Grays Harbor wrote:Neo Art wrote:Grays Harbor wrote:conservatives by and large support this program, but it should be remembered that it was instituted by Clinton.
No it wasn't "instituted" by Clinton, it was a law passed by a (Republican controlled) congress. True, Clinton signed it, but the alternative of course was to continue to allow the old policy of "gays can't serve, PERIOD" to continue.
It's not simply Presidentially mandated military policy. If it were, Obama could undue it with a stroke of a pen. It's federal law, instituted BY CONGRESS and only CONGRESS can undue it.
It was instituted by Clinton in as much the same manner as policies instituted by any president are. They are in the hot seat, they get the blame or kudos. live with it. not saying that is right or wrong, but thats the way it is. and if he truly objected that much to it, there is always the "red pen of veto" handy.
Beyond showing a misunderstanding of checks and balances AND relevant history, this is an irrelevant side issue. Who "instituted" DADT isn't the point. The point is that sexual orientation is irrelevant to one's ability to serve.