Federal investigations can be funny things. Some (say, Whitewater) are kept going indefinitely to embarrass the accused and keep a controversy fresh in the minds of voters.
Other investigations are the mirror opposite, at least in terms of motivations. They can be Energizer Bunny-like in duration, but the delays are intended to help the accused. The idea is that a dragged-out probe will ultimately cause everyone to forget about the controversy that sparked the investigation in the first place.
Consider, for instance, the probe into Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence.
Last year, Boykin caused a bit of a stir when researchers discovered that Bush had asked a man to coordinate our military intelligence in the war on terror who happened to be an anti-Muslim religious zealot.
* A year ago, Boykin conducted a slide show with a church group. He said, “Well, is he [bin Laden] the enemy? Next slide. Or is this man [Saddam] the enemy? The enemy is none of these people I have showed you here. The enemy is a spiritual enemy. He’s called the principality of darkness. The enemy is a guy called Satan.”
* When asked why terrorists have targeted the United States, Boykin said, “Why do they hate us so much? Ladies and gentlemen, the answer to that is because we’re a Christian nation.”
* America’s “spiritual enemy,” Boykin once said, “will only be defeated if we come against them in the name of Jesus.”
* Boykin recalled in a January speech a Muslim soldier in Somalia who believed Allah would protect him in battle against the U.S. “Well, you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his,” Boykin said. “I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol.” When the Muslim soldier was eventually captured, Boykin claims to have told the man that he “underestimated our God.”
So, whatever happened with the investigation into this guy? Fortunately, the Washington Post’s Al Kamen continues to be curious.
When Boykin’s record of rhetorical excesses reached the public, it sparked outrage around the world. In addition to the public relations nightmare Boykin sparked, there was also a problem relating to the Military Code of Conduct, which prohibits soldiers from making appearances in uniform “when participating in public speeches, interviews, picket lines, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations, except as authorized by competent authority.” Boykin, of course, was sharing his vitriol in public appearance in his military uniform.
On Oct. 21, Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon’s inspector general was launching an investigation into Boykin’s record, but that the general would stay in his position.
And here we are, over nine months later. Any news to report? Apparently not.
In April, we were told the report would be ready in a couple of weeks. Then in June, it was going to appear pretty soon. So now it’s August and still no sign of any conclusion.
It doesn’t seem like that complicated a task. Either Boykin ran afoul of the military’s code of conduct or he didn’t. What’s the hold-up?
You don’t suppose Rumsfeld announced an investigation at the height of the public’s outrage just to placate critics and help sweep the scandal under the rug, do you?