Bush Nominates Gay Physician as Global AIDS Coordinator
While folks like Raj and Ian think that there are concentration camps in Idaho and that Muslims/Palestinians are our friends, President Bush shows that being straight or gay has no bearing on his decisions to put qualified people into important roles.
Bush nominates gay man to head global AIDS office – Washington Blade
President Bush nominated gay physician Mark R. Dybul July 17 to be United States Global AIDS Coordinator, a post at the State Department that has the rank of ambassador. If the U.S. Senate ratifies his nomination, Dybul would replace pharmaceutical industry executive Randall Tobias as head of a $15 billion program initiated by Bush and approved by Congress to combat AIDS in developing countries, with a focus on Africa. Bush appointed Tobias to another administration post. “[Dybul] is widely recognized as someone highly qualified for this position,” said Carl Schmid, a gay Republican activist who serves as federal affairs director for the AIDS Institute, a national AIDS advocacy group. Dybul currently serves as acting U.S. global AIDS coordinator and chief medical officer at the State Department. He would become the third openly gay person to hold a U.S. ambassadorial position. President Clinton appointed businessman and philanthropist James Hormel as ambassador to Luxemburg. In his first term in office, Bush appointed gay career Foreign Service Officer Michael Guest as ambassador to Romania.
Um wait.. let me understand. President Bush has nominated two gay men for ambassador roles for the United States and Gay Messiah Clinton (father of DOMA and DADT) only nominated one? Oh and by the way, Romania is a key ally in the War on Terror (*cough* unlike France *cough*), so Michael Guest representing the United States is a very big deal.
Ah, more busting of myths!
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
24 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Newsflash! President Bush Not Personally Homophobic…
I agree that I do not believe President Bush to be personally homophobic. GayPatriot and Andrew Sullivan point to excellent examples of this. I do however think he is politically expedient in the way most good old boy slackers of his generation are…..
Trackback by Blowhard — July 26, 2006 @ 10:54 am - July 26, 2006
Don’t forget that Mr. Clinton was unable to find a qualified gay person to be AIDS Czar. It President Bush to name not only the first but also the second gay men to be appointed to that position. BTW, the first was also an LCR member.
Comment by BoBo — July 26, 2006 @ 10:56 am - July 26, 2006
“I do however think he is politically expedient in the way most good old boy slackers of his generation are…..” Well, thank the Lord in heaven that we now know the corrupt home of political expediency. I guess once these folks dies off, so will that rare behavior, and virtue will reign in the land.
Comment by EssEm — July 26, 2006 @ 11:10 am - July 26, 2006
Of course, we all know that Really Arrogant Jerk Inserted Anal Nozzle (Mo)lester will find some way to poo-poo this EVIDENCE that the current administration is more gay-friendly than Slick Willie’s. I’m just waiting with baited breath for his/hers/their/its latest screed.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 26, 2006 @ 12:01 pm - July 26, 2006
I am reminded of a movie I saw years ago, “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” in which an alien invader sowed seeds in which human likenesses formed and began replacing people. They could only do this when the people went to sleep. Have we Americans dozed off and allowed the hedonists to take us over? Hedonism seems to be the new religion that more and more have the blessings of government. In the sixties the mantra was, “If it feels good, do it!” Many of those stoned, drunk and misguided adherents grew up and are now in the government, financial institutions, businesses and religious organizations promoting and encouraging it as our families break apart, our children are orphaned and our hearts are shredded. We have people sitting around contemplating their genitalia and suggesting anyone who finds that vapid and perverse as hateful.
I’ll tell you what is hateful! Adults who rob children’s innocence by introducing them to this “seediness”. I am fully convinced I was molested as a child because a guy came into the neighborhood with pornographic trash and introduced the children to this seediness. I am fully convinced that a nephew and millions are dead and ill and/or heartbroken because older guys introduced them to this seediness . I am convinced that millions have never been able to rise above the horrors of those experiences to lead lives intended.
It is hateful that a handsome, intelligent young man was introduced to this seediness when he was fourteen by a twenty-four year old man. It started this child on a life path that certainly did not feel good! He was deathly ill for years, enduring the side affects of medication and disease that he said made him feel as if he was turning inside out. He lost everything he had and was living with relatives as an invalid when it finally seemed he could no longer endure his suffering. He ended his life at the age of thirty-six. You probably have guessed he really died in agony from AIDS. When he first was diagnosed with HIV he and I had a conversation in which he revealed this and the kind of life he had been living. He told me he frequented bars specializing in making it easy for people to meet who were looking for homosexual contacts. He admitted he and others would sit there and watch boys walk out with men they knew were infected with AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. He said at that time ten “friends” had succumbed to AIDS or the side effects of medication. I was shocked and told him the time would come when people who kept quiet when someone was in danger would be held liable. Was I ever mistaken about that!
Sex is the new religion (it is not really new……..a number of ancient idolatrous religions had sex acts as their rites of choice.) And there is no small number of self-made “prophets” (male and female) who have and are deluding their followers into “servicing” them and other morally bankrupt adherents .
I’m trying to remember how that movie mentioned at the beginning ended, but I don’t think it was good!
We better “WAKE UP!
I am furious with President Bush (who I usually support) that he is giving the homosexual terrorist additional footholds in the government. Homosexuals let loose this AIDS Pandemic on the whole world as mentioned in one of many news articles…..one which is quoted below:
‘Then, on June 5, 1981, the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta reported five young actively homosexual men in Los Angeles had a new, mysterious and as yet unnamed illness that attacked the immune system and caused a type of pneumonia. A month later, it reported an odd surge among homosexual men in the number of cases of Karposi Sarcoma, a rare cancer now linked to AIDS.”
“Since June 5, 1981, HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, has killed more than 25 million people, infected 40 million others and left a legacy of unspeakable loss, hardship, fear and despair.”
AIDS could kill 31 million people in India and 18 million in China by 2025, according to projections by U.N. population researchers. By then in Africa, where AIDS likely began and where the virus has wrought the most devastation, researchers said the toll could reach 100 million.
Comment by BG Lynch — July 26, 2006 @ 12:46 pm - July 26, 2006
Well, Peter H… for starters, Slick Willy did chose a gay to be 1st Lady; that trumps all appointments. Bad, my bad.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 26, 2006 @ 12:47 pm - July 26, 2006
‘as head of a $15 billion program initiated by Bush and approved by Congress to combat AIDS in developing countries, with a focus on Africa.’
That’s 15 billion, with a ‘B’. A lot of special interest groups on the left (and the right) would love to divert that money for their own causes – world health crisis be damned.
But since Bush isn’t waving rainbow flags and hosting gay weddings in the White House, he’s still anti gay? It’s gay marriage or nothing? It’s become the only issue the gay left will judge this man on? Anyone opposed to it – for whatever reason – is a homophobe? Should all gay people support gay marriage? Should straight people oppose it? Should anyone oppose it?
Vera is long past the point where she can follow the logic of the gay left.
Or the left in general, to be honest.
Is there anything Bush has done that the left agrees with? From Social Security to national security to the WOT to taxes to stem cell research, it’s no-no-no.
As over half the voters in America agreed with Bush on some issue in order to vote for him, is the left so in complete disagreement with these voters, their fellow citizens, that there is not a single issue they find common ground on?
If not, that’s not dissent or honest disagreement; it’s obstructionism and a blockade of the people’s will.
Vera needs a drink.
Comment by Vera Charles — July 26, 2006 @ 12:49 pm - July 26, 2006
Someone get BG Lynch a drink too, he needs one.
Homosexual terrorists? Honey, they’re called the fashion police.
Comment by Vera Charles — July 26, 2006 @ 12:55 pm - July 26, 2006
I was tempted to delete BG Lynch’s comment, but decided against. I actually feel very sorry for him and hope he can deal with his anger in some productive way.
What is most interesting is that the Libs who would be most offended by his comments use almost the exact same terms when they launch into their hatred-filled rants against people of faith.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — July 26, 2006 @ 1:03 pm - July 26, 2006
You actually read BG’s rant? I got about a paragraph in. I just don’t have the patience. This is a comment section. You wrote your own article. Here’s a quarter. Buy yourself a blog!
Comment by Dalebert (aka Dale in L.A.) — July 26, 2006 @ 1:05 pm - July 26, 2006
You’re right Vera. Libs aren’t against Bush because they’re against his policies. They’re against his policies because they’re against Bush. See, we’re allowed to disagree with Bush on any particular issue (though the posters here have selective memory about those incidents) but liberals are not allowed to agree with Bush, ever. It’s blasphemy, and grounds for having your liberal card revoked.
Comment by Dalebert (aka Dale in L.A.) — July 26, 2006 @ 1:11 pm - July 26, 2006
Dale, agrrement with Bish is certainly grounds to have your GayCard revoked by the GayLeft. Presumptive, arrogant a–holes that they are.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 26, 2006 @ 1:28 pm - July 26, 2006
‘homosexual terrorist additional footholds in the government’
There’s a great Jim McGrivey (former governor of NJ) joke in here but Vera isn’t going to touch it.
“homosexual terrorist’?
Hmmmm…
Would that make Vera a ‘fag-hag jihadist’?
Because once you go gay, you’ll never go kuffar
Comment by Vera Charles — July 26, 2006 @ 3:10 pm - July 26, 2006
Kudos to President Bush for judging Dr. Dybul on his qualifications and not his sexual orientation.
Let’s hope the GOP’s religious right wing stays calm. The GOP’s religious right wing and supporters in the Senate made fools of themselves in opposing James Hormel’s confirmation as an ambassador.
Comment by Trace Phelps — July 26, 2006 @ 8:36 pm - July 26, 2006
From the post
While folks like Raj…think that there are concentration camps in Idaho and that Muslims/Palestinians are our friends
Oh, please, citations are demanded. Bloviate as you wish, but don’t pretend to put words in my mouth.
I’d hesitate to call you a liar about me, but I will, if I must.
On the general subject matter of the post, (“Bush nominates gay man to head global AIDS office”) I suppose that it might be nice that he did so. Several of us on message boards such as, for example, the NYTimes gay rights board were discussing Bush’s April 2001 appointment of openly gay Scott Evertz as Director of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy. Of course the Bush malAdministration subsequently dismissed him in favor of–someone more their style (I’d refer to him as a religious fundy). The issue that was raised on the boards then was whether the appointment of Evertz was designed merely to reinforce the idea among the non-cogniscenti that HIV/AIDS was a gay disease.
Flash forward 5+ years. One wonders whether the appointment here was designed merely to reinforce the idea that HIV/AIDS is a gay disease.
Let’s see. There was the Bush malAdministration’s appointment of openly-gay Scott Evertz as Director of the White House Office of National AIDS Policy and the openly gay Mark Dybul as United States Global AIDS Coordinator. Both HIV/AIDS related. Of course, there was also the appointment Michael Guest as ambassador to Romania, where gay sex is illegal (of course, as ambassador residing in ambassadorial residences, he is not subject to local laws).
Now, tell me again, just what does this appointment suggest? Bush has appointed two gay men (Evertz and Dybul) to positions in regards HIV/AIDS, and another gay man (Guest) as ambassador to a country (Romania) that had to be slapped down by the EU because of their anti-gay antics.
I guess some might believe that that’s some advance, but I don’t. When some administration appoints an openly gay man as US Trade Representative, or some such, I might sit up and listen. Until then, no.
Comment by raj — July 27, 2006 @ 10:38 am - July 27, 2006
The way rajian(mo)lester uses the word “bloviate” makes me think that he/she/they/it watches Fox News (specifically The O’Reilly Factor) much more often than not.
Ridiculous? You make the call.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 27, 2006 @ 12:27 pm - July 27, 2006
raj/ian, why would anyone care when you deem anything to be acceptable? Your side lost the 1998 mid-terms. Your side lost the 2000 elections. Your side lost the 2002 midterms. Your side lost the 2004 elections. Your side is going to lose the 2006 midterms… how many elections does your side have to lose before you get the message that people don’t care about your side’s perspective?
I’ve listened to your side say “Just wait, America is up-in-arms and we’re taking back the Capitol” –right, before or after the Easter Bunny makes his first live appearance?
raj/ian, the point is: no one cares what is needed to win your approval or acceptance… for you, it’s all about “Me Me Me” in a never ending lustful embrace of egotism.
Bush appointed more gays and minorities to positions of power than your buddie Slick Willy ever did… it’s a fact. That’s something which doesn’t require your approval.
Now, go put on the sock and chase an ambulance.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — July 27, 2006 @ 4:30 pm - July 27, 2006
#18 Henry — July 28, 2006 @ 2:27 am – July 28, 2006
Don’t forget Richard Socarides, who was Special Assistant to the President (Clinton) and Senior Advisor for Public Liaison for gay and lesbian issues. It would be interesting if the Bush apologists around here would indicate whether that office exists any more. I haven’t been able to find any indication that it does.
BTW, R. Socarides is, of course, the son of the late and unlamented Charles Socarides, the idiot psychotherapist and one of the founders of NARTH. C. Socarides railed against gay people while running through four marriages.
Comment by raj — July 28, 2006 @ 8:21 am - July 28, 2006
#19 RajIan – I believe it has suffered the same fate as the Gay Political Desk at the DNC. As you may recall that desk was eliminated about the same time Dr. Dean appeared on the 700 Club and told Pat Robertson that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman.
Comment by BoBo — July 28, 2006 @ 10:42 am - July 28, 2006
#20 BoBo — July 28, 2006 @ 10:42 am – July 28, 2006
I believe it has suffered the same fate as the Gay Political Desk at the DNC.
Why thank you for telling me something that I already knew. I’ll take that under advisement the next time that I again refuse to donate to the DNC.
On the other hand, I’ll just ask you this: which has the potential to have more political influence, a liaison office in the White House, or an office in the national committee of a major political party? I doubt very seriously that even you would suggest the latter.
Comment by raj — July 28, 2006 @ 12:33 pm - July 28, 2006
It sure was effective in stopping Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and DOMA during the Clinton Administration wasn’t it? Perhaps it was the victim of cost cutters who eliminated it due to ineffectiveness. Besides, the Democrats are such “friends” of the community one would think that they would be leaders in this area.
Comment by BoBo — July 28, 2006 @ 1:27 pm - July 28, 2006
#21 BoBo — July 28, 2006 @ 1:27 pm – July 28, 2006
It sure was effective in stopping Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and DOMA during the Clinton Administration wasn’t it?
Well, of course not. But that wasn’t the question.
Perhaps it was the victim of cost cutters who eliminated it due to ineffectiveness.
This is a joke, right? It was ineffective in the Bush malAdministration because the Bushies wanted it to be ineffective. And they didn’t want their adherents among the nutty religious-right homo-haters to believe that they were spending money doing outreach to a bunch of fags. Regardless of how effective that outreach might be.
Capiche?
Comment by raj — July 28, 2006 @ 4:58 pm - July 28, 2006
So you argue that it was effective in preventing anti-gay measures? The evidence is contrary. In fact given the track record of the Clinton office, I’d say that it’s very good that it went away before more bad things could happen.
Comment by BoBo — July 29, 2006 @ 12:24 am - July 29, 2006
Very entertaining issue. I haven’t heard of this one. It will be necessary to visit you on a thicket!
Comment by Malish John — November 1, 2006 @ 11:10 am - November 1, 2006