Sounds like President Obama is solidly against the policy and has committed to ending it, but his sense of urgency is what people are questioning. Representative Patrick Murphy is introducing a bill into the house that would, if signed into law, abolish DADT. He currently has about half the co-sponsors he needs and he continues to work toward the goal of getting this through the House. Of course, it then needs to go through the Senate before ending up on the President's desk. However, according to Congressman Murphy, President Obama has promised that if congress puts a bill on his desk to abolish DADT, he'll sign it into law.
Here's something I didn't expect to hear, but with which I think I agree. Congressman Murphy was being interviewed by Rachel Maddow of MSNBC (On 7-8-09) and Rachel asked him if he thought it would be appropriate for President Obama to put forth an executive order putting a hold on implementation of DADT, effectively stopping the practice of kicking people out of the service for their sexual orientation. To my surprise, the congressman said he would be opposed to such a move.
If we think about it, this makes sense. Many, including me, have criticized President Bush for his prolific use of Signing Statements, essentially allowing a law to be passed but pushing a caveat that he doesn't intend to abide by this new law. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a law that was passed some 16 years ago, and until it's reversed by another act of Congress, it's still the law in the US. If President Obama puts out an Executive Order that puts a hault to the practice of DADT, he would be doing exactly what President Bush is so roundly criticized for doing.
As ridiculous as I think DADT is, I think I agree with the logic of Congressman Murphy that the law should be enforced until Congress can get their act together and fix this mess.