.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel#Civil_liberties
.
"The Human Rights Campaign also criticized Hagel for opposing President Bill Clinton’s 1998 nomination of James Hormel as the U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg, calling Hormel “openly, aggressively gay” and for having a “consistent anti-LGBT” voting record in the Senate. The group demanded he apologize for the remarks. Hagel apologized to Hormel in December 2012. Before seeing the apology, Hormel told reporters “Given that he is under consideration for a presidential appointment, one can only wonder the sincerity of the apology.
On December 27th, the Log Cabin Republicans ran an ad in the New York Times opposing Hagel's nomination."
Also, Senator Hagel was quoted by The New York Times:
.
"They are representing America [as ambassador]. They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay — openly, aggressively gay..."
Valley Oak
12-30-2012, 09:43 PM
The following article was published by the "Advocate" on December 28, 2012:
Log Cabin Republicans Slam Chuck Hagel in Full-Page Ad
By Sunnivie Brydum
Originally published on Advocate.com December 28, 2012
In a full-page ad that ran in The New York Times (https://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/27/gay-republicans-take-out-ad-criticizing-hagel/) on Thursday, conservative gay group Log Cabin Republicans decried former Nebraska Senator and likely Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel as "wrong on gay rights."
The full-page ad features text from a statement Hagel made in 1997 about James Hormel, the country's first openly gay ambassador. Under the headline "Chuck Hagel's Words:" the ad cites Hagel's 15-year-old remarks:
"They are representing America [as ambassador]. They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay — openly, aggressively gay..."
Hagel has since apologized (https://www.advocate.com/politics/2012/12/21/chuck-hagel-stand-ends-apology-gay-ambassador) for the remarks, but LCR is still opposing Hagel's nomination, which is considered to be on the President's short list for Secretary of Defense.
"Chuck Hagel's weak record on preventing nuclear proliferation in Iran, lack of confidence in our ally Israel as well as an aggressive history against the LGBT community is a no-go combination for a Secretary of Defense nominee," said R. Clarke Cooper, Executive Director of Log Cabin Republicans, in a statement announcing the ad.
Peace Voyager
01-01-2013, 02:22 PM
Do you know of some other viable candidate for this position who is not a war hawk?
I'll take a homophobe who will stand up to AIPAC over someone who may be LGBT friendly but continues the treason of unconstitutional war.
We'll never get someone close to perfect, but let's put priorities in order. How many homosexuals were killed by US forces, compared to innocent bystanders where we have occupied by land and with airstrikes?
178 children have been killed by drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen alone.
https://www.warcosts.com/178_report
Youth Disrupted: Effects of U.S. Drone Strikes on Children in Targeted Areas (https://www.scribd.com/doc/115147268/Youth-Disrupted-Effects-of-U-S-Drone-Strikes-on-Children-in-Targeted-Areas)
Since the George W. Bush administration’s first use of targeted assassinations via drone strikes, aimed at Al Qaeda and associated forces, in 2002, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) reports at least 178 innocent children (up to age 17) have died directly as a result of U.S. drone policy.[1]
TBIJ’s analysis -- called the “best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes” by legal experts at Stanford and NYU who recently released the in-depth report Living Under Drones: Death, Injury and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan[2] (https://www.warcosts.com/178_report#_ftn2), -- finds that 176 of the 178 children killed in U.S. drones strikes were Pakistani. The two non-Pakistani children were killed in Yemen: U.S. citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, 16, and his Yemeni cousin Ahmed Abdel-Rahman al-Awlaki, 17.o keep enough to
I am not anti-gay. Homosexuals are now allowed in the military. Hagel's personal bias should not be enough to keep him from this critical role.
Got a better reason, or a better candidate?
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel#Civil_liberties
.
"The Human Rights Campaign also criticized Hagel for opposing President Bill Clinton’s 1998 nomination of James Hormel as the U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg, calling Hormel “openly, aggressively gay” and for having a “consistent anti-LGBT” voting record in the Senate. The group demanded he apologize for the remarks. Hagel apologized to Hormel in Dece
mber 2012. Before seeing the apology, Hormel told reporters “Given that he is under consideration for a presidential appointment, one can only wonder the sincerity of the apology.
On December 27th, the Log Cabin Republicans ran an ad in the New York Times opposing Hagel's nomination."
Also, Senator Hagel was quoted by The New York Times:
.
"They are representing America [as ambassador]. They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay — openly, aggressively gay..."
UN to investigate civilian deaths from US drone strikes
Special rapporteur on counter-terror operations condemns Barack Obama's failure to establish effective monitoring process
...The investigation unit will also look at "other forms of targeted killing conducted in counter-terrorism operations, in which it is alleged that civilian casualties have been inflicted". Emmerson maintained that the US stance that it can conduct counter-terrorism operations against al-Qaida or other groups anywhere in the world because it is deemed to be an international conflict was indefensible.
"The global war paradigm has done immense damage to a previously shared international consensus on the legal framework underlying both international human rights law and international humanitarian law," he said. "It has also given a spurious justification to a range of serious human rights and humanitarian law violations.
"The [global] war paradigm was always based on the flimsiest of reasoning, and was not supported even by close allies of the US. The first-term Obama administration initially retreated from this approach, but over the past 18 months it has begun to rear its head once again, in briefings by administration officials seeking to provide a legal justification for the drone programme of targeted killing in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia …
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/18/drones-obama-administration-figures_n_1607030.html
Obama Administration's Drone Death Figures Don't Add Up
ProPublica | By Justin Elliott (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-goldberg) Posted: 06/18/2012 4:59 pm
(https://www.propublica.org/article/obama-drone-death-figures-dont-add-up)
Last month, a "senior administration official" said the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under President Obama is in the "single digits." But last year "U.S. officials" said drones in Pakistan killed about 30 civilians in just a yearlong stretch under Obama.
Both claims can't be true.
A centerpiece of President Obama's national security strategy, drones strikes in Pakistan are credited by the administration with crippling Al Qaeda but criticized by human rights groups and others for being conducted in secret and killing civilians. The underlying facts are often in dispute and claims about how many people died and who they were vary widely...
There have been 307 American drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004, according to a New America Foundation count (https://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones). Just 44 occurred during the Bush administration. President Obama has greatly expanded the use of drones to attack suspected members of Al Qaeda, the Pakistani Taliban, and other groups in Pakistan's remote northwest region. ...
Do Americans Care About Civilian Deaths in Drone Attacks?
—By Kevin Drum (https://www.motherjones.com/authors/kevin-drum)
...The startling results are on the right: the prospect of civilian deaths reduced support more than the prospect of American casualties. "This is a real surprise," Walsh says, "since it means that respondents attach as much or more value on the lives of foreign civilians as they do on US military personnel."...
sharingwisdom
01-02-2013, 09:00 PM
Perhaps a reason that things don't add up...
White House wins fight to keep drone killings of Americans secrethttps://rt.com/usa/news/drone-kill-mcmahon-obama-245//
UN to investigate civilian deaths from US drone strikes
Special rapporteur on counter-terror operations condemns Barack Obama's failure to establish effective monitoring process
...The investigation unit will also look at "other forms of targeted killing conducted in counter-terrorism operations, in which it is alleged that civilian casualties have been inflicted". Emmerson maintained that the US stance that it can conduct counter-terrorism operations against al-Qaida or other groups anywhere in the world because it is deemed to be an international conflict was indefensible.
"The global war paradigm has done immense damage to a previously shared international consensus on the legal framework underlying both international human rights law and international humanitarian law," he said. "It has also given a spurious justification to a range of serious human rights and humanitarian law violations.
"The [global] war paradigm was always based on the flimsiest of reasoning, and was not supported even by close allies of the US. The first-term Obama administration initially retreated from this approach, but over the past 18 months it has begun to rear its head once again, in briefings by administration officials seeking to provide a legal justification for the drone programme of targeted killing in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia …
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/18/drones-obama-administration-figures_n_1607030.html
Obama Administration's Drone Death Figures Don't Add Up
ProPublica | By Justin Elliott (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-goldberg) Posted: 06/18/2012 4:59 pm
Last month, a "senior administration official" said the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under President Obama is in the "single digits." But last year "U.S. officials" said drones in Pakistan killed about 30 civilians in just a yearlong stretch under Obama.
Both claims can't be true.
A centerpiece of President Obama's national security strategy, drones strikes in Pakistan are credited by the administration with crippling Al Qaeda but criticized by human rights groups and others for being conducted in secret and killing civilians. The underlying facts are often in dispute and claims about how many people died and who they were vary widely...
There have been 307 American drone strikes in Pakistan since 2004, according to a New America Foundation count (https://counterterrorism.newamerica.net/drones). Just 44 occurred during the Bush administration. President Obama has greatly expanded the use of drones to attack suspected members of Al Qaeda, the Pakistani Taliban, and other groups in Pakistan's remote northwest region. ...
Do Americans Care About Civilian Deaths in Drone Attacks?
—By Kevin Drum (https://www.motherjones.com/authors/kevin-drum)
...The startling results are on the right: the prospect of civilian deaths reduced support more than the prospect of American casualties. "This is a real surprise," Walsh says, "since it means that respondents attach as much or more value on the lives of foreign civilians as they do on US military personnel."...
Peace Voyager
01-03-2013, 04:12 PM
According to someone I know whose project Jim Hormel was major investor in, he was a serious drug addict for most of his life. The practice of the super wealthy to buy positions like Ambassadorships is a very dangerous way to operate our country. I don't think being gay was his problem.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel#Civil_liberties
.
"The Human Rights Campaign also criticized Hagel for opposing President Bill Clinton’s 1998 nomination of James Hormel as the U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg, calling Hormel “openly, aggressively gay” and for having a “consistent anti-LGBT” voting record in the Senate. The group demanded he apologize for the remarks. Hagel apologized to Hormel in December 2012. Before seeing the apology, Hormel told reporters “Given that he is under consideration for a presidential appointment, one can only wonder the sincerity of the apology.
On December 27th, the Log Cabin Republicans ran an ad in the New York Times opposing Hagel's nomination."
Also, Senator Hagel was quoted by The New York Times:
.
"They are representing America [as ambassador]. They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay — openly, aggressively gay..."
ceg1948
01-05-2013, 09:21 AM
I was fortunate to know Jim Hormel during the late 70's, 80's and 90's. We, like many of our mutual friends living and working in San Francisco, were dealing with the AIDS crisis and all of the challenges that came with it. He didn't "buy" but contributed his wealth to help create many of the AIDS agencies that were and are still in place. He continues to contribute money to many causes both civic and political. His appointment by Clinton as Ambassador was a recognition of his generous contributions to the citizens of San Francisco and the Bay Area. As for being a "drug addict for most of his life", that is certainly not the case and obviously "being gay" was not his problem. The problem is gossipy, small-minded and mis-informed people like your source.
According to someone I know whose project Jim Hormel was major investor in, he was a serious drug addict for most of his life. The practice of the super wealthy to buy positions like Ambassadorships is a very dangerous way to operate our country. I don't think being gay was his problem.