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
122241510
label
[09/01/1999 – 12/06/1999]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
122241510
contentType
document
title
[09/01/1999 – 12/06/1999]
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
122241510
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-26444780-20150017F-Seg2-002-005-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
42c707dc84dad8e6
ocrText
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. email
Ruby Shamir to Virginia N Rustique at 19:46:43.00. Subject:
12/05/1999
b(6)
Question. [partial] (1 page)
002. email
Virginia N Rustique to Ruby Shamir at 06:13:42.00. Subject: Re:
12/06/1999
b(6)
Question [partial] (1 page)
003. email
Ruby Shamir to Virginia N Rustique at 20:49:00.00. Subject: Re:
12/06/1999
b(6)
update: Question. [partial] (2 pages)
004. email
Virginia N Rustique to Ruby Shamir at 06:15:18.00 Subject: update:
12/06/1999
b(6)
Question [partial] (1 page)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Automated Records Management System [Email]
OPD ([Don't Ask, Don't Tell])
OA/Box Number: 250000
FOLDER TITLE:
[09/01/1999 - 12/06/1999]
2015-0017-F
ab1570
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - 144 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
PI National Security Classified Information |(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA|
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute |(a)(3) of the PRAJ
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information |(a)(4) of the PRAJ
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRAJ
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy |(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions |(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 1-SEP-1999 15:17:36.00
SUBJECT: FOX Crier Report, August 31, 1999
TO: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne W. Bovaird (CN=Anne W. Bovaird/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael K. Gehrke ( CN=Michael K. Gehrke/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michele Ballantyne ( CN=Michele Ballantyne/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
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@EOF [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Erica S. Lepping ( CN=Erica S. Lepping/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Saladbar 23 <saladbar23 ( Saladbar 23 <saladbar23 @ hotmail.com> @ inet [ UNKNOWN 1)
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 1)
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@EOP [ 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 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa J. Prober ( CN=Melissa J. Prober/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah E. Gegenheimer (CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rochester M. Johnson ( CN=Rochester M. Johnson/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: June Shih (CN=June Shih/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
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 1)
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@EOP [ 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 ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Jennifer Ferguson ( CN=Jennifer Ferguson/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1)
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 ])
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])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leslie Bernstein (CN=Leslie Bernstein/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anthony R. Bernal ( CN=Anthony R. Bernal/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph P. Lockhart ( CN=Joseph P. Lockhart/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
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 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Natalie S. Wozniak ( CN=Natalie S. Wozniak/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [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])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Robin J. Bachman (CN=Robin J. Bachman/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP UNKNOWN])
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 I 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 ])
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 ])
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 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark A. Kitchens (CN=Mark A. Kitchens/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
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 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura D. Schwartz ( CN=Laura D. Schwartz/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gene B. Sperling (CN=Gene B. Sperling/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP OPD )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Barry J. Toiv (CN=Barry J. Toiv/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOF [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sara M. Latham (CN=Sara M. Latham/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: William A. Halter ( CN=William A. Halter/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB 1)
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 1)
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
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Richard L. Siewert (CN=Richard L. Siewert/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO 1)
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
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
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
FOX THE CRIER REPORT
August 31, 1999
CATHERINE CRIER, HOST: Her tragic crash rocked the royal family and
stunned the world. A look back at Princess Di's legacy on the two-year
anniversary of her death. Then Newt Gingrich speaks out for the first time
since leaving office. We'll tell you what he said. But first the
headlines.
(NEWS BREAK)
CRIER: Two years ago today the world grieved at the news that Diana,
Princess of Wales, was killed in a tragic car accident in Paris. The
driver of the car, Henri Paul, has been held responsible for the crash,
which killed Paul, Diana and her friend, Dodi al-Fayed. But this finding
does not end the pain felt by millions of people around the world. Today
flowers and poems were laid at the gates of her London home to mark the
anniversary. There was no official memorial held by the royal family this
year, and there are no plans to erect a public monument to remember her
life.
Joining me now is Thomas Sancton, the Paris bureau chief for
"Time" magazine"; Barry Everingham, a royals historian; Richard
Mineards with the ``London Daily Express"; and Ed Vulliamy, the U.S.
bureau chief for the ``London Observer."
Welcome, gentlemen.
If I might, Thomas, let me start with you. Let's get an update on
the investigation because I understand the prosecutors there in Paris are
recommending charges be dismissed against all the photographers and the
motorcycle photographer that were potentially going to be held liable.
THOMAS SANCTON, "TIME" MAGAZINE: that's correct, Catherine. The
prosecutors' report, which was issued several days ago, expressly demanded
or requested that the charges be dropped. Now, the charges consisted of
manslaughter, and also non-assistance to persons in danger. And on both of
those charges, all 10 of the people who were formerly under investigation,
according to the prosecutor, should be exonerated. So if the investigating
magistrate goes along with that recommendation, then this seems to be the
end of this phase of the legal case and of the investigation.
CRIER: Well, have the prosecutors come to the conclusion, then, as
we just stated, that Henri Paul was solely liable for this?
SANCTON: Yes. They came down very heavily on Henri Paul, who they
said was in a state of drunkenness, who was under medication. He had
tranquilizers-anti-depressants in his blood. He was driving at a vastly
excessive speed on a dangerous stretch of road, and the direct causes have
all been traced to his conduct as the driver of that vehicle.
CRIER: OK, you mentioned the chief magistrate. This finding has to
be validated, essentially, by the judge in the case before it becomes
final, is that correct?
SANCTON: Well, the prosecutor basically takes the investigative
dossier that was brought together by the investigating magistrate. And the
prosecutor has on that--the basis of that has recommended that charges be
dropped. Now the ball is back in the investigating magistrate's court, who
must in the next day or two decide whether or not to accept those
recommendations. He's quite likely to accept them and drop charges, but
he's not obliged to.
CRIER: What about other pending litigation? Trevor Rees-Jones has
got the lawsuit filed against the Ritz and the limousine company, really
supported by the prosecutor's finding. Any other actions still pending out
there?
SANCTON: Well, Catherine, I think you can expect a number of civil
suits. Certainly, Trevor Rees-Jones is going to launch a civil suit. I
think you could see possibly civil suits by other people involved in the
case, civil suits by the parents and the family of Henri Paul, who could
conceivably sue the Ritz Hotel and the Etoile (ph) limousine company for
putting him in the driver's seat, arguing that he was not in a state to
drive the vehicle, was not properly licensed, and therefore should not
have been in that position. That would be, I think, a difficult case to
win.
A stronger case is that of Trevor Rees-Jones, who can certainly
argue that he was put in harm's way by a questionable decision to put a
drunken and unlicensed man in the driver's seat. And that decision could
be held to be the responsibility of the Ritz Hotel and the Etoile
limousine company, which actually owned the car and rented it out to the
Ritz. So these civil suits are going to be happening certainly over the
next few months, and they could last quite a while.
CRIER: OK, thanks, Thomas.
Richard, what about Muhammad al-Fayed? His conspiracy theories, all
of this talk about people feeding him bogus information--is he going to
take this sitting down? Because it looks like.
RICHARD MINEARDS, ``LONDON DAILY EXPRESS": Of course not!
CRIER:
the Ritz is going to
MINEARDS: He never takes anything sitting down. Quite frankly, I do
think--and as I said many times on this show before, I think the idea of
the conspiracy theory was balderdash. But this man now, of course, is
going to be the target of all these civil suits. And as the gentleman in
Paris said, not only from Trevor Rees-Jones and Henri Paul's family, but
also you've got to remember Princess Diana's family. Muhammad al-Fayed has
been particularly virulent against Mrs. Shand-Kidd (ph), Diana's mother,
calling her ``the ultimate British snob" when they were both in Paris
together because he claimed that she snubbed him. So I think you're going
to have that, as Well.
Mr. al-Fayed is going to continue to perpetuate this, and I think
under French law, he does have the right to appeal these findings. So this
is not over, by a long stretch.
CRIER: Any sense at all, Ed, that the boys, the princes would be
involved in litigation?
ED VULLIAMY, ``the LONDON OBSERVER": Not at the moment. They're
more worried about a lot of other tabloid things going on back in London,
like who their father is and so on. That one will run a bit, I should
think.
MINEARDS: But I did hear
VULLIAMY: But I do
MINEARDS: I was going to say I did hear from a friend of Prince
Charles that, in fact, he doesn't intend to sue, even though he obviously
could, because obviously, he doesn't want to traumatize the children any
more and wants to let his ex-wife lie in peace, and obviously, let the
children get on with their lives, as they're doing so Well admirably, as
we can see from day to day.
VULLIAMY: But also let the royal family get on with the children's lives.
I mean, I found the whole thing--the bereavement pretty tacky at the time,
and I find it even tackier looking back at it. And one of the sort
of--rather sort of sobering moments I thought was when the boys were--did
their little sort of walk, you'll recall.
CRIER: Oh, yeah.
VULLIAMY: And there were these women shouting "William! William!"
And it was like sort of the king goes to Blackheath in 1381. It made us
look like a bunch of peasants from the Middle Ages!
CRIER: Well
VULLIAMY: So you know, they will no doubt have their job to do to
restore the kind of monarchy which is all about strutting around on cold
Scottish mountains with a Tartan skirt on, that people thought Diana was
about changing. And so it's very important to the sort of--to the--to the
dysfunctional monarchy, to the sort of lurching creature, that those boys
stay in line.
CRIER: Well, we will see how Well they're doing right after the
break. Got a lot more ahead.
Tom Sancton, thanks very much, from Paris.
And we've got a lot more coming up later. The sex, the scandals, the
triumphs, the tragedies: an inside look at VH-I's hottest show, "Behind
the Music."
Don't go away.
(22:08)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CRIER: We're talking about Princess Diana on the second anniversary
of her death, with Barry Everingham, Richard Mineards and Ed Vulliamy.
Barry, let me start with you. We were talking just before the break
about the changing perception of the royal family and whether or not they
can find the integrity maybe they've been missing the last several years.
Something I read the other day--the public is up in arms about Charles
never having visited Diana's grave. Will that sort of behavior, turning
their backs on--on memorializing the anniversary or putting up a public
monument, not going to the gravesite, continue to alienate the public from
the royal family?
BARRY EVERINGHAM, ROYALS HISTORIAN: Oh, I think the British royal
family's days are numbered. And let's hope they are. It's quite offensive,
really, these days to have a head of state that is there purely by his or
her right of birth.
But I think they're learning a lesson. You see, they're incapable of
love, these people. I don't think they even love each other. Well, Charles
is on record saying that his mother and father were uncaring. He now has
Camilla, and he's had her for a long time. But they won't--they won't
change. Diana was in the process of trying to make them change.
And something Ed said earlier about the boys being looked after by
the royal family-that is the--that's the second greatest tragedy of the
story. The first one is that Diana died. It would be better for the
Spencers to have control of those boys. As dysfunctional as that family
is, it's not nearly as dysfunctional as the British royal family.
CRIER: Oh, no offense. Flip a coin.
MINEARDS: But no, I think, clearly, the focal point now for the
future of the royal family is clearly Prince William because not only is
he very popular with the younger demographic, as Well as the older
demographic, but it's those young people now who like him for what he is,
not for what he represents necessarily, who are going to be the taxpayers
who support the royal family as we go into the next century. So he's very,
very important. And lucky, he's been imbued with his mother's good looks,
and thankfully, not his father's floppy ears. And also, he's obviously got
a balanced upbringing, given his mother's idea of immersing him in what
(INAUDIBLE) public, the public lifestyle, and not just royal affairs. So I
think there's a more balanced outlook. And he is the only saving grace for
the monarchy
EVERINGHAM: Catherine, can I come in for
MINEARDS:
for the next century
CRIER: Sure.
MINEARDS:
otherwise
CRIER: Sure.
MINEARDS: Otherwise, I do think it might--it might end.
EVERINGHAM: Sorry, Richard.
CRIER: Just one second. Barry? Barry?
EVERINGHAM: Yes. Thank you. Having said what I just said, let me say
this, that Prince Charles, I gather, has changed. He has become
a very caring, loving, supportive father, as best he can be. And it seems
to me from what I watch on television and from what I hear from people who
are close to them, that the boys do love him, that Diana tried to do a bit
of damage, but it didn't work, and now he has taken the role of mother and
father to the boys, and it's working.
CRIER: Ed?
VULLIAMY: No, I think there--this--Diana became a symbol of the
changing monarchy after she died.
CRIER: Yes.
VULLIAMY: When she was alive, I'm not so sure this was the case. The
paparazzi, I see, have been quite rightly acquitted of their role in this.
She was damn good at manipulating the paparazzi. When Camilla Parker
Bowles appeared on the tabloid covers looking--Well, never mind how she
looked--not great--Diana made absolutely sure that a huge number of
photographers were in the right place to show her in her leopard-skin
bikini at the right time. The funeral was in itself as bulimic as the
wedding. She was quite able to play the princess. I think this idea
of--that Diana was about to become Queen Beatrix of Holland riding 'round
on a bicycle sort of smoking marijuana or whatever the Dutch monarchy
does--not true. And we were a very long way from that. I think
there's--you know, this is yet more of the sort of invention with
hindsight of the life of this woman, who, although she--I mean,
it--she--we're in a stage of sort of--we're just coming out of it now, but
we've been a stage of sort of royal correctness in Britain. You have PC
CRIER: Well, some of it, though, is
VULLIAMY:
here. We have RC. You aren't even allowed to say she
had good legs, which she did.
CRIER: Yeah, Well, that's some of what Barry was saying, isn't it,
and
VULLIAMY: And this is the reinvention of Diana.
CRIER:
and Richard, as Well, that
VULLIAMY: After her death.
CRIER: it's the personality. That if people like Prince William,
then they will support a continuation of the monarchy. If they do not like
that human being, then the institution itself may fail. So as long as they
liked Diana, then--then she represented something special and different,
whether she really did or not.
VULLIAMY: People saw that she was--she got a bad date. You know, she
was expected to love this man, shooting his silly sort of birds with his
silly gun in Scotland. I mean, hardly a dream date. And she was a modern
girl, but she wasn't a modern monarchy. That's my point.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE NEWT GINGRICH (R-GA), FORMER SPEAKER OF
THE HOUSE: I'm the same age Ronald Reagan was when he became governor of
California. I'll just leave it at that.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you see yourself ever running for president?
GINGRICH: I don't think so. I mean, I'm not going to plan on it.
I see myself developing the next generation of ideas.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CRIER: Welcome back. This week, C-SPAN is airing a three-part
interview with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, the first interview the
controversial politician has given since he stepped down from his powerful
post last year.
What are Washington insiders saying about the former speaker's
candid comments? Joining me now, Eleanor Clift, FOX NEWS political analyst
who is also a contributing editor at ``Newsweek," and John Fund,
editorial page writer for the "Wall Street Journal."
Welcome to you both.
ELEANOR CLIFT, FOX NEWS POLITICAL ANALYST, CONTRIBUTING EDITOR,
"NEWSWEEK": Hi.
CRIER: Hello there. John, what do you think about this? I was
reading some of the comments and loved it that Newt Gingrich and Henry
Clay are sort of the great national figures in the last several hundred
years. That seemed to be the impression I got from you.
JOHN FUND, EDITORIAL PAGE WRITER, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": Well,
Newt has never had a small opinion of himself. It is quite remarkable for
the last nine months or so we've heard so little about him because he
dominated the national conversation for and against him for about five
years.
CRIER: Is that a comment, Eleanor, on the quality of those ideas
that he keeps discussing or Newt Gingrich himself?
CLIFT: Well, I think Newt Gingrich's trademark is the grandiosity
that he brought to himself and to the national scene. It took that kind of
extraordinary self-image for him to dare to accomplish what he did. But
the notion that he is now developing the next generation of ideas and
we're going to be looking to him as a leader in the next century, I don't
think so.
CRIER: What do you think he's going to do, John? Certainly when you
see he's got teaching and speaking and books, I imagine, Newt Gingrich
does not seem the sort that will fade into the woodwork.
FUND: Oh, no. And remember that much-maligned television series that
the IRS finally cleared him of all charges on was actually full of all
kinds of interesting ideas. And he's doing a lot of work on health care
right now.
No, no, Newt Gingrich is not going to be the political candidate who
brings these ideas forward. But in his own way, he's a one-man think tank.
CRIER: So that's what we're going to see. That's sort of
interesting.
Eleanor, let me play a little soundbite. This is talking about Bill
Clinton, according to Newt Gingrich. Let's listen to what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GINGRICH: People will look back at what a tragedy it was that he had
so much talent and did so little good.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What's your favorite thing about him?
GINGRICH: He's a remarkably genial person.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CRIER: OK, Eleanor, what do you think? Are we going to evaluate
Clinton that way?
CLIFT: Well, I think Newt Gingrich could have been talking about
himself, except for the genial part. I think Newt Gingrich, like Bill
Clinton, is an extraordinarily talented individual. And because of his own
shortcomings and personality and the way he dealt with people, he was not
able to fulfill all of the promise that he had.
CRIER: Are his reflections in hindsight, John, fair when he talked
in the interview about Clinton's indiscretions? He said there was a clear
distinction between the private act, albeit in the Oval Office, and the
public act of obstruction of justice or perjury, and was saying, ``I do
not support the invasion of the privacy."
FUND: Well, certainly he would say that because he has recently very
disappointed many of his followers by some of that private activity, which
he agrees is relevant to some extent because as he says we loan power to
political figures. But the real thing that I think was present there is a
certain amount of envy of Clinton because Clinton took him to the cleaners
during the government shutdown, in part because Gingrich believed
Clinton's promises, because no one believed at the time that Clinton could
be such a bold-faced liar, as he turned out to be.
Gingrich himself is a political manipulator of vast arts. But he was
put into shade by Clinton.
CRIER: Eleanor, on that note, on his political legacy, one of the
things he bemoaned was the fact that he really hadn't created the next
generation of leaders, that in '98, part of the failing of the Republicans
were in the election was he felt there wasn't the motivation to drive
forward to the year 2000. Did he have a failing in that regard?
CLIFT: Well, the Republicans were able to gain control of the
Congress because Newt Gingrich had created clones of himself all across
the country. And 76 of them were elected in 1994.
Those very same Gingrich clones turned against him when Gingrich
moved to the center and tried to be a leader of all people. And he never
could accommodate that.
So the next generation of Republicans, I don't know how he could
create them. He couldn't create centrists. I mean, that would just be
totally out of his ability. And true blue conservatives, the
revolutionaries who man the ramparts, can't govern. And I think that was
Gingrich's problem. He never made the transition from the revolutionary to
somebody who could govern and compromise and accommodate the different
views of different people in two political parties.
CRIER: OK, I've got to take a quick break. A lot more politics
coming up, as well as, they've mixed sex, drugs and rock and roll to
create one of the hottest shows on TV. We'll talk with the creators of
VHI's ``Behind the Music" later in the program.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
CRIER: Welcome back. Should Attorney General Janet Reno resign in
the wake of growing controversy surrounding the government's handling of
the '93 standoff with Branch Davidians? Continuing now with John Fund and
Eleanor Clift.
John, will people get burned by this latest investigation into the fire?
FUND: We're going to have several months of investigation. At the
end of it, I think it's not going to be a pretty picture because I think
it's pretty clear. And various people from Senator Tom Harkin to "The
Nation" magazine are agreeing about this.
So this crosses the political spectrum from left to right that there
really was some kind of a cover-up there. There clearly are memos that
were not revealed. Clearly, somebody knew they were there. We don't know
how far up the chain of command it goes. But it's pretty ugly.
CRIER: Well, Eleanor, you know, it's the cover-up, stupid. We've
heard that before. But is there anything that will come out of this to
really raise the hackles, or will it just be the fact that things were
covered up?
CLIFT: Well, first of all, should Louis Freeh resign? He wasn't even
heading the FBI at that point. But if there was a cover-up that continued
for six years, maybe he should have known about it.
I mean, I don't think there's any point, frankly, in calling for the
resignations of either Freeh or Reno. I think there should be an outside
investigation. And we should be able to find out who knew that these
incendiary canisters were used, who ordered them, and where it stopped in
the chain of command apparently before it reached the head of the FBI and
never got to the Justice Department
FUND: Well, Eleanor, I have been
CLIFT: Those claims have to be examined. And
FUND: Well, Eleanor, I do have a question.
CLIFT:
possibly then some of the conspiracy theories can be put
to rest.
FUND: I would like them to be put to rest as well. Eleanor, Janet
Reno got a lot of points for saying, ``I am responsible for the actions at
Waco." But it's interesting, in the last few years across several
administrations, we seem to have lost the notion of accountability, which
is when you screw up, when things don't go right, you might want to
resign. When was the last time we had a government official actually
resign when she's taking accountability as well as responsibility
CLIFT: Well
FUND: That seems to have vanished.
CLIFT:
Well, I don't think it's a requirement in this country,
as it is in Japan, when you lose face that you resign. And John, as a
person who works for a newspaper, you know as well as I do that you're
only as good as your information.
Right now, I take Janet Reno at face value that she didn't know
about this. And I don't see why she should walk away. She should be damn
angry. And she should make sure an investigation gets to the bottom
FUND: Eleanor
CLIFT: of why she was lied to for six years.
FUND:
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is under the
Treasury Department. Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen demanded an
outside independent review six years ago.
Janet Reno could have done the same thing. She chose to have an
internal whitewash review. That was her decision. No one ordered her to do
that.
CRIER: And I think if you look back, whether it's Hazel O'Leary in
the Energy Department, this sort of thing with Janet Reno, I am tired of
hearing these high-level officials go, ``I am responsible. But somebody
else did it."
FUND: The buck doesn't stop there
CRIER: That's right.
FUND:
It's spinning so much around that you can't view it. It's
like a top.
CLIFT: Well
CRIER: And there
CLIFT:
she stood up and took responsibility. I don't know what
you expected her to do, resign at that moment? I mean, I think she now
has
FUND: And independent, outside investigation.
CLIFT:
Well, maybe that should be called for. But
FUND: Well, no, six years, a lot of the evidence is gone after six
years. That was the whole point of it, apparently.
CLIFT: Well, if the evidence is gone, why did this suddenly surface,
John? I think there's still some evidence left. And there are some people
who know what happened.
CRIER: All right, well, I think that's going to be interesting. One
more topic before we run out of time. Eleanor, what do you think about Al
Gore's possible shift in policy about gays in the military? This was the
issue people said Bill Clinton should not have started his presidency
with.
And now we're now moving into the campaign season. Al Gore is going
to bring this back to the fore?
CLIFT: Well, I think some of the reports from the military have
shown that the implementation of this policy has actually driven more gay
people from the military services than before. And so I think he is doing
a politically-timed gesture of compassion towards gay people who do serve
in the military.
And let's be realistic. The gay constituency is an important voting
block in this country. And the policy as implemented leaves
a lot to be desired. I think he's done the right thing in speaking up.
CRIER: What do you think, John?
FUND: Six years into the Clinton administration there is a Defense
of Marriage Act and there is a Don't Ask/Don't Tell policy. Gays are
actually further behind than they were six years ago.
And I'll tell you, Al Gore is going to be in trouble with this
policy because all it will take is Colin Powell to come forward, as he
probably will, and say, ``I opposed this six years ago. And I oppose it
still today."
CRIER: All right, John Fund, Eleanor Clift
CLIFT: Thank you.
CRIER: thank you very much.
Coming up next, we're going to behind the scenes of "Behind the
Music." Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOMMY LEE, DRUMMER, MOTLEY CRUE: Ozzy sees a Popsicle stick laying
on the ground. And there's a long trail of ants going to it. And he gets
down on his knees. And he goes.
(SOUND OF SNORTING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OZZY OSBOURNE, ROCK SINGER: All this snorting ants (INAUDIBLE),
drunk snorting ants (INAUDIBLE).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CRIER: Snorting ants? Well, even if the inside scoop from Motley
Crue doesn't help you hook onto it, tales of triumph, horror and the early
years from all your favorite singers are bound to have you watching VHI's
hit series "Behind the Music."
Joining me now with a behind-the-scenes look at the series are
"Behind the Music's" executive producers George Moll and Gay Rosenthal,
and creator of the show and executive vice president of VHI programming,
Jeff Gaspin.
Welcome to you all.
JEFF GASPIN, CREATOR, "BEHIND THE MUSIC", EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
OF VH1 PROGRAMMING: Thank you.
CRIER: Jeff, let me start with you. What in the world made you think
that this would catch on? A&E "Biography" does great. Was that the sort
of impetus?
GASPIN: We actually had a show on the air called ``VHI Legends"
which profiled legendary musicians. And the scope of the show was a little
too narrow for us. So I wanted something that we could broaden and do
other artists.
And I was actually sitting at lunch with Gay, the other executive
producer, one day. And we were talking out loud about different stories
behind the music that were interesting, Milli Vanilli (ph), MC Hammer. And
we decided that, you know, that stories behind the music was an
interesting way to go, not necessarily biography.
And we just said, ``Whatever happened to Milli Vanilli (ph)?" And
then Gay sort of took the ball and ran with it. And she called me up about
a week-and-a-half later and said, "You know, I found them. And they have
a really interesting story to tell." And that essentially became the
pilot for the series.
CRIER: Gay, did you ever think the audience might not latch on,
might not follow?
GAY ROSENTHAL, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, ``BEHIND THE MUSIC": I think in
the beginning we weren't sure. But once we started interviewing and we
were in the editing room, we saw that we were all like, "Oh, my God. We
have something really special here."
And we felt that the initial stories that we were doing were very
compelling and dramatic. So we were hoping that it was going to work.
CRIER: I mean, George, this is a loaded question. We'll see if
you'll name any names. Anybody you decided would make a great story and
then you got into it and you said, "There's nothing here."
GEORGE MOLL, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, "BEHIND THE MUSIC": I don't think
that's ever been the case. I think we've been able to find a story in just
about any band or artist that we profiled. I mean, I think the very nature
of trying to make it in the music business is such an insurmountable task,
if you will, that it just makes for a great story.
CRIER: And it doesn't have to be, Jeff, someone who is hot on the
charts today for people to be absorbed, does it?
GASPIN: No, I think what's really worked for us is this context of
music history. And so it can be a story that's 30 years old, or it can be
a story that's three years old.
You know, the compelling components: great music, great
storytelling. And as long as we have those two, it usually resonates with
the viewer.
CRIER: Is it always great music, Gay?
ROSENTHAL: Is it all
CRIER: I'm thinking about some of the sort of '70s reflections.
I don't know that I would list it as great music.
ROSENTHAL: Well, I don't know if it's always great music
(LAUGHTER)
ROSENTHAL: I think a lot of it--most of it is music that has
made a difference and has resonated. And you know, the people that watch,
everybody has very eclectic taste. And what is interesting to somebody
might not be as interesting to somebody else.
But the constant thing that we hear all the time is so many people
say, "Oh, I never bought an album or a CD of that artist. But their story
was so compelling that I wanted to watch." So the music, while it's so
important, so integral, we've found that the stories are just as
important, if not even more important.
CRIER: Well, George, not only do they watch and are compelled, but
they may even go buy. I was watching the piece on Meat Loaf the other day.
And as with many people, I was flipping around, caught part of it, and not
only stayed for that show, that "Behind the Music," but on for several
more. And I went out and bought "Bat out of Hell" when that was over.
And I thought to myself, ``I love his music. Why wouldn't I go out
and pick up some?" Does that happen? Do these artists actually see a
resurgence when they're played out on VHI?
MOLL: Yeah, there's a tremendous correlation between ``Behind the
Music" and record sales, whether it be a new record release or catalog
sales. Def Leppard is a great example. They had a greatest hits album that
was way down the charts. When we aired the program, it soared to number
nine, or certainly in the top 10 of the charts.
And then they followed it with a new album. They debuted at number
11. So there's a tremendous response. Cher was selling about 70,000 units
of her new album domestically before the "Behind the Music." It went to
120,000 units a week after the program.
CRIER: Wow. Jeff, do you ever get people calling up going, "Please
do us. Please do us."
GASPIN: You know, we get it all the time now.
CRIER: I bet.
GASPIN: We didn't at first. And as soon as the reports in the press
started saying "Behind the Music" sells albums, I think we became part
of the marketing plan of just about every record label and artist.
CRIER: Is that a problem at all, because I think from a news
perspective, certainly for some of the magazine shows, people would sort
of promote themselves. But you feel uncomfortable. I'm thinking of the
payola notion. Do you ever feel uncomfortable?
GASPIN: Well, I think as you're aware in news, very often you get the
interviews when people have something to promote. So we're just taking
advantage of the fact that they're making themselves available at a
particular time. They've got something new to talk about.
And since we're part of the marketing plan, we really, we divorce
ourselves from why they're doing it. We have a series where we tell the
stories of behind the music of artists. And that's the main concern for
us. That's the goal. So as long as we get the interviews and we get the
elements that we need to tell our story, why they're doing it is really
not important to us.
CRIER: Yeah. And Gay, you're probably going to get even better
access if there's a little scratching of the back going on. Have there
ever been any times when you put together a piece and some artist calls up
and says, "Don't air that. Please don't."
ROSENTHAL: Luckily, that really hasn't happened. I mean, what we try
to do when we agree to do an artist, we get on the phone with the
management company, the record label, all of the inner circle, and really
talk about what our agenda is. You know, if there are sensitive areas, we
try to address them up front so we can figure out how we're going to
navigate our way through.
So we find that if we do that, then we really run into very few
problems on the back end. So that's worked for us.
CRIER: Would you ever edit, George, specifically for that if someone
says, ``I don't want that addiction element told or the escapade in
Florence, please don't go into this." Do you edit accordingly?
MOLL: No we don't. We don't let the artists control editorial policy
for "Behind the Music." I think we demonstrated over the last 80
episodes I think we have on the air now that we can handle even the most
sensitive subject with respect and dignity.
So I think artists trust us with these subjects now. And we really
don't turn over editorial control to anyone.
CRIER: OK, we're going to be back with more stories from "Behind
the Music" right after a break. Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEIF GARRETT, ROCK SINGER: I was off doing drugs and partying with
the girls and sometimes their mothers and, you know, what-not. So I wanted
nothing to do with my let's-recapture-the-13-year-old contingency. I want
nothing to do with it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CRIER: Boy hit wonder Leif Garrett was not living the squeaky-clean
kid life his music projected. You can learn more about him and other
musicians on the VHI hit series "Behind the Music."
Continuing my conversation about the series with George Moll, Gay
Rosenthal and Jeff Gaspin.
Jeff, we were talking about, during the break, about Leif Garrett
and what you did. Tell me about that.
GASPIN: Well, with Leif Garrett we sort of broke our own rule and
the format of the show a little bit. We told his story for the first four
acts. And then in the fifth act, we actually reunited him with his best
friend from 20 years earlier. He had not seen his friends in 20 years, who
he had paralyzed in a car accident.
And George actually produced that episode. And it was so emotionally
compelling. And it so drew you in that I felt it was OK to break format a
little bit and to break away from the narrative of the series and just
present a moment that was incredibly emotional.
CRIER: George, because that was successful in television terms, have
you seen the direction shift even more?
MOLL: I think our direction has always been pretty much the same and
maintains the same direction. I mean, I think the real litmus test for
whether something is going to be a good ``Behind the Music" or not is, is
it a great human interest story? And I think that's the true test or the
true criteria for what works and what doesn't.
CRIER: Gay, what was your favorite?
ROSENTHAL: The favorite that we did, or the favorite
CRIER: Your own personal favorite, and why?
ROSENTHAL: I would say Milli Vanilli (ph) is still my personal
favorite. And I think it's because the story--in two lines, you can say
the story and everybody understands, you know, getting that carrot dangled
in front of you.
And I think we were able to do something and show Fabrice (ph) and
Rob (ph) in a light that nobody really had. And the response from it was
so terrific because people said, "Oh, my God. We never had the chance to
hear their story."
And I think it's one of those classic stories, you know? It just had
great drama to it
CRIER: Yeah
ROSENTHAL: And you know
CRIER:
Jeff, what about you?
GASPIN: You know, Lynyrd Skynyrd and Mamas and the Papas, I wasn't
huge fans of both bands before I watched the episode. And I saw the
episode several times through all its cuts and re-cuts. And afterwards, I
was just blown away by their stories and really had new respect for them
and their music.
CRIER: And Jeff, before we run out of time, this has really done
wonders for VHI, hasn't it?
GASPIN: Absolutely.
CRIER: Really helped
GASPIN: From the day it aired, first episode was Milli Vanilli (ph).
It was the highest rated series on the channel. And it hasn't changed. And
it's been on two-and-a-half years now. We just started our third season
actually a couple of weeks ago.
CRIER: Well, for people who love music and haven't discovered it
yet, ``Behind the Music" is brilliant.
GASPIN: 9:00 every night
CRIER: There you go.
GASPIN:
every single night, 9:00.
CRIER: There you go.
GASPIN: On VHI.
CRIER: Very compelling television. On VHI.
George Moll, Gay Rosenthal, Jeff Gaspin
GASPIN: Thank you.
CRIER:
thank you all very music.
ROSENTHAL: Thank you.
CRIER: That's it for this edition of THE CRIER REPORT. Thanks to all
my guests and you for watching.
Now if you want to contact us, send us an e-mail. The address is
crierfoxnews.com. Or the snail mail, THE CRIER REPORT, 1211 Avenue of the
Americas, Level C1, New York, New York, 10036.
And I hope you'll join me next time.
END
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Richard Socarides ( CN=Richard Socarides/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 1-SEP-1999 09:22:59.00
SUBJECT: more on Steve May
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
(NSC)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mary E. Cahill (CN=Mary E. Cahill/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
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: 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=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 09/01/99
09:22 AM
[email protected]
09/01/99 02:55:00 AM
Record Type: Record
To: Richard Socarides@EOP
cc:
Subject: NC10953: Good piece on Steve May (rising gay star)
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.
Salon magazine
August 30, 1999
http://www.salon1999.com/
Don't ask, he'll tell
An openly gay Mormon Republican flouts the Clinton administration's
gays-in-the-military policy.
By Amy Silverman
PHOENIX ) The investigation by the U.S. Army Reserve into Lt. Steve
May's alleged homosexuality is the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars since
the $640 toilet seat, since May has been openly gay for the last three
years. But May's challenge to the Army's prohibition against openly gay
soldiers could be the biggest threat to the Clinton administration's
"don't ask, don't tell" policy since it was implemented in 1993.
May admits he has probably violated the "don't tell" part of the
policy, which resulted in the discharge of more than 1,000 gay men and
women from the armed forces last year, because he has certainly told ) and
told and told and told. But May came out as openly gay not as an Army
reserve officer, but as a Republican candidate for the Arizona
Legislature, where he took office last January.
His openness has led to an Army Reserve investigation ) and a new
status as national media star. The Service Members Legal Defense Fund has
taken his case, and his plight has been featured in media coast to coast.
"I just did a press conference with CNN, all the networks, probably 20
reporters," he told me from New York, where he was attending a weekend
meeting of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group. He'd been on MSNBC
and "Good Morning America" already, but had to turn down other offers
because he'd promised Larry King an exclusive on Monday night.
May's being gay is not news. The Arizona Mormon, who is 27, ran for
the Legislature in 1996. He was outed by the local Log Cabin Republicans
during the campaign. He lost the race but ran again in 1998, and won,
this time as an openly gay candidate.
Earlier, while in college, he had served in the Navy and Army ROTC.
In 1993, after graduation, he was called to active duty in the Army )
about the same time that "don't ask, don't tell" was implemented. He kept
his mouth shut about his homosexuality, which up till then he'd mentioned
only to a few family members and close friends. May's service ended in
1995, though he remained eligible to be called up in a military crisis.
A year later, he was outed during his campaign for the Legislature.
And since his election, he has talked openly about his homosexuality. As
a freshman lawmaker in Arizona's conservative Legislature ) and its first
openly gay Republican ) he caused a small uproar when he put a Tinky Winky
doll on his desk on the House floor. A member of the GOP leadership staff
gently suggested it wasn't such a good idea to decorate that way, so May
removed the doll. (Actually, it was removed for him by some snarky
Democrats, who doll-napped Tinky and returned him days later, with a
cigarette in his mouth. May didn't bother to put the doll back on his
desk.)
Sort of "don't ask, don't tell," civilian-style.
Earlier this year he took a leading role fighting social conservatives
who were trying to outlaw health benefits to same-sex partners, with
arguments comparing homosexuality to cannibalism, and declaring that the
life expectancy of a gay man is 42. May called their efforts "an attack
on my family, an attack on my freedom. This Legislature takes my gay tax
dollars and my gay tax dollars spend the same as your straight tax
dollars."
Shortly after that impassioned speech, May got a letter in the mail.
The crisis in the Balkans was escalating, and Uncle Sam wanted him back.
The same week in April that I published a profile of him in the
Phoenix New Times, May reported for his first weekend of duty as a
reservist. He saw soldiers passing the article around, but didn't hear
from Army brass until July, when he was told the article had been sent to
his commander with a complaint. (An Army Reserve investigator confirms
this.) A formal investigation was launched in August.
May readily admits he's likely violated the basic tenets of "don't
ask, don't tell." That's not the issue, he says.
"I don't know that there's a legal case at all," says May. "I'm just
saying the policy's wrong. I should be allowed to live my life openly,
honestly and with integrity Integrity has consequences I'm
willing to suffer the consequences of living my life with integrity."
May says his soldiers treat him with respect, and he's been getting
encouraging e-mail from men he served with in the early 1990s when he was
still in the closet. He's been told, he says, to pretend the
investigation isn't happening and to continue to lead his troops. He is
up for a promotion to captain this fall.
"This could take forever, because they only take action one weekend a
month, because everyone who's involved is a reservist," he says.
Talking to the press probably constitutes a violation of the "don't
ask, don't tell policy," says May.
"But that's not the point," he says. "My point is that the policy is
wrong."
About the writer: Amy Silverman is a staff writer for Phoenix New
Times.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Richard Socarides ( CN=Richard Socarides/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
CREATION DATE/TIME: 1-SEP-1999 09:21:46.00
SUBJECT: NC10955: Winchell murder update
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 D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: LEAVY_D@A1@CD@VAXGTVY@EOP (LEAVY_D@A1@CD@VAXGTVY@EOP[UNKN0
(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 ])
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 D
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:
Forwarded by Richard Socarides/WHO/EOP on 09/01/99
09:21 AM
[email protected]
09/01/99 02:56:00 AM
Record Type: Record
To: Richard Socarides@EOP
cc:
Subject: NC10955: Winchell murder update
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.
Associated Press
August 31, 1999
Soldier testifies alleged accomplice suggested gay-bashing solider
FORT CAMPBELL, Ky. ) An Army soldier charged as an accomplice in the
bludgeoning death of his barracks roommate allegedly planned the attack, a
fellow soldier says.
Spec. Carlos Rodriguez testified during the first day of a military
investigative hearing Monday that Pvt. Calvin N. Glover, who is charged
with premeditated murder, told Rodriquez soon after the killing that the
idea for the attack actually came from Spec. Justin R. Fisher.
Fisher, 25, of Lincoln, Neb., is charged as an accomplice in the
assault on Pfc. Barry L. Winchell, his roommate at Fort Campbell. Fisher
also is accused of acting as an accessory after the fact, making false
statements to Army investigators and obstructing the investigation into
Winchell's death.
Winchell, 21, of Kansas City, Mo., was bludgeoned with a baseball bat
in his barracks early on July 5 and died the next day at a hospital in
Nashville, Tenn.
Gay-rights advocates say anti-homosexual feelings may have been
behind, or at least contributed to, the killing. Winchell was perceived
as gay by some soldiers in his unit and friends contend he was beginning
to explore the gay lifestyle when he died.
On Monday, Rodriguez, who faces no charges, testified Glover told him
after the killing that Fisher had suggested the attack and proposed
dumping Winchell's body in a river.
"Glover told me it was Fisher's idea," he said.
Hearsay testimony may be presented as evidence at such hearings, which
are similar to grand jury investigations in civilian criminal cases.
Military trial counselors, who are similar to prosecutors, say the
killing occurred two days after a drunken Glover, 18, picked a fight with
Winchell, 21, at a July 3 party at Fort Campbell.
Members of Glover's defense counsel say much of the Army's case
against their client rests on Fisher's accusatory testimony against
Glover.
Earlier this month, a two-day investigative hearing was held for
Glover, 18, of Sulphur, Okla. No decision has been made about whether the
case will go to a general court-martial.
The trial counsel, or prosecutor, in Glover's hearing said that
revenge was the motive behind Winchell's killing. Capt. Gregg Engler
argued that Glover attacked Winchell because Glover recently had lost a
fight to him at a party.
Neither the Army nor Winchell's family have commented on the dead
soldier's sexuality. Witnesses at Glover's hearing testified that
Winchell was ridiculed in his unit about being homosexual.
Weeks after Winchell's death, the Pentagon updated its "don't ask,
don't tell" policy for gays in the military, requiring mandatory training
on anti-harassment guidelines for all troops, beginning with boot camp.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Mary L. Smith (CN=Mary L. Smith/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1)
CREATION DATE/TIME: 8-SEP-1999 10:04:19.00
SUBJECT: Re:
TO: Richard Socarides ( CN=Richard Socarides/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Nope -haven't seen it
Richard Socarides 09/08/99 10:01:57 AM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject:
Has anyone seen the letter to the President refereed to in the highlighted
paragraph?
AZ Rep A Foil for "Don't
Ask"
Mark R. Kerr, Tucson Weekly Observer
& NewsPlanet Staff
Tuesday, September 7, 1999 / 09:48 PM
SUMMARY: Arizona legislator Steve May says
his case pushes the U.S. military's policy
against lesbians & gays to the level of
absurdity, and some Congressmembers are
asking Clinton to admit it.
A total of 4,429 individuals have been booted
out of the U.S. armed services since the
implementation of the so-called "Don't Ask,
Don't Tell" (DADT) policy by President Bill
Clinton in 1993. Then the president called
DADT a "just and fair compromise," but now
an Arizona lawmaker and Army reservist says
he's showing how "unfair and unjust" the policy
is -- and he's bringing national attention to its
inconsistencies. That attention has prompted
two U.S. Congressmembers to demand action
from the White House.
"It was not a choice I made at all," according
to Arizona state Representative Steve May
(R-Phoenix). "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." May, a
first-lieutenant and second-in-command of his
348th Transportation Company Army reserve
unit, is being investigated based on statements
he made during the past session of the Arizona
Legislature, possibly in violation of DADT.
May had delivered testimony in February
before the House Government Reform
Committee regarding HB 2524. The bill,
sponsored by state Representative Karen
Johnson (R-Mesa), would have prohibited
government entities in the state from extending
benefits to the domestic partners of their
employees. May took his turn before the
committee only after Johnson had testified --
and made many homophobic remarks.
At the time of the testimony, May was "a
civilian" he said, on inactive duty since serving
in the Army until 1995. In April, he was called
back to active duty during the crisis in
Kosovo. After the emergency had passed and
May was returned to inactive status, an
anonymous complaint was filed and the
investigation into his committee testimony was
initiated. "The story is really absurd," May
said, "and I think my case does show uniquely
how absurd the policy is. 'Don't Ask, Don't
Tell' simply doesn't work."
Stacey Sobel of the Servicemembers Legal
Defense Network (SLDN), the national group
that has assisted 1,900 individuals in the
armed services being investigated under
DADT, said May's case is most unique since
the remarks made were in a public context as
an elected official. "Most investigations under
'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' are over remarks made
in a private context," Sobel explained.
May told NewsPlanet that he was formally
charged and notified of the investigation on
August 8. The Army asked May if he would
waive his right to counsel, but he respectfully
declined and "requested the assistance of a
military attorney." He added that he was going
on a training session with his unit on
September 11 and 12, and had some
concerns about what might happen while he is
on duty again. However, Sobel said that with
the investigation just starting, a formal hearing
would not take place so soon.
The soldiers and other officers in the 348th,
May said, have called and sent many letters of
support.
In addition to the support from his fellow
servicemembers, May has received support in
editorials and op-ed pieces ranging from such
major national newspapers as the "New York
Times," "Boston Globe," and "Washington
Post," to his "hometown" publications, like the
Arizona Daily Star and the Arizona Republic,
the latter a conservative publication not known
for pro-gay and lesbian stances.
Two openly-gay elected Arizona officials
added their voices of support as well: Neil
Giuliano, the Republican mayor of Tempe,
said May, "puts a face on the issue of 'Don't
Ask, Don't Tell' and points out the absurdity
of it." State Representative Ken Cheuvront
(D-Phoenix) said his colleague in the
legislature "does a wonderful job articulating
the problems of the policy and the need to fix
them."
Kevin Ivers of the Log Cabin Republicans
commented that "May is the perfect example
of how wrong the policy is."
May has been making the rounds, speaking
out against DADT on CNN, MSNBC and
Fox News Channel (where he was hosted by
the U.S. House's former head-homophobe,
"B-1" Bob Dornan), doing interviews for radio
talk shows and magazines such as Time and
People. Several network television news
magazines are also vying for an exclusive
interview with the Arizona politico; a book
deal may also be in the works.
It was May's appearance on CNN's Larry
King Live that caught the attention of U.S.
Representative Tom Campbell. Suhail Khan,
press secretary for Congressman Campbell,
said the California Repbulican saw it as "an
issue of free speech." Campbell, along with
openly gay U.S. Representative Barney Frank
(D-MA), sent a letter to President Clinton on
September 2, urging him to instruct the
Defense Department to drop its investigation
of May. The letter was circulated in Congress
on September 7.
Frank and Campbell emphasize in their letter
that it would be contrary to the American
tradition of unfettered legislative debate to
penalize an elected legislator for comments
made in the legislative body in which s/he
serves. They say that they "are writing because
we as elected representatives believe strongly
in that principle embodied in the 'speech and
debate' clause of the American Constitution
which seeks to extend full protection to
members of legislative bodies from any
sanction for comments they legitimately make
in the course of legislative debate [O]nly
when elected legislators are confident of their
ability to speak out freely without any fear of
external sanction from outside the legislative
body can the process of representative
government flourish." While acknowledging
that the Constitution doesn't technically cover
legislative bodies other than the U.S.
Congress, Frank and Campbell argue that the
same principle ought to apply to debate in
state legislative bodies. Kevin Ivers of the Log
Cabin Republicans said his group, along with
other national gay and lesbian organizations,
have started the lobbying effort to get
members of Congress to sign on to the letter.
With the pending Army investigation and the
national media spotlight on him, May says his
life "been under control by other people and
groups," but he plans to "lead his life as he has,
being himself." Still, storm clouds may be on
the political horizon. John Mills, who lost to
May in the 1998 GOP Primary for the District
26 House, has taken out papers to run against
May again in 2000. Rumors abound that Tom
Liddy, son of anti-gay radio talk show host
and Watergate "plumber" G. Gordon Liddy,
has been persuaded to challenge May as well.
Liddy's candidacy is being pushed forward by
the radical-right in the Arizona GOP.
All these developments haven't missed the eye
of the homophobic Rev. Fred Phelps of
Topeka, Kansas and his "flock." Phelps, who
gets the lion's share of his publicity through the
bluff of the press release rather than actual
appearances, sent out a fax stating he will hold
a demonstration with 15 of his followers
(mostly family members) on the steps of the
state capitol September 26 to burn an Arizona
flag in protest against May. Of course, it is
illegal to have open burns within the Phoenix
city limits and the Arizona Capitol Police
haven't been notified of any demonstration by
Phelps for that day, but there may be a bigger
obstacle: Phelps protestors targeting the
Canadian Supreme Court recently had to get
flag-burning instructions from an Ottawa
police officer.
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
David C. Leavy/NSC/EOP@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 ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:12-SEP-1999 12:20:52.00
SUBJECT: Frank, Campbell ask Clinton to stop May investigation
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: David C. Leavy (CN=David C. Leavy/OU=NSC/O=EOP@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 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 D
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 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Karen Tramontano ( CN=Karen Tramontano/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Forwarded by Richard Socarides/WHO/EOP on 09/12/99
12:20 PM
[email protected]
09/10/99 11:02:00 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Richard Socarides@EOP
cc:
Subject: Frank, Campbell ask Clinton to stop May investigation
Bay Area Reporter
September 9, 1999
http://www.ebar.com
Frank, Campbell ask Clinton to stop May investigation
by Bob Roehr
Steve May, under investigation for violation of the Pentagon's policy of
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), is getting some assistance from Capitol
Hill. Congressmen Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) and Tom Campbell
(R-California) sent a letter to President Bill Clinton asking that the
investigation be called off. The September 2 letter will be circulated for
additional congressional signatures when members return after Labor Day.
May is a lieutenant in the Army Reserve and a Republican representing east
Phoenix in the Arizona Legislature. He acknowledged he was gay during past
elections and in February during chamber debate on anti-gay legislation.
The debate was front-page news in Arizona.
The lieutenant was on inactive status with the Army at the time. He was
called up to active status shortly after the debate, when the situation in
Kosovo began heating up. He has been serving as a "weekend warrior" ever
since. The investigation began on August 7.
The congressional letter asks the president "to honor the tradition of full
and unfettered legislative debate in America by instructing the Defense
Department to drop charges" against May.
"We are writing because we as elected representatives believe strongly in
that principle embodied in the 'speech and debate clause' of the American
Constitution which seeks to extend full protection to members of
legislative bodies from any sanction for comments they legitimately make in
the course of legislative debate."
It went on to offer a brief history lesson of why the clause came to be and
how it has been observed. And it concluded: "If Representative May is to be
subjected to the severe sanction of expulsion from the military a the
principle that legislators must be free from having to answer in any other
place for comments they choose to make in public debate will have been more
seriously eroded than in any other single instance that we can recall in
recent times."
They also explicitly stated, "We do not write this letter as a commentary
on that policy" of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
May said he "appreciates any effort to resolve my situation." But at the
same time, he clearly was hesitant about this "special right for a
legislator."
"My situation is obviously about me, but there is more to it than that. The
problem that I'm in is because of the policy." He worries that the focus on
the policy might become lost.
May has spoken with Jim Kolbe, the openly gay Congressman from Arizona, but
he has not asked Kolbe for help.
The legislator says he talks "all the time" with John McCain the Senator
from Arizona who is running for the Republican presidential nomination. But
a call on this matter has not been returned. McCain was campaigning by bus
in New Hampshire.
"His office is treading lightly," May said with a hearty laugh. "McCain can
say he supports me personally and opposes discrimination but he also
supports 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' They're stuck, no matter what they say
they can't win."
Stacey Sobel, an attorney with the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, is
counseling May on the investigation. She was cautious about any impact the
letter might have. "Just because this letter is out there doesn't guarantee
any results." She expects the case to drag on into next year as the
reservists conducting the investigation work only one weekend a month.
To Sobel, this "highlights the failing of the policy. Here is a service
member with an excellent record, who has demonstrated his ability. And the
military, during a time of personnel shortages, is kicking out some of its
best people. This is ludicrous."
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: Richard Socarides ( CN=Richard Socarides/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:12-SEP-1999 12:38:08.00
SUBJECT: NC11014: details from Andy Humm's Army Sec story
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: David C. Leavy (CN=David C. Leavy/OU=NSC/O=EOP@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@EOF [ 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 D
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 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 09/12/99
12:38 PM
[email protected]
09/10/99 02:31:00 AM
Record Type: Record
To: Richard Socarides@EOP
cc:
Subject: NC11014: details from Andy Humm's Army Sec story
Subject: Re: NC11001: Army Secretary compares gays to adulterers
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 23:07:32 EDT
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Brothers and sisters:
The full extent of Army Secretary Louis Caldera's remarks to my questions
to him about the exclusion of out gays in the military (given after a
ceremony rededicating the Times Square recruiting station) were as
follows:
"You can serve if you are a homosexual, but you can't make it a political
issue. You cannot be an active homosexual in the military any more than
you can be an adulterer. The Army is a very conservative institution.
Three-quarters of our people are married. Enforcing the regulation is fair
to all concerned. Our national defense is imperative. You wouldn't have
the freedom you have to ask these questions if it weren't for the great
men and women who have served."
I hope this provides the context [one recipient of Wockner's Newsclips
list] was seeking.
Andy
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Richard Socarides ( CN=Richard Socarides/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:12-SEP-1999 12:36:37.00
SUBJECT: Army Secretary compares gays to adulterers
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: David C. Leavy ( (CN=David C. Leavy/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ 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 ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Barry J. Toiv (CN=Barry J. Toiv/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Monica M. Dixon (CN=Monica M. Dixon/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN D
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 ])
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 09/12/99
12:36 PM
[email protected]
09/10/99 12:32:00 AM
Record Type: Record
To: Richard Socarides@EOP
cc:
Subject: Army Secretary compares gays to adulterers
ARMY LEADER COMPARES GAYS TO "ADULTERERS" AT TIMES SQ. CEREMONY
Andy Humm
There wasn't much of a protest as the Times Square Armed Forces Recruiting
Station was rededicated on September 7, but given the anti-gay attitudes
of the city and military brass on hand there should have been. An invited
audience of several hundred occupied Broadway for the 10 AM event that
attracted little interest from passers by.
Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera, representing Secretary of
Defense William Cohen, told LGNY, "You can serve as a homosexual, but you
can't make it a political issue" and went on to compare gay people to
"adulterers" in justifying our exclusion.
Deputy Mayor Rudy Washington, who led the project to make sure that
the city continued to let this bigoted organization occupy such prime real
estate rent free, refused to say what he felt about the policy of
expelling gays and lesbians from the military. "Every institution has its
rules and regulations," he said.
Mike Handy, Director of the Mayor's Office for Veterans Affairs and
a former member of the board of the Gay Veterans Association, was also
asked if he believed that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy should be
repealed. "I don't know," he said, "it's the best thing that they could
come up with."
When then-Council Member (now State Senator) Tom Duane (D-Chelsea)
raised objections in 1998 to the city's cooperation with a discriminatory
organization, Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Speaker Peter Vallone scoffed at the
idea of using the city's power to show its displeasure. Giuliani was
absent from this ceremony due to jury duty. His press office did not
return LGNY's call seeking his position on the anti-gay policy of the
military nor the city's reasons for donating land to a group that violates
city law banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Just one gay activist thought that this outrage was important enough
to protest. Kenny Weinberg stood in a police pen on the corner of 7th Av.
and 44th St. holding a bright yellow sign against the military and the
mayor. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is immoral and dangerous," he said, "has
ruined thousands of lives, and has taken lives in the name of pandering to
the prejudices of the majority." Weinberg cited the recent brutal murder
of PFC Barry Winchell in Kentucky by an anti-gay servicemember and the
similarly vicious killing of Navy Seaman Allen Schindler by his "mates"
several years ago.
Weinberg called and e-mailed several gay rights organizations the
week prior to the event to join his protest. None produced any
demonstrators. A spokesperson for one of the groups said that he was not
aware if they had a position on the rightness of the city's rent-free
policy toward the military. An out lesbian from the local community board
actually attended the ceremony on behalf of her group. "If only one voice
is going to speak out," Weinberg said, "let it be me."
Schuyler Chapin, the courtly Commissioner of Cultural Affairs for
the city, was also on hand. He served in World War II for four years in
China, Burma, and India and "flew the hump." His service is the kind that
gives people warm feelings towards the military and makes them overlook
its bigotry. But Chapin himself, when asked about the exclusion of gay
people, said, "I would hope to God they would get over all this and come
to their senses" about the gay issue.
Andy Humm
LGNY
445 West 23rd Street, #4-F
New York, NY 10011
212-675-0584
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: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY ([email protected]@INET@LNGTWY
CREATION DATE/TIME:17-SEP-1999 16:20:01.00
SUBJECT: Fwd: Bradley Supports Gays in Military
TO: Daniel C. Montoya@eop ( Daniel C. Montoya@eop [ OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
ATTACHMENT 1
ATT CREATION TIME/DATE: 0 00:00:00.00
TEXT:
From: [email protected]@INET@EOPMRX@LNGTWY
Date: 9/16/99 5:09pm
Subject: Bradley Supports Gays in Military
Bradley Supports Gays in Military
.c The Associated Press
By SANDRA SOBIERAJ
WASHINGTON (AP) - Gays should be protected by the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Ac
t and allowed to serve openly in the military, Bill Bradley said in a magazine
interview released Thursday.
On the question of a California anti-gay-marriage ballot initiative, Bradley al
so aligned himself more closely with the gay community's legislative agenda tha
n Vice President Al Gore. Both Democratic presidential candidates are dueling f
or the influential
gay and lesbian vote.
``If I was a voter in California, I would not support the Knight initiative,"
Bradley told The Advocate, a gay and lesbian newsmagazine, in a published inter
view due on newsstands Sept. 28.
``I think it's divisive and I don't think a referendum is the place for thi
S kind of an initiative."
The former New Jersey senator said he still opposes same-sex marriage because o
f``the religious nature of marriage and respect for the diversity of views on
that subject."
In a separate interview published last month, Gore told The Advocate he needed
to ``educate myself" on the so-called Knight measure on California's March 200
0 ballot, which would define marriage as between a man and woman only.
Both Bradley and Gore support legal protections for ``domestic partners."
Going further than Gore's support for a pending anti-job-discrimination bill, B
radley said he would add sexual orientation to the 1964 act broadly outlawing r
acial, religious and sex discrimination in employment, housing, lending and pub
lic accommodations
Bradley said homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. Armed Fo
rces, but admitted that he has not determined ``the timing and method" of such
a change to military policy.
In 1993, before President Clinton signed into law the "don't ask, don't tell"
policy allowing gays to serve as long as their sexuality remained a secret, Br
adley voted for a Senate amendment to lift outright the military's ban on gays.
Gore, in this campaign season, has said only that ``don't ask, don't tell" sho
uld be implemented with ``more compassion."
Bradley's position ``clearly represents a different, more positive thinking tha
n the vice president's," said David Smith, spokesman for Human Rights Campaign
, the nation's largest gay right's group.
On the full menu of gay issues, Bradley and Gore have virtually identical recor
ds, but Gore has trumped Bradley in ``energy and commitment," Smith said.
"Senator Bradley comes off as ambivalent at best. But these statements in this
article certainly send the right message and I'm sure it will cause several po
tential voters to perhaps look more closely at his candidacy."
In 1996 exit polls, self-identified gay voters accounted for 5 percent of the t
otal voting public, and 7 percent of Clinton's support.
Bradley campaign spokesman Eric Hauser said Bradley gave the interview because
the magazine requested it and not to court gay voters.
"He spoke from his heart," Hauser said.
Telling the magazine that he has gay friends but no gay family, Bradley said ho
mosexuality ``happens to be an attribute about as meaningful as having blond ha
ir.
AP-NY-09-16-99 1708EDT
Copyright 1999 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP new
S report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed W
ithout prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Announcement: America Online has added Reuters newswires to News Profiles. To a
dd Reuters articles to your daily news delivery, go to KW: <A HREF="aol://5862:
146">News Profiles</A> and click on "Modify Your News Profiles." Then click "Ed
it" and add Reuter
S from the list on the left.
To edit your profile, go to keyword <A HREF=aol://1722:NewsProfiles">NewsProfi
les</A>.
For all of today's news, go to keyword <A HREF="aol://1722:News">News</A>.
END ATTACHMENT
1
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Jenni R. Engebretsen (CN=Jenni R. Engebretsen/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:20-SEP-1999 02:41:30.00
SUBJECT: ABC This Week, September 19, 1999
TO: Beth Nolan ( CN=Beth Nolan/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Christine L. Anderson (CN=Christine L. Anderson/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN
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 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Natalie S. Wozniak ( CN=Natalie S. Wozniak/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Dawn M. Chirwa ( CN=Dawn M. Chirwa/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David Vandivier (CN=David Vandivier/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lindsey E. Huff ( CN=Lindsey E. Huff/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC D
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])
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@EOPI WHO
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: James E. Kennedy ( CN=James E. Kennedy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Katharine Button (CN=Katharine Button/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
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 ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa J. Prober ( CN=Melissa J. Prober/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP I WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah E. Gegenheimer (CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
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 1)
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 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Paul K. Engskov ( CN=Paul K. Engskov/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
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 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Nanda Chitre (CN=Nanda Chitre/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
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 ])
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@EOP WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anthony R. Bernal ( CN=Anthony R. Bernal/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph P. Lockhart ( CN=Joseph P. Lockhart/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca J. Salay ( CN=Rebecca J. Salay/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kristina Wolfe ( CN=Kristina Wolfe/O=OVP@OVP UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lisa Ferdinando (CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [WHO])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anne W. Bovaird (CN=Anne W. Bovaird/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael K. Gehrke (CN=Michael K. Gehrke/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
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 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Ann C. Hertelendy (CN=Ann C. Hertelendy/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Erica S. Lepping (CN=Erica S. Lepping/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
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 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Rebecca L. Walldorff ( CN=Rebecca L. Walldorff/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ 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 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steve Ricchetti ( CN=Steve Ricchetti/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
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 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura D. Schwartz ( CN=Laura D. Schwartz/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Gene B. Sperling ( CN=Gene B. Sperling/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP [ OPD
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 )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: William A. Halter ( (CN=William A. Halter/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mark D. Neschis (CN=Mark D. Neschis/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
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
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 D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas B. Sosnik CN=Douglas B. Sosnik/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
ABC THIS WEEK
Aired on SEPTEMBER 19, 1999
ANNOUNCER: From ABC News in Washington, This Week with Sam Donaldson
and Cokie Roberts, featuring George Will, and our roundtable with George
Stephanopoulos and Bill Kristol.
COKIE ROBERTS, ABC News: (voice-over) Presidential candidate Bill
Bradley poses a serious threat to Vice President Al Gore in the polls.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY, (D), Presidential Candidate: One of the reasons that
I'm running for president is to restore trust in public service and
confidence in our collective wealth.
COKIE ROBERTS: (voice-over) Does Bradley have a realistic chance to be
the Democratic Party candidate? We'll ask him in an exclusive Sunday
morning interview.
SAM DONALDSON, ABC News: (voice-over) And this week.
RICHARD PASTORELLA, Bomb Victim: On that particular day, I lost all the
fingers of my right hand. I lost the sight of both eyes.
SAM DONALDSON: (voice-over) Fallout from the Puerto Rican clemency
controversy, as the White House asserts executive privilege and refuses to
turn over many key documents in the case. How will this affect Hillary
Clinton's Senate campaign? We'll talk to two key New Yorkers, Republican
Vito Fosella and Democrat Charles Rangel.
COKIE ROBERTS: (voice-over) Also on our roundtable, Pat Buchanan
threatens to leave the Republican Party. We'll talk Reform Party politics.
SAM DONALDSON: (voice-over) And there she is.
UNKNOWN FEMALE: Heather Renee French, Miss America 2000.
SAM DONALDSON: (voice-over) The controversy over the Miss America
Pageant.
COKIE ROBERTS: (voice-over) President candidate Bill Bradley, clemency
and executive privilege, Buchanan and the Reform Party, the Miss America
controversy, all here this Sunday morning.
SAM DONALDSON: Welcome to our program. Vice Presidents Mondale and Bush
had very little trouble winning their party's presidential nomination,
although only one went on to success. But Vice President Al Gore is having
an increasingly tough time. Former Senator Bill Bradley, I think it's safe
to say, is not only nipping at his heels, Cokie, he's climbing up his
entire backside.
COKIE ROBERTS: That's certainly been the case in a couple of polls that
have come out this week. Senator Bradley, neck and neck with Vice
President Gore and beating George W. Bush in one poll, with Bush beating
Al Gore in the same poll.
And Senator Bradley is here with us this morning. Thank you very much
for coming in.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Good to be with all of you.
COKIE ROBERTS: And with the questioning as always, George Will.
We just saw in that clip Senator Bradley, you saying that you're
running to restore confidence in public service. Has this administration
lost confidence?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Well I think what I meant by that was an
administration that I would run would be pushing for things that I think
are necessary to restore that confidence. And I think campaign finance
reform is one of those. I think broadening the franchise so more people
can vote is another. And I think having a president as well as a candidate
who speaks from his convictions and just tells people what he believes and
doesn't simply speak from polls, are a key part of that.
COKIE ROBERTS: And is that what Al Gore does, speak from polls?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: I don't know. I don't know what inner workings go on
in that campaign.
COKIE ROBERTS: But it implies that there is something that you are
trying to correct. Does that exist now?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: What I'm saying, Cokie, is that when I left the
Senate a couple years ago, I said I thought that politics was broken. And
by that I meant that there was way too much money in politics, that the
media was too superficial and that not enough politicians spoke from their
core convictions. And so, reentering politics, running for the presidency,
is my attempt to remedy those areas. I can't handle the media, but I can
speak from my convictions and I can push for campaign finance reform.
SAM DONALDSON: Well, Senator, on your convictions, had you been in the
Senate last January, how would you have voted on articles one and two of
impeachment against President Clinton?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: I would have voted against the articles of
impeachment. I didn't think that the punishment was proportionate with
the--with what he did. However, I think any time a president lies, he
undermines his own authority and squanders the people's trust.
SAM DONALDSON: Do you have any doubts about it?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: I'm so glad--no, I don't. I said that then, and I
say it now.
SAM DONALDSON: But you didn't think he committed perjury?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: I didn't think that impeachment was proportionate to
what he did.
SAM DONALDSON: How do you stand on the death penalty. You voted for it
in a number of ways when you were in the Senate.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: I support the death penalty for certain heinous
crimes.
SAM DONALDSON: All right. The F-22, the House has voted against
continuing the billions of dollars for this new fighter. Is that wise? How
would you vote?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: I would vote against it.
SAM DONALDSON: You don't think the F-22 is necessary?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: No.
SAM DONALDSON: Senator, you have been a free trade man. I know you
support the North American Free Trade Act and the like. Of course, the
unions whose vote you court are violently opposed to that particular act
and to others. What do you say to them?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Well, I tell them why I think it's important. I--the
North American Free Trade Agreement was for me a very important part of my
life in the Senate. I raised it with the Mexicans before they proposed it.
I raised it with the Bush administration, with candidate Clinton. I
participated in the negotiation of the agreement. And I also thought that
when it passed, that it would have a long-lasting impact on the United
States. In fact, I think that it's in the category of the Louisiana
Purchase, in terms of a point in time where the country makes a decision.
And when we make a decision, we become a different country in the long
run. And I think that's what the North American Free Trade Agreement is
about. I also think, though, that there are some winners and there are
some winners and there are some losers. And those
SAM DONALDSON: Well the unions think they're the losers.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Well there are people who've lost their jobs in this
country because of NAFTA. And I think we have to be sensitive to that and
we try to have to help them in terms of health care, in terms of education
benefits, in terms of understanding that they're, in many cases, making
less money now. But I don't the answer to that is to repeal NAFTA.
SAM DONALDSON: I'm going to turn you over to George Will. But I take it
you're for China's entry in the World Trade Organization?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: If China abides by all the rules, gets no special
benefits, then I think it's better to have China in the World Trade
Organization subject to multinational rules and subject to dispute
settlement mechanisms that everybody has to be subjected to, than it is to
have China outside the world trading system cutting bilateral deals with
this country or that country, playing the United States off against
Europe, off against Japan. So it depends on what the agreement says. But I
think that--well, we'll have to see what it says.
SAM DONALDSON: But basically you're for it?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Basically, if they meet all the conditions, yes.
GEORGE WILL, ABC News: Just two further questions on the impeachment
matter. On the day the President was impeached, on a White House lawn pep
rally, the Vice President said President Clinton would be remembered as
one of our greatest presidents. Do you think he will be?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Well, personally, George, I'd pick Lincoln.
GEORGE WILL: Anyone else?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Pick FDR.
GEORGE WILL: OK.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: I'd pick Woodrow Wilson.
GEORGE WILL: And others. OK.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: I'd pick Teddy Roosevelt.
GEORGE WILL: Judge Richard,
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: I'd pick Harry Truman,
SAM DONALDSON: Let him finish.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Thomas Jefferson, and I'd pick James K. Polk.
SAM DONALDSON: He might pick 40 people.
GEORGE WILL: Time forbids. Judge Richard Posner (ph), the chief judge
of the 7th Circuit in a recent and well reviewed book, says, assessing the
impeachment imbrolio, says Clinton's violations of federal criminal law
were felonious numerous and non-technical. Do you agree with that?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: I'm not a federal judge. And I think ultimately the
impeachment trial and judgment is a political judgment as much as it is a
legal judgment. And that's why I said I didn't--I wouldn't vote for it
because I don't think it's proportionate.
GEORGE WILL: This week you have said several things pertaining to gay
rights. One is that homosexuals should be able to serve openly in the
military and also that the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be amended to add
sexual orientation as an illicit form of discrimination. Yet you say
you're still against same sex marriage. And you give the following two
reasons; because of the religious nature of marriage and respect for the
diversity of views on the subject. Now there were a diversity of views on
the subject of civil rights when the '64 act was passed. And two atheists
who go to City Hall and get married, that's not a religious thing, that's
a civil acknowledgment of marriage. Why is it not a denial of equal
protection for there not to be same sex marriages?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Well, I think that--first of all, I do support
adding sexual orientation, as you say, and I do support allowing gays to
serve in the military. The reason I think that I don't support gay
marriage is because, as I said to you, and as I said in my statement on
the floor, I felt that marriage is not simply a legal state. But it is a
sacrament, for example in certain Christian faith. And that there are many
leaders who are opposed to it and therefore in a world where you're
weighing constantly the relative merits and balances of right and wrong,
on this issue, I tilted toward the religious faith.
On gays in the military, you know there have been gays in the military
as long as there's been a military. They've only had to hide. And we've
had since 1993 a policy of don't ask, don't tell. And nobody says that
it's worked, everybody says it hasn't worked. And I asked, why can a gay
American serve openly in the U.S. Department of Treasury, in the U.S.
State Department, in the office of the Attorney General, in the White
House, in Congress and in the federal courts and not serve in the
military.
GEORGE WILL: Did you consult with some senior military officials as to
why they might think it's different in the military than in HHS?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: I didn't say HHS.
GEORGE WILL: Well, any of the others.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: No. I didn't. Why, tell my why?
GEORGE WILL: Well because they argue that there are matters of unit
cohesion and all the rest that are
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: What does that mean?
GEORGE WILL: Well, maybe what they would tell you that it is whether or
not
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Well what does it mean?
GEORGE WILL: It means the ability to, under fire and under stress, to
have unit cohesion that's important in combat. That's what you'll get,
that I hear from military officials.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Well, you know, I think that if gay Americans can be
policeman, nuclear scientists, bricklayers, football players
GEORGE WILL: But you're not consulting
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: doctors and lawyers
GEORGE WILL: You did not consult with military people?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: No, no I did not. This is a statement of my personal
views, my personal belief that gays should be allowed to serve openly in
the military.
SAM DONALDSON: We want to get more of your personal views, Senator.
And when we come back, we will have more with candidate Bill Bradley.
(Commercial Break)
COKIE ROBERTS: We're back with Senator Bill Bradley.
Senator Bradley, in answering Sam's question about NAFTA, you said,
have to provide health and education for the people who are affected by
it. Let me ask you a couple of questions about health and education.
Education, vouchers. In the Senate you voted for an experimental voucher
program. Now it's unclear to me where you stand on the subject of
vouchers.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Well, my views haven't changed, Cokie. I don't now
nor have I ever believed that vouchers were the answer to the problems
with public education.
COKIE ROBERTS: But that's not the question. The question is, are
vouchers useful for schools that are failing and kids that aren't getting
a good public education.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: What I supported in the Senate was an experiment for
vouchers in six urban areas of America. And the reason I did that was, I
represented New Jersey, has the second highest per capita income in the
country and yet five of the poorest places in America. And I would go into
urban areas and have town meetings and parents would come up to me and
they would say how can you help me with my child? He's in a school where
there're drugs, where there's violence. It closes at three in the
afternoon and there's no extra curricular activities. And for 13 years
what I said to that parent was what we need to do is get on the school
board. And they'd look at me as if I'd just dropped from Mars. Because say
we go to work at 6:00 a.m. in the morning, we get home at 9:00 at night,
we can't do that. What are you going to do to help me? And so on several
occasions I voted for experiments to give those parents an option. And
also to test the hypothesis of the school choice people which is that if
you had vouchers, that the competition would improve the public school
system.
COKIE ROBERTS: And do you think that's the case?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: The jury is still out. That's why you need the
experiments. They're are now
COKIE ROBERTS: So you would still vote for experiments like that?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: No. There are now experiments going on in Milwaukee
and in Cleveland, and we'll see how they turn out. And the constitutional
issue will be framed there
COKIE ROBERTS: But you would still support that?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: I support the experiments that are going on in
Milwaukee and in Cleveland because I think that we can't leave anything
unturned if what we're going to do is try to help the public schools of
urban America. And I think that that is a--that's the key point here.
Because, you know, I've lived with this issue in and around it for 30
years. And urban public schools in many places are in very bad shape.
COKIE ROBERTS: You were quoted in a New Hampshire newspaper as saying
that you used to think competition would improve public schools, but now
you think you were wrong. Is that the case?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Well, I think the jury's still out. I haven't seen
anything to say that it would. I haven't seen any information to say that
it would. But that's why you have experiments. I'm not going to back away.
Look, when FDR was president of the United States, he said in the
middle of the Depression, I'm going to try this, I'm going to try that,
I'm going to try something else. But we're going to find
a way to get out of the Depression. The way my attitude is toward urban
public schools, I'm going to try this, I'm going to try that, I'm going to
try something else, but we are going to improve these public schools.
GEORGE WILL: A final question on that. The Cleveland case may get to
the Supreme Court, where the question will be, does it violate the
establishment clause to give vouchers for parents to choose to use as they
wish at sectarian or secular schools. Do--would President Bradley,
solicitor general, argue as a friend of the court for or against the
constitutionality of such a program?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: I haven't decided that.
GEORGE WILL: OK. In 1996, you said that welfare reform was a disaster.
There'd been a 40 percent drop in welfare rolls, obviously the economy
gets some share of the credit for that.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Good, I'm glad you said that.
GEORGE WILL: I thought I'd save you the trouble. The question is,
however, you said it would be a disaster, and may still be, I gather is
your view, when we'll find out when the time limits kick in and we see
who's thrown off the welfare rolls and the burden it places on. Do you
think it's likely that President Bradley would want to restore, in a
sense, a lifetime entitlement to welfare, ending the time limits?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Well, I agreed with Pat Moynihan on this issue who I
think knows more about welfare than anybody else in the country. The
welfare system that we now have isn't the welfare system that passed in
1996 that I voted against. I voted against it saying the next four years
this administration will be making changes to make it palatable. They've
made changes in terms of food stamps, in terms of Medicaid, in terms of a
number of other things. There are other things that need to be done.
And so what I am going to suggest in the course of the campaign is ways
to improve the existing welfare system. I think that the economy is more
responsible than the Welfare Reform Bill, I think, for our current drop in
the rolls.
GEORGE WILL: Look overseas for just a moment. In 1991, then Senator
Gore voted to authorize the use of force in the Gulf, you voted against.
If your view had prevailed and we did not use force in the Gulf, and we'd
relied on sanctions to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, do you think they
would have?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Well, we don't know because we didn't do that.
GEORGE WILL: Do you think it's plausible. We've seen the effect of
sanctions since then and they've been negligible.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Right. I think that it is plausible, but we don't
know.
GEORGE WILL: Plausible that they would have worked?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Yes. I said at the time that I would prefer to have
some sanctions longer, at which time I would consider the use of force. I
did not say I would never use force and we only have to use sanctions. The
question is, the timing that you would use force. And
GEORGE WILL: One other question on foreign policy. In the Senate you
supported a resolution saying we should move our embassy from Tel Aviv to
Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. It is said that the final status of the
city should be negotiated between the two parties. Would you as president
promptly order the movement of our embassy?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: I support moving the embassy to Jerusalem.
GEORGE WILL: Independent of.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: But I would do nothing that would jeopardize the
negotiations that are taking place. I mean, that, you know, that's a
consultation process with the state of Israel.
SAM DONALDSON: Well, let's talk again about President Bradley, if you'd
been president the past few weeks.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: I like that, thank you very much.
SAM DONALDSON: Would you have offered clemency to the Puerto Ricans who
now left jail?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: No, I would not have. I believe that--only the
President has all the information. And based on what I knew at the time, I
would not have offered clemency. I agree with Senator Moynihan and former
Mayor Koch.
SAM DONALDSON: And Hillary Clinton.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Well I suppose so if she wanted to withdraw it.
SAM DONALDSON: What is her position as you understand it?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Pardon.
SAM DONALDSON: What is Mrs. Clinton's position, as you understand it?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: I think she said that she wanted to have the offer
withdrawn. That's what I think she said. And, you know, only the President
has this information; however, he is the only one who has the clemency
report.
SAM DONALDSON: Should he
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Maybe he knows something that I didn't know at the
time. But that's how I felt at the time.
SAM DONALDSON: Should he be required to explain it? Members of Congress
want him to do so.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Yes, I think he should.
SAM DONALDSON: Send up all the papers?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: I think he should.
SAM DONALDSON: Gerald Ford went up himself to explain his pardon of
Richard Nixon. Should President Clinton go up to the Hill?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: I think that's the only way that this is going to be
put to rest.
SAM DONALDSON: Changing the subject. The threshold question these days,
at least in some quarters, is use of cocaine. Does it matter if a
presidential candidate has used cocaine, an illegal drug?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Every presidential candidate has to decide where
they're going to draw the line of privacy in their life.
SAM DONALDSON: It's a felony.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Wait a minute. I've always believed that people have
a right to know if you're a crook, but not if you're a sinner, since we
all are. And therefore, in answer to that question specifically, yes.
COKIE ROBERTS: Yes, what?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Yes, I do think that if someone violated the law,
they should state whether they did or not.
SAM DONALDSON: Well, I--you took the words, of course, out of my mouth.
As I understand it, the use of cocaine is a felony in this country.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: I did take them out of your mouth, Sam. See, it's
this rare communication.
SAM DONALDSON: You haven't a chance for the presidency if--very serious
about (inaudible) nail that down. Obviously, we're talking about George W.
Bush. He is the one is being inquired of. So you think that if he in fact
used it, he should say so.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Well, look, I've given you my opinion. George W.
Bush is going to do what he feels he's going to do to live with himself in
the course of this process.
SAM DONALDSON: You have not used any illegal drugs like that?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: I have used marijuana several times in my life, but
never cocaine.
COKIE ROBERTS: Senator, on guns and violence.
SAM DONALDSON: Excuse me, Cokie. Recently in your life?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: No.
SAM DONALDSON: When you were a kid?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Well, yes, right. Have you?
SAM DONALDSON: I think a couple of times I've tried it. And I inhaled.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Have you, Cokie?
COKIE ROBERTS: Oh listen, I was so pregnant during those years. The
senator
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: George? Who wants to know?
GEORGE WILL: No.
SAM DONALDSON: How come you give George a pass?
GEORGE WILL: No. I'm from the Falstaff generation.
COKIE ROBERTS: Can we get to guns and violence?
GEORGE WILL: That's my Shakespeare.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Shakespeare, that's right.
COKIE ROBERTS: The--you wrote an op-ed on guns.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Yes.
COKIE ROBERTS: Why not ban all hand guns? Why just leave it to Saturday
night specials?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Well I would ban Saturday night specials.
COKIE ROBERTS: I know.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: And ever since I saw Robert Kennedy in a pool of
blood on the floor of the Ambassador Hotel, the picture of it, in 1968, I
thought any president should ban Saturday night specials.
I think that with regard to all handguns, we should have system of
registration and licensing, just like we do for automobiles. If we can do
it for automobiles, we ought to be able to do it to handguns.
We ought to take gun dealers out of residential neighborhoods. We ought
to make it a felony, not a misdemeanor, if you sell a gun to somebody who
is underage or who is a felon himself. And I think that we ought to put
trigger locks on guns. And I think, finally, that we ought to have
background checks for people who buy guns at the gun shows.
COKIE ROBERTS: But why not just get rid of them?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Get rid of all guns? I think that getting rid of all
guns
COKIE ROBERTS: Handguns.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Getting rid of all handguns. Well, I mean, what are
we going to with the pentathalon team in the Olympics? They've got to have
handguns. That's an event in the Olympics. There are several other
exceptions. So I believe that we can have commonsense.
COKIE ROBERTS: England got rid of handguns after the shootings in
Scotland, and they participate in the Olympics.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Well the point is, then they haven't gotten rid of
all the handguns, have they?
SAM DONALDSON: How many angels can dance on the head of a pin, Senator?
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Well enough to answer this question the way I want
to answer it.
COKIE ROBERTS: All right. Thank you, Senator Bradley.
Sen. BILL BRADLEY: Thank you.
COKIE ROBERTS: When we come back, the Puerto Rican clemency
controversy. We'll talk to two key New York Congressmen, Republican Vito
Fosella and Democrat Charles Rangel.
(Commercial Break)
SAM DONALDSON: Joining us now, Republican Representative Vito Fosella
and Democratic Representative Charles Rangel.
Welcome gentlemen. We're going to talk about the clemency that the
President offered and several members of the FALN took him up on and are
now out of jail. Mr. Fosella, Article II of the Constitution. I quote,
"The president shall have the power to grant reviews and pardons,
reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States except in
cases of impeachment."
Why do you think, since he has this sole power, that you can demand
that he come up and explain it?
Rep. VITO FOSELLA, (R), New York: Well first of all, I haven't done
that. I think we need to back up a step and talk about what this issue is
all about. We're talking about the FALN, which was the most efficient and
deadly terrorist organization to set foot on our soil in the '70s and
'80s, claiming responsibility for 130 bombings, killing innocent people,
maiming innocent people. For example, Frank Connor, who was having lunch
in Fraunces Tavern, his two boys, nine and 11, have been fatherless
because of FALN activities.
And I don't think that we're sending the right signal to anybody
contemplating terrorism on our soil, that we are going to let terrorists
out of jail free. That's what the President has done with this clemency
offer. And I do believe that the President, in a way, owes a
responsibility, at least to the victims, either through the Justice
Department or through his Office of General Counsel, to explain to these
victims how he reached this conclusion.
Nobody's asserting that the President does not have the right to invoke
executive privilege, but I do think
SAM DONALDSON: So you don't think he can be required to send up papers
or himself?
Rep. VITO FOSELLA: Well I think, on the surface, he's within his legal
grounds. But, however, it does raise questions as it relates to our policy
towards terrorism. For example, our policy is crystal clear, no
concessions to terrorists. In this clemency offer, the terrorists
themselves negotiated the terms and conditions of their release with the
White House.
SAM DONALDSON: We'll come back to you. Let me give Mr. Rangel a chance.
Mr. Rangel, you were for the clemency.
Rep. CHARLES RANGEL, (D ), New York: Yes.
SAM DONALDSON: You asked the President to do this before he did it.
Why? And do you think he needs to explain it now?
Rep. CHARLES RANGEL: As well as the cardinal asked the President to
review it, considering clemency, which of course is pretty close to what I
was saying.
First of all, there's a double standard used with our citizens in
Puerto Rico. We superimpose citizenship on them when we took it away from
Spain. And it just seems to me that you can be against terrorism and crime
and violent acts, but to give life sentences, and that's what consecutive
sentences are when it amounts to 90 years. When everyone agrees that under
our existing federal sentencing statute, that this would have been
completely excessive. That the timing may not have appeared to be
politically expedient, but certainly, if you just look at the facts
without any backup material, it warranted a review. And I think, in my
view, I think it warranted clemency.
Rep. VITO FOSELLA: Yes, but, if I may, we'll talk about a life
sentence. There's a police officer who responded to a bomb threat who's
blinded for life and lost all of his fingers on one hand. Ms. Diana Burger
(ph), who is six months pregnant with her first child
COKIE ROBERTS: But congressman, as we understand, these particular
people who were released were not responsible for the actual placing of
the bombs. And there was this request by the cardinal, by former President
Carter, Archbishop Tutu, do you think it did not merit the review that
they all asked for?
Rep. VITO FOSELLA: I don't care about the review. The act itself was
wrong, as so many people have now claimed, a wide range of law enforcement
agencies among them, the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Attorney's
Office in Chicago and Connecticut that prosecuted these individuals. There
are some who advocate that these people are a bunch of Boy Scouts and Girl
Scouts. Two of them were videotaped making bombs. That wasn't for science
class, they were going to be used to kill or maim innocent people. Some of
them have indicated, possibly through Bureau of Prison tapes, that if they
were to be released they would engage of acts of violence again. Is this
the right signal we want to send to anybody out there?
For example, Terry Nichols, who was nowhere near the bombing in
Oklahoma City, if in 10 or 15 years a then president steps forward and
wants to release Terry Nichols, don't you think there'd be outrage across
this country?
Rep. CHARLES RANGEL: I think you're missing the point when you say
commit acts of violence again. I truly believe if you join an association
and you knew that they were involved in violent acts, that you have to
assume some of the responsibility. But I hope that you understand that
they were not convicted for doing anything that was violent. They were
convicted for joining a conspiracy and technically they would be guilty,
but not to do 90 years.
GEORGE WILL: But Congressman Rangel, to repeat this, we have the letter
in the "Wall Street Journal" from Debra Devaney, former assistant U.S.
attorney in Chicago, saying that three of these petitioners were caught on
video tape in safe houses making bombs that were to be planted at military
institutions.
Rep. CHARLES RANGEL: Under our system of government, you are not
sentenced for anything that is not an issue that was in the court. The
sentence was done for what evidence was there, what they plead guilty to.
Now you cannot come in and say, yes, but I have video, yes, but someone
told me. That is not what we do in the United States.
However, in treating the citizens in Puerto Rico, where they have some
status which is very unclear and where the Congress and the Senate,
Republican controlled I might add, refuses to take it up, you can do what
you want, they can't vote about it, they can't do anything at all about
it.
GEORGE WILL: Congressman, we understand that the President has the
right to do this without Congress searching through the decision-making
process. But what about the Bureau of Prison tapes that supposedly have
the--some of these people who got clemency, talking about going back to
violence? Should they be made public?
Rep. VITO FOSELLA: I think they should. Frankly, I've--you know we
talked about let's keep the train on the tracks here. These individuals
been released have expressed no remorse, have offered no apologies, no
contrition for the acts of violence they were part of during the '70s and
'80s. These are the people that are now free. So I do think some of these
records should be released.
COKIE ROBERTS: Congressman.
Rep. CHARLES RANGEL: Quite frankly, the only think that the
Republican-controlled House and Senate knows how to do well is
investigate. They've had 50 investigations of the President and if Dan
Burton wants to take this one on, hey, I'm with you.
COKIE ROBERTS: Congressman, as long as you're moving into politics, let
me ask you about the First Lady and this issue. Is she consulting anybody
in New York politics when she makes these decisions, makes these
pronouncements?
Rep. CHARLES RANGEL: Of course not. She didn't. And I think that she
said she made one heck of a big mistake. And for anyone to think that the
President's dumb enough to think that this clemency thing would be helping
her, then he'd have to take a course in political science 101.
She made a mistake because she is in this exploratory, question asking
mode, which I don't understand, as opposed to having a campaign with staff
that reaches out to people. Unlike Mayor Giuliani who has a staff, she
doesn't have it.
COKIE ROBERTS: And do you think there's any chance she might not run?
Rep. CHARLES RANGEL: Heck no, of course she's going to run and she's
going to win.
SAM DONALDSON: We've got to run. But Bill Bradley just said a few
moments ago on our program that he thought the President ought to go up,
even though constitutionally he's not required to, to Congress and explain
this. Do you think he should?
Rep. CHARLES RANGEL: Of course not. He'd be opening the door to every
clemency plea if we did this and then we could go into some of the others
that perhaps Republican presidents have done.
SAM DONALDSON: Congressman, do you think?
Rep. VITO FOSELLA: Well, you know, I appreciate the executive privilege
he invoked, but I really think at a minimum, either he, or through a
spokesperson, should explain and give some courtesy to the victims who
have heard nothing from the White House concerning this clemency in the
last couple of years.
SAM DONALDSON: Gentlemen, thank you very much for being with us.
Please come back.
Rep. CHARLES RANGEL: Thank you, I will.
Rep. VITO FOSELLA: Thank you.
SAM DONALDSON: When we come back, our roundtable with Bill Kristol and
George Stephanopoulos, in just a moment.
(Commercial Break)
COKIE ROBERTS: Well as we said earlier in the program, this race
between Bill Bradley and Al Gore is getting very tight indeed. This week,
yesterday a poll came out in New York among New York voters that shows
Bush beating Gore in New York or basically tying. But that's significant
because New York is a Democratic state and Gore's been winning in the
earlier polls. And look at this, Bradley/Bush, Bradley beats Bush in New
York. That is also significant because he has been nowhere before. This
has got Democrats talking.
George Stephanopoulos, Bill Kristol, we really have an interesting
race. You've been predicting, Bill, Bradley all along. Now what are you
hearing?
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC News Analyst: Well the same thing. I mean
it's unbelievable. So far Bradley has been getting a lot of support from
independents, more moderates and Republicans. These kind of numbers, they
cut into the electability of Vice President Gore, might make Democrats,
core Democrats start to rethink the race.
COKIE ROBERTS: Not to mention donors.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And we're going to--exactly. And we're going to
see the first head to head matchup of Bradley/Gore just next week. DNC
meeting. Next Saturday, they're both going to give speeches and there's
been a lot of juggling of the schedule. In fact, it looks like the White
House is now moving President Clinton's speech so he can wrap up and not
give Bradley the last word. And that shows how worried the White House is.
SAM DONALDSON: Everybody loves a winner. I mean they're for their man
or their women until it looks like that he or she is going to lose and
then they discover they're not for them. And that's what's happening to Al
Gore. I think Al Gore still has strength. I think Al Gore still is and
would be a formidable candidate, but if the party begins to fall away and
our executive producer, I think, won't mind my saying what he--I agree
with him, that's why I'm going to repeat it, that some other Democrats now
might say well we're not just going to concede this to Bill Bradley, let's
us get in there and see if we can get a piece of Al Gore.
COKIE ROBERTS: No.
BILL KRISTOL, ABC News Analyst: Too late, they had their chance.
SAM DONALDSON: OK. You see what you're
COKIE ROBERTS: How about a rich Democrat or a Democrat with a rich wife
who could
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Who you thinking of?
SAM DONALDSON: Are you thinking Massachusetts and we aren't talking
Ted?
BILL KRISTOL: Too late. They had their chance. They're all sitting
their watching TV chewing up their--chewing the carpet. But Bill Bradley
had the courage
SAM DONALDSON: This is September in the year before the election and
you say too late?
BILL KRISTOL: Bill Bradley had the courage to get in. He saw early on
that Clinton would peak on the day of his acquittal from the Senate. The
Democrats would feel bad about having rallied to Clinton that they would
be open to a not Clinton candidacy. And interestingly, the state which
Bradley's doing best is New York. All right, he's beating Bush in New York
where Gore's losing
COKIE ROBERTS: Now, of course, let's stipulate, he played basketball in
New York
BILL KRISTOL: He did.
COKIE ROBERTS: And he does have
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator from New Jersey.
COKIE ROBERTS: And he's the Senator from New Jersey. Had lots of ads on
in New York, lots of New York appearances and a lot of people know him in
New York.
BILL KRISTOL: Right, right. But what else has been happening in the
last six months in New York? Hillary Clinton's Senate candidacy. Hillary
Clinton's candidacy has hurt Al Gore badly, I think. Not only in New York.
Because if Clinton fatigue is what's hurting Gore, it'd be one thing if
Gore just--if the Clinton's were to go away and Gore could step out in his
own right. But Hillary Clinton being on the scene for the next 14 months
is terrible.
COKIE ROBERTS: There was one poll this week that showed that the more
time she spends in the state, the worse it is for Al Gore.
George, where are you on all this?
GEORGE WILL: Well, Al Gore's problems are incurable. First of all, Bill
Clinton is there and he's done what he's done and he is stuck to Mr. Gore
incurably.
Second, Al Gore is a very polarizing figure, particularly among
Republicans, in a way that Bill Bradley just isn't. I mean Republicans are
horrified by--well I think what we've seen from Bill Bradley so far is
that he can take positions slightly, and you really need a micrometer to
measure it, slightly to the left of Al Gore without similarly alarming
people in the way that Al Gore does.
But beyond that, there is the fact that to an enormous number of people
Al Gore is just an implausible presenter, on the presentational side of
the presidency. The man who came out and said that no controlling legal
authority, the automaton, the bionic vice president just doesn't look
good.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: It's not incurable. It's not good, but it's not
incurable at all. And the Vice President has to deal with
a couple of things. First of all, he has to try to turn his office into a
virtue. He's the only person in the race who has been there for all of the
decisions of the last seven years. Number two, and
GEORGE WILL: George, can I just interrupt for a minute. One of the
things they'll say, yes you were there serving on that commission that
oversaw the Russian bailout.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: That's right, but I was also there making the
economic decisions that lead to this unprecedented prosperity. At least
he's got to engage the debate.
Secondly, he's got to engage Bill Bradley. They wanted to put it off
for a long time, it was probably smart to try to put it off. That's not an
option anymore.
COKIE ROBERTS: Well, I think they were convinced that the more people
saw of Bradley, the less they'd like him. And that's simply not the case.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So far.
COKIE ROBERTS: That he was equally boring and that he was vague on his
positions. And I think that he's worked on being more engaging.
SAM DONALDSON: Well both of you have touched, I think, on the key here,
he is a likable man. And television and the way you come across, a
presenter, as you said, is very, very important.
Gore, if he can't, you say it's not incurable--if Gore can't come
across more like someone that you want to like and that you want to listen
to, I think he may be cooked. But I'm not prepared to write him off yet
either. I think it's much to early. And I think Gore has too many
strengths to say that.
COKIE ROBERTS: Of course you can't write him off. That would be--you
know, he's got the entire Democratic establishment behind him.
SAM DONALDSON: As I say, they're flaking off rapidly. I never
knew--what's his name again?
BILL KRISTOL: The one who's going to flake off this week is Pat
Moynihan, who I think will announce his support for Bradley this week.
Which makes this week, even though it's early, a pretty important week. If
Moynihan endorses Bradley, they both speak Saturday morning to the
Democratic National Committee. I mean it could be--right now there's worry
in the Gore camp, it could be panic a week from now.
COKIE ROBERTS: Well speaking of flaking off, Pat Buchanan seems to be
flaking off the Republican Party. Probably going for the Reform Party nod,
but there's some disagreement inside that party. Jesse Ventura doesn't
seem to like Pat Buchanan. Does that matter?
GEORGE WILL: Well, sure it matters. But Pat Buchanan's very skillful.
And the way the rules are set up for getting that nomination, I should
think Pat with his network and his rhetorical gifts and his experience out
there, has a good chance of getting it.
Let's assume he get's it. A successful third party candidate in our
country usually has one or more of three things, a vivid personality.
Pat's got that. A burning social issue, I don't think so, or a regional
base. George Wallace had all three. Buchanan has one.
He can still be a problem, particularly for Republicans when they set
about picking their vice presidential choice. Because if they want to take
a moderate on abortion, the fact that Buchanan's out there threatening to
make hay with this, giving the right to life people an option of where to
go on election day, that will inhibit
SAM DONALDSON: Well, George, it may be somewhat of a problem. But I
think--I mean, Harry Truman could win without the Dixiecrats and John
Anderson didn't keep Ronald Reagan from becoming president. And in 1992 I
think the record shows that Ross Perot was sort of a wash in that. So I
think Pat Buchanan leaving the Republican Party will not doom the
Republicans. If I were the Republican chairman, I would say, Pat, close
the door on your way out, good luck
COKIE ROBERTS: Turn out the lights.
SAM DONALDSON: And that it's OK.
BILL KRISTOL: I think they should say that. They haven't been saying
that so far. And I think that one way Republicans could be hurt is if they
plead with Buchanan, if they kowtow to Buchanan over the next week or two
and if they adjust their positions to take up some of the fairly
disreputable views that Buchanan has expressed. They should say, good-bye.
You know, you mentioned 1948. It wasn't only the Dixiecrats who
deserted Harry Truman.
COKIE ROBERTS: Right. It was Henry Wallace. From both sides.
BILL KRISTOL: And Henry Wallace was a substantial figure. He was Vice
President of the United States just four years before. He commanded the
left-wing of the Democratic Party, which was terribly powerful then.
Truman didn't just ignore him. Truman attacked him. Truman said, I don't
want your support. I don't want the support of fellow-travelers with the
Communists. I think the Republicans actually might be better off saying to
Pat Buchanan, with all due respect, we don't want your views in this
party.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But they can't afford to have him up on the
stage. Who knows if he'll be in the debates. They can't afford to have him
up there next fall. And neither can Jesse Ventura. Because if Pat Buchanan
gets the money, gets $12 million, gets 10 or 12 percent in next year's
vote, he's not going to stop. He'll be running again in 2004. And that's
Jesse Ventura's worst nightmare.
SAM DONALDSON: No, that's Harold Stassen.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: That's why it's not impossible that Ventura
might get back in this race.
COKIE ROBERTS: We have more politics to talk about and Miss America
when we come back.
(Commercial Break)
COKIE ROBERTS: Another horrendous shooting this week, this one in a
church in Texas, where, of course, George W. Bush is the governor.
Governor Bush canceled his campaign appearances, came home to Texas and
made a statement about whether laws should be changed--gun laws, to deal
with incidents like this. Here's what Bush had to say.
GEORGE W. BUSH, Republican Presidential Candidate: I don't know the
law, a governmental law, that would put love in people's heart.
COKIE ROBERTS: And that is his answer. Is that going to work?
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: No, because the problem is that he signed
a law in the State of Texas and the Gore campaign, was quick to fax this
all around Washington this week that would allow people to bring concealed
weapons into a church. And that's what--this is the most direct connection
people have seen so far.
What he has going for him, though, is that even though people seem to
care about gun control, they never put it and they want more gun control.
They don't put it at the top of their list of what a president can deal
with.
COKIE ROBERTS: No, in fact it was very much toward the bottom of
a list of issues that ABC asked voters about. But the gun control folk are
trying to gin it up, and there is a new advertisement about to be shown
all around the country which is including all of these shooting incidents.
Let's take a look at that.
(Clip from TV Commercial)
ANNOUNCER: One killed, four children, one adult wounded. Four children,
one adult killed. Twelve children wounded. Twelve children, one adult
killed. Twenty-three children wounded. Enough is enough. No more excuses.
Call Congress and tell them to close the loopholes that give children and
criminals easy access to firearms.
COKIE ROBERTS: Now, the traditional wisdom has always been that the
pro-gun control people are not as ardent in their views as the pro-gun
people. Do things like this make a difference?
GEORGE WILL: Sure, they'll make a difference. On the politics of it,
this is a problem for George Bush and the Republicans generally. On the
facts and the substance, the policy of it, I don't get it. I mean, what is
the Gore campaign saying that if Bush hadn't signed that law, that man
would have said, oh, it's illegal to take in there. I'm not going to shoot
those people.
I mean, the hubris of the political class in assuming that for every
eruption of evil on this planet, they can draft some clever statute that
will stop it is itself a problem.
SAM DONALDSON: Well, guns are a problem also, as we've just seen there.
GEORGE WILL: Sure.
SAM DONALDSON: 1 mean, George Bush says there's an evil in the land. I
agree with him if he means there's something going on out there, that we
don't understand and guns didn't cause. But if this guy walks in the
church and has nothing but a toothbrush and pulls the bristles, everybody
lives. And so the question of why people act this way--it's very
important, but if they don't have a gun, George, they don't kill anybody.
COKIE ROBERTS: There's something less evil than craziness to me.
SAM DONALDSON: So, they're crazies maybe, but without a gun, they don't
kill anyone.
BILL KRISTOL: Two things, that ad, it's deeply dishonest. "The
Washington Post" this morning has a front page story, no bill currently
before Congress would have stopped any of these killings in the last year.
Period. It's just factually the case that all these rules and regulations
that they're fighting about on the Hill right now could have been passed
and it wouldn't have stopped any of these killings.
Fine, if you want make a more liberal case, but to say that the
Congressional legislation, which Vice President Gore supports, and he
hasn't proposed going further. He's vice president of the United States
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes he has, he proposed for licensing of hand
guns.
BILL KRISTOL: He's vice president of the United States. He should
introduce legislation to that effect, so the Congressional argument is
phony.
On the conceal-to-carry issue, I live in Virginia. We have concealed
carry of hand guns. You have to have a background check and you have to
have training. I'm not more scared to go to my synagogue in Virginia
because we have the conceal carry law. And I would say that in bad
neighborhoods in Virginia, people who work in the 7-11 late at night, I
think they should have the right to carry
a handgun against criminals.
COKIE ROBERTS: Well, we're going to keep debating this issue, but
there's a new injustice week, and we don't have much time, but last night,
we have a new Miss America, the first Miss Kentucky. And they are now
trying to or talking about changing the rules in the Miss America contest.
Somebody who has had an abortion, been married, can be Miss America.
Sam?
SAM DONALDSON: Yes. right, because--put on this. Miss means miss, and
you said, well if she was Mrs. but now she's Miss and if she was pregnant,
now she's not. I don't think it matters.
The thing that struck me about it, they cut down from the 10 finalists
doing their act to only five because the television ratings are going
down. So I do not believe that it matters whether Miss has been married
before or not. Well it's repugnant to the English language in a sense, to
say it doesn't.
COKIE ROBERTS: What about our ideal?
GEORGE WILL: She better not smoke.
(Laughter)
That would push them over the edge. Look, it used to be they'd come out
and that Bert Parks would say to some woman usually from Mississippi who
was the winner every year, say, what do you want to be when you grow up?
She'd say chief justice. Who's your hero? Albert Schweitzer. What's your
favorite book, "Green Eggs and Ham," or something like that, and they'd
go down these lists and it was perfectly harmless and we didn't
have--didn't take that seriously, the ideal stuff. It was a bathing beauty
contest--can't we get back to that?
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Good riddance, let's get rid of it all. I mean,
there's some concern by the traditionalists that this is going to ruin the
pageant. Fine. Let's do away with it, we shouldn't be holding this up. It
is just a bathing beauty contest. Is that the ideal we want to be setting
up for young women of America?
GEORGE WILL: It's a free society.
(Laughter)
BILL KRISTOL: It is however, somewhat revealing. You can't be
married
(Laughter)
Look, they have to say they are not married--it's better to be divorced
than married by the new rules and it's better to have had an abortion than
to bring a child to term, which is a little weird when you think about it.
COKIE ROBERTS: Yes, it's basically none of their business. But I'm not
forgetting this. I like Miss America and Sam and I will be back in a
moment.
(Commercial Break)
SAM DONALDSON: Here's a look at what's coming up on ABC News.
(ABC News clips)
COKIE ROBERTS: Well, that's all for us today. Until next week, that's
This Week.
END
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Richard Socarides ( CN=Richard Socarides/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:20-SEP-1999 10:29:12.00
SUBJECT: Bradley Didn't Consult Army on Gays
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: Michael B. Feldman ( CN=Michael B. Feldman/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Elizabeth J. Potter ( CN=Elizabeth J. Potter/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN 1)
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
TO: Beth Nolan ( CN=Beth Nolan/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leon S. Fuerth ( CN=Leon S. Fuerth/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: David C. Leavy (CN=David C. Leavy/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ 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: Charles W. Burson ( CN=Charles W. Burson/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Alejandro G. Cabrera ( CN=Alejandro G. Cabrera/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura M. Quinn ( CN=Laura M. Quinn/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Philip G Dufour (CN=Philip G Dufour/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Monica M. Dixon ( CN=Monica M. Dixon/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lisa M. Brown (CN=Lisa M. Brown/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN )
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 D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Edward W. Correia ( CN=Edward W. Correia/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
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 09/20/99
10:28 AM
[email protected]
09/19/99 05:05:00 PM
Record Type: Record
To: Richard Socarides@EOP
cc:
Subject: Bradley Didn't Consult Army on Gays
Associated Press
September 19, 1999
Bradley Didn't Consult Army on Gays
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE
WASHINGTON (AP) - Bill Bradley said Sunday he did not consult with military
officials prior to telling a gay and lesbian magazine that homosexuals
should be permitted to serve openly in the military.
"This is a statement of my personal views, my personal belief that gays
should be allowed to serve openly in the military," the Democratic
presidential candidate said on ABC's "This Week."
In an interview with The Advocate, released last week, the former New
Jersey senator said gays also should be protected under the 1964 Civil
Rights Act.
Bradley also said he would not support a California ballot question that
seeks to outlaw same-sex marriages, although he said he remains opposed to
such unions.
He was asked in the wide-ranging ABC interview whether he consulted with
senior military officials about why they view the armed services
differently from other areas of government where gays serve openly. Bradley
said he did not and did not see a need to.
Bradley said that gay Americans should be allowed to serve in the military
if they can serve the country as policemen, nuclear scientists, doctors and
lawyers.
"There have been gays in the military as long as there's been a military.
They've only had to hide," he said.
Bradley, who is challenging Vice President Al Gore for the Democratic
nomination, described the Clinton's administration ``don't ask, don't
tell," policy on gays in the military as a near failure. The 1993 policy
allows homosexuals to serve in the military as long as they do not discuss
their sexual orientation openly. Military superiors also cannot inquire
about the sexual orientation of their troops.
On other topics, Bradley said:
Illegal drug use by a presidential candidate mattered. ``I do think that if
someone violated the law, they should state whether they did or not," said
Bradley, who has used marijuana "but never cocaine." Questions about
possible past illegal drug use hounded GOP presidential candidate George W.
Bush last month until he acknowledged - without further elaboration - that
he had not used illegal drugs within the past 25 years.
The booming economy was more responsible for substantial drops in the
number of people on welfare than a 1996 reform law. Bradley said he would
suggest further improvements to the system later on in the campaign.
He would have voted against the two articles of impeachment against
President Clinton stemming from the Monica Lewinsky investigation. ``I
didn't think that the punishment was proportionate with what he did.
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: John H. Corcoran III ( CN=John H. Corcoran III/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
CREATION DATE/TIME:28-SEP-1999 16:58:15.00
SUBJECT: Re: Tom Henderson/HIV letter
TO: Todd A. Summers ( CN=Todd A. Summers/OU=OPD/O=EOP@EOP. OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Here's an email i got from Richard Socarides in OPL today. I haven't
heard from Daniel Montoya. Let me know your thoughts
Forwarded by John H. Corcoran III/WHO/EOP on
09/28/99 04:57 PM
Richard Socarides 09/28/99 01:25:30 PM
Record Type: Record
To: John H. Corcoran III/WHO/EOP@EOP
cc:
bcc:
Subject: Re: Tom Henderson/HIV letter
Daniel Montoya from our AIDS office will call you. apparently the topic
is don't ask, don;t tell.
John H. Corcoran III
09/22/99 10:51:03 AM
Record Type: Record
To: Richard Socarides/WHO/EOP@EOP
cc:
Subject: Tom Henderson/HIV letter
Richard-- We have a letter (in PLM) from Tom Henderson to the President
which I'd like to ask you about. I can fax it to you, but it's very
short. It just says:
"Dear Mr. President,
You've still got time to attempt to rectify the worst political decision
of your Presidency. I hope you'll find some way to at least put yourself
on the right side of history.
Best regards,
Tom"
Do you know what he's talking about? Are you familiar with him? Any
guidance would be greatly appreciated. Much thanks.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Lisa Ferdinando ( CN=Lisa Ferdinando/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO 1)
CREATION DATE/TIME:29-SEP-1999 10:48:04.00
SUBJECT: CNN Larry King Live, September 28, 1999
TO: Rebecca J. Salay ( CN=Rebecca J. Salay/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kristina Wolfe (CN=Kristina Wolfe/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN
READ:UNKNOWN
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 ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Michael K. Gehrke ( CN=Michael K. Gehrke/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
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: Thomas D. Janenda ( CN=Thomas D. Janenda/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
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@EOP [ 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 1)
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 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Steven J. Naplan ( CN=Steven J. Naplan/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Paul K. Engskov ( CN=Paul K. Engskov/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
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
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 ])
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 ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Leslie Bernstein ( CN=Leslie Bernstein/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Anthony R. Bernal ( CN=Anthony R. Bernal/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Joseph P. Lockhart ( CN=Joseph P. Lockhart/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO )
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Irma L. Martinez ( CN=Irma L. Martinez/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Beth Nolan (CN=Beth Nolan/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Christine L. Anderson ( CN=Christine L. Anderson/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN ])
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 [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 )
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 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Kimberly S. Anderson ( CN=Kimberly S. Anderson/OU=OA/O=EOP@EOP [ OA 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. O'Shea (CN=Sean P. O'Shea/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura J. Lewis ( CN=Laura J. Lewis/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
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 ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Melissa J. Prober ( CN=Melissa J. Prober/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sarah E. Gegenheimer (CN=Sarah E. Gegenheimer/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
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 1)
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 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Laura D. Schwartz ( CN=Laura D. Schwartz/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
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 ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: William A. Halter ( CN=William A. Halter/OU=OMB/O=EOP@EOP [ OMB ])
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 1)
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: 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 ])
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 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Douglas B. Sosnik ( CN=Douglas B. Sosnik/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
CNN Larry King Live
Aired September 28, 1999 - 9:00 p.m. ET
Bill Bradley Gives His Prescription for America's
Problems
LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, he's pulling campaign money
in, putting
policy statements out, and going up in the polls. Does
this player turned
politico have the game to beat Al Gore? I'm nervous.
Joining us in Los Angeles, an old friend, Democratic
presidential candidate
Bill Bradley. And for more perspective on campaign 2000,
we'll talk with
the new general chairman of the DNC, Ed Rendell; William
Bennett,
co-director of Empower America; and Bob Woodward of The
Washington
Post.
They're later. We're all next on LARRY KING LIVE.
Player turned politico -- I love that.
Senator Bill Bradley is with us: former great star of
the Knicks, former
member of the United States Senate, now candidate for
president. Ed
Rendell will be on later. He had previously announced
for Gore. Now he's
the general chairman of the Democratic Party. He's got
to be neutral.
What are your thoughts on his being selected?
BILL BRADLEY (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I think
he'll
do a good job and I hope he will be neutral.
KING: Do you think he'll be neutral?
BRADLEY: I have no reason not to doubt it.
KING: Do you know Ed a long time?
BRADLEY: I know Ed a long time. Good mayor of
Philadelphia, done a
good job. I'm from New Jersey. It's across the river. In
fact, I helped him
get an empowerment zone.
KING: Oh, so he owes you.
(LAUGHTER)
BRADLEY: Well
KING: Were you glad he was selected?
BRADLEY: Sure. I mean, I didn't have anything to say. So
whoever's
selected, I think the person should be fair and I think
Ed Rendell will be fair.
KING: Do you think people -- we want to touch a lot of
bases, and you
know
BRADLEY: Sure.
KING: Bill, you'll be on often as we go into this
campaign.
BRADLEY: Maybe every week you think I can get on?
KING: If you play your cards right, if you do something
really crazy tonight,
there's a good chance you'll come right back tomorrow.
You know, we're
hungry for this.
What do you make of the latest poll in New Hampshire?
You're ahead.
BRADLEY: Well, I'm very pleased that's where we are, but
it's only a
snapshot in time. I think it's saying that what we're
doing is right. I'm out
there respecting people, reaching out to them. I've been
doing that since
January.
About a month ago, we had over 400 people who came from
14 different
states and knocked on 35,000 days in eight days in New
Hampshire and
made contact with 10,000 New Hampshire residents. And I
think that's
really the reason that the polls have moved up, because
we have such
tremendous volunteer support out there working on my
behalf in New
Hampshire, lowa and other places.
KING: You're not surprised that nationally, though,
you're still down west of
New Hampshire?
BRADLEY: No. I mean, the issue is most people don't know
who I am.
And I think if you reach out to them, tell them what you
believe, let them
know where you've come from, what your life is, what
you'd like to do as
president, then you have a chance of increasing those
numbers nationally.
KING: Who would not know who you are?
BRADLEY: You'd be surprised. You'd be surprised.
KING: I mean, you were a basketball star in college. You
were a major
figure on the American sports scene. You've been in the
Senate a long time.
BRADLEY: And I -- you know, and I also -- you know,
people know me
from basketball. They know me from the U.S. senate. Some
of them know
me from the books I've written, not as many as I'd like
to. In fact, the last
time we were here on the program we were talking about
one of those
books.
But I think that you have to deal with the reality, and
the reality is that, you
know, 45 percent of the people don't know me. So you're
out there telling
them what you believe and who you are. You know, Larry,
I'm letting them
know that I grew up in a small town in Missouri on the
banks of the
Mississippi River. It had 96 in my high school
graduating class and one
stoplight. And it was a factory town, a multiracial town
-- talked about how
that town shaped me.
My parents: small-town banker, a former schoolteacher.
And I'm also talking about how representing New Jersey
for the equivalent
amount of time, 18 years, was important to me: sharing
with them what I
believe about what we can do as a country together, how
the American
people are basically good. And we need to recognize that
and call them
forth. And if we do, we can basically do anything we'd
like in this country.
KING: Are you -- are you a little -- let's say this
week's "Time" has you on
the cover, a striking portrait like you're on the roll.
Are you surprised,
frankly -- there's the cover -- at how well you're
doing?
BRADLEY: Larry, I wouldn't have gotten into this race if
I couldn't see my
way through to 270, which is the number of electoral
votes that you need to
become president. So obviously, you have to see your way
through to how
you get the nomination.
Plan -- doing politics at the presidential level at this
stage of the game is a
little bit like playing basketball without a scoreboard.
You can't look up and
see how you're doing. But we had a plan we laid out in
January. We met
every checkpoint along the road. And I think we're
moving forward.
KING: How much money have you raised?
BRADLEY: Well, in -- at the end -- on June 30th, we
reported $11.8
million that we raised. We had about 7.5 million on
hand.
KING: Are you continuing to take in lots of money?
BRADLEY: We're continuing to raise money. It's a
difficult process. I mean,
we're up against entrenched power in my opponent. And
all of the power
that can be brought to bear is being brought to bear. So
my only hope --
and we're actually succeeding -- is reaching out to
people where they are
and asking them to help me.
I have drawn lot of people into the process as
contributors and otherwise
who have never been involved in a political campaign
before. And to me,
that's important.
BRADLEY: By the way, do you support McCain-Feingold for
campaign
finance reform?
BRADLEY: I strongly support McCain-Feingold as the first
step. But I think
we should go further. I think we should have public
financing of general
elections and free TV time for six weeks prior to the
election.
KING: No contributions?
BRADLEY: No. No contributions with public finance. And
here's a point,
Larry. We spend about $900 million every year in this
country promoting
democracy abroad. And for about the same amount of money
we could
totally take special interests out of the democratic
process. If you want to
know what's a good investment for the American people,
that is a good
investment.
KING: All right. Let's touch some bases -- these are
kind of extraneous
one, but they have come forward. Pat Buchanan is
threatening to leave his
party because of difficulties with the -- by the way, if
you disagreed with the
concept of your party, would you leave the Democratic
Party?
BRADLEY: If I disagreed with the concept? I felt the
KING: Yes, yes. He says the party has left him. He's
thinking of leaving. If
you thought the party was leaving you, would you leave?
BRADLEY: I think you have to stand up for your
convictions, whatever they
are. If I felt the party was leaving, sure. I would try
to bring it back is what I
would try to do, although Pat Buchanan, I mean, you
know, Pat Buchanan
as the Reform Party candidate has a special ring.
KING: Has a special
BRADLEY: Ring.
KING: For you? You like it?
BRADLEY: Well, not bad.
KING: You think it helps you politically?
BRADLEY: Well, probably.
KING: So you're open enough to say you would be happy to
see him seek
that nomination?
BRADLEY: Of the Reform Party?
KING: Yes.
BRADLEY: Sure.
KING: How about Warren Beatty seeking the candidacy of
your party?
BRADLEY: Well, you know, when I got into this race,
there were six or
seven people who were running for president. It boiled
down to two. I said
at the time, I'll play it as it lays. If somebody else
gets in, I'll play it as it lays.
KING: Sort of like if the Knicks play Boston one night.
Philly comes out
BRADLEY: Got to go out and play whoever you've got on
the schedule.
KING: Would you welcome Mr. Beatty into the race?
BRADLEY: Well, I think it's a free country and I think
that we actually share
a lot of the things that we think the country should be
doing. And therefore,
it's his decision.
KING: He's disappointed, though, or has said that the
liberal viewpoint is
really not being expressed to his liking thus far, the
two principal candidates.
How would you respond to that? Do you consider yourself
liberal?
BRADLEY: I think -- I think everybody's is going to make
their judgment
about whether, for example, providing health care for
all children, as I
proposed today, helping 95 percent of the Americans get
health care in this
country, as I proposed today, is a good thing to do for
the country's future. I
personally think it is. I personally think, Larry, that
we're at a time in our
economic development where the combination of
globalization and
technological change has created this tremendous
economic growth machine,
and it's not likely to decrease. It's likely to
continue, which means we now
have an unprecedented prosperity. And the issue is what
do we do with that
prosperity.
And I believe that what we should do with it is
strengthen our social
foundation: increase the number of people in America
with health insurance
and decrease the number of children who live in poverty.
If we can't do
those things at this time in this kind of prosperity,
when can we do them?
KING: Is that concept liberal, in your opinion?
BRADLEY: I think it's common sense. I think it's common
sense.
KING: We'll get a break, and we'll be right back with
Senator Bill Bradley.
This is LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: We're touching lots of bases with Senator Bill
Bradley in the first of
what will be many appearances, as we talk to all the
candidates.
By the way, concerning that health plan today, the
chairman of the
Republican National Committee, Jim Nicholson, said today
about your
health plan, "Senator Bradley likes to talk about big
ideas, but when it comes
to health care, his big ideas always come down to the
same prescription: a
huge dose of new and higher taxes."
BRADLEY: No way.
KING: Untrue?
BRADLEY: Untrue.
KING: This all comes from the surplus?
BRADLEY: The money that will be able to finance this
will come out of a
surplus that is non-Social Security. It's about a
trillion dollars. Or the money
will come out of savings that we'll get out of the
health-care system.
Larry, we're on the brink of a technological revolution
that will create
tremendous savings in our health care system. If we
simply took all the paper
out of that system now and put it on the Internet
instead, I've seen estimates
that would say that we'd save anywhere from $45 billion
to $200 billion.
KING: So it's there?
BRADLEY: It's there.
KING: OK. The switch on ethanol, which you once called
highway robbery,
was this political for Iowa?
BRADLEY: You know, I represented New Jersey, tried to do
the best job
I could. The ethanol subsidy meant New Jersey taxpayers
paid higher tax for
their gasoline. It also meant that it was more difficult
for us to meet our clean
air standards. That's why I oppose it. I also didn't
like the fact that
two-thirds of the benefit went to one corporation. I
didn't support corporate
welfare.
And that was when I was a United States senator from New
Jersey. I am
now running for president of the United States. Part of
running for president
of the United States is getting to know the country in a
depth that you didn't
before. Agricultural economics I didn't know much about.
I spent a lot of time talking to Iowa farmers since
January. And the problem
and crisis in the family farm is real. And I sat with
enough of them to know
that the ethanol part of their overall cost statement
was an important part,
and therefore, I believe that it was a reasonable thing
to do.
KING: Were you wrong when you went that way as a New
Jersey senator?
BRADLEY: I was not wrong as a New Jersey senator, and
I'm not wrong
as a presidential candidate. When you run for president,
you've got to think
of the whole country, not just your own state.
KING: One observer said today you talk a lot about
prosperity. Should you
be talking more about justice?
BRADLEY: Well, I think the issue of justice is
enormously important. It's
why I became a Democrat. I mean, back in 1964, I
happened to be in the
Senate chamber the night the 1964 Civil Rights Act
passed, and that was the
act that desegregated public accommodations in America.
When I saw that
passed, and I saw Barry Goldwater cast the vote no
against that act, I know
what I was. There was no doubt in my mind I was a
Democrat.
I believe that justice is what the Democratic Party
stands for. And I think it's
justice, quite frankly, to make sure every child in
America has health
insurance. It's justice to help working families be able
to get health insurance
in America. And the people we're talking about, Larry,
are waiters and
waitresses. I mean, they're cabdrivers. I mean, they're,
you know,
department store clerks.
KING: They're black and Hispanic and
BRADLEY: They're people that we know, and they don't
have health
insurance. And when their kids get sick, they don't have
a doctor, which
means they get sicker longer. And I think we can do
something about that.
KING: What would you say, Bill, is the biggest
difference between you and
Vice President Gore?
BRADLEY: I think
KING: A big issue difference, or any difference? What
would be the central
difference between the two of you?
BRADLEY: I think we would be very different presidents,
and I think
KING: How so?
BRADLEY: today on health care is a good example of
that.
KING: He's very much for health care.
BRADLEY: Well, but there's quite a difference. I propose
getting to 95
percent of the people in America with health coverage.
I've said that I think
government should do fewer things, bigger and more
thoroughly.
I propose getting to 95 percent of the people in America
with health
coverage. I have said that I think government should do
fewer things, bigger
and more thoroughly.
KING: And he says?
BRADLEY: And he's an advocate of incrementalism, do a
little bit here, a
little bit there. That's a fundamental difference
between us. There are other
differences. For example, on guns, I support a national
system of registration
of all handguns. He does not. But the issue differences
aren't really the thing,
Larry.
KING: What, essentially, kind of different president
would you be?
BRADLEY: Well, you know, I think that if you look at our
life experiences,
you see that they're quite different. I grew up in that
small town in Missouri
that I was talking about; 18 years there, it shaped my
life. KING: But he
shouldn't be cursed because he was born in the Senate or
of privilege.
BRADLEY: Pardon?
KING: His father was in the Senate, and he had maybe
more money than
you had when he was born.
BRADLEY: Well, that's true. I'm not saying -- I'm saying
only I had a
different experience. I grew up in that small town. I,
for 10 years, traveled
with a multiracial group and saw America through the
eyes of my teammates.
I represented New Jersey for 18 years in the U.S.
Senate. I left the Senate,
returned to the private sector. I'm simply saying that I
have gone to work
many years in my life and never thought of the federal
government. I think
that makes me like millions of other Americans.
KING: What did you make of Senator Moynihan's statement
the day he
endorsed you, that he thought Vice President Gore was
not electable? What
did you think of that?
BRADLEY: I was surprised when he said it, because
obviously, if you're
running a campaign where you're open and you're
spontaneous, you don't
have any idea what someone who is your good friend is
going to say. I think
that what he said was what he felt.
KING: What do you feel?
BRADLEY: As I said before, I wouldn't get into this race
if I didn't think
that I...
KING: But do you think he is not electable?
BRADLEY: I think that I'd have a better chance to win in
the fall against a
Republican candidate. That's the only reason -- you
know, that is the reason
I'm in the race. But the real reason I'm in the race is
because I think that my
leadership would improve the quality of life.
KING: Were you surprised, though, that he said it that
bluntly? Not
electable, that's pretty strong words.
BRADLEY: I am never surprised by anything Pat Moynihan
does. I've seen
him in too many situations be original, insightful and
forceful.
KING: If the nominee, would you tour New York in support
of the
candidacy of senator Clinton -- would-be senator
Clinton?
BRADLEY: I would certainly support the Democratic
nominee, and I think
she'll be the Democratic nominee. And I presume it would
go both ways.
KING: That she support you?
BRADLEY: Sure. KING: Well
BRADLEY: I mean, if you're the Democratic nominee.
KING: More with Bill Bradley. Our panel later.
Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: He's funny.
We're back with Bill Bradley.
Let's touch some other bases.
Would you recognize Cuba?
BRADLEY: No.
KING: Flat no? As long as Castro is there, no? Or am I
putting words in
your mouth?
BRADLEY: No, you're not putting words in my mouth. I
think -- you know,
I represented New Jersey for 18 years, the highest
number of Cuban
Americans outside of Florida. I think I've seen the
regime and what it's done
to people's lives, and I support the embargo.
KING: We recently eased sanctions against North Korea in
exchange for no
nuclear testing. Did you agree with that decision?
BRADLEY: Yes. I think that that was a bit of creative
diplomacy by the
former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, and I think that
it's an interesting and
possibly an effective solution to the problem of North
Korean nuclear
development.
KING: Aid to Russia in view of the money-laundering
stories?
BRADLEY: Well, not only in view of the money laundering
stories, but
there's so much else that has gone wrong. The problem is
that America, to
the Russian people, has become the Yeltsin government,
and the really irony
is that for 50 years, what we did was try to communicate
with the Russian
people, who in the Cold War, we stopped trying to
communicate to the
Russian people and we communicated only to their
leaders.
KING: What do you do?
BRADLEY: And so we, to the Russians, are nothing more
than the Yeltsin
government. And if you're in an economy where you lost
50 percent of your
GDP, as they have in the last eight years, they look at
the United States, and
at best, they think we're irrelevant; at worst, they
think we're the cause of
their economic stress. And I think that's the world we
have to deal with.
KING: You would have to reappraise the whole situation
as we're handling
it?
BRADLEY: Well, I think that we needed to move much
stronger at the end
of the Cold War to reduce their nuclear weapons, to move
quickly to much
deeper cuts in strategic nuclear weapons. We needed to
reduce their fission
material, make sure their nuclear scientists weren't
going to the highest
bidder. We needed to try to help replace their
Chernobyl-style nuclear
reactors, and begin a massive exchange program between
our two peoples
that really had no contact ever. I mean, that was acting
in our national
interests. And instead, what we did was expand NATO.
KING: Is your private life my business?
BRADLEY: I think that every candidate has to draw the
line where that
candidate feels comfortable. It's not up to the press.
It's up to the candidate.
KING: So if George Bush says, I don't want to discuss
this, that's his
decision. We can make our own decision based on
BRADLEY: Absolutely. I mean, I've always said -- I've
drawn the line the
following.
KING: Where?
BRADLEY: I think that you have a right to know if I'm a
crook, but you
don't have the right to know if I'm a sinner, since we
all are. And that's the
basic formulation.
KING: If you have -- and your lovely wife is here, and
she's a great woman.
But if you have a girlfriend, you have a girlfriend, we
don't have the right to
know that, and that has no affect on our decision to
judge your character?
BRADLEY: Larry, it's what I just said. You have a right
to know if I'm a
crook but not if I'm a sinner, since we all are, because
we all know there are
things that, you know, it's not -- if you look at the
seven cardinal sins
there are seven cardinal sins, and it's not just for
happenstance. And so I
think what you have to do, is you have to be open with
the people about
who you are; if you have ever violated the law, you have
to say that you've
violated the law and how, and let the people make that
judgment. But if
there are no places where individuals can go to
regenerate that belongs to
them and not to the public, then we're going to have, I
think, less refreshed
elected officials and candidates.
KING: How important is character?
BRADLEY: I think that every presidential race is in some
way about
character, because I believe that what the people ask
themselves who are
thinking of voting for president is, who do I trust? Who
do I trust with my
life? Who do I trust with my job? And who do I trust has
a view of life that's
remotely similar to my own? And the people make that
decision in a variety
of ways. Issues are only one of them. And they come to
that decision after
watching carefully, listening carefully and making their
assessment. It's
sometimes a matter of how somebody is, as well as what
somebody says,
and that's a very difficult thing for people who assess
other candidates only
from an intellectual standpoint to understand.
KING: We'll be back with more of Senator Bradley on
LARRY KING
LIVE. Take some calls, too.
Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: We're back with "Dollar Bill." That's what they
used to call him with
the Knicks. Senator Bradley.
Henryville, Indiana, hello.
CALLER: Hello.
KING: Hello.
CALLER: Senator Bradley
BRADLEY: Yes, sir.
CALLER: are you willing to rethink your stand on
homosexuals in the
military. I am retired military. I am Democratic. This
is Bill II that you have
KING: What is your stand, gays in the military?
BRADLEY: Well, gays have always been in the military.
They've just had to
hide. We've, since 1993, had a policy that doesn't work.
It's called "don't
ask, don't tell."
And what I can't understand is how is it possible that
gays can serve openly
and with distinction in the Department of Justice, in
the State Department, in
the Treasury Department, in the federal courts, in the
Congress, in the White
House and not in the military. Why can gays be
policemen, brick layers,
football players, lawyers, nuclear scientists, but can't
be staff sergeants or
lieutenants?
I believe that we have to reach out to everybody. I
think that, you know,
you do it, as I said. The method and timing of this
would be my own. Of
course, I would be in consultation with many different
people in this process.
But what I've stated is my belief that
KING: That's the exact believe Bill Clinton stated and
then changed it to
don't ask, don't tell after conferring with chiefs of
staff and others.
BRADLEY: Well, all I can say is that's what I believe.
KING: And you won't change?
BRADLEY: I said
KING: I mean, you're not going to change your mind.
BRADLEY: Method and timing will be what I choose.
KING: Katy, Texas for Bill Bradley, hello.
CALLER: Hi, I would like to ask Senator Bradley two
questions. The first
one is what would you do to control the flow of drugs
into the United States
and the second one is are you open to closing our
borders for an extended
period of time until it gets cleared up.
BRADLEY: I don't really think that the answer to the
problems of drugs is
trying to stop supply. I think our country has too long
a border with Mexico.
We have too long a borders with oceans. There are too
many open spaces
in America that planes can land in.
I think the answer is to reduce demand. And I'd begin in
the second grade
when you had a book that talked about food groups; one
of the chapters
would be "Why Drugs Are Not Good for You."
I think that there ought to be a massive television
campaign aimed at young
people, telling them that their life is shorter if they
use drugs. If we can do it
with cigarettes, we could -- ought to be able to do it
with drugs. And from
1987 to '92, when there was a concentrated effort on
public service
announcements, on drug use in America aimed at young
people, drug use
among young people dropped dramatically.
I think that we have to make treatment more available.
And I think that we
ultimately have to be very tough on those who would
profit from essentially
destroying our young people.
For example, if a drug kingpin murders, I would support
the death penalty
for that person.
But I think the idea is to reduce demand and not that we
can't do some
things on supply, but the ultimate answer rests on
demand.
KING: And you think it's not working now?
BRADLEY: Well
KING: The current policy?
BRADLEY: You know, as I travel around the country, I
think that people
haven't told me that this is no longer a problem. They
have told me it is a
problem. And the answer to that problem begins in our
homes and in our
own individual lives. It begins with communities.
And unless we take responsibility for ourselves here, we
can't expect some
distant answer that takes place in a foreign country to
solve a problem that's
been created in this country.
KING: We'll be back with our remaining moments with
Senator Bradley,
and then Ed Rendell, William Bennett and Bob Woodward
will join us.
Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: We're back with Bill Bradley. Would you have
pardoned the
terrorists, the Puerto Rican terrorists?
BRADLEY: No.
KING: Would not have pardoned them?
Let's get a call, San Francisco, hello.
CALLER: Senator Bradley, congratulations on proposing
comprehensive
health care reform. It's about time. I would like to
know, though, how you
plan to deal with Harry and Louise part two in your
administration?
BRADLEY: I think
KING: Those are the people who did the commercials,
right?
BRADLEY: Sure. I think the important thing is to lay out
a specific program
in the campaign and then you have, if you succeed, a
mandate from the
people to achieve a specific objective. I think the
second thing is begin a
process of consultation that is real consultation, that
brings everybody in.
What I proposed today is a starting point, not a final
plan. There are a lot of
voices out there that know more than I do about it. My
suggestion was we
do this in order to get to coverage for 95 percent of
the American people.
And we also do something very special for senior
citizens, Larry. I think that
we know as we're getting older, life is longer, it
becomes more difficult.
Seniors are pushed into institutional settings, into
nursing homes. What we
have to do is recognize those medical plans that are not
only taking care of
people's health but are also trying to keep them in
their homes a longer
period of time. I think that this plan does what --
allocates responsibility to
the private sector to produce the insurance plans, to
government to make
sure that people have the money to pay for the plans and
to our community
institutions to be the major advocates of healthy
lifestyles.
KING: A few other things, will you debate Al Gore?
BRADLEY: Sure.
KING: Are you going to start planning any series of
debates? Do you intend
to contact his campaign and say, let's set something up?
BRADLEY: Well, I think that we have a joint appearance
on the 9th of
October in lowa, and then we have another town meeting
in New
Hampshire toward the end of October.
KING: Together being questioned -- you can question each
other, a regular
kind of debate?
BRADLEY: I don't know what the format is. I think it's a
town meeting
where people ask questions. KING: You would be happy,
though, to
debate him?
BRADLEY: I am all for having contact and having a debate
on the issues.
KING: Have you thought about a vice president?
BRADLEY: Well
KING: President Reagan once long ago when he lost the
nomination fighting
Gerald Ford made a selection, thought the public ought
to know who his
vice president would be.
BRADLEY: Well, I think that you're getting the cart
before the horse here. I
have to get the nomination. So I'll be thinking about
that if I am successful in
getting the nomination.
KING: Miami, last call, quickly, hello. Is this Miami?
What line is it on?
CALLER: Yes, it is.
KING: Go ahead.
CALLER: Hi. When elected how will you tackle racial
injustice and tensions
entering the new millennium?
BRADLEY: There's no issue that I care more deeply about
than racial
justice. When Ronald Reagan was president and you wanted
to please the
boss you talked about increasing defense spending and
fighting communism.
If I'm president and you want to please the boss then I
think you're going to
have to show how in your life, your business, your
department you
promoted racial understanding. Appointments that are
diverse are another
way to that. I think President Clinton has done a good
job in that area.
I think that also we're at a time in our history where I
think there's an
opportunity for a new multiracial coalition aimed at a
particular issue. In the
1960s there were clear injustices: segregation, lack of
voting for blacks,
voting rights. There were clear remedies to those
injustices: voting rights
guaranteed and desegregation. Now I think there's
another clear injustice in
our society, and that's the number of children living in
poverty, 14 million. I
think that can bring a multiracial coalition together to
reduce the number of
children in poverty and strengthen America for the long
term.
KING: One other thing -- you'll be back many times. The
people who say
that you lack boldness, that you're not -- that we need
to see more of that
Bill Bradley that we saw on the court.
BRADLEY: So what would I do to demonstrate that?
KING: Yes. What would you do? What -- give us that -- is
there a new
Bradley?
BRADLEY: Well, let me -- here -- I'll show some
boldness, Larry. I have
always wanted to see you without glasses.
KING: This is boldness. Thanks, Bill.
BRADLEY: Thank you, Larry.
KING: Senator -- how I do look? Senator Bill Bradley.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: We now welcome to LARRY KING LIVE, in
Philadelphia, Ed
Rendell, the mayor of Philadelphia and the new general
chairman of the
Democratic National Committee, elected this past
weekend; in Washington,
William Bennett, the best-selling author and co-director
of Empower
America; and also in Washington, my pretty much co-host
here at the scene,
Bob Woodward, the assistant managing editor of The
Washington Post.
We'll start with Ed Rendell. First, before we talk about
Bradley, you're going
to host the Republican National Convention next year as
the Democratic
National Chairman. Is that going to be a little
difficult?
MAYOR ED RENDELL, PHILADELPHIA, DNC CHAIRMAN: Well,
we were excited in Philadelphia when we got the
Republican National
Convention. We're going to show them the best time
they've ever had.
There's not going to be any conflict. I talked to Jim
Nicholson before I took
the job. He's a great guy. And I said, Jim, I'm going to
live up to every
commitment I made to you to raise the type of money we
need to raise and
to put on a great show, and we're going to do that.
KING: What about being chairman and mayor at the same
time?
RENDELL: Well, that's a little tougher, Larry. It's
going to be a tough three
months for me, because I have got five or six major
things I want to
accomplish. And just tonight, for example, to be on with
you, I have had to
delay a meeting with some of our flood victims. We had a
small segment of
the city that was hit pretty hard in the flood.
KING: So that's still your No. 1 job, right, mayor?
RENDELL: No question. And I talked to Governor Romer,
and he said,
you can do this job by being a good governor and a
chairman as well.
Fortunately, as you know, I have got a lot of energy and
I think I'll be able
to do it.
KING: Before we talk to our other two gentlemen and
bring you into that
conversation, why did you take this job?
RENDELL: Well, I took it, one, because I believe the
election next year is
important. I think the most vulnerable people in this
country, working
people, very much need a Democratic president and a
Democratic
Congress. And two, Larry, the view from Philadelphia of
what goes on in
Washington is there's too much negativity. There's too
much involvement in
personal issues, not enough talk about the things that
are important to us, like
what type of buildings do our kids go to school in? What
rights do we have
in terms of picking doctors and picking treatments?
Those things are
ignored, it seems to me, and I'd like to get the dynamic
back to issues. I
don't know if I can do it, but I certainly think the
American people deserve
that.
KING: William Bennett, we know you're a prominent
Republican, but you
speak your mind. So we're going to discuss this maybe
philosophically.
What do you think, generally, of Bill Bradley as a
candidate?
WILLIAM BENNETT, EMPOWER AMERICA: I think he's good. By
the
way, Dick Riordan is, last time I looked, Republican
mayor of L.A., and
he's going to host the Democratic so. But I understand
he's going to short
sheet about 19,000 beds in the hotels.
RENDELL: Not a chance.
KING: Two good-guy mayors.
BENNETT: I think Bradley is very good. You know, we'd
rather run against
Gore than Bradley.
KING: Why?
BENNETT: He's attractive. He's relaxed. He played in the
NBA. He's a
cool guy, as people saw. He's comfortable with himself.
He doesn't have
that Gore stiffness. He's not a dud. People like the
idea of Bill Bradley. And
the reality of Bill Bradley seems to me to be getting
better and stronger. He's
liberal. I think he's more liberal than Al Gore, but he
doesn't carry all of that
Clinton baggage. I mean, he hung around with John
Havlicek. I think that's
probably better for your reputation.
KING: Bob Woodward, what's your appraisal of Bradley,
now, the
candidate, as you saw him tonight?
BOB WOODWARD, "WASHINGTON POST": Well, I listened to him
very carefully and wrote down some words. adult,
seemingly very
principled, certainly relaxed. And I think if you look
at who the next
president might be, one of the factors is going to be
clearly a reaction to
Clinton and the Clinton presidency, whether you like it
or whether you don't
like it.
And I think many people would agree, Democrats and
Republicans, if you
were to say this is what the Clinton presidency was to
react against, it's that
it's the tactical presidency, operating on polls,
putting your finger in the wind
frequently, not having three or four very strong
convictions. The candidate
who can come forth next year and say, look, these are
the three things, the
old Reagan model, that I really believe in, and convince
people it's going to
have a good chance. KING: Ed Rendell, you had endorsed
Gore. You had
to take that back now because of to be impartial. What
did you make of
Bradley, tonight, the candidate?
RENDELL: Bill Bradley was impressive. I wish you had all
been with us on
Saturday at the DNC meeting. Bill Bradley and Al Gore
gave terrific
speeches back to back.
And Bill Bennett, you must not have been watching LARRY
KING a week
ago when Al Gore was on. Al Gore was anything but stiff.
Ask Ross Perot if
Al Gore is stiff. Ask Jack Kemp if Al Gore is stiff.
BENNETT: He's stiff.
RENDELL: He slaughtered both of them. He slaughtered
both of them.
BENNETT: He's still stiff.
RENDELL: Al Gore is a fighter.
BENNETT: He's a fighter, he's effective, he's smart, but
he's stiff.
RENDELL: And the best vice president in this country's
history, the most
effective vice president we've ever had.
BENNETT: Well
RENDELL: Bill Bradley, great senator, who I agree with
Bill Bennett, Bill
Bradley would make a great candidate, but so will Al
Gore, if he's our
nominee.
KING: Bill, I'm sorry, Mr. Bennett, you can respond, and
then I have a
question for you.
BENNETT: No, I mean, the argument that they're both
equally terrific guys
one expects from the DNC chairman, that's his job. But
it turns out that
when you look at match-ups, Bradley seems to be shaping
up a lot better.
And there's an incredible drag on Al Gore from Bill
Clinton. That's not
necessarily Al Gore's fault, although Al Gore, you know,
did think Bill
Clinton was one of the greatest presidents in American
history.
Now that's fact; whether Ed Rendell wants to admit it or
not, it's a fact that
there is a drag on
KING: By the way, as a president, Bill, a lot of
Americans think that.
BENNETT: Think what?
RENDELL: Bill, I saw a recent poll
BENNETT: Think what?
KING: That he was a pretty good president?
RENDELL: Sixty-seven percent..
BENNETT: I understand that. But take a look at the
polls, and when you
see the match-ups, you will see that Al Gore is
suffering because of his
association with Bill
(CROSSTALK)
BENNETT: Run Gore, please. Please run Gore. Bring him
on.
RENDELL: I want to respond to that. No. 1, I saw a
recent poll in
Pennsylvania: 67 percent of Pennsylvanians, 82 percent
of Philadelphians
approve of the job that Bill Clinton is doing as
president, No. 1.
And No. 2, Bill Bennett and a lot of you all get it
wrong. You think that the
American people can't make basic decisions. They
understand that Al Gore
was Bill Clinton's vice president. He was a very good
vice president. But
they're going to judge him on his own when the campaign
really gets under
way. They're going to judge him against Bill Bradley.
And if he's the
nominee, they're going to judge him on whoever the
nominee on the
Republican side is.
KING: Let me get a break, and we'll get (ph) other
areas. I've got to get a
break.
We'll be right back with our panel. Mr. Woodward will
come in. And we'll
ask about whether a person, if the party -- if he
doesn't believe in the
concept, the party should leave the part. That after
this.
Don't go away.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Bob Woodward, we were there in San Diego a couple
of years
back when Bob Dole, the candidate, stood up and said:
Anyone in this room
who is bigoted and who thinks that people are less than
other people, get
out of the hall, I don't want your vote.
Should Buchanan get out of the party? And I don't mean
to say he's a bigot,
but if he disagrees with the concept, should the party
members want him to
be in?
WOODWARD: Well, you know, it's up to the party and it's
up to
Buchanan. I mean, he is really a footnote to what's
going on, and because
there is a lot of noise and controversy about his book.
What fascinates me,
having looked at his book a little bit, why he puts this
stuff in about
Germany, and World War II and Hitler and so forth, and
it has nothing to do
-- he is not running for the office of historical
interpreter of the world, but he
throws this gratuitous stuff in that just is a magnet
for controversy, and rightly
so. That's going to work itself out and I think will not
be a big issue next
year.
KING: Bill Bennett, Senator McCain I think is the only
Republican who said
he should leave. Do you think he should leave?
BENNETT: No, I said he should go, too. I'm not running
for anything.
KING: You did?
BENNETT: But you know, John McCain made a very strong
statement.
Yes, let him go. This party should have no traffic with
anybody who believes
they're preferred Americans. You don't have to go back
to this revisionist
history of World War II. Pat Buchanan says there should
be a 75 percent
quota at Harvard for non-Jewish whites. That's
ridiculous. That's
outrageous. That's not what we believe.
We don't believe it if Jesse Jackson says it on the
other side; we don't
believe it if Buchanan says it. Be gone. I mean, that's
just not what we
believe, and I wish the other candidates had been as
strong McCain.
KING: But your candidate Governor Bush said we need
BENNETT: I don't have a candidate.
KING: You're not support -- I'm sorry.
BENNETT: No, no.
KING: My mistake.
BENNETT: I'm for Bradley, remember? The Democratic -- I
actually hope
they run Gore, but I think Bradley is a better
KING: Ed Rendell, if you disagree with your party's
principles, should you
leave your party?
RENDELL: Absolutely. And let me say that that's the Bill
Bennett that I
admired for so many years in government, someone who
speaks his mind.
And I admire Senator McCain for what he said. But
understand, George
Bush said he wanted to keep Pat Buchanan. What Pat
Buchanan has said
and Bill Bennett said it loud and clear: George Bush is
wrong if he would
want to keep someone like that in his political party.
Senator McCain, Bill
Bennett, they're right.
KING: Bob Woodward, is
BENNETT: Can I make a comment? I'm sorry.
KING: I'm sorry, you want to say -- all right, well
let's go -- I want to
BENNETT: I can't let that compliment stand without a
response. I mean, Ed
likes me when I give my view of Pat Buchanan, maybe not
when I give my
view of Al Gore.
(CROSSTALK)
BENNETT: It was a missed opportunity and I think George
W. Bush has to
make it plain that the kind of stuff that Buchanan is
talking about is something
he absolutely stands against.
RENDELL: Absolutely.
KING: Bob Woodward, back to Mr. Bradley, can you see him
getting even
closer, can you see a real knock-down, drag-out
Democratic race?
WOODWARD: Surely. Of course it depends on the issues.
And one of the
things you witnessed tonight was his answer and his
explanation on his shift
on the ethanol subsidy issue. Looking at it, it seems to
me it was one of the
best explanations I have ever heard of somebody changing
their mind. Bill
Bennett disagrees, but for Bradley to say, look, I was
representing New
Jersey, and this was the point of view and these were my
constituent
interests, now I'm running for president, and in fact,
he actually said he
learned something by talking to farmers.
KING: Would you agree, Bill, that that was a pretty
honest answer or not?
BENNETT: I think it's a good try -- a try at an obvious
inconsistency. No. I
disagree with Bob, as I told Bob at the break.
First of all, a senator's job is not the same as a
representative's job. You
know, the Federalist Papers said those senators supposed
to take the
national interests into account. Second, Bill Bradley is
running on a record
that he has been a kind of independent-minded guy, not,
you know, not
narrow interests but trying to think of the good as a
whole. So that didn't jive
with me, that didn't ring true to me.
KING: We'll be back with some final moments. Some final
thoughts from all
of our guests right after this.
This week on LARRY KING LIVE, Thursday night, a rare
interview with
Virginia S. Harris, chairman of the board of directors
of the Church of
Christian Science, and on Friday, the author of a
controversial new book
about President Reagan, Edmund Morris is the guest.
He'll be taking your
calls. That's LARRY KING LIVE, 9:00 Eastern on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: Ed Rendell, as chairman of the Democratic National
Committee, is
there any doubt in your mind that George W. Bush will be
your opponent
next year?
RENDELL: Yes, substantial doubt. I think the things
that
KING: Really?
RENDELL: I think the things that John McCain is talking
about really are
going to hit a responsive chord, and I think there's
going to be a tremendous
backlash to all the money that has been raised,
particularly when the
Republican Party, except for Senator McCain has
basically uniformly said
no to ending soft money and to real campaign finance
reform. KING: Do
you think McCain could be the nominee of that party?
RENDELL: I believe the people will speak. If it's up to
the politicians in the
Republican Party, no. But the people vote in our primary
system, and John
McCain is going to be an attractive candidate.
KING: William Bennett, do you see anyone other than
Governor Bush?
BENNETT: Well, it could be, sure. But he's very strong,
and I'd point out
that a lot of people -- the people -- are sending their
checks in. It's not just,
you know, checks from the chiefs, the big shots. But
it's lots of small checks,
as far as I know, all from Americans. I don't think
there's any Chinese
money. This is American taxpayers, American citizens
sending their money in
support of George Bush. McCain is very strong.
KING: You do think McCain will be the principal
challenger?
BENNETT: It looks that way now. That's also -- you know,
a lot of people
are saying that's a interesting -- that's a very
interesting ticket, Bush-McCain.
KING: And Bob Woodward, what's your read on both races,
the
Republicans first? Can anyone beat George W. Bush?
WOODWARD: Happily, we know no more than we did last
week: in other
words that -- there are little bumps in the road,
something happens, now
McCain is the visible alternative to George W. Bush. Six
weeks ago, it was
Elizabeth Dole. In six weeks, it will be somebody else.
You just don't know
what's going to happen at all.
And I think what's interesting about the Bill Bradley
interview tonight that
you did, he said 45 percent of the people don't know who
he is, interesting
admission. It's true for a politician, and you get to
know him in these
extended interviews. People are going to -- my newspaper
will probably run
an exhaustive examination of him. All of these
candidates are going to be out
there. They're going to be doing the kinds of things
that let people perhaps in
this era when there is no major issue, really say, who
do we want sitting in
the Oval Office? What sort of character do we want
there?
KING: Ed Rendell, do you expect a knock-down, drag-out
2000?
RENDELL: Yes, I think Vice President Gore and Bill
Bradley will have a
terrific race, but I can't believe someone who is as
intelligent as Bob
Woodward said there are no issues. The difference on
things like gun
control, on health care, on how to spend the surplus,
those are megaissues
which the American people are going to want to hear a
lot more about.
WOODWARD: Yes, but I'm not saying they aren't there. I'm
saying they
haven't registered with the voters yet in a way where
people are saying, hey,
I'm going to go with this candidate or I'm going to be
led around because of
that, or it will determine my vote. Indeed, there are
issues there.
KING: Final word to William Bennett. Do you see any big
surprise around
the corner, or then it wouldn't be a surprise, I guess.
BENNETT: I think -- my guess is the four people we're
talking about are
what you're going to see in the finals. This is the
final four -- maybe. But you
-- I agree with Rendell, Ed Rendell. There are big
differences on missile
defense, on partial-birth abortion, on school choice, on
taxes, on a host of
things. And I think you're -- one of the interesting
things about Bill Bradley,
as attractive as he is, one of the questions I have is
he going to bring -- move
that party to the left? Bill Clinton has moved it a
great degree to the center.
Bradley is nudging it back to the left, and that'll be
interesting, because Bush
is the center-right candidate.
KING: We're out of time, guys. Thanks a lot. Stay tuned
for -- thanks to all
of you and thanks to Bill Bradley. Stay tuned for CNN
"NEWSSTAND."
Natalie Allen and Stephen Frazier are the co-hosts, and
they're next.
Good-night.
END
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Richard Socarides ( CN=Richard Socarides/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:29-SEP-1999 09:29:06.00
SUBJECT: dadt
TO: Beth Nolan ( CN=Beth Nolan/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
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: David C. Leavy ( CN=David C. Leavy/OU=NSC/O=EOP@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 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. Maloney ( CN=Sean P. Maloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lisa M. Brown ( CN=Lisa M. Brown/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN 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 [ UNKNOWN])
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 09/29/99
09:28 AM
[email protected]
09/29/99 02:46:00 AM
Record Type: Record
To: Richard Socarides@EOP
cc:
Subject: NC11108: Military intelligence
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.
Arizona Republic
September 28, 1999
http://www.azcentral.com/
Straight Talk From A Gay Patriot
by E.J. MONTINI, Republic columnist
Investigators, prosecutors and officers for the most powerful, most
highly trained and most technologically advanced military organization on
the planet are expected to take four more months to determine whether U.S.
Army Reserve Lt. Steve May is a homosexual.
"I am," May says.
The Army's investigation into May's sexual preference began back in
February, and continues.
"I told an investigating officer, this should be the shortest
investigation ever," May says.
For most of the past year, military gumshoes have conducted
interviews, gathered evidence, studied documents, sifted through rumor and
innuendo, written reports.
"It's silly," May says. "I never wanted to make an issue of sexual
preference or my own homosexuality. But now that it is, I accept it."
Legal experts within the military are now reviewing reports. From
there, recommendations must go up the chain of command for approval. In
May's case, there are at least four stops along the way, with each
commander having 30 days to make a decision.
"In the past year alone, roughly 1,200 military personnel have been
forced out under the "Don't ask, don't tell' policy," May says. "For the
most part, these are qualified people who are performing well, but happen
to be gay, like me. That's the absurdity of the situation."
That, and the fact that the U.S. Military will spend almost a year
investigating something May already has admitted FOUR TIMES within this
article. And has said as much on national television and in newspapers
throughout the United States, including the New York Times.
Lashes out at comments
May is a Republican member of the Arizona State Legislature. Last
February, during a debate on barring counties from offering
domestic-partner benefits to gay couples, May lashed out at insulting
comments by another representative.
"It is an attack on my family, and attack on my freedom," he said.
"My gay tax dollars are the same are your straight tax dollars. If you
are not going to treat me fairly, stop taking my tax dollars."
(Note to any Army investigator reading this: That's FIVE.)
That outburst got the investigation against him rolling.
"What the Far Right hates more than anything else is a positive
portrayal of an openly gay man (SIX)," May says. "To them, I'm the
greatest evil there is. I"m not what they want other people to believe a
gay person is. It frustrates them."
May has been been an Eagle Scout, a member of student government, an
ROTC member in college and an active duty soldier. He's now a state
legislator, a reservist, a conservative, a Republican, a lightning rod.
"People are using the military to impose their social agenda on the
country," he says. "They're afraid of treating gay people fairly at the
risk of normalizing homosexuality. The reality is, gays are in the
military, and always have been. That's not the issue. The issue is
letting us live our lives honestly." (SEVEN).
'Opportunity to do good'
It isn't always easy. May lives in a state where legislators of his
own party have said homosexuality is "undermining the natural family" and
even compared it to "bestiality, human sacrifice and cannibalism."
"There are days when I wonder what I've gotten myself into," he says.
"But I've always felt compelled to contribute. I feel I have an
opportunity to do good."
Like pointing out the insanity of dropping qualified people from the
military when recruitment is so low experts believe we may have to
reinstitute the draft. Or wasting time and resources investigating a
27-year-old reservist who performs his duties with integrity and wishes
only to continue.
"I believe attitudes are changing," May says. "There's too much work
to be done to worry about something as stupid as sexual orientation. I
believe most people agree with that -- except those who think I'm evil
simply because I'm homosexual." (EIGHT).
E.J. Montini can be reached at [email protected] via e-mail or at
1-602-444-8978.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Richard Socarides ( CN=Richard Socarides/OU=WHO/O=EOP [ WHO ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:30-SEP-1999 10:14:02.00
SUBJECT: Larry King Live transcript: Bradley on gays in the military
TO: Beth Nolan (CN=Beth Nolan/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
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: David C. Leavy (CN=David C. Leavy/OU=NSC/O=EOP@EOP [ NSC ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Mary E. Cahill ( CN=Mary E. Cahill/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO D
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 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sean P. Maloney ( CN=Sean P. Maloney/OU=WHO/O=EOP@EOP [ WHO 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Lisa M. Brown (CN=Lisa M. Brown/O=OVP@OVP [ UNKNOWN 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 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@EOF [ UNKNOWN 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 09/30/99
10:13 AM
[email protected]
09/30/99 01:24:00 AM
Record Type: Record
To: Richard Socarides@EOP
cc:
Subject: Larry King Live transcript: Bradley on gays in the military
CNN, September 29, 1999
Transcript of "Larry King Live" with Bill Bradley (excerpt)
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/9909/28/IkI.00.html
[Contributor's Note: Bill Bradley appeared on "Larry King Live" last
night (9/29) and his very first telephone question was from someone who
claimed to be ex-military who objected to Bradley's stand on gays in the
military and asked him to reconsider his position. Bradley didn't budge.
Here is the transcript from that portion:
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KING: We're back with "Dollar Bill." That's what they used to call
him
with the Knicks. Senator Bradley. Henryville, Indiana, hello.
CALLER: Hello.
KING: Hello.
CALLER: Senator Bradley
BRADLEY: Yes, sir.
CALLER: are you willing to rethink your stand on homosexuals in
the
military. I am retired military. I am Democratic. This is Bill II (two)
that you have
KING: What is your stand, gays in the military?
BRADLEY: Well, gays have always been in the military. They've just
had
to hide. We've, since 1993, had a policy that doesn't work. It's called
"don't ask, don't tell."
And what I can't understand is how is it possible that gays can serve
openly and with distinction in the Department of Justice, in the State
Department, in the Treasury Department, in the federal courts, in the
Congress, in the White House and not in the military. Why can gays be
policemen, brick layers, football players, lawyers, nuclear scientists, but
can't be staff sergeants or lieutenants?
I believe that we have to reach out to everybody. I think that, you
know, you do it, as I said. The method and timing of this would be my own.
Of course, I would be in consultation with many different people in this
process.
But what I've stated is my belief that
KING: That's the exact believe [sic] Bill Clinton stated and then
changed it to don't ask, don't tell after conferring with chiefs of staff
and
others.
BRADLEY: Well, all I can say is that's what I believe.
KING: And you won't change?
BRADLEY: I said
KING: I mean, you're not going to change your mind.
BRADLEY: Method and timing will be what I choose.
KING: Katy, Texas for Bill Bradley, hello
[cut]
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: [email protected]@INET@LNGTWY(
[email protected]@INET@LNGTWY[UNKNOWN
CREATION DATE/TIME: 4-NOV-1999 13:27:43.00
SUBJECT: Re: Southern Voice: Why we asked and why she should tell
TO: Daniel C. Montoya@eop Daniel C. Montoya@eop OPD
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
I find this editorial ironic. Like most mainstream gay and lesbian press,
you seem to confuse concern and support for lesbian and gay issues with
being lesbian and gay.
Donna Brazile has been a tremendous ally to and for the lesbian and gay
community. In part her work stemmed from her role as Chief of Staff for
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and because she has friends, including
myself, who are in the community. Another other part of her commitment
stems
from her being an African American woman with extensive experience with
discrimination and bigotry.
If only lesbians and gay men can effectively present lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender issues, then it is no wonder that our allies in the
straight
community are in short supply.
One of the tenets of this movement is respect for how one identifies.
Seeking clarification for how Brazile (or anyone else) identifies
disrespects that very tenet.
No where in your editorial do you mention that she is an African American
woman. Therefore, you fail to consider how her cultural identity may impact
on her decision not to speak about her sexual orientation. And, you fail to
recognize the courageousness of her stance as an African American.
If she is a lesbian or bisexual or a sexually active heterosexual, as an
African American woman, regardless of her position with the Gore campaign,
how she handles her sexuality has to be different.
Ultimately, her sexual orientation does not matter. What does matter is
that
we have a highly placed strong ally in the Gore campaign.
Sabrina Sojourner
[email protected]
1216 Michigan Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20017
202.526.4442 Voice Mail
202.526.0554 Fax
Original Message
From: LGBT Activists List <[email protected]>
To: <LGBT Political Activists>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 1999 5:15 PM
Subject: Southern Voice: Why we asked and why she should tell
> Southern Voice - November 4, 1999 - Page 14
>
> EDITORIAL
>
> Why we asked and she should tell
>
> When Al Gore named his new national campaign manager last month, gay
> rights activists were privately thrilled with his selection.
>
> Throughout a high-profile professional and personal life, Donna Brazile
> had devoted countless hours to gay and lesbian rights, even taking a
> thankless position on the embattled board organizing the Millennium March
> on Washington.
>
> The announcement seemed proof not only of Al Gore's comfort level with
> gay rights as a national campaign issue, but it appeared to signal yet
> again the arrival of openly gay professionals on the national political
> scene.
>
> There was only one problem--Donna Brazile isn't openly gay. In fact, she
> isn't openly anything. Since her appointment as Gore campaign manager,
> the media (both gay-specific and general circulation) have side-stepped
> Brazile's gay rights background and sexual orientation.
>
> The Gore campaign, for its part, issued a detailed press release on
> Brazile that despite repeated references to her "grassroots" connections,
>
neglected entirely to mention her involvement in the gay rights cause.
> As a result, most press outlets missed that aspect of the story. A number
> of gay publications, familiar with Brazile's ties to the movement,
V
reported her selection, called her a "gay rights activist" and made no
V
mention one way or another of her sexual orientation.
>
>
At least one national newsmagazine, U.S. News & World Report, took note
>
of the connection and the "oddly silent" reaction from our national lobby
>
groups.
V
V
Locally, ETC magazine took note of the U.S. News story, read between the
V
lines and reported without citing a source that Brazile "is a lesbian who
>
serves on the Millennium March on Washington board."
V
> But it appears that no one in the media took the time to ask Brazile, on
> the record, whether or not she is a lesbian, and report her response.
V
It's not hard to imagine why. For years, "asking the question" has been
>
considered out-of-bounds. Unlike almost any other aspect of a public
>
figure's life, information about sexual orientation is left entirely up
>
to the individual to decide whether to disclose.
>
The motivation, no doubt, is primarily a benevolent one. In a world where
> the media shows precious little respect for anyone's privacy, the
>
unwritten rule that says not to ask about sexual orientation is a rare
> exception.
>
> Still, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is an antiquated notion, as much for the
> media as for the military, and it's time we give it serious
> reconsideration.
>
> The world today isn't one where sexual orientation is a horrible, hidden
> secret. Openly gay people hold positions in every walk of life, as Gore's
> primary opponent, Bill Bradley, argued so eloquently in a debate between
> the two candidates in New Hampshire last week.
>
> "If a gay American can be a bricklayer, a doctor, an athlete, a lawyer, a
> painter, why can't a gay American be a sergeant and a lieutenant
>
colonel?" Bradley asked.
> It's worth noting that Bradley was advocating repeal of another "Don't
> Ask, Don't Tell" rule, this one for the military. Brazile's candidate, in
> an ironically George W. Bush-esque turn of phrase, has argued for more
> "compassionate enforcement" of DADT.
>
Keep in mind that repealing the media's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" rule
>
doesn't mean that public figures now have a duty to state, on the record,
> whether or not they're gay. But changing the rules would be a healthy
> sign that the time has come to at least feel comfortable asking the
> question.
>
> Asking the question, after all, isn't the same as "outing" the person
> asked. Control of the issue remains in the hands of the public figure,
>
who can choose either to answer the question by identifying a sexual
> orientation, or by declining comment.
>
> And whatever the answer, it ought to be reported as fact, with
> conclusions left as they should be to the reader or viewer.
> That's exactly what this newspaper did in its cover story last week on
> Brazile's appointment. We asked; she deflected; and we told--not her
V
sexual orientation, mind you, but her answer to the question.
V
> Brazile acknowledged the question was a "fair one" but said she wasn't
>
the candidate and would prefer to discuss Al Gore's commitment to gay and
V
lesbian rights.
V
Fair enough, if somewhat ironic. Three presidential elections ago,
>
Brazile got herself fired from Michael Dukakis' presidential campaign
>
staff for asking the press to look into whether George Bush (Sr.) was
V
sleeping with someone other than his wife. She clearly regrets being
> fired, but she hasn't gone on record about whether she was wrong to ask
>
the press to ask.
>
V
Of course, reporting a public figure's sexual orientation isn't nearly so
> personal as reporting with whom they sleep. We already know the sexual
> orientation of almost every public figure on the scene today.
> The question is an especially fair one to put to Brazile. She has spent a
> goodly portion of her professional life fighting for gay rights. Surely
> she doesn't view sexual orientation a "dirty little secret" not to be
> broached in conversation.
>
>
Neither should the Human Rights Campaign, the gay political group that
> organizes "National Coming Out Day" every year and yet has insisted "it
> isn't news" that a lesbian may have been appointed campaign manager for a
> sitting vice president and leading presidential candidate.
> (HRC Communications Director David Smith even went so far as to say, "We
> have no information about Donna Brazile's sexual orientation." As a
> statement on behalf of HRC, it's false; if not an intentional lie.)
>
> The fact that Brazile's not the candidate isn't enough, either, to
> justify not asking. She's managing the campaign of one of two men most
> likely to be leader of the free world in 2001. Campaign managers have
> unique influence over the candidates, helping to mold their policy
> positions, and the often find themselves appointed to high political
> office after election day.
>
> How ironic, then, that one of Brazile's first decisions as campaign
> manager appears to have been to excise her own gay rights background from
> the press release on her appointment. Is this her idea of "compassionate
> enforcement" of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"?
>
> Even for truly private citizens, the "Don't Ask" rule doesn't make much
> sense. Soft feature stories often tell us a little about their subjects,
> and reporters ought to at least ask about sexual orientation, even if it
> comes in the form of a gender-free inquiry into the existence of a
> significant other.
>
> The decision to "tell" the private citizen's answer should, like most
> information gleaned from their lives, rest much more on the individual's
> comfort zone.
>
>
But it shouldn't depend on the reporter's comfort zone, or own
>
internalized homophobia.
>
> The time has come, at the end of this century, to declare an official end
>
to the days of nudge-nudge, wink-wink. Open the closet doors or not, but
> expect to be asked the question.
>
>
>
V
PHOTO CAP: Donna Brazile (in the brown jacket), was among those attending
> the Lesbian Rights Summit in April, but the new Gore national campaign
V
manager won't answer questions about her sexual orientation.
V
> 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
V
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: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
CREATION DATE/TIME:15-NOV-1999 06:18:27.00
SUBJECT: Fwd: Articles 11.8.99.2
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: Sandra Thurman ( CN=Sandra Thurman/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TO: [email protected] ([email protected] [ UNKNOWN D
READ:UNKNOWN
CC: [email protected] ( [email protected] [ UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
In a message dated 11/8/99 7:12:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, Fenceberry
writes:
« Eugene Register-Guard, November 7, 1999
P.O. Box 10188, Eugene, OR, 97401
(Fax 541-683-7631 ) (E-MAIL: [email protected] )
(http://www.registerguard.com)
Statistics on gay and lesbian youths
[Note: This item accompanied the two articles from the Register-Guard
included in Articles 11.8.99]
In 1984, 45 percent of young gay men and 20 percent of young lesbians
surveyed said they had experienced verbal harassment and/or physical
violence
while in high school because of their sexual orientation.
??? National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 1984
This year, 69 percent of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered
youths
surveyed said they had experienced verbal, physical or sexual harassment
and/or assault while at school.
??? Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, 1999
Twenty-eight percent of gay and lesbian youths drop out of high school
each year, about three times the national average.
??? U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1989
Ninety-seven percent of students surveyed in Massachusetts public
schools
reported hearing homophobic remarks from their peers on a regular basis,
and
53 percent reported hearing such comments from school staff.
??? Massachusetts Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, 1993
Fifty-one percent of middle and high school students surveyed in the
Bethel School District said they regularly witness harassment based on
sexual
orientation.
??? Bethel School District, 1999
Just more than 40 percent of boys surveyed at Willamette High School
said
it's important that the school work on preventing harassment against gays
and
lesbians.
??? Bethel School District, 1999
Gay and lesbian youths surveyed in Massachusetts were four times more
likely than heterosexual students to have missed school for a day or more
because they felt unsafe either at or on the way to school.
??? Massachusetts Department of Education, 1995
In one-third of a reported 92 incidents of anti-gay harassment of
students in Washington state schools, adults witnessed the harassment but
did
nothing to help. Of the students victimized in those incidents, 10
attempted
suicide, two successfully.
??? Safe Schools Coalition of Washington State, 1999
One in four gay and lesbian youths said they were forced to leave home
due to conflicts with their families about their sexual orientation.
??? Hetrick-Martin Institute, 1992
Gay and lesbian youths account for 30 percent of teen suicides each
year.
??? U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1989
Return-path: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:12:56 EST
From: [email protected]
Subject: Articles 11.8.99.2
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Message-id: <[email protected]>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 27
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Full-name: Fenceberry
1. EUGENE REGISTER-GUARD Statistics on gay and lesbian youths
2. USA TODAY Vicious hate crime ends with surprise reprieve
3. DETROIT NEWS Deb Price: Court must tread carefully in custody case
4. LOS ANGELES TIMES The Case Against the Notion of 'Homosexual Panic'
5. NEW YORK TIMES Tinkering at the Margins of Anti-Gay Bigotry
(Military)
Eugene Register-Guard, November 7, 1999
P.O. Box 10188, Eugene, OR, 97401
(Fax 541-683-7631) (E-MAIL: [email protected])
(http://www.registerguard.com)
Statistics on gay and lesbian youths
[Note: This item accompanied the two articles from the Register-Guard
included in Articles 11.8.99]
In 1984, 45 percent of young gay men and 20 percent of young lesbians
surveyed said they had experienced verbal harassment and/or physical
violence
while in high school because of their sexual orientation.
? National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 1984
This year, 69 percent of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered
youths
surveyed said they had experienced verbal, physical or sexual harassment
and/or assault while at school.
? Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, 1999
Twenty-eight percent of gay and lesbian youths drop out of high school
each year, about three times the national average.
? U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1989
Ninety-seven percent of students surveyed in Massachusetts public
schools
reported hearing homophobic remarks from their peers on a regular basis,
and
53 percent reported hearing such comments from school staff.
? Massachusetts Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, 1993
Fifty-one percent of middle and high school students surveyed in the
Bethel School District said they regularly witness harassment based on
sexual
orientation.
? Bethel School District, 1999
Just more than 40 percent of boys surveyed at Willamette High School
said
it's important that the school work on preventing harassment against gays
and
lesbians.
? Bethel School District, 1999
Gay and lesbian youths surveyed in Massachusetts were four times more
likely than heterosexual students to have missed school for a day or more
because they felt unsafe either at or on the way to school.
? Massachusetts Department of Education, 1995
In one-third of a reported 92 incidents of anti-gay harassment of
students in Washington state schools, adults witnessed the harassment but
did
nothing to help. Of the students victimized in those incidents, 10
attempted
suicide, two successfully.
? Safe Schools Coalition of Washington State, 1999
One in four gay and lesbian youths said they were forced to leave home
due to conflicts with their families about their sexual orientation.
? Hetrick-Martin Institute, 1992
Gay and lesbian youths account for 30 percent of teen suicides each
year.
? U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1989
USA Today, November 8, 1999
1000 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA, 22229
(Fax 703-247-3108 (E-MAIL: [email protected] )
(http://www.usatoday.com)
Vicious hate crime ends with surprise reprieve
By DeWayne Wickham
Just when it was thought that lawyers for Aaron McKinney would make a
desperate appeal to bigotry, the parents of Matthew Shepard offered up a
selfless act of forgiveness ? one that may help deter future crimes.
McKinney is one of two men convicted of tying Shepard to a post in a
rural section of Wyoming and then fatally beating the gay college student.
During his trial, McKinney's lawyers sought to convince the jury that
their client flew into an uncontrollable ? and understandable ? rage after
Shepard made a homosexual advance on him. They claimed the momentary rage
was triggered by McKinney's memories of traumatic homosexual encounters as
a
youth.
Their attempt to mount this "gay panic" defense fizzled when the judge
ruled that it couldn't be used to influence the jury's finding of guilt or
innocence, but might be relevant in the sentencing phase, if McKinney were
convicted.
When a jury in Laramie found McKinney guilty of kidnapping, robbing and
killing Shepard, the stage was set for his lawyers to revive the defense in
an attempt to avoid the death penalty. But before they could do so,
Shepard's parents did the unexpected: They agreed to a deal that spared
the
life of the man who killed their son.
Parents spurn revenge
Instead of pressing for the death penalty, Shepard's parents accepted a
plea-bargain agreement that sends McKinney to prison for life without the
chance for parole or appeal. Rather than seek revenge, they showed an
extraordinary degree of compassion for a brutal killer.
"They could have taken an eye for an eye, but instead they turned the
other cheek," said Wayne Besen, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign,
an
advocacy group for gay men and lesbians. "I think what they did was
unbelievable."
Unbelievable, indeed. Dennis and Judy Shepard had every right to
demand
that prosecutors ask jurors to condemn McKinney to die. That they didn't
is
a testament to their willingness to get beyond hate and to embrace
tolerance
? even in the face of such an awful act of gay-bashing intolerance.
"My son, Matthew, paid a terrible price to open the eyes of all of us
to
the unjust and unnecessary fears, discrimination and intolerance that
members
of the gay community face every day," Dennis Shepard said in a courtroom
statement after the deal was announced.
Voicing their support
Today, he and his wife come to Washington to add their voice to those
who
seek to win passage of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a bill that would
make
attacks on people based on their "sexual orientation, gender and
disability"
crimes subject to federal prosecution.
Last month, President Clinton vetoed the fiscal year 2000 budget for
the
Commerce, Justice and State departments after Congress failed to make the
hate-crime bill part of that legislation.
Opponents of the measure argue that homosexuals should not be given
special legal status. But as overall crime continues to fall in this
country, attacks on gay men and lesbians are on the rise. Since they are
singled out for persecution, it makes sense to design a special penalty for
those who attack them violently.
With the White House in a tug of war with congressional conservatives
over this issue, the Shepards' willingness to spare McKinney's life may
help
to soften resistance to the bill's passage. Their act of mercy came just
days after the Rev. Jerry Falwell, once a rabid critic of homosexuality,
convened a meeting between a group of evangelical Christians and gay
activists to build a bridge of understanding between the two old enemies.
While Falwell's meeting was an important breakthrough, the Shepard
family's act of forgiveness may be the catalyst needed to produce a
corresponding act of compassion among members of Congress who thus far have
shown little for the victims of homophobic assaults.
DeWayne Wickham writes weekly for USA TODAY.
DETROIT NEWS, November 8, 1999
http://detnews.com/
By Deb Price / The Detroit News
Court must tread carefully in custody case
The U.S. Supreme Court rarely ventures into the messy, complicated
realm
of family law. Disputes over domestic matters such as child custody and
visitation rights are normally left to the states. But gay-rights attorneys
weren?t just shocked when the Supreme Court recently agreed to decide the
constitutionality of Washington state?s visitation law. They were alarmed.
Superficially, the case involves a question of grandparents? rights
rather than anything gay. After their unmarried son, Brad, committed
suicide
in 1993, Jenifer and Gary Troxel petitioned for the right to continue
seeing
their son?s two daughters more regularly than the mother wanted to allow.
Under Washington law, anyone could petition for visitation rights at any
time
and be granted them if that was in the child?s best interests.
However, the Washington state Supreme Court struck down that law last
December, ruling it violated parents? constitutional right to privacy. (All
states have grandparent-visitation laws, some of which cover other
so-called
third parties. Washington?s law was far broader than most.) The Troxels
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Oral arguments in Troxel V. Granville
are
expected early next year and a final decision by June.
In accepting the case, the U.S. Supreme Court has charged ? perhaps
blundered ? into a field filled with land mines: What?s a family? Who?s a
parent? Does biology give grandparents special rights? How should the
overlapping rights of children, parents and grandparents be sorted out?
When
may a state overrule a fit parent?s decisions?
?The Supreme Court doesn?t understand family law. They might have
thought
this was a relatively simple case about grandparents? rights. This is not a
simple case they?ve gotten themselves into,? warns Nancy Polikoff, a
national
expert on gay family law.
The danger is that the court ? whose nine justices include six
grandparents ? is so unfamiliar with the territory that it will
inadvertently
cause a great deal of harm to a great many children. One misstep by the
court
in almost any direction could be particularly damaging to children whose
parents are gay.
Upholding Washington?s unusually broad visitation law could undercut
lesbian mothers trying to fend off attacks by homophobic relatives. On the
other hand, language striking down the law might put new obstacles in the
path of gay people seeking to maintain a parental bond with an ex-partner?s
biological or adopted child.
Although gay-rights attorneys are divided on the wisdom and
constitutionality of the disputed law, they?re united in seeing huge
potential hazards in a Supreme Court ruling.
?We?re, as a movement, in the process of convincing states that they
should rethink their idea of what family is,? notes Matt Coles, the
American
Civil Liberties Union?s chief gay-rights litigator. ?It would certainly be
very damaging to us if the U.S. Supreme Court said, ?Well, for
constitutional
purposes, you?re only family if you?re related by blood, marriage or court
decree.? ?
The best outcome might be for the court to take the rare step of saying
the justices won?t decide the case because accepting it was a mistake.
Otherwise, the shorter the decision, the better. A single ill-chosen word
or
phrase could have devastating consequences.
Arthur Leonard, author of Sexuality and the Law, suspects the Supreme
Court accepted Troxel V. Granville because it thinks the Washington court
seriously misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution and granted parents too much
power.
?I?m assuming that they reached out to take this case because at least
four members of the court think it should be reversed. I hope I?m right,?
he
says.
If the Supreme Court doesn?t tread carefully, it will trample the
rights
of our littlest citizens as well as those of countless adults.
Deb Price?s column is published on Monday. Write letters to The News at
615 W. Lafayette, Detroit, MI 48226, or fax to (313) 222-6417 or send
e-mail
to [email protected]
LOS ANGELES TIMES, November 8, 1999
Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, CA, 90053
(Fax 213-237-7679 or 213-237-5319) (E-MAIL: [email protected])
(http://www.latimes.com)
The Case Against the Notion of 'Homosexual Panic'
By KATHLEEN KELLEHER, Special to The Times
Everyone knows what it feels like to be approached by Mr. or Miss
Wrong,
the one person in the room to whom you are most definitely not attracted.
Such a come-on could make someone cringe or even slightly sick, sure, but
could it actually drive a person to murder?
The notion that an unwanted sexual advance, particularly by a gay
person
toward a straight one, might spark "sex panic" and result in an
uncontrollable, murderous rage has been raised in courtrooms as a defense
tactic in the last few years.
Most recently, the issue swirled at the edges of the trial of the
second
man convicted of murdering Wyoming college freshman Matthew Shepard.
Defendant Aaron McKinney's attorneys wanted to argue their client lost
control after Shepard, who was gay, propositioned McKinney in October 1998.
But state District Judge Barton Voigt prohibited the use of the
controversial
strategy, reasoning that it was not allowed under state law.
Still, the question lingers: Is there such a thing as "homosexual
panic"?
In a word, no, according to those who study human behavior. The notion
of "homosexual panic" seems to be based on the Freudian theory that buried
motivations and fears can be triggered by events or thoughts, and lead to
aberrant behavior. The phrase is believed to have been coined in 1920.
(Indeed, McKinney's lawyers argued that an advance by Shepard
triggered
memories of a childhood homosexual assault, setting off "five minutes of
emotional rage and chaos," during which McKinney pistol-whipped Shepard
into
a coma from which he never recovered.)
As a legal defense, the theory was explored in a 1989 Harvard Law
Review
article. "Homosexual panic" defense, said the piece, is based "on the
theory
that a person with latent homosexual tendencies will have an extreme and
uncontrollably violent reaction when confronted with a homosexual
proposition."
But a year earlier, in 1988, two Canadian psychiatrists reviewed
literature on the subject dating back to 1920 and concluded in the Canadian
Journal of Psychiatry that the term "should be permanently assigned to the
junkyard of obsolete psychiatric terminology."
"Homosexual panic" is not a mental disorder, they said; rather it is a
culmination of our culture's homophobic attitudes.
Although psychologists and psychiatrists discount the theory, some
researchers are probing the links between homophobic attitudes and antigay
violence.
A psychology professor in Georgia says his research demonstrates that
denied homosexual urges may indeed drive some people to violence. Henry E.
Adams of the University of Georgia in Athens tested the theory by
administering an "Index of Homophobia" test to 64 men between the ages of
18
and 31. The men were then shown explicit erotic videos of heterosexual,
homosexual and lesbian sex while hooked up to a device that measures
arousal
by tracking changes in penile circumference.
Those identified as homophobic were more aroused by the homosexual
videos than by the heterosexual videos. Those identified as nonhomophobic
were more aroused by the heterosexual videos. (It will come as no surprise
to
anyone who watched last week's "Ally McBeal" that lesbian sex was a hit
with
both groups.)
"The body doesn't lie," said Adams. "The homophobes despise the fact
that they get aroused by men and they deny it." In a yet-to-be-published
study, Adams will report that homophobes grew anxious, hostile and
aggressive after watching gay erotica. (The nonhomophobes did not.)
After the initial tests, he introduced another designed to determine
whether those identified as homophobic would actually inflict pain on gays
if
given the chance.
His subjects competed with opponents identified as gay or straight.
The
winner got to deliver a minor shock to the loser.
"Sure enough," said Adams, "homophobics shocked the hell out of the
person they were told was gay and they didn't to the guy they were told was
heterosexual. I am not sure what it means, but when homophobics get
aroused,
they do get angry, hostile and violent."
Adams thinks that this link between sexual arousal and aggression is
what distinguishes those he calls "homo-negative" (people who for
religious,
social or moral reasons disapprove of gays) from "homophobic" (someone who
may want to do harm).
And, he said, panic is probably not an operative part of that
aggressiveness. "Panic is something that happens immediately, almost like
fight or flight," said Adams. "Antigay crimes are more planned than a
heat-of-passion crime. There is a plan and instigation to get these victims
out somewhere to beat them up and kill them."
Gay activists and others say the term "homosexual panic" has survived
so
long because it reflects an antigay culture. "It is culturally acceptable
to
respond violently to a homosexual proposition.
The idea is you have
the
right to defend your masculinity," says Karen Franklin, an El Cerrito
forensic psychologist who studies antigay behaviors and attitudes. "Of
course
what is a proposition and what is a flirtation is in the eye of the
beholder.
If a man allows another man to flirt with him, he is viewed as no longer
masculine in our culture, where there is a tremendous fear of losing
masculinity."
NEW YORK TIMES, November 8, 1999
229 W. 43rd Street, New York, NY, 10036
(Fax 212-556-3622 (E-MAIL: [email protected] )
(http://www.nytimes.com)
Tinkering at the Margins of Anti-Gay Bigotry
By BRENT STAPLES
The integration of the American military stands as this country's most
striking transformation of the century. Harry Truman issued the executive
order ending segregation in 1948, and by 1956, white recruits from the most
bigoted reaches of the South were being ordered around by black drill
sergeants at boot camp. Under the edict, known racists were no longer
allowed
to hold positions of authority and were eventually weeded out. Within a few
decades, the military had more black managers by far than the civilian
sector, which still has not caught up. As the military sociologist Charles
Moskos wrote: "Today, one is more likely to hear racial jokes at the
university faculty club than in the officers' club. And in the officers'
club, one will surely see more blacks."
The integration of the military was vital to national security and
yielded an enormous benefit for the country as a whole. But it would have
taken substantially longer had Truman yielded to the military's desire to
tinker at the margins of bigotry instead of rooting it out. Not long before
Truman's order, a military panel suggested that white soldiers would never
accept blacks as commanders or comrades in arms. The panel proposed keeping
black numbers down through a quota system and limiting black troops to
support units, where they would build roads or off-load ships. By rejecting
this approach, Truman delegitimized segregation in one, swift movement.
The perils of tinkering at the margins have become especially clear
with
"don't ask, don't tell," the policy that governs the military's dealings
with
gay soldiers. The policy was billed as a way to permit gay Americans to
serve
without fear of harassment or expulsion -- as long as they kept sexual
preferences to themselves. But since the policy was put in place in 1994,
the
number of soldiers being dismissed for reasons related to homosexuality has
risen dramatically. These losses present a reduction in military readiness,
given the difficulties in meeting recruitment targets. In addition, the
policy seems to have made circumstances worse for gay soldiers under the
guise of bringing them into the fold.
Data from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network shows that
dismissals
under "don't ask, don't tell" have risen from 617 in 1994 to 1,163 in 1998.
The Air Force had the most discharges of any branch last year with 415 --
an
astonishing 65 percent of which came at a single Air Force base in
Lackland,
Tex. The Air Force says recruits were claiming to be gay to escape service
when the going got tough.
But given that Air Force training is relatively mild and that the
recruits are volunteers, deception to escape the service seems less than
the
full story.
Lawyers from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network visited Lackland
this fall and filed a report with the Air Force describing several problems
with how "don't ask, don't tell" was being administered. The core issue was
that briefings describing the policy to new recruits were indirect and
ambiguous. Network investigators say they could not find a single recruit
who
understood the policy or what it entitled service members to do or not do.
In addition, the material bearing on "don't ask, don't tell" was tacked
on to a discussion of the military code of justice, leading some recruits
to
think that they would be expelled for being gay with or without
incriminating
revelations. Other new soldiers got the impression that the Air Force honor
code obligated them to confess sexual preferences -- and that they could
face
imprisonment if they withheld the truth and were later found out.
The network report says that even the base inspector general
misunderstood the policy, and felt it his duty to report anything he heard.
In a striking disregard for doctor-patient confidentiality, a post
psychologist told Network investigators that it was his "duty" to inform on
gay patients -- even though none of the services require doctors to break
confidence in this fashion. In other words, recruits who had questions
about
a poorly presented policy were risking self-incrimination and dismissal if
they spoke to anyone at all.
The Air Force says it has reduced the number of dismissals at Lackland
by
allowing recruits to recant self-incriminating statements and reworked the
instructional package to make the policy clearer. Air Force officials have
also instructed recruits with questions to seek out service defense
lawyers,
who are obligated by law to preserve lawyer-client privilege.
Unfortunately,
including lawyers in this equation deepens the impression that gay soldiers
are criminals by virtue of sexual preference. As a rule, jiggering with a
bad
policy is likely to make it worse.
Bill Clinton could have avoided this nightmare by issuing a Trumanesque
directive banning anti-gay discrimination in the armed services back in
1994.
The Pentagon would have grumbled at first, but would also have done what it
was told. By tinkering at the margins, Congress and the President have
ensured that the military will be divided over this issue long after the
civilian world has put it to rest. The fatal mistake was compromising with
bigotry in the first place.
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
001. email
Ruby Shamir to Virginia N Rustique at 19:46:43.00. Subject:
12/05/1999
b(6)
Question. [partial] (1 page)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Automated Records Management System [Email]
OPD ([Don't Ask, Don't Tell])
OA/Box Number: 250000
FOLDER TITLE:
[09/01/1999 - 12/06/1999]
2015-0017-F
ab1570
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information |(a)(1) of the PRA|
b(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA)
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office |(a)(2) of the PRAJ
h(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute |(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency |(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute |(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information |(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors |a)(5) of the PRAJ
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy |(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA|
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Ruby Shamir (CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 5-DEC-1999 19:46:43.00
SUBJECT: Question
TO: "Rustique, Virginia N" <[email protected]> ("Rustique, Virginia N" <[email protected]> [
UNKNOWN ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Hi Virginia,
(b)(6)
[001]
So, I have a random question, and was wondering if you could help me
figure it out, or direct me to the person that might know the answer.
Apparently, Britain recently changed its rules about gays in the
military. Do you have any information on this, specifically, what the
policy was and how/why it changed? Your help is greatly appreciated!!
Thanks.
Ruby
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
002. email
Virginia N Rustique to Ruby Shamir at 06:13:42.00. Subject: Re:
12/06/1999
b(6)
Question [partial] (1 page)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Automated Records Management System [Email]
OPD ([Don't Ask, Don't Tell])
OA/Box Number: 250000
FOLDER TITLE:
[09/01/1999 - 12/06/1999]
2015-0017-F
ab1570
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
b(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
an agency ((b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute |(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA|
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information |(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRAJ
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy |(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA|
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells |(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: "Rustique, Virginia N" <[email protected]> ("Rustique, Virginia N" <[email protected]> [
UNKNOWN ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-DEC-1999 06:13:42.00
SUBJECT: RE: Question
TO: Ruby Shamir (CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Rubes-
(b)(6)
[002]
ANyway, let me do some checking on the best/most helpful Embassy person you
should talk with. I'll email you back later today.
So happy to hear from you
V
>
Original Message
>
From: [email protected] [SMTP:[email protected]]
>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 12:46 AM
> To:
Rustique, Virginia N
> Subject:
Question
V
V
Hi Virginia,
V
(b)(6)
> So, I have a random question, and was wondering if you could help me
> figure
> it out, or direct me to the person that might know the answer.
> Apparently,
> Britain recently changed its rules about gays in the military. Do you
> have
> any information on this, specifically, what the policy was and how/why it
> changed? Your help is greatly appreciated!!
> > >
> Thanks.
> Ruby
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
003. email
Ruby Shamir to Virginia N Rustique at 20:49:00.00. Subject: Re:
12/06/1999
b(6)
update: Question. [partial] (2 pages)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Automated Records Management System [Email]
OPD ([Don't Ask, Don't Tell])
OA/Box Number: 250000
FOLDER TITLE:
[09/01/1999 - 12/06/1999]
2015-0017-F
ab1570
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - |44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information |(a)(1) of the PRAJ
b(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA|
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office |(a)(2) of the PRA]
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRAJ
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute |(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRAJ
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy |(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy |(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: Ruby Shamir (CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-DEC-1999 20:49:00.00
SUBJECT: Re: update: Question
TO: "Rustique, Virginia N" <[email protected]> ("Rustique, Virginia N" <[email protected]> [
UNKNOWN 1)
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Hey there,
(b)(6)
[003]
Thank you for this info. I called the captain, and he hasn't called me
back. Could you finagle the info out of him? I need the info by COB
tomorrow and am a little concerned. Your help is greatly appreciated!!
Ruby
"Rustique, Virginia N" <[email protected]>
12/06/99 05:51:19 AM
Record Type: Record
To: Ruby Shamir/OPD/EOP
cc:
Subject: update: Question
Ruby --
I just spoke to the head of our Defense Attache office, Capt. Stewart
Barnett. I gave him your name and told him you had some questions. He has
your number. Here's his: 44-171-894-0766.
He's good. If you need to look in another direction, let me know. I'm
happy to help.
V
V
Original Message
>
From: [email protected] [SMTP:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 12:46 AM
> To: Rustique, Virginia N
>
Subject: Question
>
> Hi Virginia,
[003 cort] [003
(b)(6)
>
> So, I have a random question, and was wondering if you could help me
> figure
> it out, or direct me to the person that might know the answer.
> Apparently,
> Britain recently changed its rules about gays in the military. Do you
> have
> any information on this, specifically, what the policy was and how/why it
>
changed? Your help is greatly appreciated!!
>
> Thanks.
>
> Ruby
>
Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
SUBJECT/TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
AND TYPE
004. email
Virginia N Rustique to Ruby Shamir at 06:15:18.00 Subject: update:
12/06/1999
b(6)
Question [partial] (1 page)
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Automated Records Management System [Email]
OPD ([Don't Ask, Don't Tell])
OA/Box Number: 250000
FOLDER TITLE:
[09/01/1999 - 12/06/1999]
2015-0017-F
ab1570
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - 144 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - 15 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRAJ
b(1) National security classified information |(b)(1) of the FOIA
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRAJ
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA|
an agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute |(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information |(a)(4) of the PRA]
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA|
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes |(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
of gift.
financial institutions |(b)(8) of the FOIA]
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
2201(3).
concerning wells |(b)(9) of the FOIA]
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
RECORD TYPE: PRESIDENTIAL (NOTES MAIL)
CREATOR: "Rustique, Virginia N" <[email protected]> ("Rustique, Virginia N" <[email protected]> [
UNKNOWN ])
CREATION DATE/TIME: 6-DEC-1999 06:15:18.00
SUBJECT: update: Question
TO: Ruby Shamir ( CN=Ruby Shamir/OU=OPD/O=EOP [ OPD ])
READ:UNKNOWN
TEXT:
Ruby --
I just spoke to the head of our Defense Attache office, Capt. Stewart
Barnett. I gave him your name and told him you had some questions. He has
your number. Here's his: 44-171-894-0766.
He's good. If you need to look in another direction, let me know. I'm
happy to help.
V
>
Original Message
>
From: [email protected] [SMTP:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 12:46 AM
> To:
Rustique, Virginia N
> Subject:
Question
>
> Hi Virginia,
[004]
(b)(6)
> So, I have a random question, and was wondering if you could help me
> figure
> it out, or direct me to the person that might know the answer.
> Apparently,
> Britain recently changed its rules about gays in the military. Do you
> have
> any information on this, specifically, what the policy was and how/why it
> changed? Your help is greatly appreciated!!
>
> Thanks.
V
> Ruby
>