Democrats to Christians, "Don't Ask - Don't Tell"

[Tigermike 3,053]

Don't ask - Don't tell

William Federer

November 1, 2003

Homosexuals come out of the closet, Christians go in!

If sixteen Democrats in the House of Representatives have their way, General Boykin will be censured and reassigned for sharing his faith. While silent about the Muslim "spy" chaplain at Guantanamo Bay, Democrat Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D OH), Sheila Jackson Lee (D TX) and Maxine Waters (D CA) introduced House Resolution 419, calling for, in essence, the establishment of a new military policy of "Don't Ask - Don't Tell" your faith if you are Christian.

ESTABLISHING INTOLERANCE

In Islamic countries, there is an intolerance toward Judeo-Christian expression. Public execution may be one's fate for openly sharing faith. A "fatwah" - a call by clerics for one's death - may be made against one accused of opposing Allah.

In the United States, there is developing an intolerance toward Judeo-Christian expression. Lt. General William G. 'Jerry'  Boykin is facing near public execution for sharing his faith. Indeed, the politically-correct clerics have put out a "fatwah" calling for the death of his career.

NPR's Nina Totenberg stated regarding the General "I hope he's not long for this world." When her shocked co-panelist reacted to what sounded like a death wish, she quickly responded "In his job, in his job, in his job, please, please, please, in his job."1

If she had made this Freudian slip about someone of any other race or religion, she would have been retired.

THE CRIME

General Boykin, recipient of the Purple Heart, Bronze Star, and Legion of Merit, talked about his faith in God in a church and at a prayer breakfast!

How criminal! Whoever heard of such a terrible thing - talking about one's faith in a church and prayer breakfast!

THOUGHT POLICE

What are these detractors doing anyway - spying on people? Is every person's personal faith now under the scrutiny of the Orwellian "Thought Police"?

Are they copying Robespierre, who, during the French Revolution, sent thousands to the guillotine for expressing thoughts contrary to their new atheistic government?

Hitler's SS and Stalin's KGB also carried away thousands who expressed thoughts contrary to their atheistic governments.

In Tianamen Square, thousands were massacred for daring to express thoughts different than the atheistic People's Republic of China.

CHARACTER ASSASSINATION

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word "assassin" as coming from the Arabic word hashshAshIn, one who smokes or chews hashIsh, circa 1520: one of a secret order of Muslims that.terrorized Christians and other enemies by secret murder committed under the influence of hashish.2

Any public figure faces character assassination who does not embrace their political agenda, be it Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Trent Lott, Roy Moore, Miguel Estrada, Mel Gibson or even Arnold Schwarzenegger. There is no freedom of speech unless one speaks what they want.

As Gephardt described in his book "An Even Better Place" (1999): "Our dirty little secret is that it comes so naturally to us as human beings to attack, to smear, to assassinate..to revert to violence and near-violence in our social and political lives, figuratively killing one another through personal assaults upon one another's character."3

WHERE IS THE TOLERANCE?

Where is this tolerance they so proudly profess? Why don't they extend this same tolerance to people who disagree with them?

The philanderings of Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson and Teddy Kennedy were certainly tolerated? Why the double standard?

A "hate crime" is being committed against General Boykin - vilification and discrimination - simply because his views are different than theirs.

Where is the ACLU when you need them? They claim to be champions of those persecuted for exercising their "freedom of speech."

ORWELLIAN DOUBLE-SPEAK

"To show we are tolerant, we will not tolerate you."

George Orwell's book "1984" described a futuristic government with a Department of Truth which changed the definitions of words to mean their exact opposite. Has the definition of the word "tolerance" been changed to mean "intolerance" toward those who do not conform?

BLACK HAWK DOWN

The movie "Black Hawk Down" depicted the 1993 horror in Somalia after Clinton denied equipment requested by the troops. Boykin was commander of those downed special forces, which were surrounded by warlord fighters. He probably still hears his soldiers' desperate radio calls for backup. The enemy not only killed the U.S. soldiers but desecrated them, stripped them, tied cables around their necks hooked them to cars and dragged their bloody, naked bodies through the streets of Mogadishu.

Lt. General Boykin is accused of being "insensitive" in his remarks about these Somalian warlords, yet most Americans would agree this treatment of our soldiers was demonic and whatever god those who perpetrated this act serve, it is not the same as ours.

EISENHOWER

Consider General Eisenhower's "insensitive" D-Day orders, June 6, 1944:

"Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force....You will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe....Let us all beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble undertaking."4

And General Eisenhower's Battle of the Bulge orders, December 22, 1944:

"Let everyone hold before him a single thought - to destroy the enemy on the ground, in the air, everywhere - destroy him! United in this determination and with unshakable faith in the cause for which we fight, we will, with God's help, go forward to our greatest victory."5

WINSTON CHURCHILL

Winston Churchill was "insensitive" toward Nazis in speaking before the House of Commons, June 18, 1940:

"The Battle of France is over. I expect that the Battle of Britain is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization..The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us.If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free.But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States.will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age."6

JEFFERSON

What would Thomas Jefferson think about punishing the General Boykin for speaking his mind?

In a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800, Jefferson stated:

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."7

On January 16, 1786, Thomas Jefferson drafted the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, stating:

"Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested His Supreme Will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraints; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to begat habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of religion."8

GENERAL WASHINGTON

(Warning: Viewing the following could be disturbing to those historically sheltered.)

After the Declaration was read to his troops, July 9, 1776, George Washington's first order was to appoint Chaplains to each regiment, concluding:

"The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier, defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country."9

To his troops at Valley Forge, May 2, 1778, General George Washington stated:

"The Commander-in-Chief directs that Divine service be performed every Sunday at 11 o'clock, in each Brigade which has a Chaplain....While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian."10

On May 12, 1779, General George Washington spoke with the Chiefs of the Delaware Indian tribe who had visited his Middle Brook military encampment:

"Brothers: I am glad you have brought three of the Children of your principal Chiefs to be educated with us....You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ."11

Was he proselytizing while in uniform?

LINCOLN

Commander-in-Chief President Abraham Lincoln issued a General Order respecting Sabbath Observance, November 15, 1862:

"The importance for man and beast of the prescribed weekly rest, the sacred rights of Christian soldiers and sailors, a becoming deference to the best sentiment of a Christian people, and a due regard for the Divine Will demand that Sunday labor in the Army and Navy be reduced to the measure of strict necessity."12

This order was reissued word for word by President Benjamin Harrison on June 7, 1889 and President Woodrow Wilson, January 20, 1918.13

PEACEFUL RELIGION

We all applaud the President's use of "peaceful religion" rhetoric to encourage the Islamic world to continue cooperating in the war of terror, but there is a risk of appearing out of touch with reality, as every day headlines report Islamists involved in car bombings, suicide bombings, "honor killings," gang rapes, adulteresses facing stoning, snipers on trial, converts to other faiths stoned, wahabism.stories from the Bali Bomber to the Miss Universe contest in Nigeria to the millions killed in southern Sudan, not to mention the history that by 950 AD, half of what had been the Christian world was conquered by followers of Mohammed.14

It is certainly our desire to give every encouragement to those believing a moderate form of Islam, but we can do this without denying 84% of Americans, which according to the U.S. Government's CIA.gov World Fact Book are Christian, of their freedom of speech.15

THE LIGHT THAT SHINES THE FARTHEST

Catherine the Great of Russia would dress up the peasants along the road to give visitors from other countries the false impression of prosperity, when in reality her people were suffering in poverty.

Is America trying to give other countries the false impression that we are tolerant, when in reality people of traditional values are suffering intolerance?

America prides itself in being the most tolerant country in the world. Wouldn't it be ironic that we defeat Saddam's intolerant regime, only to set up Saddam's intolerant policies right here on our own soil?

The Pilgrims came to America for the right to express their personal faith in God without interference, yet now the General of "Black Hawk Down" is being publicly punished for his faith.

Thankfully, seventeen members of Congress, led by Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R KS), have sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asking him to stand up for Gen. Boykin.

It is said, "the light that shines the farthest - shines the brightest at home." If America is serious about spreading tolerance around the world, we should be an example of it first at home - by demonstrating tolerance toward General Boykin.

________________________________

1. Totenberg, Nina. October 18, 2003, National Public Radio. Gary L. Bauer, chairman, Campaign for Working Families, email newsletter to Friends and Supporters of the Campaign for Working Families, Monday, October 20, 2003. Campaign for Working Families, 2800 Shirlington Road, Suite 605, Arlington, VA 22206, 703-671-8800, 703-671-8899fax, www.cwfpac.com..

2. Merriam Webster Dictionary: as·sas·sin javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?assass01.wav=assassin')javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?assass01.wav=assassin') Pronunciation: &-'sa-s&n Function: noun, Etymology: Medieval Latin assassinus, from Arabic hashshAshIn, plural of hashshAsh one who smokes or chews hashish, from hashIsh hashish Date: circa 1520, 1 capitalized : one of a secret order of Muslims that at the time of the Crusades terrorized Christians and other enemies by secret murder committed under the influence of hashish.

3. Richard A. Gephardt, An Even Better Place (NY: Public Affairs, 1999), page 11-"Our dirty little secret is that it comes so naturally us as human beings to attack, to smear, to assassinate. The lust to retaliate with lethal force is understandable." Page 11-"to revert to violence and near-violence in our social and political lives, figuratively killing one another through personal assaults upon one another's character." Page 203-"When positive imagery about your own candidate proves insufficient, negative ads about your opponent are the only alternative." Page 203-"To provide fodder for the assault on one's opponent, negative research is now a necessity. Any scandal or embarrassment that can be dug up - no matter how dated, irrelevant, or distorted - is saved for use at the most opportune moment." Page 204-"Government mechanisms, like independent counsels and ethics committees, can be manipulated to help generate, publicize and promote such charges." Page 204-"And the media, of course, serve as a powerful accomplice... Rumors and gossip once considered beneath the dignity of traditional journalism are now quickly disseminated."

4. Eisenhower, Dwight David. June 6, 1944, in his "D-day Orders of the Day." Dwight D. Eisenhower, Crusade in Europe (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1948), back cover.

5. Eisenhower, Dwight David. December 22, 1944, in his "Orders of the Day" during the Battle of the Bulge. Diary, Office C-in-C, Book XIV, p. 1910. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Crusade in Europe (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1948), p. 355.

6. Winston Churchill, speaking before the House of Commons, June 18, 1940.

7. Jefferson, Thomas. September 23, 1800, in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush. Jefferson's Extracts from the Gospels, p. 320. John Bartlett, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1855, 1980), p. 388. Jefferson Memorial, Washington, D.C.

8 Jefferson, Thomas. Jefferson Memorial, Washington D.C. January 16, 1786, in a bill written by the Committee on Religion, Virginia Assembly. H.A. Washington, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson - Being His Autobiography, Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, and Other Writings, Official and Private, 9 vols. (Jackson: 1859); (Washington: 1853-54); (Philadelphia: 1871), Vol. 8; (NY: Derby), Vol. VIII, p. 454-56.

9 Washington, George. July 9, 1776, order issued to the army in response to the reading of the Declaration of Independence by the Continental Congress. Jared Sparks, ed., The Writings of George Washington 12 vols. (Boston: American Stationer's Company, 1837; NY: F. Andrew's, 1834-1847), Vol. III, p. 456. Writings of George Washington, (Sparks ed.), Vol. XII, p. 401, citing Orderly Book; also orders of August 3, 1776, in ibid., IV, 28 n.

10. Washington, George. May 2, 1778, orders issued to his troops at Valley Forge. George Washington, General Orders (Mount Vernon, VA: Archives of Mount Vernon). Henry Whiting, Revolutionary Orders of General Washington, selected from MSS. of John Whiting (1844), p. 74. Benson J. Lossing, The Pictorial Field-Book of the Revolution (1886), Vol. II, p. 140. John Clement Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington, from the Original Manuscript Sources 1749-1799, 39 vols. (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1931-1944), Vol. XI, p. 343.

11. Washington, George. May 12, 1779, from his "Address to Delaware Chiefs Indian Chiefs," John Clement Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources: 1749-1799, 39 vols. (Washington, DC: Bureau of National Literature and Art, 1907), 1:64. John Clement Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington, from the Original Manuscript Sources 1749-1799, 39 vols. (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1931-1944), Vol. XV, p. 55.

12. Lincoln, Abraham. November 15, 1862, from his Executive Mansion in Washington, D.C., issued a General Order Respecting the Observance of the Sabbath Day in the Army and Navy. James D. Richardson (U.S. Representative from Tennessee), ed., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, 10 vols. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, published by Authority of Congress, 1897, 1899; Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Literature and Art, 1789-1902, 11 vols., 1907, 1910), Vol. VI, p. 125.

13. Harrison, Benjamin. June 7, 1889, from his Executive Mansion. James D. Richardson (U.S. Representative from Tennessee), ed., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, 10 vols. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, published by Authority of Congress, 1897, 1899; Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Literature and Art, 1789-1902, 11 vols., 1907, 1910), Vol. IX, p. 29. Wilson, (Thomas) Woodrow. January 20, 1918, in an Executive Order to the Army and Navy enjoining Sabbath observance. A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents 20 vols. (New York: Bureau of National Literature, Inc., prepared under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing, of the House and Senate, pursuant to an Act of the Fifty-Second Congress of the United States, 1893, 1923), Vol. XVII, p. 8433.

14. Jerry Newcombe, writer/researcher, Coral Ridge Ministries, 5555 N. Federal Highway, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 33308, 954-946-0794.

15. U.S. Government's www.CIA.gov website - World Fact Book link which lists the United States as 84 percent Christian (56 percent Protestant, 28 percent Catholic)

[MDM4AU 336]

Great post, Tigermike.

[Tiger Al 0]

It seems to me that people would realize that there is a time and a place for everything, and that right now in Iraq is neither, unless you want to turn millions of Muslims against our relatively few soldiers because they believe the "American imperialists" not only want their oil, but want to Christianize their country as well. Stop reacting and think for a minute.

Try to imagine if this situation were reversed and they were in this country and all of us on WEN were freedom fighters. When we found out that one of their generals was some loose cannon who had talked about his Muhammed being bigger than our Jesus, don't you think it'd be a great idea to use that to drum up support for our cause? I'd do that. Don't you think they're doing that?

Why make the job harder than it already is for our soldiers by unnecessarily throwing gasoline on the fire?

[MDM4AU 336]

Tiger AL, the difference in what really happened and your post is that Gen. Boykin's remarks were made in the States at an AMERICAN Church that asked him to speak. They weren't made in the Middle East or any Muslim Country!

If he can't speak of his faith in America, in a house of faith in America, where can he speak it? Are you really that friggin' stubborn?

Jiminey Cricket, man!

[Tiger Al 0]

Tiger AL, the difference in what really happened and your post is that Gen. Boykin's remarks were made in the States at an AMERICAN Church that asked him to speak.  They weren't made in the Middle East or any Muslim Country!

If he can't speak of his faith in America, in a house of faith in America, where can he speak it?  Are you really that friggin' stubborn?

Jiminey Cricket, man!

I understand he wasn't there, but here, when he said it. Does his location change what he said in their minds? This isn't about some guy going to a few churches and talking about how he was 13 when he got saved and accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and personal Savior. He said some very derogatory things about a religion and its' beliefs and now it's got to basically be bulletin board material for the people still very hostile about our being there. Now he's there. It would be like sending Lee Corso, Trev Alberts or Paul Finebaum into the middle of Auburn's campus right after they finished giving us every reason why they knew we were overrated going into the season...only worse. Infinitely worse. Don't you think the Army has someone else just as good, or better, who might not be as much of a lightning rod as Boykin is?

As I said, stop reacting and THINK!!!

[MDM4AU 336]

Stop your condscending talk (As I said, stop reacting and THINK!!! ). It's uncalled for. You may be 10 years older than me but it makes you no smarter!

I am thinking rather than simply reacting. I am thinking that a man comes home, is asked to speak at a church that is "seperated from the state" and what he states as his beleif is being used against him by his own government. Why do you defend this behavior?

And the uproar is about him speaking his faith in uniform. There is nothing wrong with a man in the friggin' USA speaking about his faith. The claims are that he should not be in uniform and speak about his faith! The claims come from those with obviously different beliefs.

Resolution 419 basically says not to speak of your religious faith if you are in the Military. Tell me how that is ok!

But I realize you are unable to speak on this without spinning into, "BOYKIN IS WRONG, REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE STAND FOR (CONSTITUTION OF THE USA) IN THIS COUNTRY SINCE IT DOESN"T COINSIDE WITH MY BELEIFS." You would rather defend his attackers (All liberal Dems.). You wouldn't be a good liberal if you spoke against your party.

Oh, well, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. If not, this thread will go on forever...

[Tiger Al 0]

What I'm trying to point out is NOT the fact that he is a Christian or that he's proud of it or that he talks about it or that he said his God is real and Islam's God is an idol! I wouldn't have said it, but he's entitled to his opinion and God love him.

But, because those opinions have been made public, I think he's the wrong person to be in the middle of Islam Central because now the enemy will use his remarks as propaganda to enlist people who might otherwise have been indifferent to our soldiers. His remarks about Islam, whether you agree with them or not, will be used by the people who are attacking and killing our soldiers to enflame and recruit more to do the same. If he'd made the exact same remarks and we fighting in Peru then they wouldn't affect the safety of our troops. THAT is my point.

If you would read the text of HR 419 you'd see that it is not a sweeping action forced on all service members. It is directed specifically toward Boykin and it is not a call for him to "go in the closet." It is a condemnation of his religiously intolerant remarks and an appeal to president Bush to censure and reassign Boykin for those remarks. There is not one single mention of his speaking religiously while wearing a uniform. There is no call to abolish or otherwise prevent service members from practicing their religious faith. There is no...well, read it yourself.

H. RES. 419

Condemning religiously intolerant remarks and calling on the President to clearly censure and reassign Lieutenant General Boykin for his religiously intolerant remarks.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 28, 2003

Mr. CONYERS (for himself, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. KUCINICH, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. WEINER, Mr. MEEKS of New York, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Ms. WATERS, Ms. LEE, Mr. HONDA, Ms. LOFGREN, Ms. WATSON, Mr. HINCHEY, and Mr. MEEHAN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

RESOLUTION

Condemning religiously intolerant remarks and calling on the President to clearly censure and reassign Lieutenant General Boykin for his religiously intolerant remarks.

Whereas Lieutenant General William Boykin, United States Army, who is currently serving as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and War-Fighting Support, has recently made a number of intolerant remarks against people of the Islamic faith while wearing his military uniform during numerous public addresses;

Whereas those remarks by Lieutenant General Boykin include the following: Islamic extremists hate the United States because `we're a Christian nation'; `Our spiritual enemy will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus'; President Bush `is in the White House because God put him there'; `I knew that my God was a real God, and [the Muslim God] was an idol'; `The enemy that has come against our nation is a spiritual enemy' named Satan;

Whereas Islam is a monotheistic faith, a faith whose followers are an integral part of the social fabric of America and many other countries;

Whereas the position currently held by Lieutenant General Boykin requires him to interact routinely with Muslims from all over the world;

Whereas Lieutenant General Boykin has failed to retract his remarks or to issue a full apology for those controversial and divisive statements;

Whereas the remarks made by Lieutenant General Boykin have impaired the image of the United States worldwide and threaten to endanger United States forces in Iraq and Afghanistan; and

Whereas such remarks by a high-ranking military official undermine the war on terrorism by insulting Muslim allies of the United States and Muslim citizens of the United States, including those Muslim citizens in the United States Armed Forces: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1) condemns bigotry and intolerance against any religious group, including people of the Islamic faith; and

(2) calls on the President--

(A) to clearly censure Lieutenant General William Boykin, United States Army, for his religiously intolerant remarks against people of the Islamic faith; and

(B ) to reassign Lieutenant General Boykin to a new position in which his views will not impact United States Government policy decisions toward Muslims.

MDM, there's no doubt that you're smart. I mean that and I'm not being condescending. You should just try to think outside of your box sometimes. These issues that we discuss aren't always black and white. I think that's the most basic philosophical difference between people who are liberal thinkers and those who are conservative thinkers. Conservatives seem to think in terms that are strictly black and white with very little gray, whereas liberals tend to look at things in smaller areas of black and white and an awful lot of gray. There's nothing inherently wrong with either one and there are exceptions to every rule.

And, contrary to what you seem to believe, I don't run to look in the DNC guidebook when deciding what I think about an issue. There are Democratic positions I don't agree with just as there are Republican ones that I do. Today, I was glad to see Dubya sign the partial-birth abortion ban. I am pro-choice, but I also think that there should be some point in gestation where the statute of limitations runs out on making that decision.

Alright, flame away and I'll try to put out the fires!!!

[MDM4AU 336]

Tiger Al,

Mark this down because it won't happen much! I see your point for the most part about his nature in the Mid East. I had not seen the entire resolution though I had seen most of it.

I do feel we are walking a very, very thin line here in Censuring (or censoring) this man for what he says in an American house of faith. I would hate to see the day when the President of the United States cannot go to Church because it may offend someone of another faith. If it can happen to a General it can happen to the Commander-In-Chief. You may laugh at that now, but if it happens years from now or some left-wing wacko decides it needs to happen (and you know the ACLU would be all over this backing the lefty) this won't be quite so funny. Think about what effect this will have in future incidents.

And lastly, little or not, his being in uniform has nothing to do with it, period. That is being nit-picky and appears to be part of an agenda to me!

[Jenny AU-92 0]

But, because those opinions have been made public, I think he's the wrong person to be in the middle of Islam Central because now the enemy will use his remarks as propaganda to enlist people who might otherwise have been indifferent to our soldiers. His remarks about Islam, whether you agree with them or not, will be used by the people who are attacking and killing our soldiers to enflame and recruit more to do the same. If he'd made the exact same remarks and we fighting in Peru then they wouldn't affect the safety of our troops. THAT is my point.

I see two problems here. First, why were his comments even MADE public? How often does anything my preacher say on Sunday morning get plastered across the pages of the NYT? The answer is that a bunch of liberals saw a chance to try and drive one more nail in the coffin of this Administration's policy on Iraq by causing more harm and detriment to our military and painting its leaders as religious zealots because it helps their cause, namely defeating GWB in 2004.

Second, do you REALLY think that comments by ONE US military leader will singlehandedly cause Muslims to rise up and attack our troops? They already think we are the Great Satan come to enslave their country and wipe out Islam. Somehow I doubt the Muslim fanatics get their propaganda from the NYT.

[DKW 86 7,440]

78% of Iraqis in Baghdad approve of our being there.

Doesnt seem to have offended them at all.

I am sure we would not like to hear all they say about us. Does that mean we should give up and go home?

Waiter, can we have a cup of maturity over at that table?

[channonc 466]

I don't think "giving up and going home" were at all Tiger Al's words. I think the common person in Iraq is not seeing these comments, but be sure that those in terrorist groups are and they are using everything we do against us. Face it, they don't want us to win the war (terrorists that is). I agree this is a fine line, I just think these things would be better said as an aftermath. Not while we are smack in the middle of a war here. I agree they shouldn't have even been published, but they have been, can't change that now. America should be showing a unified tolerant front to the rest of the world. That is the only way we will win this thing and start to bring peace to that region.

[Tigermike 3,053]

It seems to me that people would realize that there is a time and a place for everything, and that right now in Iraq is neither, unless you want to turn millions of Muslims against our relatively few soldiers because they believe the "American imperialists" not only want their oil, but want to Christianize their country as well. Stop reacting and think for a minute.

Try to imagine if this situation were reversed and they were in this country and all of us on WEN were freedom fighters. When we found out that one of their generals was some loose cannon who had talked about his Muhammed being bigger than our Jesus, don't you think it'd be a great idea to use that to drum up support for our cause? I'd do that. Don't you think they're doing that?

Why make the job harder than it already is for our soldiers by unnecessarily throwing gasoline on the fire?

I can see it now, thousands of moderate Arabs pouring over US newspapers to decide wether or not to join Al-Quada. Just imagine all the young moderate Arabs reading in the dark like Abraham Lincoln. Do you think they all subscribe to the NY Times or the Los Angeles Times?