Reply #25: A lot of people around here remember senior officials from [View All]

the previous administration who were forced to resign for factually challenging force levels and other matters that would have saved lives had they been listened to. In the real world there is not a great deal of difference in an order, policy, or goal. If what I am hearing is true, and the Obama Administration went to court to defend DADT as part of a multi-dimensional plan to end it, and after the Pentagon released a study that the two men in question seem to challenging, then I would suggest that they are indeed speaking before Congress in a manner contrary to the wishes of their boss(es). Even in the civilian world that is pretty much frowned upon, and it never was nearly as common as it is in today's politicized military.

Capitalizing words like WILL doesn't mean that compliance -- or even basic respect -- will happen in real life, BTW. I was in the AF during the Clinton administration, and saw senior officers denigrate the CIC in front of subordinates all the time.

To suggest that these generals and admirals aren't following what is going on in Congress, don't know who supports their positions over the President, and how hard the Administration will fight on an issue and base their actions accordingly is also ridiculous.

If they were truly convinced as to where the rubber was really hitting the road, they would not be again arguing against their CIC's supposed position on the issue. But they also detect uncertainty.