CU Professor's (Ward Churchill ) press release.

[clem_c_rock]

http://www.colorado.edu/EthnicStudies/press_releases/ward_churchill_013105.html

Press Release - Ward Churchill

January 31, 2005



In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been.



* The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.



* I am not a “defender”of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people “should” engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, “Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.”



* This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King’s April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, “I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today – my own government.”



* In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that “we” had decided it was “worth the cost.” I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.



* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as “Nazis.” What I said was that the “technocrats of empire” working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of “little Eichmanns.” Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.



* It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American “command and control infrastructure” in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a “legitimate” target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to “collateral damage.” If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these “standards” when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.



* It should be emphasized that I applied the “little Eichmanns” characterization only to those described as “technicians.” Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that’s my point. It’s no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.



* The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the “Good Germans” of the 1930s and ’40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.



* These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today’s world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.



These are the views of Ward Churchill, not the University of Colorado.

[WesClarkRocks]

1. I heard the

govenor of colorado wants Churchill out. There's an emergency meeting on Thursday to decide what to do. Alot of Churchill's speaking engagements have been canceled due to donors threatening to withhold money.

[SOteric]

2. Interesting. - Do you have a link, - is this on their site?

[clem_c_rock]

6. http://www.colorado.edu/EthnicStudies/press_releases/ward_churchill_013105

[mdhunter]

3. I find everything he wrote above totally acceptable

And in line with much of my own thinking.

[Tafiti]

10. Me too. n/t

[donheld]

47. I've never had a problem with his statements.

I guess out of context they could make anyone mad.

[El Supremo]

4. Ward, as one of your colleagues said...

"It isn't what you say, its how you say it."

[theboss]

5. The only really bad thing is the "little Eichmanns" line

I still think that is hard to defend. The rest makes a decent and fair point.

[info being]

7. I don't have a problem with it.

I guess I'm a little Eichmann as well...sitting in a high rise every day directly supporting this system of corporate rule. I'm not innocent, and if I get killed for it...well that's a risk I choose to take every day.

[Skeptic2]

56. And you ask us to believe you?

"I guess I'm a little Eichmann as well...sitting in a high rise every day directly supporting this system of corporate rule. I'm not innocent, and if I get killed for it...well that's a risk I choose to take every day."

Of course, if you are doing such evil things on a daily basis, comparable to Eichmann's crimes, going along with an evil and inhuman system, WHY DON'T YOU QUIT?

In fact, why haven't you quit long ago--as soon as you realized the inhuman and unfair properties of the system?

Hell, if worse comes to worst, you could always simply join the working class, working on an assembly line, instead of being one of the evil corporate exploiters.

Oh wait: that might INCONVENIENCE you. Far better to beat your breast in a fake "mea culpa", as you continue to enjoy all the priviliedges of the "system" to the hilt, than to do something that might result, heaven forbid, in a lowering of your standard of living.

You are like the title character in Woody Allen's spoof, "The Schmeed Memoirs--the recollections of Hitler's barber." The title character says: "During 1941, I finally realized what a monster Hitler was, but it was too late to do anything, as I had already made down payments on some furniture."

Same with you, isn't it? Yes, OF COURSE you would LIKE to do something about the evil system which stole your soul and made you an Eichmann-like immoral participant in daily crimes, but as you have a mortgage to pay... well, you'll get back to us on that one.

[K-W]

12. He was just illustrating a moral principle.

That those who do not directly committ atrocities who work in the system that leads to the atrocities are not entirely innocent. And that if we didnt hold them innocent when they were German, and we dont hold them innocent when they are Iraqi's, why do we call them innocent when they are americans?

[IrateCitizen]

19. It's a reference to Arendt's "Eichmann in Jerusalem"

Hannah Arendt viewed first-hand the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. What jumped out to her the most wasn't that Eichmann was somehow peculiar or a fantastic monster -- but rather that he was so incredibly ORDINARY.

The crimes committed by the Nazis at places like Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, Dachau, etc. weren't enabled entirely by men who were monsters. Certainly, there were a fair number of those -- but they were a rather small minority. Rather, the people who enabled these crimes to occur were people like Eichmann.

Eichmann was not a monster. Rather, he was a man who simply sought to do his job as efficiently as possible in order to move up in the Nazi heirarchy and gain recognition. In this sense, he was really no different than the vast majority of ambitious people working in businesses around the world. The only real difference between Eichmann and these other millions, is that the greater aim of the business in which he was involved was the extermination of millions of people.

A junior executive working for, say, Union Carbide at the time of the Bhopal disaster isn't all that much different from Eichmann. All he was trying to do was to minimize damage to the company -- i.e., perform his job in the most efficient manner possible -- in order to gain recognition and advancement. Ditto for those who make bombs that may be dropped on an Afghan wedding party or an Iraqi civilan home.

Arendt's point -- and Churchill's too, IMHO -- is that evil acts are not enabled by only evil people. Rather, they are enabled by the seemingly most benign of motives -- the simple drive for individuals to maximize efficiency and performance in order to gain acclaim and advancement.

[K-W]

21. Exactly

He referenced an example to illustrate that good ordinary people doing ordinary work are not neccessarily innocent even if its almost impossible to think of them as guilty because thier actions played a small role in producing systemic evil.

[robcon]

8. His ideas are sick, IMO.

Anyone who concentrates on excusing the bombers, ans labeling all the people who died in the towers as "little Eichmanns" doesn't have a moral sense. Blanket condemnations (based on the inablity to judge people individually) are for racists, not college professors.

[El Supremo]

9. I think your Redskins logo is racist too. n/t

[poe]

14. Tell me where i can get the bumper sticker

"Germans Supported Their Troops Too"


I've been writing extensively on this issue of Ward etc. it is frustrating to have debates with people who haven't read much or any of his stuff and know little about america's consistently bloody history. nothing in his article, which most haven't read, is inflammatory when held up to the looking glass.

[Gabi Hayes]

31. evolvefish.com......right click on image, then click on ''properties''

[Cadence]

26. Yeah, where'd you get that bumper sticker?

The Germans supported their troops too.

[Swamp Rat]

50. LOL! n/t

[K-W]

11. You misread his writing, this is YOUR mistake.

You missed the entire point of his argument, he was not excusing the bombers he was indicting americans.

[IrateCitizen]

17. A typical strawman from your corner, robcon...

You said, "Anyone who concentrates on excusing the bombers..." Let's look at what Churchill REALLY said on this, as opposed to your spin of his statements.

I am not a “defender”of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people “should” engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, “Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.”

This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King’s April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, “I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today – my own government.”

Do you seriously call this "defending" such attacks? If you do, then you have a serious reading comprehension problem. I would bet that if you had been of age during the time of Vietnam, you'd be saying similar things toward MLK's renunciation of US aggression in Vietnam, as detailed in his address to Riverside Church.

You then said, "... ans (sic) labeling all the people who died in the towers as "little Eichmanns" doesn't have a moral sense." Let's look at what Churchill ACTUALLY said, as opposed to your spin of half-truth and innuendo.

Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as “Nazis.” What I said was that the “technocrats of empire” working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of “little Eichmanns.” Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies....

It should be emphasized that I applied the “little Eichmanns” characterization only to those described as “technicians.” Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that’s my point. It’s no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

Are you at all familiar with the works of Hannah Arendt, particularly "Eichmann in Jerusalem" and "The Banality of Evil"? I would guess that you are not, judging by your responses. So, I'll summarize. The thing that amazed Arendt so much while she observed the trial of Adolf Eichmann first-hand wasn't the brutality of what had taken place under his watch -- it was the way in which he approached his duties. He was not what one would think of as an "evil" man, or a "monster" in appearance or demeanor. Rather, he was the ultimate technocrat. He sought to move up through the Nazi ranks not by doing direct harm to others, but rather by doing his job dilligently and efficiently. In short, he was really just a talented bureaucrat whose work just happened to be applied to the willful extermination of millions of people. What disturbed Arendt most about this, was how unbelievably ORDINARY Eichmann was, and how his rather common, ordinary nature demonstrated that some sort of genocide on this scale was hardly out of the question in the future, given the right circumstances.

This is hardly a condemnation of those working in these buildings as "Nazis". Rather, it is simply a demonstration of how technocrats in various fields, seeking just to do their job well in order to gain recognition and move up in the business heirarchy, can easily contribute to some rather dubious and immoral ends without even batting an eyelash. Such is not indicative of a monster -- rather, it is an even more sinister indication of how basic human nature can be exploited.

Finally, Churchill concludes: The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the “Good Germans” of the 1930s and ’40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.

Personally, I fail to see how asking such questions in any way hurts us as a nation. Perhaps it's just too difficult for many to confront uncomfortable truths, so they completely avoid even asking the questions altogether. Based on your response to this thread, along with much of the other responses I've seen from you on these boards, I'd have to place you firmly in that category -- along with the vast majority of the population. It's just a shame that we will all suffer for such folly -- even those of us who ripped the scales off our eyes and tried to incite others to do the same, but to little avail.

[Tafiti]

33. Wow. Great response, Irate.

That's the best, most articulate and well thought-out response to Churchill critics I've seen all day. And your last sentence was the nail in the coffin, and all too true. Kudos.

[Hissyspit]

29. Here's what I said in a different thread in LBN:

Churchill says he has been misunderstood, misquoted, taken out of context, and misinterpreted, which is USUALLY the case in these academic freedom "scandals." I don't see a blanket condemnation in his original text, he uses an analogy to describe behavior and cause-and-effect issues, but that is debatable. But as far as academic scandals:

"Oh, boo, hoo. My professor said something I don't agree with and it has hurt my feelings. Boo, hoo, my adult children are having their widdle minds messed with by someone else now that they are old enough to live on their own. I'm so OFFENDED."

Here's what offends me: When I ask my students "How much has the war in Iraq cost the United States?" and none of them (20-30 usually a class) has any freaking clue."

[itzamirakul]

13. Now I understand his position much better than

when it was totally miscontrued by the MSM.

So much for Freedom of Speech.

[K-W]

15. Apparently jumping to conclusions is a protected civil right

and free speech isnt.

[itzamirakul]

16. The way that the MSM reported this man's activities I nearly

classified him as Satan incarnate. I thought he must be INSANE to rant such lies - now I see and understand

There are none so blind as those who will Nazi.

[K-W]

18. Nazi Germany used to be a common part of political discussion.

Because it forced people to confront difficult moral situations and realization about humanity and modern governence.

Yet now any mention of it has to be severely qualified or people feel free to assume the worst, which is just rediculous.

[leftynyc]

22. Without taking sides in this

I just want to point out that he does have free speech - the government is not coming after him and arresting him and that's the only thing the first amendment protects. He can say anything he likes but if someone writes something incendiary (and I do think little Eichmans is incendiary) shouldn't be crying about consequences.

[K-W]

23. You are wrong in everything you have written.

1. Free Speach is a natural right that belongs to individuals. It means that you have the ability to speak freely. The first ammendment simply applies that principle to government, it doesnt limit it to being a restriction on government. Facing economic sanction for having an opinion is a gross violation of free speech no matter who is doing the sanctioning.

2. There was nothing even remotely incindiary about using a well known example from history to illustrate a moral principle to then be applied to another obviously different situation.

You misread, you let your emotions get ahead of your reason, you are wrong.

[cattleman22]

46. RE:" Facing economic sanction"

I disagree almost completely with your first point. If I tell my boss he is an a**whole, I should face economic sanctions for expressing my opinion. If the owner of a business says that he supports right wing candidates, don't I have the right to impose economic sanctions on him because of his expression of his opinions?

[K-W]

48. Why would you use such an obviously false comparison?

Calling your boss an ass hole cant get you fired because its your opinion, it can get you fired because you verbally assualted your boss.

The professor did nothing of the sort. He did nothing but express an unpopular opinion in a forum where he was perfectly right in expressing his opinion.

No they shouldnt be able to fire him. Free speach means people get to speak freely. Sheesh.

[cattleman22]

51. Free speech does not mean there are no consequences for speech.

[Swamp Rat]

53. You are wasting time with a poorly constructed strawman n/t

[Karenina]

24. The GOVERNOR wants him OUT.

The governor is a representative of the government, eh?

I respectfully request, as I am familiar with your reaction to the reference and from whence it comes that you read again S-L-O-W-L-Y this snippet from Chris's post above...

"Are you at all familiar with the works of Hannah Arendt, particularly "Eichmann in Jerusalem" and "The Banality of Evil"? I would guess that you are not, judging by your responses. So, I'll summarize. The thing that amazed Arendt so much while she observed the trial of Adolf Eichmann first-hand wasn't the brutality of what had taken place under his watch -- it was the way in which he approached his duties. He was not what one would think of as an "evil" man, or a "monster" in appearance or demeanor. Rather, he was the ultimate technocrat. He sought to move up through the Nazi ranks not by doing direct harm to others, but rather by doing his job dilligently and efficiently. In short, he was really just a talented bureaucrat whose work just happened to be applied to the willful extermination of millions of people. What disturbed Arendt most about this, was how unbelievably ORDINARY Eichmann was, and how his rather common, ordinary nature demonstrated that some sort of genocide on this scale was hardly out of the question in the future, given the right circumstances.

This is hardly a condemnation of those working in these buildings as "Nazis". Rather, it is simply a demonstration of how technocrats in various fields, seeking just to do their job well in order to gain recognition and move up in the business heirarchy, can easily contribute to some rather dubious and immoral ends without even batting an eyelash. Such is not indicative of a monster -- rather, it is an even more sinister indication of how basic human nature can be exploited."

[G_j]

28. seeking just to do their job well in order to gain recognition and move up

Without ordinary people war and genocide could never happen.

[Karenina]

37. HALLO!

:hi:

[G_j]

45. -:

:hi:

[JohnOneillsMemory]

55. I watched 'Fog of War' last night. McNamara is a sympathetic war criminal.

I was actually at Berkeley in 2003 when he was onstage with the film maker.

The process by which industry turns to mass murder is amazing and banal all at once.

See that film if you haven't yet. It rocked my world.

[Pow_Wow]

25. truth is incendiary

ask anyone who attempts to tell it.

if this was just an exchange of words you would be right about free speech, however the powers that be are attempting to punish him for his speech.
Some might try to call this hate-speech, but I completely disagree. His argument is supported by history and facts that anyone can access.

[progressoid]

20. Well, NOW I see why Hannity et.al. are so pissed at this guy...

He's intelligent & articulate. That's always a threat to the RW.

And of course, his summarizing statement is priceless, "The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.

[deutsey]

27. Why aren't Falwell and Robertson being destroyed for what they said?

They blamed Americans for the attacks, too, didn't they?

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

That fat windbag's hurtful comments were no where near as reasoned and grounded in history as Churchill's analysis.

Yet he's being smeared and hounded and Falwell continues to be a fat windbag continuing to lead his church of the poisoned mind.

[The Magistrate]

30. Mr. Churchill's Current Comments, Sir, Are Risible

His piece has gotten precisely the reaction he contrived it to achieve, and he has no grounds to complain of his success. He cuts a very poor and cowardly figure when he does so....

"No action may called back once begun; there are consequences to deeds."

[poe]

32. First they came for Ward Churchill then they came for you

Friends, we are entering waters in which we may all drown, filled with nothing but anger and fanaticism. We had better take a long, hard look before we enter this raging stream because our country never be the same again. For those who advocate this sea change in American polity and social life do not want to talk; they want to impose. They do not want debates; they want obedience. And most importantly, they do not want us to pay attention to their desire for a de facto (and for many a de jure) Christian theocratic state.

I believe there is no longer any room for apathy or laziness. The voices of hatred, masquerading as "Christians" or "liberators," are beginning to echo eerily the pre WWII days in Germany when the bigoted darkness within "decent" people was stirred by racism, intolerance and vindictiveness, stamping out dissent and opposing viewpoints.

We no longer have the option of turning our eyes away for everywhere we go the same familiar faces and voices greet us. Hate radio spews the worst kind of aggressive boorishness, inane TV talk shows belie the deep distress Americans feel about their broken political processes, and a complacent media is ignoring the underlying tensions contained therein that threaten to explode in single-minded fury.

Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph: Haile Selassie

The Christian pastor Martin Niemoller is credited with saying, "In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

[The Magistrate]

34. Then They Will Get Me, Sir

The man engaged in a foolish act of provocation, and succeeded in achieving his dreams of being persecuted....

"Have you heard the one about the dog who finally caught the bus...?"

[poe]

35. Sittin' on the sidelines while the children burn

guess i'll just watch all the muslims get hauled away and postulate on the grand philosophical/existential meanderings (read gibberish) of the western habit of mind. hey what do icare i got a call on my cell phone-who is it? oh those children ih the congo being slaughtered for coltan.
when the truth has been silenced the silence becomes a lie.

[The Magistrate]

36. If That Is What You Enjoy, Sir

It is hardly my place to halt you....

[K-W]

44. Just keep on blaming the victims until its you. n/t

[The Magistrate]

It Would Seem, Sir

Prof. Churchill is engaging himself in a hearty round of "blame the victim" in this particular instance....

[Hissyspit]

58. I see no act of provocation & you assume he had dreams of being persecuted

[The Magistrate]

60. Well, Mr. Spit

The professor would doubtless be very disappointed by your reaction, for if there is one thing a provocatuer cannot stand, it is to pass unnoticed and be taken for a reasonable fellow. It is like when you see some lad strolling along with purple hair and lizard scales tattooed on his cheeks: you treat him unkindly if you do not stare; his day depends upon it. Prof. Churchill has a well calculated shtick, and requires particupation from the audience....

[deutsey]

62. Wow, 3+ years is a long time to wait for this shtick to payoff

He wrote his essay a day or two after the attacks in 2001.

I know he received a lot of heat then, but it subsided. From what I understand, what's resurrecting this story now is his recent invitation to speak at a college in New York. Seems to me the right needs a new boogeyman to rile up the faithful.

I could be wrong, as I haven't been following the "scandal" aspect of this so much as I have the substance of what Churchill wrote.

[The Magistrate]

63. Doubtless, Sir, You Will Have Heard The Phrase

The gift that keeps on giving....

[deutsey]

64. Or the plague that keeps on plaguing

in the case of rightwing persecution?

[bloom]

39. It's a return to McCarthyism

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=103152&mesg_id=103152

A couple years ago CU apologized for having fired a professor for calling America's involvement in the Korean War "Imperialism".

Now they are going to fire someone else for basically the same thing?!?!




There were even some Republican students protesting this.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

38. PSY OPS: The CIA stonewalling on US-Nazi doc's and Rumsfeld War Crimes

This story is being used to distract from both the war crimes charges against Rumsfeld in Germany AND the committee demanding release of CIA documents of US complicity with Nazi war crimes by March 2005.

The committee was formed in 1998 and supposed to expire in 3/05.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/hr071498/holtzman.html
(Testimony on H.R. 4007 The Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act 7/14/1998)

Since the CIA is stonewalling, Richard Ben Veniste just went public in the NYT European online edition to compel the CIA to cough up before the demise of the committee in 3/05.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/international/europe/30nazis.html
(New York Times, CIA Rebuffs Request for Nazi War Crime Documents)

Additionally, the war crimes charges against Rumsfeld in Germany, of all places, requires the circus distraction over Churchill's words tied to 9/11.

So true to Operation Mockingbird's CIA-steered media tactics, the Churchill diversionary story has been inflamed to channel outrage towards him and away from the topic of US-Nazi ties and war crimes.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.html
(Operation Mockingbird: The Subversion of the Free Press by the CIA)

The US bankers at Harriman Brown Bros. including Grandpa Prescott Bush financed the rise of Hitler and then ran the Marshall Plan after the complete destruction of Europe, thereby making the US the dominant economic power on the planet. This is what was done with Saddam, too.
Prescott Bush went on to be a US Senator despite having his financial holdings confiscated in 1942. That should tell you something.


http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2
(Bush-Nazi Dealings Continued Until 1951-Federal Documents)

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/
(Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Antony Sutton)

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/rise_of_american_fascism.htm
(The Rise of American Fascism by Geoff Price)

http://www.padrak.com/alt/BUSHBOOK.html#BOOKPARTS
(George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography - see section 2)


(1938 Better Homes and Gardens, A William Randolph Hearst publication)

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/051601a.html
(Nazis in the US, the Consortium News)

http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/noon.html
(The Nazi Hydra in America)

[The Magistrate]

40. This Tempest In A Teapot, Mr. Memory

Is distracting no one from those matters; no one was paying attention to those matters, and no one will, regardless of whether Prof. Churchill achieves his looked-for martyrdom or no. It surprises me it does not occur to you, if you seriously think this is a distraction from those things, that Prof. Churchill himself might not be a provocatuer assigned to create this ruckus. It is a commonplace of revolutionists' lore that the more fiery the recruit to the cause, the greater the likelihood he is a police agent....

[agitpropagent9]

41. magistrate

not to derail the thread, but i just want you to know how much i enjoy your posts for their sober intellect and logical deliberation.

kudos, sir.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

42. Good point. All of academia is infiltrated with CIA, maybe doing his job.

Sympathy for the victims of 9/11 is a credit card with no limit for the neo-cons.

The chilling of college teachers and administrators is more likely the intended result.

http://www.cia-on-campus.org/
(The CIA on Campus)

[JohnOneillsMemory]

43. But linking revealing the Bush/Nazi ties to '9/11 denial' is clever.

Perhaps the White House/CIA is innoculating itself to internet chatter on their gory past and current war-profiteering scam.

It certainly can chill whistle-blowers.

[Disturbed]

49. Is Ward Chuchil whinning or

clearing up what he published? His concepts are reasonable. The "little Eichmans" reference is the only part that has stirred up the controversy.I do feel that he is bright enough to realize that his comments would have stirred up some RW dust and he purposefully wrote this to do so. Will Freedom of Speech be another casualty of 911?

[JohnOneillsMemory]

52. 9/11 trauma is a third rail. Making US-Nazi 'talk' attached is genius..

I continue to marvel at the power of propaganda. The people orchestrating this have unlimited resources and almost a century of experience. Once you figure it out and try to share it, suspicions of endless possibilities for deception loom in your own mind. This is heady stuff.



"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."--J. Edgar Hoover

[Swamp Rat]

54. Kick ass Prof. Churchill!

:kick:

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

57. GOP logic - Churchill out of bounds-Savage Weiner-totally acceptable

he can can tell caqllers to 'get AIDS and die" and they defend him when he gets canned by MSNBC

ann coulter can call for liberal executions and she gets by, because she's supposedly "provocative" and we just don't get her

falwell and robertson actually did claim america deserved it (not what churchill said, contrary to o'liell propaganda) and they get white house access

what churchill said was tame by rightwing standards

[fishwax]

65. Exactly

What Churchill said was not only tame to what Falwell, Coulter, Savage, et al say, but it was also grounded in a historical analysis that the right-wing lacks. Right-wingers have a tendency to attack the conclusion when they can't defeat the premises of the argument. They they distort the conclusion to build public fervor. Most people who the MSM has made angry at Ward Churchill have no idea what he really said.

[NGU]

59. Interesting post!

Check out what my Freeper co-worker said to me today

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3058871

[Az]

61. One day people will learn that violence begets violence

The cycle of violence does not end. We blind ourselves to the consequence because we are told we are doing good. We are fighting the good fight. We are fighting to forces of evil. Of course those we are fighting never consider themself evil.

[trudyco]

66. What bothered me the most about this was how the MSM

covered it. I watched the local TV give a clip of his statement out of context and then two different state Republicans spewing their BS about it and wanting Churchill fired. My Dad got sucked into it, thinking it was terrible what the professor said. The TV had a student interviewed who said that he was disappointed that this got so much publicity when it was a good school. Totally biased and slanted reporting. Nothing balanced about it. I think it was CBS.

I've stopped watching TV news. It's too revolting.

trudyco