Posted on 10/29/2003 5:21:37 AM PST by JesseHousman
WASHINGTON (AFP) - George W. Bush hosted a Ramadan dinner with US Islamic leaders, as the White House was besieged with demands to fire an army general whom made comments some say makes the US-led war on terror out to be a war on Islam.
General William Boykin's comments surfaced two weeks ago, in which he likened the US battle against terror to a battle between Christiandom and the Muslim world, placing the Bush administration in an uncomfortable position.
While the Pentagon (news - web sites) has opened its own investigation, it has also said that it does not expect to ask Boykin to resign. He continued to serve as a undersecretary of defense for intelligence, in charge of tracking down Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) among others.
Bush invited Muslim leaders to an Iftar, the evening feast that breaks the dawn-to-dusk fast Muslims observe during the month of Ramadan. He organized the first White House Iftar after bin Laden and al-Qaeda launched the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.
"America is a land of many faiths and we honor, and welcome and value the Muslim faith," Bush said in opening remarks before the meal.
At a mid-day press conference earlier Tuesday, Bush said that the controversial Boykin "doesn't reflect my point of view or the view of this administration."
"Our war is not against the Muslim faith."
"Americans think terrorists are evil people who have hijacked a great religion," Bush said, responding to a reporter's question.
Such statements, however, did not quell the Boykin controversy.
"The obvious response to the Boykin case is to say that because he is now under-secretary of defense for intelligence, he should be relieved of his post," The Washington Post said in an editorial Tuesday.
Boykin made his questionable speeches while wearing his military uniform before conservative Christian groups whom Bush will woo as part of his 2004 reelection campaign.
"It is highly likely that Bush himself, a genuinely devout Christian by all accounts, agrees with at least some, perhaps much, of what Boykin said," the Post speculated.
The US president had just returned from a tour of Asia, which included a three-hour stopover in Indonesia, which has the world's largest Muslim population. He also met with several leaders of Muslim countries at the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC (news - web sites)) forum.
"Muslims are completely wrong to think that the US is engaged in a war against Islam," New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said.
"But that misperception flourishes in part because the domestic political strategy of the Bush administration -- no longer able to claim the Iraq (news - web sites) war was a triumph, and with little but red ink to show for its economic plans -- looks more and more like a crusade."
From where do you get your figures and history?
I guess only so much valuable information can be printed on the backs of cereal boxes.
Sorry, no moral equivalence between radical Muslims and radical Christians. Try again.
Am I correct or not?
Are you ever correct?
Pssst, I'm not a Libertarian.
Did I say there was a moral equivalence??
I thought I was pointing out that there are nuts in all religions .. some take it further then others
Kind if like when the Germans murdered 6 millions jews
In todays world .. it those that are in the Islamic faith
Well you could try to answer my reply #265 with an answer and not try to do a lame imitation of the Chesire cat, by answering a question with a question.
Pssst, I'm not a Libertarian.
Huh, with your previous history on FR, you are quite symapthetic to Liberatarian causes, IMO(i.e the main Libertarian cause on FR, drug validation and nary a word about welfare reform).
Your comment seemed to infer that. If that's not the case, then I apologize.
What does this thread have to do with Libertarian causes? Anyway, you must be mistaken if you think I've argued for open borders.
Uh dude, open borders is a bedrock Libertarian "principle". Harry Browne(Libertarian candidate for President in 96 and 00) made that one of his(excuse the pun) highest priorities.
Are you going to now disavow Harry Browne since Harry Browne has no problem with the people you pictured in your reply #261 into the US unimpededed?
I will be waiting for your pretzel like answer.(This could be good, your subsequent answer, the Howard Dean people will probably use it, IMO).
Disavow Harry Browne? I'm not even a Libertarian. Wouldn't I have to endorse his ideas before I disavow them? You make no sense.
Yeah right, page 23 of the Libertarian handbook, when a Libertarian is in trouble, play dumb.
Hey if you want to play dumb, that's your right as an American, but it also my right as an American not to go along with your gag.
Uh, dude, I wasn't the one who set up the strawman, that's your department.
Nice little theory, except for the small fact that I've never been a Libertarian, I've never been registered with the Libertarian Party, I've never stated on FR or anywhere else that I was a Libertarian, and I've never once made a post arguing for open borders.
Uh what about the equal Holy Grail of Libertarians on FR, drug validation.
Like I said before it is your right to play this gag, but I do not have to go along with it.
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.