"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" revisited

When you wrote about "don't ask --don't tell" I thought you meant the established practice -- reaffirmed recently -- that The United States of America will not ask, and consequently will get no answers from Israel about its nuclear weapons.

WASHINGTON TIMES, October 2, 2009, :EXCLUSIVE: Obama agrees to keep Israel's nukes secret

by Eli Lake

President Obama has reaffirmed a 4-decade-old secret understanding that has allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it to international inspections, three officials familiar with the understanding said.

The officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they were discussing private conversations, said Mr. Obama pledged to maintain the agreement when he first hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House in May.

Under the understanding, the U.S. has not pressured Israel to disclose its nuclear weapons or to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which could require Israel to give up its estimated several hundred nuclear bombs.

Israel had been nervous that Mr. Obama would not continue the 1969 understanding because of his strong support for nonproliferation and priority on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The U.S. and five other world powers made progress during talks with Iran in Geneva on Thursday as Iran agreed in principle to transfer some potential bomb fuel out of the country and to open a recently disclosed facility to international inspection.

Mr. Netanyahu let the news of the continued U.S.-Israeli accord slip last week in a remark that attracted little notice. He was asked by Israel's Channel 2 whether he was worried that Mr. Obama's speech at the U.N. General Assembly, calling for a world without nuclear weapons, would apply to Israel.

"It was utterly clear from the context of the speech that he was speaking about North Korea and Iran," the Israeli leader said. "But I want to remind you that in my first meeting with President Obama in Washington I received from him, and I asked to receive from him, an itemized list of the strategic understandings that have existed for many years between Israel and the United States on that issue. It was not for naught that I requested, and it was not for naught that I received [that document]."

I just read (via the Center for American Progress) an article that suggests something may actually be in the works with Congress - although I don't expect anything to materialise before mid to late 2010...
The article says in substance that the WH has been reaching out to (among others) Liebermann as a member of the Armed Services Committee who might welcome the opportunity to show his liberal side for once.
I agree that DADT is not only discriminatory but counter-productive as well, and that it should be repealed (especially after having read that apparently 2 people are discharged per day because of it) but Congress won't want such a partisan bill to disprupt the delicate compromises they're trying to reach on other issues.
Anyway, here's the link to the article (from an advocacy website, so I guess some critical perspective is in order):
http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/10/White_House_Talks_DADT_Repeal_With_Lieberman/

@ moderatewinger: There's already being hell paid by the military. One of the Air Forces' artificial ways of keeping the rape statistics down and penalizing women who turn down sexual advances is threatening soldiers with being discharged a la DADT.

It's the A^^hole upper Pentagon which needs DADT to keep their rape statistics artificially low and not actually make women soldiers welcome that keeps DADT in place.

Every gay joke has an overly 'feminised' man as the butt of it, but why is 'feminisation' the butt of a joke? Because homophobes hate women too.

(Info from NYT article on sunday and servicemember's legal defense network)