Gates: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal Could Be Vetoed Because Of Budget Battle

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert Gates says President Barack Obama could end up vetoing legislation that would lift the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

Obama supports repealing the law, and the White House has pushed for quicker congressional action than the Pentagon has favored. Gates also supports repeal.

But Gates tells "Fox News Sunday" that Obama probably still would veto an upcoming spending bill that includes the repeal – if the bill also contains money for defense projects he says are wasteful.

Gates wants to get rid of an aircraft engine and additional transport aircraft that some lawmakers want to keep. They generally represent areas with defense contractors that would stand to lose business from the cuts.

WATCH:

Comments

[taxpaying]

12:20 PM on 07/10/2010

Change we can believe in meant something on the campaign trail when candidate Obama marketed it. We believed that he would lead us to being one America, whether heterosexual or homosexual, he hasn't. Sure he talks the talk but he and his Administration do not walk the walk. My parents taught me that actions speak louder than words.

President Obama will not do anything Secretary Gates and the military brass build a case against and that is where he lacks leadership as the Commander in Chief. The Constitution gives him the right to tell them what will be done. The military is spending billions a month rebuilding other countries but failing to build respect for all of the citizens of this country that love and want to defend it. I applaud the President for firing McCrystal, but, civilian control of the military goes beyond those decisions and the President is still playing the moral thing to do card for other countries but not for the legal taxpaying citizens of this country.

[Tyler VanderMeer]

06:42 PM on 06/21/2010

I almost thinks Gates is encouraging Obama to veto this bill.

[James M Harmon]

04:46 PM on 06/21/2010

I would actually be happy to see DADT--a civil rights issue--removed from any bill that also supports imperialist policy. I don't feel that our right should be won at the expense of another's.

[The ghost of Lenny Bruce]

11:56 AM on 06/21/2010

Actually, when one considers it, DADT is just as clearly unconstitutional as "seperate but equal" laws were. Unconstitutional laws are by their very nature null and void. Thus repealing DADT is a simple matter of declaring its unconstitutionality rather than creating legislation to do so.

That is what is logical to this observer.

[whychooseaside]

07:28 PM on 06/21/2010

That is true. If it isn't going through the courts, it may not be put into the constitution when congress rolls around.

[KenClay]

07:11 AM on 06/21/2010

REPEAL DON"T ASK DON"T TELL NOW MR> PRESIDENT!

[josephRoehl]

02:59 AM on 06/21/2010

JESUS WAS GAY, OR BI, not str8, not heterosexist in the least. He never once in the Bible says a single word against male/male or female/female love.

http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/jesus.htm

In..the full text of Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the Bible) includes the passage:
"And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God".

[AdV2k1]

12:36 AM on 06/21/2010

Obama is not that stupid. He will not be happy with the garbage, but he got something he liked. You will never get a ' perfect ' bill from congress it's just not humanly possible. Take what you can get

[StevenWells]

03:01 AM on 06/21/2010

Oh, we'll take what we can get, but make no mistake: if it falls short, we certainly won't settle for it.

[zetacplus]

12:26 AM on 06/21/2010

Why am I not surprised? These bigots will try everything under the sun to continue to discriminate against gay people. They are despicable and don't deserve to lead our military.

[Jay Adams]

12:03 AM on 06/21/2010

A major problem with our govt.

Combining bills.

If you want a vote on budget, vote on budget. Don't weasle in a bunch of unrelated crap so the other side will have to accept.

Vote on budget. 51% yes, budget passes. Next order of business.

Congress is nothing more than a 3 ring circus of rich white guys (and a few tokens of race or sex thrown in).

[DrBlunt]

11:53 PM on 06/20/2010

"Gates wants to get rid of an aircraft engine and additional transport aircraft that some lawmakers want to keep. They generally represent areas with defense contractors that would stand to lose business from the cuts."

I say:

If " some lawmakers want to keep additional transport aircraft" then LET THEM PAY FOR IT THEMSELVES!

Quit The Bull$hitT!

[Mark Kraft]

11:19 PM on 06/20/2010

These Mediaite videos are lousy, and don't work well -- or oftentimes, at all -- in Firefox. Hopefully, HP will stop linking to them, and find alternative sources for their videos.

[Myoho]

11:26 PM on 06/20/2010

Look deeply.

It is not 'Reality'

[techcafe]

10:58 PM on 06/20/2010

the U.S. military industrial complex is bankrupting the country
DADT is the least of our worries at this point.

[supportamerica]

10:32 PM on 06/20/2010

I don't know the answer but I was talking with a soldier today that just got back from Afghanistan and he doesn't think it is going to be repealed. He says some of the Afghan soldiers have a problem with it.

I know, what should they care how we run our military, but he figures (the Afghan Soldier)
since we are in their country then we should have respect for them.

I personally don't care one way or the other but I just don't like seeing people jacked around by being promised one thing and then have it yanked away.

[wonketteRAWKS]

11:15 PM on 06/20/2010

Aren't there British soldiers there too?

[supportamerica]

11:52 PM on 06/20/2010

yes, but this is what an Afghan soldier said not a British one.

[Bob Kellerman]

11:53 PM on 06/20/2010

EXCUSE ME, BUT WHAT UTTER NONSENSE!

"A soldier" told you how he felt the Afghan soldiers will feel.
1-- Many Afghans do not want to see women military: did we even THINK of not sending them?
What about Jewish military? Of course not, because THOSE minorities are protected, and we have refused to protect the Gays.
2-- Somewhere in there, there is a presumption that new, conspicuously Gay soldiers will be sent over (perhaps in dresses?). What about the many Gay servicemen and women who are already there or have been there? Does "a soldier" think they will be skipping down Afghan streets singing, "I'm Gay, shoot me now"????????????????

But you are right about the jerking around --- every conceivable form of it is being tried, as your post shows.

[supportamerica]

12:15 AM on 06/21/2010

No no I didn't say the American soldier made this statement, I said the Afghan soldier made the statement TO the American Soldier. The American soldier is the son of a friend of mine. I didn't state that because it was not necessary to state the relationship to me or any one else. I said American soldier because if I said his name it wouldn't have meant anything to any body anyway.

Don't bite my head off, I didn't say I was against anything. You are reading too much into simple statements.

I am not jerking any one around, I just made a comment on what the American soldier was told. if you don't like it tough!

Obviously you put your own spin on this not mine. If I can't make a simple statement with out you going banana's then you need to lighten up some.

[MMJones]

10:32 PM on 06/20/2010

Makes me wonder, what the heck is DADT doing attached to a FUNDING bill??? This attachment of unrelated issues to bills must stop.

[Mark Kraft]

11:21 PM on 06/20/2010

It needs to be attached to the bill in order to get Republicans to vote for it, unfortunately.

Don't blame the strategy. Blame the Republicans, who hate gays so much that they'll only vote for their equality if it means more defense contractor money is headed in their direction.

[niceguysneverfinish]

11:47 PM on 06/20/2010

They are basically living in a cave with a blindfold on. I'm not surprised by their hate any, it's been their bread and butter for some time. Lately though I'm wondering if they will run out of things to hate...

[DrBlunt]

11:59 PM on 06/20/2010

"Blame the Republicans, who hate gays so much..."

Which, in all actuality, they hate many of their own colleagues (closet cases). I guess you could call them "homophobic hypocrites!"

Fan (#35) here! Faved as well!

[wonketteRAWKS]

11:22 PM on 06/20/2010

I believe in this case it is all Pentagon/Military related, but I do agree in general about attachments.

[nicohumor]

10:22 PM on 06/20/2010

If the President has to veto the bill, to get a better final draft, and even if it takes another year or two to address "don't ask, don't tell", he needs to do it. Spare and careful resource attention is critical at this stage - and the military is not immune from this fiscal spotlight.