Obama Regime Rigged “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Survey Results!

© Bridgette  WTPOTUS 2011


sEND COPIES OF THE report to senators and representatives.


Defense Department Inspector General Says,

The Fix Was In…

DADT Survey Results Written BEFORE Survey Taken!

In a 33 page report by Inspector General, Department of Defense, obtained by WND and reported today,  Feds Find Fix Was in on ‘Study’ of Homosexuality in Ranks,”  concludes that “the fix – maybe even handed down by the White House – was in before the military ever started asking soldiers and sailors about how opening the ranks to homosexuals would affect the nation’s defense.”

If you will remember the Democrats,  having suffered extreme losses during the mid-term elections, were ramming through legislation during  the Lame Duck Session before their representative’s  terms were up.   One of those laws was the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy established during Bill Clinton’s term in office in 1993  that prohibited  homosexuals from openly serving in the armed forces.  There was little debate, and few hearings on the subject as both the Democrat led House and the Senate pushed the legislation through.  One of their key arguments relied on the “Survey.”  It now appears that Congress was duped and the information misrepresented about this survey.   The report is also showing that an unknown person leaked unauthorized  information to the media.   But the Department of Defense did not correct the erroneous information.

On page 8 of the report, it reads that the Executive Summary was written by  the Defense Department’s General Counsel, Jeh Johnson.

On or about July 4, 2010, three days before Service members received the CRWG “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” survey, Mr. Johnson read portions of “an early draft” of the executive summary of the draft Report to a former news anchor, a close personal friend visiting Mr. Johnson’s home. As “a personal favor” the news anchor provided advice regarding syntax, sentence structure, and suggestions for persuasive writing. Although the former news anchor could not recall all of the portions Mr. Jolmson  [Johnson] read aloud, the former news anchor testified, “I was very pleased that finally the United States was getting around to this idea [repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ ] and I was struck by how many members of the United States Armed Services thought this was just fine.”  

We asked the former news anchor how he/she came to this conclusion regarding repeal of  “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”   The former news anchor replied that the information was in “one of the sentences I had a problem with in terms of sentence structure.”  We identified no evidence  that the Secretary of Defense approved the sharing of information with this former news anchor.

 Following are the first couple pages of the report from the Inspector General’s report.   As more of the report is read, additional information will be available in comments.




SUBJECT: Investigation of Improper Disclosure of For Official Use Only Information from the Comprehensive Review Working Group Draft Report

We recently completed an investigation in response to a request from the Secretary of Defense that we “investigate and determine the identity of the persons who were the unnamed sources” for the November 11, 2010, Washington Post front-page story, “Report: Little Risk to Lifting Gay Ban.” The story cited as its basis two people familiar with the DoD draft report on the impact of the repeal of”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” As the draft Report
was For Official Use Only (FOUO), release of information to the Washington Post would violate DoD information security requirements as set forth in Directive Type Memorandum 04-010, which prohibits unauthorized disclosure of FOUO information.

We conclude that the sources of the improper disclosure of FOUO information to the Washington Post cannot be determined based on a preponderance of evidence. We determined that the Secretary of Defense’s intent to limit the distribution of the draft Report and the dissemination of information contained in it was not always followed. Despite the Secretary of.Defense’s direction that distribution of the draft Report on November 4, 2010, be limited to 41 “Eyes-Only” recipients, 60 additional individuals to  include five White House staff members  were given access to the draft Report or were briefed on its content prior to the publication of the Washington Post story.

We interviewed 96 of the 101 individuals with access to the draft Report or
knowledge of its content. Each denied under oath that he or she disclosed information to the Washington Post or other media sources. We did not interview the White House staff members.    Evidence otherwise accessible to us was insufficient to identify the Washington Post’s unnamed sources.  Accordingly, we could not exclude the possibility that persons outside DoD provided information to the Washington Post.

We recommend that you provide the attached report to the Secretary of Defense.

Attachment: As stated

Michael S. Child
Acting Deputy Inspector General
for Administrative Investigations


INSPECTOR GENERAL                                                  Date Stamped April 08. 2011


We initiated the investigation in response to a request from the Secretary of Defense that we “investigate and determine the identity of the persons who were the unnamed sources” for the November 11, 2010, Washington Post front-page story, “Report: Little Risk to Lifting Gay Ban.”

The story cited as its basis two people familiar with the DoD draft report on the impact of the repeal of”Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (formally known as the “Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell'” and hereafter referred to as “draft Report”). The Washington Post published an on-line version of the same story the previous evening on November 10, 2010. As the draft Report was_For Official Use Only (FOUO), release of information to the Washington Post would violate DoD information security ~ requrrements as set forth in Directive Type Memorandum 04-010, “Interim Information Security Guidance,” which prohibits unauthorized disclosure of FOUO information.

We determined that the Secretary of Defense’s intent to limit the distribution of the draft Report and the dissemination of information contained in it was not always followed. Despite the Secretary of Defense’s direction that distribution of the draft Report on November 4, 2010, be limited to 41 “Eyes-Only” recipients, 60 additional individuals to include five White House
staff were given access to the draft Report or were briefed on its content prior to the publication of the Washington Post story on November 10, 2010. For instance, content from early versions of the draft Report’s executive summary was shared as early as July 2010 with a ‘former news anchor and in October 2010 with a former staff director of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

We interviewed 96 of the 101 individuals with access to the draft Report or knowledge of its content.1   Each denied under oath that he or she disclosed information to the Washington Post or other media sources. Evidence otherwise accessible to us was insufficient to identify the Washington Post’s unnamed sources. Moreover, evidence did not establish a direct connection
between the November 4, 2010, distribution of the draft Report to DoD recipients and the information that appeared in the November 10, 2010, Washington Post article. As noted above, content had been shared with several non-DoD personnel, to include White House staff members. Accordingly, we could not exclude the possibility that persons outside DoD provided 1
information to the Washington Post.

This report sets forth our findings and conclusions based on the preponderance of the evidence.

1 We did not interview the five White House staff members.



Our Honorable Armed Forces  Service men and women deserve better than a rigged survey that jeopardizes their lives and forces them to accept the unacceptable.   Will this be the final straw that breaks this administration’s back?  How will they react to the news that the Democrats pushed through a policy to appease a  minority of their voting base  and that  shows a total disregard for the majority?  Despicable and unconscionable are apt descriptions of their corrupt and criminal behavior in this matter.

61 responses to “Obama Regime Rigged “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Survey Results!

  1. From the WND story, “A source provided the IG report, which aimed to determine who prematurely released information about the study, to Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness. Donnelly analyzed the documentation and warned that it suggests Congress was deceived, probably deliberately, by those with a pro-repeal agenda.

    Congress then voted during its lame-duck session last winter for the repeal.”

    CONGRESS WAS DECEIVED. How many times are these guys going to be deceived before they wise up?

  2. Page 23
    Early evidence suggested that the primary source of the information was someone who had a strong emotional attachment to the issue of furthering a repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and probably had “assumptions going in” that the CRWG’s findings would ultimately reveal that repeal would not be supported by a majority of Service members.

    In addition, e-mails from the Washington Post reporters suggested that the source was not a “disinterested party” and other evidence showed the source carefully disclosed specific Survey data to support a pro-repeal agenda. We consider it likely that the primary source disclosed content from the draft Report with the intent to shape a pro-repeal perception of the draft Report prior to its release to gain momentum in support of a legislative change during the “lame duck” session of Congress following the November 2, 2010, elections.

  3. So who was that person with a “strong emotional attachment to the issue of furthering a repeal?”

  4. Bridgette, it occurs to me that this is a perfect case for Ed Darrell–proving that “public input” is too often a sham. Did it matter what the survey of the troops said? Nope. As I said, with far too many commissions where they gather public input, they already know what they’re going to do; they get public input to make the public feel AS IF they were heard; and then they go ahead and ignore whatever the public wants and do whatever it is the elites have already decided to do. This took it a step further, apparently, in that they already wrote the report on the results of the survey before they even did the survey. If I read this correctly. Amazing. Kabuki Theater.

    What I fear is that the meme about how Barry has to get involved in negotiating a compromise on the debt limit is more Kabuki Theater. We find today that his poll numbers on the economy are worse than ever. What better to raise his poll numbers than to stage a big freaking play at the WH, with Boehner and McConnell acting as court jesters (as Republicans too often do)? The end result–a PR coup for Barry who WILL take all credit from any good that comes of it and WILL blame the Republicans for any bad that comes of it, all together with the help of the lamestream media.

    Will the lamestream even report this travesty? Nope. Because they are all for the repeal of “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell”, and they’re all for gay marriage, and any other gay agenda for that matter. All the better to tear down American society in order to build it up again according to their plan. Note the huge amount of play “gay pride parades” got in the media lately.

    They will IMPOSE their ideology on everyone in the USA, by any means necessary, whether we like it or no.

  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeh_Johnson

    “Jeh Charles Johnson (born September 11, 1957) is an American civil and criminal trial lawyer, currently serving as General Counsel of the Department of Defense. Johnson is a graduate of Morehouse College and Columbia Law School, and is grandson of noted sociologist and Fisk University president Dr. Charles S. Johnson.

    Johnson’s first name (pronounced “Jay”) is taken from a Liberian chief who reportedly saved his grandfather’s life while Dr. Johnson was on a League of Nations mission to Liberia in 1930. …Johnson is active in Democratic Party politics, as a fundraiser and adviser to presidential campaigns. Johnson served as special counsel to John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign,and was active in Barack Obama’s presidential campaign as a foreign policy adviser and as a member of his national finance committee. … In February 2010, the Secretary of Defense appointed Johnson to co-chair a working group, along with Army General Carter Ham, to study the potential impact of a repeal of the controversial “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law. In November 2010, following an extensive study, Johnson and General Ham reported that the risk to overall military effectiveness of a repeal would be low. The report was hailed as a thorough and objective analysis.”

  6. http://www.defense.gov/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=173

    Jeh Charles Johnson was appointed General Counsel of the Department of Defense on February 10, 2009, following nomination and confirmation by the U. S. Senate. In this capacity, he serves as the chief legal officer of the Department of Defense and the legal adviser to the Secretary of Defense.

    Mr. Johnson’s legal career has been a mixture of private practice and distinguished public service. Mr. Johnson began his career in public service as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York, where he prosecuted public corruption cases. From, 1989-1991, as a federal prosecutor, Mr. Johnson tried 12 cases and argued 11 appeals.

    Mr. Johnson built upon his early career as an Assistant United States Attorney to become a successful trial lawyer in private practice at the New York City-based law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP. While at Paul Weiss, he personally tried some of the highest stakes commercial cases of modern times, for corporate clients such as Armstrong World Industries, Citigroup and Salomon Smith Barney. In 2004, Mr. Johnson was elected a Fellow in the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers.

    In October 1998, President Clinton appointed Mr. Johnson to be General Counsel of the Department of the Air Force following nomination and confirmation by the Senate. He served in that position for 27 months and returned to private law practice at Paul Weiss in January 2001.

    While in private practice, Mr. Johnson was active in numerous civil and professional activities. From 2001-2004, he chaired the Judiciary Committee of the New York City Bar Association, which rates and approves all the federal, state and local judges in New York City. Mr. Johnson is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and was a director or trustee of Adelphi University, the Federal Bar Council, the New York Community Trust, the Fund for Modern Courts, the Legal Aid Society, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the New York City Bar Fund, Inc., the Vera Institute, the New York Hall of Science and the Film Society of Lincoln Theater. He was also on the Board of Governors of the Franklin & Eleanor Roosevelt Institute.

    Following the 2008 election, Mr. Johnson served on President-Elect Obama’s transition team, and was then publicly designated by the President-Elect for nomination to the position of General Counsel of the Department of Defense on January 8, 2009, followed by formal nomination on January 20, 2009, and confirmation by the Senate on February 9, 2009.

    Mr. Johnson is a member in good standing of the Bars of New York State and the District of Columbia.

  7. In reading the report, I found no numbers representing the final totals obtained in the Survey. The survey was “distributed to 399,856 active duty and reserve component Service members on July 7, 2010, and responses to the survey were received through August 15, 2010, for inclusion in the draft Report.”

    Another paragraph on Page 21 shows how they got the high percentage number of 70% to represent a positive position for repeal.

    “We considered that the primary source’s likely pro-repeal sentiment was further demonstrated by his/her inclusion of the key 70 percent figure in the information provided to the Washington Post. We noted that to reach the conclusion that 70 percent of respondents said repeal would have positive, mixed, or no effect on a unit’s ability to work together to get a job done, the CRWG combined four survey results categories to derive the 70 percent figure: Very Positively; Positively; Mixed; and No Effect.

    If Mr. O’Keefe’s and Mr. Jaffe’s sources had desired to further an anti-repeal bias for the article, he/she could likewise have combined four results categories from that same survey question to conclude that “82 percent of respondents said the effect of repealing the ‘Don’t Ask, Don”t Tell’ policy would be negative, mixed or no effect”: Very Negatively; Negatively, Mixed, and No Effect.

    This evidence further supported testimony we obtained from a preponderance of witnesses that the Washington Post source(s) had a likely pro-repeal agenda.”

  8. So the former news anchor who edited the premature report was a close personal friend of Johnson. Would it be a good guess that it would be someone from NY?
    More about Jeh: http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Jeh_Johnson

    “When a new president vows to close a terrorist detention center, repeal a controversial policy on gays and lesbians in the U.S. military and tackle allegations of U.S. torturing enemy detainees, it doesn’t take an old Washington hand to realize he needs a loyal soldier as his chief Pentagon lawyer.

    And that’s just what President Obama has in Johnson, his Pentagon general counsel. Johnson proved his loyalty to Obama during the 2008 campaign, when he was a top fundraiser, adviser and convention delegate for the then-senator from Illinois.

    Johnson was part of Obama’s elite fundraisers known as “bundlers,” or someone who taps his personal rolodex to deliver big checks to the candidate. In Johnson’s case, he helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Obama’s warchest.

    Johnson was rewarded with the plum post as the Pentagon’s top lawyer. In that job, he was named co-chairman of an internal Pentagon study team charged with reviewing the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy along with Gen. Carter F. Ham. The team submitted its report to Congress in November 2010, which concluded that homosexuals could openly serve in the Armed Forces with minimal disruption to U.S. troops, even given the fact that they’re fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

    This appears to be about Jeh’s father of the same name:

    Click to access Jehjohnson2.pdf

    Apparently, Jeh Johnson was leaving Columbia as Barry was coming in:
    “NEW YORK, January 12, 2009 — Columbia Law School alumnus Jeh C. Johnson ’82 has been selected by President-elect Barack Obama as the nominee for general counsel of the Department of Defense.

    “In 1994 he became a partner at Paul, Weiss, where he stayed until 1998, when President Clinton appointed him general counsel of the Department of the Air Force. During his 27-month tenure, he served as chief legal officer and one of the civilian leaders of a military department of 1,700 lawyers and 500,000 personnel. Johnson was awarded the Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service.

    Since his return to Paul, Weiss, Johnson has tried some of the highest stakes commercial cases in recent years. These include the successful representation in 2005 of Citigroup in defense of a $900 million arbitration claim, the second largest ever filed with the National Association of Securities Dealers.

    Johnson taught at the Law School as a lecturer-in-law in trial practice from 1995 to 1997. At age 47, he was elected a fellow in the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Law Institute and has been active in numerous professional and community activities. He received his undergraduate degree from Morehouse College in 1979.”

  9. Fo shizzle. Here he is with wife at a soiree:

    Scroll way down there.

    • Peering In On An Adventure | Wtpotus Research Blog
      Renee | June 28, 2011 at 11:50 am
      Charles again Miri ? I am bringing your comments from across the hall over here.

      Ellen Charles greets Elizabeth Powell and other guests as they arrive at the Hillwood gala.
      NOTE names and connections.*

  10. http://hamptonroads.com/node/576082

    I think this is the WaPo story (cross posted at that link) that cited the 70% figure. This Ed O’Keefe guy has written many reports about gay issues, including gays in the military. Interesting that he’s written about Manning, too, and Jeh Johnson is involved in the Manning case. Manning, of course, iirc, is gay.

    Ed has a WaPo blog that describes him thusly: “Ed previously covered the 2008 presidential campaign for washingtonpost.com and The Washington Post. He wrote about political advertising for The Trail and Channel ’08; contributed reporting to the newspaper; produced and edited video reports from a dozen states along the campaign trail; produced and hosted the daily Post Politics Podcast and weekly “Post Politics Program” for Sirius/XM’s POTUS channel. He previously served as a producer and fill-in anchor for Washington Post Radio and as an overnight washingtonpost.com homepage editor.”

  11. Canada Free Press covered this story:

    How Congress Was Duped into Repealing Military Gay Ban

    Sometimes reading different versions of the story gives us a better understanding. This is worth reading.

  12. Page 21 Regarding the meeting held at the White House on November 9, 2010, we did not interview the White House staff members Mr. Johnson briefed regarding the draft Report’s executive summary.

    Page 13 On November 9, 2010, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Rangel were invited, with Secretary of Defense approval, to attend a meeting at the White House regarding issues related to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Participants at the meeting included:
    Mr. Denis McDonough, Deputy National Security Advisor;
    Mr. Jim Messina, Deputy White House Chief of Staff;
    Mr. Robert Bauer, White House Counsel;
    Ms. Kathy Ruemmler, Deputy White House Counsel; and
    Mr. Donald Verrilli, Jr., Associate White House Counsel.

    • I was just looking into who wasn’t interviewed among the people during the investigation…and the article Miri cited above at Canada Free Press states this about Messina.

      “Among the five presidential aides identified but not interviewed by the Inspector General was James Messina. At the time, Messina was Mr. Obama’s Deputy Chief of Staff, and his portfolio included serving as “liaison” to gay activists and their community. Interestingly, one prominent homosexual group leader has described Messina as an “unsung hero” in the campaign to repeal the 1993 law.”

      • I just ran across his name with regard to the fundraiser raffle promotion Barry filmed AT THE WH (on the other thread). Messina is now campaign manager.

    • Bauer and Ruemmler. They get around, don’t they? I wonder if Savannah Guthrie is a close personal friend of Jeh Johnson?

  13. The Center for Military Readiness
    DoD IG Report Exposes Improper Activities to Repeal Gays in Military Law
    6/27/2011 12:18:00 PM

    With White House “Spin” the Fix Was In — at Expense of the Troops

    A previously-undisclosed investigation conducted by the Department of Defense Inspector General strongly suggests that the so-called Pentagon “study” of gays in the military in 2010 was a publicly-funded, pre-scripted production put on just for show. This a link to the 30-page DoD IG report, which a concerned source sent to CMR: http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/DoD_IG-040811.pdf

    Investigation of Improper Disclosure of For Official Use Only Information from the Comprehensive Review Working Group Draft Report

    The report provides even more reasons why the administration cannot in good faith “certify” final repeal of the 1993 law.

    The “For Official Use Only” report, completed on April 8, 2011, reveals improper activities and deception that misled members of Congress in order “to gain momentum in support of a legislative change during the ‘lame duck’ session of Congress following the November 2, 1010, elections.” (p. 20)

    The Center for Military Readiness has reviewed the DoD IG Report in a Policy Analysis, available here: http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/CMR_PolicyAnalysis062111-A.pdf

    DoD Inspector General Exposes Improper Activities to Repeal Gays in Military Law (“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
    A two-page summary of the CMR Policy Analysis, including excerpts from the DoD Inspector General Report, is available here. http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/DoD_IG%20ReportAnalysis.pdf

    Executive Summary:

    In 2010 the Defense Department’s Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) commissioned an official survey of over 400,000 troops and families, and conducted scores of focus groups worldwide to seek opinions on the law usually called “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Uniformed personnel who participated in good faith were led to believe that their opinions would be heard and respected. But as early as the July 4, 2010, weekend, even before the official survey of troops began, CRWG Co-Chair and DoD General Counsel Jeh Johnson was seeking advice from a “former news anchor” on how to write the report’s Executive Summary more “persuasively.”

    The DoD IG report concluded that someone who “had a strongly emotional attachment to the issue” and “likely a pro-repeal agenda” violated security rules and leaked misleading information to the Washington Post. On November 11, 2010, the Post published a highly-misleading story suggesting that “70%” of active-duty and reserve troops surveyed by the Defense Department thought that the results of repealing the current law would be “positive, mixed, or nonexistent.”

    Pentagon officials allowed that well-spun “money quote” to dominate the news for weeks, without correction, even though substantial survey findings to the contrary were in the actual report that the CRWG officially released on November 30, 2010. The ultimate result of this travesty was a rushed vote to repeal the law regarding homosexuals in the military with delayed implementation, during the December lame-duck session of the 111th Congress.

    Investigators interviewed 96 of 101 people with access, but stopped short of questioning five named White House officials who met to discuss the draft report on November 9—just before the carefully-spun leaked story appeared in the Washington Post. One of these was James Messina, Deputy Chief of Staff for President Obama and the president’s “liaison” to LGBT activists. Messina, hailed by gay activists as an “unsung hero” in the drive to repeal the 1993 law, is now the campaign manager for President Obama’s Chicago-based re-election effort.

    The purpose of the contrived CRWG process was to neutralize military opposition to repeal of the law by manufacturing an illusion of support. The administration misused military personnel, resources, and facilities to help President Obama to deliver on political promises to gay activists at the expense of unknowing troops who became props in the pro-repeal campaign.

    The 112th Congress should question White House officials who were not interviewed by the DoD IG, and do everything possible to repair the damage done to our military.


  14. Still no media coverage..nothing on Drudge. Can’t imagine why the leftist media doesn’t want to cover the story!

  15. Pentagon IG Report on Gay Leak Names Obama Campaign Manager Jim Messina
    6.28.11 @ 2:23PM Snips

    A 30-page report from the inspector general for the Department of Defense names President Obama’s re-election campaign manager as one of the White House officials briefed on a confidential Pentagon task force survey about repealing the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy, the day before a Washington Post story leaked a misleading description of the survey results.

    In fact, the CRWG survey of military personnel found that 29.7% of respondents believed there would be a negative impact to repealing the prohibition on open homosexuals in the service, compared to 18.4% who believed it would have a positive impact. Another 32.1% of respondents believed repealing DADT would have a “mixed” impact, while 19.9% said it would have “no impact.”

    The Post story described the report’s result: “More than 70 percent of respondents . . . said the effect of repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy would be positive, mixed or nonexistent, said two sources familiar with the document.”

    Messina, known as a “fixer” for the Obama administration, was praised as “unquestionably one of the great unsung heroes of DADT repeal” by Joe Solomonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a leading gay-rights group. According to an article in the liberal magazine The Nation, Messina and Solomonese “stood side by side on the Senate floor as the bill cleared the body on December 18. When the sixtieth vote came in, Solmonese said, Messina began to cry. After it was all over, Messina touted repeal as a major victory for the administration and an example of Obama’s commitment to his base.”

    Messina, a former top aide to Montana Democrat Sen. Max Baucus, served as chief of staff on Obama’s 2008 campaign and was announced in January as campaign manager for the president’s 2012 re-election effort.


    • Page 16

      Witnesses testified that the key leaked data point cited in the Washington Post, as well as other media outlets and politicians following the improper disclosure, was the survey statistic that “more than 70 percent of respondents … said the effect of repealing the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy would be positive, mixed or nonexistent.” According to one public affairs officer, “This 70 percent figure got everybody’s attention.”

      We observed that the 70 percent figure reported in the media, while present in draft Report’s executive summary, was derived from just one of the 102 survey questions submitted to Service members. The relevant survey question asked the following:

      If ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect how Service members in your immediate unit work together to get the job done? The survey question yielded the following responses:
      Very Positively 6.6%
      Positively 11.8%
      Mixed 32.1%
      Negatively 18.7%
      Very Negatively 10.9%
      No Effect 19.9%

      • Look how ridiculous their conclusion is versus what the question was. The question was very specific, applying to a Service member’s OWN UNIT, where a known gay or lesbian worked with the person. How would it affect their ability to do the job? I’m surprised that over 29% said it would impact the job negatively.

        Our brave, loyal, wonderful troops are trained to GET THE JOB DONE no matter what impediments may exist. So of course most will say it won’t have much effect.

        In addition, the VAST MAJORITY of people who oppose gay “rights” on an intellectual or religious basis don’t allow their VIEWS to affect their BEHAVIOR towards gays with whom they live or work. Who doesn’t know a gay person or have a gay family member? How many people do you know who oppose gay marriage or gays in the military who personally take their views out on every gay person they encounter? They DON’T. It’s a canard that opposing gay rights equals violent homophobia and discrimination.

        Most people treat gays as they treat other people, even if they oppose gay marriage or gays in the military. It’s insulting to religious people, especially, to assume they have no compassion for gays and ordinarily “shun” them in polite society. It seldom happens.

        Most people will work well with others, despite their sexual preference, which is mostly unrelated to a job, anyway. So yes, most people would say little or no effect. Especially in a military situation, where orders are orders and they make things happen because that’s their job and they’re going to do it, no matter what.

        So it’s a loaded question, designed to get a result they can distort.

        Consider that “mixed” response. They probably knew that offering an option like “mixed” would elicit a big number that they could use to distort. Of course, there are mixed effects. Thinking people–and one expects that most in our military ARE thinking people–given a “mixed” option on ANY question about ANY topic, will choose “mixed” because it’s hard to imagine ANY change that won’t have “mixed” effects. Loaded question. They knew a large percentage would choose “mixed” and they knew they’d lump ALL the “mixed” into the “positive” category.

        If you add up only the positive and negative categories, you get 18.4% positive versus 29.6% negative. Almost a third of the troops said NEGATIVE. That’s huge, when you consider military culture. Nearly a third said it would affect getting the job done.

        Consider the “no effect” category. That category could include many who oppose the elimination of DADT, but who know that they will still follow orders and make it work, no matter what.

        Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

    • Did the lamestream media ridicule Messina for crying? Yes, a perfect example of “Obama’s commitment to HIS base.” A perfect example of how they operate: Lie, mislead, distort, by any means necessary, to ram through what they want, no matter WHAT the PEOPLE want. Dictatorship, by any means necessary.

  16. ‘Don’t ask’ leak can’t be traced by Department of Defense Inspector General


    • I didn’t realize that report mentioned Ed O’Keefe! He’s the guy whose story I found about this subject yesterday. So he IS one of the guys being investigated. Considering that distorted stat about 70% and the fact that nearly 30% of troops said it would have a NEGATIVE effect on units, look at the opening line of O’Keefe’s distorting story

      “A Pentagon study group has concluded that the military can lift the ban on gays serving openly in uniform with only minimal and isolated incidents of risk to the current war efforts, according to two people familiar with a draft of the report, which is due to President Obama on Dec. 1. ”

      Who would characterize nearly a third as MINIMAL and ISOLATED?

      From the Politico story [my comments in italics]: “As early as July 4, 2010, DoD General Counsel Jeh Johnson read some of the draft to a friend, a former television news anchor, according to the IG report, which concluded that there was ‘no evidence that the Secretary of Defense approved the sharing of information with this former news anchor.’ [Still trying to id that former TV news anchor.]

      The IG investigation also revealed that in addition to 55 “eyes-only” readers and 26 additional authorized readers who were exposed to the Pentagon report, 15 people not authorized to read the report had access to the draft or had the report read to them. [Would these 15 be members of the Cabalist? Among the group of media who help Barry “contain” unfortunate stories about his gaffes, for example? Or are these the personal friends of Jeh Johnson, DC social butterfly?] The IG report reviewed more than 55,000 emails and hundreds of phone records from persons of interest in the leak and identified 101 people who had access to the draft report, but was only able to interview 96 of them. The five who were not interviewed were all White House staffers; the IG gave no reason in its report why those five people were not interviewed [Hmmmm. Wonder why the IG didn’t interview them and why the IG can’t find the leaker. Put two and five together and guess what? There’s your leaker, protected by the POTUS. Ya think? ]…

      On Nov. 11, 2010, one day after the Post’s story appeared on its website, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell corresponded with reporter O’Keefe, with Morrell telling O’Keefe, ‘You are being taken for a ride to some degree here because this [draft Report] is far more nuanced and complex a study than you have reduced it to in your story this morning.’ .[It almost sounds as if Morrell knew who was taking O’Keefe for a ride. ] …

      An analysis released by the Center for Military Readiness accompanying the IG report echoed that complaint, with CMR alleging that the Post’s sources were spinning the Pentagon report on the military policy for gay servicemembers. CMR opposes the repeal of “don’t ask.”

      CMR called the Post’s story ‘highly misleading’ and wrote that ‘Pentagon officials allowed that well-spun “money quote” to dominate the news for weeks, without correction, even though substantial survey findings to the contrary were in the actual report that the [Comprehensive Review Working Group] officially released on November 30.’ [The Pentagon press guy, Morrell, told O’Keefe he distorted but O’Keefe didn’t correct his story. However, Morrell could have released his own correction to the press, don’t you think? IF HE WERE ALLOWED TO.]

      The “don’t ask” policy’s repeal will likely be enacted by Gates’s successor, Leon Panetta.”

      The one thing that Burgess Everett leaves out of his story is the apparent FACT that Jeh Johnson was writing and sharing the REPORT on the RESULTS BEFORE THE SURVEY WAS EVEN GIVEN TO THE TROOPS. That’s huge. Don’t you think?

    • Did you catch that qualifier? They can’t identify the leaker “based on a preponderance of evidence.” So I betcha they have an awful lot of evidence, maybe a lot of circumstantial evidence, but no smoking gun like a recording or an email or testimony from the reporters. By how often would investigators be lucky enough to find that kind of evidence? They should subpoena the reporters. Risen, in the CIA leak case, is being subpoenaed, iirc, so why not these guys? I bet they know the leaker but are protecting the leaker. How about asking Jeh Johnson under oath? Oh, wait. They didn’t interview him, did they?

      • I picked out what look to me to be important parts of that report:

        We were unable to review all e-mails for one person of interest because certain back-up tapes were destroyed due to a non-related data spill, which occurs when classified information is sent or stored on an unclassified network and media. page 3

        certain personnel [were required] to sign a two-part non-disclosure agreement that prohibited unauthorized disclosure of the survey data and the draft Report outside of official duties[should have included Jeh Johnson];The non-disclosure agreement forms were destroyed per routine CRWG administrative processes prior to our request for the documents. Accordingly, documentary evidence was insufficient to establish which specific personnel signed the non-disclosure agreement and CRWG officials were unable to identify everyone who signed the agreement. However, testimony confirmed that some CRWG members who did not sign the non-disclosure agreement had verbally committed to non-disclosure with Mr. Johnson. page 5

        Although the former news anchor could not recall all of the portions Mr. Johnson read aloud, the former news anchor testified[under oath], “I was very pleased that finally the United States was getting around to this idea [repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’], and I was struck by how many members of the United States Armed Services thought this was just fine.” We asked the former news anchor how he/she came to this conclusion regarding repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The former news anchor replied that the information was in “one of the sentences I had a problem with in terms of sentence structure.” We identified no evidence that the Secretary of Defense approved the sharing of information with this former news anchor. [but maybe someone HIGHER up in the chain of command did?]page 5

        By memorandum dated October 7, 2010, Mr. Johnson provided the Deputy Secretary of Defense with a read-ahead for a scheduled October 8, 2010, update on CRWG efforts. The memorandum cited several statistics regarding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal impact on Service members as derived from CRWG survey results and summarized, in part, that 53.6 percent of Service members said repeal would have a neutral impact … 16. 7 percent said repeal would have a positive impact. In other words, just over 70 percent of Service members believe repeal either has a neutral or positive impact on unit cohesion, readiness, effectiveness and morale … The memorandum concluded “Overall, it is the sense of both ofus [CRWG co-chairs] that in the course of the review, the military community is becoming more accustomed to the idea of repeal.” pages 5-6

        On October 14, 2010, the health care policy editor for the Center for American Progress sent an e-mail to a CRWG member, subject “Study being leaked?” page 6 [So see how early the study was being leaked. Isn’t Center for American Progress Podesta’s thing? Check it out: http://www.americanprogress.org/experts Could any of these be the leaker? Don’t make me laugh. They are outraged about leaks when they share information with a cabal of progressive obots who live by the motto, “by any means necessary?”]

        By e-mail dated October 23,2010, GEN Ham advised Mr. Johnson that “leaks are beginning. A trusted friend informed me that she was asked yesterday by a reporter if it was true that 70 percent of the survey respondents indicated that repeal of the law would not be a big idea.” Mr. Johnson replied by e-mail, “Do you think it is a DoD source? SecDef mentioned that number [70 percent] to POTUS [President of the United States] this past week …. ” We interviewed GEN Ham’s “trusted friend” who confirmed communicating with GEN Ham but could not recall the identity of the reporter who inquired concerning leaked “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” survey statistics. [Scooter Libby went to jail for his faulty memory.] page 6

        On October 28, 2010, “NBC Nightly News” aired a story revealing that the CRWG survey results showed the majority of Service members did not believe repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would be disruptive. … [NBC] has learned from military sources that the survey of U.S. troops find the majority would either not object to serving alongside openly gay troops or would raise any concerns directly with their gay peers.page 6

        On October 29, 2010, Mr. Johnson, in his own words, “took the liberty of privately showing the executive summary” to retired Marine Corps Major General Arnold Punaro, Chief Executive Officer of the Punaro Group. Mr. Punaro visited with Mr. Johnson and his principal assistant in Mr. Johnson’s office and reviewed the executive summary of the draft Report for approximately 30 minutes. Mr. Punaro testified that he did not consider Mr. Johnson’s request unusual because Mr. Punaro had “tremendous background and expertise in this area,” having served as the staff director for the Senate Armed Services Committee during the Clinton Administration’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” period of activity. We identified no evidence that the Secretary of Defense approved the disclosure of this information to Mr. Punaro. page 7 [Punaro: http://www.cnas.org/node/4820 Maybe someone higher up approved it? Punaro from Clinton DADT timeframe. Hmmm.]

        On November 4, 2010, Mr. Johnson approved a request from Mr. [Douglas] Wilson, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, to read the draft Report. Mr. Wilson, accompanied by his primary “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” spokesperson, reported to Mr. Johnson’s conference room, where Mr. Johnson permitted both to read the draft Report. Mr. Wilson and the spokesperson only had time to read the executive summary. We identified no evidence that the Secretary of Defense authorized Mr. Wilson or the spokesperson to read any portion of the draft Report. pages 10-11 [Wilson, another Clintonista: http://www.defense.gov/bios/biographydetail.aspx?biographyid=244 ; again, maybe somebody higher up authorized it. Hmmm?]

        We obtained testimony indicating that although Mr. O’Keefe was not customarily assigned as a Washington Post reporter covering issues at the Pentagon, he was considered the lead Washington Post reporter on issues related to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” page 14

        By e-mail dated November 9, 2010, !2:19pm, Mr. Greg Jaffe, a lead Washington Post Pentagon reporter, wrote to GEN Ham, in part, We recently spoke at length with someone who has read the 250 page [“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”] report and are preparing a story. The source reached out to us because he was concerned the process was being politicized. I would like to run what were (sic) told past you to make sure we are not getting spun. Our source has read the document and we feel like he is a good source. But he is also not a totally disinterested party and we would like to talk to someone – like you – who does not have a dog in the fight. Within minutes of this initial e-mail, Mr. Jaffe sent virtually identical e-mails to the Special Assistant for Public Affairs to the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff; the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Media Operations; GEN Peter Chiarelli, U.S. Army, Vice Chief of Staff; Mr. Geoff Morrell, Pentagon Press Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Mfairs; and Mr. Wilson. Some of these individuals replied to Mr. Jaffe, but only to state, in essence, “no comment.”page 14 [Under orders to have “no comment?” To allow the mischaracterization in the “leak” to be published? Hmmmm?]

        E-mail and testimony established that Mr. O’Keefe was the primary writer of the article and, further, was the reporter in direct dialogue with the primary source of the improperly released FOUO information from the CRWG draft Report. page 14 [It becomes apparent that the source was concerned about politicization by OPPONENTS of the repeal, when in actuality it was the opposite–proponents were politicizing and “mischaracterizing” this. It seems as if once the military got wind of how it would be spun in the report, “grumpy” ones among them started to complain and perhaps they would have had to backtrack and CORRECTLY characterize the data instead of “mischaracterizing” it. What say u?]

        We compared portions of Washington Post’s article with the version of the draft Report distributed on November 4, 2010. All of the relevant facts in the article were contained in the executive summary of the draft Report. According to testimony, Mr. Johnson was the primary author ofthe executive summary. page 15

        By e-mail dated November 11, 2010, Mr. Morrell advised Mr. Wilson that he had spoken with Mr. O’Keefe about the source and the source’s motivation: This is someone who not only had access to all the [draft] report’s findings, but also worked on producing it. He/she feels as though the working group did good/hard work, blew away his/her assumptions going in and was worried the report’s findings would be discredited by anti-repeal forces. According to O’Keefe, this person ultimately ‘wants what [SecDef] Gates wants … for the report to be considered thoughtfully.‘ ADM Mullen’s senior public affairs officer described a reporter including in his story a detailed description of his source as “unusual.” He elaborated, Typically it is unusual to see a reporter characterize the motivation of the leaker … that is kind of unusual. You do not normally see that…. They do not even usually say it was leaked by a military official or a staffer. They do not usually even identify sort of the cone around which it came from. page 17

        GEN Ham replied to Mr. Wilson’s proposed course of action by e-mail dated November 11, 2010, stating, in part, “May be better to just deal with the unauthorized disclosure very quickly by initiating an investigation today. We know by name who has copies of the report.” He added, “My recommendation is that we not comment in anyway about the information in the Washington Post article.” page 17 [They followed Wilson’s advice and said nothing about the quality of the information.]

        It seems to me that Jeh Johnson was handing out stuff left and right, while pretending to try to control access, and then (do I read this right?) trying to limit access by Service members who might get “grumpy”. See page 12 Especially pertinent points:

        1. Jeh Johnson wrote the executive summary BEFORE the survey was even done.

        2. The 70% inaccurate statistic came from the executive summary and the investigation showed that the leaked information came from the executive summary. See the appendices for a boffo example of detective work!

        3. Jeh Johnson, therefore, wrote the mischaracterization of the statistics or that leaker who helped produce it did.

        4. Jeh Johnson was mostly the one sharing information without approval from Sec. of Defense. Appendix E.

        5. Jeh Johnson briefed others in a WH meeting the day before O’Keefe published his story; he briefed the WH on the executive summary; five staffers at that meeting were not interviewed.

        6. Since Johnson is a lawyer, how likely is it he’d be this sloppy with “for eyes only” information, especially since he should have signed a non-disclosure pact? That is, unless he knew he had cover.

        7. October 23, 2010, POTUS given 70% figure. Five days later, NBC News reports about it. NBC NEWS! Who was a WH correspondent then? Who went probably knew her from Law School?

        • After reading it, and it is quite an interesting read don’t you think? They couldn’t reach any conclusion?

          Page 20
          However, we note that as early as July 4, 2010, content from the draft Report began to be shared with unauthorized individuals, including two people outside the Federal Government and White House staff members. Additionally, some of that content appeared in the media in October 2010 as unauthorized leaks from anonymous sources prior to the Washington Post article of November 10, 2010, which contained specific CRWG survey statistics and conclusions.

          • Person #1 is the person that helped “Tweek” the report. Who is person #2?

          • It was made certain that they couldn’t reach a conclusion, BEYOND a PREPONDERANCE of the “evidence”. Deleted email and destroyed non-disclosure statements. WH people not interviewed at all, much less under oath (Ruemmler or Bauer–exempt as lawyers? What was Libby?). I think a process of elimination points to the usual suspects. The FACT that they wouldn’t even comment about the inaccuracy of the leaked information and that they didn’t correct it asap shows that not only did the leaker want the lie to stand, somebody else wanted to make sure the lie would stand, at least until after Congress voted, using misleading statistics. This calls for a CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION, WITH SUBPOENAS. Let the WH refuse and fall back on executive privilege. Doesn’t anybody in Congress give a rat’s patoot that they were duped (again)?

            It’s interesting reading but long and boring. Even my excerpts are probably too boring for most. This is a HUGE STORY, Bridgette, and I see nothing in the lamestream. Every person in Congress who voted to repeal based upon this false report should be furious. The troops should be furious that their voices were IGNORED and MISCHARACTERIZED. Anybody who cares about the troops should be furious. And now Panetta is going to “implement” the repeal. It’s disgusting.

  17. Page 21 Regarding the meeting held at the White House on November 9, 2010, we did not interview the White House staff members Mr. Johnson briefed regarding the draft Report’s executive summary. (See page 13 for WH Staff)

    However, we considered it more likely than not that his briefing presented the same information from the executive summary that later appeared in the Washington Post on November 10,2010, as Mr. Johnson was the primary author of the executive summary and he testified that he “briefed them [White House staff] the substance of what the report said …. ” We did not review non-DoD or White House staff e-mail and phone records. Accordingly, we could not exclude the possibility that persons outside DoD may have disclosed the FOUO information from the draft Report.

    • Yeah. And they couldn’t exclude the possibility that the leaker was one of the WH staff they didn’t investigate or ANYBODY ELSE in the WH privy to the same information. Who has a big mouth? I can think of several.

  18. Miri..can you get into Yahoo mail today? I can’t.. it just spins and spins and then tells me I entered the wrong URL.

    • Yep. I was in it. I sometimes have problems with getting in. Well, not with getting in but with having it spin and spin, saying “loading”, and sometimes it never comes up with the mail. Most irritating is when it does this “loading” crap after I’ve written a message, believe that I sent it, and then it loses my message. Sometimes, if I log out, close browser, clear cookies and history, and re-open the browser, it works again. I get messages sometimes saying I’ve hit upon a problem they’re aware of. I don’t know what the deal is. I suspect they don’t know either. Did you try going to the Yahoo! website and trying to access it from there?

    • If you were going to update your post or write more about this, feel free to remove my long, boring excerpts and use them as you like. Didn’t know whether to put them here or send in a message, since your mail is screwy.

  19. June 14, 2011

    Gates open to ending ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ before leaving
    By Ed O’Keefe

    Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates says he sees no barriers to ending the ban on gays in the military and would endorse ending it before he leaves the Pentagon later this month if top military service chiefs say troops are ready for the change.

    The policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” will be repealed once President Obama certifies — in consultation with Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen — that the military is ready to lift the ban.

    “I think people are pretty satisfied with the way this process is going forward,” Gates said in an interview with the Associated Press on Monday. “I think people have been mildly and pleasantly surprised at the lack of pushback in the training.”


  20. As a Vietnam Veteran I think most military personnel are pretty upset with the way Secretary of Defense Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mullen have intentionally disregarded the results of every survey of military personnel on this issue.

    • Thanks for weighing in, RacerJim. It’s disgusting, too, that the lamestream media doesn’t even report this travesty. The Dems and Obama all pay lip service to respecting and honoring the troops (or, as Barry says, the troopsssssss). YET on this issue they not only don’t honor the wishes of the troops, they PRETEND to listen to them and then LIE about what they’ve said. They make dupes out of all the service people who bothered to weigh in on the issue, falsely believing that their voices would be heeded.

      Not only do they intentionally disregard, but they also LIE about what the military personnel said. Not to mention, they’re ignoring the expert opinion of the very troops who need unit cohesiveness. This will affect unit cohesiveness and ruin morale. It should be no surprise to anyone who’s paying attention that Obama has and will politicize EVERYTHING he touches, but one would think that the military leaders would have the courage to stand up to him for the sake of the troops, instead of caring about their own careers. LTC Lakin has courage. Where’s theirs?

  21. A few more articles that mention this issue:


    “One of the more sordid moments in recent congressional history came during December’s lame-duck session. Democratic majorities on both sides of Capitol Hill rammed through a controversial repeal of the 1993 statute (wrongly described as “don’t ask, don’t tell”) that prohibited avowed homosexuals from serving in the armed forces.

    The Senate and House leadership did so with scarcely any hearings and extremely limited opportunity for debate. This action amounted to a raw abuse of power, a last gasp by an Obama administration able and determined to appease homosexual activists – a key political constituency – before the setbacks of November’s elections made doing so vastly more difficult.

    We now know, however, that it was a gambit made possible by deliberate efforts by senior executive branch officials to mislead Congress into taking a step that the administration’s own surveys had established would be deeply injurious to the U.S. military. Thanks to the release of a previously undisclosed Defense Department inspector general’s (IG) investigation report, recently analyzed by the invaluable Center for Military Readiness (CMR), legislators have the proverbial “smoking gun” revealing politically motivated misconduct at the highest levels of government.

    Evidently, this misconduct was deemed necessary because, even with control of both the House and Senate in friendly hands, President Obama required Republican votes in the upper chamber to secure passage of his repeal initiative. In order to garner the support of swing GOP senators, they would have to be given political cover on a key question: How would the military respond to such a dramatic change in its traditions, culture and code of conduct?

    The IG report makes clear that a skewed response was manufactured and leaked to friendly journalists by top Pentagon and White House officials. Specifically, an executive summary of a Defense Department survey was written by the department’s general counsel, Jeh C. Johnson, before the survey was even begun on July 7, 2010.

  22. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Security/Default.aspx?id=1380470

    “A conservative military watchdog says a previously undisclosed investigation by the Department of Defense inspector general strongly suggests the Pentagon’s alleged “study” of homosexuals in the military in 2010 was a publicly funded, “pre-scripted” production.

    On November 11, 2010, The Washington Post published a story suggesting that 70 percent of active duty and reserve troops were not concerned about repealing the law that banned homosexuals from military service. The findings were supposedly based on the results of a Defense Department-commissioned survey of more than 400,000 troops and their families.

    But Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness (CMR), says a recently disclosed 30-page report [PDF] from the investigation reveals that the “fix was in.”

    “The results of the Pentagon survey had actually been pre-scripted as early as July of 2010, even before the survey of the troops went out,” she explains. “Somebody leaked to The Washington Post a highly misleading story. It misrepresented the views of the troops and suggested that…about 70 percent of them were just fine with repeal of the law on gays in the military.” So Donnelly concludes that the administration was misusing the troops. “They were used as props in a campaign to create the illusion of military support for repeal of the law,” the CMR president summarizes. “All of this was done to help the president to deliver on a political promise.”

    She is critical of the Post’s handling of the matter. “The Post received and published a contrived story that substantially misrepresented the profound concerns of combat troops and Marines,” she says in a press release. “Had survey results been presented accurately, the 111th Congress probably would not have rushed to repeal the law during the December lame-duck session.”

    The CMR president is calling on 112th Congress to mount a full-scale investigation and to do everything possible to repair the damage done to the U.S. military.”

    Yeah. Where’s that investigation? We can’t even find this in the NEWS. Who exactly were those Republican votes that got political cover from this LIE fed to the media and the people, to the detriment of the troops, by any means necessary? RINOs, please stand up.

  23. So much going on it’s hard to keep up. Did you see how the 9th Court of Appeals, ON CUE, lifted their stay and they now say that “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” must be removed (repealed) immediately because it’s unconstitutional? They actually cited in their reasoning that OBAMA has said that it’s unconstitutional. So now a COURT doesn’t make its own determination on constitutionality, it defers to the POTUS? All they’re waiting for now, to put the repeal into effect, is certification from the military that this won’t harm the troops. In light of the discovery that the survey OF the troops was rigged, can we expect the military leaders who REPORT to Barry, after all, to say it will be harmful to repeal DADT? Where is Congress on this travesty? http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/07/07/ninth-circuit-orders-end-to-dont-ask-dont-tell/


    No mention of the investigation that proved the results were written up even before the survey was taken. Congress was misled, which caused them to vote for the repeal because they believed the troops were fine with it. And We the People were misled, too.

    • I added this to the blog for that article at the Wall Street Journal. It is posted now, but may not remain. There are 7 comments..the others are for the repeal. Will my comment be attacked along with me?

      3:16 pm July 7, 2011
      In a 33 page report by Inspector General, Department of Defense, “Feds Find Fix Was in on ‘Study’ of Homosexuality in Ranks,” concludes that “the fix – maybe even handed down by the White House – was in before the military ever started asking soldiers and sailors about how opening the ranks to homosexuals would affect the nation’s defense.” The statistics were reported incorrectly to the public and the results were the opposite of saying the military personnel wanted to repeal. The official report has not been reported by the media. The Official Report and investigation: http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/DoD_IG-040811.pdf Who was behind the misrepresentation of the real survey results? The results given to Congress and the public were based on ONE question, not the entire survey. The results of the survey were written prior to the survey being completed by the military.

      Why is the WSJ not reporting on this?

    • People…This is another request to send the Official Report to your Senators and Representatives!

  24. Court: ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ will stay in place
    July 16, 2011 Snips

    LOS ANGELES (AP) — The military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy is back in place for the time being, with one major caveat: the government is not allowed to investigate, penalize or discharge anyone who is openly gay.

    A San Francisco federal appeals court ordered the military to temporarily continue the controversial policy in an order late Friday, the court’s response to a request from the Obama administration.

    The order is the latest twist in the legal limbo gay service members have found themselves in as the policy is fought in the courts simultaneous to its slow dismantling by the federal government, which expects to do away with it by later this year.

    In its three-page ruling, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the ruling was based on new information provided by the federal government, including a declaration from Major General Steven A. Hummer, who is leading the effort to repeal the policy.

    “In order to provide this court with an opportunity to consider fully the issues presented in the light of these previously undisclosed facts,” the court wrote, that it would uphold an earlier order to keep the policy in place. {What facts by pro repeal Hummer?]


    • I just heard on the radio (news) the other day that Chaplains and other military clergy/personnel will not be allowed to marry people of the same gender on any military property, such as ships, bases, chapels, etc.

  25. A Friday afternoon surprise. Panetta’s ready to dump Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.


    They’re repeating the meme, still:

    “A survey of U.S. troops last year found that some two-thirds didn’t care whether the ban was lifted. Opposition to the repeal was strongest among combat troops, particularly Marines.

    But as training has gone on this year, senior military leaders have said they have seen no real problems.”

    Two-thirds of the troops “don’t care.” Right.

    Who don’t care are the SENIOR military leaders (who care most about their careers) and the asshats in the administration who ordered the rigging and false reporting of the results of the survey. And the complicit media who studiously will NOT report the TRUTH. Just Barry’s “truth”.

    • The communist sympathizer Panetta is now helping to enact a law that has at its base, total dishonesty in reporting the survey results of the military to the American people and military personnel. Pametta is also catering to the base for Barry’s reelection votes, not for the good of the country. This is a totally political mov e, not a move that benefits the country. Wish we could send the usurper in chief to boot camp as an enlisted man and see how he likes it. I doubt he could make it through the first two weeks, but he might learn the difference between the two words corpse and corps!

      “Repeal of the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly will thus be one of Panetta’s first major acts since taking office earlier this month. He replaced Robert Gates, who called for elimination of the policy but pushed for the process to be gradual.” [Yeah, let’s get it done for votes!]

      We have seen how hard boot camp is on normal men in films and documentaries and heard it from men who have served. Will the newly uncloseted men in the military start calling fowl and think they are being singled out? You better believe it. If gays think they are harassed in society now, they have no idea what they are in for when they get into the armed forces. Diversity or not, acceptance can’t be forced on people. The majority are being forced to accept the minority and to accept a societal taboo as normal. Watch the lawsuits fly!

      • This was only step one. Step two in the works and already being reported on: How will gays get equal treatment as far as “benefits” go? Married gays will expect paid housing, health insurance, survivor’s benefits, etc.–same as truly married couples. But wait! That supposedly is against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), so they MUST repeal it or have a court rule it unconstitutional. See? EXCEPT it’s bogus. There is no discrimination. Unmarried couples who live together get no benefits, so why should gays? No discrimination. These people do not CARE what THE PEOPLE want. They will FORCE their ideology on the majority, by any means necessary. They will lie, cheat, steal, whatever it takes. This country is already getting buried under debt because of too many socialist benefits being paid by the taxpayers. We don’t need to ADD more dependents for the taxpayers to support. This is RIDICULOUS. But it’s Alinsky incrementalism at its worst.

        Exactly, Bridgette! They want to make us grovel. They want to FORCE us into “acceptance”. They DO want to make something that IS abnormal, by definition, “normal”.

  26. Watch the lawsuits fly? LOL!!!! Watch the short sheets multiply! !!! And the quanset huts sound like the loca zoos IN THE LION AREA. NO DI will venture into the short sheet area until after the yelling and screaming has subsided and then only to check for property damage to the building. But that was 50+ years ago and I have the idea it hasn’t changed very much. Hope not. SEMPER FI!!

  27. Commander in chief Obama creates ‘San Francisco Military’
    Soldiers ‘misused to create impression military people don’t care about issue’

    Posted: July 22, 2011 Snips

    A critic of Barack Obama’s campaign to use the U.S. military to pay off a campaign promise to promote homosexuality in the ranks says today’s “certification” of the repeal of the longstanding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” practice means the president now has created a “San Francisco Military.”

    “It is not surprising that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, and President Barack Obama would pull the trigger on the military on a Friday afternoon, making it less likely that anyone will report on the many ‘thorny issues’ and serious social problems expected to ensue,” said Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness.

    “Nevertheless, on the day that President Obama signs a paper ‘certifying’ that no harm will come to the military when repeal is implemented, he will own the San Francisco Military that he has created,” she said.

    “The Friday afternoon move indicates that this is nothing to be proud of. It is an obvious political payoff to activists of the (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) LGBT Left, delivered at the expense of combat soldiers and Marines whose voices were heard but ignored during last year’s Pentagon ‘Working Group’ process that was put on just for show,” she said.

    Today’s action follows extensive training of our military personnel and certification by Secretary Panetta and Adm. Mullen that our military is ready for repeal. As of Sept. 20th, service members will no longer be forced to hide who they are in order to serve our country.”

    However, the White House promotion of the its action did not even mention a study by the government itself that concluded the “fix” was in for the promotion of homosexuality in the military whether it would create damage or not.


    • This alert was posted one month ago BEFORE Obama signed this into law and no media anchor covered the FIX. The information was sent to Senators and Reps saying they were duped but no one took it upon themselves to investigate! The survey information was also sent to media persons and they also didn’t cover this issue either. Now fully a month later and after Obama signed this law, WND is reporting on it for a second time. The issue regarding the fixed survey results to dupe the military and US citizens was under the leftist media’s wall of silence.

      Thanks to the media and especially to those in the Lame Duck Congress who voted to repeal DADT for a few Minority votes at the expense of our military personnel and our nation. The greatest military in the world was hijacked by a few ideologues intent on transforming our nation and they put their stamp on the military through lies and deceit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s