Usual suspects say usual things
The angry flailing of Ward Churchill has provoked predictable reactions from the usual suspects. Conservatives have tried to silence him, while liberals have raised the free speech issue. This paper has taken its typical position that, while we find his statements outrageous, he has the right to speak and shouldn't be fired.
Nowhere in all of this does anyone address the substance of Churchill's essay. OK, the Eichmann analogy was stupid, but what about the underlying message? Do we bear a collective responsibility for the actions of our government? As functionaries for transnational business and banking, do we endorse, even promote in some way, the foreign policies of our government — policies designed to make our businesses easier and more profitable? An interesting social question, but lost under the 500-pound red herring of the Eichmann remark.
Churchill made the point that we were attacked because of our foreign policy. He was merely stating the obvious, but his point was lost when his ramblings came close to implying we deserved it. And that is what everyone locked on to. It's unfortunate, because the lie that we were attacked because "they hate our freedom" will likely get us attacked again. Churchill is angry, as am I, that certain things about 9/11 are off limits for debate. Like why we were attacked. On Sept. 13, 2001, this paper went so far as to editorialize that there was "no reason" for the attack. Surely that meant there was no justification, because there was certainly a reason.
I have a hunch that the flap over Churchill's essay has more to do with fear of the underlying message than offense at the ridiculous way it was presented. But we won't talk about that.
DAVID DAVIS
Longmont
2 comments:
"Nowhere in all of this does anyone address the substance of Churchill's essay" On a personal note, I take strong exception.
As to a policy of prevention of such attack:
1) If we are attacked, we will seek out the attacker and will return the damage in such a manner as obliterate any possible view of "success": that will be the measure. If that means the eradication of a city, that will be done. The policy is that you cannot attack and not pay more than it is worth.
2) Then we will negotiate, and will address and rememdy any reasons there may be behind the attack.
In the case of the 911 and Iraq, such a policy would have made it clear to the world that it would have been far far more productive to attack Saudi Arabia directly. It would also have been clear that the positioning of dangerous weapons and holding them up as a threat would have been far far more productive.
I would think that simple mathematics would support such a policy, game theory, economic theory. This game plan also means that Nuclear Weapons are coming. Poison gas and disease stuff is all bullshit: only a bomb goes boom. People understand "boom". Consider AIDS: do you really give a shit? Nope. If we wish to avoid the actual detonation, we must prepare NOW to negotiate.
I heard Churchill interviewed: he was quite detached and rather silly; I certainly did not feel drawn to his side.
I came away with the feeling that nothing would satisfy the man, there was nothing that would be taken as a sign of good will or understanding.
I thought I had mentioned that except accident of location, he was not hit and he was certainly no less "guilty"... yep, shoot the fuck
Post a Comment