Joe Mirabella

Congressman Dave Reichert is Either an Idiot or a Liar

Filed By Joe Mirabella | May 30, 2010 7:00 PM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: DADT repeal, Dave Reichert, Don't Ask Don't Tell, gays in the military, military

Congressman Reichert can't have it both ways. After getting blasted by bloggers, Equal Rights Washington, and his opponent Susan DelBene, Reichert issued the following statement in an attempt to back pedal from his clearly inexcusable no vote on an Amendment that could lead to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Let me be clear: I am not suggesting homosexuals should not be able to serve openly in the military. One of the greatest duties of this Congress is to protect the freedoms and liberties of all Americans. I hope we can all agree that it is unjust to deny people the right to pursue the American Dream and realize success and opportunity in the workplace. That's why I've supported legislation such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

However, I believe policy decisions affecting the military must reflect the input, perspectives, and judgment of the generals in command, and a decision on this issue must be entrusted to them. We must continue to support the men and women who are risking their lives each and every day and ensure that they have the best training and equipment available to carry out their duties.

The first sign that someone is full of it when they are talking about equal rights for gays and lesbians, is when they use the word "homosexual." "Homosexual" is a word that is exclusively used by our opponents because 1) it sounds like gays and lesbians are disordered, and 2) every poll that uses the word "homosexual" instead of "gay" or "lesbian" shows less support for our community. It is a terrible word choice and a huge red flag that the person using it is not a friend. "Homosexual" is such a bad word choice, that no respected news organization uses it when reporting about gays or lesbians.

Secondly and most importantly, Reichert's statement indicated he wanted the decision to allow gays and lesbians to serve in the military to be up to the "generals in command." Reichert should know full well he's full of it. The compromised amendment that Congress voted on last week only repeals "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," following an ongoing "working group" by the Pentagon. Then the repeal must be signed off by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President, and the Secretary of State. Then, even after those hurdles are met, a 60 day review period goes into effect, when Congress could opt to reverse its decision to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Reichert is either an idot or a liar. He either didn't understand what the amendment was about, or he thinks gay people should not be treated equally under the law and he's trying to cover for it.

Either way, Reichert is showing his true colors and must lose his seat in Congress this election. He does not represent the values of his district or the state of Washington.

Cross posted in Seattle PI

Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

Just out of curiosity, let's say the GOP takes one or both Houses of Congress in November; the Prez & Pentagon sign off of DADT repeal; the 60 day review starts: is potential Congressional halting of this review done by an act of legislation or some other means? The reason I ask is because if by legislation than the Prez can veto it which a hostile Congress is unlikely to have the vote to override. Thanks.

My understanding is that the President would have to sign off on anything Congress chooses to do during the 60 day waiting period.

His messaging is not for the LGBT community. He sees us as no threat whatsoever. He fears the homophobic bigots in his constituency -- the dog-whistling to them is loud and clear. Work to defeat him in such a way that he KNOWS his defeat is because of the 'homosexuals'.

That's just it, his district is VERY gay friendly. They voted between 60-75% to Approve Referendum 71 last November, which gave gay and lesbian couples all the same rights as married couples.

His vote makes no sense to anyone around here. It is time to fire him.

The guy is a weasel, but WE gave him the "wait to listen to the troops" spin. It resonates. That's a big problem for us.

This non-compromise, non-repeal "Repeal" will be filibustered away. It's a charade - a really bad one.

Nelson Smith | May 31, 2010 11:26 PM

It's a shame. I know Rep. Reichert personally and I have seen him vote against his party lines [rep.] but he has been slowly compromising the values he once held. Now he is in it for the votes instead of integrity.
As a sheriff of King county he supported the gays who were under his command.
I hope you read this my friend. I know you have many honorable traits but in this case you became a traitor to your conscience and a people who have been denied those things you said you would fight for.
Nelson USAF Retired
The guy who annointed you and had a group of men pray for your success in your first republican race for congress.
You Are Significant Because God Doesn't Make Mistakes or Junk

I don't like the word homosexual more than anyone else, but I have posted about the polling differences between homosexual and gay/lesbian, and they really aren't that pronounced:

I'm reading those same results differently. I see a very significant difference. Depending on the word used, we either had a strong majority support or didn't.

Rick Sours | June 2, 2010 10:09 AM

I have been out since 1972 so I remember how things were. When the word homosexual began being commonly used, it was certainly an improvement over the words previously used.