Quote:

---

Churchill attacks essay’s critics
University of Colorado president calls for calm

By Craig Gima
cgima@starbulletin.com

Ward Churchill, the outspoken Colorado professor who created a national uproar by comparing 9/11 victims to Nazis, told an overflow crowd at the University of Hawaii last night that he is the target of a right-wing strategy to attack academia.

"I was targeted because they thought I would be an easy target," Churchill told the crowd of about 800. "That was a mistake.

"It's not just an attempt to purge me," he said. "It's a purge of the academy."

The crowd was mostly sympathetic to Churchill, a University of Colorado ethnic studies professor. He was applauded more than a dozen times and was greeted at least three times with standing ovations.

Before the speech began, about a dozen members of a UH college Republican group protested.

"I never wanted to be a poster boy for academic freedom," Churchill said. "You can't give an inch. If you let this one down, you've lost it all."

Much of Churchill's speech was devoted to explaining and expanding on his essay written on Sept. 11, 2001, that called 9/11 victims "little Eichmanns."

He said the theme of his essay and a later book was that the United States has been involved in violating international law and killing innocents and should not be surprised that some people would want to kill Americans -- the "chickens coming home to roost," as his essay is titled.

He argued that the World Trade Center could be considered a legitimate target because it is a symbol of the financial power that allows the United States to flex its military might.

He said if you read his essay, he called the "technicians" in the World Trade Center "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who actually did not kill any Jews but made it possible for the trains to run on time and for the Holocaust to take place.

It's obvious, Churchill said, that he did not mean to say children, janitors, firefighters and innocent bystanders were part of that group. Instead, he said, he was referring to investment bankers and others who make the killing of innocents by the U.S. military and U.S. policy possible.

Churchill did address the issue of his ethnicity, admitting that he is not Native American.

"Is he an Indian? Do we really care?" he said, quoting those he called his "white Republican" critics.

"Let's cut to the chase; I am not," he said.

His pedigree is "not important," Churchill said: "The issue is the substance of what is said."

He went on to explain that the issue of whether he is Native American has been blown up by sloppy reporting and reporters quoting other reporters.

His speech drew mostly positive reaction from those who attended. But Tyrone Hogenauer said he was disappointed.

"I thought he was going to talk on free speech," Hogenauer said.

Instead, Churchill talked about himself and attacked his critics the way they are attacking him, Hogenauer said: "It's a sad thing."

UH student Kirsten Chong said her professors assigned her to listen to the speech.

"He was humorous and he certainly didn't pull any punches," she said, adding that because she is native Hawaiian, she agrees with much of what he said.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
And the point is....? UCo would not give a position OR a tenure to someone just bc of their "minority" status. If you belive that, then you don't know nothin'.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
* editted to add: I am not an expert in the particular field that Ward Churchill writes in. All I can say is that he has published a substantial body of work. The tenure review process is designed to address the issues I bring up. That is why I find it highly amusing that a bunch of people who are not experts in his field are calling for his dismissal.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by evilmike:
So, what is wrong with these Academic Bills of Rights?

I thought the intent was to protect viewpoint discrimination for everyone.

---

Quote:

---

All I'm hearing from you is a lot of VERY UNSUPORTED suppositions verging on slander.

---

Quote:

---

Maybe you should read his publications and tell us what you think. Do some quality research of your own BEFORE you make up your mind about a person and the quality of his work.

---

Quote:

---

All I'm hearing from you is a lot of VERY UNSUPORTED suppositions verging on slander.

---

Quote:

---

What am I saying that's unsupported? I'm asking a quesiton and expressing my opinion.
Where's the slander ? Care to point it out ? Can't a person voice their opinion?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by evilmike:
"As for the poor baby students who don't want to have to hear what anyone else has to say"

Except that, as I understand it, the intent of the ABoR is to allow everyone to have a voice. I'm not sure legislation is the best way to deal with this issue, but I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand as a trick of the right.

Does this 'poor baby' statement also apply to the Seattle Central Community College students who chased Army recruiters off campus? Or to the University of Washington students who harassed an 'Affirmative Action Bake Sale' protest until authorities shut down the sale?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Knibblet- libel then. (I kept trying to think of the word but was too tired to look it up. Thanks for the correction.)

And this is the libel: "He's claimed a false heritage and it landed him a $100,000 + tenured position." Can you prove both accusations? (One against Churchill and the other gainst the U of Colorado.)

Now I realize that you have a right to your opinions. Most likely, nobody is going to nail your *ss to a wall because of your accusations unless they can prove harm (As I understand it, in civil law the rule is "no harm, no foul") and quite frankly none of us is significant enough to really harm anybody. (Unless of course you criticize a company's product or policies on the internet, and then you WILL be sued. Ah well... so much for free speech! I guess it costs a lot of $$$$ to be able to speak freely!) But just as you have a right to your opinion, no matter how baseless it may be, so does Ward Churchill. So far, I think Churchill has demonstrated more foundation for his position than you have for yours.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Maybe you should read his publications and tell us what you think. Do some quality research of your own BEFORE you make up your mind about a person and the quality of his work.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
How familiar is that? You read a headline that contained two words out of many pages, and decided that was familiar enough? Since you apparently have NO intellectual rigor, why should I pay attention to anything you say?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I didn't see a question mark at the end of your accusation, so you weren't asking a question. Now, I COULD rephrase your STATEMENTS as questions... "Did Churchill misrepresent his ethnic heritage? Did that give him an unfair advantage?" But that wouldn't really lead to the demand to "fire him", would it?

Don't worry about being accused of libel. You really only have to worry about businesses suing you. So don't diss anyone's product and cost them sales, or you WILL wind up in court!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Taking your usual swipe at whatever you can't understand? I have to applaud you though, for at least looking up some news articles, even if it was only to better argue your arguments of control and punishment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Daikath:
Why should his heritage have any effect on his ability to do his studies? If firsthand experience is so important everyone can do his own studys on it and get the mentioned $100k.

If he lied, so what? What does it really do other then confirm poeple have to lie about their heritage? Why should it matter if he is or not?

It should't and even if it gotton him that position then the poeple who gave it to him are to blaim. Promoting poeple on this type of thing based on their heritage is close to discrimination, even if there is possible firsthand experience.

I think his comparison of 9/11 victims to Nazi's has been blown up. He was merely trying to explain what their role has been in the whole thing (wether they were or were not aware of it is a whole other matter).

Did he genuinly justify the killings of the 9/11 victims or did he merely explain on how the terrorists came to see it as a genuinge target?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Knibblet
I don't know about you, Evilmike, but I've gone to colleges all over the globe and there's nothing that professors like to hear more than the sound of their own voice in their ears.
...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Knibblet
I'm tired off all the poor baby students on all sides. You cannot censor your opponent without endangering yourself.
I don't care what your personal beliefs are, you should show everyone respect and allow them to speak. Listening is not endorsing.
This is usually the most effective way to allow a moron to prove themselves moronic.
...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor
...
Seems clear to me that the preface is well layed out here. That IF WC lied about his heritage , and because of that lie, his classification as a minority in any way helped him obtain his position, then it's well with in C.U. right to fire this guy. There's nothing remotely 'libel' here what so ever, so any such suggestion of such is utter nonsense.

---

Quote:

---

In Jan., 1933, when Adolf Hitler became chancellor without an absolute majority, the Reichstag was dissolved and new elections were set for Mar. 5; a violent election campaign ensued. On Feb. 27, 1933, a fire destroyed part of the Reichstag building. Hitler immediately accused the Communists of having set the fire. President von Hindenburg proclaimed a state of emergency and issued decrees suspending freedom of speech and assembly. The elections gave a bare majority of seats to Hitler's National Socialists (Nazis) and their allies, the German Nationalists.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
"Presidents get impeached for lying"

Only if you lie about sex. Lying about WMD and getting us into war, lying about taxes and blowing up the budget, lying about social security and trying to destroy it... well, THAT'S OK!!! And dont' forget that someone on the upper Administration committed TREASON by outing an active undercover CIA field officer. That must be OK too because I sure haven't heard anything about impeachment!

BTW- I will post this separately but... I just heard an alarming interview with Scott Ritter, who is an ex-Marine and was the chief USA weapons inspector in Iraq (as part of the UN team). He has been very forthright about his experiences- the bad (Saddam jerking them around, lack of UN support) and the good (but they did their job, there were NO WMD).

He say he has information that Bush has already decided to bomb Iran. The actual date will be dictated by event, but tentatively set for June.

I've been shouting my fool head off for the past five years about how dangerous the Bush administration is. But half the USA is still marching in step. How culpable are we?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh please, Auraptor. If you have to post, at least try to keep one foot in reality. When the Bush admin gave figures to Congress about the cost of adding drug benefits to Medicare, and then told the actuarial (who had calculated a less political, more realistical/ expensive figure) to shut up or he would lost his job.... BTW, the actuarial figures were eventually proven right

Or when Joe Wilson told the Admin that Iraq did NOT try to purchase yellowcake from Niger, and was rewarded by having his undercover CIA-officer wife "outed".... BTW, Joe Wilson, Scott Ritter and the other dissenters where eventually proven right.

Or when Bush goes around the country yelling "CRISIS!" about Social Security, when even large, commercial annuity administrators say there is no such thing...

If Bush isn't lying, then he's got to be the most incompetent President that we've ever had. So go back and change your previous text to at least LOOK mentally competent, OK?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
There was a comment earlier about letting morons speak, as it was the best possible demonstration, and I whole heartedly agree. But a word of friendly advice: Please stop whiddling on yourself, it's embarassing. Plus, you're giving your fellow Bushies a bad rep.

Since I see that you have only a tenuous connection to reality there is no point in discussing w/ you further. I may, however, point and suppress giggles.

Cheers!

---

Quote:

---

BUSH'S IRAQI URANIUM CLAIM VINDICATED

Another blow to the Bush haters and the "Bush lied" crowd. No less than the left-leaning Associated Press is reporting that President Bush's claim that Iraq sought uranium in Africa wasn't completely false. Stop the presses! How can this be true? I thought Bush lied!

Two recent reports say Bush may have not been totally off-base. Now, never mind that Bush didn't lie at all whatsoever.....he was simply stating what British intelligence had reported. His statement was true by any logical standard. But now a British report now says that the claims about Iraq were "well-founded." In addition, the otherwise worthless Senate Intelligence Committee (an oxymoron if there ever was one) report says Iraq sought uranium in Africa. So where's Joe Wilson now...and who's that anyway?

You remember him...he's the liar hired by the CIA (after being recommended by his wife) to go to Niger to investigate the uranium claim. He wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times saying that transaction was unlikely and the administration was manipulating intelligence. Few people seem to know that in a later book the very same Joe Wilson said that not only did Iraq make overtures to Niger about purchasing uranium, but that the very person making those overtures was the famous Baghdad Bob! Predictably, the media played up the Wilson comments that contradicted British intelligence and President Bush, and ignored his writings that supported the British claim.

How about Kerry and Edwards...are they going to stop saying we were misled? Will Michael Moore make a retraction movie? Al Gore? Somehow, I don't think so. After all, facts have never been a liberal specialty.

The more time that passes...the more the action in Iraq is vindicated. The appeasers are going to have to find a new angle. http://boortz.com/nuze/200407/07192004.html#uranium

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
I noticed that you didn't address Bush's other demonstrable lies. I replied because I want to make it plainly obvious that you lie, routinely and blatantly. When caught in a lie you resort to distraction, or more lies. I think I've made my point: you can't be trusted because you have no respect for the truth. You will dance around the defintion of a single word to avoid taking responsibility for what you say and what you quote, just like your fearful leader. What could be more cowardly?

---