You may wish, or "speculate" that what Bush was saying he would do was not appoint someone who was "likely to promote his or her sexual activities to influence policy," but it is not what was reported.
But let's look at your wishful construction for a second anyway, just for the fun of it.
I would be curious to have an example of how ambassadors might have historically done this dangerous thing, ie to "promote [their] sexual activities to influence policy." I would be curious to hear of one example in the history of the United States of American where an ambassador to a foreign country has ever done that. Have you ever heard of a single one?
In any case, Bill, I'm wondering if it is your view that being an uncloseted homosexual ambassador to a foreign country automatically make you "likely" to "promote [your] sexual activities to influence policy"?
Bill, do you think it is okay for straight ambassadors to "promote [their] sexual activities to influence policy? If not, why mention it, as you have speculated Bush was merely doing, in connection with homosexuals only?
Below is what was reported. You want the meaning, which is clear enough, to be other than what it is, so you "speculate" that it is, or must be.
, Armstrong asked the governor whether he thought it was
OK for an ambassador and department heads to be openly homosexual. Bush told the group he would not "knowingly" appoint a practicing homosexual as an ambassador or department head, but neither would he dismiss
anyone who was discovered to be a homosexual after being named to a position.
The end, the bolded part of the sentence, makes clear that he has said what we are told he said, that he would not knowingly appoint a practicing homosexual as an ambassador or department head. Because you surely know that what Bush meant to say to this constituency was NOT that AFTER a homosexual were named to a position, if he or she "promoted" his or her sexual activity to "influence policy," that would be fine with him.
Maybe what you are saying is that you think Bush doesn't mean what he said, that it was a political lie of the usual kind uttered to a voting constituency specifically of the true dog sort, and that Bush would be able to twist what he said into what you are saying after he got elected. I would tend to agree with that. Kind of like, "it depends on what the meaning of is, is." Bush could rationalize the political lie, if it is that, by substituting "it depends on what the meaning of "promote" is. Or of "knowingly" is. Or "openly" is.
I won't speculate much about that though. I just dropped by here to let you know (in case any of you prefer instead of denying the obvious to do something like writing your candidate a letter), that Bush said to an anti-gay group that he would not knowingly appoint a practicing homosexual as an ambassador or department head.
|
