Controversial General Boykin Scolds Nbc

I remember the controversy well, Mr Roston. I applaud you and NBC for airing the story. General Boykin, as a leader of men and women of varied faiths stationed in various countries defending the liberty of all Americans, is entitled to his opinion but when he has the audacity to to speak publicly about his beliefs he is asking to have his statements brought into question. Those who may choose the military life as a means of offering support to their country should be aware of the public diatribes of which their leaders espouse. General Boykin has served this nation and protected the liberties of all Americans and for that I am thankful. But, when he takes his beliefs into the public spectrum, we are entitled to question those beliefs, even if he feels them unwarranted. I think that you did the public a great service by bringing General Boykins violations of Pentagon policies to light. Keep up the great work @ NBC and Thanks!

I am very weary of the apples and oranges comparisons to one anothers belief systems. Instead of explaining the differences and truly being an educating media, media confuses the issues. Subjective systems of truth when compared objective systems in terms of one being a lie is misleading. In this case it further leads to one being attacked as being ignorant while the ignorant system is involved in defending all. General Boykin isn't as wrong as is suggested and the critics conversely are not as right as they suggest or want others to believe they are.

I do not know which person to believe. However, General Boykin put his life where his mouth was.
This country is NOT free due to the news media - it is free due to our military past and present. General Boykin may not have remembered your conversation in it's entirety, but I feel pretty sure he remembered it correctly on the more important issues. For him to even speak with you was a mistake on his part - he should have known his comments and thoughts would be "edited" to death. NBC is not the only station guilty of "editing" things in and out to suit their own agenda - all are guilty. By the way - why was Bush not questioned more about his attack on Iraq???????? I think most of us "common" folks understand the "White House" pretty well controlls your reporting of their activity.
Am not sure why you even bothered to write about the General's book?? Stir up more controversy?
You may have shot yourself right straight in the foot.

NBC news is an absolute disgrace in it's highly subjective attack on General Boykin. To attack any serviceman for relatively benign comments made in the spiritual venue of a church service is a direct attack on the U.S. Constitution, IMO. Here's a news flash for all you politically correct media-endorsed sensation-seeking news pundits: This is a nation based upon freedom of speech, thought, and religion. When that man decided to fight for our country he didn't forfeit those (and other derived) civil liberties. To invite politically motivated sanctions against an honest and dedicated soldier is absolutely despicable. Newsman Aram Roston provides less of an informational journal and more of a sensationalized gossip sound-bite designed to deceive, distort, and dumb-down it's media audience. That may be great for NBC's bottom line, but it's petty, and a disservice to everyone involved.

Aram, I do appreciate your reply. It's not that I resent the story. I resent a biased view and twisted facts. Having reread as suggested, my view is this: I will grant you Aram, that pencil-necked paper-pushers in the Pentagon will bust ANY general who EVER states ANYWHERE that Saddam or Bin Laden isn't the enemy. But nowhere do I see where the general actually made any rude comment to a Somali warlord. (Although it's fair to ASSUME that their relationship was less than cordial!) Clearly though, you are less than diplomatic in your challenge of the general's view of the Devil. God knows I've slept through enough sermons in my day, but I do recall this: A recurring theme about this Devil character. It ain't news. We can all bet the rent that journalism school didn't offer "The Devil" as a minor course of study, or even as an elective. So why does a JOURNALIST bother to bust a general over the fine print of a Christian homily? Was the Somali warlord too busy lording to be interviewed? Bin Laden Bin hiding too well to have Bin interviewed? You know Aram, just because Saddam doesn't return your phone calls from Hell doesn't mean Hell doesn't exist. THOSE are the real stories, and the interviews EVERYONE wants to see.

Aren't Generals employed to use their best sense regarding our security? Then we want to boycott them when they do. Aren't we then doing so at our own peril? To call him a bigot while vigorously defending your own bigotry is ... .