Pat Buchanan in my viewfinder again

All right, Pat, you're losing me here.

Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, the former Delta Force commander, seems to be exactly the kind of warrior America needs to lead us in battle against the kind of fanatics we face.

...President Bush cannot want to abandon a soldier's soldier like Jerry Boykin for having declared convictions that are probably not too far from the president's own.

In Asia, President Bush put some distance between himself and the general. He told the press, after a meeting with Asian leaders who brought up Boykin's remarks: "I said, 'He didn't reflect my opinion. Look, it just doesn't reflect what the government thinks.' And I think they were pleased to hear that."

Well, some Americans were not pleased to hear that.

...Let us go back to what the general said. He said that America is a "Christian nation." So what? If Israelis can call Israel a Jewish nation, and we call Iran and Saudi Arabia Islamic nations and Poland and Ireland Catholic nations, what is wrong with Boykin calling ours "a Christian nation." Secularists can call America a secular nation. Are American Christians alone to remain mute?

Can I jump in here a minute, Pat? Thanks.

So what? "So what" is this: It's becoming ever so obvious these days that Israelis calling Israel a Jewish nation is extremely problematic. It's nearly impossible to separate, in public discourse, a complaint about Israel's foreign policies from the issue of oppressing Jews. Perhaps the point should be taken here, Pat, that the argument that if they can do it, then it's okay for us to do it, is a really bad argument.

And, the comment about American Christians remaining mute is a scream. Since when? To remain something, you have to be something. Mute is one thing American Christians are not.

Also, some not pleased Americans don't hold the power that some Asian leaders hold. Being realistic instead of idealistic will help you understand your pRresident's tenuous position.

As for Osama, he may not be Satan, but he does a pretty good imitation. And anyone who has read his declaration of war against us knows that Osama sees this as a religious war against "the Crusaders" - i.e., the people of the Christian cross who are to be expelled from the Islamic world.

And that's another indication that Bush and Boykin are "marching on to war" together. Recall that Bush originally referred to this as a Crusade, and got told real quick to zip it.

On the other hand, it's certainly reasonable to be unhappy about Bush's reluctance to stand firm in backing up Boykin. Bush is a weenie and will do and say whatever it takes to keep the throne. (Like pretty much all others who ascend to that position - or any position near it.) Principles, people, ideals - phooey. aWol will continue to throw out references to god and religion in an attempt to keep fanatic fundamentalist voters on the hook. But that's going to be increasingly difficult as it becomes necessary to actually handle delicate foreign affairs in a manner that doesn't bring about an apocalypse. And even if Dumbya's closest circle of wingnuts would like to see that happen, the multinational corporations that buy and sell presidents are looking for future profits. Perpetual war is in their interest, but world destruction is not.

And if he believes this is a war against Satan, is that all that different from Bush saying that we fight an "axis of evil"? Is it all that different from FDR singing "Onward Christian Soldiers" with Churchill while writing the Atlantic Charter and plotting anti-Nazi strategy at Placentia Bay?

No, Pat, it is not all that different. But that's not a point for Boykin, it's a point against Bush and FDR.

The commander in chief should stand by this soldier. If he cashiers him, he will damage the morale of the military and Christian community, whose hero the general is and who are among his most loyal followers. What would be gained?

The morale of the military is damaged already, Pat. Had you not noticed? It's a daily topic. And it's not because they're losing their Christian idealogues. It's because they're realizing that they are dying and being maimed for reasons other than those they were told to get them there. And because they are not given the proper equipment or training for what they are being asked to do. And because their health benefits and pay are being cut. And because they are not getting the medical treatment for their injuries they should be getting. And because they were told this would be a quick win and they'd come right home. B.S. on the troop morale argument, Pat.

What would be gained? Less emotionally-charged atmosphere for reasonable people to work at extricating us from the hell these nimrods have fostered.

Maybe the concern is that, when the last of their hero leaders is gone, the already highly disgruntled soldiers will puddle or refuse to continue? Not likely, but possible, I suppose. And if that's the only good general we've got, and he can't be replaced, we are in even more serious sh*t than I thought.

Soldiers: refuse. Some Israelis did.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.