18 October 2003


Boykin watch....

Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin has apologized and says his words were misconstrued.

Awww, what a guy! We were wrong, he shouldn't be fired after all.
...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."
Boy, I'll bet ya he gagged on that sentence!

Is the guy going to get away with this sham?

It seems so:
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.[Emphasis mine.]
Once again, the L.A. Times focuses on the anger Boykin's remarks have caused in Islamic communities. Once again I ask, what about non-Islamic, secularist American constituents who don't want a religious nut like this in charge of hunting down bin Laden and Hussein? If the guy can't separate his religious extremism from his job, he shouldn't hold a government position.

Boykin should be fired.

L.A. Times story, sad disappointment that it is, here.

17 October 2003


Is this site for real...?

Or an over-the-top parody?

It makes my skin crawl.

I can't believe the letters in the "hate mail" section are authentic. If I were a Right-Winger, trying to fake a "hate letter" from someone on the Left, I think I'd come up with something along the lines of what they have.

Creepy.

Pathetic....

That "defiance" of the Bush administration has been reduced to this.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 — The Senate defied the Bush administration on Thursday by insisting that Iraq repay up to $10 billion in reconstruction aid, even as a divided House took a different path and prepared to grant President Bush's $87 billion request for Iraq and Afghanistan without conditions.

A bipartisan coalition of moderate senators, saying that American taxpayers should not bear the entire burden of rebuilding Iraq, prevailed against strong administration opposition in a 51-to-47 vote Thursday evening. Their amendment — approved shortly after Vice President Dick Cheney failed to bring wavering senators in line through a round of phone calls — would require half of the $20.3 billion in reconstruction aid to be a loan to Iraq, unless the administration persuaded other countries to forgive 90 percent of Iraq's existing debt.
This is the best that Congress can do, even given the "waves of opposition that their constituents have voiced in the five weeks since Mr. Bush announced his intention of spending $87 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan" and the "record-high deficits [that] have squeezed public-works projects at home."

What spineless wheenies!

A bit further down in the story is the truth:
The debate about loans versus grants, however, could not obscure the administration's overall success in persuading both chambers to endorse the basic framework of its postwar Iraq policy. The president is virtually certain to command solid majorities in both houses for a vast majority of what he is asking for — and a mandate for a strong role in overseeing Iraq's future.
We have no opposition party in the U.S.

Complete story here.

16 October 2003


More about Boykin....

This story
in today's L.A. Times misses the point.

Rather than raising the question of General Boykin's fitness (see below) for the position of deputy undersecretary of Defense for intelligence, it suggests that someone should have "a quiet chat" with him, to get him to quit offending the Islamic world with all his religious posturing.

Forget the Islamic world! (For the moment only.) The issue here is not global public relations. As a secularist who believes strongly in the separation of church and state and as a citizen who wishes to prevent a repeat of 9/11/2001, I believe someone who has stated that the real enemy is Satan, not the bin Ladens of the world, should be disqualified for the position of deputy undersecretary of Defense for intelligence.

Period.

Fairy tales....

Some interesting quotes, uttered in June, by our nation's deputy undersecretary of defense, Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin, whose mission is to aggressively combine intelligence with special operations and hunt down "so-called high-value terrorist targets," including Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein (both still missing, as you may recall):
“Well, is he [bin Laden] the enemy? Next slide. Or is this man [Saddam] the enemy? The enemy is none of these people I have showed you here. The enemy is a spiritual enemy. He’s called the principality of darkness. The enemy is a guy called Satan.”

Why are terrorists out to destroy the United States? Boykin said: “They’re after us because we’re a Christian nation.”
There's more:
Boykin also routinely tells audiences that God, not the voters, chose President Bush: “Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? And I tell you this morning that he’s in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this.”
Lest NBC seem too critical of the Bush administration, the article carries this "disclaimer."
NBC News military analyst Bill Arkin, who’s been investigating Boykin for the Los Angeles Times, says the general casts the war on terror as a religious war: “I think that it is not only at odds with what the president believes, but it is a dangerous, extreme and pernicious view that really has no place.”
Yeah, right. And I've got a pretty bridge for sale.

On the other hand, who really wants to believe that the finger on the button to the nation's nuclear arsenal belongs to a man who believes Satan walks the earth and that he was placed in office by divine intervention?

Complete story, such as it is (NBC doesn't do depth) here.

14 October 2003


Saint George....

As Buzzflash asks, is the AP trying to sanctify Bush? By running this photo, the wire-service has lost a lot of credibility.

See for yourself here.

13 October 2003


Krugman sounds another warning in the NYT....

During the 1990's I spent much of my time focusing on economic crises around the world — in particular, on currency crises like those that struck Southeast Asia in 1997 and Argentina in 2001. The timing of such crises is hard to predict. But there are warning signs, like big trade and budget deficits and rising debt burdens.

And there's one thing I can't help noticing: a third world country with America's recent numbers — its huge budget and trade deficits, its growing reliance on short-term borrowing from the rest of the world — would definitely be on the watch list.
One mystery I will never understand is how the Republicans continue to successfully present themselves as the political party of fiscal responsibility.

Complete story here.

A taste of our new governor's tactics....

California Governor-Elect Arnold Schwarzenegger gets back at one of the women who accused him of sexual-harassment.

Read about it here.