The Queen of Nuance, AKA, Hillary Clinton issued this clarification of her position on gays:
“I have heard from many of my friends in the gay community that my response yesterday to a question about homosexuality being immoral sounded evasive. My intention was to focus the conversation on the failed don’t ask, don’t tell policy. I should have echoed my colleague Senator John Warner’s statement forcefully stating that homosexuality is not immoral because that is what I believe.”
If it's anything like her dozens of positions on Iraq, 6 more by month's end.
Posted by Christopher at March 16, 2007 03:38 AMThr s gnrtn tht r pr n thr wn ys, nd yt s nt wshd frm thr flthnss.
[Editor: ignore=off]Why shouldn't Hilmargaret dodge, she's gay herself.
Posted by Mal Feasance at March 16, 2007 05:52 AMDemocratic Senators' Letter To Gonzales On NSA Investigation, dated March 15, 2007:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/docs/feingold/index.php?img=page1.gif
Looks like the heat under the burner is being turned higher.
Posted by Judith at March 16, 2007 06:54 AM1,000+ signing statements to circumvent the law and the Congress by this president. Surely, at least one of them will cover Cheney's outing of Valerie Plame.
Posted by Christopher at March 16, 2007 07:02 AMIf you don't think a General should be declaring homosexual acts immoral I don't see why you should require a Senator to declare them not immoral.
Either way it's a personal opinion that I don't think should have any ramifications on government policy. I think Senator Clinton was clear that she believes gay men and lesbian women should not be barred from serving in the military. Whether she personally thinks homosexual acts are immoral should not affect that. So why ask?
I thought we were trying to keep religion out of our public institutions? Ask Clinton if she thinks homosexuality should be illegal. Or if it should be a legitimate reason to discriminate against someone. That's a legit question. Why should anyone care what her opinion of it's morality is? Asking her the question just gives it legitimacy in the eyes of those who do consider it immoral. I think her first response was the correct one. It's not her concern whether it's immoral or not.
Posted by snark at March 16, 2007 07:29 AMGood Lord, Hillary needs to hear the correct answer from her gay friends before she can formulate a progressive response? Questions don't get much easier than that one for an actual progressive.
BTW, Juan Cole today demolishes Hillary's recent position on why she would continue a substantial troop presence in Iraq.
Not that she's listening. She sure seems clueless.
Posted by euzoius at March 16, 2007 07:32 AMMary,
Thanks for the reminder about Valerie Wilson's testimony today. Given the willfully obtuse assertions on this matter by the Cheney administration and its deadender loyalists, this post by CIA veteran Larry Johnson seems particularly appropriate:
What Would Valerie Say? by Larry C. Johnson
No Quarter, Thursday, 15 March 2007 @ 18:54
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/03/what_would_vale.html
Experience makes a brutal entrance.
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at March 16, 2007 07:33 AMI suppose if I was going to use a movie to base an analogy on for the Republicans and Democrats, I would use "Casablaca".
The Republicans would of course be the Nazis. And the Democrats would be the Claude Rains' character, Captain Renault.
And I'm sure we've all heard something similar to these exchanges since January.
[after observing the gambling tables at Rick's]
Customer: Are you sure this place is honest?
Carl: Honest? As honest as the day is long!
[as he goes to hand Renault a bribe]
Jan Brandel: Captain Renault... may I?
Captain Renault: Oh no! Not here please! Come to my office tomorrow morning. We'll do everything businesslike.
Jan Brandel: We'll be there at six!
Captain Renault: I'll be there at ten.
Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: [sotto voce] Oh, thank you very much.
[aloud]
Captain Renault: Everybody out at once!
Plame, homosexuality, etc.--all are sensationalized distractions from substantive issues, like war for example. Also poverty, global warming, healthcare--so many real issues but we bottom-feed on the gossipy ones because there seems to be nothing at all we can do about the big ones except whine.
We're all victims of the establishment program of profits and wars, wars and profits, and we're at a loss as to what to do about it. The establishment government totally controls the message going to average Americans. It's not 2007 it's "1984", isn't it?
Steve, soccerdad, paradox, Mary all doing a marvelous job, trying to get the issues out there and we learn from and support each other--but, but, but.
The Bushes and Gonzalez's will come and go but the downward slide continues. Example: Senator Obama, formerly sympathetic to the Palestinians' plight, now says that Iran is a threat to the United States. Come on. That's crazy. What can we do?
Some trends look good--the web is driving corporate print media out, but the teevee still propagandizes as many people if not more.
We won't give up. Why? Because the real universe isn't 'out there' it's between our ears, and if we get that right then we'll be okay. So that's what we'll continue to work on. And that's why paradox's blossom posts (for example) were so important.
Thoreau: "Why should we not meet, not always as dyspeptics, to tell our bad dreams, but sometimes as eupeptics, to congartulate each other on the ever-glorious morning? I do not make an exorbitant demand, surely."
Sorry about this--it's 'Philosophical Phriday'I guess.
One of the good things about citizen journalism.
American Burlesque - 'Send in the Clowns'
Posted by Alex at March 16, 2007 08:59 AMhttp://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?at_code=398011&no=350387&rel_no=1
Posted by Alex at March 16, 2007 09:00 AMWhy shouldn't Hilmargaret dodge, she's gay herself.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by at March 16, 2007 09:10 AMAnd don't look now but there seems to be a bit of a crisis in Pakistan.
Widespread Support for Chief Justice Chaudhry
I was glued to the CIA outing hearings on C-Span when they had to break away for the opening of the House. I was then treated to a prayer by the good Rev. Coughlin.
This prayer was more important than learning about White House abuse and National Security? C SPAN SUCKS.
Posted by TIKI AL at March 16, 2007 10:10 AMThe White House Director of Security is getting hammered by Rep. Waxman's committee. Again, all roads point to Rove and Cheney.
Posted by Christopher at March 16, 2007 10:30 AMVictoria Toensing just finished testifying in the leak hearing. Waxman pretty much ripped her a new one. He said at the end that some of the things she said with such conviction and authority are not true and they would hold the record open to be able to add information that contradicts what she said. I couldn't believe how partisan she was. She just blamed the CIA for not doing more to protect Plame's identity. She even said why would Plame be allowed to donate to Al Gore's campaign and list Brewster-Jennings as her employer? Um, shouldn't she list her cover job? What else would she put?
Posted by CG at March 16, 2007 11:35 AMToensing is on the payroll. No doubt about it.
Posted by Christopher at March 16, 2007 11:38 AMYes, CG, my ex-wife will be pleased to know that as far as I'm concerned, Victoria "lockstep" Toensing has taken her title away as "nastiest bitch in the word".
Posted by TIKI AL at March 16, 2007 11:43 AMVictoria gives true meaning to the word b___h.
Posted by JohnT at March 16, 2007 12:26 PMInteresting, Waxman is leaving Toesing testimony open. DO I hear lieing under oath!
Posted by goose1 at March 16, 2007 12:59 PMPerhaps Toesing should have checked with Libby before testifying.
Posted by Judith at March 16, 2007 01:54 PMWell I think her testimony was pretty much all her opinion of the law and whatnot, so I doubt she could actually be caught in a lie.
Posted by CG at March 16, 2007 02:25 PMHere's the lastest story on one of many scandals.
The latest e-mails revealed between White House and Justice Department officials show that Rove inquired in early January 2005 about firing U.S. attorneys. They also indicate Gonzales was considering dismissing up to 20 percent of U.S. attorneys in the weeks before he took over the Justice Department.
In one e-mail, Gonzales' top aide, Kyle Sampson, said an across-the-board housecleaning "would certainly send ripples through the U.S. attorney community if we told folks they got one term only." The e-mail concluded that "if Karl thinks there would be political will to do it, then so do I."
Get out the popcorn.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070316/congress-prosecutors
Posted by Judith at March 16, 2007 02:27 PMEvidently Plame testifying today was not that important to Congress. Only a little more than 50% bothered to showed up.
From what little I have read, it sounds like Plame certainly did not mince words during her testimony.
Posted by Judith at March 16, 2007 02:37 PMMark Pryor D-Kentucky on Hardball said Abu called him to tell on the phone that he was going to send Tim Griffin (Kkkarl's look a like bff)through the nomination process yet the emails showed exactly the opposite was going on behind the scenes (they were going to use the patriot act provision to bypass congress)....he realizes he was the SEenator problem in Kentucky that the recent emails were referring to and why they were going to use the Patriot Act provision. Abu told him on the phone he was going to go through the normal nomination process. Pryor says Abu lied to him.
Posted by at March 16, 2007 02:52 PM