She just can’t say whether it’s immoral or not. ABC correspondent Jake Tapper spoke to her.
I also asked her about the comments by General Peter Pace that homosexulity is “immoral.” Clinton has opposed the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, so I asked her if that law — signed by her husband in 1993 — was a mistake, and if homosexuality is “immoral.”
“General Pace has clarified his remarks, but let’s not lose sight of the fact that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is not working,” she said. “We are being deprived of thousands of patriotic men and women who want to serve their country who are bringing skills into the armed services that we desparately need, like translation skills. And one can argue whether it was a good idea when it was first implemented, but we know have evidence as to the fact that we are in a time of war — when we really need as many people as we can to recruit and retain in an all-volunteer army — we are turning people away or discharging them not because of what they’ve done but because of who they are.”
But is it immoral?
“Well I’m going to leave that to others to conclude,” she said. “I’m very proud of the gays and lesbians I know who perform work that is essential to our country, who want to serve their country and I want make sure they can.”
I mean, I’m sympathetic to pols who have to moderate their statements. It’s not always just about soulless self-promotion. Pols have the unique obligation to try to build consensus.
But come on!
I wonder if she would be willing to concede that they shouldn’t be burned alive or have acid poured over their heads.
Photo from CNN.
16 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 15, 2007 at 12:19 am
Anonymous
This is what so disappoints me with the Clintons.
March 15, 2007 at 1:36 am
Anonymous
She doesn’t want to give the vast right wing conspiracy red meat.
March 15, 2007 at 1:41 am
Anonymous
That’s inexcusable considering she’s a lesbian. (She is, you know.)
March 15, 2007 at 1:50 am
Anonymous
I would guess she is. Our family friend who is lesbian, was her roommate in college. Of course they’re all lesbians until graduation.
March 15, 2007 at 2:29 am
Anonymous
If you want to see something really cool regarding Hillary, go to you tube and check this out. It is a Barack ad (though no doubt unofficial) featuring Hillary, and is a remake of a classic 1984 Apple computer ad. Talking head saying nothing, Orwellian undertones, Ridley Scott directed — it is awesome! If this link does not work just put in keywords “Barack Apple 1984″.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo
Jane
March 15, 2007 at 2:53 am
Anonymous
Who cares what her personal view is? She can have a political view and a personal view.
I do feel it is immoral and wrong and applaud Pace for not bowing to the pressure to apologize.It’s getting tiresome to hear the whiners demanding apologies about every thing. What is happening to free speech?
Oh that’s right, it’s only free if you agree with the immoral majority lately. You can’t hold conservative Christian views without being mocked and told to apologize.
March 15, 2007 at 5:29 am
Anonymous
Anon 7:53
On one hand we have moral Christianity and American democracy pitted in mortal combat against the Islamo-fascist terrorists.
On the other, we have that same moral Christian belief system pitted against the democratic ideals of “all men are created equal”. According to Pace and others, apparently they are not since being an immoral person does equate to being less equal in this case.
So, when given a choice, at least a large segment of the American Christian establishment is more concerned about who is moral enough to fight this battle than winning the battle.
The Islamo-fascists have no such reservations as to who is moral enough to strap on a suicide vest- or fly a plane into the WTC.
Purge and Surge are not mutually supportive concepts given current troop levels.
One can only wonder then, at what the ultimate outcome will be given these rules of engagement.
March 15, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Anonymous
“Don’t ask, don’t tell” is nothing more than another distraction designed to weaken our military power and our national resolve, and it’s working beautifully.
Our good friends younger brother worked security at the White House in 1994 and 1995. He told her more women were snuck in for Hillary than for Bill. Is it true, who the hell knows. Do I believe it, I’m inclined to.
March 15, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Eric V. Kirk
Well then, let’s put an end to the policy. No more distraction, and no more resolve weakening.
March 15, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Anonymous
I agree, end the policy now. It was flawed the day President Clinton signed it into law.
But let’s also acknowledge that a soldier’s sexual orientation should be a factor when promotions are considered.
March 15, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Eric V. Kirk
I don’t believe it should be considered at all. Clinton’s mistake was to compromise with Sam Nunn and sell homosexuals out with this policy. It’s a private matter as far as I’m concerned, and none of the military’s business for any purposes.
March 16, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Anonymous
Gen. Peter Pace is a moron. Homosexuality is immoral, but killing 3,200 American G.I.’s and hundreds-of-thousands of innocent Iraqis based on lies and greed is OK? Republicans are truly stupid.
March 16, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Anonymous
8:16 – stay away from mirrors
March 16, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Anonymous
Hillary has adjusted her position on homosexuals,,,
never mind
March 17, 2007 at 4:06 am
Jeff Haas
Hillary certainly doesn’t show any courage here, or in her tepid statements about the war in which she tries to establish her “strong on defense” creds by letting us know that she “supports the troops”. The thread between these two statements, besides lack of courage? She succeeds in saying nothing, provides no leadership, gives no sense of who she is or what she cares about. She is playing positional politics, exactly what the Democrats- and the nation- do not need at this moment in history. A leader has convictions, vision, a destination. In her statements on the war and on gays, Ms. Clinton is trying to find the unobjectionable nowhere spot. Concerning the “morality” of homosexuality- One of the key concepts I see in the arguments raised by the scapegoating of our gay population is that of the gay “lifestyle”. In talking with gay people, and learning about human sexuality, I have not yet spoken to or heard of a person who chose to be gay as a “lifestyle” choice. I am aware of people who knew as little children they were different, and realized during their sexual awakening that they were gay. I am aware of people who fought inner battles before acknowledging they are gay. There are a lot of variations on the theme, but I am not aware of anyone who watched too much Liberace growing up and decided to adopt a gay lifestyle. Talk to gay people- who are your neighbors, family, and friends- and they will tell you they were made that way. If we assume a kind and loving God- which I do- does it make any sense that such a compassionate God would create people who, if they expressed their God-given nature, would be sinning? It is inconceivable. That is why all of the political and religious forces which scapegoat and persecute gays consistently refer to gay identity as a “lifestyle”- a choice, a very bad choice. If they acknowledged that being gay is part of a person’s identity they would be up against the paradox I expressed above. Morality and moralizing is a human function, not a divine one. In some parts of our country it is acceptable- functionally “moral”- to be a strong Christian and a strong bigot. Would Christ, the embodiment of divine love, endorse bigotry? Of course not. Go back farther- slavery was moral, and justified in Scripture. The Inquisition, with it’s torture, burning people alive, was supremely moral. There were churches and demagogues to sanctify apartheid in South Africa, genocide against Native Americans in this country- even the Nazis “moralized” their horrible agenda. For those who want to use Christian teachings to justify persecution, I would remind them of the time when those who sought to discredit Christ tried to use the injunctions of the Old Testament to trap him- surely the woman who committed adultery should be stoned to death because it says so in Scripture. Christ’s response- so wise and compassionate- that “you who are without sin should cast the first stone”- is a proper reminder to those who want to moralize and persecute under Christ’s banner. If you were there at the stoning, would you be feeling the mercy and compassion that Christ was teaching, or reaching for a stone to throw? We all fail sometimes to live the full measure of love that God sent us in the teachings and life of Christ. I hope that Christians in this country can “love thy neighbor as thyself”- not thy perfect neighbor, or thy white bread heterosexual-only neighbor, or thy neighbor who worships in exactly the same church as thee, or any other restrictions on a very clear teaching about how inclusive and all-embracing Christian love is supposed to be. I am tired of our gay population being scapegoated and used as a political football.
March 17, 2007 at 4:48 pm
xjarhead
Peter Pace was the same General who stood proudly by as Bush signed the latest version of the Patriot Act – which would never be used for abusive purposes against American Citizens.
Well, we all know now that that was a lie, but proud Peter has no moral problem with that.
Also have to wonder about the timing of his statement. Is the US military in imminent danger by the inclusion of gays? (Other than the immorality factor.)
Could it be that proud Peter is testing the waters for his own bid for the title of: Who’s the most moral Christian conservative with military credentials we have for an ’08 run at the presidency, (or vice presidency), that the GOP has in it’s so far less than scintillating lineup of flawed has beens?
President Peter Pace, does have an alliterative charm.
Time will tell. If you liked Ollie North, you’re just going to love him.