To: Bill who wrote (9143 ) 11/19/1999 12:33:00 PM From: E Read Replies (3) | Respond to
I posed a number of questions in this post, which you have ignored in favor of dwelling on the "impression" Armstrong got, (presumably about what Bush could live with in the case of a homosexual who had already been appointed to a position when he was "discovered" to be a homosexual, since he stated to the group that he wouldn't dismiss someone in that case, but "he would not "knowingly" appoint a practicing homosexual as an ambassador or department head".)Message 11985410 quoted word "knowingly," if not the one reported, that he would not "knowingly" appoint a practicing homosexual as an ambassador or department head?Bill, please, please help me out here: give me a sentence using the word "knowingly," the one direct-quote word, (and perhaps even offer some justification for substituting it for this very clear one, which was reported as fact.):'"Bush would not "knowingly" appoint a practicing 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? If you have, do tell me how it was done! one of them "promoted his or her sexual activities to influence policy."
