This is already going to stir a lot of debate in the Senate, which is why I can't figure out--from a logistical standpoint--why Sen. Reid is talking about attaching the DREAM Act to this legislation. From a political standpoint it makes perfect sense: you attach a bunch of controversial stuff to a popular bill to paint your opponents in a corner and make them appear that they are against the original bill itself (in this case the military). Republicans did it as well when they were in control. I disagreed with the practice then too. It would appear to me that if you really cared about the policy--and not the politics--iof an issue, you would lay out as clear of a path necessary for its passage. Should a bunch of additional non-relative nonsense be attached to this, then it would appear that DADT is not the real issue at all.
