Logic challenged, America-hating professor should be banished

Republicans and Democrats alike were devastated, angry, frightened and sorrowful on Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorists attacked our nation and killed thousands of its citizens.

But not Ward L. Churchill, a University of Colorado professor who wrote an essay titled, “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.”

The essays title comes from Malcolm X’s comment that President John F. Kennedy’s assassination was a case of “chickens coming home to roost,” according to the Rocky Mountain News.

Among the inflammatory statements Churchill made, were the assertion that the terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center were in fact not terrorists at all, but “combat teams,” and that the people killed in the Pentagon were “military targets.”

Churchill claimed the Sept. 11 attacks were 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 Gulf War.

Oddly, a freelance cameraman working for Fox News told me the same thing while I was serving in Iraq.

"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 said. It described victims as “little Eichmanns,” comparing them to Adolph Eichmann, who helped plan and execute the attempted termination of the Jews during World War II.

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

"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.”

He said the attacks were “a natural and inevitable consequence of what happens as a result of business as usual in the United States. Wake up."

So let’s look at these points one by one.

First of all we’ve been told repeatedly by those who oppose the “unjust” war in Iraq that there is no Iraq/Al Qaeda connection. And if there is a connection, there is certainly no connection between Iraq and the 2001 Al Qaeda attack on our nation, they pipe. That’s why our attacking Iraq is tyrannical and unjust. So if there is no connection, why would Al Qaeda attack us in retaliation for injuries done against Iraq?

Also, as my father pointed out, they storm and protest that "war is not the answer." What is the answer, you ask? Sanctions of course. But wait. Churchill says we were attacked because children starved to death because of our sanctions - never mind that if children did starve, it was because Saddam Hussein - whom we should have left alone, poor thing - was pocketing the Oil for Food money, instead of using it to provide for his people. He murdered more of his own citizens than a U.S. bombing raid could ever hope to. Saddam, not America, was the oppressor of Iraq. So why didn't Al Qaeda fly an airplane into his palace?

Secondly, I don’t call defending the tiny country of Kuwait against an insane dictator, “imposing our will on other countries” or dispensing death and injustice as a matter of course. I do, however think that if our will is for other countries not to harbor or be led by terrorists who want to kill us, we should impose that will on them.

Third, does he really think he can compare the victims of the attacks to genocidal maniacs? If his argument is to be believed, than I and my comrades deserve death far more than the civilians in the World Trade Center.

But where in the Geneva Convention does it state that “combat teams,” hijacking civilian aircraft and flying them into buildings full of civilians with no warning and certainly no declaration of war, is an acceptable rule of engagement?

It would appear that Ward Churchill, even more than Michael Moore, deeply hates America. And unlike the Democrats who have threatened to move to Canada – and to whom I say good riddance – I think Churchill ought to be banished from America, and forced to live in France or some other country where patriotism is not a virtue, cowardice is not frowned upon, and cold-hearted disdain is warmly accepted.