Michangelo Signorile asks a question: Who's Next?

Mike Signorile has a great post asking an important question: "After the purge of Larry Craig: Who's Next?" Because we all know there will be a next one:

Some will say that I should not even discuss unsubstantiated rumors and thus further them with no evidence (and let me point out that I do not have any idea if the rumors about McConnell are true). Well, to that I say the world has changed (particularly in the past week): 1) I do not believe being gay is a bad thing so I certainly don't believe that speculating that someone is gay is a bad thing; 2)Larry Craig proved, once again, that where there is smoke (for decades, no less) there is fire. Sometimes rumors are prevalent for a reason: They are true. And lately, that seems to be the case more often than not.

If the rumors about other Republicans are true -- or not -- then there is even more reason now, in the post-Larry Craig Republican Party, for them to be investigated. So let's have a real investigation of the rumors about South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who, like Larry Craig until shortly after the gay rumors reached a crescendo in the 80s, is, at the age of 52, unmarried, and has been rumored to be gay for years. Like Larry Craig, Graham has voted antigay -- including for the federal marriage amendment -- while people in South Carolina and Washington have discussed what some say is an open secret for a long, long time.

As John noted below, Graham is also serving in the military. Many, many gay people have been kicked out of the military under "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" based on rumor and innuendo. And, most Republicans, including every single GOP candidate for President, want to keep that stupid policy in place. Read the rest of this post...

GOP strategist Murphy: the lockstep gay agenda invades the privacy of anti-gay pols

You've got to be kidding me. On Meet the Press, GOP "sage" Mike Murphy, who has been on the payrolls of John McCain and Mitt Romney, decided to blow off some steam about all the fallout from the sexual hypocrisy of anti-gay pols in his party by blaming the messenger -- bloggers who dare to talk about or reveal the dual lives of legislators and elected officials that work hard to deny civil equality to LGBT citizens, while trolling for same-sex encounters or who are on their second, third (and counting) "sacred" marriages. (NBC):

MR. SHRUM: ...people are going to laugh if these wonderful family values candidates like Giuliani and Thompson get up there and start talking about these issues.

MR. MURPHY: Yeah, but there’s an ugliness in all this, too. I, I think Craig is an unsympathetic figure. But there has been this case of bloggers on the far left trying to expose closeted politicians if they don’t fall completely into lockstep with a certain liberal gay agenda. And I think that’s unfair. It’s a form of McCarthyism, really.

MR. SHRUM: Don’t you think the ugliness was voting against the hate crimes bill, as Craig did...

MR. MURPHY: No, no, no, but what Dems do is...

MR. SHRUM: ...and then going into a men’s bathroom...

MR. MURPHY: This is -- no, it’s...

MR. SHRUM: ...and soliciting a police officer?

MR. MURPHY: Of course, that was ugly, but, but the point is, there is a tendency to apply an identity politics test now, which, which has a real chilling effect on politics, that somebody’s private life has--or their, their race or their gender or their orientation--has to dictate where they stand politically. If you’re a woman, you have to be a pro-choice Democrat. I mean, that calculation cheapens politics, and it’s unfair to people in public life who do have private lives.

Talk about hypocrites. Where do you begin? No one is saying Larry Craig needed to support gay rights. As a far-right conservative elected on a "family values" agenda, it's pretty clear that he wasn't going to be on our side of the issues. What isn't acceptable is for the man to be out trolling for sex with men in a restroom, then heading off to the Senate floor to vote against taxpaying LGBT citizens. If a pol cannot reconcile his sexual desires, is full of self-loathing and takes it out on others who are able to separate sex acts from sexual orientation, IMHO that pol isn't psychologically stable enough be given such legislative power to vote on such matters. The public does have an interest in the sexual hypocrisy of legislators as long as their efforts continue to legislate against the privacy rights of individuals and deny civil rights to a group of citizens.

They need to stop peeping and leering into our bedrooms and get to the business of solving this country's real problems.

James Carville was also on MTP; he brings up the GOP's eager drop-kick of the loyal conservative Larry Craig:

Ah, schadenfreude.

MR. RUSSERT: James Carville, in 1999 Larry Craig was on this program talking about William Jefferson Clinton, the president of the United States, and his behavior. This is the way Senator Craig talked about the president.

(Videotape, January 24, 1999)

SEN. CRAIG: And I will tell you that the Senate certainly can bring about a censure resolution, and it's a slap on the wrist. It's a "Bad boy, Bill Clinton, you're a naughty boy." The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy. I'm going to speak out for the citizens of my state who, in the majority, think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy.

(End videotape)

MR. JAMES CARVILLE: You know, I've said many times that those who are not willing to give pardon and mercy are those that don't need pardon and mercy. Clearly, Senator Craig is not one of these people, nor, I suspect, is anybody on this television set or are very few people like that. And I couldn't -- I remember that, as you remember a lot of things. And I remember that people know the way that he, he used gays in, in terms of gay marriage or gays in the military. He was very, very far out there. And I think the American public has really sort of turned against this kind of thing, and I think he was exposed for being the kind of hypocrite that he was. By the same token, you could not look at that event yesterday and be a human being and not feel sorry for that man, to some extent, and feel sorry for his family. But, you know, the, the message here is just shut your mouth and lead the life. And I think that's what the American people want, want, want people to do.

What I found extraordinary about this is nobody came out and defended this guy. I mean, nobody said, "He's a good man, done a bad thing." "Here's a decent guy who's obviously been struggling with a problem." "Here's somebody who"-- I mean, nobody. No Republican, no, no, no, no operative, no journalist. Nobody said, "Well, Larry Craig's got nothing." And I mean, they didn't throw him under the bus, they hit him with the bus. I mean, he's like, boom! Flattened him.

Yes. All of Larry's friends, those fellow back-slapping pols, rushed for the exits as fast as they could. Read the rest of this post...

More hypocrisy from our fearless Commander in Chief

As you have all heard by now W made a surprise visit to Iraq - allegedly to speak directly with Iraqi leaders and get a "no BS" first hand report on the progress of the political reconciliation between the warring factions.

Even more surprising to me is that W also met with Sunni tribal leaders in the Anbar province. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out that the Sunni tribes were attacking U.S. troops prior to our recent "handshake" deal in which they are now supposedly helping us fight Al-Qaeda and the insurgency in Anbar.

I remember speaking with Congressman Tom Davis about our current policy of amnesty to those who have killed Americans in Al Anbar. While Congressman Davis called it "distasteful" he also believes it's necessary. Maybe it is - I don't know.

What I can say is that as an Iraq war veteran, who is very much opposed to the war, I'm totally appalled that W continues to say that we have to fight Al-Qeada and the insurgency in Iraq in order to prevent them from attacking us here at home. While at the same time he goes over to Iraq and meets personally with Sunni tribal leaders who have the blood of American troops on their hands. And to add insult to injury W shook their hands.

W loves to say that if we set a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq the insurgents just have to wait us out, take over, then follow us home. What message is W sending to the insurgents by telling them that we will forgive them for killing American troops as long as they give us their word that they will stop doing it and befriend us.

Does this man have any honor? Does he have any shame? The answer is NO. Furthermore, W has forfeited his right to hide behind the troops as he has done since the start of this war.

Whether or not the policy is necessary, W owes an explanation to the loved ones of the troops killed in Anbar as to why those who have killed them have been forgiven instead of using the same Iraq war promo of "we have to fight them there so we don't have to fight them here."

John Bruhns
Iraq Veteran
www.IraqCampaign.org Read the rest of this post...

Wait. Is George Bush in Anbar meeting with the very militia groups who were killing U.S. soldiers just months ago?

Bush is desperate, desperate to say we're making progress in Iraq. Today, as noted below, he made another secret visit to Iraq. This visit is to Anbar where he's meeting with some of the militia leaders who used to oppose us (meaning used to kill our soldiers):

Travelling to Al-Asad Air Base rather than Baghdad gave Bush an opportunity to highlight the dramatic shift in sentiment in Anbar, where former Sunni insurgents have joined with US forces to fight Al-Qaeda.

Bush met with Sunni tribal sheikhs who have given his administration hopes of a turnaround in the deadly Sunni insurgency unleashed after the toppling of Saddam Hussein in April 2003.

"The president has been inspired and pleased with what he has seen in Anbar," said Morrell, who said the session with the tribal leaders was also an opportunity to encourage them to reconcile with the Iraqi government.

So just six weeks ago, this is how Thomas Ricks from the Washington Post described the situation in Anbar (and I trust Thomas Ricks more than any member of the Bush administration):

U.S. forces in Iraq are striking a variety of "handshake agreements" with Iraqi insurgents and militia groups, sometimes resulting in the release of fighters detained for attacking coalition forces, U.S. military officials said in several recent interviews.

Such informal deals mark a significant tactical shift in the Iraq war and represent a potentially risky effort to enlist former U.S. foes in the battle against hard-line militants. Despite a White House report last week concluding that a formal amnesty initiative would be "counterproductive" for Iraq today, U.S. military officials in Iraq believe that successful counterinsurgency campaigns almost always involve some form of forgiveness as a means to ending the fighting and achieving political reconciliation.

So it would be "counterproductive" to provide amnesty, but it's okay for Bush to meet with them? We need and deserve to know just which former insurgent leaders Bush met today. It's one thing for the U.S. soldiers in Iraq to meet with these "former" insurgents in order to end violence. But meeting with the President of the United States????

This public relations ploy reinforces the point that Bush will do anything to show progress -- even if it means rewarding terrorists, well people who were terrorists six weeks ago.

Bush doesn't pardon anyone -- except Scooter Libby and, now, the insurgents in Anbar.

But, hey, Bush is getting his photo op. He can see "progress." Does anything else really matter? Read the rest of this post...

Is Senator Lindsey Graham violating Don't Ask Don't Tell?

GOP Senator Lindsey Graham keeps doing reserve duty in Iraq, despite longtime unconfirmed speculation that his sexual orientation might preclude such duty under the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Why does the military not having a problem with a man who, to me at least, certainly talks like a flaming homosexual risking the unit cohesion of our troops? Because, face it, if I think Lindsey Graham sounds like a flaming gay, then some of our soldiers in Iraq probably do too. And in order to ruin unit cohesion, according to the Republicans who support DADT, all you need is for people to think that you're gay and thus not want to shower with you, bunk with you, etc. So why haven't they investigated Lindsey Graham? Or are some pink elephants more equal than others?

[Note from AJ: This post tickled my brain when I read it, like a memory was trying to emerge from long ago. And then it came to me, and I realized that there's actually a theme song for this subject! Ahh, Dumbo, reminding us just how scary pink elephants can be. Enjoy:]

Read the rest of this post...

Bush is in Iraq: A "dramatic and secretive visit" using the standard Bush campaign playbook

Nothing like a surprise visit to Iraq to show "progress." Now everyone will know Bush has been right all along. This is has become a standard Bush campaign ploy:

President Bush made a surprise visit to this isolated and well fortified air field in Anbar province Monday to meet with top U.S. and Iraqi officials and to showcase what he calls one of the successes of his decision to surge 30,000 additional troops into Iraq.

Bush slipped out of a side door of the White House for the furtive trip that was aimed at bolstering his position for not drawing down troops from Iraq. During six hours on the ground here, the president was to meet with Army Gen. David Petreaus and other military commanders and Ryan C. Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, before holding a session with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and members of his central government.

Still waiting for that hero's welcome and parade Bush was supposed to receive four and a half years ago.

If things are going so well, why are the visits still "secret"? Bush must have thought, hey, if Katie Couric can do it, so can I.

[Note from AJ: Just in case there's anybody who still doesn't understand this code, "surprise visit" is simply a euphemism for "it's so dangerous we couldn't tell anybody about the trip in advance because the whole group might have been killed if we did." This has been a public service announcement.] Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

Labor Day, 2007. Read the rest of this post...

Theio Yianni

In spite of the fires, we finally got to visit my Uncle John Haralambopoulos (or Theio Yianni, as we say in Greek - though many now call him Barba Yianni (from what I can gather, Barba is a term of endearment/respect for an olderman, it's a bit like "uncle," though people who aren't your relatives can still use it). Theio Yianni is, I believe, the most senior member of the main left party (aka Socialist party, aka PASOK) here in Greece. He retired from politics 3 years ago or so, was a member of parliament for three or four decades, and served as the Greek Foreign Minister, Defense Minister, UN Ambassador and Deputy Prime Minister under the government of Andreas Papandreou. For heading up the resistance against the military junta that controlled Greece (with US support) from the late 60s to the early 70s, Uncle John was repeatedly arrested and regularly beaten. He still gets terrible headaches every day from the beatings they gave him to the back of his head, now over 30 years ago. He was then exiled to a prison island, affectionately known as Devil's Island, for four years. My aunt, his wife, Aga, sent him some olive oil one time in prison. In the bottom of the container was a secret panel in which she hid a transistor radio, his only contact with the outside world for months until the junta fell and he was released.

Uncle John is a stately figure. Tall, confident, long swirling mustache like some figure out of Greek history (he actually resembles the statue of Kolokotronis, the Greek revolution hero). I'd met him 20 years ago when he was defense minister. But the big surprise of this trip was his wife, Aga, whom I'd never met. What an unexpected joy. Uncle John is around 88 or so. I believe Theia (aunt) Aga is more senior. You'd think she was 60. What an amazing presence and mind this woman has. It was like meeting someone I'd known all my life, and wished I'd known all my life. She has been for decades and decades a leader in the Greek women's movement. She's as smart as she is politically savvy, a wealth of data stored inside her head. I was simply blown away. I was so looking forward to talking with Uncle John about the family history and politics this weekend, and we did, but Theia Aga was the unexpected treat.

Unfortunately, Uncle John asked that our weekend discussions be kept off the record. He stopped giving interviews a few years ago, and thus doesn't want to be quoted about politics, understandably. So I can't fill you in on the substance of our discussions (other than the details of our famous uncle, Dimitris Papatsoris, who helped lead the revolution against the Turks in 1821 - he said that I could share his views on Greek history - I'll get to that another time).

But it really is amazing to meet people who have lived through history that we can't even imagine. Being born in a small village in southern Greece (Uncle John's mom and my grandma (yiayia) were sisters). He grew up a few blocks away from my mom in a town called Dorio (though we're actually from Soulima). To come from a village, then go through WWII, where he fought in exile during the German occupation of Greece, to watch your country then succumb to a military coup and watch yourself and your sons be thrown in jail and tortured for simply supporting democracy... all things that are hard to imagine for an American. I suspect all of these experiences give Uncle John, and all Greeks of his generation, a special appreciation for democracy and freedom that most Americans know in name only.

It's difficult, I suspect, to truly appreciate freedom, and the sacrifices you have to make to preserve that freedom, unless you've had it brutally taken away by a "benevolent" government. Yes, Americans like to talk about "freedom," but far too many have shown, since September 11, almost a disgust for our way of government and the values and rights it represents and engenders. I often wonder if the majority of Americans won't recognize the danger that omnipotent and omniscient government poses until each and every one of them suffer personally from the "benevolence" of such a government. Read the rest of this post...