Who's The Terrorist? by Ward Churchill March 9, 2005

[Itsthetruth]

CounterPunch
March 9, 2005

Conning the Public
Who's the Terrorist?
By WARD CHURCHILL

Once again what I have said has been turned into the opposite of itself.

First, Dan Caplis, Craig Silverman and numerous other right-wing media spinmeisters asserted that I "advocated" terrorist attacks on the United States in my Op-Ed piece of Sept. 12, 2001. Even a casual reading of that piece, as well as the 300-page book On the Justice of Roosting Chickens in which I more fully explicated and documented my argument, reveals that I did not advocate such attacks. Rather, I pointed out that they were and will continue to be the inevitable result of a U.S. foreign policy that disregards the rule of law and results in massive death and destruction abroad.

Next, the dynamic duo and their colleagues attempted to discredit me through an endless stream of personal attacks. These have failed because the facts, even though not reported in the media, do not support their assertions.

Now, in both a paid ad and a prominently featured Op-Ed piece March 5 in the News ("Churchill's active advocacy of violence demands his firing"), Caplis and Silverman have resorted to the outright lie that I have actively sought to incite "violent revolution."

I have done no such thing. To the contrary, what I have consistently advocated over the years is the rule of law.

Caplis and Silverman are seeking for their own reasons to con the public into believing that I am an active proponent of terrorism. This is not only false, it is extraordinarily dangerous. By framing my statements as they have, and then repeatedly broadcasting their spin to a broad audience, there is an obvious possibility that they might actually precipitate an act of terror by some unbalanced individual. Should this turn out to be the case, the responsibility will be theirs, not mine

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Please read Ward Churchill's entire statement at:

http://www.counterpunch.org/churchill03092005.html

[DenverDem]

1. What I have read of Churchill's work, I agree with.

Another red herring of prevarication by the corporate media traitors.

[Mnemosyne]

2. Thank you for link and post. nt

[Inland]

3. Depends on the meaning of "advocate", eh Ward?

I guess he never said, "I want attacks on the World Trade Center."

But he certainly made it clear, in an essay that he has not repudiated, that he felt that the attack was a "penalty befitting" the participation of "little Eichmanns" in the evils of the government.

Maybe "condone" or "justifying" is a better word than "advocate" with respects to attacks on the US. But Ward just ducks the entire point of his own essay with word games, cutting the baloney thin enough for the conservatives to make another round of hay in their fundraising and media circus. Good work, Ward.

[Itsthetruth]

5. How About "Explain"?

"Maybe "condone" or "justifying" is a better word than "advocate" with respects to attacks on the US."

I think "explaining" the reason for the attacks is a far better and more accurate word.

[Inland]

7. Not in the controversial essay in question.

I wouldn't have had any problem with "explaining". But clearly he felt the attacks justified, as shown by his use of terms like "penalty befitting" and "little Eichmanns".

But he would rather pretend that it never happened than admit either a poor choice of words or a moment of amorality and sloppy thinking. And the conservatives get another round. Good work, that.

[comsymp]

4. Excellent statement-

It's a pity that more allegedly intelligent folks didn't bother actually reading his original piece.

And after the past couple days here with "orthodoxy" and intolerance of dissenting opinion being discussed so prominently, it's pretty timely, as well.

[Metrix]

6. Churchill lashes out at radio team

Locally what this media frenzy amounts to are a few unscrupulous people (chiefly Caplis) who are exploiting this to advance their careers.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,36~120~,00.html#

He seemed to imply that it might bring harm to him personally. "If someone who might be inclined by what they think I said were to act on it it would be the responsibility of Caplis and Silverman, who are advocating through their misinterpretation ... violence."

The co-hosts' take: He admits his comments could inspire a person to commit a terrorist act.