RSS
Using PayPal
THE "DISORDERED": Donald Rumsfeld's Gay Staffers
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Tuesday, Jun 20 2006, 6:38PM
The Pentagon apparently classifes homosexuality as a "disorder' even though the mental health profession abandoned that practice three decades ago.
It is well known that Don Rumsfeld has had numerous gay advisors -- particularly Stephen Herbits whom Rumsfeld has known since 1967 -- and today has a coterie of young men on his staff, running errands, carrying his attache case, doing advance work -- and at minimum, several of these people are gay.
I have spoken to two of them and none report that Rumsfeld is gay -- but they all say that he gives indications of being accepting and gay-friendly. One said that he gives most of the members of his team "big hugs" at his annual Christmas party at his Kalorama street home. The gay guys on his team think beneath that know-it-all, imperious demeanor is an affectionate teddy bear of a guy.
Rumsfeld has a lot on his plate. He seems to have a building number of cases of his soldiers involved in prisoner abuse, torture, and murder.
So, rectifying the "homosexuality is a disorder" problem may be low on his list -- but perhaps it's one of the easiest problems for him to fix, if he has the moral fiber to do so.
-- Steve Clemons
» Next Article - Lawrence Wilkerson, Carl Ford, Paul Pillar Headline Senate DPC Hearing
"...if he has the moral fiber to do so..."
aye, and there's the rub (pardon the double entendre)...
The most obvious question is begged....how did YOU find out who was GAY and who was not? Did you turn on your GAYDAR or was it just your CHARM? All in the name of journalism. Hmmmm?
PS My security code starts with 666...what could that mean?
So this whole Iraq mess has been an attempt to rebuild Sodom & Gomorrah? Imagine that...
I find the comment about Rumsfeld having a lot on his plate odd.
Torture, murder, and prisoner abuse are a result of top-down decisions involving Rumsfeld and Cheney. His plate is full of war-crimes by his own actions.
On another note, are you going to continue to play up the fiction that Iran is a serious threat to US security? Doesn't "Fool me twice, shame on me" work with the elite in DC?
If you continue to post articles on how to deal with the grave threat from Iran, you do Bush's work for him, and some of the blood is on your hands if Bush is not stopped from a reckless attack on Iran.
You meet too many people who say good things about Bush. The man is a petty gangster, and there is no hope he will change for the better.
Marky -- tough note. But my views about Iran differ from yours. I think at the end of the day we will have to adjust to an Iran that will evolve towards nukes or at minimum, full processing capacity...sort of like Japan. But I do see Iran as a threat -- and we need to figure out how to maneuver ourselves and Iran on to a different track, a "Grand Bargain" as it were, as Flynt Leverett has suggested and which I have also been pushing for some time.
Good post though -- and understand your view. We should haggle on the phone some time.
best,
Steve Clemons
Like Rumsfeld is going the blow the good ship Republican Party completely out of the water before critical elections by embracing gays, or even bringing up the subject? A final fatal blow to the base, as the Real Men are once again strutting about with their chests all puffed out calling Dems, in oh so many words, effeminate.
In other words you are hinting that Rumsfeld may be on the verge of a mental breakdown, and ruin Rove's Grand Strategy.
They'll just say Rumfeld's and old man and crazy and retire him smilingly; always smilingly.
I have to agree with Steve. An unfriendly Iran armed with nuclear weapons, missiles and controling much of the worlds energy reserves of oil and gas is certainly a threat.
As for an attack on Iran I don't think so. Everything short of an invasion or bombings to achive a regime change. Keep an eye on all the disturbances in the provinces of late. Coincidence?
Of course the Iranians needs to break out of the containment policy for domestic reasons so they might provoke something. It will be intresting to see how they will react to a future war for kirkuk. They have already shelled villages in kurdistan once.
Steve, great article.. However, I wished you had gone a little further, and asked a couple of his gay staff about their feelings regarding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell!" Also, what are their thoughts about working for an Administration, that can only stay in power with issues such as flag burning and picking on Gays...
I find is shocking one of his aides would quote Rumsfeld as having a lot on his plate.. The things on his plate is from the menu of War Crimes... He ordered a starter meal with the invasion, covered with that special Abu Ghraib..
Thanks,
DJ....
On Iran -
One, all estimates I've read and experts I've talked to, from CSIS to the DOE and IEA, see Iran's energy production falling, not improving, as none of them believe Russia or China will step in with the type and level of investment needed. Iran's energy leverage will actually decline in the coming decades and is at the moment already limited (export revenues will not increase and it will fall to 4th among OPEC exporters by 2025). According to the head of the IEA, IEA members have enough stocks to cover loss of Iran's 2.5 mbp/d in exports for 1.5 years. He pointed this out as he wanted policy makers and the public not to fear oil/gas issues in negotiating the nuclear standoff. Yes, prices will spike, but not as much as alarmist say. If clear commitments are made by the IEA to handle the issue, like with similar overt commitments by the Federal Reserve to Wall Street during unrest, the energy markets will quickly cool off.
Lastly, Steve, I hope you and Flynt will encourage not just dialogue, but also a proper level of rhetoric, by the President and wonks such as yourself. For, as the Economist so brilliantly put it "As tensions rise in the current crisis, it is worth remembering that it was the 1979 hostage-takers' “year-long, televised Boston Tea Party” that tipped Iran into the Islamic-flavoured totalitarianism that defines the regime to this day. A confrontation over Iran's nuclear ambitions may prove just the tool the Iranian regime is looking for to recreate that same warm bath of popularity it enjoyed in the good old hostage-taking days."
"Rumsfeld" and "moral" in the same sentence?
Rumsfeld has does not have a moral compass, never mind moral fiber.
If Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld really wants to help improve military recruiting, he'd get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
If College and Young Republicans are too scared to volunteer for military service, well, there are 12 talented and courageous veterans, the plaintiffs in Cook v. Rumsfeld, who want to serve.
Steve wrote:
"It is well known that Don Rumsfeld has had numerous gay advisors -- particularly Stephen Herbits whom Rumsfeld has known since 1967 -- and today has a coterie of young men on his staff, running errands, carrying his attache case, doing advance work -- and at minimum, several of these people are gay."
Add Ari Fleisher and Scott McClellan to that list and I just wonder why Dr. Dobson, Jerry Falwell and other staunch "pro Bush" right-wingers are so utterly silent on this hush-hush Beltway insider topic? (hey, right-wing radio, need to throw more words of support for the traditional marriage amendment? Is that your "safest" and "easiest" tactic?)
And, Steve, as long as you're covering "sexual orientation" issues, where is the discussion of the Bush/Condi affair? If the Globe was right on Clinton/Gennifer Flowers, Gary Hart/Donna Rice, Clinton/Lewinsky, Jesse Jackson's illegtimate love child -- is the Bush/Condi affair covered in the Globe's current June 26 issue true or false? hmm?
And, where oh where, are the staunch Bush right wingers on this story? It seems what they preach has left more than egg on their faces!
Yeah, "an affectionate teddy bear of a guy" who thinks nothing of murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
Dora says it best. There's no way, his inner feelings be dammed, that he'd do ANYTHING gay-friendly this close to the elections. The Repubicans have spent a long time getting the country to be this gay-fearing; Rumsfeld would never be allowed to help destroy that.
It's sad, really, that these guys run 100% on fear, not on accomplishments. It's even sadder that 51% of Americans agree with that campaign style.
How in the world can these gay articles go on and on instead of printing real issues.
Why does media hammer away at non issues incessantly, instead of covering the national election fraud, for instance, that is about to happen again in next elections? Why not hammer on that before it's too late? Now is the time to begin. NOW! Is Robert Kennedy Jr the only person to bring it to public attention and drive it home?
And what about the meeting in Caracus where nations coming together to open an investigation into 9/11 and specifically nations that sent George W Bush administration plenty and ample intelligence that terrorists were going to ram planes into buildings in US THAT WERE COMPLETELY IGNORED BY RUMSFELD, CHENEY AND BUSH.
Why arent these issues and MORE being covered by media?
here's from today's Wayne Madsen report that many may not have seen yet --
June 21, 2006 -- Nevada Democratic gubernatorial candidate Leola McConnell, who revealed that she witnessed George W. Bush perform a homosexual act in Tennessee in 1984, reports that she has received a number of death threats from right-wing extremists. These are obviously the same deranged elements who shopped around a story insinuating this editor is a suspect in the FBI anthrax investigation and provided a link to the FBI's "Amerithrax" tip web site. We have learned that the source for this "story," PHXNews, is located within a high-rent gated community/yacht club at 13952 Bora Bora Way in Marina del Rey, California. Perhaps the FBI would want to pay a visit to the address to investigate a false claim. Perhaps not.
In the case of threats against Ms. McConnell, Federal law prohibits the use of the Internet to convey threats and solicit violent acts. Violations carry a penalty of up to 15 years in prison and up to a $500,000 fine. Anybody home at the FBI these days? Millions of files of personal data being stolen on a daily basis, death threats against a gubernatorial candidate, a journalist tortured in Florida, and false claims circulated on the web against another journalist by a right-wing loon site, and the FBI sits on their collective asses as America continues to drift into banana republic status.
Boy is THIS a weird thread. What did Steve do, walk up to one of Rummie's staffers and say..."Gee, is that a swish I see in your walk?"
Frankly, who gives a shit? Interesting that gay Rummie staffers are an issue, but as far as I know there has been nary a peep from Steve about a gay slut and pornographer being pawned off on us as a journalist, and being given access to state's secrets, (to say nothing about doing sleepovers in the West Wing).
Anyone watching the body language and mannerisms of this sicko Rumsfeld can see he has far graver problems than mere gay issues. Geez, I WISH the only travesties committed by these criminal fanatics was an occassional blowjob on our dime.
And Steve's implication that somehow these tortures and murders are just the unfortunate actions of "a few bad apples" is a despicable act of pandering to the party line. Rummie is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for these crimes, if only by his failure to fire and prosecute the key players, such as that perjurer Sanchez, who IRREFUTABLY lied to Congress about these tortures, and his role, (a charge PROVEN by internal memos).
Meanwhile, the dying goes on, in great numbers, while blogs such as this wonder at Rummie's staff's sexual proclivities, or debate whether or not Hillary's marraige is intact.
I say we buy Rummie a boy toy, a jar of lubricant, and put his slimey lying ass in a federal prison were it belongs with the rest of this criminal administration.
And lets get back to trying to be a nation that promotes peace and human rights.
James Dobson is more powerful than Rummy. If he says gays are sickos headed for hell that's what Dubya has to go with.
Steve: I do see Iran as a threat
Why?
What in history makes you think Iran is a threat?
Darius was so long ago.
Does anyone here truly believe that Iran's leaders suffer from the delusion that they could EVER prevail in a nuclear exchange with the United States???
Anyone asinine enough to advance such a premise is telling us that they believe that the Iranians intend to do the ultimate suicide bombing. If any of you believe such a threat exists, than you are an idiot.
And don't throw that shit at me about "Well, they could give the technology to terrorists". Odds are, terrorists ALREADY HAVE the technology, and if it was TRULY an issue of terrorist threats, these lying bastards in the White House would be spending the billions HERE, on our borders and our infrastructure.
These criminals in Washington are ruling this country by chanting "BOO", and quite often Steve is just adding to the chorus.
POA -- I accept and expect feedback and enjoy most of the posts on my blog, even those that criticize what I write or my views. But you are going overboard. If you want to set the agenda for what should be discussed in the public policy arena, I recommend that you get your own blog. As you know, I write what I am interested in -- and comment when I can on matters that I think are important. This blog is extremely diverse in what it covers -- and the mix and priority of subjects is mine alone to choose. Don't like it? Either do your own -- or go to another blog.
I wrote about the Rumsfeld matter because I have been contacted this past week by a number of people from the Dobson camp who have been obsessing about gay issues and encouraging me to write about the opportunities gay people have to "straighten" themselves out. The disclosure about the DoD directive that homosexuality is a disorder seemed worthy of a response in my view -- and there are many who agree. I have called for Rumsfeld to be fired and to be held accountable for the numerous serious crimes conducted by the military while he was in charge. But the issue of his attitude towards gay people is another matter.
His long time advisor on DoD reform and staffing issues is gay. Many around him are gay; I know them and have spoken with them. His personal views and conduct are at odds with official DoD policy -- and I am calling for that to be changed.
You may not be interested in the subject and may want me to write exclusively and exhaustively only on subjects that matter to you -- but that's not going to happen, and I'm not happy at all with your conduct on an issue that I feel is important and which I feel is a civil rights matter.
End of story on that.
On the issue of my "adding to the chorus" as you call it -- that's not true for anyone who has read this blog for a long time. The fact is that you and I disagree on national policy and disagree on the dynamics of change in both the Republican and Democratic parties. There will be a change in both parties I think -- and I hope to have a hand in those dynamics. You are smart enough and passionate enough that I think you could to but burning bridges and a rigidity of the far left is what you seem comfortable with. That's not me -- and not on my agenda.
For the person who thought I had never written about Gannon/Guckert, do a search of the blog -- I had written about it as it unfolded.
For those of you who have sexual conspiracies and gossip you want to spread, again -- it's easy to secure your own free blog space.
Now, for those of you who can participate in serious and thoughtful discussion about this issue -- and other matters on this diverse blog, I look forward to it.
More later,
Steve Clemons
here's from an article in 2005 that shows what a sick, sick SOB crumsfeld must be.
"Secretary Rumsfeld, the report asserts, may well be liable under both of these theories. He may have directly instigated abuses when, on December 2, 2002, he approved a list of inhumane interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo.
These techniques -- which include the use of hoods, stress positions, isolation, stripping, deprivation of light, removal of religious items, forced grooming, and dogs -- violate not only the Geneva Conventions but also legal prohibitions on torture and other ill-treatment. The techniques later "migrated" to Iraq and Afghanistan, where they figured prominently in abuses against detainees there. In Iraq, moreover, Rumsfeld approved the hiding of detainees from the International Committee of the Red Cross, a practice likely to facilitate abuse."
more from the same source --
"Journalist Seymour Hersh has alleged, in addition, that Secretary Rumsfeld approved a secret program that encouraged the physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners.
Rumsfeld may also bear command responsibility for abuses against detainees. To be liable under the doctrine of command responsibility, a superior must have known, or have had reason to know, that a subordinate was committing a crime, and the superior must have failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the crime or to punish the perpetrator.
Rumsfeld clearly had the necessary knowledge. In Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo, Secretary Rumsfeld had access to military briefings, ICRC reports, human rights reports, and press accounts that would have put him on notice that U.S. troops were committing war crimes, including torture. Yet, despite receiving abundant warning of abuses, there is no evidence that Rumsfeld ever exerted his authority to protect prisoners from mistreatment."
Preach it, Steve! Well said.
Mr. Clemons wrote:
His long time advisor on DoD reform and staffing issues is gay. Many around him are gay; I know them and have spoken with them.
Here's what I'd like to know, which is not clear--have these gay advisors and assistants actually outed themselves to Rumsfeld? Shorter: does he know and acknowledge their orientation? This would stun me, if true.
For you and I to "know", but Rumsfeld to be able to maintain plausible deniability allows him to stay in the graces of Dobson and Co., which appears to be the all-encompassing MO of this Admin.. But if he will admit to knowing, and more importantly, accepting and allowing, that his close advisors are "sinners", that seems to belie that, yes, perhaps he does have some sort of heart.
Punchy wrote:
". . .yes, perhaps he does have some sort of heart."
imo, he's got a sick, sick heart.
from Newsweek, May, 2004 --
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4934213
"President George W. Bush said the photos made him 'sick.' The effect on Arabs will be to make them want to kill Americans. Is it possible to create an image more offensive to Arabs than a photograph of a female American soldier holding a naked Arab man on a leash? Or a naked Arab man hooded by a pair of woman's underpants? Could even Hollywood have imagined anything more disgusting than Americans leering over a pile of prisoners in simulated sexual positions?"
Does anyone know if this lawsuit was dismissed or is it just conveniently buried somewhere in the doj?
Rumsfeld sued over prison abuse
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4310847.stm
Steve, thank you for your passionate defense of your viewpoints, and your blog content. As you well know, I post on the very edge of the envelope, and have my reasons for doing so. If I did not see the value of this blog, and respect your opinions, I would simply not be posting here. Personally, I DO think that the gay issue is pressing, and that there is an underlying sexuality that permeates this administration. I can't put my finger on it, but I sense an evil there that includes sexual depravity and hypocricy. Please do not misunderstand...I do not in any way consider homosexuality depraved, or even "sinful". But I DO think ANY sexuality, hetero OR homosexual, can be practiced in a depraved, harmful, and "sinful" manner.
ALL these issues "matter" to me Steve, and it is extremely gratifying to see you so fervently defending your priorities and interests. I WORK to get a rise out of you and the posters here. I only wish that my anger was more contagious.
The one overriding consideration when reading my posts is the fact that I have an absolute conviction that the sheer evil and the awesomely destructive nature of the Bush Administration has not been fully recognized as yet, and that our democracy is in GRAVE DANGER from within. And the VERY LEAST of that danger is the issues such as we are discussing here on this thread. After the charade we were just shown that was sold as a "debate" on the Iraq policies, it should be obvious to even the most intellectually challenged that WE THE PEOPLE are no longer determining the course of our nation's future, (much less the sexual orientation of Rummie's staffers). Yes, it demonstrates a hypocricy and a lack of ideological conviction that is detestable coming from the leaders of the so called "free world". But it amazes me that we still debate the hypocricy and the dishonesty of ALL or ANY of the policies of this administration. They simply ARE liars. They simply ARE hypocritical. The debate as it applies to their hypocricy and dishonesty should not consistently center around their latest demonstration of ineptitude, malfeasance, or criminal policy decisions....instead we should be YEARS into a debate about how best to REMOVE THEM FROM OFFICE, and INDICT THEM FOR THIER CRIMES. We already know WHAT they are. The question is, what are we going to do about it?
Well, I don't see this as much of an issue overall. George W. Bush himself is a remarkably effeminate man who overcompensates with transparently false 'macho' bravodo and sadistic needling. Karl Rove is reputed to be gay, as are a number of other members of the Bush administration. The entire Jeff Gannon matter, in which a gay male prostitute was given press credentials and unaparalleled and only partially recorded access to the white house has to raise a few eyebrows. The common currency is a latent, repressed or hidden homosexuality. But so what? Anyone expecting progressive or gay-friendly attitudes can forget about them now. The recurring theme of latent or hidden homosexuals is rabid attacks on the very idea of homosexuality and 'out' homosexuals. The administration here is perfectly consistent.
The notion that the administration could or should change its outlook is almost surreally comic. What are we looking for, Gay Friendly American Nazi's and Klansmen? These guys are monsters who have through design or negligence suffered attacks or natural disasters on two major American cities, causing 5000 deaths and incalculable damage, and have attacked and occupied two foreign nations, causing deaths in the hundreds of thousands and spectacular damage. To upbrade them for their sexual orientation policies is like complaining that the Einsatzgruppen weren't wearing sufficiently tailored shirts.
"I wrote about the Rumsfeld matter because I have been contacted this past week by a number of people from the Dobson camp who have been obsessing about gay issues and encouraging me to write about the opportunities gay people have to "straighten" themselves out."
This is very random, to me; do you frequently receive (unsolicited?) missives from people asking you to cover something so obviously outside your usual remit of foreign policy?
What the hell are the Dobsonites up to? Who else have they written to?
I realize this is only marginally on topic, but I think it is relevant..
Yesterday, the Washington Post ran an expose on the Boeing Tanker Scandal in which Jeffrey Smith paints a vivid picture of the sick mind of the Sadist-in-Chief - er, SecDef. The Post got hold of an interview Rumsfeld gave to investigators that had mysteriously disappeared from the Inspector General's report in 2005. Some key passages:
-------------
Rumsfeld is a former business executive and White House official who published a set of "Rumsfeld's Rules" that include the injunction: "Be precise -- a lack of precision is dangerous." But when investigators asked him whether he had approved the Boeing tanker lease in May 2003 -- despite widespread violations of Pentagon and government-wide procurement rules along the way -- Rumsfeld said: "I don't remember approving it. But I certainly don't remember not approving it, if you will."
Asked whether his subordinates, including former undersecretary of defense Edward C. "Pete" Aldridge, had accurately invoked Rumsfeld's approval when they signed documents authorizing the Boeing tanker lease to go forward, Rumsfeld said, "I may very well have said yes. I just don't remember. . . . I am not going to sit here and quibble over it." He did say he remembered approving a gun for a tank in 1976, during his first time as defense secretary.
When pressed about the tanker lease -- the largest such lease in U.S. history -- Rumsfeld offered two explanations for his distance from it. The first was related to his focus on what he called "the global war on terror," including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and what he termed the "continuing difficulties" with the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
"My time basically in the department was focused on those things and certainly not on acquisitions or -- or what have you," Rumsfeld said. "Basically I spend an overwhelming portion of my time with the combatant commanders and functioning as the link between the president . . . and the combatant commanders conducting the wars."
Asked if he was aware of concerns about the proposed Air Force lease from Capitol Hill and the Pentagon's own analysts, Rumsfeld responded, "I don't know what I knew then, compared to what I know now. . . . I am not able to go back and say . . . what did I know at a certain moment back in that period."
He also indicated that his office procedures are loose. "I work in here, I am going to guess, 12 hours a day. . . . I also know that people come in and out of this office all the time. Send me memos, half of which I -- are appropriate for me to have, some of which aren't, which I don't read. And call or come in and say I am going to do this or what do you think about that."
Rumsfeld said that given "all of those hours and hours in meetings and questions," he couldn't "say of certain knowledge" whether he provided any guidance about the lease to subordinates. He assumed, he said, that they were following "the normal rules that would apply to what it is they do."
This perplexed one of the investigators, who asked how Rumsfeld knew the information he got about the tankers was reliable if established procurement procedures were not followed. "In terms of knowledge that -- that -- from that period, I am without it," Rumsfeld replied.
-------------
Go read the whole thing if you can.
As a gay service member, thank you for writing this. Odd to believe I could have been awarded top officer of the year at 4 different command levels, 3 different times...and hold the #1 of 25 junior officers...and have a "disorder". I personally support Rumsfeld, he is forcing a massive system to revolutionize itself. Doubtful it will happen under Bush's rule, but my hope is this "disorder" will get wiped away with the structural revolution of the DoD.
There are certain things that are indicative of other, bigger things. This might be one of them. Regardless of how busy Donald is, it's never too late (or too early) to do the right thing. And now that you've brought this to his attention there's no excuse for inaction, is there?
Of course, if he waits until after the election it'll speak volumes about that teddy bear, eh? Indicative of his character, you might say.
Donald Rumsfeld is the ace of this Administration and he has been my favorite appointment for a long time and it is not because he is "gay friendly," but because he is obsessed with the safety and national security of the USA.
"Donald Rumsfeld is the ace of this Administration and he has been my favorite appointment for a long time and it is not because he is "gay friendly," but because he is obsessed with the safety and national security of the USA."
ROFLMA!!!!!! What a load of horseshit.
A Gay Rummie does not change the fact that Iran is only a threat to those who want to plunder their assets.
What nation have they ever attacked? Has it ever been proven that the state finances terrorism that impacts US interests?
If you want to view the actions that resulted in the Iranian Islamic Revolution as threats to the US, then you must acknowledge that the US-led coup that re-installed the Shah was the direct cause of those actions.
As we expect others to forgive the atrocities US agents inflict upon them, so we must learn to forgive atrocities against us as the result of our misguided adventures.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=70418
Rumsfeld Is "Absolutely Crazy", posted 3/20/06
There is not a lot of debate anymore about the fact that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is the loosest cannon in the arsenal. Consider his claim, made in a Sunday oped piece in the Washington Post that, "Turning our backs on postwar Iraq today would be the modern equivalent of handing postwar Germany back to the Nazis."
Issues such as gay and lesbian rights *are* real issues. Just as real as national election fraud, torture and war crimes.
As a former Marine who was kicked out prior to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", I'm happy to see Steve bring up issues that affect a large portion of our citizenry.
I don't understand those who keep asking why he posts on the subjects he posts... this is *his* blog. He can post as he chooses.
chari, how large, realistically? larger than which other group of citizens?
and explain to me once again why these people need more rights than the rest of us, cuz I just don't get it.
do your issues disenfranchise people, like the three you mentioned do? I'm not aware of a "war on homos", is there one?
what I'm saying is, in relation to the rest of the 300 million citizens are dealing with. steve was right of course, but a practical solution will be for those who don't like some of the topics we get here is to just ignore them.
we don't need a war about whose issue is more important (yes, I was being sarcastic in the beginning of this post), we need brains working and fingers typing.
so, let it be, already!
"I'm not aware of a "war on homos", is there one?"
Yeah, there is. And the "warrior antogonists" are Rummie's bosses. That is part of Steve's point. But these slimey lying bastards have committed actions that are polar to thier stated ideologies since the beginning of thier administration, about far graver and far more damaging issues than this one. Is it really any suprise to anyone that Rummie's sphere, like just about any other community sphere in America, has a smattering of gays? Gays are part and parcel of every corner and niche in society. So what? I EXPECT to interact with gays in my daily living, both openly and with those that are closeted.
However, I DO NOT expect, nor did I expect, to see my country ran as a dictatorship, or see my country torturing prisoners, or lying in the run-up to war, or blatantly and unashamedly committing war crimes, or turning a blind eye to stolen elections, or financing the slow torturous genocide of the Palestinian people, or staging poorly choreographed "debates" on issues that are of the utmnost importance to the future of our nation, and world peace. Or starting another nuclear arms race. Or napalming women and children in Falluja. Or ignoring the plight of thousands of blacks in New Orleans.
How big, really, is the gay issue at this time, in light of the above?? It is a DIVERSION, and if this blog is any indication, it is working as a diversion.
I personally could care less about sexual orientation when it comes to neighbors, co-workers, office holders, staff or others in government. I'm much more interested in honesty, trustworthiness, and consistency in level-headed performance.
to me, this post shows Rumsfeld's gay staff is just another glaring inconsistency in what the bush admin purports itself to be -- moralistic, conservative Christian, big-time Dobson, Falwell and Co. "believers", when their "reality" is much different.
Also, if the Dobson, Falwell crowd doesn't want to tell their "faithful" listeners of the bush moral inconsistencies in their staff choices, imo, they are as morally inconsistent and bankrupt as bush/cheney/rumsfeld.
how could Dobson, Falwell and Co. not know? Steve is pointing out the Dobson camp has been making inquiries. how come they are totally silent on bringing this glaring bush inconsistency to the airwaves? (Steve, I will continue to argue the "likely" bush/condi love affair fits right in here.) and hence, break the strangle-hold on virtual total bush support from the millions of fooled, red-state voters!)
Steve, does the insider bush crowd seem to be using the gay community merely for support in upcoming elections? Or, are you leaning towards some other hidden bush agenda here?
Rumsfeld is so totally incompetent and untrustworthy at this point. he can't even account for squandering $30 billion in one DoD item!
from 6/20/06 Wash Post --
Tanker Inquiry Finds Rumsfeld's Attention Was Elsewhere
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 20, 2006; Page A15
The topic was the largest defense procurement scandal in recent decades, and the two investigators for the Pentagon's inspector general in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's office on April 1, 2005, asked the secretary to raise his hand and swear to tell the truth.
Rumsfeld agreed but complained. "I find it strange," he said to the investigators, on the grounds that as a government official "the laws apply to me" anyway.
It was a bumpy start to an odd interview, as Rumsfeld cited poor memory, loose office procedures, and a general distraction with "the wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan to explain why he was unsure how his department came to nearly squander $30 billion leasing several hundred new tanker aircraft that its own experts had decided were not needed.
Then-Inspector General Joseph E. Schmitz, who resigned last year to take a job with a defense contractor, told senators at a June 2005 hearing that the transcript of Rumsfeld's interview was deleted from his 256-page report on the tanker lease scandal because Rumsfeld had not said anything relevant.
But a copy of the transcript, obtained recently by The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act after a year-long wait, says a lot about how little of Rumsfeld's attention has been focused on weapons-buying -- a function that consumes nearly a fifth of the $410 billion defense budget, exclusive of expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The issue is relevant because a series of reports, including others by the inspector general and by the Government Accountability Office, indicate that five years into the Bush administration, the department's system of buying new weapons is broken and dysfunctional.
The Democrats wrapped in the Gay movement, and led by them, will take over both houses of the federal legislature this November and win the White House in 2008. Slam Dunk!
There's one other aspect of the Gay ~ Executive Branch interaction which I don't think has been touched upon above. It's the case that closeted homosexuals are at particular risk for blackmail or similar sorts of pressures (just as are public figures with unacknowledged children, those who have been caught in affairs that are not public, etc.); this risk increases the more transgressive the issue is relative to the organization in which the person works. Considering how far this administration is to the right, and their coddling of the most loathesomely intolerant sections of the population, I find the quasi-public nature of all this information a little unsettling.
"Don't ask, don't tell" seems to have become a socially paradoxical injunction. It is nobody's business, yet the politicization of sexuality then mandates that sexuality somehow becomes the purview of government. Ultimately, government-sponsored sexuality seems a danger to all. Is there yet a *reasonable* proposal to separate Sex and State?
The gay and lesbian issue is a short term money raising campaign for the right wing evangelists. Short term because most people under 40 don't care what a person's sexual orientation is.
It's a good issue for Dobson's group because he can send out emails about the latest threat of gays in the military or marriage in Mass. and people send him checks to campaign against the issue.
This administration is in a lot of trouble with the conservative Christians for doing nothing on their list of so called "family friendly issues" and they're looking for any token bone to throw them. Classifying gays as "disturbed" does nothing to change policy and props up their standing with a very unhappy base.
Given a few more years no one will care and convervative Christians will have to come up with a new fundraising boogeyman.
BTW, any way to get your webperson to carry the security code over from preview to post so it doesn't have to be entered every time? It could easily be done by setting a session variable.Yes, I'm that lazy. :) Tx.
Jerome: Most gay soldiers, so far as I know, aren't asking for "more rights than the rest of us," but simply the privilege to serve their country in uniform. And if you think you shouldn't care, check out this article about nine military translators being fired because of their sexual orientation:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml
Steve - I find it incredibly charitable of you that you should believe Rumsfeld would actually tamper with DoD policy in an election year. (Have you noticed the FCC just increased indecency fines 1000%? It's time to get the fundamentalist base riled up again...)
Steve,
Thanks for pointing out this civil rights violation against homosexuals. You're right, it's an easy problem for Rumsfeld to fix, but no way to make him. You mentioned moral fiber, so I guess we can gauge his by whether or not he changes the policy.
BTW, I have a lot of trouble commenting, it often doesn't go thru..do i put the security code in when previewing and then again when posting?
Reader Comments (47) - post a comment