Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (12901)	10/18/2003 5:07:58 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793623

The "LA Times" publishes General Boykin's answer. This man has done too good a job for us to lose his. ________________________________________________ General Apologizes for Remarks on Islam, Says He's No 'Zealot' Official said comments likening the war on terrorism to Islam fighting Christianity were misconstrued. By Paul Richter Times Staff Writer October 18, 2003 WASHINGTON -- A senior Pentagon official under fire for his comments about Islam said Friday that he never intended to denigrate the Muslim faith, and that he is not a "zealot or an extremist." In his first comments on the controversy, Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, deputy assistant secretary for intelligence, said that his earlier statements had been misconstrued. He said he did not believe that the Bush administration's "war on terrorism" was a conflict between Christianity and Islam. "For those who have been offended, I offer a sincere apology," he said in a statement. A highly decorated Special Operations specialist and born-again Christian, Boykin has spoken about his faith and Islam in a series of appearances before Christian groups. The comments, first reported this week by The Times and NBC, appeared to undermine President Bush's arguments that the American anti-terrorism effort is not aimed at Islam. Last year, for example, relating how he had fought a Somali warlord, Boykin told an audience: "My God was bigger than his ... I knew that my God was a real God and that his was an idol." In another speech, he said some Muslims hated the United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian ... and the enemy is a guy called Satan." Boykin also told a gathering that Bush was in the White House although "the majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this." But Boykin said Friday that he had been misunderstood. When he spoke of the Somali warlord, he did not mean that the Somali's god was Islam, but rather "his worship of money and power — idolatry." Boykin said he did believe that "radical extremists have sought to use Islam as a cause of attacks on America." As for his statement that God had installed Bush in the White House, Boykin said he meant that God had done the same for "Bill Clinton and other presidents." Though he defended his comments, Boykin has told others at the Pentagon that he will stop making speeches to religious groups and will try to tone down his remarks on the sensitive subject of religion. Defense officials said his job was not in jeopardy. While senior Pentagon and White House officials have sought to minimize damage from the episode, it is clear that some Muslim audiences are angry. Adel Al-Jubeir, a foreign policy advisor to Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, told reporters in Washington on Friday that Boykin's comments were "outrageous" and "certainly unbecoming of a senior government official." White House spokesman Trent Duffy, asked to comment on the general's remarks, referred questions to the Pentagon. Duffy noted that Bush has said the United States is not at war with Islam. Boykin spent much of Friday with Pentagon lawyers and public relations officials fashioning his statement. One official said he had seen five versions of the statement, which was released in Washington at 6:45 p.m. Boykin's earlier comments brought new criticism from Democratic presidential candidates. Addressing the Arab American Institute in Dearborn, Mich., Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut called on Bush to condemn Boykin's "hateful remarks." "The war on terrorism is a war on terrorists, not on religions," he said. "The Bush administration, which claims to understand that, needs to condemn anyone who says otherwise." Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts told the same gathering that Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld "needs to go." Eugene Fidell, a military law specialist in Washington, said he was unaware of any law or rule that Boykin had broken. But he said the general's comments posed a "management problem" for Boykin's superiors because they appeared to reflect "profoundly poor judgment." "Can this genie be gotten back in the bottle, in terms of its effect on foreign listeners?" he asked. "What to do is a challenge." In his 33-year military career, Boykin has been involved in some well-known special forces operations. Among them were the abortive attempt to rescue Americans held hostage in Iran in 1979, and the 1993 "Black Hawk Down" incident in Somalia. In the 1970s, he was one of the first officers to be part of the famed Delta Force commando organization. Rumsfeld declined to comment Thursday on Boykin's reported remarks, saying he had not read them. He praised Boykin's "outstanding record" as a military officer. Though one American Muslim group called for Boykin's resignation Thursday, Boykin's comments did not draw much media attention in the Arab world Friday. Several newspapers in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Kuwait reported his statements without commentary or analysis. In Baghdad, few papers publish on what is the Islamic holy day. Times staff writer Greg Miller contributed to this report. latimes.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (12901)	10/18/2003 5:11:33 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793623

Good comment from "Lileks" on the use of the "Quotes" _____________________________________________________ I might have gotten my can hauled into the office for this: "Boykin is also in a senior Pentagon policymaking position, and its a serious mistake to allow a man who believes in a Christian 'jihad' to hold such a job." It’s a quote from an LA Times piece about this Pentagon official accused of speaking honestly; you can find the whole story at Hugh’s site. I’ll leave the particulars for others; I’m interested in the sleight-of-hand the columnist pulled here. The guy he’s quoting didn’t use the word “jihad.” The columnist put the word in quotes to signal that the guy didn’t use that word, you see. Got it. Oh, I can imagine that conversation with the boss I'd have if I did this: So you wrote that he believed in a Christian jihad. (Coyly channeling Michael Palin in the dock as a professional Cardinal Richelieu impersonator) Ah did that thing. But he didn’t say that. Exactly? Well,he meant, it though. He meant it. Yes, and that’s why I put it in quotes. Quotes. Which are usually reserved for, you know, quotes. Right, but I used them here to set the word apart. You know, show that it was a paraphrase. By using the means we use to indicate direct transcriptions. Well, sometimes, sure. But I meant them more as, you know, those air quotes you do with your fingers? So in the future should we have a picture of you with your fingers in the air to indicate that the quote is not, actually, a quote? Look, the point is true. The guy wants a jihad; look at what he said - Why look at what he said, when we can just ask you to describe the general aroma? You moron! There’s one standard in this business, and that these little curvy things, these dots with hooks, mean we are using the words of the person we’re talking about. WORDS. I probably wouldn’t get fired. But I recall times in which I’ve screwed up a fact or figure, and it always took about three, four months before I didn’t approach copy desk with cap in hand. And that’s what makes me wonder about this situation: didn’t anyone on copy desk raise an eyebrow? Apparently not: either the writer had so much juice that no one dared question his Work, or he had sufficient reputation, and all his quotes were considered untouchable because he had a reputation for accuracy. Hell, if he puts it in quotes, it’s a quote. Copy boy! But. My Strib editor, Bill, has an exquisitely tuned BS detector; he finds stuff that’s wrong in AP copy. The idea that a Pentagon official would call for “jihad” would set off a carillon in his head, and he’d ask, quite nicely: is that really what the guy said? Copy desk is the last line of defense. In my last Newhouse column, for example, I said something about Amazonian lemurs; my editor informed me that copy desk had checked, and they don’t have lemurs. How about substituting another critter? I was stunned. “Without copy desk,” I said, “life itself would be impossible.” The moment a writer ceases to respect the desk is the moment he starts to screw his head into his own navel. Rule of the business: The worse the writing, the more untouchable the writer. lileks.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (12901)	10/18/2003 5:36:09 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793623

This is one of the Democrat's best issues. UPI ___________________________________________ Analysis: Dems chase green vote for 2004 By Christian Bourge UPI Congressional and Policy Correspondent Published 10/18/2003 10:32 AM WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 (UPI) -- Although a Senate committee approved the nomination of Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency, President Bush's choice to head the agency still faces a tough battle ahead that signals Democratic hopes to make the environment a key election issue next year. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee vote had been delayed from Oct. 1 when committee Democrats staged a protest by not showing up for a scheduled vote on the nomination, and Leavitt now faces several Democrats vowing to block his nomination from being voted on by the entire Senate. The Democrats said their aim is to call attention to the Bush administration's environmental policies and the White House's unwillingness to provide information about controversial practices and polices. Senate committee Democrats -- including Sen. Hillary Clinton, R-N.Y. -- and allies like environment committee ranking member Sen. Jim Jeffords, I-Vt., say that they have no problem with the nominee, but that the real issue is the Bush administration's refusal to answer questions about how the EPA evaluated the environmental risks at the World Trade Center following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks or on its clean air initiative. Clinton has said that her concerns are not with Leavitt, but that White House political officials, not EPA officers, are setting Bush administration environmental policies. Clinton is one of numerous Democrats that have placed a hold on the Leavitt nomination, a list that includes two presidential candidates -- Sens. John Edwards, D-N.C., and Joe Lieberman, D-Conn. -- along with Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. Because of this the Bush administration is far from getting a win on the Leavitt nomination. Committee Republicans insist that the move to block the nominee and related attacks on the Bush administration's environmental record are, in the words of Senate environment committee Chairman James Inhofe, R-Okla., "baseless." They contend that Democrats are only politicizing nomination to make the environment a 2004 election issue. "They clearly see a weakness here and are exploiting it," one senior Republican Senate aide told United Press International. There is much evidence that Bush's EPA has been a boon to industries -- like electricity producers -- who spent eight years under the Clinton administration fighting increased regulatory enforcement and tightening restrictions on their practices. Clinton's stated concerns about the Bush environmental record are even shared by Democrats who approved Leavitt's nomination out of committee. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said at Wednesday's hearing on the nominee that, while Leavitt is a good candidate for the job, Wyden is at odds with Bush administration policies. "There are monumental gaps between the bipartisan approach that Mike Leavitt took when he was governor of Utah and this administration," said Wyden. Wyden went on to call Bush's term a 30-month holiday for polluters where EPA enforcement has basically been abandoned, adding that the administration's own reports demonstrate this belief. Nevertheless, Wyden approved the nominee, noting that his conversations with Leavitt convinced him that he agrees that tough, no-nonsense enforcement of the nation's environmental laws is important. If that translates into the way the Leavitt handles the jobs, it could mean a significant change at the agency. The term of the previous EPA administrator -- Christine Todd Whitman -- is largely considered a disaster by critics and was marked only by her powerlessness in moving ahead with any major policies not put into play by the White House itself. While Senate Democrats may have some genuine concerns about the Bush administration's environmental polices, there is a clear political element in their actions on Leavitt's nomination that smacks of both their powerlessness to control this administration and craving for regained control of the White House. Environmental policy may yet prove to be key to that effort. Environmental policy is the type of issue that voters largely ignore when the economy is going well and they feel safe -- as they did in the 2000 presidential race -- and focus on when things are down. With the economy apparently making a slow rebound that has not yet made itself detectable to voters, it is possible there could not be a large enough recovery in the job market for voters to take notice in time for the election. The small upswings in economic indicators may also prove temporary. Independent pollster John Zogby told UPI that green issues are not getting much attention at the present time, but could rear their head as an important concern come November 2004. "It is one of those issue that if thing are going well (economically and politically), it is not an issue," said Zogby. "But if there is again a cataclysmic event (like a terrorist attack or bad economic new) or a mistake, it is going to erupt," he said. In addition some of Bush's key environmental decisions -- like lowering carbon dioxide emissions for electrical power plants -- can hurt him with badly needed swing voters and galvanize the Democratic base. Issues such as reversing Clinton-era proposals for lowering the level of allowable arsenic in drinking water, reversing U.S. support for the Kyoto global warming treaty, or even attempting allow the drilling for oil in the Alaskan Wildlife refuge can serve to hurt him with voters. "That (the arsenic issue) just alienated centrist swing voters like soccer moms who said they didn't know there was arsenic in the water," said Zogby. Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International upi.com