New York Times, Los Angeles Times lash out against Boykin 'bigotry'
The third- and fourth-largest newspapers in the country agree: Lt. Gen. William Boykin is a "bigot" who should be immediately kicked out of his post. A New York Times editorial today condemns his "grossly offensive gospel" as "brimstone bigotry." A Los Angeles Times editorial yesterday said his remarks were "unforgivable," "anti-Muslim," and pure "bigotry."
Do these newspaper editorial boards actually read the newspapers? The first Los Angeles Times article about Boykin, back in October, was clearly based in the bias of William M. Arkin, but it at least noted that one of Boykin's main points was that radical Islamic terrorists are as different from most Muslims as the KKK is from most Christians. The Los Angeles Times also reported, "In his public remarks, Boykin has also said that radical Muslims who resort to terrorism are not representative of the Islamic faith." Those details have long been purged from vitriolic screeds against the Army general, as both Times newspapers have screamed that he's "anti-Muslim."
The newspapers have so far not published a single in-context quote where Boykin disparaged Islam as a whole. The best they've got is his remarks to Somali warlord Osman Atto, who had claimed that Allah would protect him from American troops. "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol," Boykin said. If you're going to say that this comment disparages all Muslims, then you're going to have to say that Atto was a true Muslim, and that his God really is the Allah of Islam. The New York Times says Boykin's Atto comment is a "walking contradiction" of claims that the war against terror is "not a crusade ...1