A reader writes:
In your post "Those 'Neutral' Chiefs of Staff," you were wondering why the Joint Chiefs of Staff didn't applaud when President Obama called on Congress to repeal DADT, especially since they applauded when he spoke about Iran.
When I was a little boy, my parents sat us in front of the TV for most (if not all) SOTU addresses. They explained to me some of the intricate rules (usually) governing behavior of various parties during the SOTU address. One example that I've always remembered is the behavior of the Chiefs. They don't applaud (or rarely applaud) when the President discusses domestic or blatantly political issues. They only applaud and stand in support of the President's foreign policy agenda, especially in those areas where the military is involved.
They stood and clapped for his Iran remarks in support of President Obama's role as Commander-in-Chief. But, I'm guessing they remained seated and still for the DADT remarks, regardless of how they feel personally, because DADT has largely become a controversial domestic political issue. Their job is to do abide by the rules that the President and Congress have set, and obey the orders of their Commander-in-Chief — not weigh in on such an issue. True, the military has made its desires known in the past when it comes to gays — but, give the Chiefs a break. Maybe in this case, they sat still to show neutrality and deference to the authority over them that the executive and legislative branches have.
The Dish 