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.

Technology Stocks : Enterprise Informatics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bob zagorin who wrote (11007)	10/22/2003 11:37:36 AM
From: bob zagorin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13797

are you writing speeches for this guy greg? October 22, 2003 The General Who Roared (NYT edtorial) Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced yesterday that the Pentagon was investigating speeches in churches by a high-ranking Defense Department official who called the war on terrorism a Christian battle against Satan and disparaged a Muslim adversary as an idol worshiper. The inquiry seems like a waste of time. Mr. Rumsfeld should remove the officer, Lt. Gen. William Boykin, as deputy under secretary of defense for intelligence, where he leads the effort to capture the people on a most-wanted list headed by Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. General Boykin has made a practice of speaking about his job from the pulpit while wearing his uniform. The Los Angeles Times reported last week that he had told a congregation in Oregon that he was leading a "spiritual battle" against Satan. The only way for the United States, "a Christian nation," to defeat terrorists is to "come against them in the name of Jesus," he said. This is not a debate about General Boykin's religious views, as his conservative defenders say, or about free speech. The question of what military rule he may have violated — which is what the Pentagon inquiry may seize on — is a distraction. General Boykin was not exercising the free speech rights of a private citizen. Speaking as he did in uniform the day after he was appointed deputy under secretary was indefensible. Not only did a high-ranking government official make remarks that espoused a single religious view and denigrated others, but he damaged the national security policy of the United States. President Bush and all other top officials have said often, and rightly, that the United States is not engaged in a religious war. General Boykin, who is said to have asked for the inquiry, should not be undermining that policy, subjecting his country to international embarrassment and providing ammunition for those who portray the war against terror as a war against Islam. Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, who was criticized by Mr. Bush on Monday for making anti-Semitic remarks, tossed the Boykin case back at Mr. Bush yesterday, telling an interviewer that the general has a "biased view of Muslims." There was more than a whiff of hypocrisy in Mr. Rumsfeld's comments yesterday. The secretary professed to have formed no view on the Boykin matter because he had not heard the general's remarks. But Mr. Rumsfeld did not need a personal hearing earlier this year to chastise the Army chief of staff for differing with him on the war in Iraq, and to question the patriotism of retired generals who critiqued his war strategy on television. Unlike General Boykin, they did not have the backing of conservative Christians, a key constituency for Mr. Bush's re-election.

To: bob zagorin who wrote (11007)	10/22/2003 11:54:45 AM
From: Greg h2o	Respond to of 13797

gosh, bob...is that a NYT news report or an editorial? typical...."Mr. Ashcroft's regular, detailed briefings suggest that he has taken a more hands-on role in the politically charged investigation than the department had acknowledged." if that's not commentary and opinion, then i don't know what is... "suggest"? please, he was briefed on the progress. how is that a "hands-on" role? you're a journalist, bob...is that reporting the facts or placing a political slant on an article? why do i know that you won't answer that question.... and that's only in the second paragraph!!!