Maybe that’s what his goal is. The pay beats even that of a Lt. Gen. and the responsibility is nil. You can say outrageous things, safely give any advice, no matter how cracker-ass, because you are not accountable, and be a big hit with the “ditto heads” by repeating over and over that “Godless secular humanists and liberals are ruining the country,” and be well paid for it.
Army officers don’t get to stratospheric rank by being unsophisticated meat heads. I think he must know exactly what he is doing, evein if it isn’t immediately apparent to those of us on the outside. After all Smirk in Chief, his Big Boss, is also a born-again and probably secretly agrees with the General.
it seems to me that Rummy honestly did not know about this jerk’s statements until he was asked about them. Imagine that this was the sitch:
Reporters jostling, shouting questions, the usual. One of them yells out, “Do you support the statements General Boykin made at this event?” Now, Rummy knows who Boykin is, but doesn’t know what this guy is talking about, so he gives the standard boilerplate answer when you don’t know: I don’t know, but I do know Boykin is a fine officer, blah blah blah."
When pressed he came up with that statement about them being free to say anything they liked but what else could he say without knowing what Boykin had said? I don’t see any sign than Rummy knew exactly what he’d said–if he did, and no rules had been broken, he was a tight spot. We’ll see what happens. This guy’s a moron but I’d need to know a lot more about the rules governing generals and what they can say in which settings before I dump on his superiors for not reigning him in.
But you don’t go around throwing your guys to the wolves just because a reporter asks a question about something they may (or may not, reporters distort) have said. Given what’s said in that article, Rummy did the right thing IMO.
>And as for the U.S. being a “Christian nation”, our foreign policy
>is a far, far cry from the ideals espoused by Jesus, isn’t it?
…Because God never wanted people to hurt anyone under any provocation, right?
I think people are reading too much into it…he never said that we were fighting Islam, he simply said that he believed that his God was real and the Islamic God is not.
Don’t people believe that terrorism is evil? According to the Christian religion, satan spawns all evil. Satan --> evil --> terrorism. Never says that all Muslims are evil, no matter how much you want him to say that.
Is there a record of him saying these things at military gatherings? If so, I think it’s pretty out of place. However, according to the news last night, most to all of his statements were made in churches. Nothing wrong with a prominent figure having a religion, is there? He claims that his work will not be affected by his religion. Innocent until proven guilty.
It’s still bigotry. Even Bush, whose intelligence I don’t often credit, has had the tact to say that Islam is a peaceful religion and such. This jerkwad apparently didn’t get the memo.
Bwa? When member of one religion says of another “I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol,” that’s a far cry from ‘having the gall to believe in a religion.’ You can believe in a religion without resorting to absurd remarks belittling the religion of others. Especially when they’re pretty much the same religion.
Anyway, by your logic, should anybody condemn Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell for the moronic, extremely bigoted things they said about gays, lesbians and the ACLU after September 11th? They might not have been in a church, but they were on a religious-themed program. I have absolutely no idea why it matters that Boykin was in a church when he said this. Does he get to yell “Sanctuary!” or something? He doesn’t get a free pass for intolerant comments just because they’re made to a church.
Its true that Bush has paid quite some lip service to saying its not a war on Islam… which makes for these contradictions in the Administration even wierder.
Rummy hasn’t put his foot in his mouth for quite a while too… seems some old habits are back.
I don’t like or agree with what he said. personally I feel he is an asshole. HOWEVER I hope no offical punishment comes to him.
freedom of religion means freedom of religion, even if its something we don’t like.
and yeah that statement sounds like I am talking about what he said, not about him. but I’m not, its not freedom of religion as long as you are tolerant. there isn’t qualifyers and that applys to all sides equally.
so yes, we can all hate him… but offical punishments don’t seem so great. we can’t go showing how religiously tollerateing we are by punishing people who happen to dislike someone’s religious belief. even if we really really really don’t like it because it doesn’t match our ideas of tollerance.
This guy isn’t part of the Administration, Rashak. He’s part of the Army. Unless you mean Rumsfeld, in which case the contradiction would be how he’s suddenly all pro-freedom of speech, as DeadJesus said.
I think owl’s probably on the mark. It should be made clear to Boykin, though, that if he’s going to make comments like this, he shouldn’t do it in uniform as a representative of the United States government or Armed Forces.
I have no idea what God wants people to do, but Jesus told us to love our neighbors–and our enemies–and that the meek shall inherit the Earth. US foreign policy is based on the arrogant pursuit of hegemony, pre-emptive strikes against those who have not provoked us, and hating our friends.
Are you talking about Gen. Boykin or Osama bin Laden? It depends whether the religious point in question is bigoted. The fact that the jihadists think the US is the Great Satan is actually more significant than the fact that they carried out violent attacks against us. There is no such thing as Satan, therefore anyone who equates another with Satan is a bigot. Gen. Boykin is a rather milder bigot than OBL, that’s all.
IMHO, his work already has been affected by his religion. By making such public statements, in uniform as a representative of the military, he has likely given Al Qaeda another piece of recruitment propaganda. I’m sure that’s not his goal but it is still a possible result. Doing things that potentially help the enemy to increase its ranks strikes me as something that conflicts with his work.
This d@mn fool needs to broken back down to buck private. It’s precisely this sort of crap which invites further terrorist attacks on our soil. Private opinions are one thing. Issuing such statements while in high ranking uniform is counter to our nation’s constitution and essentially bigoted.
To add my voice to the others’. The man was in uniform. In uniform, he is a servant of the USA and his statements will be taken to reflect upon the USA as a whole. When in that uniform, he is to be held to a strict and high standard. If he wants to shoot his mouth of as he has been, he can resign his commission. He is in the service voluntarily, and part of that service is that he accepts certain curtailments of his freedom of activity. If he is not willing to live by such standards, he does not belong in uniform.
