RECENT  POSTS:  » Joseph Farah still clueless about nondiscrimination law » Hobby Lobby president to join extremely anti-gay activists at 'Star Spangled' event » FRC's Sprigg admits his side put up 'weak defense' in 7th Circuit » Photo: The latest totally convincing, in no way silly attempt at a meme from anti-gay Ruth Institute » AFA's Fischer: Time for Christians to 'get up in somebody's grill' like Jesus would » GLAAD: The World Congress of Families sparks protests in Australia. Let's examine why. » GLAAD: NOM cofounder: 'Hard to see... the logical stopping place' between gay-affirming, murder-affirming Christians » 'Nonpartisan' NOM's entrenched Republicanism again showing » GLAAD: His other tactics failing, NOM president turns to anti-trans fear-mongering » AFA's Bryan Fischer: Diversity is 'most sinister and dangerous lie'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

04/03/2009

Video: Andrea, Rachel, Colin, Clifford

by Jeremy Hooper

Last night, Mitchell was in for Maddow. But Rachel, with her super lesbi-rific journalistic abilities, was still able to represent herself with an interview of former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell. She's just that good.

See Rachel's in-absentia interview, as well as Andrea's in-studio interview with former Secretary of the Army Clifford Alexander:

Ever since our childhood love for a certain big red dog, we've always had strong feelings about listening to Cliffords. Now it's time for lawmakers and military brass to hear his strong call so that this Rachel-Andrea-Colin-Cliff foursome can stop asking and telling about this ridiculous bit of government-sanctioned discrimination, and start talking about things that really matter. Like Michelle Obama's clothing.

*EARLIER:
About that politically-motivated letter that Andrea Mitchell mentioned

*SEE ALSO: The transcript from the Powell interview:

POWELL ON DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL

MADDOW: Do you think that—do you still think that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is necessary for good order and discipline in the military? You have discussed the idea that it should be reviewed.

Would you support the move if Congress decided to get rid of that policy?

POWELL: If Congress decided to get rid of the policy and if the military leaders of the armed forces are a part of that, of course I would. And if the president decided to do it, I would support the president.

In 1993, when this became an issue when President Clinton came in, I was never given, nor was Secretary Aspin at that time ever given, an instruction by President Clinton to get rid of the policy. We studied it and came to a conclusion that, at that time, in 1993, Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a pretty good solution for the moment. I didn't want it to happen but the Congress made it a law. So it is not policy anymore, it is a law, and only the Congress can change it as Secretary Gates mentioned last week.

But it's 15 years later. A lot has changed. Attitudes have changed. And so I think this is a time to review that policy and review it before congressional committees to see if a change of law is now appropriate. I am withholding judgment because I am not the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff anymore. And I think we have to hear from our senior military leaders about the effect of a change in the law would have on the force. And if they came forward and said, "Let's do away with it," or, "Let's modify it or change it," that would mean a lot to me in terms of my point of view.

But ultimately it's going to have to go before the Congress as a law to be changed, not a policy to be changed.

MADDOW: The examples of other countries that have successfully integrated openly gay people into their forces, are those good reference points for that sort of a study?

POWELL: Those are reference points that have to be taken into account, sure. I would study every one of those cases. Many of them have happened since 1993, with a number of countries, and I think all of those should be looked at. I don't think, however, the armed force of the United States is the same as the armed force of one of our European friends or Canadian friends. And therefore as the courts have held traditionally over the years, and the Congress has as well, the military is a unique institution with rules and regulations and a way of living in close proximity with other soldiers—and you're told whom you're going to live with—that the military can have a set of regulations and rules that would not pass any kind of legal or constitutional muster if it was in civilian society. And so I think because it is the quality of the force and the ability of the force to apply the nation's power wherever it's called upon to do so, we have to be careful when we change this policy.

But if the military leaders think that enough time has passed since 1993 that we ought to take a look at this and perhaps change the policy, I'll be completely supportive. I'm not going to make a judgment until I hear from the chiefs.
Colin Powell talks with Rachel Maddow [MSNBC]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

Sorry, I luv Rachel, too, but because she came so poorly prepared Powell got away with rewriting history, boldly lying to her and millions of viewers.

He claims that Clinton's Secty of Defense Les Aspin was never asked to change the policy when IN FACT nine days after being sworn in, President Clinton sent a memo to Aspin instructing him to draft an executive order to QUOTE,

"end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in determining who may serve in the Armed Forces.”

Why would military recruiters have been instructed to stop asking applicants if they were gay, and pending discharges of anyone active duty were temporarily suspended if Powell, et al., were not told to "get rid of the policy"?

Because of the hell and mutiny Powell and others raised, a "six month cooling off period" was agreed upon during which time they and the Antigay Industry, including Elaine Donnelly, all helped by Aspin's incompetence and his own hostility to removing the ban, swamped Congress and the White House and any hope of real change.

And he repeated to Rachel the lie he's told before to the effect of, "Don't look at me. DADT was on fire when I sat down on it." Again, let's look at the FACTS:

1. At the time, and since, he denounced comparing banning blacks and banning gays by saying that being gay is a choice.
2. He told Clinton he would resign as head of the Joint Chiefs if gays were admitted—something so-called "draft dodger" Clinton couldn't allow from the guy who was then seen as such a hero.
3. He told graduates at Annapolis that it would be okay for them to resign if gays were admitted. The SECOND reason that Clinton should have followed Truman's example in a second way but failed to. Powell should have been fired the way Truman fired Gen. MacArthur.
4. "Powell, while talking cooperation with the White House, instigated behind-the-scenes opposition to the President" - "Time" magazine, July 26, 1993.

But Mr. Wonderful will be praised again for opening his heart and calling for review of how the policy's working. Wonder if anyone every said to Lincoln, "Uh, let's study how slavery's working before you change anything"?

Next, RECTUM Powell will be telling us HE PERSONALLY FOUND Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq! He can't wash his hands of the blood on them for helping get us into Iraq and he can't wash his hands of perpetuating homohatred in the military, then AND NOW!

SHAME!!!!!

Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Apr 3, 2009 2:55:38 PM

Michael, I'm glad someone else remembers Colin Powell getting defensive when asked if banning gays wasn't the same as banning blacks.

It's been so deeply buried that I was starting to wonder if I had imagined seeing footage of that press conference when I was in Jr. High.

As much as we should remember the hurtful things he said, at least he's learning :)

Posted by: DN | Apr 4, 2009 12:05:15 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails