Ward Churchill

[strandinthewind]

Why not have a thread on him!!!!!!!

Should the Univ. can him?

If you do not know who I am talking about:

1. Shame of you :laugh:

2. google him

I think he has the right to say whatever he wants and most of it, though heightened and somewhat taken out of context, is true. But, would I want an employee of mine to be so controversial. Probably not. But, universities are the place for such things. I think his speech is thought provoking.

[WildInTheWind]

Shame on me! I don't know who he is. :( Though since joining the Ledge, I'm much more up on my current events! I will have to do a little research on him.

[strandinthewind]

Sighes - you people :laugh:

He is a professor at the Univ. of Colorado who is VERY outspoken against the U.S. and its policies. He pretty much points only to the bad acts (and there are many :eek: ) and negates the good (which are stark in comparison) - here is an interview:

Ward Churchill is perhaps one of the most provocative thinkers around. A Creek and enrolled Keetoowah Band Cherokee, Churchill is a longtime Native rights activist. He has been heavily involved in the American Indian Movement and the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee. He is Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado and has served as a delegate to the UN Working Group on Indigenous Populations.

One of Churchill’s areas of expertise is the history of the U.S. government’s genocide of Native Americans—the chronic violation of treaties and systematic extermination of North American indigenous populations. His many books include A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas: 1492 to Present (1998) and The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI’s Secret Wars Against Dissent in the U.S. (2nd edition, 2002). His new book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality, was just published by AK Press (www.akpress.org).

As a member of a people who have been on the receiving end of violence, Churchill has a rather distinct perspective of the U.S. and the effectiveness of political dissent and social change. Ward Churchill recently shared some of his views with Catherine Clyne.

This issue of Satya is trying to push the debate about whether or not violence is an appropriate means for a desired end. With animal activists, there’s a growing gap between people who feel it’s not and others who feel that, for example, breaking into laboratories to liberate animals or burning down property is an effective way to stop abuse.
Well, that’s an absurd framing in my view. Defining violence in terms of property—that basically nullifies the whole notion that life is sacred. People who want to elevate property to the same level of importance as life are so absurd as to be self-nullifying.

Some people feel that those who abuse animals or people negate their right to consideration and open themselves up to physical violence. What’s your response to this?
The individuals who are perpetrators in one way or another, the “little Eichmanns”* in the background—the technocrats, bureaucrats, technicians—who make the matrix of atrocity that we are opposing possible are used to operating with impunity. If you’re designing thermonuclear weapons, you’re subject to neutralization, in the same sense that somebody who is engaged in homicide would be, in terms of their capacity to perpetrate that offense. One or two steps removed should not have the effect of immunizing. Otherwise, only those who are in the frontline—usually the most expendable in the systemic sense—are subject to intervention. None of the decision-makers, the people who make it possible, would be subject to intervention that would prevent their action in any way at all.

That brings me to one question, which is, in general, people like to think they’re pretty decent. They don’t like to think of themselves as violent or complying with a system that is oppressive...
Heinrich Himmler viewed himself in exactly that way. He was a family man, he had high moral values, he’d met his responsibilities, blah, blah, blah—a good and decent man in his own mind.

Do you think that applies to most American people?
In the sense that it applied to most Germans [during the Third Reich].

Your recent works detail the documentable history of the consequences of U.S. imperialism. After reading On the Justice of Roosting Chickens and listening to your two CDs, what do you want your audience to walk away with?
A fundamental understanding of the nature of their obligation to intervene to bring the kind of atrocities that I’ve described to a halt by whatever means are necessary.

The predominating absurdity in American oppositional circles for the past 30 years is the notion that if one intervenes to halt a rape or a murder in progress, if you actually use physical force as necessary to prevent that act, somehow or other you’ve become morally the same as the perpetrator.

What do you think those oppositional circles need to do to really effect change?
Stop being preoccupied with the sanctity of their own personal security, on the one hand, and start figuring out what would be necessary. That might require experimentation with tactics and techniques. Not how, like an alchemist, you repeat the performance often enough to make yourself feel good in the face of an undisturbed continuation of the horror you’re opposing. If your candlelit vigil doesn’t bring the process you’re opposing to a halt, what do you do next, presuming you actually desired to have an effect.

Let’s just presume that, in this case.
That’s not a safe presumption. There’s a whole feel-good ethic out there. It’s not [to] effect any substantive change. It’s to bear moral witness to make the person feel good, to assuage their conscience in exactly the fashion you were talking about: they can then posture as good and decent people, while engaged in active complicity in the crimes they purportedly oppose. Complicity of acquiescence: that’s the “Good German Syndrome.”

You move on. Rather than a vigil, you hold a rally. When that doesn’t do it either, you march around, do petitions, letters, you hold alternative educational fora, you try to build bridges with people; you do whatever. None of that works.

The obligation is not to be personally pure. The obligation is to effect a measurable change.

Some argue that the ten million people who gathered last year on February 15th to stop a U.S. invasion of Iraq didn’t really amount to much in terms of tangible results. Is there a precedent of experimentation you think people are not looking at?
If you conduct your protest activities in a manner which is sanctioned by the state, the state understands that the protest will have no effect on anything.

You can gauge the effectiveness—real or potential at least—of any line of activity by the degree of severity of repression visited upon it by the state. It responds harshly to those things it sees as, at least incipiently, destabilizing. So you look where they are visiting repression: that’s exactly what you need to be doing.

People engaged in the activity that is engendering the repression are the first people who need to be supported—not have discussion groups to endlessly consider the masturbatory implications of the efficacy of their actions or whether or not they are pure enough to be worthy of support. They are by definition worthy. Ultimately, the people debating continuously are unworthy. They are apologists for the state structure; [and] in [effect], try to convince people to be ineffectual.

Nonviolent action can be effectual when harnessed in a way that is absolutely unacceptable to the state: if you actually clog the freeways or occupy sites or whatever to disrupt state functioning with the idea of ultimately making it impossible for the state to function at all, and are willing to incur the consequences of that. That’s very different from people standing with little signs, making a statement. Statements don’t do it. If [they] did, we would have transformed society in this country more than a century ago.

What do you think holds people back?
For all the rhetoric, there is no nonviolent context operating here—not at all. The more you become in any sense effectual, you’re going to be confronted with the violence of the state to maintain order of a sort that perpetuates its functioning. So nonviolence renders one vulnerable to the lethal counter-force of the state. So there’s tangible fear. It’s basically, politically a consecration or concession of physical force to the state by those who purport to oppose the state.

Even if there is a sort of inchoate understanding of a position of privilege in society, coming from an economically affluent background, if you’re not going to face physical violence, ultimately, you are subject to consequences which are not physical: an erosion of your privilege, a making of your life more uncomfortable. Basically, nonviolence as it is practiced, espoused in the U.S., is not Gandhian. Gandhi never articulated anything that precluded personal sacrifice. This is a non-Gandhian appropriation of his principles for the purpose of confirming personal comfort. So it’s a politics of the comfort zone.

What are some of the solutions? Extreme events, like 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, have mobilized people out of such complacency, albeit temporarily.
I don’t have a ready answer for that. One of the things I’ve suggested is that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary. This seems like such a no-brainer that I hate to frame it in terms of actual transformation of consciousness. ‘Hey those brown-skinned folks dying in the millions in order to maintain this way of life, they can wait forever for those who purport to be the opposition here to find some personally comfortable and pure manner of affecting the kind of transformation that brings not just lethal but genocidal processes to a halt.’ They have no obligation—moral, ethical, legal or otherwise—to sit on their thumbs while the opposition here dithers about doing anything to change the system. So it’s removing the sense of—and right to—impunity from the American opposition.

In the case of the Germans during the Third Reich, outside influence could have altered their course. Do you think there’s any place for that in terms of the U.S.? From Europe or Canada, to kind of kick things along? I’m thinking of systems that have power and leverage with the U.S. administration.
That’s looking for a painless fix again. Power and leverage in the traditional sense are not going to bring fundamental change into being. Each of those entities is a projector of the same kind of violence, but on a quantitatively lesser scale than the U.S. However, the nature of their intervention, based upon their perception of self-interest, is convincing the U.S. to [change] in a way that will not visit undue consequences upon them. You’d get cosmetic alterations—policy adjustments and so forth—a refinement of the system, thus the continuation of the status quo. It would ultimately create illusions of change and keep people confused.

Third world opposition on the other hand understands this dynamic much more clearly. You have to have an eradication of the beast, not a retraining of the beast’s performance.

I can give a talk to a university in North America, to students and professors, and they are fundamentally confused about things that are automatically self-evident to people when you go to a village in Latin America, where the average educational attainment is third grade. Now why can these “peasants” automatically grasp concepts that are just beyond the reach altogether of your average university audience in North America?

Why do you think?
Partly because it’s this fostering of illusion—and it’s self-imposed—that repeating the same process yet again will somehow lead to a fundamentally different result. We can go through the charade of ‘let’s elect John Kerry instead of George Bush,’ do things which are essentially painless to us, and the outcome is going to be different. You don’t have politics, you have alchemy. That’s delusional behavior. It’s a state of denial in a social maybe even cultural sense. And that’s what’s masquerading as progressive politics.

Is there a historical example of what could happen here?
There is absolutely no historical precedent that I could name. We’re [within] the belly of the beast. When you destabilize, when there is genuinely significant fracturing, the actual disintegration of the social and political order. Everybody goes on about the end of the 60s, but there nonetheless were conditions indicating substantial instability. The ability of the U.S. to project power didn’t exactly evaporate but it was very sharply curtailed. But a complete curtailment of the U.S. ability to project power on a global basis has no historical precedent.

So if it takes eradication of the beast from within, how would you see that happening?
Well, first the withdrawal of consent, people imbued with consciousness to withdraw altogether from an embrace of the state.

If I defined the state as being the problem, just what happens to the state? I’ve never fashioned myself to be a revolutionary, but it’s part and parcel of what I’m talking about. You can create through consciousness a situation of flux, perhaps, in which something better can replace it. In instability there’s potential. That’s about as far as I go with revolutionary consciousness. I’m actually a de-evolutionary. I don’t want other people in charge of the apparatus of the state as the outcome of a socially transformative process that replicates oppression. I want the state gone: transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether.

So what does that look like?
There’s no U.S. in America anymore. What’s on the map instead? Well let’s just start with territoralities often delineated in treaties of fact—territoralities of 500 indigenous nations imbued with an inalienable right to self-determination, definable territoralities which are jurisdictionally separate. Then you’ve got things like the internal diasporic population of African Americans in internal colonies that have been established by the imposition of labor patterns upon them. You’ve got Appalachian whites. Since the U.S. unilaterally violated its treaty obligations, it forfeits its rights—or presumption of rights—under international law. Basically, you’ve got a dismantlement and devolution of the U.S. territorial and jurisdictional corpus into something that would be more akin to diasporic self-governing entities and a multiplicity of geographical locations. A-ha, chew on that one for awhile.

There’s no overarching authority other than consensus or agreement between each of these. There has to be a collaborative and cooperative arrangement rather than something that’s centrally organized and arbitrarily imposed.

Is there any precedence for that in human history?
Well, partial precedence at least. It’s not worked out.

My ancestors did, in fact, generate their agreements voluntarily, serving their own interests to do so; they did cede territory. Not the territory that’s been taken, but the territory that’s been ceded is legitimately in the ownership of someone else. So there is, in that sense, a place for different populations, and accommodation arrangement can be made for others.

It’s not a case of returning to things as they were in 1619 or 1606 or whatever you want to pick from history as being the “pre-here.” It’s a matter of reasserting or sustaining the values and understandings that came with the disposition of things that applied at that time, and reapplying it or continuing to apply it in a contemporary context. It’s a reordering of relations both between people in the singular, and the rest of the natural order in a way that is coherent now. It’s not everybody who’s not in some sense discernibly native needs to leave in a physical sense. It’s that everybody who is not in some sense native needs to figure out how to accommodate themselves to life in either a native jurisdiction (as natives have been accommodating themselves) and existing under somebody else’s jurisdiction. Or, living in a jurisdiction of their own, but one that is constrained to that legitimate jurisdiction. In other words, not having arbitrary authority over anybody else’s lives, land or resources. To exist on the basis of the resources available to them in this constricted land base. A whole reordering of consciousness goes into that.

A self-defined spirit group in other words cannot assign itself a superior right to benefit from somebody else’s property. That property, I’m using in the broadest sense, includes their very lives.

What gives you hope?
What gives me hope is that people are imbued innately with consciousness and you can potentially reorder that to arrive at an understanding of what needs to be done. Once the understanding is there, the capacity to do what necessary is obviously present. So despite the fact that my experience tells me that it is unlikely (because of the vast preference of the bulk of the people to indulge themselves personally, rather than engage in something that might be effective but personally uncomfortable), the possibility of an alteration in that consciousness, remains always present. There’s where I find hope. That was a somewhat muddled response.

What would I do in the alternative if I were completely divested of hope? Collect stamps. The reason to go on with the struggle is why it’s work. It’s not an event; it’s a process. And if one understands one’s place in the world properly one is obligated to struggle. Struggling, you’ve got to have hope that you can succeed. If not in the immediacy of my lifetime, then to plant the seeds that can reach maturation at some point. Now I have an obligation to my children and my children’s children and generations out into the future, as do we all, whether we understand it or not.

http://www.satyamag.com/apr04/churchill.html

[strandinthewind]

and another:

Rocky Mountain News

CU prof's essay sparks dispute
Ward Churchill says 9/11 victims were not innocent people

By John C. Ensslin, Rocky Mountain News
January 27, 2005

A University of Colorado professor has sparked controversy in New York over an essay he wrote that maintains that people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were not innocent victims.

Students and faculty members at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., have been protesting a speaking appearance on Feb. 3 by Ward L. Churchill, chairman of the CU Ethnic Studies Department.


Advertisement



They are upset over an essay Churchill wrote titled, "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens."

The essay takes its title from a remark that black activist Malcolm X made in the wake of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Malcolm X created controversy when he said Kennedy's murder was a case of "chickens coming home to roost."

Churchill's essay argues that the Sept. 11 attacks were in retaliation for the Iraqi children killed in a 1991 U.S. bombing raid and by economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations following the Persian Gulf War.

The essay contends the hijackers who crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11 were "combat teams," not terrorists.

It states: "The most that can honestly be said of those involved on Sept. 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course."

The essay maintains that the people killed inside the Pentagon were "military targets."

"As for those in the World Trade Center," the essay said, "well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."

The essay goes on to describe the victims as "little Eichmanns," referring to Adolph Eichmann, who executed Adolph Hitler's plan to exterminate Jews during World War II.

Churchill said he was not especially surprised at the controversy at Hamilton, but he also defended the opinions contained in his essay.

"When you kill 500,000 children in order to impose your will on other countries, then you shouldn't be surprised when somebody responds in kind," Churchill said.

"If it's not comfortable, that's the point. It's not comfortable for the people on the other side, either."

The attacks on Sept. 11, he said, were "a natural and inevitable consequence of what happens as a result of business as usual in the United States. Wake up."

A longtime activist with the American Indian Movement, Churchill was one of eight defendants acquitted last week in Denver County Court on charges of disrupting Denver's Columbus Day parade.

His pending speech at Hamilton has drawn criticism from professors and students, including Matt Coppo, a sophomore whose father died in the World Trade Center attacks.

"His views are completely hurtful to the families of 3,000 people," Coppo said.

A spokesman for Hamilton College released a statement noting that Hamilton is committed to "the free exchange of ideas. We expect that many of those who strongly disagree with Mr. Churchill's comments will attend his talk and make their views known."

Controversial statements

In his essay Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, CU professor Ward Churchill argues that:

• The Sept. 11 attacks were in retaliation for the Iraqi children who were killed in a 1991 bombing raid and for economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations following the Persian Gulf War.

• Hijackers who crashed jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11 were "combat teams," not terrorists.

• The people killed inside the Pentagon were "military targets."

Copyright 2005, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/education/article/0,1299,DRMN_957_3501617,00.html

[wondergirl9847]

He can say whatever he wants, it's a free country. I don't understand his point though about the victims of 9-11 though. :confused: So, those Americans killed are Nazis? WTH does that mean?! Did those people murder somebody that we don't know about? Shouldn't he have called our government Nazi-ish? Or, is he saying the American people are Nazis because we elected a government that did those things? I'm confused.

[strandinthewind]

He can say whatever he wants, it's a free country. I don't understand his point though about the victims of 9-11 though. :confused: So, those Americans killed are Nazis? WTH does that mean?! Did those people murder somebody that we don't know about? Shouldn't he have called our government Nazi-ish? Or, is he saying the American people are Nazis because we elected a government that did those things? I'm confused.


That one is in left field for me as well. Maybe he was slamming them because they were part of corporate America - but that is a stretch as all people all over the world work for an evil corp :shrug: I think he is more on point with the civilians working for the Pentagon as at least that was a military building, but even then, they were civilians and most know the Pentagon, though a military facility, is populated with such - it has a Ritz Carlton and a mall for goodness sake.

[estranged4life]

Why not have a thread on him!!!!!!!

Should the Univ. can him?

If you do not know who I am talking about:

1. Shame of you :laugh:

2. google him

I think he has the right to say whatever he wants and most of it, though heightened and somewhat taken out of context, is true. But, would I want an employee of mine to be so controversial. Probably not. But, universities are the place for such things. I think his speech is thought provoking.

I could care less if he helped O-Prah to lose the extra weight :rolleyes:

Last time I looked (Unless the Bush Reich took the FREEDOM away as I slept last night) you can say what the f**k ever you want in this country, I may not agree with it but I would never tell you you're arent allowed to make an ass outta yer self for opening yer mouth...Just like my ol' Mother once said "I dont care if you disagree, You're allowed to suck if you want" :nod:

[amber]

I like him. :shrug: This is my favorite part though. "People who want to elevate property to the same level of importance as life are so absurd as to be self-nullifying."
ok, I admit it, I skimmed. That was a long ass article. :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I like him.

Somehow I knew that someone on this board would say that! :shrug:

Some feel that he is guilty of a form of treason. I tend to agree.

Let's put this - over paid, hippie, rock star - professor in a room with family members who lost a loved one in the 9/11 attacks. I'd pay to see that.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Felt this was apropos for the topic at hand…

SITTING BULL-S***
by Ann Coulter
February 9, 2005

If Ward Churchill loses his job teaching at the University of Colorado, he could end up giving Howard Dean a real run for his money to head the Democratic National Committee.

Churchill already has a phony lineage and phony war record — just like John Kerry! (Someone should also check out Churchill's claim that he spent Christmas 1968 at Wounded Knee.) In 1983, Churchill met with Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi and later felt it necessary to announce that his group, the American Indian Movement, "has not requested arms from the Libyan government." In 1997, he was one of the "witnesses" who spoke at a "Free Mumia" event in Philadelphia on behalf of convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Come to think of it, Churchill could give Hillary a run for her money. All that's left for Churchill to do now is meet with Al Sharpton and kiss Suha Arafat.

Churchill's claim that he is an Indian isn't an incidental boast, like John Kerry pretending to be Irish. It is central to his career, his writing, his political activism. Churchill has been the co-director of the American Indian Movement of Colorado, the vice chairperson of the American Indian "Anti-Defamation" Council, and an associate professor and coordinator of American Indian Studies at the University of Colorado.

By Churchill's own account, a crucial factor in his political development was "being an American Indian referred to as 'chief' in a combat unit" in Vietnam, which made him sad. This is known to con men everywhere as a "two-fer."

In addition to an absence of evidence about his Indian heritage, there is an absence of evidence that he was in combat in Vietnam. After the POW Network revealed that Churchill had never seen combat, he countered with this powerful argument: "They can say whatever the hell they want. That's confidential information, and I've never ordered its release from the Department of Defense. End of story." Maybe we should ask John Kerry to help Churchill fill out a form 180.

In one of his books, "Struggle for the Land," Churchill advances the argument that one-third of America is the legal property of Indians. And if you believe Churchill is a real Indian, he also happens to be part owner of the Brooklyn Bridge.

In his most famous oeuvre, the famed 9/11 essay calling the 9/11 World Trade Center victims "little Eichmanns," he said "Arab terrorists" — his quotes — had simply "responded to the massive and sustained American terror bombing of Iraq" by giving Americans "a tiny dose of their own medicine."

Having blurted out "Iraq" in connection with 9/11 in a moment of pique, Churchill had to backpedal when the anti-war movement needed to argue that Iraq had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Arab terrorism. He later attached an "Addendum" to the essay saying that the 9/11 attack was not only payback for Iraq, but also for various other of this country's depredations especially against "real Indians" (of which he is not one).

In light of the fact that Churchill's entire persona, political activism, curriculum vitae, writings and university positions are based on his claim that he's an Indian, it's rather churlish of him to complain when people ask if he really is one. But whenever he is questioned about his heritage, Churchill rails that inquiries into his ancestry are "absolutely indefensible."

Churchill has gone from claiming he is one-eighth Indian "on a good day" to claiming he is "three-sixteenths Cherokee," to claiming he is one-sixty-fourth Cherokee through a Revolutionary War era ancestor named Joshua Tyner. (At least he's not posing as a phony Indian math professor.) A recent investigation by The Denver Post revealed that Tyner's father was indeed married to a Cherokee. But that was only after Joshua's mother –- and Churchill's relative -– was scalped by Indians.

By now, all that's left of Churchill's claim to Indian ancestry is his assertion: "It is just something that was common knowledge in my family." (That, and his souvenir foam-rubber "tommyhawk" he bought at Turner Field in Atlanta.)

Over the years, there were other subtle clues the university might have noticed.

Churchill is not in the tribal registries kept since the 1800s by the federal government.

No tribe will enroll him –- a verification process Churchill dismisses as "poodle papers" for Indians.

In 1990, Churchill was forced to stop selling his art as "Indian art" under federal legislation sponsored by then-representative — and actual Indian! — Ben Nighthorse Campbell, that required Indian artists to establish that they are accepted members of a federally recognized tribe. Churchill responded by denouncing the Indian artist who had exposed him. (Hey, does anybody need 200 velvet paintings of Elvis playing poker with Crazy Horse?)

In the early '90s, he hoodwinked an impecunious Cherokee tribe into granting him an "associate membership" by telling them he "wrote some books and was a big-time author." A tribal spokeswoman explained: He "convinced us he could help our people." They never heard from him again — yet another treaty with the Indians broken by the white man. Soon thereafter, the tribe stopped offering "associate memberships."

A decade ago, Churchill was written up in an article in News From Indian Country, titled, "Sovereignty and Its Spokesmen: The Making of an Indian." The article noted that Churchill had claimed membership in a scrolling series of Indian tribes, but over "the course of two years, NFIC hasn't been able to confirm a single living Indian relative, let alone one real relative that can vouch for his tribal descent claim."

When real Indians complained to Colorado University in 1994 that a fake Indian was running their Indian Studies program, a spokeswoman for the CU president said the university needed "to determine if the position was designated for a Native American. And I can't answer that right now." Apparently it was answered in Churchill's favor since he's still teaching.

If he's not an Indian, it's not clear what Churchill does have to offer a university. In his book, "A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present," Churchill denounces Jews for presuming to imagine the Holocaust was unique. In the chapter titled "Lie for Lie: Linkages between Holocaust Deniers and Proponents of the Uniqueness of the Jewish Experience in World War II," Churchill calls the Third Reich merely "a crystallization" of Christopher Columbus' ravages of his people (if he were an Indian).

His research apparently consisted of watching the Disney movie "Pocahontas," which showed that the Indians meant the European settlers no harm. (That's if you don't count the frequent scalpings.)

Even the credulous Nation magazine -– always on red alert for tales of government oppression –- dismissed Churchill's 1988 book "Agents of Repression" about Cointelpro-type operations against the American Indian Movement, saying the book "does not give much new information" and "even a reader who is inclined to believe their allegations will want more evidence than they provide." If The Nation won't buy your anti-U.S. government conspiracy theories, Kemosabe, it's probably time to pack up the old teepee and hit the trail of tears.

In response to the repeated complaints from Indians that a phony Indian was running CU's Indian Studies program, Churchill imperiously responded: "Guess what that means, guys? I'm not taking anyone's job, there wouldn't be an Indian Studies program if I wasn't coordinating it. ... They won't give you a job just because you have the paper." This white man of English and Swiss-German descent apparently believes there are no actual Indians deserving of his position at CU. (No wonder the Indians aren't crazy about him.)

As long as we're all agreed that there are some people who don't deserve jobs at universities, why isn't Churchill one of them?

[gldstwmn]

I'm going to watch this unfold a little bit.
Right now my estimation is that Churchill is an anarchist or a Rovian plant. Either way, very interesting dude.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I'm going to watch this unfold a little bit.
Right now my estimation is that Churchill is an anarchist or a Rovian plant. Either way, very interesting dude.

Funny how Anti-American statements can make people "interesting dudes", but people in support of our country at the present moment are hateful and evil.

[gldstwmn]

Funny how Anti-American statements can make people "interesting dudes", but people in support of our country at the present moment are hateful and evil.

WTF are you talking about? I consider Nixon, Lyndon Johnson and Pat Buchanan interesting dudes to name a few. The connotation is not necessarily good or bad.

[strandinthewind]

I'm going to watch this unfold a little bit.
Right now my estimation is that Churchill is an anarchist or a Rovian plant. Either way, very interesting dude.

I would not call him a plant, though I put nothing past Rove. I do think he is an anarchist and I think some of the things he says are spin in the sense that the whole story is not realy told. But, I cannot say I have seen him outright lie - like I have seen many far right wingers do - can you say Anne "the war in Iraq is going magnificantly well" Coulter - if her mouth is open, she is lying :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

I would not call him a plant, though I put nothing past Rove. I do think he is an anarchist and I think some of the things he says are spin in the sense that the whole story is not realy told. But, I cannot say I have seen him outright lie - like I have seen many far right wingers do - can you say Anne "the war in Iraq is going magnificantly well" Coulter - if her mouth is open, she is lying :laugh:

As I said, I need to watch this unfold a bit. Many universities had plants/psy ops during the civil unrest of the 60's and 70's. Boulder has been very active since the Iraq bull**** has started. It is so far left it's almost off the map. :laugh:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I would not call him a plant, though I put nothing past Rove. I do think he is an anarchist and I think some of the things he says are spin in the sense that the whole story is not realy told. But, I cannot say I have seen him outright lie - like I have seen many far right wingers do - can you say Anne "the war in Iraq is going magnificantly well" Coulter - if her mouth is open, she is lying :laugh:


Hey when you capture Saddam and bring freedom to Iraqis for the first time, I too consider that "magnificently well"; call me an optimist :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

Hey when you capture Saddam and bring freedom to Iraqis for the first time, I too consider that "magnificently well"; call me an optimist :shrug:
The Kurds tipped us off to Saddam's locale after we jacked them out of the reward money.
What "freedom" is there in Iraq? They don't even have electricity and there's 9 billion dollars missing that disappeared around the same time L. Paul Bremer left the country.
I could go on but I'll keep this in small doses so it's easier for you.
The disinformation is so distilled in you I don't even know where to start. So here:
Audit: U.S. lost track of $9 billion in Iraq funds
Pentagon, Bremer dispute inspector general's report
Monday, January 31, 2005 Posted: 0412 GMT (1212 HKT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nearly $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to a watchdog report published Sunday.

An inspector general's report said the U.S.-led administration that ran Iraq until June 2004 is unable to account for the funds.

"Severe inefficiencies and poor management" by the Coalition Provisional Authority has left auditors with no guarantee the money was properly used," the report said.

"The CPA did not establish or implement sufficient managerial, financial and contractual controls to ensure that [Development Fund for Iraq] funds were used in a transparent manner," said Stuart W. Bowen Jr., director of the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

The $8.8 billion was reported to have been spent on salaries, operating and capital expenditures, and reconstruction projects between October 2003 and June 2004, Bowen's report concluded.

The money came from revenues from the United Nations' former oil-for-food program, oil sales and seized assets -- all Iraqi money. The audit did not examine the use of U.S. funds appropriated for reconstruction. (Full story)

Auditors were unable to verify that the Iraqi money was spent for its intended purpose. In one case, they raised the possibility that thousands of "ghost employees" were on an unnamed ministry's payroll.

"CPA staff identified at one ministry that although 8,206 guards were on the payroll, only 602 guards could be validated," the audit report states. "Consequently, there was no assurance funds were not provided for ghost employees."

The Defense Department, which was in charge of the reconstruction effort, and former Iraq civil administrator Paul Bremer have disputed the findings.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told CNN that the provisional authority was operating under "extraordinary conditions" and relied on Iraqi ministries to manage development money that was transferred to them.

"We simply disagree with the audit's conclusion that the CPA provided less-than-adequate controls over Iraqi funds that were provided to Iraqi ministries through the national budget process for hundreds of projects, essential services, Iraqi salaries and security forces," Whitman said.

The occupation government established "major reforms" in Iraq's budgeting system, setting up a transparent mechanism for decision-making and beginning efforts to fight corruption, Whitman said.

Under a U.N. Security Council resolution, the Development Fund for Iraq was to be used for humanitarian needs, economic reconstruction and repair of infrastructure, continued disarmament, costs of civilian administration and other programs benefiting Iraqis.

Bremer, in a written response included in the report, said Bowen's report failed to recognize the difficulties of operating in wartime.

"The IG auditors presume that the coalition could achieve a standard of budgetary transparency and execution that even peaceful Western nations would have trouble meeting within a year, especially in the midst of a war," Bremer wrote.

Bremer, who received a Presidential Medal of Freedom in December for his work in Iraq, stated that auditors did not interview him, any of his budget directors or deputies in preparing their draft report.

"On the whole, the office has done excellent work," he wrote. "But I do believe my colleagues at the CPA have a right to expect a level of professional judgment and awareness, which seems to be missing in the current draft report."

Bowen's report, which was prepared for Congress, acknowledged that the insurgency in Iraq poses "the most difficult challenge" to reconstruction.

"Even under the most favorable of conditions, rebuilding Iraq would be a job of daunting proportions," he wrote.

But the provisional authority did not clearly assign managerial responsibility, and its rules lacked clear guidance on procedures and controls for dispersing funds, he concluded.

Staffing shortages and turnover also resulted in inadequate oversight of budget execution by Iraqi ministries, he found -- and allegations of corruption in the oil-for-food program should have raised concerns about the Iraqi government's ability to manage the reconstruction funds.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

[gldstwmn]

We got him: Kurds say they caught Saddam

By Paul McGeough, Herald Correspondent in Baghdad
December 22, 2003

Washington's claims that brilliant US intelligence work led to the capture of Saddam Hussein are being challenged by reports sourced in Iraq's Kurdish media claiming that its militia set the circumstances in which the US merely had to go to a farm identified by the Kurds to bag the fugitive former president.

The first media account of the December 13 arrest was aired by a Tehran-based news agency.

American forces took Saddam into custody around 8.30pm local time, but sat on the news until 3pm the next day.

However, in the early hours of Sunday, a Kurdish language wire service reported explicitly: "Saddam Hussein was captured by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. A special intelligence unit led by Qusrat Rasul Ali, a high-ranking member of the PUK, found Saddam Hussein in the city of Tikrit, his birthplace.

"Qusrat's team was accompanied by a group of US soldiers. Further details of the capture will emerge during the day; but the global Kurdish party is about to begin!"

The head of the PUK, Jalal Talabani, was in the Iranian capital en route to Europe.

The Western media in Baghdad were electrified by the Iranian agency's revelation, but as reports of the arrest built, they relied almost exclusively on accounts from US military and intelligence organisations, starting with the words of the US-appointed administrator of Iraq, Paul Bremer: "Ladies and gentlemen: we got 'im".

US officials said that they had extracted the vital piece of information on Saddam's whereabouts from one of the 20 suspects around 5.30pm on December 13 and had immediately assembled a 600-strong force to surround the farm on which he was captured at al-Dwar, south of Tikrit.

Little attention was paid to a line in Pentagon briefings that some of the Kurdish militia might have been in on what was described as a "joint operation"; or to a statement by Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraq National Congress, which said that Qusrat and his PUK forces had provided vital information and more.

A Scottish newspaper, the Sunday Herald, quoted from an interview aired on the PUK's al-Hurriyah radio station last Wednesday, in which Adil Murad, a member of the PUK's political bureau,

said that the day before Saddam's capture he was tipped off by a PUK general - Thamir al-Sultan - that Saddam would be arrested within the next 72 hours.

An unnamed Western intelligence source in the Middle East was quoted in the British Sunday Express yesterday: "Saddam was not captured as a result of any American or British intelligence. We knew that someone would eventually take their revenge, it was just a matter of time."

There has been no American response to the Kurdish claims.

An intriguing question is why Kurdish forces were allowed to join what the US desperately needed to present as an American intelligence success - unless the Kurds had something vital to contribute to the operation so far south of their usual area of activity.

A report from the PUK's northern stronghold, Suliymaniah, early last week claimed a vital intelligence breakthrough after a telephone conversation between Qusrat and Saddam's second wife, Samirah.


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/21/1071941612613.html?oneclick=true

[Brwn_eyes0511]

We got him: Kurds say they caught Saddam

By Paul McGeough, Herald Correspondent in Baghdad
December 22, 2003

Washington's claims that brilliant US intelligence work led to the capture of Saddam Hussein are being challenged by reports sourced in Iraq's Kurdish media claiming that its militia set the circumstances in which the US merely had to go to a farm identified by the Kurds to bag the fugitive former president.

The first media account of the December 13 arrest was aired by a Tehran-based news agency.

American forces took Saddam into custody around 8.30pm local time, but sat on the news until 3pm the next day.

However, in the early hours of Sunday, a Kurdish language wire service reported explicitly: "Saddam Hussein was captured by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. A special intelligence unit led by Qusrat Rasul Ali, a high-ranking member of the PUK, found Saddam Hussein in the city of Tikrit, his birthplace.

"Qusrat's team was accompanied by a group of US soldiers. Further details of the capture will emerge during the day; but the global Kurdish party is about to begin!"

The head of the PUK, Jalal Talabani, was in the Iranian capital en route to Europe.

The Western media in Baghdad were electrified by the Iranian agency's revelation, but as reports of the arrest built, they relied almost exclusively on accounts from US military and intelligence organisations, starting with the words of the US-appointed administrator of Iraq, Paul Bremer: "Ladies and gentlemen: we got 'im".

US officials said that they had extracted the vital piece of information on Saddam's whereabouts from one of the 20 suspects around 5.30pm on December 13 and had immediately assembled a 600-strong force to surround the farm on which he was captured at al-Dwar, south of Tikrit.

Little attention was paid to a line in Pentagon briefings that some of the Kurdish militia might have been in on what was described as a "joint operation"; or to a statement by Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraq National Congress, which said that Qusrat and his PUK forces had provided vital information and more.

A Scottish newspaper, the Sunday Herald, quoted from an interview aired on the PUK's al-Hurriyah radio station last Wednesday, in which Adil Murad, a member of the PUK's political bureau,

said that the day before Saddam's capture he was tipped off by a PUK general - Thamir al-Sultan - that Saddam would be arrested within the next 72 hours.

An unnamed Western intelligence source in the Middle East was quoted in the British Sunday Express yesterday: "Saddam was not captured as a result of any American or British intelligence. We knew that someone would eventually take their revenge, it was just a matter of time."

There has been no American response to the Kurdish claims.

An intriguing question is why Kurdish forces were allowed to join what the US desperately needed to present as an American intelligence success - unless the Kurds had something vital to contribute to the operation so far south of their usual area of activity.

A report from the PUK's northern stronghold, Suliymaniah, early last week claimed a vital intelligence breakthrough after a telephone conversation between Qusrat and Saddam's second wife, Samirah.


http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/21/1071941612613.html?oneclick=true

Oh that's just too funny. It's just liberals way of saying "DAMN why did we have to catch Saddam while Bush was in office, why not while someone like Clinton was in the White House (I have a response to that, because what little foreign policy Clinton had, sucked)? This blows are entire 'this war is pointless' speech right down the drain!" So now it has turned into "Oh wow, America wasn't responsible for his capture, THANK GOD, something else we can blame Bush for!"

In all honesty even if we weren't responsible for the actual capture of Saddam, I promise you that had we not been at war at the time, The Kurds would have never been able to capture him. So either directly, or indirectly America had a play in it.

[gldstwmn]

Oh that's just too funny. It's just liberals way of saying "DAMN why did we have to catch Saddam while Bush was in office, .

We didn't need to "CATCH" Saddam, we've know where he's been for over 40 years and we had completely disarmed him by the time Desert Fox rolled around in 1998 under President Clinton.
Why did we invade Iraq in March 2003?

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Hey when you capture Saddam and bring freedom to Iraqis for the first time, I too consider that "magnificently well"; call me an optimist :shrug:


I guess you were asleep when the war began? When the reason congress was given to go to war, and the american people was a huge threat of WMD potential nuclear and biological weapons...

And no I wouldnt call you an optimist--I would call you naive.

Chris

[estranged4life]

Felt this was apropos for the topic at hand…

hate to say this but I think Coutler-geist was right on the following:

"Churchill has gone from claiming he is one-eight Indian "on a good day" to claiming he is "three-sixteenths Cherokee""

How can someone be "three-sixteenths Cherokee"? You can only be "full blooded", "one-half", "one-quarter", "one-eight", "one-sixteenth", "one-thirtysecondth" & finally "one-sixty fourth" (Any less than "one sixty fourth" and you're not recognized as being Indian according to BIA statutes).

Three sixteenths is physically impossible when "Degree of Indian Blood" is only divisable by two/half drop per generation (A CDIB's, Card of Degree of Indian Blood, will tell how much Indian blood you have).

[gldstwmn]

hate to say this but I think Coutler-geist was right on the following:

"Churchill has gone from claiming he is one-eight Indian "on a good day" to claiming he is "three-sixteenths Cherokee""



Just playing devil's advocate but can she prove he said that? :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

Just playing devil's advocate but can she prove he said that? :shrug:

I trust nothing she says. It is like the "Fly" it goes in human and comes out twisted into something non human :eek: :laugh:

[estranged4life]

Just playing devil's advocate but can she prove he said that? :shrug:

not prove she wasn't a man before :shrug: I doubt it :lol:

Kinda funny, But most Native Americans are backing Churchill, So I guess I am an anarchist too since "us Natives want ALL OF YOU non-'Native Americans' to go back wherest you came from" :rolleyes: (I always laughed when I hear that statement said by ANY ethnic group, yeah sure, Can Coulter-geist go back to being a man? :lol: )

[dissention]

I don't think he should be canned, he has every right to write or say what he pleases on the subject. I don't know if you remember, but at my old college last year, there was a big controversy over an op-ed in the student newspaper regarding Pat Tillman. The kid who wrote it got death threats, the whole enchilada. And they wanted to take him off of the paper. Why? Doesn't anyone read things they don't disagree with? Just because you don't agree with it, it doesn't mean that others don't and should be deprived of reading it.

As for his actual essay, I'll reserve my judgements until I can actually read the whole thing and not the selective little blurbs that the media wants me to read. :wavey:

[dissention]

Hey when you capture Saddam and bring freedom to Iraqis for the first time, I too consider that "magnificently well"; call me an optimist :shrug:

You fail to note the context in which she actually made that absurd statement.

And where's Osama?

[dissention]

Let's put this - over paid, hippie, rock star - professor in a room with family members who lost a loved one in the 9/11 attacks. I'd pay to see that.

Put them in a room with the man who was partly responsible for September 11th, a certain George W. Bush. I'd pay to see that.

[estranged4life]

Put them in a room with the man who was partly responsible for September 11th, a certain George W. Bush. I'd pay to see that.

make sure we throw OBL, Michael "Krispy Kremed" Moore, Al "My wife the CENSOR" Gore, Slick Willy Clinton, Janet "Ann Coulter...I AM your Father (said Janet in her best Darth Vader voice)" Reno, Dickhead Cheney & Condi Rice-A-Roni inside and make sure WE have a video feed on 'pay-per-view', Cause this would be even better than "Wrestlemania XXI" :lol:

[strandinthewind]

You fail to note the context in which she actually made that absurd statement.

And where's Osama?

Well SH and Osama are the same person :rolleyes:

As for Churchill, the Univ. of Col. has requirements by which someone can be fired. Grounds for dismissal include:

incompetence

neglect of duty

insubordination

conviction of a felony or any offense involving moral turpitude

sexual harassment

any conduct falling below minimum standards of professional integrity.

Here is an interesting essay on how his actions may or may not fit those criteria:

http://www.rasmusen.org/x/archives/000424.html

February 05, 2005

Ward Churchill Affair: Various Possible Reasons to Fire Him

I posted on Feb 4 and Feb. 2 on the Churchill affair. A couple of people have commented to me in emails that although the University of Colorado should not fire Ward Churchill maybe for his politcal views per se, he should be fired for other reasons, which may come up in the tenure-stripping investigation the University has started. This is what an editorial today in Colorado's main paper is saying, too. This follows strong political pressure. Gov. Bill Owens called for his firing. The Legislature more moderately condemned his views (they didn't call for him to be fired, as I said in my first version of this post)....

...

Earlier Thursday, the state Senate passed a resolution denouncing Churchill's comments as "evil and inflammatory." The nonbinding resolution was identical to one passed Wednesday by the House.

Democratic state Sen. Peter Groff cast the lone "no" vote, saying he disagreed with Churchill but that the resolution provides him with undeserved attention and attacks free speech.

The fact that the politicians are calling for Churchill's firing for bad reasons is in itself a good reason *not* to fire him now. It is, of course, perfectly possible, though, that (a) he ought not to be a full professor at Colorado, and (b) there exist grounds for stripping him of tenure. Items (a) and (b) are two different things, as I will explain below-- essentially, the difference between (a) not hiring somebody, and (b) the person having done something bad enough to be fired for.

Let's look at possible reasons for firing Churchill. The facts are described or linked to in my previous two posts.

(1) Churchill incited a mob to shut down a Columbus Day parade, escaping criminal conviction but not guilt.

This does sound like grounds to strip him of tenure. The University need not use "beyond a reasonable doubt", and this crime is particularly disturbing in a professor, more than tax evasion or burglary. But the University should have started the process back then, not now.

(2) Churchill falsely claimed to be an Indian, maybe.

In itself, race should not be the grounds for either hiring or firing, though we know that in fact there is tremendous racial discrimination by universities. (I discuss the facts in my Feb. 4 post.) If the lying is in academic writings, and crucial to those writings, then this would be grounds for firing. How it would be crucial is not clear but he might written something like the fraudulent book that got Rigoberta Menchu the Nobel Peace Prize.

(3) Churchill got tenure under false pretences.

If Churchill's publications did not really exist, or something like that, he should be fired. But I highly doubt that.

(4) Churchill should not have gotten tenure, because he is not a good enough scholar.

This is almost certainly true, from what I've seen on his website, but it must have been obvious to the tenure committee too. This goes back my distinction between (a) and (b). He should not have been given tenure, but it is too late for Colorado to back out of its contract now. It's very common for universities to have professors who got tenure 20 years ago but would not get it today. In fact, that is a sign of a successful university: that it has improved enough that it doesn't have to tenure the mediocrities it did 20 years before, and since those mediocrities have tenure, they are happy to see their departments improve. If I can hire new profs for my department that are better than me, I will, since we aren't in competition for the same job.

Churchill's case is different-- he looks unqualified even by laxer standards than today's. But it still is not grounds for stripping him of tenure. It is, on the other hand, a good reason to buy out his contract. I would not be surprised if that happens-- he negotiates a $500,000 secret golden parachute and leaves everybody happy.

(5) Churchill has improperly brought his politics into his classroom.

I would not be surprised by this, though I haven't seen any evidence of it yet except for a claim by an activist that he gave her a bad grade for a political reason. Even if it turns out that he has been too political in his classroom, that doesn't rise to the level of being something for which the university immediately strips a professor of tenure. Instead, he should be given a warning and punished only later. Giving a student a bad grade for political reasons is a more severe offense, and perhaps justified firing, but I'd want very good proof.

There are many, many, politically active, academically mediocre professors out there. Some departments are prone to hiring them, and some are not. The place to start dealing with this is not in firing, but in hiring, unless it is entire departments that are eliminated, which is a valid reason for firing people with tenure. That might be what should happen at Colorado-- disbanding the entire Ethnic Studies Department. But don't pick on just Churchill.

Posted by erasmuse at February 5, 2005 02:32 PM

Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.rasmusen.org/mt-new/mt-tb.cgi/419

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ward Churchill Affair: Various Possible Reasons to Fire Him:

» Rasmusen on Churchill from ProfessorBainbridge.com
Eric Rasmusen has weighed in on the Ward Churchill matter in several posts, the most recent of which lists five plausible grounds on which CU could fire Churchill. But I still think CU shouldn't do so. As Eric observed in [Read More]

Tracked on February 7, 2005 12:19 AM

» Professorial Obligations from Democracy Project
The outrage that characterized the initial reaction to Ward Churchill's newfound fame hasn't so much passed as paved the way for more thoughtful writing on some foundational problems in academe. Among the more thoughtful I've come across is this post... [Read More]

Tracked on February 7, 2005 02:11 PM

Comments

The issues surrounding Ward Churchill are more important and complicated than anything this shake-and-bake leftist has said. As an academic myself, I'm concerned that this situation will serve as an opportunity for right-wing attacks on, and wild assertions about, all of Academe and especially the institution of tenure.

Tenure does serve a crucial role in ensuring that faculty feel comfortable in pursuing and speaking the Truth -- lofty as that sounds. But there's a two-way commitment. The faculty member in turn is assumed to be a professional who deeply and passionately loves a discipline, loves it enough to stay current in it, loves to talk about it and teach it, and to contribute in meaningful ways to it -- and this includes contributing work that can stand up to scholarly scrutiny from colleagues in the discipline. One certainly does have to wonder how Ward Churchill ever achieved tenure at a flagship state university. Given the very real possibilities being bruited about that he isn't even who he says he is, and hasn't done what he claims to have done in his life, you have to wonder as well if the hiring process broke down. The hiring committee was probably made up primarily of other ethnic studies faculty. But there had to be administrative approval up the line (been there and done that myself for several years). Did no one thoroughly check his references? And again, during the tenure process over a few years, probably no one but his own department was reviewing his work. And for the life of me, I can't figure out how a unversity hired a guy into a tenure-track position, and not only tenured him but allowed him to chair a department, without his having a doctorate. Curioser and curioser. Bringing politics into the classroom...hard to judge in a "discipline" like ethnic studies, which is usually an advocacy bull session rather than a serious research/teaching unit. Many colleges and universities have language in their faculty personnel policies about using instructional time appropriately, or something to that effect. Advocating for certain political viewpoints or actions rather than teaching about a subject would seem to pass beyond what a professor is hired to do and how classroom time is being spent. That may be one way to get at grounds for his dismissal. And if he in any way misrepresented himself as a minorty or lied about his credentials in employment forms, there is usually language on some of the personnel forms that would allow the institution to fire him for lying.

But let's not jump to damning conclusions about all of American higher education. One university for whatever reasons dropped the ball in its duty to hire, evaluate, and supervise a faculty member appropriately. Letting the sunshine in on Churchill hasn't actually been so bad. Let his irresponsible rants be publicized. Let it be pointed out that he's a hypocrite for taking good pay from the very democratic, capitalist system he would like to see destroyed, while cloaking himself in one of its noblest concepts, freedom of speech. Better yet, do what the universities did well for centuries: set up a series of debates at the Colorado campus -- or anywhere else -- between Churchill and scholars in real disciplines who can take him apart on the illogic and historical inaccuracy of his assertions.

[dissention]

Has the actual essay been publicly released? If not, anyone who is "offended" by it without having actually read it needs to slapped. Hard.

[strandinthewind]

Put them in a room with the man who was partly responsible for September 11th, a certain George W. Bush. I'd pay to see that.


A little fact that few on the far right will acknowledge is that MANY if not the majority of the 9/11 widows, etc. HATE the Fed. Govt. for the cover up that happened after 9/11. They have testified before Congress and have openly and loudly boo'd Rice and other big wigs when they spewed their lies about how they were on top of the OBL threat prior to 9/11. The truth is (and I defy anyone to provide a fact to refute this) W and his ilk essentially completely ignored the many warnings from the Clinton Administration (who caught and prosecuted terrorists and prevented terroristic acts mind you - though certainly not all - but more than W (save the people captured in Afgan assuming they were all part of OBL armies :shrug: ) and anyone with any knowledge about the growing threat from OBL, who had directly attacked our country many times in the past on both our soil and elsewhere. They could not be bothered. In fact, they even somewhat stymied the Cole investigation (again OBL) out of apathy and then had the gall to say Clinton was bad for allowing it to happen. They instead were squarely focused on Iraq. I get that SH may have had WMD and SH was certainly not meeting his obligation to the UN, but SH at best only attacked an ally of the US; he never blew up our military barracks, the WTC (93), the Cole, and other incidents. So, while SH was a problem, he hardly rose to the level of OBL at that time and pretty much every single person in the know when W took office said as much. Then, once we get hit on 9/11, does the Bush Admin. learn from its mistakes - no it does not. It attacks Afganistan, which was the right thing to do, but then soon looses focus when OBL is not caught and goes back to Iraq with a vengence and lies and cheats to gets it way there. Again, Iraq and OBL and 9/11 had nothing to do with wach other - yet most cannot make that distinction because W and his lying cronies confused the two.

Interestingly, so many on the far right are so willing to portray Clinton as ineffective on terrorism and OBL (which is mostly worng becuase while he did not get or stop all events, he did at least one and he caught and prosecuted many who did these horrible acts). Yet, these same people cannot harbor the thought that W's neglect was the main cause for 9/11 being allowed to happen. They cannot or they refuse to turn that high powered light on W. hypocrites - the lot of them.

[cliffdweller]

Hey when you capture Saddam and bring freedom to Iraqis for the first time, I too consider that "magnificently well"; call me an optimist :shrug:

If you call freedom forced American culture, politics, and "values" then yeah, I guess they're getting "freedom" crammed down their throats.

[estranged4life]

If you call freedom forced American culture, politics, and "values" then yeah, I guess they're getting "freedom" crammed down their throats.

if ya came to the great state of (confusion) Of Oklahoma and said that statement to any of the Native American Tribes, Their response would more than 100% likely be "Hey, That's what happened to us...And it sucked!"

[cliffdweller]

if ya came to the great state of (confusion) Of Oklahoma and said that statement to any of the Native American Tribes, Their response would more than 100% likely be "Hey, That's what happened to us...And it sucked!"

Exactly. It's the imperialist great White way...and it does suck. The Bush administration = colonialist bastards.

[estranged4life]

A little fact that few on the far right will acknowledge is that MANY if not the majority of the 9/11 widows, etc. HATE the Fed. Govt. for the cover up that happened after 9/11.


same thing goes for April 19,1995 in this past of the world, Except here noone believes anyone whatsoever, Especially when no answers for the Murrah bombing were answered other than that McVeigh, Nichols & Fortier were involved.

Nearly 10 years and still awaiting an answer from our much loved/trusted globally US Government

[strandinthewind]

same thing goes for April 19,1995 in this past of the world, Except here noone believes anyone whatsoever, Especially when no answers for the Murrah bombing were answered other than that McVeigh, Nichols & Fortier were involved.

Nearly 10 years and still awaiting an answer from our much loved/trusted globally US Government

not only that - but the US Gov. refuses to provide any info. on ANY of the alleged conspirators, which eyewitnesses saw. In many ways, the more I think about the OKC bombing, the more I believe the govt. did it to cover up something a la the X-Files movie - but then again I have a hard time with that though I am a conspriacy theorist at heart :eek: :laugh:

[estranged4life]

If you call freedom forced American culture, politics, and "values" then yeah, I guess they're getting "freedom" crammed down their throats.

of cramming "Freedom" down other countries throat:

Government Personnel/Freedom Slaves-Tesla from the Psychotic Supper release


Government Personnel

"Go straight to hell,
All you government personnel,
Sittin' awf'ly well
In your big, white house up on the hill.

You say now, give me a home
Where the buffalo roam,
Where the deer and antelope play.
You can bet your ass we'll blow them all away.

F**k it up until it's bent,
Then a-wonder where it went.
Thinkin' you was a-heaven sent, ha ha ha,
You're nothin' but hell!

Go straight to hell."

Freedom Slaves

"I pledge no allegiance to your flag.
I feel I got me some damn good reasons for feelin' bad.
Way they take away ev'ry mother's son,
If you want freedom now, it's got to be won.
It's only bullets. It's just a gun.
Ain't gon' hurt no one.

I don't know what they must be thinkin'.
Makin' decisions on a hard night's drinkin'.
Momma, gon' take your little boy.
Gonna make him 'to a man,
Make him a stranger in a strange land.

Freedom slaves
What have you done
Freedom slaves
With ev'ry mother's son?
Freedom slaves
Can't ya see that we're all freedom slaves?

Freedom slaves
What have you done?
Freedom slaves
And all for number one.
Freedom slaves
It's clear to see that we're all freedom slaves.

No sign of justice nor liberty
By takin' an Indian Nation, 'cause they was all that we wanted to be.
All good people from the Kingdom of the Sun.
Welcome to freedom. Now, there's work to be done.
It's only natural to know it's wrong.
Why did it go so long?

I don't know what next they'll be killin',
Rapin' the land with pollution and spillin'.
Here's to the tired, to the hungry, to the helpless and the poor.
Is there no glory for blisters and sores?

[Chorus]

Who are those people?
So patriotically sittin' back of tables
On their asses, lickin' labels, tryin' to change me.
You'd think the way they act, the way they carry on,
You'd think that I was the devil's Seventh Son.
But it's only words. It's just a song.
Ain't gonna hurt no one.

[Chorus]

Freedom slaves.
Freedom slaves.
Freedom slaves.

Attention!
About Face!
March!
Left, right, left, right, left, right.
Your momma, she was a....(fade out)"

[dissention]

Interestingly, so many on the far right are so willing to portray Clinton as ineffective on terrorism and OBL (which is mostly worng becuase while he did not get or stop all events, he did at least one and he caught and prosecuted many who did these horrible acts). Yet, these same people cannot harbor the thought that W's neglect was the main cause for 9/11 being allowed to happen. They cannot or they refuse to turn that high powered light on W. hypocrites - the lot of them.

Clinton is the scapegoat for everything. If osmething isn't right, blame Clinton. It's ridiculous. My favorite is how they yell at us liberals by saying it wasn't Shrub's fault that 9/11 happened because he had only been in office for less than a year. Yet they blame Clinton for the WTC attack in '93 and he hadn't even been in office for a month. :rolleyes:

[estranged4life]

Clinton is the scapegoat for everything. If osmething isn't right, blame Clinton. It's ridiculous. My favorite is how they yell at us liberals by saying it wasn't Shrub's fault that 9/11 happened because he had only been in office for less than a year. Yet they blame Clinton for the WTC attack in '93 and he hadn't even been in office for a month. :rolleyes:

was not the scapegoat at all in OKC, But most do feel Janet Reno never gave a clear answer to the victims family about what the hell actually happened...

[dissention]

was not the scapegoat at all in OKC, But most do feel Janet Reno never gave a clear answer to the victims family about what the hell actually happened...

No, I meant a scapegoat for everything like Osama and al Qaeda, dear. :o

[estranged4life]

not only that - but the US Gov. refuses to provide any info. on ANY of the alleged conspirators, which eyewitnesses saw. In many ways, the more I think about the OKC bombing, the more I believe the govt. did it to cover up something a la the X-Files movie - but then again I have a hard time with that though I am a conspriacy theorist at heart :eek: :laugh:

Why didn't our "much beloved" government subpoena the over 100 eyewitnesses who saw 2 people in the Ryder truck the morning of April 19,1995 10-15 minutes before 9:02AM? All the same witnesses who stated that McVeigh was not driving the truck that morning, He was the passenger...So who the hell was driving? And why did the US government take precedent over the State of Oklahoma for wanting to prosecute McVeigh first when all they charged him were deaths of 8 federal workers (No ATF or FBI agents were killed)? (Oklahoma had the right to try him for ALL 168 deaths)

Here are the three questions I would like to see answered:

#1-Who was the official in charge of the memos that were sent around the country on April 18,1995 stating that all "Federal offices need to be on the lookout for a possible terrorist attack...All offices should advise their occupants to stay at home"? A Federal court judge in the Federal Court building located next door to the Murrah site even produced this memo, But he was never called to testify in either he US or State trials!

#2-Why was there proof that the Murrah Building was brought down by a more enhanced weapon (ie-Small nuclear device) than the US Government has stated (There's eyewitness testimony that hours after the bombing "Govt.personnel in protective clothing were seen using Geiger Counters around the area")...Even after their own USAF experts stated "A fuel bomb of the size stated that was used could never have brought the building down, Damaged it, Yes...Destroyed it as bad as it was, No".

#3-And where are the video tapes of the bombing? There were always plenty of video camera's in downtown OKC area near the Murrah building prior to April 19,1995? (There was talk during the Nichols state trial that video evidence does exist...But the person who supposedly has it denies he has ever owned the tape, Even after publicly admitting so!) Even the US govt., At one time said there was video evidence, So where did that evidence go?

Okay, enuff of my OKC rant...Back to yer regularly scheduled thread...Take her away :nod:

[gldstwmn]

, So I guess I am an anarchist too since "us Natives want ALL OF YOU non-'Native Americans' to go back wherest you came from"

At this point I'm seriously considering it.

[gldstwmn]

Has the actual essay been publicly released? If not, anyone who is "offended" by it without having actually read it needs to slapped. Hard.

Darling it was published three years ago. I find the sudden hoopla curious to say the least. That's why I'm saying, I want to watch this unfold becasue I think something is amiss here.

[gldstwmn]

A little fact that few on the far right will acknowledge is that MANY if not the majority of the 9/11 widows, etc. HATE the Fed. Govt. for the cover up that happened after 9/11.

Do you know that Rumsfeld at one point slipped and said the Pennsylvania plane was actually shot down? :nod:

[gldstwmn]

if ya came to the great state of (confusion) Of Oklahoma and said that statement to any of the Native American Tribes, Their response would more than 100% likely be "Hey, That's what happened to us...And it sucked!"

At least they have electricity and running water.

[strandinthewind]

Do you know that Rumsfeld at one point slipped and said the Pennsylvania plane was actually shot down? :nod:

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Didn't a high level person also say something similar about the AA plane that they claim lost its tail section immediately after taking off from JFK a week or so after 9/11 :rolleyes: There is also video of that that has disappeared :eek:

[estranged4life]

At this point I'm seriously considering it.

I was sent to the principal's office in high school because I always signed the letter "A" in my name as the "Anarchist symbol" and one of the uptight teachers did not like it :lol:

[estranged4life]

At least they have electricity and running water.

Wow, that's news to me :lol: According to some Yanks on the East Coast, the white people hear in Oklahoma still live in "Forts" to protect 'em from those "Damn Savages" :rolleyes:

Wow, First electricity, running water...We can only hope telephones, cd players and the internet will soon follow :lol:

I wonder if it would be too much to ask that nice band Fleetwood Mac to play, We'll make sure the Cavalry from Ft.Sill protects 'em on stage from those damn pesky "injuns" :laugh: :thumbsup:

[heyjupiter678]

Do you know that Rumsfeld at one point slipped and said the Pennsylvania plane was actually shot down? :nod: He's also said that the Pentagon was hit by a missile on 9/11. Which is definitely what it <a href="http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm" target="_blank">looked</a> like.

[strandinthewind]

He's also said that the Pentagon was hit by a missile on 9/11. Which is definitely what it <a href="http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm" target="_blank">looked</a> like.

Wow - but don't they have eyewitnesses of the plane hitting the Pentagon?

[estranged4life]

He's also said that the Pentagon was hit by a missile on 9/11. Which is definitely what it <a href="http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm" target="_blank">looked</a> like.

That is similar to part of the therory of what may have destroyed the Murrah Building was a missile being fired at the Ryder truck from the old parking lot where the "Survivor tree" is located.

If you ever go to the OKC Memorial and walk the grounds, Study the distance from the "Survivor Tree" to the "Reflection Pool" which used to be part of street which ran directly in front of the Murrah building...The "Survivor Tree" is standing in part of the area in once was the parking lot between the Murrah Building & the Journal Records Building. Everything in the parking lot was destroyed and a few people died there at 9:02AM Wednesday morning April 19, The devastation was more wide spread than any "homemade device" that I have ever seen exploded, It even destroyed buildings up North Robinson Ave. (Killing several more innocent people.)

How can we not forget how a jet airliner bound for France may have been shot down by a missile? (If memory serves me right, The NTSB said the plane exploded due to faulty wiring which cause an massive explosion in the fuel tanks)

[wondergirl9847]

Thanks for that link. Interesting.

[gldstwmn]

:eek: :eek: :eek:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/

Pentagon: Rumsfeld misspoke on Flight 93 crash
Defense secretary's remark to troops fuels conspiracy theories
From Jamie McIntyre
CNN Washington

Monday, December 27, 2004 Posted: 9:54 PM EST (0254 GMT)

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to the people who "shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comment Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made during a Christmas Eve address to U.S. troops in Baghdad has sparked new conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

In the speech, Rumsfeld made a passing reference to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to stop al Qaeda hijackers.

But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."

A Pentagon spokesman insisted that Rumsfeld simply misspoke, but Internet conspiracy theorists seized on the reference to the plane having been shot down.

"Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy" asked a posting on the Web site WorldNetDaily.com.

Some people remain skeptical of U.S. government statements that, despite a presidential authorization, no planes were shot down September 11, and rumors still circulate that a U.S. military plane shot the airliner down over Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

A Pentagon spokesman insists Rumsfeld has not changed his opinion that the plane crashed as the result of an onboard struggle between passengers and terrorists.

The independent panel charged with investigating the terrorist attacks concluded that the hijackers intentionally crashed Flight 93, apparently because they feared the passengers would overwhelm them.

[dissention]

Darling it was published three years ago. I find the sudden hoopla curious to say the least. That's why I'm saying, I want to watch this unfold becasue I think something is amiss here.

:eek:

Three years ago?!

:eek:

[gldstwmn]

:eek:

Three years ago?!

:eek:

Yep. :nod: :nod: :nod:

[dissention]

Yep. :nod: :nod: :nod:

What a load of ****, then. Why is this suddenly relevant? :confused:

[irishgrl]

What a load of ****, then. Why is this suddenly relevant? :confused:

Ward Churchill's job may be a distant memory soon, AND apparently some Native American groups are accusing him of falsely claiming to be Native American! Also, other Professors at U of Colorado are now saying Ward INVENTED historical facts in some of his writings.

[strandinthewind]

Ward Churchill's job may be a distant memory soon, AND apparently some Native American groups are accusing him of falsely claiming to be Native American! Also, other Professors at U of Colorado are now saying Ward INVENTED historical facts in some of his writings.

If these are true - that will be grounds to fire him.

[estranged4life]

Ward Churchill's job may be a distant memory soon, AND apparently some Native American groups are accusing him of falsely claiming to be Native American!

that is the proverbial "Kiss of Death" among Native tribes here in Oklahoma, Claiming to be something you're not (I betcha he'll lose support now :nod: ).

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I'm a firm believer that Flight 93 was shot down..

the government insists the plane exploded on impact, yet a one-ton section of the engine was found over a mile away and other debris were found scattered over eight miles away.

There's been so many discrepencies....there's some 5 eye witnesses who never spoke before, and were interviewed seperately who all saw a white jet low to the ground near the site, looking like a military jet just seconds before the crash...

Don't forget that a man named Edward Felt made an emergency call from within the plane to report that there had been an explosion while in air and white smoke could be seen out the window.... The person who took the emergency call was gagged by the FBI...

The FBI even insists that no military plane whatsoever was in the area at that time, even though an earthquake monitor picked up a sonic boom in PA 60 mi. away from Shanksville.

[gldstwmn]

He is on Mike Malloy right now.
http://www.airamericaradio.com/listen.asp

[amber]

He is on Mike Malloy right now.
http://www.airamericaradio.com/listen.asp
Thanks! I turned it on. I don't like talk radio at all, and i'm already bored, but i'm gonna push through and listen... :) :lol:

[gldstwmn]

Thanks! I turned it on. I don't like talk radio at all, and i'm already bored, but i'm gonna push through and listen... :) :lol:

You should. Malloy is very, very good. :nod:

[amber]

You should. Malloy is very, very good. :nod:
okay, Mom *sigh* :lol: :lol: Just kidding, of course. Thanks for letting us know. :xoxo:

[gldstwmn]

I think this guy is for real. :nod:

[gldstwmn]

He is on the same level as Professor Chomsky.