About as lame an excuse from FR as their reasons for firing Ann Coulter.
What really happened was that they caught unholy hell from the Conservative community for their pandering to the chattering class community.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
Posted on 10/24/2003 12:38:03 PM PDT by veronica
CORRECTION ON BOYKIN [NR Editors]
National Review, in the issue out today, runs an editorial paragraph that it did not mean to run. We had a debate among the editors--as we debate many things--about Gen. William Boykin, who recently made some highly provocative remarks about the war on terror. Some editors felt that he should be fired forthwith; others demurred. A draft editorial paragraph was prepared, stating the position that Boykin should be fired; at just about the last minute, we decided to withhold judgment--to see how the investigation into the general’s behavior proceeded, and to reach a conclusion then.
Because of a production error, that paragraph--the one calling for Boykin’s head--went to the printer. And thus appears in the magazine. We removed it from our html edition, but about the “hard copy edition,” we could do nothing.
We will weigh in again--finally and definitively--on General Boykin, when we, along with everyone else, know all that we should know. Posted at 02:24 PM
</sarcasm>
About as lame an excuse from FR as their reasons for firing Ann Coulter.
What really happened was that they caught unholy hell from the Conservative community for their pandering to the chattering class community.
Be Seeing You,
Chris
I think that this attempted retraction is cowardly, and beneath NR. Especially since you cannot recall anything that has been put on the Net with complete success, so why try?
By the way, I don't agree with the editorial at all- but I do think they have the right to their opinion on this.
We must be touchy-feely toward the Muslim hordes for you know they are so tolerable. General Boyken, you should have known that it was politically incorrect and against this government's wishes. You know that the Socialists and Faschists do not like God. You have ruffled their feathers and now you must pay in the editorial pages of the National Review. Shame, shame on you.(A teeny bit of SARCASM)
Granted, but someone should tell them that quickly surrendering an ally's first amendment rights (assuming he wasn't under specific orders to not discuss religion) does nothing to help them shed their 'girly boy' image.
Hmmm.
I wonder if "knowing all that we should know" would include learning and disclosing the facts that it was the MSNBC Contributor, William Arkin, who made the videotape, that he did so without the knowledge or permission of Gen. Boykin, and that Arkin is an advisor to Human Rights Watch, Greenpeace, and other left-wing anti-war groups.
It would seem to me that nondisclosure would be absolutely dishonest, in part because it would seem to suggest that this issue was not a political stunt by a major cable network to embarrass the Bush administration and to undercut its effectiveness in prosecuting the War on Terror, and more specifically the Iraqi reconstruction.
Pardon me for reposting this, but it is important.
1. Gen. Boykin was addressing a church congregation on the nature of the War on Terror.
2. The War is being waged primarily against fanatics who happen to be Muslims driven by their religious upbringing and bent on doing great harm to large numbers of Americans and other Westerners.
3. The general was not setting or changing policy, nor was he speaking on behalf of either the Defense Department or the Bush administration even though he was wearing his uniform, a not uncommon practice when officers are invited to speak on military subjects.
4. If Gen. Boykin serves as deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence and is charged with heading a Pentagon office that focuses on finding Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other targets, then on whom should he be concentrating -- if not on Muslim fanatics who might provide information as to the whereabouts of the targets?
5. Gen. Boykin has as much of a right to freedom of speech (and religion) as do Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins and the handful Democratic hopefuls who have been critical, and the government should take no actions that would restrict the general's freedoms, such as requiring him to take another post or leave his country's service.
6. If reciprocity is a factor in judging the general, that is, as some have expressed, his language could invite more Muslims to hate us more intensely and even become violent, then I would ask if any Muslim fanatics have ever addressed the U.S. in religious tones, or perhaps called us "The Great Satan"?
7. Might the general only stand accused of telling it "as it is"? While I would not have chosen the same words, the general did not intend to set policy or to have a videotape of his talk to the congregation broadcast on networks around the world, which invites the question of political motivations on the part of the filmmaker, the networks and the critical hopefuls.
8. I would maintain that the general's work is more important than this latest kerfuffle and as long as his superiors have confidence in his performance, he should stay right where he is -- no matter what The Nation editor Katrina van den Heuvel, David Corn, Rep. Charley Rangel or Sen. Tom Daschle say.
9. I would oppose handing to the perennial carping critics of this administration a victory on this issue which would only provide the left-wing true believers further ammunition with which to attack Bush while serving to hamper our effective prosecution of this War.
10. What will this group seek to remove next after prayers in the schools? Prayers in churches and synagogues? OK, maybe not, but I'm disenchanted with the PC crowd that went so far, say, at State under Madeleine Albright, as to ban the use of the moniker "rogue states" and substitute "states of concern" or thinks the words "evil" or "evildoer" are inflammatory.
I believe that what is really inflammatory are events like Pearl Harbor and 9/11. If some who are waging the current fight, who are seeking to redress such wrongs, and who are attempting to protect the citizens of this nation against future attacks, should express the struggle in personal terms that are not wholly politically correct or should state their arguments using some extra zeal, then so be it! I am grateful for their service to our nation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.