10-17-2003, 06:47 PM
Clumsy on the part of the fellow making the remarks, if he is on active duty. Every one in uniform knows how much trouble Patton go into when his remarks to one audience got blown into a larger context. Ike had to publicly censure him.
Idiotic for any American Muslims to try and tell anyone in this administration who to hire and fire. I have yet to see a Muslim nation where Free Speech is as well protected as in America. However, they are free to make their complaints heard, and to be frank with you, I am not sure I disagree with them. Given the political realities of our relations in the Mid East, I find the comments, if true, at odds with public policy pronouncements from the White House since 9-11 2001. But, I don't know when they were made.
I am at a loss as to why the gentleman in question used his position to make those public comments, if he did it in an official capacity. I believe he is a retired general, as is General Clarke the presidential hopeful. He'd be in hot water for talking "above his paygrade" were he on active duty and in an official capacity. As a private citizen, he can say what he damned well pleases. I may have it wrong, but the news I got here was that it was a retired general.
As I understand it, he is either a finalist or nominee for a position in the current administration. If he was speaking in a non official position, as in, if these comments were made before he accepted a nomination, then free speech covers it, though political tact may be moot. If he made those same comments after being appointed, I'd have to say it would be a matter of some concern to both the State Department and the White House to have an official doing that while so much in the Mid East is being worked a bit more delicately.
I don't know enough about the context to comment further, but I am scratching my head.
Idiotic for any American Muslims to try and tell anyone in this administration who to hire and fire. I have yet to see a Muslim nation where Free Speech is as well protected as in America. However, they are free to make their complaints heard, and to be frank with you, I am not sure I disagree with them. Given the political realities of our relations in the Mid East, I find the comments, if true, at odds with public policy pronouncements from the White House since 9-11 2001. But, I don't know when they were made.
I am at a loss as to why the gentleman in question used his position to make those public comments, if he did it in an official capacity. I believe he is a retired general, as is General Clarke the presidential hopeful. He'd be in hot water for talking "above his paygrade" were he on active duty and in an official capacity. As a private citizen, he can say what he damned well pleases. I may have it wrong, but the news I got here was that it was a retired general.
As I understand it, he is either a finalist or nominee for a position in the current administration. If he was speaking in a non official position, as in, if these comments were made before he accepted a nomination, then free speech covers it, though political tact may be moot. If he made those same comments after being appointed, I'd have to say it would be a matter of some concern to both the State Department and the White House to have an official doing that while so much in the Mid East is being worked a bit more delicately.
I don't know enough about the context to comment further, but I am scratching my head.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete