How does the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy apply to Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)?

John Aravosis, AmericaBlog.com:

CBS reports that GOP Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) served as active duty military recently in Iraq. This raises a very serious question of national security.

I'm sorry, but I'm not comfortable having a US Senator serve active duty in Iraq as a "colonel" when there has been persistent chatter about his sexual orientation and whether it conforms to the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy.

The Republicans, and Senator Graham, can't have it both ways. Did the Pentagon investigate the rumors about Senator Graham's orientation prior to choosing to have him serve active duty? Doubtful. But the rumors are out there, and the Senator's very presence has been known to fuel such rumors, so it is not out of the realm of the possible that others with whom he served had the same questions. And once they have those questions, per Don't Ask Don't Tell, there is a threat to unit cohesion. So why did the Pentagon risk unit cohesion in this case?

I'm serious. They can't have it both ways. Either there is a problem with gays, or people who are suspected to be gay, serving in the military or there isn't. But Senator Graham, the Pentagon, and every other supporter of the gay ban can't talk about how the presence of someone known (or thought) to be gay would destroy unit cohesion, but at the same time let a senator serve who may not meet the criteria of the ban itself.

Yes, it's not polite to discuss such things. But we do discuss them, we are forced to discuss them, under the very bigoted and not-polite policy that Senator Graham embraces.

Pentagon Confirms It Sought To Build A 'Gay Bomb'

Hank Plante Reporting: A Berkeley watchdog organization that tracks military spending said it uncovered a strange U.S. military proposal to create a hormone bomb that could purportedly turn enemy soldiers into homosexuals and make them more interested in sex than fighting.

Pentagon officials on Friday confirmed to CBS 5 that military leaders had considered, and then subsquently rejected, building the so-called "Gay Bomb."

Edward Hammond, of Berkeley's Sunshine Project, had used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain a copy of the proposal from the Air Force's Wright Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio.

As part of a military effort to develop non-lethal weapons, the proposal suggested, "One distasteful but completely non-lethal example would be strong aphrodisiacs, especially if the chemical also caused homosexual behavior."

The documents show the Air Force lab asked for $7.5 million to develop such a chemical weapon.

LSB: This is how the ballooning Pentagon budget is used?

Gay Groups Decry Surgeon General Nominee

LEXINGTON, Ky. (AP) -- President Bush's nominee for surgeon general, Kentucky cardiologist Dr. James Holsinger, has come under fire from gay rights groups for voting to expel a lesbian pastor from the United Methodist Church and writing in 1991 that gay sex is unnatural and unhealthy.

Also, Holsinger helped found a Methodist congregation that, according to gay rights activists, believes homosexuality is a matter of choice and can be "cured."

"He has a pretty clear bias against gays and lesbians," said Christina Gilgor, director of the Kentucky Fairness Alliance, a gay rights group. "This ideology flies in the face of current scientific medical studies. That makes me uneasy that he rejects science and promotes ideology."

LSB: Rejecting science in order to promote ideology is the theme of this administration.

UPDATE - John Aravosis, AmericaBlog.com: Obama is expressing concerns about Bush's choice of an anti-gay bigot, who thinks being gay is something you can "cure," as our next Surgeon General. As he, Dodd, and Hillary are on the committee that needs to confirm this guy, this is important.

Tort Reform Bork sues for $1 million

John Amato, Crooks and Liars:

This story epitomizes the modern conservative movement. They are filled with Frank Luntz talking points, but when it comes down to actual life experiences… well… I give you Judge Robert Bork:

Judge Robert Bork, one of the fathers of the modern judicial conservative movement whose nomination to the Supreme Court was rejected by the Senate, is seeking $1,000,000 in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages, after he slipped and fell at the Yale Club of New York City. Judge Bork was scheduled to give a speech at the club, but he fell when mounting the dais, and injured his head and left leg. He alleges that the Yale Club is liable for the $1m plus punitive damages because they “wantonly, willfully, and recklessly” failed to provide staging which he could climb safely.

Judge Bork has been a leading advocate of restricting plaintiffs’ ability to recover through tort law. In a 2002 article published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy–the official journal of the Federalist Society–Bork argued that frivolous claims and excessive punitive damage awards have caused the Constitution to evolve into a document which would allow Congress to enact tort reforms that would have been unconstitutional at the framing:… read on (h/t Matt)

He can sue, but you can’t. Scooter can lie and obstruct justice, but you can’t... Sure, some conservatives are very sincere in their beliefs, but when you have the NRO and Fred Thompson crying to Bush about pardoning Scooter Libby and now Bork suing for dollars—then you know they aren’t serious about their positions or the rule of law.

Gonzales No Confidence Vote Set For Monday

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Senate will hold a politically-charged vote Monday related to a no-confidence resolution in the embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

In a statement issued Friday, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, an author of the no-confidence resolution, said if all senators followed their conscience, ‘this vote would be unanimous.’”

“However, the president will certainly exert pressure to support the attorney general, his longtime friend,” Schumer added. “We will soon see where people’s loyalties lie.”

The attorney general is under scrutiny by Congress over last year’s dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys.

Paul Weyrich: Goo-Goo Syndrome

John Amato, Crooks and Liars:

Paul Weyrich, father of the right-wing movement and co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, Moral Majority and various other groups tells his flock that he doesn’t want people to vote. That’s why the GOP is obsessed with voter fraud—only they want to disenfranchise voters because as Weyrich said back in the ’80’s…the more voters there are—the less of a chance the wingers have in any election.

Weyrich: “Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.

Rule of law?

Steve Benen, Crooks and Liars:

On the issue of whether Bush will pardon Scooter Libby, the NYT reported:

A former senior administration official with his own ties to the case said Mr. Libby had failed to meet the general standard for a pardon by not showing contrition or serving any time. This official also noted that Mr. Libby had also been found guilty of lying to investigators, the same offense that led to the impeachment of Mr. Clinton.

The former official, who requested anonymity to speak frankly about the president, said: “It would show a deep disregard for the rule of law if he was to do it right now, when there has been no remorse shown by a convicted felon and no time has been served. How’s this going to fit in his long-term legacy?”

As Steve M. responded, “Yeah — apart from this, his record on the rule of law is perfect! And his legacy is rock-solid! Why on earth would he want to spoil them by doing something so out of character?”

Gates says Pace is out because he didn’t want him to face a confirmation hearing

From Crooks and Liars:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that he didn’t want Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to face a confirmation hearing so he let him go. Surprisingly–Barbara Starr reported that this is an unusual move because Pace’s job is supposed to be Bush’s call and not Gates.

Gates: It would be a backward looking and very contentious process. (Video)

A reporter asks Gates if he’s depressed by this move. It’s very telling to see that a major man in the military is ousted because the administration (was this Gates decision alone?) doesn’t want him to answer question about the Iraq war in front of Congress. Do you remember his take on gays serving in the military… He also wrote a letter of support for Scooter Libby… How’s that surge working?

Get Rove on the record, under oath. Now.

John Aravosis, AmericaBlog.com:

As David Iglesias,, the fired U.S. Attorney from New Mexico, said, "All roads lead to Rove." The NY Times is right -- it's time to hear from Karl -- under oath, with a transcript:

Congress has now heard from everyone in the Justice Department who appears to have played a significant role in the firings of the prosecutors. They have all insisted that the actual decisions about whom to fire came from somewhere else. It is increasingly clear that the somewhere else was the White House. If Congress is going to get to the bottom of the scandal, it has to get the testimony of Mr. Rove, his aides Scott Jennings and Sara Taylor, Ms. Miers and her deputy, William Kelley.

The White House has offered to make them available only if they do not take an oath and there is no transcript. Those conditions are a formula for condoning perjury, and they are unacceptable. As for documents, the White House has released piles of useless e-mail messages. But it has reported that key e-mails to and from Mr. Rove were inexplicably destroyed. At the same time, it has argued that e-mails of Mr. Rove’s that were kept on a Republican Party computer system, which may contain critical information, should not be released.

This noncooperation has gone on long enough. Mr. Leahy should deliver the subpoenas for the five White House officials and make clear that if the administration resists, Congress will use all available means to get the information it needs.

Fired gay Arabic-linguist service member pens Op-Ed in New York Times

John Aravosis, AmericaBlog.com:

We're at war, we don't have enough men and women in uniform, we definitely can't keep up with translating all the terrorist chatter, so we're kicking out the very people who can translate them. Did you know that we intercepted a key conversation in Arabic the day before September 11 saying that the attack was imminent? We didn't get it translated in time. It's a very simple calculation. What matters more to you - keeping gays out of the military or stopping the next September 11?

From Stephen Benjamin's op ed in today's NYT:

The lack of qualified translators has been a pressing issue for some time — the Army had filled only half its authorized positions for Arabic translators in 2001. Cables went untranslated on Sept. 10 that might have prevented the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. Today, the American Embassy in Baghdad has nearly 1,000 personnel, but only a handful of fluent Arabic speakers.

I was an Arabic translator. After joining the Navy in 2003, I attended the Defense Language Institute, graduated in the top 10 percent of my class and then spent two years giving our troops the critical translation services they desperately needed. I was ready to serve in Iraq.

But I never got to. In March, I was ousted from the Navy under the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which mandates dismissal if a service member is found to be gay...

Consider: more than 58 Arabic linguists have been kicked out since “don’t ask, don’t tell” was instituted. How much valuable intelligence could those men and women be providing today to troops in harm’s way?

In addition to those translators, 11,000 other service members have been ousted since the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was passed by Congress in 1993. Many held critical jobs in intelligence, medicine and counterterrorism...

In response to difficult recruiting prospects, the Army has already taken a number of steps, lengthening soldiers’ deployments to 15 months from 12, enlisting felons and extending the age limit to 42. Why then won’t Congress pass a bill like the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell”? The bipartisan bill, by some analysts’ estimates, could add more than 41,000 soldiers — all gay, of course.

Is Bush drinking again?

John Aravosis, AmericaBlog.com:

Bush is an alcoholic. We have the right to know if he's fallen off the wagon, as this would be incredibly serious in any job, let alone the leader of the free world, and the commander in chief during war time. It is irrelevant whether you love Bush or hate him, whether you think this is a private matter or not. If Bush were running a major corporation and were an alcoholic who had fallen off the wagon, he'd likely be removed from his job by the board. If he were a general, he'd be fired. He clearly drank from either a beer or a near beer in Germany. Which one was it? And in any case, near beer contains alcohol (0.5% or less), something is verbotten to alcoholics. And keep in mind that American beer is between 2.8% and 3.8% (or so) alcohol content, so 0.5% is actually larger than it seems. That's potentially 1/6 of a beer, or, rather, if you drink 3 of them, that's half a beer - something that, in my lightweight case, still gives me a small buzz. For an alcoholic, that small buzz is everything. And in any case, what would an alcoholic be doing touching alcohol at all? I thought even a sip was off limits?...

UPDATE: It does appear to be a near beer. But as there is some controversy over whether near beers should be drunk at all by alcoholics - they can still contain 1/6 the alcohol of a "real" American beer - I'm not sure why our commander in chief shouldn't be erring on the side of caution. Reportedly, Alocholics Anonymous recommends against alcoholics drinking near beers. I'd like to confirm this.

De-Authorize the War... Now!

From the Bill Richardson for President website:

Bill Richardson is the only major candidate pushing for immediate action to end this war and get all of our troops out.

Despite the fact that Congress recently passed a war spending bill that didn't include a timeline for withdrawal, I know that together we can convince them to end this war. I KNOW that you, the people, and the voters are with us. We are sick and tired of waiting for Bush to do the right thing and end this war. We need Congress to come through for us -- before they leave for the summer... If we wait for fall to do something more people will die and the situation in Iraq will only worsen...

Congress has approximately one month before they leave for the summer -- that is enough time to exercise their Constitutional authority and revoke the 2002 war authorization, stripping Bush of the legal authority to perpetuate this war. If Congress de-authorizes now, Bush would be compelled to bring troops home and we could have most of them out of Iraq this year. And de-authorization is veto-proof.

The time has passed for allowing this President to send more American soldiers to fight for his ill-conceived and incompetently-executed adventure.