Posted on 02/04/2005 9:49:38 AM PST by bikepacker67
From Scarborough Country to the Spin Zone, the attacks on Professor Ward Churchill are coming across the airwaves. Near Hamilton College in Clinton, New York the hills are alive with the sound of fascism.
In a statement released on January 31, 2005, Churchill says, ”...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..."
Please notice that Churchill does not exclude himself and his family from responsibility. The argument that all of us share in the guilt for the actions of our government is seldom accepted, yet can not be ultimately denied. For centuries, the most respected scholars have postulated that any government derived from the will of the populace requires the active and willing participation of its citizens. When the bloated, nihilistic, self-absorbed populace denies its responsibility for the firm entrenchment of a defacto royal family, known as the Bush dynasty, our commitment to the basic tenets of the US Constitution, and humanity everywhere, is poorly served. But let’s not be too harsh on the Bush dynasty. Much has happened under the Clinton and other administrations.
Churchill explains that it is the actions of the US that brought about 9/11. That is such an obvious and simple fact that it is remarkable that there is anyone left who still doesn’t get it. It is simple and obvious. It is not rocket science. It is Blowback. Blowback is a term coined by the CIA many years ago because those in the CIA knew that US policies would result in blowback. Anyone who did not know that there would be some retaliation against the US was not paying attention.
Remember May 12, 1996, when Madeleine Albright was asked on 60 Minutes about the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. Her answer was, “...we think the price is worth it.” That should be the focus of the national discussion. Were those 500,000 deaths plus the deaths of the additional 100,000 slaughtered Iraqi civilians worth the price that we may eventually have to pay? Until that national discussion takes place, we are a nation in denial, a dysfunctional nation divorced from reality. Those who control the major means of communication do not have the right to prevent that discussion. The time has come for us, the people, to take control of the airways, which we already own.
There should have been a great national debate before the Gulf War. US Ambassador April Glaspie gave Saddam the go ahead for his invasion into Kuwait and then the US used that as an excuse for the Gulf War. That was a case of bait and switch, which resulted in the slaughter of thousands. Then came the deaths of the 500,000 Iraqi children and the official statement that it was worth it.
I propose a series of great national debates. On one side there could be experts such as William Blum, Ward Churchill, John Perkins, Ralph Nader, Mickey Z., Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, and/or Gore Vidal. There are too many who are well informed to list them all here. The opposing side would pick experts. The debate question is, Were the deaths of the 500,000 children worth it, or should there be a change in US Foreign Policy. Let the debate begin.
The members of the uninformed Press would have us believe that the attack on the Twin Towers was just a coincidence… that there was no logical reason why those two buildings were selected out of the millions of tall building that exist on the planet. Unfortunately, the uninformed behind the microphones, don’t know what they do not know. Yet they continue to mold public opinion. The news broadcasters don’t have a sufficient understanding of the effects of US foreign policy, to enter in to a discussion. They have to resort to ad hominem attacks on Ward Churchill and anyone else who questions or criticizes the government.
Meantime the doomsday clock is ticking away and other attacks, similar to 9/11, are predicted unless we learn the lessons that Churchill is teaching. He says, “...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.” Churchill is trying to protect his fellow citizens. He is a humanitarian, a super patriot, and a gifted scholar. We would all be much safer if he was appointed National Director of Homeland Security or, better yet, Secretary of State. Come to think of it, I like the sound of President Ward Churchill.
--------------------------------------------------------- Rosemarie Jackowski is an advocacy journalist living in Vermont. She can be reached at dissent@sover.net.
Well, at least she remembers to implicate the Clinton crew.
Otherwise, of course, this is bilge supporting a con artist. She needs to read up a little more on Mr. Churchill.
This "fact" is the mark of the uninformed Bush hater. The "source" for this "fact" is that ugly associate of Saddams whose name escapes me. In sworn testimony, Glaspie explicitly said this was not true. However, the ignorant perpetuate this urban myth.
As soon as I see this mentioned in an article, I bail.
Remember May 12, 1996, when Madeleine Albright was asked on 60 Minutes about the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. Her answer was, “...we think the price is worth it.”
We know know those supposed 500,000 deaths are due not to the U.S. but to corruption in the U.N., France and other supporters of Saddam Hussein, who allowed him to divert the oil for food money to his own use.
I got my bucket. It's amazing the Left will continue to support this academic, moral and actual fraud. You would expect them to use their resources on things that can actually succeed and not waste them on this low life. But hey, be my guest.
...who is suffering from craniam-rectal insertion syndrome.
Has anyone read or heard ANYONE claim this, from any political persuasion?
As I said on another thread, the thing leftists tend to intentionally overlook is that ordinary Joe and Jane citizen have every bit as much right to voice our opinions over Churchill's tripe as he has to spew it. Our demands that he be fired, that he just sit down and shut up, are not tantamount to restricting his freedom of speech. Only the government can violate that. When we, as citizens, point out that Churchill is a fraud, a huckster, and shouldn't be listened to, that isn't violating his rights in any way. No one is saying he cannot say these things. We're simply pointing out we don't wish to hear them, and are practicing our own rights to free speech by pointing out how wrong of him it is to have said what he said. Freedom of speech includes the right to say "enough is enough", or simply, "no". Leftists ignore that. It's critical that we continue to call their attention to that little fact.
Good ol' Rosie Jackoffski sure knows how to live up to her name!
A little tip on confronting Churhcill:
Churchill describes World Trade Center 9-11 victims as "Little Eichmanns." This is not a reciprocal term for rhetoric such as "collateral damage" used by American war planners. American war planners do not utilize language designed to impugn the motives of non-combatant victims of military attacks. Churchill's language clearly associates even the small children in the twin towers as participants comparable to Adolf Eichmann's extensive involvement in the genocide of Jews under Hitler. Churchill describes Eichmann as a "technocrat"-- substantially divorced from the literal force of violence used against the Jews. In contrast to Churchill's characterization, Eichmann was in fact an SS Lieutenant Colonel and Chief of the Jewish Office of the Gestapo. Eichmann visited Auschwitz in 1941 as part of his development of the "Final solution." In March of 1944 Eichmann refused an order by Himmler to stop gassing the Jews. In August of 1944 Eichmann was able to report that he had killed 4 million Jews in death camps and 2 million more in mobile death camps. Eichmann's intimate involvement with the slaughter of the Jews profoundly differentiates him from the passive "technocrat" that Churchill seeks to represent him as. Churchill's words demean not only victims of the 9-11 tragedy but trivialize the holocaust by reducing the profound actions of Eichmann to mere motion. Consequently, the discernible social activity that leads to ethnic exterminations like the holocaust are rendered as symbolic social passivity and therefore indiscernible to an individual action. By thoroughly trivializing Eichmann's role in the genocide, Churchill provides a symbolic transfer for making all genocides meaningless (I doubt this is his intention but I do hold him accountable for the effect). Individual accountability for decisions to kill others become a blur of muted rationalizations in Churchill's rendering. Eichmann was nothing like the technocrat that Churchill sees him as. This was why Churchill told me Thursday night that, "You probably don't know who Eichmann was." Indeed, I still have no idea who Churchill was talking about on Thursday night, because Adolf Eichmann was a principal, active, and responsible agent who without hesitation directed his intentions and actions to the accomplishment of genocide against the Jewish people. I see absolutely no relationship between the ACTIONS of this man and the human beings lost at the World Trade center. I am still waiting for someone to explain it to me. Until such time, I will continue to stand in absolute defiance of this claim. In the absence of a convincing proof, I will continue to maintain that, rhetorically, Professor Churchill is facilitating genocide against the weaker members of global humanity.
The people are not fooled anymore after 911. Hating-America can no longer be called "patriotism" by the left because it is not and never was.
Has this supposed 500000 child deaths been verified? How?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.