately but publicly have taken a less open stance because of their constituency. Still many in both parties have less difficulty with this issue. More and more it is being seen as a civil right violated.

Isn't it time to right the wrongs and to do the right thing?

Why is everyone so afraid of gay people? What is everyone so afraid of?

On the bookshelves are books like I'M OK YOU'RE OK. But when it comes to including gays into the formula all of a sudden gays are not OK.

Civil rights takes a back seat and gays are told to get to the back of the bus!

Sooner or later we must move past this.

How long before we take a more adult view on sex and begin to be more honest with ourselves, our spouses, and our children? How long before we can simply say it is OK to be gay, or straight or any other preference one may have?

What is everyone so afraid of?

I say those who are afraid or hate gays are afraid of and hate the gay within themselves!