General disciplined for slipping up and revealing the Bush administration's worldview: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=1896&e=1&u=/nm/20041027/us_nm/arms_boykin_dc "The U.S. Army has taken action against Lt. Gen. William Boykin, who embarrassed the Bush administration by giving speeches in which he described the war on terrorism as a Christian battle against Satan." What's even scarier is this: "Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Richard Cody declined to give any details of the action taken in response to Boykin's remarks, which violated Pentagon rules, but said it was not "significant."" "Not significant"? WTF? Then again, these are probably the same kind of idiots who figured that the Abu Ghraib insanity was just innocent hijinx. I mean, really, how could an American general calling our actions in the Middle East a Christian crusade possibly affect our standing in the Muslim world?
They probably just assume that most arabs do view this as a christian crusade and the fact that an infidel stated that it is a correct assessment doesnt really affect a whole hell of alot.
But Bush won't come out and say that this is in fact incorrect; which means that he is in fact okay which the characterisation of a whole portion of the globe as minions of the Adversary...which then makes it easier, in direct proportion to that notion being propagated among US citizens in general and soliders in partiuclar, to monsterize and thus murder the demonic enemy. This administration's IDEAS must be MURDERED, in cold blood. Sacrificed on the altar even; whatever, as long as the neo-con view of the world DIES.
He should have known better and he has been reprimanded. You're convinced this amounts to the administration approving of this guy's message and not simply being unwilling deprive the Army of one it's most outstanding officers? We are at war. It's not the time to cut off your nose to spite your face. Patton said some similarly crazy stuff in WWII. He got about the same treatment. All this proves to me is that the truly outstanding (movie stars, soldiers, soccer players, whatever) can get away with things the rest of us can't.
That is not what he was disciplined for. Nevertheless, that is what you are saying he was disciplined for. Why is that? Does anyone think it helps or hurts credibility of those, who criticize either candidate, to distort, exagerate and/or lie? Then why do it. Who are the "idiots", who thought prisoner abuse was "just innocent hijinx"?
Unless you're interested in American getting into a lifelong holy war, you better hope our government shuts down this train of thought and speech QUICKLY.
Too bad nobody was ever punished for intentionally revealing the name of covert CIA operative working on the war against terror.
Are you familiar with the First Ammendment to the US Constitution? It's the one that allows us to publicly or privately express our views. It also facilitates calling our leaders to account for incompetence, and removing them from office on November 2.
Here's $5.00. Go buy a sense of black humor. And don't make me have to explain what "black humor" is although I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with Africans. While using sardonic humor to make a point, I was pointing out that this idiot's biggest mistake was in giving Muslim extremists ample opportunity to tell even moderate Muslims "See? The Americans SAY publically that it isn't a religious war, but look at what they say amongst themselves!" Of course, in defense of our dingbat general, he just followed the lead of his equally idiotic Commander-in-thief who called Iraq a "crusade". And if you can't figure out why that's a Really Bad Thing, well, I can't help you much further. Obviously you weren't around here in the immediate aftermath of the breaking of the Abu Ghriab story. There were plenty of right-wingers in here trying to make excuses for Abu Ghraib.
I am not sure if you meant this as an answer to my question. I asked who those were, who thought prisoner abuse was "just innocent hijinx". So far, I haven't learned of anyone significant. btw - the paragraph you quoted is from a comment posted by a "Nikos A. Leverenz". Who is he?
Reading your posts does not require a sense of humor, "black" or otherwise, only the realization that you exagerate, distort, and disinform to make your points. Of course, this general's comments were foolish. Please link what I've posted suggesting otherwise. But really, why even try. You won't find one thing I said defending or approving of his comments or indicating I "can't figure out why that's a Really Bad Thing". Not that the truth would keep you from suggesting otherwise. You do so frequently. Which naturally supports a supposition that US military leadership are probably like-minded "idiots".
Thank you for proving my supposition that you have no sense of humor, black or otherwise. btw, you're going to hate the Politics forum because most people here of all political stripes have at least some sense of humor. OK, I can play this stupid game too. Please link where I've posted that you said the general's comments were wise. See how dumb your game is? See above. See above. Hint to the Politics newbie: smilies generally suck. There are exceptions to that rule, but so far you haven't been the beneficiary of any of them yet. And certain portions of the U.S. military leadership are obviously idiots because if they weren't idiots they wouldn't have allowed such a self-destructive cluster******** like Abu Ghraib to happen and they wouldn't still be trying to blame just a few low-ranking morons for it either. I mean seriously, except for a few hard core Kool-aid drinkers who do they think they're fooling? I'd say we need some Israelis to teach us the finer points of conducting a PR campaign to finesse a military occuptation except they too seem to have lost any clue on the topic in recent years, sadly.
Well, Satan hatin' Gen. Boykin just got hisself canned. http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002319.php