Lt. General Boykin is back in the news (1, 2). This time, the New York Times is calling him an embarrassment. Glad to hear that major papers are thinking this might not be right guy to be interrogating non-Christians, or to be involved in the War on Terror[ism] in any way. But for the record, what is an “Islamic American?”
Related Posts
Speaking in Tongues [Updated]
So the Boykin story gets better and better. [See You Can Call Me Satan.] First he apologized, but the Pentagon had to censor his apology. When you read what was left in, you wonder how bad the stuff was that was edited. CNN has the story. I have to admit I’m surprised, CNN usually isn’t this critical of anyone, especially not the powers in the Bush administration. Talking Points Memo also has a nice piece on the affair and links to some good related articles. While TPM does mention the Fareed Zakaria piece, it’s good enough to mention again. I…
Bringing Iraq Home
As TPM notes, it seems like the London bombings were based on ideas developed in Iraq. As we’ve seen, it doesn’t match up exactly because the devices were crude with little chance of causing mass casualties had they gone off, thankfully they didn’t. Here’s my question, why did Afghanistan stay local? Why did the mujahidin stay in Afghanistan and not export themselves to the Soviet Union? Or, to put it another way, why is Iraq flowing past its borders? Is this simply Al-Qaeda ideology? Strike at the infidel? It just seems so ineffective if you want freedom for you Muslim…
One thought on “Back to Boykin”
Comments are closed.
Couldn’t tell you what an Islamic American is, but I can hardly blame them for being offended by all this.
How about Person of Qur’ano-Hadithic Convictions?