A decade more in Iraq according to Bush's General, David Petraeus. Yes, it's an endless war.

Next month, Petraeus gives his report on the surge. But, he's telling members of Congress that the U.S. will be in Iraq for another decade. So, the way Bush and his general see it, not only will the Iraq war outlast the Bush administration, it would outlast the next presidency. 9 or 10 years. It's truly endless:

Gen. David Petraeus told a congressional delegation visiting the Middle East that success in Iraq will require a U.S. military presence there for about a decade, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) said Friday.

The commander of U.S. troops in Iraq, who will deliver a highly anticipated progress report next month, said the U.S. “will be in Iraq in some way for 9 or 10 years,” according to Schakowsky. The general also highlighted progress in Anbar province, where former Sunni insurgents have turned against Al Qaeda extremists in recent months.

Read the rest of this post...

Bush's War Czar thinks "it makes sense to certainly consider" a draft

Oh boy. Again, just when you think Bush's war in Iraq can't do anymore damage, it can. Bush's war czar, General Lute, told NPR that the U.S. should consider a draft because of the stress the war has put on our military. Yeah, the draft is "on the table":

Frequent tours for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have stressed the all-volunteer force and made it worth considering a return to a military draft, President Bush's new war adviser said Friday.

"I think it makes sense to certainly consider it," Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute said in an interview with National Public Radio's "All Things Considered."

"And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation's security by one means or another," Lute added in his first interview since he was confirmed by the Senate in June.

President Nixon abolished the draft in 1973. Restoring it, Lute said, would be a "major policy shift" and Bush has made it clear that he doesn't think it's necessary.

The repeated deployments affect not only the troops but their families, who can influence whether a service member decides to stay in the military, Lute said.

"There's both a personal dimension of this, where this kind of stress plays out across dinner tables and in living room conversations within these families," he said. "And ultimately, the health of the all- volunteer force is going to rest on those sorts of personal family decisions."

Just because Bush says publicly the draft isn't necessary doesn't mean anything. Bush lies. Read the rest of this post...

Open Thread

It's Friiiiiiiday niiiiiiiight!

I'm bored. Where's Kate Beckinsale when you need her?

Anyway, onward with the chatting. Read the rest of this post...

Texas church refuses funeral for gay man

Conducting a memorial service for a gay guy would be like conducting a service for a thief or a murderer and showing photos of the criminal murdering someone, the priest said.

Someone is going to hell, and it isn't the guy who died. Read the rest of this post...

Dear Family Research Council, real Christians aren't pathologic liars

I just got an email update from our good friends at the Family Research Council (that would be the religious right Republicans). It's about the gay issues forum for the presidential candidates (only the Dems agreed to come). FRC is ticked that the Dems haven't agreed to show up at FRC's own presidential forum. Well, considering that you guys lie all the time about the Dems, and you're so partisan to the Republicans it isn't even funny, why should a single Dem show up? To wit: Note what FRC says in the same paragraph in which they whine about the Dems not agreeing to show to their little party.

If the Democratic contenders believe so strongly in their positions regarding same-sex marriage then why not attend our event and defend those beliefs?

Did you get how FRC implies, quite clearly, that the Dem presidential candidates support gay marriage? "Defend their beliefs" before FRC on gay marriage? But they don't support gay marriage (other than Kucinich and Gravel, and sorry but they don't count), so why would the Dem candidates have to "defend their beliefs" on gay marriage when their beliefs are in line with the FRC?

Answer: Because the FRC are liars. They want their members to think that the Dems are supporting gay marriage because that will help the Republicans get votes.

Note to FRC: Good Christians, real Christians, don't lie out their asses every time they open their mouths. You people are pathetic excuses for Christians. Think I'm being harsh? You bet I'm being harsh. I'm a Christian too, and you people make a mockery of Christianity with your hate and your lies. Has it ever struck any of you as to why you so often have to lie in order to espouse your supposedly-Christian point of view? We've documented the lies, over and over again - and they're not differences of opinion, they're flat out lies. Good Christians, good people, don't lie - don't NEED to lie - in order to prove their point. You people aren't either. Read the rest of this post...

Meanwhile, our Iraq policies are still terrible

In the U.S., the debate about Iraq is, understandably, focused on troop presence: whether/when we should redeploy troops, and how to do it. As most people know, not a single Republican presidential candidate (other than Ron Paul) wants to reduce force levels; not a single Democratic candidate wants to keep the troop number as high as it is now. Pretty straightforward.

But there is still over a year before somebody else takes over, and in the meantime, our policies in Iraq and the greater Middle East are horrendous. It's not just the escalation, it's political efforts, both through the military and purely diplomatically. Earlier this week, for example, Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki visited Iran, and the U.S. exploited his absence by bombarding Sadr City, a Shia section of Baghdad, with helicopter gunships and armored vehicles.

Sadr City is, unsurprisingly, the main source of support for the Sadrist political party (as well as the Sadrist Mahdi Militia), and while their support for Maliki is tenuous at best, if they truly turned against the national government, rather than just focusing their ire on the U.S., the results would be an even more explosive civil war (Shia vs. Shia) than already exists. The raid was apparently unsanctioned by the Baghdad government, and the renewed American effort against Shia groups is a real problem for Maliki. There is not a single relevant Shia militia that could be considered "anti-government" (as opposed to anti-U.S.), so American efforts against Shia militants is almost purely a U.S. issue. Shia groups do go after Sunnis, but we're not fighting all those Shia groups -- we don't seem to have a problem with the Badr Brigades, for example -- just the anti-American ones.

Regionally, McClatchy Newspapers, which has been a rare beacon of accurate reporting throughout the past several years, reports that Vice President Cheney is advocating a military strike on Iran. I simply cannot describe how horrific an idea this is. That's not a knee-jerk reaction, it's not a partisan response, and I'm no pacifist: on purely policy grounds, it is almost impossible to overstate the damage to U.S. interests that would result from bombing Iran. It would not accomplish a single benefit.

It would not stem Iranian influence in Iraq, and it certainly wouldn't reduce attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq -- indeed, it would almost certainly spark a massive Shia reaction, motivating groups that have thus far avoided open conflict with the U.S. The response from Badr and Mahdi in particular could be devastating -- and for what? To what end? It would not end the Iranian nuclear program; after Osirak (when Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear facility), nations started putting their nuclear operations largely out of reach of those types of attacks.

The escalation was supposed to provide time for beneficial political developments in Iraq, not dangerous and harmful political developments in the Bush administration. It's quite a debacle. Read the rest of this post...

AT&T; censors Pearl Jam for criticizing Bush

No wonder. AT&T; is spying on your email and phone conversations and giving the results to the Bush administration. So it's no surprise that AT&T; now won't let people criticize Dear Leader. They really shouldn't be permitted to have such a monopoly on long distance service and Internet service. Yes, there's competition - but not enough. As the story notes, this leads directly in to the Net Neutrality debate. If AT&T; has control, it will censor what you get to see and hear over the Internet. And honestly, do we really need George Bush's best corporate buddy deciding what we do and don't see on the Web? Read the rest of this post...

Tucker Carlson's hysteria over his "boys" in a discussion about transgender issues

It's 3:30 in the AM Pacific time, and I was packing to leave for LAX (I'm in the airport now), and I was tuned in to MSNBC to Morning Joe, where Tucker Carlson was subbing and they were discussing last night's HRC/LOGO forum.

Brad Luna of HRC was interviewed on the show, and Tucker went into a -- excuse me -- completely batsh*t dialog with Luna about transgenders and gender reassignment surgery. Carlson was nearly apoplectic and grabbing his "boys" at the thought of someone wanting to transition (clearly only MTF in his mind) and having surgery to remove male genitalia. It came up in the context of John Edwards answering a question about whether he would support a staff member who informed him that they wanted to undergo gender reassignment.

Brad tried ably to place the matter into context, that someone willing to put up with the potential ridicule and rejection to transition to a different gender has already spent a lot of time thinking about reassignment surgery, and that the removal of that part of themselves is not viewed as self-mutilation, as Tucker believes, but as corrective surgery.

Needless to say, logic did not seem to penetrate Mr. Tucker's hysterical mind and his vivid images of a scalpel coming anywhere near his testicles.

Thumbs up to Brad Luna for making it through that insane interview.

They had a lot of fun replaying Governor Richardson's meltdown when he was asked about whether being gay is a choice or biological. I don't think the earnest damage control by his campaign is helping them out of this pickle.

They seemed to view the question Melissa Etheridge posed as part of some orthodoxy in the LGBT community that being gay is not a choice, and any candidate that believes this is not following some sort of LGBT party line. No, the issue last night was that she believed that the governor misheard the question, based on his gay-positive record, which is why she restated it. The fact that he missed an opportunity to clarify at the time is what caused the matter to spin out of control.

The obvious question that seemed to escape Tucker Carlson and the Morning Joe gang is it's clear they don't consider whether their (presumed) heterosexuality was a choice they made. It's fascinating to see that blind spot playing itself out in the discussion. That said, it could have opened up a thoughtful conversation about the fluidity of sexuality generally -- that people tend to want to box our sexuality into fixed orientations, when that may not be true for everyone on the sexual continuum. That doesn't mean, however, that the vast majority of gay and straight folks don't know their orientation early on.

Related:
* Behind the scenes at the HRC/LOGO presidential forum...
* Liveblogging the HRC/LOGO Visible Vote 08 Forum
* Winners and losers at the HRC/LOGO VisibleVote08 forum Read the rest of this post...

Friday Morning Open Thread

I think we have a couple debate free days coming up. Not another one for the Democrats til August 19th. There is a big GOP straw poll tomorrow in Iowa that Mitt appears to have pretty much bought.

But the really big news is that Laura and Jenna Bush are writing a kid's book. I have some suggestions for them. How about a book about that little kid Mary Cheney had? They could tell him about the hatefulness and homophobia of George Bush and the GOP. Or an Iraqi kid's book about how George Bush destroyed that country -- and took away their future. That'd be a best seller.

Okay, it's Friday. And, I have to go get my car inspected. There is one place, just one place in DC where we can do it. Probably take all day. I rarely drive -- have had this car for eight years and just hit 29,000 miles.

Get it started. Read the rest of this post...

Winners and losers at the HRC/LOGO VisibleVote08 forum

[UPDATE (10:30 PM, PT): I spoke with Governor Richardson just a few moments ago to discuss his remarks at this evening's forum. See below.]

Let's just say it right now - Bill Richardson self-immolated tonight on live TV. I haven't seen anyone fumble a question like this so badly.

MS. ETHERIDGE:  Thank you. 

Do you think homosexuality is a choice, or is it biological? 

GOV. RICHARDSON:  It's a choice.  It's -- 

MS. ETHERIDGE:  I don't know if you understand the question. (Soft laughter.)  Do you think I -- a homosexual is born that way, or do you think that around seventh grade we go, "Ooh, I want to be gay"?

GOV. RICHARDSON:  Well, I -- I'm not a scientist.  It's -- you know, I don't see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people as a matter of human decency.  I see it as a matter of love and companionship and people loving each other. You know I don't like to categorize people.  I don't like to, like, answer definitions like that that, you know, perhaps are grounded in science or something else that I don't understand. 

Karen Ocamb said there were gasps, and hisses in the audience. A Richardson supporter, Richard Zaldavar, said, that it's a sentiment in the Latino and black communities that homosexuality is a choice (ostensibly to rationalize Richardson stepping on that land mine). He was given ample opportunity to extract himself from the situation, but it really went downhill from there. One other hurdle he didn't clear was a direct question from Joe Solmonese about what the governor would do if the New Mexico legislature presented him with a marriage equality bill. He wouldn't answer the question. 

The New Mexico legislature, I am pushing it very hard to expand domestic partnership.  It's the same thing, Joe.  It's a question of going through a path that is achievable. 

Now, you know, I'll give the most flowery speeches like several that have done here.  I am in this business to get things done, to lead, to pass legislation, to bring coalitions together, to bring the country together. 

As I type this, the Richardson campaign is in scramble mode and plans to issue a "clarification." His deputy communications director, Katie Roberts is working the press room now. Here's the press release from the governor:

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson issued a statement tonight clarifying an answer to a question during the Human Rights Campaign Presidential Forum in Los Angeles.  The question came from panelist Melissa Etheridge, who asked if he believed homosexuality is a choice.

"I misunderstood the question.  Let me be clear- I do not believe that sexual orientation or gender identity happen by choice.  But I'm not a scientist, and the point I was trying to make is that no matter how it happens, we are all equal and should be treated that way under the law.  That is what I believe, that is what I have spent my career fighting for.  I ask that people look at my record and my actions and they will see I have been a true supporter of the LGBT community."

UPDATE: Governor Richardson called me to discuss his comments that homosexuality is a choice. I was writing as fast as I could to get quotes close to verbatim. You can draw your own conclusions about them.

He says that was confused by the question, saying that it was tricky and it threw him off that it was asked in the context of biology and science. He said "I knew when I was walking out of the parking lot that I had said something in error. My staff alerted me that I needed to set the record straight."

He went on to say, "This is something you are born with, and regardless of whether there is conflict about the science of it (homosexuality), I support full and equal rights. I fully support domestic partnerships."

I pressed him more than once about his refusal to answer the hypothetical question as to whether Richardson would sign a bill passed by the NM state legislature that would grant marriage equality. He repeatedly gave the same answer that he's worked hard to pass domestic partner legislation in his state, and feels that separate but equal DPs are achievable, and don't pose the threat of a legal morass, as we see occurring in NJ with civil unions.

The governor then handed the phone over to Linda Siegle, a lobbyist for the NM equality movement, who worked with the governor to craft the DP bill. She said "it has been drafted to include every possible state benefit," -- acknowledging it cannot do anything about the federal benefits denied gay couples. "It will, however, immediately give our citizens hundreds of protections the currently don't have."

Richardson then came back on the line. I thanked him for his time and, clearly in frustration, he chastised the media for focusing on his "maricon" moment, said "For Christ's sake, why don't you write about my record."

Well, we have focused on the positive aspects of your record at my blog, Governor -- diarist Miss Wild Thing wrote a passionate positive post, as a former resident of New Mexico, about your efforts on behalf of the LGBT community. It makes what happened this evening all the more perplexing.

Another release from Richardson's office, just so folks are aware of his record.

Governor Bill Richardson has an accomplished record fighting for the rights of all Americans. Since taking office, Governor Richardson has:
  1. Expanded anti-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation. [Senate Bill SB 28, 2003 Legislature]
  2. Signed into law the state's first hate crimes legislation for acts including those based on sexual orientation. [SB 38, 2003 Legislature]
  3. Provided state health insurance for domestic partnerships. [Executive Order 03 010]
  4. Signed the Billy Griego HIV and AIDS Act, which was designed to ensure that consumers are the focus of the funding and services provided in all the state's HIV and AIDS cases. [Senate Bill 314, 2005 Legislature]
  5. Created the state's first HIV and AIDS Policy Commission charged with reviewing and making recommendations on state HIV and AIDS policies. The commission also studies and makes recommendations on all factors affecting the availability, quality and accessibility of health services for persons with HIV and AIDS. [Senate Bill 313, 2005 Legislature]
  6. Called a Special Session of the NM State Legislature to push for Domestic Partnerships Legislation, among other issues, after it failed by one vote in the Senate during the Regular Session. Governor Richardson has pledged to push for the legislation again during the next Legislative Session.

***

Joe Solmonese came over to comment on the Richardson debacle and he plans to personally meet with him to discuss the issues. "We really have to have a conversation with Mr. Richardson,  that's the first step -- we have to clear the air."

Obama and Edwards avoided land mines, and did fairly well. Edwards actually said that it was mistake to use his personal faith as an excuse to oppose civil rights for LGBT citizens as president.

I have to say that Hillary Clinton probably didn't win over any new fans tonight; those who support her probably remain in her court. While at ease, at times she was condescending and impersonal, communicating a message that the LGBT community needs to be patient.

If I were sitting where you're sitting, with all you have gone through in the last 14 years, I'm sure I would feel exactly the same way because, you know, not only did you bravely come out, but you've had health challenges and so much else. And so time can't go by slowly.  You want things to move as quickly as possible, which I, you know, understand and wish could happen as well. 

An even bigger faux pas, if you can call it that, was Clinton's reassertion that it should be up to the state to decide who can marry. This is simply not acceptable, given the history of bigotry legislated at the state level.

Elizabeth Birch said this about Hillary Clinton's stance on state's rights (via the press pool/Kerry Eleveld, news editor of The Advocate):

"I am very disappointed in her analysis around the states rights issue and I intend to have a long talk with her about it because it is simply wrong.  Each time in the country when we've had to expunge great bias or prejudice, like slavery, a woman's right to vote, regulating child welfare and a myriad of other issues, what has held addressing those issues back is leaving it to the states. The Federal government has a very particular and bold role to play when there is discrimination operating at the state level and it is their job to step in, be strong, and use the Constitution to eradicate that discrimination."

Well said.

Some post forum quotes (thanks to Karen Ocamb):

Brian Graydon, head of LOGO: "This event was incredibly validating. Gays and Lesbians are a voting bloc-- 4 % or more and that can swing an election, and the candidates know that." He believes their support is a real evolution. the very fact that they all believed (the import of our vote) we were worthy was almost as moving at what they had to say."

Joe Solmonese also indicated that HRC is not likely to endorse anyone in the primaries. "They are all pretty clear on our issues and there's no clear distinction on the issues." ..."I was looking for some revelatory moments about the forum itself. My primary focus was how the candidates focus on religion and faith on the issues." He also wished that Hillary Clinton could have come for a more personal place in explaining her position on marriage equality, but she relied on policy-speak too often. "It's fine to talk about tactics and strategy but it was important to speak from the heart."

"Tonight was an important night in the fight for equality for GLBT Americans. We pulled the curtain back a bit and gave all Americans a deeper look inside the candidates' core beliefs about the issues that affect our community. From repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell, supporting equal employment rights, providing full funding for HIV/AIDS epidemic, to eliminating the Defense of Marriage Act, these candidates went on record and committed to fighting for equality in all sectors of our society. Unfortunately, we have more work to do.  The overwhelming majority of the candidates do not support marriage equality. While we heard very strong commitments to civil unions and equality in federal rights and benefits, their reasons for opposing equality in civil marriage tonight became even less clear. Over the course of the presidential campaign, we will continue to ask these questions and demand real answers from the candidates who were appeared tonight-and from those who didn't show up. The next president must be committed to not only doing what's achievable, but also what's right."

Melissa Etheridge: I'm for all those people, they are all heading in the right direction. Obama mesmerizes me, I was under his spell. Edwards surprised me with his honesty. I'm a huge Hillary fan, but she wanted a better explanation for having been thrown under the bus. For my community I needed to ask that. She talked about sitting next to David Mixner and discussing DADT. Our hopes were so high, and I felt needed to challenge him. She hasn't endorsed anyone.

John A. Perez, a labor leader representing the Food and Commercial Workers Union, he was undecided before the forum, and now he's firmly in the Edwards camp. He had been on the stage with Richardson when he announced his candidacy, so this endorsement of Edwards is significant.

***

I do have to give a thumbs-up to HRC and LOGO for putting on a smoothly run event. The format worked out very well -- 15 minutes of concentrated time with the candidates was definitely a plus.

The questions were tough, and covered a lot of ground -- and the candidates had ample opportunity to expand on their otherwise thumbnail sketches on their views on LGBT rights. While Melissa Etheridge burned some of the precious time up on frivolous chatter that could have been used for additional questions, her earnest questions were often spot-on. In particular, she held Clinton's feet to the fire regarding her own positions as well as the policies of Bill Clinton, that have affected our community. Read the rest of this post...