home

Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington

by TChris

The NY Times reports that gay Republicans in Washington are "under siege and suspicion." The party that gets in bed with intolerant gay-bashing hate-spewing homophobes isn't standing behind its gay members? What a shock.

"You can see where it would be easy for some people to blame gays for something that might bring down the party in Congress," said Brian Bennett, a gay Republican political consultant. He was a longtime chief of staff to former Representative Robert K. Dornan, Republican of California, who regularly referred to gays as "Sodomites."

< Newsweek's New Poll | A Failure to Communicate at Gallaudet >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#5)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 03:40:58 PM EST
    I have never understood this about gay republicans. If I were gay, I don't care how much I were "in sync" with "small government philosphy" I couldn't be a part of a party that essentially wanted to relegate me to the back of a dark closet. Have they no self respect? Don't they understand there is no changing of attitudes in a party that campaigns regularly against homosexuals and the "gay agenda" whatever the hell that means? Don't they understand that the Falwells of the world that the GOP regularly sucks up to for votes won't change their position on homosexuals? Look what happened with the Dixiecrats. There was no changing of attitudes (conceding, of course, there have been changes overall in the country since the 65 civil rights act) in the Democratic party. The Dixiecrat wing of the party left and became Republican. If they anti-gay part of the Republican party left to another party, the GOP would be a permanet minority party, leaving the Democratic party as the majority party without adding to its base. Wake up, changing the GOP is not going to happen

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 08:40:01 PM EST
    Molly - Yes, that is a question that I would be curious about. To me, the obvious answer us that they refuse to be a single issue voter, and choose to ignore the position on gay marriage, etc., of many Repubs. Of course I am a single issue voter. Defense. Defense. Defense. So maybe I'm not supposed to understand.

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#11)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Oct 07, 2006 at 09:01:56 PM EST
    Being disrespected and relegated to a dark closet is a bit more than "not being a single issue voter." It is more akin to Custer voting for Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse at Little Big Horn. As for your being a single issue voter and you vote Republican, I would think you would pay more attention to your issue- Item Bush, Condi et al ignored repeated warnings throughout 2001 regrading Bin Ladin including two about attacks on US soil. Item Bush, Rummy, Condi et al out sourced capturing or killing Bin Ladin at Tora Bora. OBL is still laughing at us. Item Bush, Rummy, Condi et all invade Iraq with too few troops with no plan for what to do after Saddam was overthrown. Item Bush, Rummy, Condi et al still have no plan on what to do about Iraq. Stay the course is a slogan, not a plan. Bush has washed his hands of his fiasco and says his successors will have to deal with it. Thanks buddy! That is real leadership! Yep strong on defense. Item Bush, Rummy, Condi et al aided and abetted by Henry Kissinger seem to be refighting the Vietnam war- to paraphrase KO, you are suppose to learn from history, not re-live it. Item Bush, Rummy, Condi et al have sapped our troop strength, limiting our options to respond to dangers. Item Bush, Rummy, Condi et al-- port security?... Don't get me started.

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 06:25:54 AM EST
    Molly - I think you are always started. Problem is, you are in reverse... ;-) And you're long on claims. But very short on proof. Let's see what Clinton's NSA had to say.
    Clarke: And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years. And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
    And Clarke went on...
    JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct? CLARKE: All of that's correct.
    And more...
    Clarke..And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
    Now what had the beloved of the Left left on the table???
    CLARKE: What happened at the end of December (2000) was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations. QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000? CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably. (NOTE: TWO YEARS!!!!!) ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues? CLARKE: Because they were tough issues
    So they ducked. Figures. No wonder Clinton doesn't want to be questioned about it. TWO YEARS MOLLY!!!! The clincher...
    Clarke...And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.
    and my favorite that debunks the "do nothing" myth you love so well. Note the dates. Note where the warning comes from. Note who gets the warning.
    At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."
    So tell us all these tall tales again, Molly. But when the day is done, these facts speak for themselves. The Clinton administration did very little except respond in a CJ manner, after Americans had been killed. That, of course, did nothing to slow down the next attacks. The Bush admisitration kept that strategy while moving to one of rapid elimination, increasing funding five fold. The Bush administration, working from information from the CIA, warned all of the agencies of the coming attack a month before the much touted PDB and two months before the attack. Thanks for the grins, Molly.

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 09:08:54 AM EST
    As a gay man, I really can't feel too sorry any gay person working in a Republican office. Let's face it, they will scapegoat and blame whomever they need to to retain power. Gay Republicans helped create teh monster and unleased it on the rest of us because they loved the power. Now they're about to get swatted by the tail of the beast...so be it. Sorry 'bout your luck. My guess is, a lot of them would be working for Democrats if Democrats were the majority party. That just makes it all the worse to me. They're not in it for their principles, but for the rush of power.

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#17)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 09:34:26 AM EST
    Of course I am a single issue voter. Defense. Defense. Defense. How about the issues of GOP corruption, incompetence, the president's military desertion and the lies about WMD that have killed tens of thousands of people? No wonder you are defensive.

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#18)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 09:54:57 AM EST
    Given Faux News propensity to change facts they don't like (see here and note video is provided) and the fact that for some reason 80% Faux News supporters think WMD were found in Iraq when 77% NPR listeners know better. I would prefer a transcript or video provided by a third party unrelated to Faux News. I gave 7 examples. You addressed the 1st one and I will return to that. You have conceded that the Bushies: 1. Outsourced capturing OBL at Tora Bora. 2. Invaded Iraq with too few troops and no plan for what to do after Saddam was overthrown 3. Still have no plan for what to do in Iraq 4. Are still "fighting" the Vietnam War with their propaganda tactics at home and with their no plan on what to do in Iraq except stay for ever and hope 5. Sapped our troop strength leaving us ill prepared to respond to threats 6. Have done nothing about port security. Check and mate. However, to address your defense. 1. Berger set up 10 briefings for the Bushies (specifically Condi and Hadley) beginning in January 2001.
    Later, alone in his office with Rice, Berger says he told her, "I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject." The terrorism briefing was delivered by Richard Clarke, a career bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush Administration and risen during the Clinton years to become the White House's point man on terrorism. As chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security Group (CSG), Clarke was known as a bit of an obsessive--just the sort of person you want in a job of that kind. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen on Oct. 12, 2000--an attack that left 17 Americans dead--he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. (empasis aded)
    2. Appears there was a plan drafted by Clarke (another reason not to take Faux News' word). 3. George Tenet and Cofer Black warned Condi two months before 9-11
    On July 10, 2001, two months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet met with his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, at CIA headquarters to review the latest on Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Black laid out the case, consisting of communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. It was a mass of fragments and dots that nonetheless made a compelling case, so compelling to Tenet that he decided he and Black should go to the White House immediately.
    Tenet called Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, from the car and said he needed to see her right away. There was no practical way she could refuse such a request from the CIA director.
    4. August 6, 2001 PDB: Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Read it and weep. Republicans better on defense issues? I think not. If you are going to be a single issue voter, don't you think you ought to pay attention to your issue? Game. Set. Match.

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 11:39:02 AM EST
    Molly - I did not attempt to address your unsupported claims, just made some points supported by links. I concede absolutely nothing. As for Berger, perhaps he needed to refresh his memory when he was caught removing secret documents... He later, in a guilty plea, admitted to deliberately removing materials and then cutting them up with scissors. What he was concealing is anyone's guess. My first link in my previous comment was to an interview with Richard Clarke. If you want to claim that Clarke was lying, fine. But he was Clinton's NSA. The second link was to a public press conference with press corp by Rice. If you want to say that it has been changed, you may. You may also be laughed at for taking such a unproven claim. And if you want to claim that FNC changed the information in these two links, please provide proof. As for your quote:
    he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. (empasis aded)
    Wonderbar! And thanks for proving my point. Since Clarke says Bush said just fix the problem and increased funding 500 percent I would say Clarke found a strong listener and supporter. You quote:
    George Tenet and Cofer Black warned Condi two months before 9-11
    Again, thanks for proving my point. From my second link:
    We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language.
    As or the PDB... Uh since Rice had taken the actions described on 7/5, I think it clear that Bush had already been told about the danger. And evidently at least the FBI had paid attention because the PDB said:
    We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
    Well, here the FBI says, we can't corroborate... They then say:
    Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
    And this is what they were doing about it.
    The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.
    Molly, you're good on trying to make something out of nothing. But when the pieces are put together, you just prove my points. Wow and thanks. Who would have thought?

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#19)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 12:07:05 PM EST
    Molly, Rather like the difference between Christian values and "Christian values", there's defense and then there's "defense". Real defense involves protecting the country against tangible threats that can be proven to exist. PPJ's idea of "defense" is the Straussian belief that the country is at its best as long as it believes it's in a desperate struggle for national survival. Whether or not this has any basis in reality is completely irrelevant. Point is, be advised, you're trying to reason with General Jack Ripper.

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#20)
    by Bill Arnett on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 12:07:05 PM EST
    Molly, Exceptionally good comments you have posted. I don't remember seeing you here before, so please allow me to point out something any long time TLer already knows: Jim, also known as PPJ, doesn't care about reason, logic, or anything other than making provocative statements he usually back up by citing Powerline or some other rightwing blogsite. He will demand proof from you because he apparently doesn't like to use search engines, but it is meaningless to provide him proof; he can't handle the truth! On topic: the rethuglicans will throw their own mothers overboard to protect their power structure, so it is not at all surprising that they will make every effort to blame gay staffers from either/both sides of the parties. This is a lousy issue to cause their defeat as there are so many other vital issues facing this country, but I know that if the "glove was on the other foot" (heh, heh) the rethugs would be taking out full page ads in every major newspaper and buying enormous amounts of commercial time to exploit this issue against Democrats, as they seem to be making a pathetic attempt to do anyway. So I say that if this is what it takes to break their pernicious control of this once great nation, SO BE IT. THEY ARE THE PARTY OF CHILD PREDATORS AND PROTECTORS OF CHILD PREDATORS and their weak attempts to blame gays for their leadership problems will, and should, fail. I always knew they ate their young, now we know they cannabalize their own leadership as well. Welcome to TL, Molly, another voice of considered reason is always welcome. And again, don't take offense or lend credence to PPJ, he just doesn't know any better. He is, however, always unfailingly polite and means no harm.

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    The error and the crime here is not homsexuality. The error and crime is predation. If it was Ward Cleaver tending out the young girls for near term or wait until they are 18 liasons, the error and the crime would be predation. The intent was there. There may be some more serious actionable offense to come to public attention. There is plenty of smoke in this. The fire sprang up with Foley's precipitous resignation. The sustaining fuel load is the collective guilt of the rest of the Congress allowing it to go on as long as it did - along party lines. The outcome is that the pot is a-boil and too many are their to affirm that the pot is indeed not boiling over. It's the stupid predation, stupid. Lantern Bearer Please, be attentive, be intelligent, be reasonable, be responsible. You have no business to believe me. I ask you to believe nothing that you cannot verify for yourself. . . If you have not a critical mind, your visit here is useless. G.I. Gurdjieff

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#2)
    by cpinva on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    like molly, in the wrong thread, i too have never been able to figure out the motivation behind any gay person's desire to be a republican. why join a group that openly hates your guts? where is it written that you can't be a fiscal conservative, and not be a democrat? i am. i've often suspected the "log cabin republicans" are a self-hate group. it's the only explanation that makes any sense.

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#3)
    by scoop on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    Let the Grand Old Purge commence.

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#4)
    by Al on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    Shouldn't pedophile Republicans be under siege? (By the way, sorry to nitpick, but English spelling rules are an endangered species, and we should protect them: I before E except after C).

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#6)
    by clayton on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    The speaker is next to go. By Wednesday!! Another perv bites the dust.

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    Texas seems to be the headquarters of the psycho fags who are really running things in the Bush administration. I know everyt time I meet another gay Republican in the Oak Lawn are here in Dallas I want to smack him around. Mostly corporate types. They've perfected that look of gravitas and seriousness that masks lack of any real usefulness.

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    Texas seems to be the headquarters of the psycho fags who are really running things in the Bush administration. I know every time I meet another gay Republican in the Oak Lawn area here in Dallas I want to smack him around. Mostly corporate types. They've perfected that look of gravitas and seriousness that masks their lack of any real usefulness.

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#9)
    by scoop on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    Let the Grand Old Purge begin!

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    molly, molly, molly! didn't you get the memo? clinton's secretly been president for the past almost 6 years, those are all his fault. you left out one critical defense related item: *bush, rummy, rice, cheney, et al invaded afghanistan, with too few troops, and no clue what to do after the taliban gov't fell. not only have they failed to capture OBL, we're getting ready to deal with the largest heroin crop since well before the taliban took power. on a domestic note: *bush, and the republican congress, have overseen the most sweeping reduction of civil rights since reconstruction ended. jim may be a one-noter, but defense doesn't do much good, if there's nothing left of our society to defend.

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#14)
    by msobel on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    This is another NYT front page transcription of Republican Talking Points. I think there is a massive struggle going on within the Republican Party for who came up with "We Let Foley Diddle to Avoid Seeming Anti-Gay", Gingrich or Rove. This NY Times article faithfully transcribes the views of that great pundit "Some" as in "As the blame from the Foley case has been parceled out in recent days, some people in Washington suggested that the Republican leadership's inadequate response to alarms about Mr. Foley was borne of squeamishness in dealing with a so-called gay issue." because after all, the GOP has been such a supporter of gays in the past.

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 12:07:06 PM EST
    The Clinton administration did very little except respond in a CJ manner, after Americans had been killed. That, of course, did nothing to slow down the next attacks. The Bush administration kept that strategy while moving to one of rapid elimination, increasing funding five fold.
    Riiight. Is this why the Bush invasion plan of Afghanistan in October 2001 was Clinton's? Because Clinton didn't do anything? Made no plans? And Bush -- what? -- didn't implement this plan before 9/11, even though Afghanistan was clearly the crux of the problem? Because... what? What? This is just a pathetic argument. And from this bunch, I'm not interested is vague talk of fivefold increases in funding. What did they do with the money? We know from bitter experience they're pretty loose with their change. And that address on foreign policy Condie was going to give on 9/11? Where terrorism's not even listed as a foreign policy priority? What about that? We now know for a certainty that all this time they were getting ready to steal Iraq's oil.
    Clarke: And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
    What issues? Certainly not the attack on Afghanistan. Clinton was ready to go on that one. Nothing to decide.
    JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
    I don't care what Clarke's answer was. That was not correct. Bush blew off Afghanistan. You're certainly a one issue person, JimakaPPJ, but it's not national security. See a shrink. And you may want to fix your trouble with honesty, because I clearly nailed you right the first time. You're no effin' progressive.

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#22)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 12:43:01 PM EST
    Jim, You don't get to re-open a judgment on the pleadings, its not like a default judgment where you didn't answer at all and humbly beg the court (for good cause shown) to re-open and answer. Sigh, oh... Ok. One more time. Fox News You're the one quoting from a tainted source. Shore it up, if you can. Sandy Berger What he was concealing is anyone's guess. Actually we know what he took: copies of documents written by Richard Clarke regarding the failed 2000 millennium attack plots. Despite statements from prosecutors, some critics continue to make unsubstantiated allegations. If you had bothered to read your own link, you would know too. Plan The link stating that Clarke had been working on a plan since the Clinton administration proves your point? But I thought your point was there had been no plan from the Clinton administration. Aren't you confused? Read it again.
    The proposals Clarke developed in the winter of 2000-01 were not given another hearing by top decision makers until late April, and then spent another four months making their laborious way through the bureaucracy before they were readied for approval by President Bush. It is quite true that nobody predicted Sept. 11--that nobody guessed in advance how and when the attacks would come. But other things are true too. By last summer, many of those in the know--the spooks, the buttoned-down bureaucrats, the law-enforcement professionals in a dozen countries--were almost frantic with worry that a major terrorist attack against American interests was imminent. It wasn't averted because 2001 saw a systematic collapse in the ability of Washington's national-security apparatus to handle the terrorist threat.
    Proposals developed in 2000 would have been before Bush took office. Furthermore the 10 briefings were part of the transition from administration to another. Lets quote this line again. 2001 saw a systematic collapse in the ability of Washington's national-security apparatus to handle the terrorist threat. Who was in charge in 2001? July 10 Warning Look at these quotes from the link
    Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off. President Bush had said he didn't want to swat at flies.
    Besides, Rice seemed focused on other administration priorities, especially the ballistic missile defense system that Bush had campaigned on. She was in a different place.
    Tenet left the meeting feeling frustrated. Though Rice had given them a fair hearing, no immediate action meant great risk. Black felt the decision to just keep planning was a sustained policy failure. Rice and the Bush team had been in hibernation too long. "Adults should not have a system like this," he said later.
    Afterward, Tenet looked back on the meeting with Rice as a tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the Sept. 11 attacks. Rice could have gotten through to Bush on the threat, but she just didn't get it in time, Tenet thought. He felt that he had done his job and had been very direct about the threat, but that Rice had not moved quickly. He felt she was not organized and did not push people, as he tried to do at the CIA. Black later said, "The only thing we didn't do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head."
    Operative phrases: no immediate action, sustained policy failure, Tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the Sept. 11 attacks. August 6th PDB As for the PDB, what was Bush's response? Did quit his vacation? No. Here is his lackadaisical response
    The book's opening anecdote tells of an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush's Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."
    I've proven your point? Please let me prove your point all day. Gentle Hint: Quit while you are behind. You are just giving me the opportunity to point out the GOP failures on the biggest defense issue of this century.

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#23)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 01:16:36 PM EST
    Note to Bill Arnett and Scarsharpstar. Thank you for welcoming me, I have actually been posting here off and on for awhile, when my time permits. I know JimakaPPJ is unreasonable. He amuses me with his claim to be a social liberal and a single issue voter and that his issue is defense. I actually think he is a single issue voter- the issue being: "are you a Republican?" The idea that the GOP is stronger on defense than Democratic party is a canard that needs to be shot down. Furthermore, the GOP's current leaders' record on defense is so bad, that any opportunity to point it out, (even when it means dealing with the straussian J.T. Ripper) is one to be taken. Here is the new meme on defense: GOP: unwilling to protect your children form sexual predators, unable to protect you from terrorists.

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 03:34:34 PM EST
    Molly - In case you haven't caught on, this isn't court and cutesy sayings prove nothing... As for....
    Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."
    First, I note the qualifier word, "reportedly." I then say, okay. That's what the guy did, only he was doing it for the CIA. Catch on, Molly. The PDB said all of that, Bush heard it, including the part about the FBI having 70 on going investigations. What do you want to have done, assume control of the FBI and launch his personal investigation??? You know, when I read stuff like the above I just note that the person is just another BHAW. Totally irrational. And "no plan?" I have never said that. Now Clarke said:
    CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table. QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort? CLARKE: There was no new plan. QUESTION: No new strategy -- I mean, I don't want to get into a semantics ... CLARKE: Plan, strategy -- there was no, nothing new. QUESTION: 'Til late December, developing ... CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations. QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of '98 'til December of 2000? CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably. ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues? CLARKE: Because they were tough issues
    AS for FNC. You made the claim Molly, you prove the point. But you won't. As for my social issues positions, they are well known to be liberal. That you attack every one who disagrees with the Demos demonstrated inability to protect the country merely proves that you are sure Left Winger. No surprise there, eh?

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 04:18:21 PM EST
    Molly - Here's a couple... you can find the rest on your own. 6/28/05 9:21AM
    As someone who has been calling for national healthcare for a long time, I shudder when something like this happens
    My solution: National health care paid for by a national sales tax, my best guess, of about 5%. You go to the doctor, the doctor bills the government.
    5/9 2006 8:07AM
    Jondee - Somewhere over in the archives you can find comments by me that say that I would not allow capital punish unless the evidence was absolutely undeniable. I have stated that I am against abortion but believe it is a woman's right to choose. So where do you get your claim? The Iraq war? Sorry. Different subject.
    3/26 /2005 05:07PM

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#27)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 05:36:53 PM EST
    Seems like I have gotten under your skin, Jim. Faux News Already shown it was a suspect news source. Ball is in your court on that one. What do you want to have done, assume control of the FBI and launch his personal investigation???> How about implementing the recommendations that were given to him in January 2001?
    CLARKE: But all of the things we recommended back in January were those things on the table in September. They were done. They were done after September 11th. They were all done. I didn't really understand why they couldn't have been done in February.
    Bush didn't implement them. He didn't take terrorism seriously and neither did members of his administration.
    CLARKE: President Bush was regularly told by the director of Central Intelligence that there was an urgent threat. On one occasion -- he was told this dozens of times in the morning briefings that George Tenet gave him. On one of those occasions, he asked for a strategy to deal with the threat. Condi Rice came back from that meeting, called me, and relayed what the president had requested. And I said, "Well, you know, we've had this strategy ready since before you were inaugurated. I showed it you. You have the paperwork. We can have a meeting on the strategy any time you want." She said she would look into it. Her looking into it and the president asking for it did not change the pace at which it was considered. And as far as I know, the president never asked again; at least I was never informed that he asked again. I do know he was thereafter continually informed about the threat by George Tenet.
    What he did was nothing. He didn't try. Of all the possible responses, that one was most wrong by far. Leftwing "you are sure Left Winger." You have a problem with being left of center? How does that fit in with your self described social liberalism? Last time I checked there was nothing illegal or immoral with being left of center. At least I don't pretend to be something I am not. Ad hominem attacks Irrational Bush hater? There is nothing irrational per se in criticising Bush or the GOP for their failures. Next you will be calling me UnAmerican. Dissent is an American value. What do you have against American values? There is nothing irrational in the criticising Bush or the GOP on the merits of their failures. It is an intelligent thing to do. In fact the only irrational act would be to be blindly pro Bush, especially in light of his glaring failures on defense. I don't hate Bush. I think his policies are ill informed and wrong headed. I think his Iraq war is a Fiasco as does just about every sentient being on the planet. I think overall his policies are hurting America. I think he disrespects our Constitution. I think he has failed to preserve, protect and defend the constitution. That makes him bad for the country as a whole, that doesn't mean I hate Bush. I don't know the man, ergo I do not know him well enough to hate him. BTW, thanks for the opportunity to point out once again that Bush didn't even try before 9-11.

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Oct 08, 2006 at 08:08:08 PM EST
    and the Party of God marches on...

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#28)
    by TheJusticeClub on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:21:26 AM EST
    Foley and Clinton compare--I recall Clinton haters being horrified that Clinton would carry on with "such a young girl, a girl half his age"(she was in her mid 20's and extemely sexually savvy) and that it was abhorent he would do "that" with some sort of WH employee... not to mention "he lied under oath"(ignoring Bush;s lies) Wonder what their thinking is on Pedophiles in DC... I hope better laws come about[from this] to protect children from sick, sick people like Foley(and the GOP)on the Internet...

    Re: Gay Republicans Under Siege in Washington (none / 0) (#29)
    by dutchfox on Mon Oct 09, 2006 at 08:21:26 AM EST
    Welcome, Molly Brown, to TL.