Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
122241508
label
[08/12/1999 – 09/01/1999]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
122241508
contentType
document
title
[08/12/1999 – 09/01/1999]
citationUrl
collections
Presidential Electronic Mail from the Automated Records Management System (ARMS)
Automated Records Management System (ARMS) Email from the Office of Policy Development (OPD) Bucket
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
122241508
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-26444780-20150017F-Seg2-002-004-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
9e0238ac19f1ed2a
ocrText
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Richard Socarides ( CN=Richard Socarides/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:12-AUG-1999 10:35:57.00
SUBJECT: Asking, Abuse Pre Army Murder
TO: Leon S. Fuerth (CN=Leon S. Fuerth/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth J. Potter (CN=Elizabeth J. Potter/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: LEAVY_D@A1@CD@VAXGTWY@EOP (LEAVY_D@A1@CD@VAXGTVY@EOP [UNK)
(NSC)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mary E. Cahill (CN=Mary E. Cahill/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas L. Freedman ( CN=Thomas L. Freedman/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mara E. Rudman (CN=Mara E. Rudman/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. Maloney (CN=Sean P. Maloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Barry J. Toiv (CN=Barry J. Toiv/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Monica M. Dixon (CN=Monica M. Dixon/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Philip G Dufour (CN=Philip G Dufour/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mary L. Smith (CN=Mary L. Smith/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Caroline R. Fredrickson (CN=Caroline R. Fredrickson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Edward W. Correia ( CN=Edward W. Correia/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura S. Marcus (CN=Laura S. Marcus/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Karen Tramontano (CN=Karen Tramontano/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Asking, Abuse Pre
Army Murder
NewsPlanet Staff
Wednesday, August 11, 1999 / 09:55
PM
SUMMARY: Officers in charge of the slain
soldier admit that they did ask (but they
thought that was ok) and didn't try to stop
the anti-gay taunts (because "everybody
was having fun").
Defense attorneys for Private First Class
(PFC) Calvin Glover believe that insufficient
evidence has been presented for him to face
court-martial in the July bashing death of PFC
Barry Winchell -- but testimony at a hearing
at Fort Campbell, Kentucky on August 10 left
no doubt that Winchell was the object of
anti-gay abuse, and that his superiors not only
made no effort to stop it, they clearly violated
the so-called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military
policy on homosexuality.
The "Article 32" hearing combines some
elements of civilian grand jury and preliminary
hearings; both sides can present evidence and
question witnesses. Winchell's section leader
Sergeant Michael Kleifgen said on the witness
stand, "Pretty much everybody in the
company called him [Winchell] derogatory
names. Basically, they called him a 'faggot'
and stuff like that. I would say on a daily
basis A lot of times, he was walking around
down in the dumps." Kleifgen testified that
even an unidentified first sergeant on one
occasion said he was going to "get that little
faggot" for an infraction.
Winchell's roommate, Specialist Justin Fisher,
who will face a hearing on August 14 as an
accomplice to Winchell's murder, appears to
have been the root of the rumors that
Winchell was gay. That's a particularly
interesting revelation since it was Fisher
himself who introduced Winchell to
Nashville's The Connection gay bar and to
pre-operative transsexual drag entertainer
Calpernia Addams, who dated Winchell
beginning in March. Addams has speculated
that Fisher may have been jealous of the
special relationship she developed with
Winchell. One soldier testified specifically to
Fisher making wisecracks about Winchell
being gay, and another soldier's wife testified
that Fisher "was just straight-up mean about
it. He [Fisher] was just torturing him
[Winchell]."
Fisher told Kleifgen in late 1998 that he'd
seen a soldier at The Connection. Kleifgen
said on the stand, "We figured out it was
Winchell. I asked Winchell if he was gay. He
said no." Kleifgen went on to say, "I left it at
that. The military had a policy of 'don't ask,
don't tell'," a policy which Kleifgen didn't
seem to see that he had violated.
Staff Sergeant Eric Dubielak also testified that
he had asked Winchell if he were gay. He
justified his violation of the policy because the
rumors "seemed to be affecting the platoon."
Both sergeants testified that no one ordered
soldiers to stop the harassment. Kleifgen
testified that he didn't intervene himself
because soldiers are accustomed to such
taunting and "everybody was having fun."
Gay and lesbian activists praised the military
for allowing this testimony and the sergeants
for their "courage" in providing it.
Investigating officer Major Delbert Hall
presided at the hearing and will make a
written recommendation within two weeks to
Colonel Robert Caslen, 2nd Brigade
commander and the Army's special
court-martial convening authority. Caslen and
Fort Campbell's commanding general, Major
General Robert Clark, can decide to dismiss
the charges, recommend administrative action
or convene a court martial, either on the
charges as presented or the charges as they
may modify them. A conviction for Glover on
the charge of pre-meditated murder could
mean a life sentence or even the death
penalty.
Despite the defense contention that there
were no eyewitnesses to the beating and that
the main source connecting Glover to the
crime was Fisher, the evidence presented
appears damaging to Glover. Two soldiers
saw him running shortly after the attack,
apparently to throw clothes in the dumpsters.
He was found in his room with a bloodstained
shirt and blood smeared on his door. Army
investigators reported that he had sworn to
others that he would get back at Winchell for
having bested him in a fight two days before
the assault, reportedly including the statement,
"I won't let a faggot kick my ass." A soldier
who guarded him while he was initially
detained at Fort Campbell testified that
Glover had told him that he'd hit Winchell with
a baseball bat, and that Glover made anti-gay
remarks in conversation with another inmate.
Defense attorneys also said the decision
whether or not to hold a court-martial should
be delayed until lab work on some 60 pieces
of evidence is completed.
The defense stated that Fisher could not be
trusted, and seemed even to be suggesting
that Fisher might be an alternative suspect.
There was testimony that Fisher and Winchell
were seen sitting together within an hour of
the time Winchell was found battered. It was
Fisher who told investigators that on the night
of the beating, Glover saw Winchell sleeping
on a cot in the hall and asked, "What is that
faggot doing sleeping there?" (Winchell was
looking after the dog who served as area
mascot.) It was Fisher who then described
Glover as grabbing Fisher's bat and spending
several minutes swinging it with a "psychotic"
look on his face, leaving for as much as a
half-hour, returning with blood on the bat, and
telling Fisher that he'd hit Winchell with it. It
was Fisher who, hysterical, later roused other
soldiers to come help Winchell, eventually
pulling a fire alarm. (Fisher did not testify in
person at the hearing, but investigators
reported on what he had told them.)
Captain Gregg Engler, serving in the role of
"trial counsel" or prosecutor, gave a confident
summation, saying, "Private Glover murdered
Private First Class Barry Winchell and there's
no doubt about it."
Attorneys and potential witnesses have been
barred by the military from talking with
reporters about the case.
Winchell sought to excel at his work, and
often did. He was his company's best shot
with a .50-caliber machine gun and was
known as "Top Gun" for his prowess with a
helicopter, which he hoped to improve still
further. While bearing the anti-gay abuse fairly
stoically, he feared that it might lose him his
job. He was described by friends as quiet,
down-to-earth and masculine. He was
discovered early July 5 with severe head
trauma and was transported to Vanderbilt
University Medical Center in Nashville, where
he died of his injuries on July 6. An Army
investigator who observed the autopsy
testified that his skull was cracked "similar to
an eggshell."
According to sources cited by the
"Washington Post," Winchell's could be the
first case of a homophobic murder in the
military since the 1994 adoption of "Don't
Ask, Don't Tell" -- despite a steady increase
in instances of anti-gay harassment recorded
by the Servicemembers Legal Defense
Network.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Richard Socarides ( (CN=Richard Socarides/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:12-AUG-1999 15:43:26.00
SUBJECT: ARMY SAYS SUSPECT'S COMMENTS ANTI-GAY
TO: Leon S. Fuerth ( CN=Leon S. Fuerth/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth J. Potter ( CN=Elizabeth J. Potter/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:LEAVY_D@A1@CD@VAXGTWY@EOP(LEAVY_D@A1@CD@VAXGTWY@EOPLUNKNOWN]
(NSC)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mary E. Cahill (CN=Mary E. Cahill/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas L. Freedman ( CN=Thomas L. Freedman/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mara E. Rudman (CN=Mara E. Rudman/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. Maloney (CN=Sean P. Maloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Barry J. Toiv (CN=Barry J. Toiv/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Monica M. Dixon (CN=Monica M. Dixon/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Philip G Dufour ( CN=Philip G Dufour/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mary L. Smith (CN=Mary L. Smith/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Caroline R. Fredrickson ( CN=Caroline R. Fredrickson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Edward W. Correia (CN=Edward W. Correia/OU=VHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura S. Marcus ( CN=Laura S. Marcus/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Karen Tramontano ( CN=Karen Tramontano/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
This gets worse.
Louisville Courier-Journal
August 11, 1999
Louisville, Kentucky, USA
http://www.courier-journal.com/
ARMY SAYS SUSPECT'S COMMENTS ANTI-GAY
Slain Fort Campbell soldier's sexuality discussed at hearing
By Chris Poynter, The Courier-Journal
FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. ) The Army acknowledged for the first time
yesterday that Pfc. Barry Winchell may have been killed by a fellow
soldier, in part, because he was gay.
Capt. Gregg Engler ) the prosecuting attorney in a hearing that ended
yesterday ) said Pfc. Calvin Glover, accused of repeatedly striking
Winchell with a baseball bat last month, was upset that Winchell had
beaten him in a fight two days earlier and had pledged to another soldier
that "I won't let a faggot kick my ass."
Engler also said that just minutes before the beating, Glover walked
past Winchell's room and noticed him sleeping on a cot. "What is that
faggot doing sleeping there?" Glover allegedly asked Spc. Justin Fisher,
Winchell's roommate, who is charged as an accessory to the crime. Fisher
did not testify at the two-day hearing, but Engler summarized the
statements he gave to investigators.
Engler said Winchell, 21, was sleeping on a cot in the hallway because
he was keeping the company's mascot, a dog, and didn't want to take it
into his room.
An investigating officer ) who presided over the two-day Article 32
hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury ) will recommend,
probably within two weeks, whether Glover should face a court-martial or
some other military action. The final decision will be made by Maj. Gen.
Robert Clark, the commanding general at Fort Campbell.
Winchell's death has attracted the attention of national gay-rights
organizations, which think his sexuality was a factor in the slaying.
"Our concerns that brought us down here were well founded," Kathi
Westcott, an attorney for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said
yesterday after the hearing.
Engler, in his closing, summarized what the Army thinks occurred
inside Winchell's barracks about 3 a.m. July 5:
After seeing Winchell sleeping, Glover and Fisher walked to Fisher's
room. Glover grabbed Fisher's bat and walked around for about 10 minutes
with a "psychotic" look on his face while making chopping motions with the
weapon.
Glover left the room, then returned about 20 to 30 minutes later with
the bat bloodied, Fisher told investigators.
"Hey, I got some blood on your bat," Glover said to Fisher, according
to Fisher's statements. "Help me clean it."
"How'd you get blood on your bat," Fisher replied.
"I hit Winchell with it."
Engler said earlier that even after Glover was jailed at Fort
Campbell, he told a man in the next cell that he hated blacks and
homosexuals. The conversation was overheard by a soldier who guarded
Glover and testified on Monday.
Glover's two military defense attorneys argued that the prosecution
had no eyewitnesses to the killing and that a decision on whether to
court-martial their client should be delayed until all the physical
evidence has been analyzed. Capt. Thomas Moshang also said that Fisher's
statements to investigators "can't be trusted."
Yesterday's hearing also provided a deeper look into the atmosphere
inside Winchell's platoon once his fellow soldiers discovered he was gay.
Sgt. Michael Kleifgen, the section leader of Winchell's unit,
testified that Winchell was tormented almost daily about being gay.
One of Winchell's superiors, a first sergeant who was never identified
in the hearing, even joined in, once saying he was going to "get that
little faggot" when Winchell reported for duty one day with alcohol on his
breath, Kleifgen testified.
Kleifgen said that he did not attempt to stop the taunting because
"everybody was having fun" and that infantrymen are accustomed to vulgar
language and being razzed by other soldiers. Kleifgen also admitted under
oath to confronting Winchell and asking him directly if he were gay ) an
apparent violation of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Kleifgen said rumors about Winchell's sexuality surfaced four to six
months ago after he was seen at The Connections, a gay bar in Nashville,
Tenn., about an hour's drive from Fort Campbell.
Kleifgen said he was told by Winchell's roommate, Justin Fisher, that
someone in the company was frequenting a gay bar. Fisher didn't mention
anyone by name. So, Kleifgen said, he got a list of his soldiers and
questioned each about where they had been the prior weekend. He said he
eventually figured it was Winchell who visited the bar.
Kleifgen said he asked Winchell if he were gay. Winchell said "no."
"I left it at that," Kleifgen testified. "The military had a policy
of 'don't ask, don't tell."
Staff Sgt. Eric Dublielak said Winchell was asked about being gay by
his superiors because the rumors "seemed to be affecting the platoon."
Other soldiers also testified about the treatment Winchell received
because of his sexuality.
Spc. David Long testified that Fisher joked about Winchell being gay.
Spc. Lewis Ruiz testified that Winchell was depressed about the rumors
and jokes. "He was really worried about people talking about him being
gay," said Ruiz, who in May was transferred from Fort Campbell to a base
in California. He testified by phone.
Ruiz's wife, Melaniea, said Winchell was happy with his job in the
military, and he was worried about getting thrown out of the Army for
being gay. As she spoke, she began to cry, the first time during the
two-day hearing that a witness showed emotions.
She said Fisher often taunted Winchell about his sexuality and made
sure soldiers in their platoon knew about Winchell being gay. "He was
just straight-up mean about it," she testified. "He was just torturing
him."
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ]) (WHO)
CREATION DATE/TIME:13-AUG-1999 13:53:34.00
SUBJECT: 1999-8/13 toiv, leavy briefing
TO: Reuben L. Musgrave Jr ( CN=Reuben L. Musgrave Jr/OU=OSTP/O=EOP [ OSTP ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: William Hadley ( CN=William Hadley/OU=OA/O=EOP [OA])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: William C. Haymes ( CN=William C. Haymes/OU=OA/O=EOP [OA])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Wayne C. Johnson (CN=Wayne C. Johnson/OU=OA/O=EOP [OA])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Todd A. Bledsoe ( CN=Todd A. Bledsoe/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Toby C. Graff ( CN=Toby C. Graff/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas D. Janenda ( CN=Thomas D. Janenda/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Tanya E. Martin (CN=Tanya E. Martin/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven J. Naplan ( CN=Steven J. Naplan/OU=NSC/O=EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sheyda Jahanbani ( CN=Sheyda Jahanbani/OU=NSC/O=EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sharon Farmer ( CN=Sharon Farmer/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. O'Shea ( CN=Sean P. O'Shea/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. Maloney ( CN=Sean P. Maloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah S. Knight (CN=Sarah S. Knight/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sara M. Latham (CN=Sara M. Latham/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Francisco J. Sanchez ( CN=Francisco J. Sanchez/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin J. Bachman (CN=Robin J. Bachman/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ralph Alswang (CN=Ralph Alswang/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rajiv Y. Mody (CN=Rajiv Y. Mody/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Paul D. Glastris (CN=Paul D. Glastris/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Patrick E. Briggs (CN=Patrick E. Briggs/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Charles J. Payson ( CN=Charles J. Payson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ) (WHO)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Noa A. Meyer (CN=Noa A. Meyer/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nanda Chitre (CN=Nanda Chitre/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Minyon Moore ( CN=Minyon Moore/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mindy E. Myers (CN=Mindy E. Myers/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael V. Terrell ( CN=Michael V. Terrell/OU=CEQ/O=EOP [ CEQ ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael A. Hammer ( CN=Michael A. Hammer/OU=NSC/O=EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa M. Murray ( CN=Melissa M. Murray/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Megan C. Moloney ( CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Maureen A. Hudson ( CN=Maureen A. Hudson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mary E. Cahill (CN=Mary E. Cahill/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Marty J. Hoffmann ( CN=Marty J. Hoffmann/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Martha Foley ( CN=Martha Foley/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Marsha E. Berry ( CN=Marsha E. Berry/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark J. Bernstein ( CN=Mark J. Bernstein/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark H. Bartholomew (CN=Mark H. Bartholomew/OU=OA/O=EOP [OA])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark D. Neschis ( CN=Mark D. Neschis/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark A. Kitchens (CN=Mark A. Kitchens/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Margaret M. Suntum ( CN=Margaret M. Suntum/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1) (WHO)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leslie Bernstein (CN=Leslie Bernstein/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura S. Marcus ( CN=Laura S. Marcus/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura D. Schwartz ( CN=Laura D. Schwartz/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kris M Balderston (CN=Kris M Balderston/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kathleen K. Ahn ( CN=Kathleen K. Ahn/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Katharine Button ( CN=Katharine Button/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Karen L. Barbuschak ( CN=Karen L. Barbuschak/OU=OA/O=EOP [ OA ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Karen C. Burchard ( CN=Karen C. Burchard/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Justin L. Coleman ( CN=Justin L. Coleman/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julie E. Mason (CN=Julie E. Mason/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julia M. Payne ( CN=Julia M. Payne/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua S. Gottheimer ( CN=Joshua S. Gottheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph P. Lockhart (CN=Joseph P. Lockhart/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan M. Prince ( CN=Jonathan M. Prince/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan A. Kaplan ( CN=Jonathan A. Kaplan/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: John A. Gribben (CN=John A. Gribben/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joel Johnson ( CN=Joel Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jocelyn A. Bucaro ( CN=Jocelyn A. Bucaro/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer Ferguson (CN=Jennifer Ferguson/OU=OMB/O=EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeannetta P. Allen (CN=Jeannetta P. Allen/OU=OA/O=EOP [ OA ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jason H. Schechter (CN=Jason H. Schechter/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jackson T. Dunn ( CN=Jackson T. Dunn/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Irma L. Martinez (CN=Irma L. Martinez/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: George G. Caudill ( CN=George G. Caudill/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ]) (NSC)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Erica S. Lepping (CN=Erica S. Lepping/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elliot J. Diringer (CN=Elliot J. Diringer/OU=CEQ/O=EOP [ CEQ ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas [email protected] ([email protected] UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dorinda A. Salcido ( CN=Dorinda A. Salcido/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dorian V. Weaver (CN=Dorian V. Weaver/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dominique L. Cano ( CN=Dominique L. Cano/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Denver R. Peacock (CN=Denver R. Peacock/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Delia A. Cohen (CN=Delia A. Cohen/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Debra D. Bird ( CN=Debra D. Bird/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Deborah Akel ( CN=Deborah Akel/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dawn M. Chirwa ( CN=Dawn M. Chirwa/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David Vandivier (CN=David Vandivier/OU=OMB/O=EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David T. Johnson ( (CN=David T. Johnson/OU=NSC/O=EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David R. Goodfriend ( CN=David R. Goodfriend/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David E. Kalbaugh ( CN=David E. Kalbaugh/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dario J. Gomez ( CN=Dario J. Gomez/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Daniel W. Burkhardt ( CN=Daniel W. Burkhardt/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Patrick M. Dorton ( CN=Patrick M. Dorton/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ]) (WHO)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Christine N. Macy ( CN=Christine N. Macy/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Cheryl D. Mills (CN=Cheryl D. Mills/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Catherine T. Kitchen ( CN=Catherine T. Kitchen/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Carmen B. Fowler ( CN=Carmen B. Fowler/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Stephanie A. Cutter ( CN=Stephanie A. Cutter/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Brian A. Barreto ( CN=Brian A. Barreto/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Brenda M. Anders ( CN=Brenda M. Anders/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Bradley M. Campbell (CN=Bradley M. Campbell/OU=CEQ/O=EOP [ CEQ 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Beverly J. Barnes ( CN=Beverly J. Barnes/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Barbara D. Woolley ( CN=Barbara D. Woolley/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michele Ballantyne ( CN=Michele Ballantyne/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Antony J. Blinken ( CN=Antony J. Blinken/OU=NSC/O=EOP NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne M. Edwards (CN=Anne M. Edwards/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne E. McGuire (CN=Anne E. McGuire/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ann F. Lewis (CN=Ann F. Lewis/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ann C. Hertelendy (CN=Ann C. Hertelendy/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Andrew J. Mayock ( CN=Andrew J. Mayock/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ) (WHO)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Philip J. [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: " ('/R=OPUS/R=MRP/PR-L=AVUOEOB/PR-U=TDIXON/FFN=Timothy Dixon/"@mr.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN ]
)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ) (WHO)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Nathan B. Naylor"@lngate4.eop.gov ("Nathan B. Naylor"@lngate4.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julie [email protected] [[email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Jim Kohlenberger"@lngate4.eop.gov ("Jim Kohlenberger"@Ingate4.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN J)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Gina N. Dennis ("Gina N. Dennis/WHO/EOP"@EOP.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ()
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Eli G. Attie"@Ingate4.eop.gov ("Eli G. Attie"@Ingate4.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Christopher S. Lehane"@Ingate4.eop.gov ("Christopher S. Lehane"@Ingate4.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ]) (WHO)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Brian A. Reich"@lngate4.eop.gov ("Brian A. Reich"@Ingate4.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ]) (OA)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Aprill_N._Springfield ("Aprill_N._Springfield/who/eop/gov'@PMDF.EOP.GOV [UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: "Alejandro G. Cabrera"@Ingate4.eop.gov ("Alejandro G. Cabrera"@Ingate4.eop.gov [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Note: Some recipients have been dropped due to syntax errors. Please refer to the "$AdditionalHeaders" item for the
complete headers.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 13, 1999
PRESS BRIEFING
BY
BARRY TOIV AND DAVID LEAVY
The Briefing Room
12:30 P.M. EDT
MR. TOIV: Good afternoon, everybody. Happy Friday.
Q
I don't think everybody's here, Barry.
MR. TOIV: Come on in. We can wait.
Q
This is not a comment on your --
MR. TOIV: Well, I'm happy today. I expect all the tough
questions to
go to David.
Just as I mentioned earlier today, we're going to have a briefing
at
2:30 p.m. on the radio address. The subject has to do with clean water,
and
we'll have Carol Browner here again, making an encore appearance, as well
as
Elgie Holstein, who is the Associate Director for Natural Resources at OMB.
This will take place at 2:30 p.m., but it will be on camera. It will be
embargoed until 10:06 a.m. tomorrow, as usual.
Any questions?
MR. LEAVY: All right, thank you very much. Appreciate your
coming in.
MR. TOIV: Well, thank you.
Q
Well, a couple of them. One about the Pentagon, new
policy for
"don't ask, don't tell." Any comments on that?
MR. TOIV: Well, as you know, Secretary Cohen has been
committed to implementing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy
fairly. And the President agrees with him on that. The
Pentagon, a little over a year ago, issued a report that said
that "don't ask, don't tell" was working, but that there were a
couple of areas where improvements needed to be made. I think
today, the guidelines that they are issuing today are intended to
address those issues. I would suggest you check over there for
details of what they are announcing today.
Q
I understand that China has not conveyed any explicit
threats to the United States in regards to Taiwan. But can you
characterize what has changed? Has there been any ratcheting up
of the rhetoric of the implied threats, of the indications that
you're getting that they may be more bellicose towards Taiwan?
MR. LEAVY: Let me just say, Bill, a couple of things
generally. One, the peace and stability in East Asia and the
Pacific is a fundamental national interest to the United States.
We are certainly watching developments closely, have been in
contact with both sides about our concerns and about reiterating
our policy of resuming peaceful dialogue.
Just specifically on your question, it is my understanding
that the intelligence community has not seen any extraordinary
developments or signs that the PRC is mobilizing for military
action in the Taiwan Strait.
Q
Would you say that there has been a ratcheting up of
the rhetoric in diplomatic channels? Are they trying to send
signals?
MR. LEAVY: Well, I don't want to characterize, Kevin, other
people's rhetoric, other people's statements. I think there has
obviously been some increased tension in the Strait over the last
several weeks. That comes as no surprise to any of us or anybody
in this room. We've talked about that. But I think what we have
to do is look forward, and we have communicated to both sides
that there is a danger of escalating tensions, that we have to
resume a dialog based on a One China formula. And we're going to
continue to do that.
Q
Specifically, there was one report that the embassy
here had been saying that they are going to take action.
MR. LEAVY: I would steer you away from that report. As I
said earlier today, we have not received any threats or
ultimatums from the PRC. I checked about that again this
afternoon, earlier this afternoon, and that was confirmed. So, I
would steer you away from that report.
I would just say, though, generally, that there is nothing
new in China's long-standing position. They have made clear that
from their point of view Taiwan is an internal matter, and they
hope that there is peaceful reunification, but they don't rule
out military means. We have a long-standing disagreement on
that. So I don't think any the context is not new.
Q Does the United States still have a commitment to go to
the defense of Taiwan, should there be an unprovoked attack from
the mainland?
MR. LEAVY: Our long-standing position -- this goes back
many years, both Republican and Democratic administrations is
that any effort to resolve the issue of Taiwan by other than
peaceful means would be considered of grave concern to the United
States. That position hasn't changed today.
Q How would you view a Chinese seizure of a small
Taiwan-controlled island, or some smaller military action?
MR. LEAVY: See, that's the kind of hypothetical question
that I want to avoid getting into. Again, the Taiwan Relations
Act has been in place for many years. It has guided our
relationship on this issue, our policy on this issue. And I
don't want to change, or speculate on hypotheticals today.
Q David, is there concern that the U.S. might get drawn
into something because of this rhetoric?
MR. LEAVY: Oh, I think there's concern that the interests
of both sides won't be advanced. The One China policy that the
President has advocated and that has been the foundation of
our approach to this issue for many, many years has been
successful for all sides. Both China and Taiwan have benefited
economically. Taiwan's the sixth-largest economy in the world.
Chinese economic growth has grown vastly over the last 20 years.
So the formula is a successful one. We don't see the need
to change that, and we have no intention of changing that.
Q Let me follow, too. You said no one had contacted the
United States with a threat. Has anyone from either side, Taiwan
or China, contacted the United States with a concern over the
rhetoric, a concern over the threat?
MR. LEAVY: Well, we've had a number of discussions, both at
the State Department and with officials in China. As you
remember, the State Department sent Assistant Secretary Stanley
Roth and Ken Lieberthal from the National Security Council,
several weeks ago, to Beijing to discuss our concern about the
rising rhetoric, and a need to get back to a dialogue and to get
back to the two parties talking about the issues. And so we have
been engaged on this issue. And certainly, there is a concern
that this kind of thing leads to accidents, leads to
misunderstandings, and that we want to focus both parties on
getting back to the table.
Q You said -- you made a point of saying that there were
no extraordinary signs coming into the intelligence community of
MR. LEAVY: Extraordinary developments or signs.
Q Right. Does that mean that there is something less
than extraordinary -- or you're telling us what hasn't happened.
Can you tell us what has happened?
MR. LEAVY: Well, I want to stay away from commenting on
intelligence capabilities and what we do and don't know. I think
that's a line we haven't crossed, and appropriately so. But, as
I said earlier, it's our judgment, the United States government's
judgment, that there aren't any extraordinary developments or
signs that there is a mobilization on the PRC's part.
Q David, can you clarify just the conversations between
the administration and the Taiwan and Chinese government? Have
those conversations been stepped up in recent days? And at what
level, if you can clarify, have these conversations been going?
MR. LEAVY: I don't think there has been a stepping up over
recent days. Since this issue came to the forefront several
weeks ago, we've had a number of discussions with the PRC and
with people on Taiwan. There is nothing new in the last several
days that I'm aware of.
Our general approach hasn't changed, though, and let me just
repeat it again. The United States has a One-China policy. Our
approach is based on dialogue between the two sides and a
peaceful resolution of any differences. We've communicated that
and we will continue to do so.
Q Let's put the intelligence community issue aside for a
minute. If you look in the newspaper this morning, there are
several people quoted on the record saying Chinese government
representatives came to speak with them and made bellicose
statements that there was some sort of imminent military action
likely against Taiwan. Is that troubling -- those facts, which
are known facts, are they troubling to the administration?
MR. LEAVY: Well, again, I don't think there is anything new
in what we are hearing. China has a longstanding position that
any -- that Taiwan is an internal matter, that they want to see
it resolved peacefully, but they don't rule out the use of force.
We have a disagreement with that. We don't think that's the way
to go. We think there has to be a peaceful resolution to this
issue. It has to come through dialogue. And so there is nothing
new in that articulation of those themes. I don't think anyone
from the United States government was quoted in those stories,
and as I said earlier, no one from the administration has been
approached about any particular threat or ultimatum.
Q But the analysts -- just to follow up -- these analysts
who were quoted, who are respected China analysts, say that they
did feel that there was something imminent, or that there was
something new. The U.S. government just doesn't agree with that?
MR. LEAVY: No, I can't speak to that. As I said, we haven't
been approached with any specific threat or any specific warning.
And just the general notion that this is a new policy I would
just push back on, because this is something that President Jiang
and other Chinese leaders have articulated for some time. So the
Chinese have not ruled out the use of military force. We
disagree with them. We've made that clear. Our policy is
peaceful dialogue.
Q The question goes, though, David to whether this is
imminent or not. We know that that is their policy, but there
seem to be signals that something may happen sooner rather than
later.
MR. LEAVY: Well, I don't have any indication of that. And
as I said earlier, it's our intelligence community's best
judgment that there aren't any signs that there is PRC military
activity underway.
Q
What kind of activities, if any, is the President
himself engaged in relative to this topic?
MR. LEAVY: Well, he hasn't been engaged over the last 24
hours. As you know, we will be seeing President Jiang at APEC in
Auckland, New Zealand, the first week of September. That's going
to be an important time for the two leaders to engage on this
issue and a number of issues, including trade, human rights,
non-proliferation, I believe that will be on the margins of the
APEC Summit. So I think that will be the next opportunity for
the President to sit down with President Jiang and go over the
wide range of bilateral issues.
Q But he hasn't been consulting in recent days with his
own advisors and what to do about this?
MR. LEAVY: Well Mr. Berger has kept him up to date. I
believe he briefed him this morning, or he will early this
afternoon. But he hasn't been engaged personally.
Q David, as far as the policy, how do you respond to
Republican allegations that when it comes time to pressuring
China and Taiwan on this issue, the Clinton administration has
only been putting pressure on Taiwan to ratchet down tensions?
MR. LEAVY: I would reject that. The United States takes
actions based on our own interests. We have had a formula that
has managed this issue for some time that's been both Republican
and Democratic administrations. As I said earlier, it has
benefited all the parties -- Taiwan, the PRC, the United States.
We're going to continue to do that. I think it's not for us to
pressure anybody, but to make clear that both sides -- their
agendas can be advanced, their prosperity, their security can be
advanced by peaceful dialogue.
Q Last night the President told the Jewish leaders that
he agreed that we should do more to start monitoring, if not
infiltrating, some hate groups. Do you -- is there anything
today? Any directive? Any review of how that would be done?
Any stepping up?
MR. TOIV: I don't have any additional information for you
on that, no. The Justice Department seeks to do an effective job
of dealing with hate crimes, certainly, and they also monitor
hate groups. But I don't have any information on additional work
that's being done.
Q But Clinton said he would look into it personally, and
said that he would do more.
MR. TOIV: And if he said that, he will.
Q Barry, it was a year ago that the President was
preparing for his grand jury testimony. Any reflections about
the atmosphere then, and how things have changed since then
around here, and at the White House?
MR. TOIV: Nope.
Q Barry, I want to go back real quick to David about
Ethiopia and Eritrea. What is the new development on the White
House side in that conflict?
MR. TOIV: Okay. As you know, the United States has
actively worked for a peaceful resolution of the dispute between
Ethiopia and Eritrea over the past year, and continues to work in
cooperation with the OAU to bring about a peaceful resolution to
the conflict.
As you know, Tony Lake was appointed as the President's
special envoy to this conflict over a year ago. He has traveled
there, I think, close to six times. There has been encouraging
movement on the peace process over the last few weeks. At the
Organization of African Unity's summit in Algiers in early July,
the OAU proposed excuse me, the modalities for implementation
of the OAU's framework agreement, both Ethiopia and Eritrea have
now accepted the framework agreement, and the modalities for its
implementation. We will continue to engage to move this process
forward.
Q A follow-up. Jesse Jackson has been very pivotal in
breaking tensions with other factional peoples on that continent.
Is the White House thinking at all of bringing Reverend Jackson
into this situation, or is he involved at all?
MR. LEAVY: I don't think so. As you know, Reverend Jackson
did extraordinary work to bring about a resolution of the
conflict in Sierra Leone. He deserves great credit for that. He
saved a lot of lives and prevented a lot more violence. I think
Tony Lake has the portfolio on Ethiopia and Eritrea. He as well
has spent a considerable amount of his own time traveling there,
I think, close to half a dozen times.
So I think between Tony Lake, our team at the State Department, Susan Rice and our team here, led by Gail Smith,
have
been quite engaged and quite successful. So I don't see any need
for Reverend Jackson to come in.
All right. Have a great weekend, everybody.
Q
Barry?
Q
Hold on.
MR. LEAVY: Oh, Barry, I'm sorry.
Q
Week ahead?
Q
Barry, I've got one question for you before you go
away. Black Navy veterans have asked the President to dismiss
mutiny charges against black sailors who refused to load ammo on
the ships after the 1944 Port Chicago disaster in California.
Does the request have merit and, if so, what is the President
doing about it?
MR. TOIV: Well, until recently, there had not been a
request for pardons for any of these individuals. Now, a few
months ago, a request -- such a request was made. It's being
considered under the usual process at the Justice Department, and
obviously the President will give careful consideration to that.
Q
Is the President well aware of the situation?
MR. TOIV: I believe he is.
Q Any time frame?
MR. TOIV: I don't have a time frame for you, no.
Q Barry, back on the gays in the military; as a
candidate, the President said that he would end discrimination
against gays in the military, "don't ask, don't tell" falls far
short of that. Has the President given up hope that during his
term in office he'll end discrimination against gays?
MR. TOIV: Well the President believes that the "don't ask,
don't tell" policy has worked effectively. And I expect that
that will be the policy throughout his administration.
Q But you concede it doesn't end discrimination -- that
if you admit you're a homosexual in the military, you get thrown
out?
MR. TOIV: Well, I will concede that it is a policy that has
worked, and is the best policy that can be workable at this time.
Q Yes, but if it's worked, why are they changing it?
MR. TOIV: Well, no, it has worked. As I said before -- I'm
not sure if you heard what I had to say about it before, but
there have been a couple of areas that improvements were needed.
And in fact, that's the work that's been going on that has led to
the guidelines that are being issued today. And so -- I said it
worked. I didn't say it was working perfectly.
Q Barry, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported this
morning that during a fundraiser on Saturday, several members of
the Secret Service lined up to obstruct camera view of the
President as he greeted Mrs. Arkansas in the ropeline, and that
they later apologized for doing that. Do you know if that
happened, or if it's common for the Secret Service to be used in
that way, to interfere with press coverage of the President?
MR. TOIV: The answer to the second question, which is the
fairer question of the two questions to be asking me up here, is
I don't believe so.
Q Well, what's the answer to the first one?
MR. TOIV: The answer to the first question, of course, as
you know, I've no idea, since that's the first time I'm hearing
of that.
Week ahead?
Q Yes.
MR. TOIV: Let's see. I have to do this one by heart.
Monday, the President is traveling to Kansas City, where he will
address the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
And he will speak about foreign policy issues there, and I think
I'll need to leave it at that for now.
MR. LEAVY: I can do a little bit more, but that's fine. I
mean, if folks want, I can talk afterward.
MR. TOIV: Yes, David will fill you in a little bit more. I
think he's going to focus to some degree on our obligations
overseas. And that's the only event planned for that trip. He'll
be back late afternoon, I believe, or maybe early evening at the
latest.
On Tuesday, the President will announce some new PSAs
relating to school violence. With kids starting to come back to
school, obviously, this is a subject that is on a lot of people's
minds, particularly with the incidents that occurred during the
last school year. And there are going to be some new PSAs that
are unveiled at that time.
Also on Tuesday, we have the visit from the NCAA champion
Tennessee Vols, the football champions. They'll be here on
Tuesday.
Wednesday, the President is down. And then Thursday, he
heads to Martha's Vineyard for a well-deserved vacation.
Any questions?
Q Is he going to say anything on the way out today?
MR. TOIV: Is he going to say -- no.
Okay, thank you. Have a good weekend, everybody.
END
12:50 P.M. EDT
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: OLCOTT_E@A1@CD@LNGTWY (OLCOTT_E@A1@CD@LNGTWY ] (WHO)
CREATION DATE/TIME:13-AUG-1999 13:55:08.00
SUBJECT: 1999-8/13 toiv, leavy briefing
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(wh-outbox-
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWYL
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWY]
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:Sean_P._O'[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INETQLNGTWY[
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWY
[ UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: SUNTUM_M@A1@CD@LNGTWY (SUNTUM_M@AI@CD@LNGTVY[ UNKNOWN]) (WHO)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWYL
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWYJUNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: PALMIERI_J@A1@CD@LNGTWY (PALMIERI_J@A1@CD@LNGTWY UNKNOWN (WHO)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWY]
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nathan B. [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (Nathan B.
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWYI
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[I 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INFT@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INFT@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
Mark [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:MOFFETT_J@A1@CD@LNGTWY(MOFFETT_J@AI@CD@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ)(WHO)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY ([email protected]@INET@LNGTWY
[ UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWYJUNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN] ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY ([email protected]@INET@LNGTWY UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:[email protected]@INFT@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWY
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWY]
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWYJUNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN] )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: FORDE_R@A1@CD@LNGTWY (FORDE_R@A1@CD@LNGTWY UNKNOWN ) ()
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
Elliot [email protected]@INET@LNGTW UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Eli G. [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY Eli G. [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: : [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: : [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWYI
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INFT@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN] )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN (DON)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: : [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Christopher S. [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY ( Christopher S.
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWY
UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY UNKNOWN] )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: BARTHOLOW_T@AI@CD@LNGTWY (BARTHOLOW_T@A1@CD@LNGTWY (OA)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY [ UNKNOWN] )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOW ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[_UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alejandro G. [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY Alejandro G.
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Charles J. Payson@eop ( Charles J. Payson@eop [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Patrick M. Dorton@eop ( Patrick M. Dorton@eop [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Stephanie A. Cutter@eop ( Stephanie A. Cutter@eop [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY [[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[OSTP])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY [[email protected]@INET@LNGTWYLUNKNOWN ]
)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INFT@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWYJUNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY UNKNOWN (VPO)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[_UNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY ([email protected]@INET@LNGTWY [
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[_UNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWY
[ UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWYL
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Pub_Arch@eop@INET@LNGTWY (Pub_Arch@eop@INET@LNGTWY UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWY
[ (UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: TDIXON@PR_LOCATION=AVUOEOB@MRP@LNGTWY (
PR_USERNAME=TDIXON@PR_LOCATION=AVUOEOB@MRP@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:OLCOTT_E@AI@CD@LNGTWY(OLCOTT_E@AI@CD@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN (WHO)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWYI
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWYL
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN]
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWY1L
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: :[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWY
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOW
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: : [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN]]
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LVGTWY1
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOW
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWYJUNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
Joshua [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY ([email protected]@INET@LNGTWY
UNKNOWN] )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jim [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(Jim
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeannetta [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
Jeannetta P. [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gina N. Dennis ( Gina N. Dennis/WHO/[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: GRAY_W@A1@CD@LNGTWY (GRAY_W@A1@CD@LNGTWY [ UNKNOWN ]) (NSC)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
Erica S. [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY L UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
Dorinda [email protected]@INET@LNGTWYL UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWYI UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWY1
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY [
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY
[UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: DICKEY_L@A1@CD@LNGTWY (DICKEY_L@A1@CD@LNGTWY UNKNOWN (WHO)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@NET@LNGTWY(
Catherine [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: CUTLER_L@A1@CD@LNGTWY (CUTLER_L@A1@CD@LNGTWY UNKNOWN ) (WHO)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Brian A. [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY ( Brian A. [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[
UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY (
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[ UNKNOWN]
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Aprill_N._Springfield (April_N._Springfield/who/eop/[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY [
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INFT@LNGTWY[UNKNOWNJ)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWY
UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Francisco J. Sanchez@eop ( Francisco J. Sanchez@eop [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jason H. Schechter@eop ( Jason H. Schechter@eop [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michele Ballantyne@eop (Michele Ballantyne@eop [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 13, 1999
PRESS BRIEFING
BY
BARRY TOIV AND DAVID LEAVY
The Briefing Room
12:30 P.M. EDT
MR. TOIV: Good afternoon, everybody. Happy Friday.
Q
I don't think everybody's here, Barry.
MR. TOIV: Come on in. We can wait.
Q
This is not a comment on your --
MR. TOIV: Well, I'm happy today. I expect all the tough
questions to
go to David.
Just as I mentioned earlier today, we're going to have a briefing
at
2:30 p.m. on the radio address. The subject has to do with clean water,
and
we'll have Carol Browner here again, making an encore appearance, as well
as
Elgie Holstein, who is the Associate Director for Natural Resources at
OMB.
This will take place at 2:30 p.m., but it will be on camera. It will be
embargoed until 10:06 a.m. tomorrow, as usual.
Any questions?
MR. LEAVY: All right, thank you very much. Appreciate your
coming in.
MR. TOIV: Well, thank you.
Q
Well, a couple of them. One about the Pentagon, new
policy for
"don't ask, don't tell." Any comments on that?
MR. TOIV: Well, as you know, Secretary Cohen has been
committed to implementing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy
fairly. And the President agrees with him on that. The
Pentagon, a little over a year ago, issued a report that said
that "don't ask, don't tell" was working, but that there were a
couple of areas where improvements needed to be made. I think
today, the guidelines that they are issuing today are intended to
address those issues. I would suggest you check over there for
details of what they are announcing today.
Q
I understand that China has not conveyed any explicit
threats to the United States in regards to Taiwan. But can you
characterize what has changed? Has there been any ratcheting up
of the rhetoric of the implied threats, of the indications that
you're getting that they may be more bellicose towards Taiwan?
MR. LEAVY: Let me just say, Bill, a couple of things
generally. One, the peace and stability in East Asia and the
Pacific is a fundamental national interest to the United States.
We are certainly watching developments closely, have been in
contact with both sides about our concerns and about reiterating
our policy of resuming peaceful dialogue.
Just specifically on your question, it is my understanding
that the intelligence community has not seen any extraordinary
developments or signs that the PRC is mobilizing for military
action in the Taiwan Strait.
Q
Would you say that there has been a ratcheting up of
the rhetoric in diplomatic channels? Are they trying to send
signals?
MR. LEAVY: Well, I don't want to characterize, Kevin, other
people's rhetoric, other people's statements. I think there has
obviously been some increased tension in the Strait over the last
several weeks. That comes as no surprise to any of us or anybody
in this room. We've talked about that. But I think what we have
to do is look forward, and we have communicated to both sides
that there is a danger of escalating tensions, that we have to
resume a dialog based on a One China formula. And we're going to
continue to do that.
Q
Specifically, there was one report that the embassy
here had been saying that they are going to take action.
MR. LEAVY: I would steer you away from that report. As I
said earlier today, we have not received any threats or
ultimatums from the PRC. I checked about that again this
afternoon, earlier this afternoon, and that was confirmed. So, I
would steer you away from that report.
I would just say, though, generally, that there is nothing
new in China's long-standing position. They have made clear that
from their point of view Taiwan is an internal matter, and they
hope that there is peaceful reunification, but they don't rule
out military means. We have a long-standing disagreement on
that. So I don't think any -- the context is not new.
Q
Does the United States still have a commitment to go to
the defense of Taiwan, should there be an unprovoked attack from
the mainland?
MR. LEAVY: Our long-standing position -- this goes back
many years, both Republican and Democratic administrations -- is
that any effort to resolve the issue of Taiwan by other than
peaceful means would be considered of grave concern to the United
States. That position hasn't changed today.
Q
How would you view a Chinese seizure of a small
Taiwan-controlled island, or some smaller military action?
MR. LEAVY: See, that's the kind of hypothetical question
that I want to avoid getting into. Again, the Taiwan Relations
Act has been in place for many years. It has guided our
relationship on this issue, our policy on this issue. And I
don't want to change, or speculate on hypotheticals today.
Q
David, is there concern that the U.S. might get drawn
into something because of this rhetoric?
MR. LEAVY: Oh, I think there's concern that the interests
of both sides won't be advanced. The One China policy that the
President has advocated -- and that has been the foundation of
our approach to this issue for many, many years -- has been
successful for all sides. Both China and Taiwan have benefited
economically. Taiwan's the sixth-largest economy in the world.
Chinese economic growth has grown vastly over the last 20 years.
So the formula is a successful one. We don't see the need
to change that, and we have no intention of changing that.
Q
Let me follow, too. You said no one had contacted the
United States with a threat. Has anyone from either side, Taiwan
or China, contacted the United States with a concern over the
rhetoric, a concern over the threat?
MR. LEAVY: Well, we've had a number of discussions, both at
the State Department and with officials in China. As you
remember, the State Department sent Assistant Secretary Stanley
Roth and Ken Lieberthal from the National Security Council,
several weeks ago, to Beijing to discuss our concern about the
rising rhetoric, and a need to get back to a dialogue and to get
back to the two parties talking about the issues. And so we have
been engaged on this issue. And certainly, there is a concern
that this kind of thing leads to accidents, leads to
misunderstandings, and that we want to focus both parties on
getting back to the table.
Q
You said -- you made a point of saying that there were
no extraordinary signs coming into the intelligence community of
MR. LEAVY: Extraordinary developments or signs.
Q
Right. Does that mean that there is something less
than extraordinary or you're telling us what hasn't happened.
Can you tell us what has happened?
MR. LEAVY: Well, I want to stay away from commenting on
intelligence capabilities and what we do and don't know. I think
that's a line we haven't crossed, and appropriately so. But, as
I said earlier, it's our judgment, the United States government's
judgment, that there aren't any extraordinary developments or
signs that there is a mobilization on the PRC's part.
Q
David, can you clarify just the conversations between
the administration and the Taiwan and Chinese government? Have
those conversations been stepped up in recent days? And at what
level, if you can clarify, have these conversations been going?
MR. LEAVY: I don't think there has been a stepping up over
recent days. Since this issue came to the forefront several
weeks ago, we've had a number of discussions with the PRC and
with people on Taiwan. There is nothing new in the last several
days that I'm aware of.
Our general approach hasn't changed, though, and let me just
repeat it again. The United States has a One-China policy. Our
approach is based on dialogue between the two sides and a
peaceful resolution of any differences. We've communicated that
and we will continue to do so.
Q
Let's put the intelligence community issue aside for a
minute. If you look in the newspaper this morning, there are
several people quoted on the record saying Chinese government
representatives came to speak with them and made bellicose
statements that there was some sort of imminent military action
likely against Taiwan. Is that troubling -- those facts, which
are known facts, are they troubling to the administration?
MR. LEAVY: Well, again, I don't think there is anything new
in what we are hearing. China has a longstanding position that
any -- that Taiwan is an internal matter, that they want to see
it resolved peacefully, but they don't rule out the use of force.
We have a disagreement with that. We don't think that's the way
to go. We think there has to be a peaceful resolution to this
issue. It has to come through dialogue. And so there is nothing
new in that articulation of those themes. I don't think anyone
from the United States government was quoted in those stories,
and as I said earlier, no one from the administration has been
approached about any particular threat or ultimatum.
Q
But the analysts -- just to follow up -- these analysts
who were quoted, who are respected China analysts, say that they
did feel that there was something imminent, or that there was
something new. The U.S. government just doesn't agree with that?
MR. LEAVY: No, I can't speak to that. As I said, we haven't
been approached with any specific threat or any specific warning.
And just the general notion that this is a new policy I would
just push back on, because this is something that President Jiang
and other Chinese leaders have articulated for some time. So the
Chinese have not ruled out the use of military force. We
disagree with them. We've made that clear. Our policy is
peaceful dialogue.
Q
The question goes, though, David to whether this is
imminent or not. We know that that is their policy, but there
seem to be signals that something may happen sooner rather than
later.
MR. LEAVY: Well, I don't have any indication of that. And
as I said earlier, it's our intelligence community's best
judgment that there aren't any signs that there is PRC military
activity underway.
Q
What kind of activities, if any, is the President
himself engaged in relative to this topic?
MR. LEAVY: Well, he hasn't been engaged over the last 24
hours. As you know, we will be seeing President Jiang at APEC in
Auckland, New Zealand, the first week of September. That's going
to be an important time for the two leaders to engage on this
issue and a number of issues, including trade, human rights,
non-proliferation, I believe that will be on the margins of the
APEC Summit. So I think that will be the next opportunity for
the President to sit down with President Jiang and go over the
wide range of bilateral issues.
Q
But he hasn't been consulting in recent days with his
own advisors and what to do about this?
MR. LEAVY: Well Mr. Berger has kept him up to date. I
believe he briefed him this morning, or he will early this
afternoon. But he hasn't been engaged personally.
Q
David, as far as the policy, how do you respond to
Republican allegations that when it comes time to pressuring
China and Taiwan on this issue, the Clinton administration has
only been putting pressure on Taiwan to ratchet down tensions?
MR. LEAVY: I would reject that. The United States takes
actions based on our own interests. We have had a formula that
has managed this issue for some time that's been both Republican
and Democratic administrations. As I said earlier, it has
benefited all the parties -- Taiwan, the PRC, the United States.
We're going to continue to do that. I think it's not for us to
pressure anybody, but to make clear that both sides -- their
agendas can be advanced, their prosperity, their security can be
advanced by peaceful dialogue.
Q
Last night the President told the Jewish leaders that
he agreed that we should do more to start monitoring, if not
infiltrating, some hate groups. Do you -- is there anything
today? Any directive? Any review of how that would be done?
Any stepping up?
MR. TOIV: I don't have any additional information for you
on that, no. The Justice Department seeks to do an effective job
of dealing with hate crimes, certainly, and they also monitor
hate groups. But I don't have any information on additional work
that's being done.
Q
But Clinton said he would look into it personally, and
said that he would do more.
MR. TOIV: And if he said that, he will.
Q
Barry, it was a year ago that the President was
preparing for his grand jury testimony. Any reflections about
the atmosphere then, and how things have changed since then
around here, and at the White House?
MR. TOIV: Nope.
Q
Barry, I want to go back real quick to David about
Ethiopia and Eritrea. What is the new development on the White
House side in that conflict?
MR. TOIV: Okay. As you know, the United States has
actively worked for a peaceful resolution of the dispute between
Ethiopia and Eritrea over the past year, and continues to work in
cooperation with the OAU to bring about a peaceful resolution to
the conflict.
As you know, Tony Lake was appointed as the President's
special envoy to this conflict over a year ago. He has traveled
there, I think, close to six times. There has been encouraging
movement on the peace process over the last few weeks. At the
Organization of African Unity's summit in Algiers in early July,
the OAU proposed excuse me, the modalities for implementation
of the OAU's framework agreement, both Ethiopia and Eritrea have
now accepted the framework agreement, and the modalities for its
implementation. We will continue to engage to move this process
forward.
Q
A follow-up. Jesse Jackson has been very pivotal in
breaking tensions with other factional peoples on that continent.
Is the White House thinking at all of bringing Reverend Jackson
into this situation, or is he involved at all?
MR. LEAVY: I don't think so. As you know, Reverend Jackson
did extraordinary work to bring about a resolution of the
conflict in Sierra Leone. He deserves great credit for that. He
saved a lot of lives and prevented a lot more violence. I think
Tony Lake has the portfolio on Ethiopia and Eritrea. He as well
has spent a considerable amount of his own time traveling there,
I think, close to half a dozen times.
So I think between Tony Lake, our team at the State
Department, Susan Rice and our team here, led by Gail Smith, have
been quite engaged and quite successful. So I don't see any need
for Reverend Jackson to come in.
All right. Have a great weekend, everybody.
Q
Barry?
Q
Hold on.
MR. LEAVY: Oh, Barry, I'm sorry.
Q
Week ahead?
Q
Barry, I've got one question for you before you go
away. Black Navy veterans have asked the President to dismiss
mutiny charges against black sailors who refused to load ammo on
the ships after the 1944 Port Chicago disaster in California.
Does the request have merit and, if so, what is the President
doing about it?
MR. TOIV: Well, until recently, there had not been a
request for pardons for any of these individuals. Now, a few
months ago, a request such a request was made. It's being
considered under the usual process at the Justice Department, and
obviously the President will give careful consideration to that.
Q
Is the President well aware of the situation?
MR. TOIV: I believe he is.
Q
Any time frame?
MR. TOIV: I don't have a time frame for you, no.
Q
Barry, back on the gays in the military; as a
candidate, the President said that he would end discrimination
against gays in the military, "don't ask, don't tell" falls far
short of that. Has the President given up hope that during his
term in office he'll end discrimination against gays?
MR. TOIV: Well the President believes that the "don't ask,
don't tell" policy has worked effectively. And I expect that
that will be the policy throughout his administration.
Q
But you concede it doesn't end discrimination -- that
if you admit you're a homosexual in the military, you get thrown
out?
MR. TOIV: Well, I will concede that it is a policy that has
worked, and is the best policy that can be workable at this time.
Q
Yes, but if it's worked, why are they changing it?
MR. TOIV: Well, no, it has worked. As I said before -- I'm
not sure if you heard what I had to say about it before, but
there have been a couple of areas that improvements were needed.
And in fact, that's the work that's been going on that has led to
the guidelines that are being issued today. And so -- I said it
worked. I didn't say it was working perfectly.
Q
Barry, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported this
morning that during a fundraiser on Saturday, several members of
the Secret Service lined up to obstruct camera view of the
President as he greeted Mrs. Arkansas in the ropeline, and that
they later apologized for doing that. Do you know if that
happened, or if it's common for the Secret Service to be used in
that way, to interfere with press coverage of the President?
MR. TOIV: The answer to the second question, which is the
fairer question of the two questions to be asking me up here, is
I don't believe so.
Q
Well, what's the answer to the first one?
MR. TOIV: The answer to the first question, of course, as
you know, I've no idea, since that's the first time I'm hearing
of that.
Week ahead?
Q
Yes.
MR. TOIV: Let's see. I have to do this one by heart.
Monday, the President is traveling to Kansas City, where he will
address the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
And he will speak about foreign policy issues there, and I think
I'll need to leave it at that for now.
MR. LEAVY: I can do a little bit more, but that's fine. I
mean, if folks want, I can talk afterward.
MR. TOIV: Yes, David will fill you in a little bit more. I
think he's going to focus to some degree on our obligations
overseas. And that's the only event planned for that trip. He'll
be back late afternoon, I believe, or maybe early evening at the
latest.
On Tuesday, the President will announce some new PSAs
relating to school violence. With kids starting to come back to
school, obviously, this is a subject that is on a lot of people's
minds, particularly with the incidents that occurred during the
last school year. And there are going to be some new PSAs that
are unveiled at that time.
Also on Tuesday, we have the visit from the NCAA champion
Tennessee Vols, the football champions. They'll be here on
Tuesday.
Wednesday, the President is down. And then Thursday, he
heads to Martha's Vineyard for a well-deserved vacation.
Any questions?
Q
Is he going to say anything on the way out today?
MR. TOIV: Is he going to say -- no.
Okay, thank you. Have a good weekend, everybody.
END
12:50 P.M. EDT
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (ALL-IN-1 MAIL)
CREATOR: Ellen E. Olcott (OLCOTT_E) (WHO)
CREATION DATE/TIME:13-AUG-1999 13:48:12.36
SUBJECT: 1999-8/13 toiv, leavy briefing
TO: Alejandro G. Cabrera
( Alejandro G. [email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Andrew_J._Mayock
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Ann_C._Hertelendy
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX )
READ:NOT READ
TO: Ann_F._Lewis
(
[email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Anne_E._McGuire
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Anne_M._Edwards
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Antony_J._Blinken
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Aprill_N._Springfield/who/eop/gov (
Aprill_N_Springfield/who/eop/[email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Michele Ballantyne
(BALLANTYNE_M) Autoforward to: Remote Addressee
(Michele
Ballantyne@eop@lngtwy@eopmrx )( (WHO)
READ:NOT READ
TO: BARTHOLOW_T
(BARTHOLOW_T@A1@CD) (OA)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Barbara_D._Woolley
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Beverly_J._Barnes
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Bradley_M._Campbell
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Brenda_M._Anders
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Brian A. Reich
( Brian A. [email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Brian_A._Barreto
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX )
READ:NOT READ
TO: CUTLER_L
(CUTLER_L@AI@CD) (WHO)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Stephanie A. Cutter
(CUTTER_S) Autoforward to: Remote Addressee
( Stephanie A.
Cutter@eop@Ingtvy@eopmrx )(WHO)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Carmen_B._Fowler
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Catherine T. Kitchen
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Cheryl_D._Mills
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Christine_N._Macy
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Christopher S. Lehane
Christopher S. [email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: DICKEY_L
(DICKEY_L@A1@CD) (WHO)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Patrick M. Dorton
(DORTON_P) Autoforward to: Patrick M. Dorton
(Patrick M.
Dorton@eop@lngtvy@eopmrx ) (OPD)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Daniel W. Burkhardt
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Dario_J._Gomez
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: David_E._Kalbaugh
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: David_R._Goodfriend
[email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: David_T._Johnson
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)(DON)
READ:NOT READ
TO: INTERNET (PMDF) DESTINATION
([email protected]@INET)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Dawn M. Chirwa
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX )
READ:NOT READ
TO: Deborah_Akel
[[email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Debra_D. Bird
[email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Delia_A._Cohen
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Denver_R._Peacock
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX )
READ:NOT READ
TO: Dominique_L._Cano
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX )
READ:NOT READ
TO: Dorian_V._Weaver
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Dorinda_A._Salcido
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Douglas_R._Matties
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Eli G. Attie
( Eli G. [email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Elizabeth_R._Newman
(
[email protected]@INET@EOPMRX )
READ:NOT READ
TO: Elliot_J._Diringer
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX )
READ:NOT READ
TO: Erica_S._Lepping
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: FORDE_R
(FORDE_R@A1@CD))
READ:NOT READ
TO: GRAY_W
(GRAY_W@A1@CD)(NSC)
READ:NOT READ
TO: George_G._Caudill
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Gina N. Dennis/WHO/EOP
( Gina N. Dennis/WHO/[email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Irma_L._Martinez
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Jackson_T._Dunn
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: James_M._Teague
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Jason H. Schechter
(Jason H. Schechter@eop@LNGTWY@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Jeannetta_P._Allen
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX )
READ:NOT READ
TO: Jennifer_Ferguson
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX )
READ:NOT READ
TO: Jim Kohlenberger
(Jim [email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Jocelyn_A._Bucaro
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX )
READ:NOT READ
TO: Joel_Johnson
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: John_A._Gribben
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: John_See
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Jonathan_A._Kaplan
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX ).
READ:NOT READ
TO: Jonathan_M._Prince
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Joseph_P._Lockhart
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Joshua_S._Gottheimer
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX )
READ:NOT READ
TO: Julia_M._Payne
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX )
READ:NOT READ
TO: Julie_B._Goldberg
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Julie_E._Mason
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Justin_L._Coleman
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX )
READ:NOT READ
TO: KTORPEY
READ:NOT READ
TO: Karen_C._Burchard
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Karen_L._Barbuschak
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX]
READ:NOT READ
TO: Katharine_Button
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX )
READ:NOT READ
TO: Kathleen_K._Ahn
( [email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Kris_M_Balderston
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Laura_D._Schwartz
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Laura_S._Marcus
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Leslie_Bernstein
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Lori_E._Abrams
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: MOFFETT_J
(MOFFETT_J@A1@CD) (VHO)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Margaret_M._Suntum
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Mark A. Kitchens
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Mark D. Neschis
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Mark H. Bartholomew
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Mark_J._Bernstein
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Marsha_E._Berry
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Martha_Foley
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Marty_J._Hoffmann
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Mary_E._Cahill
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Maureen_A._Hudson
[email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Megan_C._Moloney
[email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Melissa_M._Murray
[[email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Michael A. Hammer
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Michael_V._Terrell
[[email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Mindy_E._Myers
([email protected]@NET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Minyon_Moore
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Nanda_Chitre
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Nathan B. Naylor
(Nathan B. [email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Neera_Tanden
[email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Noa_A._Meyer
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX )
READ:NOT READ
TO: OLCOTT_E
(OLCOTT_E@AI@CD)(WHO)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Jennifer Palmieri
(PALMIERI_J) (WHO)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Charles J. Payson
(PAYSON_C) Autoforward to: Remote Addressee
(Charles J.
Payson@eop@Ingtwy@eopmrx ) (WHO)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Timothy Dixon
(PR_USERNAME=TDIXON@PR_LOCATION=AVUOEOB@MRP@OPUS)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Patrick_E._Briggs
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Paul_D._Glastris
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Philip_J._Crowley
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: INTERNET (PMDF) DESTINATION
(Pub_Arch@eop@INET)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Rajiv_Y._Mody
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Ralph_Alswang
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Robin J. Bachman
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Francisco J. Sanchez
(SANCHEZ_F) Autoforward to: Remote Addressee
(Francisco J.
Sanchez@eop@lngtwy@eopmrx (WHO)
READ:NOT READ
TO: SUNTUM_M
(SUNTUM_M@A1@CD)(WHO)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Sara_M._Latham
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Sarah_S._Knight
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Sean_P._Maloney
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Sean_P._O'Shea
(Sean_P._O'[email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Sharon_Farmer
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Sheyda_Jahanbani
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Steven_J._Naplan
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Tanya_E._Martin
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Thomas_D._Janenda
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)(VPO)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Toby_C._Graff
([email protected]&INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Todd_A._Bledsoe
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: Wayne_C._Johnson
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: William_C._Haymes
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: William_Hadley
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX )
READ:NOT READ
TO: backup
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: INTERNET (PMDF) DESTINATION
([email protected]@INET)
READ:NOT READ
TO: rmusgrav
( [email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TO: wh-outbox-distr
([email protected]@INET@EOPMRX)
READ:NOT READ
TEXT:
PRINTER FONT 10_POINT_COURIER
BOTTOM ODD
-MORE-
PRINTER FONT 12_POINT_COURIER
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 13, 1999
PRESS BRIEFING
BY
BARRY TOIV AND DAVID LEAVY
The Briefing Room
12:30 P.M. EDT
MR. TOIV: Good afternoon, everybody. Happy Friday.
Q
I don't think everybody's here, Barry.
MR. TOIV: Come on in. We can wait.
Q
This is not a comment on your --
MR. TOIV: Well, I'm happy today. I expect all the tough questions to
go to David.
Just as I mentioned earlier today, we're going to have a briefing at
2:30 p.m. on the radio address. The subject has to do with clean water, and
we'll have Carol Browner here again, making an encore appearance, as well as
Elgie Holstein, who is the Associate Director for Natural Resources at OMB.
This will take place at 2:30 p.m., but it will be on camera. It will be
embargoed until 10:06 a.m. tomorrow, as usual.
Any questions?
MR. LEAVY: All right, thank you very much. Appreciate your coming in.
MR. TOIV: Well, thank you.
Q
Well, a couple of them. One about the Pentagon, new policy for
"don't ask, don't tell." Any comments on that?
BOTTOM EVEN
-MORE-
MR. TOIV: Well, as you know, Secretary Cohen has been
committed to implementing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy
fairly. And the President agrees with him on that. The
Pentagon, a little over a year ago, issued a report that said
that "don't ask, don't tell" was working, but that there were a
couple of areas where improvements needed to be made. I think
today, the guidelines that they are issuing today are intended to
address those issues. I would suggest you check over there for
details of what they are announcing today.
Q
I understand that China has not conveyed any explicit
threats to the United States in regards to Taiwan. But can you
characterize what has changed? Has there been any ratcheting up
of the rhetoric of the implied threats, of the indications that
you're getting that they may be more bellicose towards Taiwan?
MR. LEAVY: Let me just say, Bill, a couple of things
generally. One, the peace and stability in East Asia and the
Pacific is a fundamental national interest to the United States.
We are certainly watching developments closely, have been in
contact with both sides about our concerns and about reiterating
our policy of resuming peaceful dialogue.
Just specifically on your question, it is my understanding
that the intelligence community has not seen any extraordinary
developments or signs that the PRC is mobilizing for military
action in the Taiwan Strait.
Q
Would you say that there has been a ratcheting up of
the rhetoric in diplomatic channels? Are they trying to send
signals?
MR. LEAVY: Well, I don't want to characterize, Kevin, other
people's rhetoric, other people's statements. I think there has
obviously been some increased tension in the Strait over the last
several weeks. That comes as no surprise to any of us or anybody
in this room. We've talked about that. But I think what we have
to do is look forward, and we have communicated to both sides
that there is a danger of escalating tensions, that we have to
resume a dialog based on a One China formula. And we're going to
continue to do that.
Q
Specifically, there was one report that the embassy
here had been saying that they are going to take action.
MR. LEAVY: I would steer you away from that report. As I
said earlier today, we have not received any threats or
ultimatums from the PRC. I checked about that again this
afternoon, earlier this afternoon, and that was confirmed. So, I
would steer you away from that report.
I would just say, though, generally, that there is nothing
new in China's long
-standing position. They have made clear that
from their point of view Taiwan is an internal matter, and they
hope that there is peaceful reunification, but they don't rule
out military means. We have a long
-standing disagreement on
that. So I don't think any -- the context is not new.
Q
Does the United States still have a commitment to go to
the defense of Taiwan, should there be an unprovoked attack from
the mainland?
MR. LEAVY: Our long
-standing position -- this goes back
many years, both Republican and Democratic administrations -- is
that any effort to resolve the issue of Taiwan by other than
peaceful means would be considered of grave concern to the United
States. That position hasn't changed today.
Q
How would you view a Chinese seizure of a small
Taiwan
-controlled island, or some smaller military action?
MR. LEAVY: See, that's the kind of hypothetical question
that I want to avoid getting into. Again, the Taiwan Relations
Act has been in place for many years. It has guided our
relationship on this issue, our policy on this issue. And I
don't want to change, or speculate on hypotheticals today.
Q
David, is there concern that the U.S. might get drawn
into something because of this rhetoric?
MR. LEAVY: Oh, I think there's concern that the interests
of both sides won't be advanced. The One China policy that the
President has advocated and that has been the foundation of
our approach to this issue for many, many years -- has been
successful for all sides. Both China and Taiwan have benefited
economically. Taiwan's the sixth
-largest economy in the world.
Chinese economic growth has grown vastly over the last 20 years.
So the formula is a successful one. We don't see the need
to change that, and we have no intention of changing that.
Q
Let me follow, too. You said no one had contacted the
United States with a threat. Has anyone from either side, Taiwan
or China, contacted the United States with a concern over the
rhetoric, a concern over the threat?
MR. LEAVY: Well, we've had a number of discussions, both at
the State Department and with officials in China. As you
remember, the State Department sent Assistant Secretary Stanley
Roth and Ken Lieberthal from the National Security Council,
several weeks ago, to Beijing to discuss our concern about the
rising rhetoric, and a need to get back to a dialogue and to get
back to the two parties talking about the issues. And so we have
been engaged on this issue. And certainly, there is a concern
that this kind of thing leads to accidents, leads to
misunderstandings, and that we want to focus both parties on
getting back to the table.
Q
You said -- you made a point of saying that there were
no extraordinary signs coming into the intelligence community of
MR. LEAVY: Extraordinary developments or signs.
Q
Right. Does that mean that there is something less
than extraordinary -- or you're telling us what hasn't happened.
Can you tell us what has happened?
MR. LEAVY: Well, I want to stay away from commenting on
intelligence capabilities and what we do and don't know. I think
that's a line we haven't crossed, and appropriately so. But, as
I said earlier, it's our judgment, the United States government's
judgment, that there aren't any extraordinary developments or
signs that there is a mobilization on the PRC's part.
Q
David, can you clarify just the conversations between
the administration and the Taiwan and Chinese government? Have
those conversations been stepped up in recent days? And at what
level, if you can clarify, have these conversations been going?
MR. LEAVY: I don't think there has been a stepping up over
recent days. Since this issue came to the forefront several
weeks ago, we've had a number of discussions with the PRC and
with people on Taiwan. There is nothing new in the last several
days that I'm aware of.
Our general approach hasn't changed, though, and let me just
repeat it again. The United States has a One
-China policy. Our
approach is based on dialogue between the two sides and a
peaceful resolution of any differences. We've communicated that
and we will continue to do so.
Q
Let's put the intelligence community issue aside for a
minute. If you look in the newspaper this morning, there are
several people quoted on the record saying Chinese government
representatives came to speak with them and made bellicose
statements that there was some sort of imminent military action
likely against Taiwan. Is that troubling -- those facts, which
are known facts, are they troubling to the administration?
MR. LEAVY: Well, again, I don't think there is anything new
in what we are hearing. China has a longstanding position that
any -- that Taiwan is an internal matter, that they want to see
it resolved peacefully, but they don't rule out the use of force.
We have a disagreement with that. We don't think that's the way
to go. We think there has to be a peaceful resolution to this
issue. It has to come through dialogue. And so there is nothing
new in that articulation of those themes. I don't think anyone
from the United States government was quoted in those stories,
and as I said earlier, no one from the administration has been
approached about any particular threat or ultimatum.
Q
But the analysts -- just to follow up -- these analysts
who were quoted, who are respected China analysts, say that they
did feel that there was something imminent, or that there was
something new. The U.S. government just doesn't agree with that?
MR. LEAVY: No, I can't speak to that. As I said, we haven't
been approached with any specific threat or any specific warning.
And just the general notion that this is a new policy I would
just push back on, because this is something that President Jiang
and other Chinese leaders have articulated for some time. So the
Chinese have not ruled out the use of military force. We
disagree with them. We've made that clear. Our policy is
peaceful dialogue.
Q
The question goes, though, David to whether this is
imminent or not. We know that that is their policy, but there
seem to be signals that something may happen sooner rather than
later.
MR. LEAVY: Well, I don't have any indication of that. And
as I said earlier, it's our intelligence community's best
judgment that there aren't any signs that there is PRC military
activity underway.
Q
What kind of activities, if any, is the President
himself engaged in relative to this topic?
MR. LEAVY: Well, he hasn't been engaged over the last 24
hours. As you know, we will be seeing President Jiang at APEC in
Auckland, New Zealand, the first week of September. That's going
to be an important time for the two leaders to engage on this
issue and a number of issues, including trade, human rights,
non
-proliferation, I believe that will be on the margins of the
APEC Summit. So I think that will be the next opportunity for
the President to sit down with President Jiang and go over the
wide range of bilateral issues.
Q
But he hasn't been consulting in recent days with his
own advisors and what to do about this?
MR. LEAVY: Well Mr. Berger has kept him up to date. I
believe he briefed him this morning, or he will early this
afternoon. But he hasn't been engaged personally.
Q David, as far as the policy, how do you respond to
Republican allegations that when it comes time to pressuring
China and Taiwan on this issue, the Clinton administration has
only been putting pressure on Taiwan to ratchet down tensions?
MR. LEAVY: I would reject that. The United States takes
actions based on our own interests. We have had a formula that
has managed this issue for some time that's been both Republican
and Democratic administrations. As I said earlier, it has
benefited all the parties -- Taiwan, the PRC, the United States.
We're going to continue to do that. I think it's not for us to
pressure anybody, but to make clear that both sides -- their
agendas can be advanced, their prosperity, their security can be
advanced by peaceful dialogue.
Q
Last night the President told the Jewish leaders that
he agreed that we should do more to start monitoring, if not
infiltrating, some hate groups. Do you -- is there anything
today? Any directive? Any review of how that would be done?
Any stepping up?
MR. TOIV: I don't have any additional information for you
on that, no. The Justice Department seeks to do an effective job
of dealing with hate crimes, certainly, and they also monitor
hate groups. But I don't have any information on additional work
that's being done.
Q
But Clinton said he would look into it personally, and
said that he would do more.
MR. TOIV: And if he said that, he will.
Q Barry, it was a year ago that the President was
preparing for his grand jury testimony. Any reflections about
the atmosphere then, and how things have changed since then
around here, and at the White House?
MR. TOIV: Nope.
Q
Barry, I want to go back real quick to David about
Ethiopia and Eritrea. What is the new development on the White
House side in that conflict?
MR. TOIV: Okay. As you know, the United States has
actively worked for a peaceful resolution of the dispute between
Ethiopia and Eritrea over the past year, and continues to work in
cooperation with the OAU to bring about a peaceful resolution to
the conflict.
As you know, Tony Lake was appointed as the President's
special envoy to this conflict over a year ago. He has traveled
there, I think, close to six times. There has been encouraging
movement on the peace process over the last few weeks. At the
Organization of African Unity's summit in Algiers in early July,
the OAU proposed excuse me, the modalities for implementation
of the OAU's framework agreement, both Ethiopia and Eritrea have
now accepted the framework agreement, and the modalities for its
implementation. We will continue to engage to move this process
forward.
Q
A follow
-up. Jesse Jackson has been very pivotal in
breaking tensions with other factional peoples on that continent.
Is the White House thinking at all of bringing Reverend Jackson
into this situation, or is he involved at all?
MR. LEAVY: I don't think so. As you know, Reverend Jackson
did extraordinary work to bring about a resolution of the
conflict in Sierra Leone. He deserves great credit for that. He
saved a lot of lives and prevented a lot more violence. I think
Tony Lake has the portfolio on Ethiopia and Eritrea. He as well
has spent a considerable amount of his own time traveling there,
I think, close to half a dozen times.
So I think between Tony Lake, our team at the State
Department, Susan Rice and our team here, led by Gail Smith, have
been quite engaged and quite successful. So I don't see any need
for Reverend Jackson to come in.
All right. Have a great weekend, everybody.
Q
Barry?
Q
Hold on.
MR. LEAVY: Oh, Barry, I'm sorry.
Week ahead?
Q
Barry, I've got one question for you before you go
away. Black Navy veterans have asked the President to dismiss
mutiny charges against black sailors who refused to load ammo on
the ships after the 1944 Port Chicago disaster in California.
Does the request have merit and, if so, what is the President
doing about it?
MR. TOIV: Well, until recently, there had not been a
request for pardons for any of these individuals. Now, a few
months ago, a request -- such a request was made. It's being
considered under the usual process at the Justice Department, and
obviously the President will give careful consideration to that.
Q
Is the President well aware of the situation?
MR. TOIV: I believe he is.
Q
Any time frame?
MR. TOIV: I don't have a time frame for you, no.
Q
Barry, back on the gays in the military; as a
candidate, the President said that he would end discrimination
against gays in the military, "don't ask, don't tell" falls far
short of that. Has the President given up hope that during his
term in office he'll end discrimination against gays?
MR. TOIV: Well the President believes that the "don't ask,
don't tell" policy has worked effectively. And I expect that
that will be the policy throughout his administration.
Q
But you concede it doesn't end discrimination -- that
if you admit you're a homosexual in the military, you get thrown
out?
MR. TOIV: Well, I will concede that it is a policy that has
worked, and is the best policy that can be workable at this time.
Q
Yes, but if it's worked, why are they changing it?
MR. TOIV: Well, no, it has worked. As I said before -- I'm
not sure if you heard what I had to say about it before, but
there have been a couple of areas that improvements were needed.
And in fact, that's the work that's been going on that has led to
the guidelines that are being issued today. And so -- I said it
worked. I didn't say it was working perfectly.
Q
Barry, the Arkansas Democrat
-Gazette reported this
morning that during a fundraiser on Saturday, several members of
the Secret Service lined up to obstruct camera view of the
President as he greeted Mrs. Arkansas in the ropeline, and that
they later apologized for doing that. Do you know if that
happened, or if it's common for the Secret Service to be used in
that way, to interfere with press coverage of the President?
MR. TOIV: The answer to the second question, which is the
fairer question of the two questions to be asking me up here, is
I don't believe so.
Q
Well, what's the answer to the first one?
MR. TOIV: The answer to the first question, of course, as
you know, I've no idea, since that's the first time I'm hearing
of that.
Week ahead?
Q Yes.
MR. TOIV: Let's see. I have to do this one by heart.
Monday, the President is traveling to Kansas City, where he will
address the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
And he will speak about foreign policy issues there, and I think
I'll need to leave it at that for now.
MR. LEAVY: I can do a little bit more, but that's fine. I
mean, if folks want, I can talk afterward.
MR. TOIV: Yes, David will fill you in a little bit more. I
think he's going to focus to some degree on our obligations
overseas. And that's the only event planned for that trip. He'll
be back late afternoon, I believe, or maybe early evening at the
latest.
On Tuesday, the President will announce some new PSAs
relating to school violence. With kids starting to come back to
school, obviously, this is a subject that is on a lot of people's
minds, particularly with the incidents that occurred during the
last school year. And there are going to be some new PSAs that
are unveiled at that time.
Also on Tuesday, we have the visit from the NCAA champion
Tennessee Vols, the football champions. They'll be here on
Tuesday.
Wednesday, the President is down. And then Thursday, he
heads to Martha's Vineyard for a well
-deserved vacation.
Any questions?
Q Is he going to say anything on the way out today?
MR. TOIV: Is he going to say -- no.
Okay, thank you. Have a good weekend, everybody.
END
12:50 P.M. EDT
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Thomas L. Freedman ( CN=Thomas L. Freedman/OU=OPD/O=EOP [OPD])
CREATION DATE/TIME:16-AUG-1999 12:57:55.00
SUBJECT: Interesting. Military inquiry targets AZ lawmaker
TO: Eric P. Liu ( CN=Eric P. Liu/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Bruce N. Reed ( CN=Bruce N. Reed/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Forwarded by Thomas L. Freedman/OPD/EOP on 08/16/99
12:56 PM
Richard Socarides 08/16/99 12:54:00 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: Military inquiry targets AZ lawmaker
Forwarded by Richard Socarides/WHO/EOP on 08/16/99
12:53 PM
[email protected]
08/13/99 09:54:00 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Richard Socarides@EOP
cc:
Subject: Military inquiry targets AZ lawmaker
ARIZONA REPUBLIC, August 13, 1999
(http://www.azcentral.com/)
Military inquiry targets lawmaker
Reservist Steve May focus of gay-policy rule
Steve May made comments this year to newspapers in response to an anti-gay
bill in the Arizona Legislature
By Chris Moeser, The Arizona Republic
As a kid, Steve May was inspired to join the military after talking
with
John McCain about his experience as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.
Like McCain, May chose the Navy, at least initially. And like the U.S.
senator from Arizona, May later entered politics.
But May, a state representative from east Phoenix, is gay.
And now, his dual careers as a military reservist and lawmaker have
collided with President Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy for gays
in
the military.
Army Reserve officials are investigating May after learning of
statements
he made to the press during the 1999 legislative session indicating he was
gay. In college, May transferred to the Army ROTC after briefly serving in
the Navy ROTC; and after graduation, he went into the Army.
But May says he wasn't subject to Defense Department regulations when
he
spoke to the press because he was not an active reservist. He wasn't
recalled
to active duty until February, after the comments were made to local
newspapers in response to an anti-gay bill in the Legislature.
May says he has never discussed the issue with Army colleagues or while
on active duty, which means he hasn't violated the policy. Others,
including
advocacy attorneys for gays in the military, aren't so sure.
May believes the case could present an interesting legal dilemma for
the
military, pitting his First Amendment rights as a lawmaker against a
military
policy he calls destructive.
"My case shows the silliness of the "don't ask, don't tell' policy," he
said. "I'm trained and qualified to serve the military. The military has
chosen to exclude trained and qualified people simply because of a stated
sexual preference."
May, a lieutenant trained in nuclear, chemical and biological warfare
defense, also is qualified as a paratrooper. He is second-in-command in the
348th Transportation Company.
Maj. Eileen Norton, commander of the 484th Transportation Battalion,
confirmed that an investigation is under way, but she provided no other
details.
The "don't ask, don't tell" policy, adopted in 1993, allows commanders
to investigate a subordinate's sexual orientation in one of three
scenarios:
when there is "credible information" to believe the subordinate is gay; the
soldier has engaged in homosexual conduct; or the person has attempted to
marry someone of the same gender.
May's case focuses on whether there's "credible information."
Stacey Sobel, senior attorney with the Washington, D.C.-based Service
Members Legal Defense Network, said the fact that May's comments came
before
he was recalled into active duty may not make a difference. The network
represents military employees who are involved in "don't ask, don't tell"
cases.
"If he has made a statement in the past
they can try to pursue a
discharge," said Sobel. "We've had cases where third parties have turned
people in." But May says it's unfair that he should be required to stay
silent as a lawmaker.
In early February, May denounced a bill proposed by Rep. Karen Johnson,
R-Mesa, that would have prohibited the use of public money to pay for
benefits for same-sex couples. Johnson also made disparaging comments about
gays in the hearing.
"Does this mean that every time that Karen Johnson pulls her crazy
antics
that I have to keep my mouth shut?" May asked.
May argues that the policy is hurting the military by discharging
qualified people. Military retention recently has dropped significantly, so
much so that some members of Congress are calling for a reinstatement of
the
draft.
In 1998, there were 1,145 gay people discharged from the military, up
from 997 in 1997, according to Defense Department figures. Sobel expects
the
trend to continue.
"We definitely see quite a number of cases where highly qualified men
and
women who have served with distinction are being forced out of the military
because of sexual preference," she said.
May, who was up for a promotion to captain this fall, said he's
frustrated that he once again is forced to fight a gay-rights issue, which
was not his motivation for entering public life. A Republican, he has been
criticized by some in the gay community for not being vocal enough on
gay-rights issues.
May is more interested in talking about about tax cuts, education or
conservative economic policy.
"I resent being forced into this," he said. "It's an awkward situation,
one I didn't want to be in. I'm not trying to make a gay-rights issue out
of
it. Service isn't a right. This is an obligation. Why do gay people have
less
of an obligation to defend the nation?"
The case could take months to resolve. In the meantime, May said he
will
keep working weekends, training soldiers. He says he has a great working
relationship with both his soldiers and the officers he serves.
He says his commanders don't want to pursue the case, but they're stuck
with the policy. Ultimately, he says he'll follow his orders.
"When I got called back to the military, I went," he said. "If they
want
to kick me out.
I'm trying to do the right and honorable thing."
The item above is being distributed as a free, non-profit informational
service to a limited number of individuals who have expressed interest in
this topic for educational and research purposes only. Please do
redistribute or post copyrighted material anyplace on the Internet
accessible to the public without attribution and permission from the
author. Please note that distribution of this item does not necessarily
constitute endorsement of the content; in fact, often items are distributed
as "opposition research."
Message Sent
To:
Karen Tramontano/WHO/EOP@EOP
Sean P. Maloney/WHO/EOP@EOP
Laura S. Marcus/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mara E. Rudman/NSC/EOP@EOP
Edward W. Correia/WHO/EOP@EOP
Thomas L. Freedman/OPD/EOP@EOP
Caroline R. Fredrickson/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mary E. Cahill/WHO/EOP@EOP
Mary L. Smith/OPD/EOP@EOP
LEAVY_D@A1@CD@VAXGTWY@EOP
Philip G Dufour/OVP@OVP
Elizabeth J. Potter/OVP@OVP
Monica M. Dixon/OVP@OVP
Leon S. Fuerth/OVP@OVP
Barry J. Toiv/WHO/EOP@EOP
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Richard Socarides ( CN=Richard Socarides/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
CREATION DATE/TIME:25-AUG-1999 16:05:10.00
SUBJECT: Action Alerts fro SLDN
TO: Leon S. Fuerth (CN=Leon S. Fuerth/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth J. Potter (CN=Elizabeth J. Potter/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO:LEAVY_D@A1@CD@VAXGTWY@EOP(LEAVY_D@A1@CD@VAXGTWY@EOP[UNKNOWN]
(NSC)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mary E. Cahill (CN=Mary E. Cahill/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas L. Freedman ( CN=Thomas L. Freedman/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mara E. Rudman (CN=Mara E. Rudman/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. Maloney (CN=Sean P. Maloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Barry J. Toiv (CN=Barry J. Toiv/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Monica M. Dixon (CN=Monica M. Dixon/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Philip G Dufour ( CN=Philip G Dufour/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mary L. Smith (CN=Mary L. Smith/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Caroline R. Fredrickson ( CN=Caroline R. Fredrickson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Edward W. Correia ( CN=Edward W. Correia/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ))
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura S. Marcus ( CN=Laura S. Marcus/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Karen Tramontano (CN=Karen Tramontano/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Forwarded by Richard Socarides/WHO/EOP on 08/25/99
04:04 PM
[email protected]
08/22/99 11:30:00 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Richard Socarides@EOP
cc:
Subject: Action Alerts fro SLDN
ATTENTION SERVICE MEMBERS: Under Article 31 of the Uniform Code of
Military
Justice, you have the right to remain silent and to consult with a defense
attorney if you are investigated. Say nothing. Sign nothing. Get legal
help. Call SLDN at 202.328.FAIR (3247).
SLDN Action Alert (1 of 2)
Testimony on Anti-Gay Harassment in Fort Campbell Murder Case
Update: An Article 32 hearing for one of the accused in PFC Barry
Winchell's
murder case was held on August 9th and 10th. One statement mentioned
during
the hearing, if true, links anti-gay bias to the motive for the crime,
among
other factors. Testimony was also presented showing: (1) PFC Winchell
faced
daily harassment for four to six months prior to his murder because of his
perceived sexual orientation; (2) even though superiors knew about the
harassment, they did not take steps to stop it; (3) based on a report that
a
soldier from the company had gone to a gay bar, two sergeants launched an
investigation to determine if a soldier in the company was gay and
determined
that it must have been PFC Winchell; and (4) the two sergeants asked PFC
Winchell if he were gay.
WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP:
(1) Contact the Secretary of the Army: If true, the testimony presented
last week shows very clear violations of Don't Ask, Don't Pursue and Don't
Harass. Please contact the Secretary of the Army, Louis Caldera and ask:
* What steps is he taking to look into "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't
Pursue"
violations that were testified to last week at Ft. Campbell, KY?
*
What steps is he taking to hold leaders responsible for the "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" violations that were testified to last week at
Ft.
Campbell?
*
What is he doing to see if other violations of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell,
Don't Pursue" occurred in PFC Winchell's unit and in other units at Ft.
Campbell?
*
If, as Pentagon officials maintain, leaders like him are committed to
proper enforcement of investigative limits, how could such basic violations
still occur nearly six years into the policy?
Write:
The Honorable Louis Caldera
Secretary of the Army
101 Army Pentagon
Washington DC 20310-0101
Call: 703.695.3211
Fax: 703.697.8036
Comment via the Army's web site: www.dtic.mil/armylink/comment.html
(2) Send Condolences: SLDN thanks those of you who have wanted to send
condolences to PFC Winchell's family. You may contact them via
[email protected]
or:
Family of PFC Barry Winchell
PO Box 233
Grandview MO 64030.
The family may not be able to respond personally at this time, but
expresses
its gratitude in advance.
SLDN Action Alert (2 of 2)
Pentagon's Release of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue"
Recommendations
On April 13, Pentagon officials released new recommendations on anti-gay
harassment and investigations. The recommendations respond to some of
SLDN's
concerns, but are too little, too late. They do not give any specific
guidelines on how the services should implement them. Secretary of Defense
Cohen failed to distribute similar guidance more than two years ago,
despite
SLDN's repeated warnings that steps were needed to stop anti-gay violence
and
harassment. In the meantime, anti-gay harassment rose 120 percent.
The recommendations state, among other things, that: reports of anti-gay
harassment or threats must be investigated promptly; service members
reporting anti-gay harassment should not be investigated under "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" or retaliated against because they report the
harassment; anti-gay harassment training be instituted; and it is
recommended
that military lawyers consult with senior attorneys before investigating a
service member under the policy. The guidelines do not address
investigative
limits. Nothing in the recommendations tell commanders what the rules are
or
how to implement them.
STEPS YOU CAN TAKE:
Ask President Clinton and Vice President Gore to:
* Denounce "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue." When President Clinton
took office he said he would end the ban on gays in the military.
Instead, a
law was passed codifying the military's double standard. It is clear that
the policy is not working - gay discharges are at their highest level since
1987 and reports of asking, pursuing and harassment have increased
dramatically since the policy went into affect.
* Sign the hate crimes sentence enhancement guidelines for the military.
More than two years ago, a proposed amendment to the Manual for
Courts-Martial allowing sentence enhancement in anti-gay hate crimes was
sent
to President Clinton by the Joint Services Committee on Military Justice.
The proposal was submitted to the White House as an Executive Order and
President Clinton has not signed it yet.
* Ask Secretary of Defense Cohen to do his job or resign. The "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell, Don't Pursue" policy is not being implemented properly after
more
than five years. It is Secretary Cohen's job to make sure military leaders
stop harassment and follow the policy's investigative limits. If Secretary
Cohen cannot do this he needs to step aside.
Write to:
President William Jefferson Clinton
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington DC 20500
Call: 202-456-1111
E-mail: [email protected]
Write to:
Vice President Albert Gore
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington DC 20500
Call: 202-456-1111
E-mail: [email protected]
Ask Secretary Cohen to:
*
Implement the new guidelines. Secretary Cohen needs to release
information on how and when the military branches plan on putting the
guidelines into action.
*
Distribute an investigative limits memo telling commanders what they can
and can't do under the policy. Despite the fact that the policy has been
in
place for more than 5 years, most commanders and service members do not
know
the limits to gay investigations.
*
Hold military leaders accountable for anti-gay harassment and other
violations.
*
Do his job or resign. See above.
Write to:
Secretary of Defense William Cohen
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington DC 20301-1000
Call: 703-692-7100
Comment via DoD web page: www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.htm
Organize Locally. There are some steps you can take on a local level:
*
Write a letter to the editor of your local paper letting them know the
problems with the policy.
*
Meet with local military base commanders to ask what steps they will
take
to stop anti-gay harassment.
*
Other steps, as appropriate for your community.
The item above is being distributed as a free, non-profit informational
service to a limited number of individuals who have expressed interest in
this topic for educational and research purposes only. Please do
redistribute or post copyrighted material anyplace on the Internet
accessible to the public without attribution and permission from the
author. Please note that distribution of this item does not necessarily
constitute endorsement of the content; in fact, often items are distributed
as "opposition research."
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR:zguerra@MITEDU@INET@LNGTWY([email protected]@INET@LNGTWYJUNKNOW
CREATION DATE/TIME:26-AUG-1999 10:39:47.00
SUBJECT: - no subject (01JF7XXC6AHE00E5O3) -
TO: Daniel C. Montoya@eop ( Daniel C. Montoya@eop [OPD])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Looks like the Inquisition is alive and well. And in our own country, too
(except this time, we're talking Cryptic Homosexuals)
ZAG
New York Times
August 26, 1999
Army May Discharge a Gay Lawmaker
By JAMES STERNGOLD
PHOENIX -- By his own account, Steve May knew from the time
he was in his early teens that he wanted to be a politician, specifically a
conservative Republican politician. He carefully built his life, he says,
to shape an attractive risumi, from his decision to enter R.O.T.C. in
college and then serve as an Army officer to his efforts at building a
track record as a small-business man, helping run his family's herbal-tea
and natural-foods company here.
It worked. May served with distinction as a lieutenant on
active duty in the Army and then entered the Reserve, and last November he
was elected to the State Legislature, to represent the affluent,
conservative district where he had grown up.
Everything seemed to be going just right until this winter,
when the usually affable and measured 27-year-old May bitterly spoke his
mind in the Arizona House, this time not as a Republican legislator, a
Mormon or a soldier, but as an openly gay man.
He denounced an ultimately failed bill that would have barred
the use of public funds to pay for health benefits of same-sex partners,
and also attacked the legislation's conservative sponsor, Representative
Karen S. Johnson, a fellow Republican who had condemned homosexuals as
immoral.
May's remarks were widely quoted here and were followed by a
cover article in Phoenix New Times, an alternative magazine, that discussed
everything from his youthful realization that he is gay to how he had met
and dated his companion, who lives with him. The upshot was that he not
only angered many conservatives in his party by suggesting that Ms. Johnson
was bigoted but also brought on himself one of the more unusual
investigations under the Clinton Administration's "don't ask, don't tell"
policy toward homosexuals in the military.
Under that policy, recruiters are barred from asking
applicants about their sexual orientation, and commanders are forbidden to
undertake investigations of suspected homosexuality unless there is
significant evidence of homosexual conduct.
On the other hand, homosexuals are forbidden to disclose
their orientation in a public setting; indeed, their doing so is considered
evidence of at least an intent to engage in homosexual acts.
Col. John R. Hawkins 3d, the spokesman for the Army Reserve,
acknowledges that an investigation of May is under way, to determine
whether his remarks are grounds for discharge.
Colonel Hawkins says the inquiry should come as no surprise,
given the public nature of the case.
"I don't think that the individual has been, shall we say,
keeping this under wraps, as to his sexual orientation," the colonel said.
In addition, May, who was first "outed" as gay when he ran
unsuccessfully for the State Senate three years ago, faces the possibility
that the increased publicity about his homosexuality, as well as his
scuffling with party leaders, will hurt his chances of winning re-election
next year.
May said he had never hidden his sexual orientation; in fact,
he joined the board of the Log Cabin Republicans, a nationwide organization
of gay party members, after his State Senate run.
But he always chose to identify himself with other issues,
like education, rather than gay rights.
Then, after long doing everything "right," he says, he faced
a perhaps inevitable choice when he heard gay men denounced during the
health-benefits debate in February as disease-ridden dangers to the family
who were doomed to ghastly early deaths.
During his outburst in the House, he acknowledged that it
might have been politically wiser to keep quiet.
"But when you attack my family," said May, whose father was
once a bishop in the conservative Mormon Church, "and you steal my freedom,
I will not sit quietly in my office.
This Legislature takes my gay tax dollars, and my gay tax
dollars spend the same as your straight tax dollars. If you're not going to
treat me fairly, don't take my money."
That was followed by a string of newspaper articles, and
later a confrontation with the Army in which he was informed of the
investigation against him.
The sheer volume of May's public remarks on the matter makes
this a highly unusual case, said Stacey Sobel, a senior attorney at the
Service Members Legal Defense Network, an organization based in Washington
that advises troops who are faced with inquiries about their sexual
orientation. Ms. Sobel said that in some instances, the "don't ask, don't
tell" policy had been pursued so aggressively by commanders that comments
made by a soldier in entirely private conversations had, when disclosed,
been used as a basis for discharge.
"Because what he's said has been published in newspapers,"
Ms. Sobel said of May, whom she has been advising, "it can be considered
credible information, and that passes their test for what can be used
against him."
Other factors that make the case unusual, she said, are that
it involves an elected official the only one she knows of who is a
target of such an investigation and that it is aimed at a reservist
rather than an active-duty soldier.
May says the absurdity of the policy and his situation is
evident in the fact that he was officially told he was under investigation
and confronted by a military legal officer right after a three-day exercise
earlier this month in Flagstaff. That meeting, he said, came shortly after
he had been told that he might be taking command of the transportation
company in which he serves.
"This isn't about gay rights," May maintained.
"It's about the security of the nation. The issue for me as a
policy maker is I want to make sure the nation is aware of the dangers this
policy creates for our military preparedness."
Even as the military faces continuing shortages in personnel,
the policy on homosexuals, which was supposed to protect them from
harassment, has resulted in growing numbers' being discharged, according to
Pentagon figures: last year 1,145 members of the armed services were
discharged for homosexuality, up from 997 in 1997 and 617 in 1994, when the
"don't ask, don't tell" policy took effect.
Earlier this month the Pentagon, faced with gay rights
groups' mounting criticism over those numbers, announced that it was
revising the guidelines for carrying out the policy. The guidelines will
require that many of the inquiries like the one undertaken against May be
conducted by senior officers. Among the other provisions are that troops
receive anti-harassment training throughout their careers, beginning with
boot camp.
Gay rights groups, and May himself, say the changes do not go
far enough.
"First we're going to indoctrinate our soldiers to believe
that homosexuals are inferior and a threat because of this policy, and then
we're going to indoctrinate them into believing gays shouldn't be
harassed," May said. "It doesn't make any sense."
May said other lawmakers had told him that some of his new
political enemies, from the right wing of his own party, had spurred the
Army investigation by alerting the service to his public remarks. One
Republican, Jeff Groscost, the Speaker of the House, denied that accusation
and said May had only his own candor to blame.
"My question was, How could you expect that not to have made
it to the Army?" said Groscost, who fought several tough legislative
battles against May this spring and has become one of his critics.
The case could well threaten the political career of one of
the few openly gay officials in the country elected to state or national
positions. There are three openly gay or lesbian members of the United
States Congress, and 34 acknowledged gay, lesbian or bisexual officials
elected at the state level, according to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund,
a group that supports homosexual candidates. Of those 34 state officials,
the organization says, only one is a Republican, May.
To some members of May's party, the fundamental problem seems
to be his sudden outspokenness more than his sexual orientation itself.
Although May says he has been open about his sexuality with his family and
friends since he was 18, he did not discuss it in public until he was
"outed" by another Republican when he ran for the State Senate in 1996.
It is not clear why the Army did not pick up on the issue
then.
May says that the episode worried him at the time but that he
chose to address his homosexuality only when others raised it. In his
campaign last year, he says, he adopted the same policy, never denying his
homosexuality but not raising it himself. That seemed to satisfy some party
leaders, at least for a time.
"Steve May is a pretty good guy, to tell you the truth," said
Mike Minnaugh, the Republican state chairman, who is a resident of May's
district, in the wealthy eastern section of Phoenix.
"As an individual, I do not endorse homosexual relationships
-- it goes against my beliefs -- but I do respect his rights. As long as he
doesn't go and talk a lot about his homosexuality, he can continue to get
elected."
Minnaugh added, though, that if a heterosexual Republican
candidate with equally conservative credentials were to run against May in
the primary next year, "that would be very difficult."
And Speaker Groscost said that "if there's a politically
attractive challenger, Steve could have some trouble."
"I'm not sure that he ran before as an openly gay
legislator," the Speaker said. "There's a small chink in that armor."
May says he is concerned that the party may not support his
re-election. (He is already working to raise a campaign war chest of
$100,000 on his own, a huge sum for a state race here.) The experience, he
says, has shaken his belief in the party machine, though not in the party's
traditional values.
"I've always been Republican," May said. "I believe in the
core Republican principles. I also happen to be gay. But the party has been
hijacked by theocratic fascists."
The only other openly gay member of the Legislature,
Representative Ken Cheuvront, a Democrat, says that in this conservative
state, he was surprised at May's outspokenness concerning his
homosexuality.
"He's young," Cheuvront said. "And all of a sudden he heard
this stuff being said about gays. He dealt with it differently than I
do."
May says he had no choice.
"The voters want you to be honest," he said. "I'd rather just
say, 'It's none of your business.' But you can't get away with that
anymore."
Zaragoza A. Guerra, III
Associate Director of Admissions
Office of Admissions
Building 3-108
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
Phone 617/258-5515
Fax 617/258-8304
Email [email protected]
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Richard Socarides ( CN=Richard Socarides/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:31-AUG-1999 09:08:27.00
SUBJECT: Gore Chides Gays in Military Policy
TO: Leon S. Fuerth ( CN=Leon S. Fuerth/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth J. Potter ( CN=Elizabeth J. Potter/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: LEAVY_D@A1@CD@VAXGTVY@EOP (LEAVY_D@AI@CD@VAXGTWY@EOP] UNKNOWN
(NSC)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mary E. Cahill (CN=Mary E. Cahill/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas L. Freedman ( CN=Thomas L. Freedman/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mara E. Rudman (CN=Mara E. Rudman/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. Maloney (CN=Sean P. Maloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Charles W. Burson (CN=Charles W. Burson/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alejandro G. Cabrera ( CN=Alejandro G. Cabrera/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura M. Quinn (CN=Laura M. Quinn/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Philip G Dufour ( CN=Philip G Dufour/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael B. Feldman ( CN=Michael B. Feldman/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Monica M. Dixon ( CN=Monica M. Dixon/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Barry J. Toiv (CN=Barry J. Toiv/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mary L. Smith (CN=Mary L. Smith/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [OPD])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Caroline R. Fredrickson ( CN=Caroline R. Fredrickson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Edward W. Correia ( CN=Edward W. Correia/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura S. Marcus ( CN=Laura S. Marcus/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Karen Tramontano (CN=Karen Tramontano/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Christopher S. Lehane ( CN=Christopher S. Lehane/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas M. Rosshirt ( CN=Thomas M. Rosshirt/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ansley Jones (CN=Ansley Jones/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Eli G. Attie (CN=Eli G. Attie/O=OVP@OVP[ UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ron Klain (CN=Ron Klain/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Forwarded by Richard Socarides/WHO/EOP on 08/31/99
09:08 AM
[email protected]
08/31/99 01:32:00 AM
Record Type: Record
To: Richard Socarides@EOP
cc:
Subject: Gore Chides Gays in Military Policy
Associated Press, August 30, 1999
Gore Chides Gays in Military Policy
By SANDRA SOBIERAJ
WASHINGTON (AP) ) Vice President Al Gore criticized the Clinton
administration's policy toward gays in the military and said he would
implement "don't ask, don't tell" with more compassion.
In an interview published in the September editions of The Advocate,
due
on newsstands Tuesday, the vice president also asserted that adoption
agencies ) not federal or state governments ) should decide on a
case-by-case
basis whether gays and lesbians should adopt children or serve as foster
parents.
"Local adoption officials can evaluate the circumstances of the child
and
the parenting ability of prospective parents and decide if there's a good
match," Gore said.
The vice president, who is on vacation with his family this week, was
interviewed in June as he campaigned in California for the Democratic
presidential nomination. His comments came before the much-publicized,
Aug.
13 announcement by the Pentagon of new, mandatory training on
anti-harassment
guidelines for all troops.
Last year, 1,145 people were discharged from the armed forces for
homosexuality, the Pentagon reported. In 1997, the total was 997, the
highest number since 1987. The number of discharges hit a low of 617 in
1994, the year that President Clinton effected his "don't ask, don't tell"
policy, which allows gays to serve in the military as long as their sexual
orientation is not discovered.
"The statistics may be reflecting some phenomenon I don't understand,
but
the easiest explanation is that it's not being implemented in a way that
fully reflects the spirit of the policy," Gore told The Advocate.
"I would implement the policy with more compassion," Gore said. He
added that he would work with military leaders on developing "an
implementation strategy that's fairer," but did offer specifics.
Asked if gays and lesbians were, by their nature, antithetical to
"family
values," the vice president replied: "I believe that God makes us in
different ways. I don't believe that having made us, God intends us to
suffer discrimination and prejudice.
The item above is being distributed as a free, non-profit informational
service to a limited number of individuals who have expressed interest in
this topic for educational and research purposes only. Please do not
redistribute or post copyrighted material anyplace on the Internet
accessible to the public without attribution and permission from the
author. Please note that distribution of this item does not necessarily
constitute endorsement of the content; in fact, often items are distributed
as "opposition research."
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:31-AUG-1999 12:44:08.00
SUBJECT: CNN Larry King Live, August 30, 1999
TO: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne W. Bovaird (CN=Anne W. Bovaird/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael K. Gehrke (CN=Michael K. Gehrke/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michele Ballantyne ( CN=Michele Ballantyne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ruby Shamir (CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Aprill N. Springfield (CN=Aprill N. Springfield/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ann C. Hertelendy (CN=Ann C. Hertelendy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP[ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Erica S. Lepping ( CN=Erica S. Lepping/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Saladbar 23 <saladbar23 ( Saladbar 23 <saladbar23 @ hotmail.com> @ inet [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas D. Janenda ( CN=Thomas D. Janenda/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Toby C. Graff (CN=Toby C. Graff/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael A. Hammer ( CN=Michael A. Hammer/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Victoria L. Valentine ( CN=Victoria L. Valentine/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca L. Walldorff ( CN=Rebecca L. Walldorff/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOF [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Heather M. Riley ( CN=Heather M. Riley/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan M. Prince ( CN=Jonathan M. Prince/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa J. Prober ( CN=Melissa J. Prober/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah E. Gegenheimer (CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rochester M. Johnson ( CN=Rochester M. Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: June Shih ( CN=June Shih/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jason H. Schechter (CN=Jason H. Schechter/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alison Muscatine (CN=Alison Muscatine/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julie E. Mason ( CN=Julie E. Mason/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Paul K. Engskov (CN=Paul K. Engskov/OU=WHO/O=EOP@FOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne M. Edwards (CN=Anne M. Edwards/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa M. Murray ( CN=Melissa M. Murray/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Eli G. Attie (CN=Eli G. Attie/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nanda Chitre (CN=Nanda Chitre/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer Ferguson (CN=Jennifer Ferguson/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jonathan A. Kaplan ( CN=Jonathan A. Kaplan/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [OPD])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey M. Smith ( CN=Jeffrey M. Smith/OU=OSTP/O=EOP@EOP [ OSTP ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth R. Newman ( CN=Elizabeth R. Newman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jordan Tamagni ( CN=Jordan Tamagni/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Megan C. Moloney ( CN=Megan C. Moloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Brenda M. Anders (CN=Brenda M. Anders/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dominique L. Cano ( CN=Dominique L. Cano/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leslie Bernstein ( CN=Leslie Bernstein/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOF WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anthony R. Bernal ( CN=Anthony R. Bernal/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph P. Lockhart ( CN=Joseph P. Lockhart/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nicole L. Davison (CN=Nicole L. Davison/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [OPD])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jenni R. Engebretsen ( CN=Jenni R. Engebretsen/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Natalie S. Wozniak (CN=Natalie S. Wozniak/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP I NSC])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dawn M. Chirwa (CN=Dawn M. Chirwa/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David Vandivier (CN=David Vandivier/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lindsey E. Huff (CN=Lindsey E. Huff/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven Reich ( CN=Steven Reich/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kimberly S. Anderson ( CN=Kimberly S. Anderson/OU=OA/O=EOP@EOP [ OA 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin J. Bachman (CN=Robin J. Bachman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. O'Shea (CN=Sean P. O'Shea/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura J. Lewis (CN=Laura J. Lewis/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: James E. Kennedy ( CN=James E. Kennedy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Katharine Button (CN=Katharine Button/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alejandro G. Cabrera ( CN=Alejandro G. Cabrera/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joshua S. Gottheimer ( CN=Joshua S. Gottheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Clara J. Shin ( CN=Clara J. Shin/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steve Ricchetti ( CN=Steve Ricchetti/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rachael E. Sullivan ( CN=Rachael E. Sullivan/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jeffrey A. Shesol (CN=Jeffrey A. Shesol/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark A. Kitchens (CN=Mark A. Kitchens/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gordon Li ( CN=Gordon Li/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven J. Naplan ( CN=Steven J. Naplan/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura D. Schwartz (CN=Laura D. Schwartz/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOF [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gene B. Sperling ( CN=Gene B. Sperling/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Barry J. Toiv (CN=Barry J. Toiv/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sara M. Latham (CN=Sara M. Latham/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: William A. Halter ( CN=William A. Halter/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark D. Neschis (CN=Mark D. Neschis/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thurgood Marshall Jr ( CN=Thurgood Marshall Jr/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lowell A. Weiss ( CN=Lowell A. Weiss/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Julia M. Payne ( CN=Julia M. Payne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Beverly J. Barnes ( CN=Beverly J. Barnes/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Richard L. Siewert ( CN=Richard L. Siewert/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] @ inet [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dag Vega (CN=Dag Vega/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin M. Roland ( CN=Robin M. Roland/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa G. Green ( CN=Melissa G. Green/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer M. Palmieri ( CN=Jennifer M. Palmieri/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP. [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas B. Sosnik ( CN=Douglas B. Sosnik/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
CNN Larry King Live
Aired August 30, 1999 - 9:00 p.m. ET
Should the Military's Abandon Its 'Don't Ask/Don't Tell' Policy
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, the military's
don't-ask/don't-tell policy is
under the gun again. Joining us from Washington, Arizona
State
Representative Steve May. His openness about his sexual
orientation may get
him kicked out of the Army Reserve. In Aspen, retired
tennis star Martina
Navratilova. In Louisville, Kentucky, the Reverend
Albert Mohler Jr.,
president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
In Madison,
Wisconsin, Democratic Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, a
member of the
House Judiciary Committee, who is gay. And in Columbus,
Georgia,
Republican Congressman Bob Barr, also a member of
Judiciary.
They're all next on LARRY KING LIVE.
Good evening from Washington. The issue of gays in the
United States
military has been in the news again recently. Arizona
State Representative
Steve May, who is also in the Army Reserves, is under
investigation by the
Army, could be discharged for violating the
don't-ask/don't-tell policy.
Steve May is openly gay, but the Army didn't even start
to look into that
orientation until it got word of remarks he'd made on
the floor of the Arizona
legislature way back in February.
Ironically, while he's being investigated, May is also
being considered for a
promotion in the Reserves.
He spoke about his predicament last Friday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE MAY (R), ARIZONA STATE HOUSE: I'm a soldier. I'm a
legislator. I have chosen to live my life with
integrity. Because of the
legislature, I'm visible. Because of my integrity, I
have created a conflict.
That doesn't make me a gay activist. That makes me an
honest soldier and a
good legislator.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Steve May joins us here in Washington. We'll have
a panel, as we told
you, join us later. This got a lot of nationwide,
international attention with a
front-page story last week in The New York Times. And in
today's "New
York Times," on the editorial page, a major editorial,
is bigotry in the military.
And about this case, it says: "But better training will
not prevent absurd
outcomes. The case of Steve May, a Republican state
legislator, shows how
irrational the policy is. Mr. May is gay and made
reference to his own
orientation when debating a bill about health insures.
He is now under
investigation and may be discharged from the military."
Are you shocked by all this?
MAY: Larry, the story is really absurd, and I think my
case does show
uniquely how absurd the policy is. Don't-ask/don't-tell
simply doesn't work.
KING: Was it well-known that you were gay?
MAY: I have been open about my sexual orientation with
my constituents for
three years. I ran for office first in 1996.
KING: So you were elected to the legislature with the
constituency knowing
you were gay?
MAY: Absolutely.
KING: And that is a conservative Republican
(UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
MAY: Correct.
KING: I mean, what's that? Scottsdale?
MAY: Scottsdale, Paradise Valley, East Phoenix, the
Biltmore- Arcadia (ph)
area.
KING: Are you basically a conservative Republican?
MAY: Absolutely. In fact, no one has ever challenged
those credentials at all.
KING: What was the debate about in February that caused
you to mention it
on the floor of the House?
MAY: One of the other representatives had offered a bill
which would have
prevented cities from implementing domestic partnership
benefits. These were
cities whose voters had already decided to offer these
benefits to their own
city employees, and she basically wanted to prevent the
cities from
implementing the voter-approved plan.
KING: So you got up and spoke against her and the plan,
right?
MAY: Correct.
KING: And blasted the -- some of the conservatives in
your own party as
well?
MAY: Well, just the particular ones who use very ugly
personal attacks
against me, my family and my constituents.
KING: They were saying it on the floor of the House?
MAY: Oh, yes. It was offensive.
KING: Like what?
MAY: That homosexuals -- excuse me. That homosexuals
were at the lower
end of the behavior spectrum, that homosexuality leads
to bestiality, animal
sacrifice and cannibalism -- just amazingly disgusting
terms.
KING: By the way, we have invited -- had invited
representatives from the
United States military to appear with us tonight and
they declined. When were
you in active duty?
MAY: I was active-duty for two years, three months and
eight days.
KING: When?
MAY: From May of 1993 to August of 1995. And then I was
on an inactive
status, not at all involved in the military.
KING: Are you an officer?
MAY: I'm an officer. I'm a first lieutenant.
KING: Why don't you just quit?
MAY: Well, it's not that easy. I was not in the
military, of course, for 3 1/2
years. And then when the Kosovo crisis heated up, I was
sent orders to report
for duty and I did. That was my obligation as a soldier.
I can't refuse orders
when the nation's at war.
KING: Did you go?
MAY: So I did. I pulled my uniform out of the attic and
went back to an active
Reserve unit. And that's what I've been doing now since
April.
KING: Well, if it's don't-ask/don't-tell and you'd
already told, how did they not
know?
MAY: That's the great -- I'm confused too, Larry. When I
first got orders to
report back in for duty, I was confused. And every month
that I went there
and served -- April, May, June and July -- prior to them
conducting their
investigation, I was confused, because I had been open
and honest about my
life publicly now for three years.
KING: So did someone contact the Army to say you should
be tossed out and
used as an example your speech on the House floor? MAY:
My commander
told me that she had received a complaint -- and she
wouldn't tell me who it
came from -- but a complaint with a copy of a newspaper
article that talked
about my sexual orientation.
KING: That domestic thing calls for what? If two
homosexual partners are
living together, one gets the benefits of
hospitalization and the like?
MAY: Well, it would have allowed employees.
KING: Like a married couple?
MAY: It would have allowed employees of the state to
access the health
insurance benefits on even keel, so equally with those
who are married. That's
correct. And it's not just for homosexuals. It's for
domestic partners, whether
they be homosexual or heterosexual.
KING: There are many, many, many gay conservatives,
right?
MAY: There are very many. In fact, I just returned from
a Log Cabin
convention, which is a convention of gay conservatives.
KING: Gay conservatives. And is it disturbing to you
that most of the
constituency against you in the Senate and the House is
conservative?
MAY: It is disturbing, because really sexual orientation
is irrelevant. It's
irrelevant for military service and it's irrelevant for
political service.
My constituents elected me knowing my sexual
orientation, knowing my
military background, because they care about the same
issues that I care
about: public education. I worked very hard to improve
our public schools in
Arizona, cutting taxes, stopping corporate welfare,
which runs rampant
through the Arizona legislature.
KING: But does it disturb you when someone says that
politician is anti-gay,
their thinking is it's a Republican conservative?
MAY: Yes.
K-ING: If I gave you the-hypothetic, they are -- coming
into this door now is an
anti-gay person and he's elected to office, you would
guess he's a Republican
conservative, right?
MAY: Well, I think that's an unfair stereotype, but
certainly many people hold
that stereotype. But there are certainly Democrats also
who are anti-gay.
KING: So you felt this all your life?
MAY: That I was Republican, yes.
KING: And anti-gay, and you felt both the hits and the
misses of this.
MAY: Absolutely.
KING: Why do you want to stay in the service? Why at
this point would you
care?
MAY: Well, it's my obligation. When the nation called me
back into service in
February of 1999 as the Kosovo crisis was heating up, I
didn't have a choice.
KING: But why now do you want -- I mean, they may
dismiss you, right?
Where does it stand now? You're up for promotion and
dismissal?
MAY: I'm up for promotion to captain, right, and my
captain's board meets in
November. And I'm also under investigation for dismissal
under a violation of
the don't-ask/don't-tell policy.
KING: If they dismiss you, is that appealable?
MAY: No. I don't -- no, it's not.
KING: Would it disturb you if you were dismissed?
MAY: Well, it disturbs me that my otherwise spotless
record would be --
would end this way.
KING: More with state representative Steve May of
Arizona. We'll spend
another section with him and then bring in our entire
panel.
This is LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The
issue is not whether there should be homosexuals in the
military. Everyone
concedes that there are. The issue is whether men and
women who can and
have served with real distinction should be excluded
from military service
solely on the basis of their status. And I believe they
should not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: We're back with Arizona State Representative Steve May. He's up for
re-election again next year. And he has been elected
already with his
constituency knowing of his -- well, I would say sexual
choice. It's not your
choice. You don't know why you're gay, do you?
MAY: No. It was not a choice I made at all. I did choose
to serve my
constituents in the legislature. I did choose to serve
my country in uniform.
And I also made a choice to live my life with integrity,
and that's what's
caused this conflict.
KING: Do you -- how many do you know how many people
-- men and
women -- have been tossed out of service since
don't-ask/don't- tell, who told
and got tossed?
MAY: I don't know how many since the beginning, but I
know that the
statistics today are that three to four service members
are discharged every
day. Those service members are otherwise qualified, they
perform well in
their job duties. They're discharged simply because of
their sexual orientation.
KING: And how does it come out, usually? Is there an
usual pattern? Did they
tell someone? Is that the usual way?
MAY: There are any number of ways this could happen.
Perhaps they made
a statement to friends. The policy as it stands now says
that you can't even tell
your mother, your brother, your sister, your best
friend.
KING: What if I tell on you? Does that dismiss you?
MAY: That would cause an investigation, absolutely.
KING: It does, even though you never said it to
anybody..
MAY: Absolutely, absolutely. It would cause an
investigation. And the same
-- you'd be in the same situation I am now.
KING: Are you supporting your senator, McCain, for the
presidency?
MAY: I have endorsed Senator McCain. I want him to be
president.
KING: Do you know where he stands on this?
MAY: I have heard comments that he's made in the press,
but ultimately this..
KING: What has he said?
MAY: Well, he says that he supports me and opposes
discrimination against
gays and lesbians. But he supports don't ask, don't
tell. That's really an issue
that
KING: Is that a conflict, do you think?
MAY: Well
KING: Is it to you?
MAY: Well, I'm not a single-issue voter. I think most
Americans are not
single-issue voters, but really this is about soldiers
serving with integrity in the
military. And that's what this issue needs to comes back
to is that I served my
country in uniform because I want to serve my country in
uniform.
KING: When your were in the military -- we had a soldier
killed last year,
didn't we? Fort Campbell?
MAY: We had a soldier killed this year.
KING: This year. When you were in the military, did you
see much anti-gay
against you or others?
MAY: Not me, personally.
KING: Never saw it?
MAY: No, not at all. In fact, since all the recent
publicity I have received
e-mails from all over the world from people I served
with back at Fort Riley.
I've gotten nothing but support from them, from soldiers
past and present. It's
really been very -- very gratifying.
KING: And other armies around the world don't even deal
with it, right? They
don't discuss it..
MAY: No, absolutely not. In Israel, one of the finest
fighting forces in the
world, everyone serves, regardless of sexual
orientation. So they have soldiers
serving openly gay in Israel and in many, many services
across the world.
KING: How did the bill come out in the legislature?
MAY: It died. It really was an ugly bill. And there was
so much hate-filled
rhetoric, I think most of the members of the House were
embarrassed. Even
those who supported the issue were embarrassed by the
rhetoric from my
opponent.
KING: So what is the law now in communities in Arizona
regarding gays and
health benefits and the like?
MAY: Well, cities and counties are allowed to choose
whether or not they
extend health benefits to domestic partners of their
employees, just like many
Fortune 500 companies now offer the exact same benefit.
KING: That's right. Does Phoenix do it?
MAY: Phoenix does not. Tempe just implemented that
program, Tucson and
also Pima County.
KING: Phoenix does not.
MAY: Phoenix does not. I understand they're considering
it.
KING: How do you feel, Steve, about all of this? I mean
the way it's hit you
now. And then you made the speech in February. You
figured it went away,
right? You knew you were up made for the captaincy, and
suddenly they're
investigating you on the front page of "The New York
Times," you're on a
worldwide program tonight. How you react to all of this?
MAY: Well, it's all very confusing because all I am
trying to do is serve my
constituents in the legislature. That's where my focus
has been, that's where it
will continue to be. That's my agenda. I also responded
to the call that my
nation sent to me by certified mail in February of 1999.
That's my obligation.
And I want to live my life with integrity.
KING: Do the Log Cabin Republicans question their party
a lot, because
you're at odds with, often, planks in your party's
platform, aren't you?
MAY: Right, but we agree with the core values of the
Republican Party.
KING: You are a conservative?
MAY: Correct. But we believe in the core values of the
Republican Party: a
limited government, a strong national defense,
individual liberty, economic
freedom. Those are the core values of the Republican
Party.
Now there have been histories in our party where the far
right, really
theocrats, have taken over our party. Well that's not
who I am. That's not who
most Republicans are. We want more freedom for people.
We want less
government for people. That's the Republican Party I
belong to.
KING: Libertarian Republican.
MAY: Well, that's the party of Barry Goldwater.
KING: Yes. You lambasted someone in particular -- did
you not? -- in the
legislature. I mean, opponents but there was one person
in particular you really
took on, wasn't there?
MAY: Well, the particular sponsor of the bill, who said
that homosexuality was
at the lower end of the behavioral spectrum and
basically condemned me to an
early death because of my sexual orientation, I
responded to her that she was
ill-informed.
KING: Do you converse with her in the halls? Do you
MAY: You know, in politics
KING:
ever sit down to lunch together?
MAY: Sure -- well, sure. You know, in politics
KING: Strange
MAY: Well, you can be best friends on one issue and
bitter enemies on the
next. And so
KING: You probably supported the same issue in many
times on other
MAY: And many times we did. As a matter of fact, a
newspaper did a study
and found that I voted with her 70 percent of the time
over the course of the
legislative session this past time. There are may issues
where we're strong
allies.
KING: Isn't it painful to you personally, emotionally
painful?
MAY: Well
KING: A member of your party, you agree with her 70
percent of the time
and she thinks you're vermin.
MAY: I think it's unfortunate that some people believe
that way, but you know
in this country we have a long history of recognizing
that we have differences
of opinion, differences in our lives, but still we all
have to work together as
Americans. We can't divide our nation over small
differences of opinion.
KING: We will meet a panel to discuss this. We'll be
taking your calls as well.
This is LARRY KING LIVE.
David Frost tomorrow night.
Don't go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AUGUST 14, 1999, "EVANS NOVAK HUNT &
SHIELDS")
ROWLAND EVANS, CO-HOST: As president, Governor Bush,
would you
go back to the pre-Clinton era when gays were not
admitted to the military?
GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm for
don't
ask, don't tell. This is a policy that Colin Powell
thoughtfully put in place.
EVANS: That's Clinton policy.
BUSH: well, if that's the Clinton policy I support that.
But I think it's up to the
military to make sure we enforce it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Welcome back. We're discussing gays in the
military, the don't
ask-don't tell policy, and now a whole broader
discussion of gay rights.
Our panel: Here in Washington, Arizona State
Representative Steve May,
being investigated by the Army reserve, may be
discharged because of his
orientation, may be promoted; in Aspen, Colorado,
retired tennis star Martina
Navratilova; in Louisville, Kentucky, the Reverend
Albert Mohler Jr.,
president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary;
in Madison,
Wisconsin, Democratic Representative Tammy Baldwin, a
member of the
House Judiciary Committee, who is also, like our guest
in the studio in
Washington, openly gay; and in Columbus, Georgia,
Republican Bob Barr of
Georgia, also a member of the Judiciary Committee. Let's
get our panel's
thoughts.
First on the May case, Martina, what do you make of all
of this regarding the
legislator?
MARTINA NAVRATILOVA, FORMER PROFESSIONAL TENNIS
PLAYER: Well, I just can't -- the don't ask, don't tell
cannot work because
you have to be able to tell the truth. I mean, morality
is about telling the truth.
So how can you tell the truth and then pretend you're
not who you are?
KING: So you think there should be - the policy should
be if you're fit to
serve, you're fit to serve, no matter what you are?
NAVRATILOVA: I think it's been proven that sexuality has
nothing to do
with one's ability to serve the country. I would love to
be able to serve the
country, but right now I couldn't.
KING: Congressman Mohler -- I mean, Reverend Mohler,
where do you
stand on this particular issue regarding Steve May?
REVEREND STEVE MOHLER, SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL
SEMINARY: Well, the one thing I would be in agreement
with
Representative May is that the don't ask-don't tell
policy doesn't work. It is
inherently wrong. And the American people believe the
homosexual behavior
is a legitimate issue. And the federal courts have
affirmed that indeed it is a
legitimate military issue for our armed forces. And so
I'm in agreement that
the don't ask-don't tell policy doesn't work, but on the
most fundamental issue
of homosexuality, there is widespread belief among
Americans that it is
fundamentally wrong and has no place in the military.
KING: So, therefore, you don't think -- you think if
you're gay you should not
be in military service?
MOHLER: Yes.
KING: OK.
MOHLER: And I believe that that is exactly what the
armed forces have said
by this policy.
KING: Congresswoman Baldwin, your thoughts on the May
case.
REP. TAMMY BALDWIN (D), WISCONSIN: Well, I think that
Representative May puts a face on this issue. A capable
young man dedicated
to his country ought to be able to serve with pride. And
we shouldn't have a
policy that forces him to be dishonest in any way. And
he's made that point
very well.
I think beyond that the policy of don't-ask/don't-tell
has proven a failure.
We've seen the amount of harassment against gays in the
military increase.
We've seen the number of discharges increase under a
policy that was
supposed to have the opposite effect. And I really think
that Steve's case in so
many poignant ways means that we need to re-examine this
policy. KING:
And Bob Barr of Georgia, nice to see you again,
Congressman. Your
thoughts?
REP. BOB BARR (R), GEORGIA: Thank you very much, Larry. I
appreciate being a part of this very distinguished
panel.
The issue, despite what Lieutenant May kept saying over
and over and over
again, that it's so confusing for him, is not confusing
at all. It's not complex at
all. As the pastor has said, there is very sound
military policy at stake here by
such a -- enunciated by such very distinguished modern
generals as General
Norman Schwarzkopf, who has said that homosexuality is
incompatible with
good order of the military. That being the case, that is
what our military has
said. That is what this Congress and previous Congresses
have stated very
clearly in the law. Whether George Bush feels otherwise
or not,
homosexuality is incompatible with military service.
KING: So Congressman Barr, you also -- you also disagree
with don't-ask
everybody on the panel then doesn't like
don't-ask/don't- tell, but you and
BARR: I guess it's unanimous.
KING: and Reverend Mohler for different reasons. You
would not have
any gay in the military whether they tell or don't tell,
right?
BARR: No. I would uphold the federal law passed in 1994
before the
Republican majority that says that homosexuality is
incompatible with the
military and should not be allowed.
KING: Your party, Representative May, passed that law?
MAY: Yes, Larry, of course, that's true. But the issue
really isn't about gays
in the military. Gays have always been in the military.
I am in the military.
Gays will always be in the military.
The issue is about discrimination in the military. And
the issue is also about
asking soldiers to violate the basic military code of
honor: duty, honor, country.
KING: Reverend Mohler, what is your problem with Steve
May being in the
military? Steve May is sitting right here. What's your
problem with him? You
have a problem with him being in the military. It is
what?
MOHLER: It is his homosexual behavior. And this, again,
is one more
example of how the homosexual agenda has been literally
intrusive into almost
every dimension of American life. And here the military,
which is supposed to
be about defending our country and to be about military
goals and military
means, is having to deal with an issue where there are
some whose agenda
has tried to force the armed services into being about
social work and social
change. And we have really a pretty fundamental
consensus in this country
that this is wrong.
KING: Let me get -- let me get
MOHLER:
a popular (ph) consensus and a legal
consensus.
KING: Let me get a break. Our panel will be with us all
the way. We'll also
be including your phone calls. Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Just so we understand where everybody stands,
Congressman Barr, do
you take it beyond the military? Are you opposed to the
bill to eliminate
discrimination in hiring, firing on the basis of sexual
orientation?
BARR: Oh, I think that if we try to get into that
federally, Larry, whether it's
the employment, Nondiscrimination Act or so-called "hate
crimes," we're
opening a can of worms that I don't think we'd ever see
the last of.
KING: So you would be against the bills? Or for
BARR: Yes, against both -- I would be against -- against
the hate crime bill,
because it leaves these -- these terms very ill-
defined. It doesn't define sexual
orientation, yet it tries to enforce people who don't
like somebody's sexual
orientation
KING: But you don't disagree -- you don't disagree with
there should be no
discrimination against hiring someone because of their
sexual orientation, do
you?
BARR: Yes, I do disagree with that.
KING: You do?
BARR: Yes, absolutely. There are some professions, such
as the Boy Scouts,
where I think here also homosexuality is incompatible
with the goals of the
organization itself. I think in teaching -- and there
may be others as well.
The pastor may very well like to address that in terms
of
KING: I will get to that. Martina, are you surprised
that this -- as a gay
person, we seemingly -- some people say they have come a
-- Are you
surprised this is still apparently a very major issue in
this country?
NAVRATILOVA: I am, you know, because I mean, I came to
live in this
country -- I lived in -- under a communist system in
Czechoslovakia. And I left
that country so I would be free. I thought this was the
land of the free. I didn't
think it meant land of the free as long as you're
heterosexual.
Now the Czech Republic -- they're having domestic
partnerships. They're
having relationships that are -- recognized homosexual
relationships that are
recognized as much as heterosexual ones. And I feel
like, what do I need to
do now? Go back? I don't want to.
I am surprised at the rhetoric and the misinformation
that still exists to this day
among very well-educated people.
KING: Reverend Mohler, it would seem that you feel that
sexuality is a
choice. Did you choose heterosexuality by choice?
MOHLER: Well, first of all, I don't believe anyone is
born a homosexual. I
believe that God's creative intention was that we be
created man and woman
and to be related to each other in a heterosexual
fashion.
KING: So then homosexual -- so a homosexual chose to be
homosexual by an
intellectual decision?
MOHLER: Absolutely..
KING: Why?
MOHLER: and certainly chose a homosexual activity.
KING: Why?
NAVRATILOVA: How do you know? How do you know? I didn't
choose
this.
MOHLER: Well, I know any act is chosen. I will deal
with
NAVRATILOVA: Feelings.
MOHLER: it, just the level right now. The act the
act is chosen.
I believe the feelings are the result also of a sinful
inclination. And that's
something I know that some persons have to really
struggle with to overcome,
but I also believe in God's grace, that can and is
overcome.
NAVRATILOVA: But why should I overcome something that I
am very
happy with? How is sinful -- how is loving another
individual sinful when that
individual loves you back? Where is the wrong -- what is
wrong with that?
MOHLER: Well, the first issue is I believe God has
clearly revealed that it's
wrong. Almost every civilization -- virtually every
civilization throughout time
has ruled that it's wrong. We rightly privilege
heterosexual relationships. And it
has been that way throughout human civilization.
The result of embracing the homosexual lifestyle is
cultural chaos, the
breakdown of our entire moral order.
It may be popular, but it is not going to work.
KING: Congresswoman Baldwin, are you surprised that this
is still a major
issue?
BALDWIN: Well, I actually don't know that our panel this
evening is
necessarily reflective of thought throughout the nation
anymore. I think that
people like Steve May and others who have become the
subject of public
discussion have brought us a long way in recognizing
that there are honest,
hardworking, committed citizens who are engaged in
public service. And I
think that people are beginning to say enough with the
discrimination, both in
the civilian job force as well as the military job
force.
KING: We'll pick up with Steve May and the panel. And
Steve may want to
cross-examine some of the panel as well, and the panel
may wish to ask
questions of him or Martina or Congresswoman Baldwin.
They're are guests
for the full hour. Your calls will be included. I'm
Larry King. Don't go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, DECEMBER 19, 1997)
REV. JERRY FALWELL, LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: As a minister of
the
gospel of Jesus Christ who believes the Bible to be the
word of God, of
course, I believe that homosexuality is wrong. It's
moral perversion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, APRIL 22)
ELLEN DEGENERES, ACTRESS: You know, I think that people
are just
scared and have been conditioned to think that we're
some kind of freaks, that
we live I hate the term "lifestyle." We don't live a
lifestyle. We live a life.
And it's it's it's the same as anybody else.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: We're back with our panel.
And I know that Representative May has been champing at
the bit to say
something to Reverend Mohler and possibly Congressman
Barr, and we'll pick
it up from there, but, Steve?
MAY: Well, Larry, I'd have to agree with something
Representative Barr said
and that is this is about military readiness. This is
about defending our nation.
When I received those orders from the Pentagon in
February of 1999, I knew
that I was at risk for being activated for duty in
Kosovo. I knew that I was at
risk for coming home in a body bag. My mother knew that,
my partner knew
that. It was something I considered very seriously. But
that's my job. That's
what I'm trained to do. Gay and lesbian soldiers across
the country in our
services risk their lives every day in training as well
as in actual combat.
KING: Do you disagree - we'll go back to -- we'll have
Mr. Barr respond in a
minute - but do you disagree with Reverend Mohler, who
he said that most of
the country agrees with him?
MAY: Oh, he's absolutely incorrect. I don't know which
polls he's reading, but
all the polls that I've seen show that almost 80 percent
of Americans support
employment and non-discrimination so that gays and
lesbians aren't fired
simply on the basis of their sexual orientation.
KING: Congressman Barr, this man was willing to die for
you recently.
BARR: Well, first of all, I would hate for this to
degenerate into a battle of
statistics. I mean, people use statistics
KING: But he -- no, he's not a statistic. He's Steve
May, and he was willing to
go to Kosovo
BARR: Well, that may very well
KING: He was willing. He's sitting here. It's not a
statistic. It's him.
BARR: Well, but he's throwing around statistics and
other people are. This is
a very real issue. It has nothing to do with statistics.
You're right, Larry. It has to do with military
readiness. And while Mr. May
may pat himself on the back and think he's a great
legislator -- I think he said
that -- the fact of the matter is that I think military
leaders like General
Norman Schwarzkopf know an awful lot more about military
readiness and
what happens in units in the Army when the homosexual
element is introduced
into it than he does. And they say it is incompatible.
That has been consistent
military doctrine throughout our nation's history. It
has served us well and we
ought to continue it.
KING: How, then, has America done so well at work since
everyone admits
there's a lot of gays that have served over the years?
Barry Goldwater said
many are buried at Normandy.
BARR: Well, that's not really the point, Larry. The fact
of the matter is you
set a policy and you try to adhere to it. There will
always be exceptions to
every single rule. That's not the point. The point is
you establish a policy based
on the guidance of your military leaders, not a
particular individual member
with an ax to grind. If you start doing that, then you
might as well not have
military discipline in order to begin with.
KING: Steve, did you want to say something to the
congressman or to
Reverend Mohler.
MAY: Larry, I've been given instructions by my
commanders to continue
serving in my position as the executive officer of the
348th Transportation
Company in Phoenix, Arizona. On September 10th, I'll go
back and train my
soldiers. We're going to conduct a truck rodeo
KING: Unless they throw you out.
MAY: They won't do it that quickly. I'll continue to
serve probably for six
months to a year before action is taken. We're going to
do a truck rodeo to
train my soldiers to be better drivers, and I'm going to
train my headquarters
personnel to receive and issue missions.
KING: And who
MAY: And that's my job.
KING: And who, Reverend Mohler, is he harming?
MOHLER: Well, I think it is the larger picture of the
military. And who he's
harming personalizes it in a way that we probably can't
even get at here
because it's 250 million Americans.
We have to take this issue seriously. In 1991, candidate
Bill Clinton said that if
elected he would be for homosexuals what Harry Truman
was in terms of the
race issue. The only reason we have a don't ask-don't
tell policy is because
President Clinton was unable, given the opposition in
the armed forces and in
the population at large, to push through his first
agenda. So what we have now
is a lowest Clinton denominator policy of don't ask,
don't tell. It is sound
military policy. It is sound moral policy that
homosexuals should not serve in
the military.
KING: Congresswoman Baldwin, how would you respond to
that?
BALDWIN: Well, precisely the same arguments that the
congressman and
the reverend are making right now were used before the
military integrated
along racial lines. These arguments have been used to
hold women from all
positions of responsibility in the military
historically, and of course women have
made some tremendous advances.
We've heard these arguments time and time again about
incompatibility for
military service, and we've proven them wrong time and
time again. And I
think this case and the many other cases that are out
there continue to erode
the wisdom of don't ask, don't tell. It makes no sense.
KING: Martina, when you started to feel this affection
for the same sex, did
you think to yourself, is this wrong? I mean, when you
have a feeling
NAVRATILOVA: Well, I knew it wasn't exactly popular.
KING: But obviously, did you start to examine your --
did you say, why is this?
Did you ever examine the choice? If it wasn't a choice,
why it happened to
you?
NAVRATILOVA: It wasn't a choice. It was like this --
this is who I am. And
this is what -- this is what is going to complete my
life. It was not anything that
I thought about ahead of time. But when it happened, I
was like, oh, that's
what it's about.
KING: All right. And are you shocked to hear
NAVRATILOVA: Absolutely not a choice. KING: Are you
shocked to hear
what you hear here tonight? In other words
NAVRATILOVA: I've heard it all before. I am just, again,
surprised that
educated people keep making these statements.
I would like to ask Steve May a question. Isn't it true
that the reason
homosexuality is supposedly not compatible with military
service is because it
makes the heterosexual soldiers very uncomfortable
because of comments like
these that we've been hearing tonight?
BARR: That's not true.
MAY: That is
BARR: That's not the reason.
KING: Well, you were in -- Steve, you're the gay person
in the military. Do
you think that's the reason? Because it makes
heterosexuals uncomfortable?
MAY: Well, it may make some heterosexuals uncomfortable,
but frankly,
Larry, some white people are uncomfortable living and
sleeping with black
people and vice versa. We continue
KING: Still?
NAVRATILOVA: Exactly. That doesn't make it right.
MAY: We continue to have race problems in the military,
but the military has
a culture which has worked very hard to prevent or try
to mitigate the
problems of race and gender integration. However, the
military has worked
very hard to promote the problems dealing with
homosexuals in the service, to
promote homophobia, harassment and even violence against
gay service
members.
KING: You certainly don't support violence, Congressman
Barr, against gays
because they're gay?
BARR: No, that's
KING: What do you think happens to -- what would happen
to Steve in the
military that concerns you about readiness and Steve?
What could happen to
him that would make you concerned?
BARR: No, none of us on this problem condone violence.
And that's not the
issue here at all. That's a red herring. What concerns
me is the same thing
that concerns our military leaders like General
Schwarzkopf. And that is that
in the military you have to have absolute, strict,
immediate adherence to
commands. You can't have loyalties from one soldier to
another, whereas
homosexuals
KING: All right, but gays -- gays would not respond to
commands? Is that the
point? I don't understand.
MAY: My soldiers obey my commands, and I follow those of
my
commanders.
BARR: The point is when you have a homosexual officer or
a homosexual
enlisted man and you interject them into a small
cohesive military unit, they
begin to either develop bonds or animosities with other
soldiers. That is a
proven fact. General Norman Schwarzkopf, who is from
West Point and led
this nation to victory in Desert Storm, is not lying
when he says that. He know
knows what he's talking about, Larry
KING: Don't
BARR: Lieutenant May has an ax to grind
KING: Forgive
BARR: He doesn't know.
KING: Forgive my ignorance. Don't bonds and animosities
develop among
heterosexual soldiers?
BARR: Well, there are always going to be bonds and
animosities
KING: So?
BARR: but history has proved that it accelerates and
it expands
KING: You mean
BARR: with the homosexual element.
KING:
gays bond more and are more demonstrative.
This is a fact?
BARR: Well, now that -- yes, that is. That is what --
and they have testified,
Larry, these generals have testified before Congress to
that. They have
brought experts in. And I agree with the pastor
KING: How do you
BARR: It's ridiculous that we have these arguments,
but they have proven
it to me.
KING: All right, how do you respond, Steve, to his --
Schwarzkopf is a military
hero. He's certainly not a regressive man. Colin Powell
-- how do you
respond?
MAY: Well, the issue is, again -- in militaries across
the world and in history
since -- all recorded history, gays have served in the
military. Ultimately this is
about
KING: Now how do you respond to respected generals who
are opposed to
your position? MAY: They've never done studies. The
generals haven't
worked with contemporary American soldiers in maybe 30
years. I work with
troops. I work in the trenches with the troops, and I've
been doing it since
1993.
BARR: Norman Schwarzkopf hasn't worked with contemporary
soldiers?
What nonsense is that?
MAY: Well I don't know when the last time you were in
the service was,
Representative, but I serve with soldiers today. And
soldiers support me and I
support them. And that -- the real issue here is
asking...
BARR: No, you just tried to say that General Schwarzkopf
hadn't worked with
real soldiers. What are you talking about?
KING: Yes, you said that
MAY: No, he
BALDWIN: I'd like to interject.
KING: All right, go ahead. Tammy, go ahead.
BALDWIN: Yes, actually, when the policy was brought into
question back in
1993, the Pentagon, the Congress did look to some
research on whether a
policy change would be in order and actually conducted a
study act -- asked
the Rand Corporation to look at this issue. And they
came out resoundingly
with their conclusions and recommendations to Congress
and the military that
the policy, the prohibition on gays in the military be
stricken. And it was
ignored by the body that examined those results, but
they in fact did ask for
research, and they did ask for recommendations.
KING: All right, I've got to
BALDWIN: And it was pretty strong.
KING: I got to get a break here. We'll come back. We'll
include your phone
calls.
Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: We'll include some phone calls. Hanover, Germany,
hello.
CALLER: Yes. Hello, Larry.
KING: Hi.
CALLER: Thank you for taking my call.
KING: Sure.
CALLER: My question is for Representative May. Now, I
was discharged in
1984 after 18 years, 364 days, which is one day before
presidential
intervention would have been required.
KING: What's your question?
CALLER: Basically because I was homosexual. I was on the
list for E-8
KING: What's the question?
CALLER: with a special recommendation as first
sergeant.
KING: What's the question?
CALLER: And my question to Representative May is, what
would you do in
this case? You would be discharged. And we're setting
here, all of us
KING: What is your question!
(CROSSTALK)
CALLER: and condemned.
KING: OK. If you're discharged.
MAY: Well, I think this is, again, it's about living
your life with integrity. And
that's the situation I'm in, and this gentleman
(CROSSTALK)
KING: He's saying you may be discharged.
MAY: He's saying I'll also be discharged and so I will.
But my
KING: Would it be dishonorably discharged?
MAY: I don't know if I would be dishonorably discharged.
Most service
members now who are prosecuted under
don't-ask/don't-tell are discharged
honorably.
But you know, the issue is I was called back into active
service by my country
during the crisis in Kosovo and I responded to the
orders.
KING: Do you get mad then when you hear Congressman Barr
or Reverend
Mohler?
MAY: Well, I think it's offensive. I think it's a poor
choice of words.
I was called back by my country. I didn't ask to go back
in. I'm not trying to
make a statement. I have work to do back in my district.
I was called to serve in uniform and I was willing to
die for my country. I do
not have an ax to grind.
KING: Reverend Mohler, don't you appreciate that on Mr.
May's part?
MOHLER: Well, without any doubt. Just talking to him
here by means of this
program, I can see much in Representative May that is
very honorable and
that would be admirable, certainly his willingness to
serve his country. That
really isn't the issue here. Not everyone who's willing
to serve or even
demonstrates that kind of courage under fire should
serve the country. There
are other issues involved here.
The military has said that there is the priority of unit
cohesion, which is
absolutely essential in warfare. It is the generals --
just as Representative Barr
has said -- the consensus of military authorities who
have said that
homosexuality intrudes into that and violates that in a
way that they feel would
hamper our military effectiveness.
But this is an agenda, Larry, that is being pushed by
activists. It is being
pushed on the Boy Scouts, as we have seen just recently,
and being pushed
here in the military.
KING: By whom? By whom?
MOHLER: This is just a part of the picture.
Well, the homosexual movement. And that's not a
conspiracy theory. They're
very public about the demands they are now making for
special rights, for
what is called the nondiscrimination rights. But
basically, homosexuality
KING: By the way, you don't
MOHLER: is not a favorable characteristic.
KING: You don't favor discrimination, do you, Reverend?
MOHLER: Well, we all favor some kind of moral
discrimination. The question
is what kind
KING: You do?
MOHLER: of discrimination. Well, certainly. There
are different levels of
that. You certainly would want to discriminate against
child molesters working
at a preschool.
The real issues is all of us discriminate in some sense.
Where should we
discriminate and on what issues?
As a Christian minister, I have to go by the holy
scriptures. And on this issue, I
believe the vast majority of Americans clearly are in
agreement, we should
discriminate.
NAVRATILOVA: OK. How -- how -- I would like to ask the
reverend, how
would you discriminate against me? What's OK to
discriminate against me?
Tell me please. MOHLER: Well, I don't know what exactly
you would wish to
do, but you mentioned privileging your partnership as
marriage and that just
simply should not happen. No civilized society can
recognize-homosexual
partnerships on a par with heterosexual marriage. That
is just impossible.
KING: I have got to get a break. We'll be right back
with more calls. Don't go
away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, DECEMBER 16, 1997)
CHASTITY BONO, GAY-LESBIAN ACTIVIST: When you're
promoting
this anti-gay agenda, you are literally killing people.
We have three times
higher rate of suicide for gay youth. It encourages gay
bashing. It has an
effect on people's lives.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, MAY 7, 1997)
CALLER: What is your view on homosexuality and the
impact it has on
society, especially with TV promoting it with the new
"Ellen" episode?
KING: Do you have a problem with that, Billy?
REV. BILLY GRAHAM: I think everybody has a problem with
that. The
Bible calls it a sin, but the Bible also calls jealousy
or pride a sin. And there
are many, many sins, but there's only one sin. And the
real sin that we have is
in our hearts and it produces all kinds of effects. And
that is one of the sins.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Toronto, hello.
CALLER: Hi. As an outsider, this discussion is odd and
somewhat humorous.
For me, I see the U.S.A. has fought in wars and
protected human rights for
years, and I'm sure that included gay men and women. My
question is for Mr.
May. Why are you a member of a party, the Republican
Party, which
generally does not generally support gay rights issues?
KING: Mr. Barr and you are in the same party.
MAY: Yes, and I'm sure Mr. Barr and I agree on many,
many issues,
primarily, of course, fiscal issues. But the Republican
Party isn't the party of
homophobia. It's not the party that opposes gay people
in American society.
Yes, there are some people like Representative Barr and
some others who
have really hijacked our party and gotten us away from
our mainstream values
that made our party great
BARR: Oh, come on now Mr. May. MAY: We're the party of
Lincoln, the
party of Roosevelt. We believe in limited government,
not more government.
So there's
BARR: I know you think you're a great legislator and a
great military
strategist, but the fact of the matter is
KING: He didn't say that.
MAY: I never said that.
BARR: you know -- well, you complemented yourself
extensively at the
beginning. But be that as it may, the fact of the matter
is this is not a matter of
your great integrity. If you were so full of integrity,
you would recognize that
the federal law prohibits the practice of homosexuality
in the military, and it
prohibits homosexuals in the military. That is the law.
It was passed in 1994
MAY: Well
BARR: So if you were so full of this
MAY: Congressman
BARR: almighty integrity that you keep talking
about, you would the resign
out of the military if you want to protect your
integrity. Otherwise you're
violating the law.
MAY: Congressman, my nation called me when we were at
war in Kosovo.
BARR: You've told us that 15 times already.
MAY: And I reported for duty as ordered.
This issue really is about honesty and integrity, Larry,
and this is the problem in
America today. There aren't many politicians who have
honesty and integrity.
But I was trained, I was taught these values as an Eagle
Scout
BARR: Only you do, of course.
MAY: I was taught these values as an Eagle Scout --
I hope you would too
-- as a member of my church, by my parents. These are
values that I hold
very dear: honesty, integrity, duty, honor, country. And
I will not surrender
those values.
KING: We'll take a break, be back with our remaining
moments. We'll get a
comment from everyone on the panel.
Don't go away.
This week on LARRY KING LIVE, tomorrow night it's been
two years since
the unexpected death of Princess Diana shocked world.
I'll talk to David Frost
about her life and legacy. And on Thursday night, she's
one of the funniest and
most outspoken women around. Joan Rivers will be our
guest for the hour and
take your calls.
All ahead on LARRY KING LIVE, 9:00 Eastern on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Get a closing comment from everybody but first a
quick call from
Atlanta -- hello.
CALLER: Hello.
KING: Yes.
CALLER: I'd like to get a response from Mr. Barr. Why --
why do you
believe that -- what is the basic fundamental reason
that we don't allow gays
in the military?
BARR: Well, I...
KING: Is there a fundamental reason?
BARR: The fundamental reason is that when you interject
homosexuality,
which creates bonds between men that can be very, very
strong, you interject
an element that interferes with the chain of command and
the absolute
adherence to orders that might contradict a personal
relationship that's
developed.
KING: Martina, as we approach the year 2000, from your
standpoint, do you
think things are going to get better or worse?
NAVRATILOVA: Things are going to get better. Just
because some things
are law doesn't make them right. We have to remember
that interracial
marriage was illegal in the country until 1967. That's
not so long ago.
This is about social change. It's going to happen. The
question is whether the
military is going to lead the way or is going to follow.
KING: Reverend Mohler, your final thoughts?
MOHLER: Well, Larry, I believe that homosexuality is one
of the great moral
challenges facing this nation. The decisions we make on
this issue are going to
shape the future of our country. We will either order
our society by God's law
or contravene that law and face the consequences.
But the last word has to be that in the grace of the
Lord Jesus Christ there is
the means of overcoming all sin, including the sin of
homosexuality. And so
that last word has to be a word of grace and hope.
KING: And you do love the homosexual, do you not?
MOHLER: Yes, we're
told to love the sinner and to hate the sin. And the
first act of really loving
someone is to tell them the truth. And we believe that
scripture reveals the
truth about homosexuality, and it is an act of love to
tell people what God has
said about that sin.
KING: Congresswoman Baldwin, is Congress going to pass
or defeat the hate
crime and employment discrimination legislation?
BALDWIN: Well, I certainly think that we're making some
strong progress
and that it's high time, especially after recent
hearings in the House and
Senate Judiciary committees, to pass the Hate Crimes
Prevention Act.
I'm encouraged. I believe that we are seeing a time in
our nation where
people, you know, they've heard these arguments that
we've heard tonight
recycled when we had racial segregation. We've heard it
time and time again
in our country, and people are saying discrimination is
wrong and it's time that
we ended it in all employment.
KING: Congressman Barr, when there were laws against
interracial marriage,
were you opposed to them?
BARR: Absolutely, because that is a very clear
unconstitutional limitation. The
Supreme Court has
KING: But there were laws?
BARR: Pardon?
KING: States had laws that
BARR: But I was opposed to those laws and in support of
laws that
overturned them because it represents a fundamental
rejection of
constitutional principles.
There is no fundamental constitutional principle or
right to homosexual activity.
The Supreme Court has said that
KING: Well said.
BARR: consistently, the military has maintained it,
and Lieutenant May
notwithstanding and Miss Baldwin notwithstanding, that
remains the law of the
land.
KING: Only have ten seconds. Everybody has been
well-spoken.
Representative May, do you think they're going to toss
you out?
MAY: Larry, I don't know what they're going to do, but
I'm proud to serve my
country. I'll keep doing my job until they discharge me.
The choice is really up
to the Army. I made my choice. That is to serve my
country in uniform as I
was ordered to do so.
KING: Thank you, Steve. MAY: Thanks, Larry.
KING: Thanks to all our guests.
David Frost tomorrow. Thanks for joining us from
Washington.
Good-night.
END
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Slate Magazine <[email protected]> ( Slate Magazine <[email protected]> [
UNKNOWN D
CREATION DATE/TIME:31-AUG-1999 07:14:48.00
SUBJECT: SLATE NEWS: Tues., Aug. 31, 1999
TO: Bruce McNamer ( CN=Bruce McNamer/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
SLATE NEWS: Tues., Aug. 31, 1999
--today's papers: Pop Culture
today's papers
Pop Culture
By Scott Shuger
The newest statistics on the spread and lethality of AIDS lead at
the WP, LAT and USAT. The NYT fronts the story but goes instead
with AT&T's decision to respond to MCI's and Sprint's recent 5
cents/minute (plus monthly fee) plans with a 7 cents/minute (plus
monthly fee) option. The phone news is on nobody else's front page.
The multiple AIDS stories are prompted by the government's release
of new numbers at a national HIV conference in Atlanta. Every
paper's main takeaway is the same: the steep decline in new AIDs
cases and in AIDS deaths that began three years ago, and which is
associated with the emergence of the multiple medication anti-AIDS
"cocktails," has leveled off appreciably. New AIDS cases declined
18 percent in 1997, but only 11 percent last year. AIDS deaths,
which dropped 42 percent in 1997, declined just 20 percent last
year.
This means that, in the words of the top HIV official at the CDC,
quoted by USAT, "There is no magic bullet." Prevention, she says,
is turning out to be more important for controlling the spread of
the disease than treatment.
The papers pass along the experts' consensus for why anti-AIDS
success is flattening out: There is a saturation effect in which
most people who know they're infected with HIV are already taking
the more powerful cocktail therapies; HIV seems to be gaining some
resistance to the therapies; and the strict regimen that optimizes
their effectiveness is hard to stick to. Another factor that the WP
emphasizes more than the others and high up to boot is that
excessive confidence in the therapies may be prompting people to
practice more unsafe sex. The Post, NYT and WSJ note that drug
users and black people account for higher rates of infection. In
1998, note the two Times, blacks, who represent 13 percent of the
population, accounted for 49 percent of all AIDS deaths. The WSJ is
alone in mentioning the strikingly good news about infantile
AIDS--there were only 242 cases last year, down 73 percent from
1992.
The USAT off-lead reports that senior U.S. law enforcement
officials now say that Bank of New York records that would have
served as evidence of the laundering of billions in Russian mob
money have been tampered with or destroyed. An inside story at the
NYT reports that on Russian television Monday night, a Russian
investigator said that he had evidence of bribes paid to Kremlin
officials and members of Boris Yeltsin's family by Mabetex, a
Swiss-based construction company.
A NYT front-pager reviews the blooming of open "God-talk" among
presidential hopefuls, seeing in it an efficient way to flash
distance from the squalor of the Clinton scandals. The story notes
that the new public piety seems to have unwritten rules: it's
apparently a political plus for Protestants only. And just having
opinions about religious matters isn't enough--an atheist, no
matter how earnest, would, says a historian quoted in the piece,
still get slaughtered.
A story on page 15 of the LAT reports that Al Gore has given an
interview to the gay-oriented magazine The Advocate in which he
says the "don't ask, don't tell" rules in the military governing
the service of gays "aren't working the way they were intended to
work," and that he would work with military leaders to bring about
an implementation strategy that's "fairer." The story reminds that
the policy was a major headache for the Clinton administration in
its earliest days. And that until now, Republican candidates have
largely ignored it. In addition, the paper reports, Bill Bradley
has responded to Gore's interview by taking a position
"aggressively to Gore's left," expressing grave doubts about the
current policy, and saying that we ought to move toward a time
"when gays can serve openly in the military."
The NYT and WP go inside with a new survey of teenagers indicating
that low paternal involvement with a teen is a key determinant of
adolescent substance abuse. A teenager with an excellent
relationship with a single mom, the study says, has a far better
chance of avoiding drug abuse than does one living in a two-parent
household including a diffident father.
The WSJ reports on a new version of SAT scoring being developed by
the ETS folks. The idea is to incorporate certain sociological
background factors-- such as English isn't his/her first language,
he/she went to a crappy high school, is from a poor family
etc.--about the student, to come up with a likely score range for
him or her, and if the person's actual score exceeds the likely one
by at least 200 points, then the applicant is identified by
admissions personnel as in the valued category of "Striver." The
ETS is preparing race-blind and race-sensitive versions. The idea
is that this would enable the identification of talented minority
students in a way that will survive the recent negative rulings
about affirmative action in admissions. But the piece isn't too
clear on why this would work. Doesn't it just transfer the legally
dubious extra-academic evaluations from the admissions committee to
the test designers?
Sometimes you just know the editors are messin' with ya. The WP's
"Names and Faces" column reports that Monica Lewinsky would like to
launch her own lipstick line and recently tested the staying power
of various lipsticks. She says, according to the Post, "the secret
is opening your mouth 'really wide' when eating."
Click here to share your opinion of this article and see what
others have said:
http://bs.slate.com/bbs/slate-todayspapers/index.asp
Also in today's Slate http://www.slate.com
Choosing Your Beer: James Fallows Brings Science to One of Life's
Key Decisions
http://www.slate.com/Shopping/99-08-30/Shopping.asp
Chatterbox: The World's Deadliest Vacations
http://www.slate.com/Code/chatterbox/chatterbox.asp?Show-8/27/99&idMessage-
3509
Diary of an Internet Startup
http://www.slate.com/diary/99-08-30/diary.asp
Click here to share your opinion of this article and see what
others have said:
http://bbs.slate.com/bbs/slate-internatpapers/index.asp
The Internet's informed look at politics and culture -- SLATE. What
Matters. (http://www.slate.com)
SLATE offers a variety of e-mail delivery services that enable you
to get your favorite SLATE articles delivered right to your in-box.
Go to http://www.slate.com/Code/Reg3/emailservices.asp and see
what's available to both SLATE subscribers and non-subscribers.
For additional information about SLATE, go to
http://www.slate.com/code/reg3/memberservices.asp for SLATE Reader
Services.
This delivery powered by Exactis.com http://www.exactis.com
Copyright (c) 1999 Microsoft and/or its suppliers. All rights
reserved.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Richard Socarides ( CN=Richard Socarides/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:31-AUG-1999 13:56:22.00
SUBJECT: NC10951: Larry King Live transcript, part 2
TO: Leon S. Fuerth (CN=Leon S. Fuerth/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth J. Potter ( CN=Elizabeth J. Potter/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: LEAVY_D@AI@CD@VAXGTWY@EOP (LEAVY_D@A1@CD@VAXGTVY@EOP[UNKNOWN
(NSC)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mary E. Cahill (CN=Mary E. Cahill/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas L. Freedman ( CN=Thomas L. Freedman/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mara E. Rudman (CN=Mara E. Rudman/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [NSC])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. Maloney (CN=Sean P. Maloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Barry J. Toiv (CN=Barry J. Toiv/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Monica M. Dixon ( CN=Monica M. Dixon/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Philip G Dufour ( CN=Philip G Dufour/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mary L. Smith (CN=Mary L. Smith/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [OPD])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Caroline R. Fredrickson ( CN=Caroline R. Fredrickson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Edward W. Correia ( CN=Edward W. Correia/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura S. Marcus ( CN=Laura S. Marcus/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Karen Tramontano (CN=Karen Tramontano/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Forwarded by Richard Socarides/WHO/EOP on 08/31/99
01:56 PM
[email protected]
08/31/99 01:29:00 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Richard Socarides@EOP
cc:
Subject: NC10951: Larry King Live transcript, part 2
Do not publish this item without permission from the originating media
operation. Do not post this item in a public online forum. This is a
small, free mailing list open only to people with whom I am acquainted.
Cable News Network
Transcript of Larry King Live part 2
http://cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/9908/30/Ikl.00.html
Should the Military Abandon Its 'Don't Ask/Don't Tell' Policy?
Aired August 30, 1999 - 9:00 p.m. ET
[continued from Part 1]
KING: Reverend Mohler, it would seem that you feel that sexuality is
a choice. Did you choose heterosexuality by choice?
MOHLER: Well, first of all, I don't believe anyone is born a
homosexual. I believe that God's creative intention was that we be
created man and woman and to be related to each other in a heterosexual
fashion.
KING: So then homosexual ) so a homosexual chose to be homosexual by
an intellectual decision?
MOHLER: Absolutely
KING: Why?
MOHLER: and certainly chose a homosexual activity.
KING: Why?
NAVRATILOVA: How do you know? How do you know? I didn't choose
this.
MOHLER: Well, I know any act is chosen. I will deal with
NAVRATILOVA: Feelings.
MOHLER: it, just the level right now. The act -- the act is
chosen.
I believe the feelings are the result also of a sinful inclination.
And that's something I know that some persons have to really struggle with
to overcome, but I also believe in God's grace, that can and is overcome.
NAVRATILOVA: But why should I overcome something that I am very happy
with? How is sinful ) how is loving another individual sinful when that
individual loves you back? Where is the wrong what is wrong with that?
MOHLER: Well, the first issue is I believe God has clearly revealed
that it's wrong. Almost every civilization virtually every civilization
throughout time has ruled that it's wrong. We rightly privilege
heterosexual relationships. And it has been that way throughout human
civilization.
The result of embracing the homosexual lifestyle is cultural chaos,
the breakdown of our entire moral order.
It may be popular, but it is not going to work.
KING: Congresswoman Baldwin, are you surprised that this is still a
major issue?
BALDWIN: Well, I actually don't know that our panel this evening is
necessarily reflective of thought throughout the nation anymore. I think
that people like Steve May and others who have become the subject of
public discussion have brought us a long way in recognizing that there are
honest, hardworking, committed citizens who are engaged in public service.
And I think that people are beginning to say enough with the
discrimination, both in the civilian job force as well as the military job
force.
KING: We'll pick up with Steve May and the panel. And Steve may want
to cross-examine some of the panel as well, and the panel may wish to ask
questions of him or Martina or Congresswoman Baldwin. They're our guests
for the full hour. Your calls will be included. I'm Larry King. Don't
go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, DECEMBER 19, 1997)
REV. JERRY FALWELL, LIBERTY UNIVERSITY: As a minister of the gospel
of Jesus Christ who believes the Bible to be the word of God, of course, I
believe that homosexuality is wrong. It's moral perversion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, APRIL 22)
ELLEN DEGENERES, ACTRESS: You know, I think that people are just
scared and have been conditioned to think that we're some kind of freaks,
that we live) I hate the term "lifestyle." We don't live a lifestyle.
We live a life.
And it's it's) it's the same as anybody else.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: We're back with our panel.
And I know that Representative May has been chomping at the bit to say
something to Reverend Mohler and possibly Congressman Barr, and we'll pick
it up from there, but, Steve?
MAY: Well, Larry, I'd have to agree with something Representative
Barr said and that is this is about military readiness. This is about
defending our nation. When I received those orders from the Pentagon in
February of 1999, I knew that I was at risk for being activated for duty
in Kosovo. I knew that I was at risk for coming home in a body bag. My
mother knew that, my partner knew that. It was something I considered
very seriously. But that's my job. That's what I'm trained to do. Gay
and lesbian soldiers across the country in our services risk their lives
every day in training as well as in actual combat.
KING: Do you disagree we'll go back to ) we'll have Mr. Barr
respond in a minute but do you disagree with Reverend Mohler, who he
said that most of the country agrees with him?
MAY: Oh, he's absolutely incorrect. I don't know which polls he's
reading, but all the polls that I've seen show that almost 80 percent of
Americans support employment and non-discrimination so that gays and
lesbians aren't fired simply on the basis of their sexual orientation.
KING: Congressman Barr, this man was willing to die for you recently.
BARR: Well, first of all, I would hate for this to degenerate into a
battle of statistics. I mean, people use statistics
KING: But he no, he's not a statistic. He's Steve May, and he was
willing to go to Kosovo
BARR: Well, that may very well
KING: He was willing. He's sitting here. It's not a statistic.
It's him.
BARR: Well, but he's throwing around statistics and other people are.
This is a very real issue. It has nothing to do with statistics.
You're right, Larry. It has to do with military readiness. And while
Mr. May may pat himself on the back and think he's a great legislator) I
think he said that the fact of the matter is that I think military
leaders like General Norman Schwarzkopf know an awful lot more about
military readiness and what happens in units in the Army when the
homosexual element is introduced into it than he does. And they say it is
incompatible. That has been consistent military doctrine throughout our
nation's history. It has served us well and we ought to continue it.
KING: How, then, has America done so well at work since everyone
admits there's a lot of gays that have served over the years? Barry
Goldwater said many are buried at Normandy.
BARR: Well, that's not really the point, Larry. The fact of the
matter is you set a policy and you try to adhere to it. There will always
be exceptions to every single rule. That's not the point. The point is
you establish a policy based on the guidance of your military leaders, not
a particular individual member with an ax to grind. If you start doing
that, then you might as well not have military discipline in order to
begin with.
KING: Steve, did you want to say something to the congressman or to
Reverend Mohler.
MAY: Larry, I've been given instructions by my commanders to continue
serving in my position as the executive officer of the 348th
Transportation Company in Phoenix, Arizona. On September 10th, I'll go
back and train my soldiers. We're going to conduct a truck rodeo
KING: Unless they throw you out.
MAY: They won't do it that quickly. I'll continue to serve probably
for six months to a year before action is taken. We're going to do a
truck rodeo to train my soldiers to be better drivers, and I'm going to
train my headquarters personnel to receive and issue missions.
KING: And who
MAY: And that's my job.
KING: And who, Reverend Mohler, is he harming?
MOHLER: Well, I think it is the larger picture of the military. And
who he's harming personalizes it in a way that we probably can't even get
at here because it's 250 million Americans.
We have to take this issue seriously. In 1991, candidate Bill Clinton
said that if elected he would be for homosexuals what Harry Truman was in
terms of the race issue. The only reason we have a don't ask-don't tell
policy is because President Clinton was unable, given the opposition in
the armed forces and in the population at large, to push through his first
agenda. So what we have now is a lowest Clinton denominator policy of
don't ask, don't tell. It is sound military policy. It is sound moral
policy that homosexuals should not serve in the military.
KING: Congresswoman Baldwin, how would you respond to that?
BALDWIN: Well, precisely the same arguments that the congressman and
the reverend are making right now were used before the military integrated
along racial lines. These arguments have been used to hold women from all
positions of responsibility in the military historically, and of course
women have made some tremendous advances.
We've heard these arguments time and time again about incompatibility
for military service, and we've proven them wrong time and time again.
And I think this case and the many other cases that are out there continue
to erode the wisdom of don't ask, don't tell. It makes no sense.
KING: Martina, when you started to feel this affection for the same
sex, did you think to yourself, is this wrong? I mean, when you have a
feeling
NAVRATILOVA: Well, I knew it wasn't exactly popular.
KING: But obviously, did you start to examine your did you say, why
is this? Did you ever examine the choice? If it wasn't a choice, why it
happened to you?
NAVRATILOVA: It wasn't a choice. It was like this ) this is who I
am. And this is what this is what is going to complete my life. It was
not anything that I thought about ahead of time. But when it happened, I
was like, oh, that's what it's about.
KING: All right. And are you shocked to hear.
NAVRATILOVA: Absolutely not a choice.
KING: Are you shocked to hear what you hear here tonight? In other
words
NAVRATILOVA: I've heard it all before. I am just, again, surprised
that educated people keep making these statements.
I would like to ask Steve May a question. Isn't it true that the
reason homosexuality is supposedly not compatible with military service is
because it makes the heterosexual soldiers very uncomfortable because of
comments like these that we've been hearing tonight?
BARR: That's not true.
MAY: That is
BARR: That's not the reason.
KING: Well, you were in ) Steve, you're the gay person in the
military. Do you think that's the reason? Because it makes heterosexuals
uncomfortable?
MAY: Well, it may make some heterosexuals uncomfortable, but frankly,
Larry, some white people are uncomfortable living and sleeping with black
people and vice versa. We continue
KING: Still?
NAVRATILOVA: Exactly. That doesn't make it right.
MAY: We continue to have race problems in the military, but the
military has a culture which has worked very hard to prevent or try to
mitigate the problems of race and gender integration. However, the
military has worked very hard to promote the problems dealing with
homosexuals in the service, to promote homophobia, harassment and even
violence against gay service members.
KING: You certainly don't support violence, Congressman Barr, against
gays because they're gay?
BARR: No, that's
KING: What do you think happens to ) what would happen to Steve in
the military that concerns you about readiness and Steve? What could
happen to him that would make you concerned?
BARR: No, none of us on this problem condone violence. And that's
not the issue here at all. That's a red herring. What concerns me is the
same thing that concerns our military leaders like General Schwarzkopf.
And that is that in the military you have to have absolute, strict,
immediate adherence to commands. You can't have loyalties from one
soldier to another, whereas homosexuals
KING: All right, but gays gays would not respond to commands? Is
that the point? I don't understand.
MAY: My soldiers obey my commands, and I follow those of my
commanders.
BARR: The point is when you have a homosexual officer or a homosexual
enlisted man and you interject them into a small cohesive military unit,
they begin to either develop bonds or animosities with other soldiers.
That is a proven fact. General Norman Schwarzkopf, who is from West Point
and led this nation to victory in Desert Storm, is not lying when he says
that. He know knows what he's talking about, Larry
KING: Don't
BARR: Lieutenant May has an ax to grind
KING: Forgive
BARR: He doesn't know.
KING: Forgive my ignorance. Don't bonds and animosities develop
among heterosexual soldiers?
BARR: Well, there are always going to be bonds and animosities
KING: So?
BARR: but history has proved that it accelerates and it
expands
KING: You mean
BARR: with the homosexual element.
KING: gays bond more and are more demonstrative. This is a fact?
BARR: Well, now that yes, that is. That is what and they have
testified, Larry, these generals have testified before Congress to that.
They have brought experts in. And I agree with the pastor
KING: How do you
BARR: It's ridiculous that we have these arguments, but they have
proven it to me.
KING: All right, how do you respond, Steve, to his ) Schwarzkopf is a
military hero. He's certainly not a regressive man. Colin Powell ) how
do you respond?
MAY: Well, the issue is, again ) in militaries across the world and
in history since all recorded history, gays have served in the military.
Ultimately this is about
KING: Now how do you respond to respected generals who are opposed to
your position?
MAY: They've never done studies. The generals haven't worked with
contemporary American soldiers in maybe 30 years. I work with troops. I
work in the trenches with the troops, and I've been doing it since 1993.
BARR: Norman Schwarzkopf hasn't worked with contemporary soldiers?
What nonsense is that?
MAY: Well I don't know when the last time you were in the service
was, Representative, but I serve with soldiers today. And soldiers
support me and I support them. And that ) the real issue here is
asking
BARR: No, you just tried to say that General Schwarzkopf hadn't
worked with real soldiers. What are you talking about?
KING: Yes, you said that
MAY: No, he
BALDWIN: I'd like to interject.
KING: All right, go ahead. Tammy, go ahead.
BALDWIN: Yes, actually, when the policy was brought into question
back in 1993, the Pentagon, the Congress did look to some research on
whether a policy change would be in order and actually conducted a study
act ) asked the Rand Corporation to look at this issue. And they came out
resoundingly with their conclusions and recommendations to Congress and
the military that the policy, the prohibition on gays in the military be
stricken. And it was ignored by the body that examined those results, but
they in fact did ask for research, and they did ask for recommendations.
KING: All right, I've got to
BALDWIN: And it was pretty strong.
KING: I got to get a break here. We'll come back. We'll include
your phone calls.
Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: We'll include some phone calls. Hanover, Germany, hello.
CALLER: Yes. Hello, Larry.
KING: Hi.
CALLER: Thank you for taking my call.
KING: Sure.
CALLER: My question is for Representative May. Now, I was discharged
in 1984 after 18 years, 364 days, which is one day before presidential
intervention would have been required.
KING: What's your question?
CALLER: Basically because I was homosexual. I was on the list for
E-8.
KING: What's the question?
CALLER: with a special recommendation as first sergeant.
KING: What's the question?
CALLER: And my question to Representative May is, what would you do
in this case? You would be discharged. And we're sitting here, all of
us
KING: What is your question!
(CROSSTALK)
CALLER: and condemned.
KING: OK. If you're discharged.
MAY: Well, I think this is, again, it's about living your life with
integrity. And that's the situation I'm in, and this gentleman
(CROSSTALK)
KING: He's saying you may be discharged.
MAY: He's saying I'll also be discharged and so I will. But my
KING: Would it be dishonorably discharged?
MAY: I don't know if I would be dishonorably discharged. Most
service members now who are prosecuted under don't-ask/don't-tell are
discharged honorably.
But you know, the issue is I was called back into active service by my
country during the crisis in Kosovo and I responded to the orders.
KING: Do you get mad then when you hear Congressman Barr or Reverend
Mohler?
MAY: Well, I think it's offensive. I think it's a poor choice of
words.
I was called back by my country. I didn't ask to go back in. I'm not
trying to make a statement. I have work to do back in my district.
I was called to serve in uniform and I was willing to die for my
country.
I do not have an ax to grind.
KING: Reverend Mohler, don't you appreciate that on Mr. May's part?
MOHLER: Well, without any doubt. Just talking to him here by means
of this program, I can see much in Representative May that is very
honorable and that would be admirable, certainly his willingness to serve
his country. That really isn't the issue here. Not everyone who's
willing to serve or even demonstrates that kind of courage under fire
should serve the country. There are other issues involved here.
The military has said that there is the priority of unit cohesion,
which is absolutely essential in warfare. It is the generals ) just as
Representative Barr has said ) the consensus of military authorities who
have said that homosexuality intrudes into that and violates that in a way
that they feel would hamper our military effectiveness.
But this is an agenda, Larry, that is being pushed by activists. It
is being pushed on the Boy Scouts, as we have seen just recently, and
being pushed here in the military.
KING: By whom? By whom?
MOHLER: This is just a part of the picture.
Well, the homosexual movement. And that's not a conspiracy theory.
They're very public about the demands they are now making for special
rights, for what is called the nondiscrimination rights. But basically,
homosexuality
KING: By the way, you don't
MOHLER:
is not a favorable characteristic.
KING: You don't favor discrimination, do you, Reverend?
MOHLER: Well, we all favor some kind of moral discrimination. The
question is what kind
KING: You do?
MOHLER: of discrimination. Well, certainly. There are different
levels of that. You certainly would want to discriminate against child
molesters working at a preschool.
The real issues is all of us discriminate in some sense. Where should
we discriminate and on what issues?
As a Christian minister, I have to go by the holy scriptures. And on
this issue, I believe the vast majority of Americans clearly are in
agreement, we should discriminate.
NAVRATILOVA: OK. How ) how ) I would like to ask the reverend, how
would you discriminate against me? What's OK to discriminate against me?
Tell me please.
MOHLER: Well, I don't know what exactly you would wish to do, but you
mentioned privileging your partnership as marriage and that just simply
should not happen. No civilized society can recognize homosexual
partnerships on a par with heterosexual marriage. That is just
impossible.
KING: I have got to get a break. We'll be right back with more
calls. Don't go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, DECEMBER 16, 1997)
CHASTITY BONO, GAY-LESBIAN ACTIVIST: When you're promoting this
anti-gay agenda, you are literally killing people. We have three times
higher rate of suicide for gay youth. It encourages gay bashing. It has
an effect on people's lives.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, MAY 7, 1997)
CALLER: What is your view on homosexuality and the impact it has on
society, especially with TV promoting it with the new "Ellen" episode?
KING: Do you have a problem with that, Billy?
REV. BILLY GRAHAM: I think everybody has a problem with that. The
Bible calls it a sin, but the Bible also calls jealousy or pride a sin.
And there are many, many sins, but there's only one sin. And the real sin
that we have is in our hearts and it produces all kinds of effects. And
that is one of the sins.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Toronto, hello.
CALLER: Hi. As an outsider, this discussion is odd and somewhat
humorous. For me, I see the U.S.A. has fought in wars and protected human
rights for years, and I'm sure that included gay men and women. My
question is for Mr. May. Why are you a member of a party, the Republican
Party, which generally does not generally support gay rights issues?
KING: Mr. Barr and you are in the same party.
MAY: Yes, and I'm sure Mr. Barr and I agree on many, many issues,
primarily, of course, fiscal issues. But the Republican Party isn't the
party of homophobia. It's not the party that opposes gay people in
American society. Yes, there are some people like Representative Barr and
some others who have really hijacked our party and gotten us away from our
mainstream values that made our party great
BARR: Oh, come on now Mr. May.
MAY: We're the party of Lincoln, the party of Roosevelt. We believe
in limited government, not more government. So there's
BARR: I know you think you're a great legislator and a great military
strategist, but the fact of the matter is
KING: He didn't say that.
MAY: I never said that.
BARR:
you know ) well, you complimented yourself extensively at
the beginning. But be that as it may, the fact of the matter is this is
not a matter of your great integrity. If you were so full of integrity,
you would recognize that the federal law prohibits the practice of
homosexuality in the military, and it prohibits homosexuals in the
military. That is the law. It was passed in 1994
MAY: Well
BARR:
So if you were so full of this
MAY: Congressman
BARR:
almighty integrity that you keep talking about, you would
then resign out of the military if you want to protect your integrity.
Otherwise you're violating the law.
MAY: Congressman, my nation called me when we were at war in Kosovo.
BARR: You've told us that 15 times already.
MAY: And I reported for duty as ordered.
This issue really is about honesty and integrity, Larry, and this is
the problem in America today. There aren't many politicians who have
honesty and integrity. But I was trained, I was taught these values as an
Eagle Scout
BARR: Only you do, of course.
MAY: I was taught these values as an Eagle Scout ) I hope you
would too ) as a member of my church, by my parents. These are values
that I hold very dear: honesty, integrity, duty, honor, country. And I
will not surrender those values.
KING: We'll take a break, be back with our remaining moments. We'll
get a comment from everyone on the panel.
Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Get a closing comment from everybody but first a quick call
from Atlanta ) hello.
CALLER: Hello.
KING: Yes.
CALLER: I'd like to get a response from Mr. Barr. Why ) why do you
believe that -- what is the basic fundamental reason that we don't allow
gays in the military?
BARR: Well,
KING: Is there a fundamental reason?
BARR: The fundamental reason is that when you interject
homosexuality, which creates bonds between men that can be very, very
strong, you interject an element that interferes with the chain of command
and the absolute adherence to orders that might contradict a personal
relationship that's developed.
KING: Martina, as we approach the year 2000, from your standpoint, do
you think things are going to get better or worse?
NAVRATILOVA: Things are going to get better. Just because some
things are law doesn't make them right. We have to remember that
interracial marriage was illegal in the country until 1967. That's not so
long ago.
This is about social change. It's going to happen. The question is
whether the military is going to lead the way or is going to follow.
KING: Reverend Mohler, your final thoughts?
MOHLER: Well, Larry, I believe that homosexuality is one of the great
moral challenges facing this nation. The decisions we make on this issue
are going to shape the future of our country. We will either order our
society by God's law or contravene that law and face the consequences.
But the last word has to be that in the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ
there is the means of overcoming all sin, including the sin of
homosexuality.
And so that last word has to be a word of grace and hope.
KING: And you do love the homosexual, do you not?
MOHLER: Yes, we're told to love the sinner and to hate the sin. And
the first act of really loving someone is to tell them the truth. And we
believe that scripture reveals the truth about homosexuality, and it is an
act of love to tell people what God has said about that sin.
KING: Congresswoman Baldwin, is Congress going to pass or defeat the
hate crime and employment discrimination legislation?
BALDWIN: Well, I certainly think that we're making some strong
progress and that it's high time, especially after recent hearings in the
House and Senate Judiciary committees, to pass the Hate Crimes Prevention
Act.
I'm encouraged. I believe that we are seeing a time in our nation
where people, you know, they've heard these arguments that we've heard
tonight recycled when we had racial segregation. We've heard it time and
time again in our country, and people are saying discrimination is wrong
and it's time that we ended it in all employment.
KING: Congressman Barr, when there were laws against interracial
marriage, were you opposed to them?
BARR: Absolutely, because that is a very clear unconstitutional
limitation. The Supreme Court has
KING: But there were laws?
BARR: Pardon?
KING: States had laws that
BARR: But I was opposed to those laws and in support of laws that
overturned them because it represents a fundamental rejection of
constitutional principles.
There is no fundamental constitutional principle or right to
homosexual activity. The Supreme Court has said that
KING: Well said.
BARR: consistently, the military has maintained it, and
Lieutenant May notwithstanding and Miss Baldwin notwithstanding, that
remains the law of the land.
KING: Only have ten seconds. Everybody has been well-spoken.
Representative May, do you think they're going to toss you out?
MAY: Larry, I don't know what they're going to do, but I'm proud to
serve my country. I'll keep doing my job until they discharge me. The
choice is really up to the Army. I made my choice. That is to serve my
country in uniform as I was ordered to do so.
KING: Thank you, Steve.
MAY: Thanks, Larry.
KING: Thanks to all our guests.
David Frost tomorrow. Thanks for joining us from Washington. Good
night.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Richard Socarides ( CN=Richard Socarides/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:31-AUG-1999 13:56:14.00
SUBJECT: NC10950: Larry King Live transcript, part 1
TO: Leon S. Fuerth ( CN=Leon S. Fuerth/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth J. Potter ( CN=Elizabeth J. Potter/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: LEAVY_D@AI@CD@VAXGTVY@EOP (LEAVY_D@AI@CD@VAXGTVY@EOP[UNKNOVN )
(NSC)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mary E. Cahill (CN=Mary E. Cahill/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas L. Freedman ( CN=Thomas L. Freedman/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mara E. Rudman (CN=Mara E. Rudman/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [NSC])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. Maloney (CN=Sean P. Maloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Barry J. Toiv (CN=Barry J. Toiv/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Monica M. Dixon (CN=Monica M. Dixon/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Philip G Dufour (CN=Philip G Dufour/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mary L. Smith (CN=Mary L. Smith/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [OPD])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Caroline R. Fredrickson ( CN=Caroline R. Fredrickson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Edward W. Correia ( CN=Edward W. Correia/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura S. Marcus ( CN=Laura S. Marcus/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Karen Tramontano (CN=Karen Tramontano/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Forwarded by Richard Socarides/WHO/EOP on 08/31/99
01:56 PM
[email protected]
08/31/99 01:16:00 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Richard Socarides@EOP
cc:
Subject: NC10950: Larry King Live transcript, part 1
Do not publish this item without permission from the originating media
operation. Do not post this item in a public online forum. This is a
small, free mailing list open only to people with whom I am acquainted.
Cable News Network
Transcript of LARRY KING LIVE
August 30, 1999
part 1
http://cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/9908/30/Ikl.00.html
Should the Military Abandon Its 'Don't Ask/Don't Tell' Policy?
Aired August 30, 1999 - 9:00 p.m. ET
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, the military's don't-ask/don't-tell policy
is under the gun again. Joining us from Washington, Arizona State
Representative Steve May. His openness about his sexual orientation may
get him kicked out of the Army Reserve. In Aspen, retired tennis star
Martina Navratilova. In Louisville, Kentucky, the Reverend Albert Mohler
Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In Madison,
Wisconsin, Democratic Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin, a member of the House
Judiciary Committee, who is gay. And in Columbus, Georgia, Republican
Congressman Bob Barr, also a member of Judiciary.
They're all next on LARRY KING LIVE.
Good evening from Washington. The issue of gays in the United States
military has been in the news again recently. Arizona State
Representative Steve May, who is also in the Army Reserves, is under
investigation by the Army, could be discharged for violating the
don't-ask/don't-tell policy.
Steve May is openly gay, but the Army didn't even start to look into
that orientation until it got word of remarks he'd made on the floor of
the Arizona legislature way back in February.
Ironically, while he's being investigated, May is also being
considered for a promotion in the Reserves.
He spoke about his predicament last Friday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE MAY (R), ARIZONA STATE HOUSE: I'm a soldier. I'm a legislator.
I have chosen to live my life with integrity. Because of the legislature,
I'm visible. Because of my integrity, I have created a conflict.
That doesn't make me a gay activist. That makes me an honest soldier
and a good legislator.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KING: Steve May joins us here in Washington. We'll have a panel, as
we told you, join us later. This got a lot of nationwide, international
attention with a front-page story last week in The New York Times. And in
today's "New York Times," on the editorial page, a major editorial, is
bigotry in the military.
And about this case, it says: "But better training will not prevent
absurd outcomes. The case of Steve May, a Republican state legislator,
shows how irrational the policy is. Mr. May is gay and made reference to
his own orientation when debating a bill about health insures. He is now
under investigation and may be discharged from the military."
Are you shocked by all this?
MAY: Larry, the story is really absurd, and I think my case does show
uniquely how absurd the policy is. Don't-ask/don't-tell simply doesn't
work.
KING: Was it well-known that you were gay?
MAY: I have been open about my sexual orientation with my
constituents for three years. I ran for office first in 1996.
KING: So you were elected to the legislature with the constituency
knowing you were gay?
MAY: Absolutely.
KING: And that is a conservative Republican (UNINTELLIGIBLE)?
MAY: Correct.
KING: I mean, what's that? Scottsdale?
MAY: Scottsdale, Paradise Valley, East Phoenix, the Biltmore-Arcadia
area.
KING: Are you basically a conservative Republican?
MAY: Absolutely. In fact, no one has ever challenged those
credentials at all.
KING: What was the debate about in February that caused you to
mention it on the floor of the House?
MAY: One of the other representatives had offered a bill which would
have prevented cities from implementing domestic partnership benefits.
These were cities whose voters had already decided to offer these benefits
to their own city employees, and she basically wanted to prevent the
cities from implementing the voter-approved plan.
KING: So you got up and spoke against her and the plan, right?
MAY: Correct.
KING: And blasted the some of the conservatives in your own party
as well?
MAY: Well, just the particular ones who use very ugly personal
attacks against me, my family and my constituents.
KING: They were saying it on the floor of the House?
MAY: Oh, yes. It was offensive.
KING: Like what?
MAY: That homosexuals excuse me. That homosexuals were at the
lower end of the behavior spectrum, that homosexuality leads to
bestiality, animal sacrifice and cannibalism just amazingly disgusting
terms.
KING: By the way, we have invited) had invited representatives from
the United States military to appear with us tonight and they declined.
When were you in active duty?
MAY: I was active-duty for two years, three months and eight days.
KING: When?
MAY: From May of 1993 to August of 1995. And then I was on an
inactive status, not at all involved in the military.
KING: Are you an officer?
MAY: I'm an officer. I'm a first lieutenant.
KING: Why don't you just quit?
MAY: Well, it's not that easy. I was not in the military, of course,
for 3 1/2 years. And then when the Kosovo crisis heated up, I was sent
orders to report for duty and I did. That was my obligation as a soldier.
I can't refuse orders when the nation's at war.
KING: Did you go?
MAY: So I did. I pulled my uniform out of the attic and went back to
an active Reserve unit. And that's what I've been doing now since April.
KING: Well, if it's don't-ask/don't-tell and you'd already told, how
did they not know?
MAY: That's the great) I'm confused too, Larry. When I first got
orders to report back in for duty, I was confused. And every month that I
went there and served ) April, May, June and July ) prior to them
conducting their investigation, I was confused, because I had been open
and honest about my life publicly now for three years.
KING: So did someone contact the Army to say you should be tossed out
and used as an example your speech on the House floor?
MAY: My commander told me that she had received a complaint and she
wouldn't tell me who it came from ) but a complaint with a copy of a
newspaper article that talked about my sexual orientation.
KING: That domestic thing calls for what? If two homosexual partners
are living together, one gets the benefits of hospitalization and the
like?
MAY: Well, it would have allowed employees
KING: Like a married couple?
MAY: It would have allowed employees of the state to access the
health insurance benefits on even keel, so equally with those who are
married. That's correct. And it's not just for homosexuals. It's for
domestic partners, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual.
KING: There are many, many, many gay conservatives, right?
MAY: There are very many. In fact, I just returned from a Log Cabin
convention, which is a convention of gay conservatives.
KING: Gay conservatives. And is it disturbing to you that most of
the constituency against you in the Senate and the House is conservative?
MAY: It is disturbing, because really sexual orientation is
irrelevant. It's irrelevant for military service and it's irrelevant for
political service.
My constituents elected me knowing my sexual orientation, knowing my
military background, because they care about the same issues that I care
about: public education. I worked very hard to improve our public
schools in Arizona, cutting taxes, stopping corporate welfare, which runs
rampant through the Arizona legislature.
KING: But does it disturb you when someone says that politician is
anti-gay, their thinking is it's a Republican conservative?
MAY: Yes.
KING: If I gave you the hypothetic, they are ) coming into this door
now is an anti-gay person and he's elected to office, you would guess he's
a Republican conservative, right?
MAY: Well, I think that's an unfair stereotype, but certainly many
people hold that stereotype. But there are certainly Democrats also who
are anti-gay.
KING: So you felt this all your life?
MAY: That I was Republican, yes.
KING: And anti-gay, and you felt both the hits and the misses of
this.
MAY: Absolutely.
KING: Why do you want to stay in the service? Why at this point
would you care?
MAY: Well, it's my obligation. When the nation called me back into
service in February of 1999 as the Kosovo crisis was heating up, I didn't
have a choice.
KING: But why now do you want I mean, they may dismiss you, right?
Where does it stand now? You're up for promotion and dismissal?
MAY: I'm up for promotion to captain, right, and my captain's board
meets in November. And I'm also under investigation for dismissal under a
violation of the don't-ask/don't-tell policy.
KING: If they dismiss you, is that appealable?
MAY: No. I don't) no, it's not.
KING: Would it disturb you if you were dismissed?
MAY: Well, it disturbs me that my otherwise spotless record would be
) would end this way.
KING: More with state representative Steve May of Arizona. We'll
spend another section with him and then bring in our entire panel.
This is LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM J. CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The issue is not
whether there should be homosexuals in the military. Everyone concedes
that there are. The issue is whether men and women who can and have
served with real distinction should be excluded from military service
solely on the basis of their status. And I believe they should not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: We're back with Arizona State Representative Steve May. He's
up for re-election again next year. And he has been elected already with
his constituency knowing of his) well, I would say sexual choice. It's
not your choice. You don't know why you're gay, do you?
MAY: No. It was not a choice I made at all. I did choose to serve
my constituents in the legislature. I did choose to serve my country in
uniform. And I also made a choice to live my life with integrity, and
that's what's caused this conflict.
KING: Do you how many ) do you know how many people) men and women
-- have been tossed out of service since don't-ask/don't- tell, who told
and got tossed?
MAY: I don't know how many since the beginning, but I know that the
statistics today are that three to four service members are discharged
every day. Those service members are otherwise qualified, they perform
well in their job duties. They're discharged simply because of their
sexual orientation.
KING: And how does it come out, usually? Is there a usual pattern?
Did they tell someone? Is that the usual way?
MAY: There are any number of ways this could happen. Perhaps they
made a statement to friends. The policy as it stands now says that you
can't even tell your mother, your brother, your sister, your best friend.
KING: What if I tell on you? Does that dismiss you?
MAY: That would cause an investigation, absolutely.
KING: It does, even though you never said it to anybody..
MAY: Absolutely, absolutely. It would cause an investigation. And
the same) you'd be in the same situation I am now.
KING: Are you supporting your senator, McCain, for the presidency?
MAY: I have endorsed Senator McCain. I want him to be president.
KING: Do you know where he stands on this?
MAY: I have heard comments that he's made in the press, but
ultimately this..
KING: What has he said?
MAY: Well, he says that he supports me and opposes discrimination
against gays and lesbians. But he supports don't ask, don't tell. That's
really an issue that
KING: Is that a conflict, do you think?
MAY: Well
KING: Is it to you?
MAY: Well, I'm not a single-issue voter. I think most Americans are
not single-issue voters, but really this is about soldiers serving with
integrity in the military. And that's what this issue needs to comes back
to is that I served-my country in uniform because I want to serve my
country in uniform.
KING: When your were in the military we had a soldier killed last
year, didn't we? Fort Campbell?
MAY: We had a soldier killed this year.
KING: This year. When you were in the military, did you see much
anti-gay against you or others?
MAY: Not me, personally.
KING: Never saw it?
MAY: No, not at all. In fact, since all the recent publicity I have
received e-mails from all over the world from people I served with back at
Fort Riley. I've gotten nothing but support from them, from soldiers past
and present. It's really been very ) very gratifying.
KING: And other armies around the world don't even deal with it,
right? They don't discuss it..
MAY: No, absolutely not. In Israel, one of the finest fighting
forces in the world, everyone serves, regardless of sexual orientation.
So they have soldiers serving openly gay in Israel and in many, many
services across the world.
KING: How did the bill come out in the legislature?
MAY: It died. It really was an ugly bill. And there was so much
hate-filled rhetoric, I think most of the members of the House were
embarrassed. Even those who supported the issue were embarrassed by the
rhetoric from my opponent.
KING: So what is the law now in communities in Arizona regarding gays
and health benefits and the like?
MAY: Well, cities and counties are allowed to choose whether or not
they extend health benefits to domestic partners of their employees, just
like many Fortune 500 companies now offer the exact same benefit.
KING: That's right. Does Phoenix do it?
MAY: Phoenix does not. Tempe just implemented that program, Tucson
and also Pima County.
KING: Phoenix does not.
MAY: Phoenix does not. I understand they're considering it.
KING: How do you feel, Steve, about all of this? 1 mean the way it's
hit you now. And then you made the speech in February. You figured it
went away, right? You knew you were up made for the captaincy, and
suddenly they're investigating you on the front page of "The New York
Times," you're on a worldwide program tonight. How you react to all of
this?
MAY: Well, it's all very confusing because all I am trying to do is
serve my constituents in the legislature. That's where my focus has been,
that's where it will continue to be. That's my agenda. I also responded
to the call that my nation sent to me by certified mail in February of
1999. That's my obligation. And I want to live my life with integrity.
KING: Do the Log Cabin Republicans question their party a lot,
because you're at odds with, often, planks in your party's platform,
aren't you?
MAY: Right, but we agree with the core values of the Republican
Party.
KING: You are a conservative?
MAY: Correct. But we believe in the core values of the Republican
Party: a limited government, a strong national defense, individual
liberty, economic freedom. Those are the core values of the Republican
Party.
Now there have been histories in our party where the far right, really
theocrats, have taken over our party. Well that's not who I am. That's
not who most Republicans are. We want more freedom for people. We want
less government for people. That's the Republican Party I belong to.
KING: Libertarian Republican.
MAY: Well, that's the party of Barry Goldwater.
KING: Yes. You lambasted someone in particular ) did you not? ) in
the legislature. I mean, opponents but there was one person in particular
you really took on,-wasn't there?
MAY: Well, the particular sponsor of the bill, who said that
homosexuality was at the lower end of the behavioral spectrum and
basically condemned me to an early death because of my sexual orientation,
I responded to her that she was ill-informed.
KING: Do you converse with her in the halls? Do you
MAY: You know, in politics
KING: ever sit down to lunch together?
MAY: Sure ) well, sure. You know, in politics
KING: Strange
MAY: Well, you can be best friends on one issue and bitter enemies on
the next. And so
KING: You probably supported the same issue in many times on other
MAY: And many times we did. As a matter of fact, a newspaper did a
study and found that I voted with her 70 percent of the time over the
course of the legislative session this past time. There are many issues
where we're strong allies.
KING: Isn't it painful to you personally, emotionally painful?
MAY: Well
KING: A member of your party, you agree with her 70 percent of the
time and she thinks you're vermin.
MAY: I think it's unfortunate that some people believe that way, but
you know in this country we have a long history of recognizing that we
have differences of opinion, differences in our lives, but still we all
have to work together as Americans. We can't divide our nation over small
differences of opinion.
KING: We will meet a panel to discuss this. We'll be taking your
calls as well.
This is LARRY KING LIVE.
David Frost tomorrow night.
Don't go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AUGUST 14, 1999, "EVANS NOVAK HUNT & SHIELDS")
ROWLAND EVANS, CO-HOST: As president, Governor Bush, would you go
back to the pre-Clinton era when gays were not admitted to the military?
GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm for don't ask,
don't tell. This is a policy that Colin Powell thoughtfully put in place.
EVANS: That's Clinton policy.
BUSH: Well, if that's the Clinton policy I support that. But I think
it's up to the military to make sure we enforce it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Welcome back. We're discussing gays in the military, the don't
ask-don't tell policy, and now a whole broader discussion of gay rights.
Our panel: Here in Washington, Arizona State Representative Steve
May, being investigated by the Army reserve, may be discharged because of
his orientation, may be promoted; in Aspen, Colorado, retired tennis star
Martina Navratilova; in Louisville, Kentucky, the Reverend Albert Mohler
Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; in Madison,
Wisconsin, Democratic Representative Tammy Baldwin, a member of the House
Judiciary Committee, who is also, like our guest in the studio in
Washington, openly gay; and in Columbus, Georgia, Republican Bob Barr of
Georgia, also a member of the Judiciary Committee. Let's get our panel's
thoughts.
First on the May case, Martina, what do you make of all of this
regarding the legislator?
MARTINA NAVRATILOVA, FORMER PROFESSIONAL TENNIS PLAYER: Well, I just
can't ) the don't ask, don't tell cannot work because you have to be able
to tell the truth. I mean, morality is about telling the truth. So how
can you tell the truth and then pretend you're not who you are?
KING: So you think there should be ) the policy should be if you're
fit to serve, you're fit to serve, no matter what you are?
NAVRATILOVA: I think it's been proven that sexuality has nothing to
do with one's ability to serve the country. I would love to be able to
serve the country, but right now I couldn't.
KING: Congressman Mohler ) I mean, Reverend Mohler, where do you
stand on this particular issue regarding Steve May?
REVEREND STEVE MOHLER, SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY: Well,
the one thing I would be in agreement with Representative May is that the
don't ask-don't tell policy doesn't work. It is inherently wrong. And
the American people believe the homosexual behavior is a legitimate issue.
And the federal courts have affirmed that indeed it is a legitimate
military issue for our armed forces. And so I'm in agreement that the
don't ask-don't tell policy doesn't work, but on the most fundamental
issue of homosexuality, there is widespread belief among Americans that it
is fundamentally wrong and has no place in the military.
KING: So, therefore, you don't think ) you think if you're gay you
should not be in military service?
MOHLER: Yes.
KING: OK.
MOHLER: And I believe that that is exactly what the armed forces have
said by this policy.
KING: Congresswoman Baldwin, your thoughts on the May case.
REP. TAMMY BALDWIN (D), WISCONSIN: Well, I think that Representative
May puts a face on this issue. A capable young man dedicated to his
country ought to be able to serve with pride. And we shouldn't have a
policy that forces him to be dishonest in any way. And he's made that
point very well.
I think beyond that the policy of don't-ask/don't-tell has proven a
failure. We've seen the amount of harassment against gays in the military
increase. We've seen the number of discharges increase under a policy
that was supposed to have the opposite effect. And I really think that
Steve's case in so many poignant ways means that we need to re-examine
this policy.
KING: And Bob Barr of Georgia, nice to see you again, Congressman.
Your thoughts?
REP. BOB BARR (R), GEORGIA: Thank you very much, Larry. I appreciate
being a part of this very distinguished panel.
The issue, despite what Lieutenant May kept saying over and over and
over again, that it's so confusing for him, is not confusing at all. It's
not complex at all. As the pastor has said, there is very sound military
policy at stake here by such a ) enunciated by such very distinguished
modern generals as General Norman Schwarzkopf, who has said that
homosexuality is incompatible with good order of the military. That being
the case, that is what our military has said. That is what this Congress
and previous Congresses have stated very clearly in the law. Whether
George Bush feels otherwise or not, homosexuality is incompatible with
military service.
KING: So Congressman Barr, you also ) you also disagree with
don't-ask ) everybody on the panel then doesn't like don't-ask/don't-
tell, but you and
BARR: I guess it's unanimous.
KING: and Reverend Mohler for different reasons. You would not
have any gay in the military whether they tell or don't tell, right?
BARR: No. I would uphold the federal law passed in 1994 before the
Republican majority that says that homosexuality is incompatible with the
military and should not be allowed.
KING: Your party, Representative May, passed that law?
MAY: Yes, Larry, of course, that's true. But the issue really isn't
about gays in the military. Gays have always been in the military. I am
in the military. Gays will always be in the military.
The issue is about discrimination in the military. And the issue is
also about asking soldiers to violate the basic military code of honor:
duty, honor, country.
KING: Reverend Mohler, what is your problem with Steve May being in
the military? Steve May is sitting right here. What's your problem with
him? You have a problem with him being in the military. It is what?
MOHLER: It is his homosexual behavior. And this, again, is one more
example of how the homosexual agenda has been literally intrusive into
almost every dimension of American life. And here the military, which is
supposed to be about defending our country and to be about military goals
and military means, is having to deal with an issue where there are some
whose agenda has tried to force the armed services into being about social
work and social change. And we have really a pretty fundamental consensus
in this country that this is wrong
KING: Let me get ) let me get..
MOHLER: a popular consensus and a legal consensus.
KING: Let me get a break. Our panel will be with us all the way.
We'll also be including your phone calls. Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Just so we understand where everybody stands, Congressman Barr,
do you take it beyond the military? Are you opposed to the bill to
eliminate discrimination in hiring, firing on the basis of sexual
orientation?
BARR: Oh, I think that if we try to get into that federally, Larry,
whether it's the Employment Nondiscrimination Act or so-called "hate
crimes," we're opening a can of worms that I don't think we'd ever see
the last of.
KING: So you would be against the bills? Or for
BARR: Yes, against both ) I would be against ) against the hate crime
bill, because it leaves these ) these terms very ill-defined. It doesn't
define sexual orientation, yet it tries to enforce people who don't like
somebody's sexual orientation
KING: But you don't disagree ) you don't disagree with there should
be no discrimination against hiring someone because of their sexual
orientation, do you?
BARR: Yes, I do disagree with that.
KING: You do?
BARR: Yes, absolutely. There are some professions, such as the Boy
Scouts, where I think here also homosexuality is incompatible with the
goals of the organization itself. I think in teaching ) and there may be
others as well.
The pastor may very well like to address that in terms of
KING: I will get to that. Martina, are you surprised that this ) as
a gay person, we seemingly ) some people say they have come a ) Are you
surprised this is still apparently a very major issue in this country?
NAVRATILOVA: I am, you know, because I mean, I came to live in this
country ) I lived in ) under a communist system in Czechoslovakia. And I
left that country so I would be free. I thought this was the land of the
free. I didn't think it meant land of the free as long as you're
heterosexual.
Now the Czech Republic ) they're having domestic partnerships.
They're having relationships that are ) recognized homosexual
relationships that are recognized as much as heterosexual ones. And I
feel like, what do I need to do now? Go back? I don't want to.
I am surprised at the rhetoric and the misinformation that still
exists to this day among very well-educated people.
[continued]
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Richard Socarides ( CN=Richard Socarides/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: I-SEP-1999 09:21:05.00
SUBJECT: NC10956: More Winchell updates
TO: Leon S. Fuerth (CN=Leon S. Fuerth/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth J. Potter ( CN=Elizabeth J. Potter/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: LEAVY_D@A1@CD@VAXGTWY@EOP (LEAVY_D@A1@CD@VAXGTWY@EOP[ UNKNOWN
(NSC)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mary E. Cahill (CN=Mary E. Cahill/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas L. Freedman ( CN=Thomas L. Freedman/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mara E. Rudman ( CN=Mara E. Rudman/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. Maloney (CN=Sean P. Maloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Barry J. Toiv (CN=Barry J. Toiv/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Monica M. Dixon ( CN=Monica M. Dixon/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Philip G Dufour ( CN=Philip G Dufour/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mary L. Smith ( CN=Mary L. Smith/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Caroline R. Fredrickson (CN=Caroline R. Fredrickson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Edward W. Correia (CN=Edward W. Correia/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura S. Marcus ( CN=Laura S. Marcus/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Karen Tramontano (CN=Karen Tramontano/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Forwarded by Richard Socarides/WHO/EOP on 09/01/99
09:20 AM
[email protected]
09/01/99 02:57:00 AM
Record Type: Record
To: Richard Socarides@EOP
cc:
Subject: NC10956: More Winchell updates
Do not publish this item without permission from the originating media
operation. Do not post this item in a public online forum. This is a
small, free mailing list open only to people with whom I am acquainted.
Louisville Courier-Journal
Aug. 31, 1999
Lead story, page A-1 top
WITNESS DESCRIBES SCENE OF SOLDIER'S BEATING
He Had "Raccoon Eyes' and Was Covered in Blood
By Chris Poynter, The Courier-Journal
FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. -- As Pfc. Barry Winchell's mother and stepfather sat
in a military courtroom yesterday, a sergeant described how their son was
so badly beaten that he gurgled on his own blood, struggling to breathe
while unconscious.
"He had raccoon eyes, and both eyes were black," Staff Sgt. Bradley
Hardin testified yesterday at a hearing for Spc. Justin Fisher, accused of
acting as an accomplice in the beating death of the gay soldier earlier
this summer.
Winchell's mother, Patricia Kutteles of Kansas City, Mo., sat quietly,
at times taking notes on a pad of paper. Her husband, Wally Kutteles,
hugged her and rubbed her arm as they listened to eight witnesses who took
the stand yesterday in the Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of
a grand jury and preliminary hearing. The hearing continues this morning
at Fort Campbell.
Winchell's mother and stepfather declined to comment after leaving the
courtroom.
Hardin said he was on duty the morning of July 5 and rushed to the scene
outside Winchell's barracks to find the 21-year-old near death after being
struck several times with a wooden baseball bat. He testified blood coated
the cot where Winchell was sleeping, as well as his comforter and the
walls. Winchell was taken to a hospital in Nashville, Tenn., where he died
the next day.
Pfc. Calvin Glover is accused of premeditated murder and, at his Article
32 earlier this month, the Army acknowledged that the killing was
motivated, in part, because Winchell was gay. Investigators also say
Glover killed Winchell as revenge because Winchell beat Glover in a fight
two days earlier.
The case outraged homosexuals and gay-rights organizations across the
nation and, in part, led the military to announce revisions to its "don't
ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military.
Fisher, Winchell's roommate, is accused of encouraging Glover to strike
Winchell. The Lincoln, Neb., native is also charged with making false
statements to Army investigators and obstructing the investigation.
No testimony surfaced yesterday about the role Fisher may have played in
the killing. The circumstances could surface today or when military
prosecutors summarize their case for an investigating officer, who will
recommend if the case should proceed to a court martial. The commanding
general at Fort Campbell will eventually decide if Glover and Fisher face
a court martial. No decision has been made in either case.
Testimony yesterday revealed Glover attempted to blame Fisher, saying
Fisher hatched the plan to kill Winchell, then dump his body into a river.
Sgt. Carlos Rodriguez testified Glover described such a plot after he had
been arrested. The comments surfaced as Rodriguez was guarding Glover at a
jail cell at Fort Campbell, the sergeant testified. Glover also made
similar comments to another soldier who was guarding him, according to
yesterday's hearing.
The most graphic testimony of the day came from the last witness, Staff
Sgt. Hardin, who said he realized something was wrong when he heard Fisher
yelling, "Oh, God, help me, I think he's dying."
Hardin said he rushed to Winchell's barracks and saw Fisher covered in
blood, holding Winchell under his arms and trying to drag him down a
flight of stairs to get help. Hardin said Winchell was bleeding from his
left ear. Hardin and another soldier tried to stop the bleeding by
applying pressure and placing a field dressing on the wound.
Hardin testified Fisher was visibly upset and "freaking out." Other
soldiers testified Fisher was running around the barracks, screaming for
help and asking people to hope that Winchell would pull through.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Richard Socarides ( CN=Richard Socarides/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 1-SEP-1999 12:23:29.00
SUBJECT: very tough stuff here -- da/dt
TO: Leon S. Fuerth ( CN=Leon S. Fuerth/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth J. Potter ( CN=Elizabeth J. Potter/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: LEAVY_D@A1@CD@VAXGTWY@EOP (LEAVY_D@A1@CD@VAXGTWY@EOP]
(NSC)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mary E. Cahill (CN=Mary E. Cahill/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Thomas L. Freedman ( CN=Thomas L. Freedman/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mara E. Rudman (CN=Mara E. Rudman/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [NSC])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. Maloney (CN=Sean P. Maloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Barry J. Toiv (CN=Barry J. Toiv/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Monica M. Dixon (CN=Monica M. Dixon/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Philip G Dufour ( CN=Philip G Dufour/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mary L. Smith (CN=Mary L. Smith/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [OPD])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Caroline R. Fredrickson ( CN=Caroline R. Fredrickson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Edward W. Correia ( CN=Edward W. Correia/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura S. Marcus ( CN=Laura S. Marcus/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Karen Tramontano (CN=Karen Tramontano/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Wednesday, September 1, 1999 Copyright, 1999, Arkansas
Democrat-Gazette, Inc.
Don't ask, don't tell: And don't
make sense
IT HAD TO happen, given this administration's perverse
policy toward
homosexuals in the armed forces: A legislator in Arizona
who's also an
officer in the Reserves spoke up in defense of
homosexuals--indeed, state
Representative Steve May never made a secret of his own
homosexuality--and now he may be kicked out of the
service because he
did. That'll teach him to discuss a public issue in
public.
This may be the clearest example yet of how the new
"Don't Ask, Don't
Tell" policy conflicts with an American's freedom of
speech. And with
common sense.
This confusing new policy is also supposed to
include "Don't Pursue," but
who can blame Mr. May for feeling hunted? Agree or
disagree with his
opinions as a state legislator, doesn't he have a right
to express them without
being deemed unworthy of wearing his country's uniform?
Nobody has expressed any dissatisfaction with Steve
May's military
service, only with his sexual orientation. Or maybe just
with his talking about
it. It's all as confusing as it is unsatisfactory, like
so many of this
administration's ways.
Lieutenant May's treatment is only one of the
strange results of a policy
that increasingly eludes understanding, and always
defied reason. It seems
the armed forces are still supposed to discharge
homosexuals but not to
seek them out. ("Don't ask.") For their part,
homosexuals are not supposed
to say they are, or even hint they are, in public.
("Don't tell.") In short, the
administration will defend the right of homosexuals to
serve their country
right up to the minute they're found out and
court-martialed.
As if this policy weren't sufficiently ambiguous,
homosexuals also aren't
supposed to be harassed because of their sexual
orientation. Expelling them
from the military because of it evidently isn't
considered harassment. You
explain it.
HERE IS a policy that was supposed to make it easier
for homosexuals
to serve their country. Instead, military discharges for
homosexuality have
increased under the new policy. The number of servicemen
discharged for
homosexuality had been declining steadily--from 1,998 in
1982 to 617 in
1994. But the number has increased steadily since the
new policy went into
confused effect. Last year the number of such discharges
was the highest it's
been since 1987: 1,145. The less people ask, and the
less people tell, it
seems the more people are discharged.
In a typical clintonesque compromise, a once clear
choice (let
homosexuals wear the uniform or don't) has been turned
into an
indecipherable legal muddle: Members of the armed
services aren't
supposed to be punished because of their sexual
orientation, but may be
discharged because of an unapproved sexual "propensity."
Even if they
haven't acted on it. You figure it out; we'd rather not.
These rarefied
distinctions used to be left to psychiatrists instead of
commanding officers.
It was clear where all this was going back in 1993,
when the new
president was going to eliminate discrimination against
homosexuals in the
armed forces, another promise he didn't keep. Because
instead of this
commander-in-chief simply issuing an order and having
the generals execute
it, he started bargaining with the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, the Senate Armed
Services Committee, and everybody else in sight--as if
command were just
another form of negotiation.
The result is a policy that avoids the issue instead
of solving it. Naturally
so vague a system has to be constantly explained,
amended, and "clarified,"
and just as naturally it grows more confusing. Because
the whole aim of this
muddle of a policy was to avoid a clear choice and
please all sides. What it
seems to have done is confuse and irritate all sides,
when it isn't
embarrassing them.
Or at least all sides should be embarrassed. Where
we were headed
should have been painfully clear when this new system
was first explained by
Jamie Gorelick in 1993, when she was general counsel and
a general source
of bewilderment for the Department of Defense. At one
point, when she was
asked how someone accused of homosexuality might offer a
defense, Ms.
Gorelick gamely replied:
"In one instance a woman was alleged to have said
that she was a lesbian.
She came in and said essentially that the statement had
been misunderstood.
And actually, she introduced evidence--she brought
in boyfriends who
testified essentially that she was heterosexual--and the
conclusion was
reached that she would be retained."
Goodness gracious. And essentially the supposed
adults on the
congressional committee she was addressing just sat
there, as if it were the
most natural thing in the world for a military court to
be asking these
questions and staging this kind of peep show. We don't
want to think about
any part of it, let alone the supposed efficacy of the
questions asked in this
oh-so-scientific investigation. This must have been a
bizarre undertaking for
even what has always been laughingly known as military
"justice." The real
corruption, it seems to us, is that the civilians on
that House committee just
sat there and listened to Jamie Gorelick as if she were
making perfect sense.
But given the administration's new policy, such
scenes have become
unavoidable and, soon enough, accepted, normal, just
part of American life.
As unavoidable as kicking a state legislator out of the
Reserves because of
something he said in public debate. This is how the
clintonesque becomes
part of the normal thought process of a whole society,
if you could call it
thought.
Why is it that other countries don't seem to have
this hang-up with
homosexuals in their armies? Belgium, Canada, Denmark,
Finland,
Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain,
Switzerland, Sweden
None of those nations find it necessary to tie
themselves in legal and political
knots over this oh-so-crucial question. For that matter,
it's common
knowledge that any number of homosexuals have served
honorably in, yes,
the armed forces of the United States.
TO SUM up, this is a very queer policy, and the
results are anything but
gay. (We try not to miss any opportunity to use those
adjectives in the
old-style way, before they were expropriated by today's
language police for
their own narrow purposes.) What should have remained a
private matter in
any decent, neo-Victorian society now has become an
excuse for a lot of
public spin by our always nimble pols, with the result
that neither justice nor
reason has been advanced. And certainly not the language.
Instead, we get spectacles like the vice president's
complaining the other
day that the spirit of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" had been
ignored. Al Gore was
prudent enough not to say which administration was
responsible-for-ignoring
it, or how a policy so contradictory in its aims (punish
but tolerate) could
have any spirit to ignore.
Isn't it time to simply expect all members of the
armed services--
homosexual, heterosexual or neither--to conduct
themselves as ladies and
gentlemen, and leave it at that?
Surely, lewd behavior can be punished and propriety
insisted upon
regardless of sexual orientation. Instead, we seem to
have substituted a kind
of legalized haze for what was once an unfair but at
least a clear, simple
prejudice. Now we seem to have instituted the worst of
both worlds:
injustice and confusion. Could we please just Get Over
It?