CU prof's essay sparks dispute (9-11 victims not innocent)

[agitpropagent9]

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.

<snip>

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.

http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/education/article/0,12...

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. What is this guy smoking?

[el_gato]

31. Well before you get all apoplectic maybe you ought to look him up

Ward Churchill knows what he is talking about. He is an American Indian and a hell of an author at that.

On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality by Ward Churchill
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry...

Ineterview of Ward Churchill
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/dec95barsamian.htm

[TexasLawyer]

66. Still sounds like he's smoking serious crack...

[el_gato]

68. Go read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Here is an interview with John Perkins describing what he did
while working for the NSA. Now tell me this type of behavior does not
involve guilt. I think John Perkins wouldn't disagree with the
label "little Eichmans" at all.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/152...

[Bono71]

88. Even if this is true, you think this equates murder? And didn't the other

governments have a choice in accepting the debt in the first place? And are we not in the process of dropping much third world debt?

I am sure the 9-11 Terrorists were citing this article as they ran the planes into the buildings.

Little Boy Victimhood.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bono71]

95. Religious Fanatisism cause this...

it has zero to do with our policies under Carter, Clinton, Bush I, or Reagan...

On edit: deleted 'racism' as a cause.

[el_gato]

107. No it didn't, death and suffering caused this

You really are ignorant of U.S. foreign policy. I'll excuse you for that since, unless you had been closely following it, you would never have heard about what has been going on in the mainstream media. Now is a chance for you to educate yourself a little. Read ON:

"When asked on US television if she thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children was a price worth paying, Albright replied: "This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it."" -- John Pilger, "Squeezed to Death", Guardian, March 4, 2000

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,232986,0...

[Bono71]

118. Sensationalism at its best...the Gaurdian is a tabloid...you might

as well read the National Inquirer.

With respect to Churchill's essay, he loses credibility in the second paragraph when he states the US bombing of Iraqi infrastructure was a crime against humanity. Oh, really? Were not over 50 countries (backed by a UN Mandate) fighting Iraq over it unprovoked INVASION of another country? By this logic, Churchill thinks the roosters should come home to every country that was involved in Gulf 1, including Canada...those damned Canucks.

The smartest thing this country did after WWII was setting up the Marshall Plan. We should do the smae for the 3rd world countries in Africa and the mid-east to combat that region's form of nazi fascism (Fanatical Islam).

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

120. The Guardian is not a tabloid. You must be thinking Daily Mirror. n/t

[Bono71]

126. If that is true, my apologies...though I thought they were both

tabloids.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

129. It is true. It seems to me that by the journalistic standards I've seen as

of late. The true tabloids are the Washington Post and The NYT. What exactly made the Guardian a tabloid in your opinion? The fact that they don't read like papers in the US perhaps? I'm curious.

[Bono71]

133. Spent time in London on business and read it once or twice...

also had a couple of (very liberal) British friends call them both sensationalistic (if that is a word).

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

142. By what you read, did it seem like a "tabloid" to you?

Also I must point out that the word "tabloid" is used differently over there. The National Enquirer is in no way like The Mirror even. To them tabloid means sensational journalism. Not that it mkes up fake stories like tabloids in the US. There is a big difference.

[Bono71]

148. Understand...that is why in my first post I used the word

"sensational." Boil it down, bs is bs.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

153. Showing a picture of Bush senior fishing w/ the Invisible Man

and choosing REAL stories that will appeal to the lowest common denominator (because of their sensational appeal) is not the same thing. Don't you agree?

What in the paper seemed to you that was being made up or completely exagerated? I gues that is my question.

[Bono71]

157. I am stating that I though it was SENSATIONAL. n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

164. But still a lot better than US newspapers. Would you agree? n/t

[Bono71]

174. I am partial to the NYTimes. I personally think it is less

sensational. Not as good as it used to be, but still the best.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

177. Even though they make shit up?

I mean Judith Miller (who seems to be able to pull stories out of her ass), the other guy that was making stories up (Jason something)....... What's the deal with that guy Friedman anyway? I don't think the New York Times has seen a US war they didn't like. It's a pretty shitty paper, I think. Don't even get me started on the Wash. Post.

If that's journalism. I'll take sensationalism any day. At least those other "tabloids" seem to be getting their shit straight. Ya' know what I mean?

[Bono71]

178. Lol..I like the Post as well. I think both papers came out and apologized

for their coverage of the war...they definitely ain't what they used to be.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

182. Oh man tell me about it.

I mean they apoligized alright. But it seems to me they served their purpose. Didn't they. I mean, you have a frightened nation - then bulshit scary stories to prop up the war - BOOM they go to war. "Oh we're soooo sorry. But it will never happen again" (wink-wink-nod-nod). They're both s-o-r-r-y indeed.

[Bono71]

188. I think it was sloppy journalism vs an intentional act of misconduct. n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

192. That's Bush's excuse too. But we know better ;- )

It seems to me nobody is ever held accountable for lying to the people. It's funny how "sloppy journalism" alwys seems to benefit the "fucked up foreign policy Du Juor". The NYT was pretty upbeat about the Vietnam debacle until they couldn't whore it out anymore. Didn't they learn from that? It's funny how life works. I guess.

[el_gato]

181. NYT was instrumental in helping bushco justify the invasion of iraq

[Bono71]

183. I don't think so, I think Bushco itself was instrumental in playing on the

country's collective fear, and would have been successful with or without the NYT. The readership of the NYT compared to the viewership of the Big 3 TV newscasts is very small.

[el_gato]

186. I guess you never heard of Judith Miller or Chalabi?

The role NYT played was to make Bush and the administrations exaggerations credible to people just like you.

[Bono71]

191. I didn't go along with the war if that is what you are insinuating

and I certainly didn't vote for Bush.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

189. Sure, but a lot of bullshit stories the networks did.

Would use the NYT as a basis. Wouldn't you agree?

[JoFerret]

163. The Independent -

- home of Robert Fisk - actually IS a tabloid. The Daily Mirror- home of John Pilger - great journo - IS a tabloid.
The question is not the size of the paper but the quality of the writing and reporting.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bono71]

124. And I enjoyed how you dodged the

initial point that the infrastructure was bombed as a result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and was sanctioned BY THE UN.

[el_gato]

137. Again your lack of background knowledge shows

Maybe you should go look up the State Department communications with Iraq days before that event. Take a look at what was said. Also go look up the PR firm that was used to promote Gulf War I. Next you should dig a little furhter into the history of U.S. involvement with the regimes of the middle east.

[el_gato]

140. You are the one dodging the facts here

Now how do you address the comment by Madeline Albright?

[Bono71]

146. I have no idea 1) if that comment was made and 2) the context

in which it was made...those caveats aside, it is disgusting.

Again, if I were in charge, a Marshall Plan (instead of unlimited warfare) would be the way I would choose to combat the evil (yes, evil) Fanatical Islam presents the world.

[frictionlessO]

159. what about the evil (yes evil) that fanatical christians employ?

their mullahs, our evangelists= same difference.

[Bono71]

168. Excuse me,

Othello, this thread is about 9-11 and whether the victims were innocent or not. In case you weren't around back in September of 2001, evil Muslim fanatics hijacked 4 airplanes and murdered 3000 people over the course of 2 hours.

For the record, I can't stand religious nuts of any persuasion. Though, it seems to me, Fanatical Islam is a greater danger to world stability than fanatical Christianity (unless you're an abortion provider, and I don't think a Marshall Plan could save those dip shits from bombing abortion clinics--God only knows what it would take to save their souls.).

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

195. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

197. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bono71]

202. Your post seems to state the US a government gets a free

pass for atrocities, I never stated that, so I won't respond.

[frictionlessO]

203. Loved the Othello reference! hehehe...

I wasnt calling you out, just making sure you dont forget about the deadly crazy threat of fundies is all. Because right now it is "their" leader running the world. They believe that he was elected through theirs and their gods will.

and said with all the hutzpah of an old Big Red commercial
"no little terrorist organization is gonna kill more people than the neocon agenda."

Please let me make myself clear on this as well Im a LIHOPer so in my view bushco is evenly resposnsible right off the bat.

You do know that right now a large chunk of the world considers us the larger threat??? I do not really agree in total with the essay I think the pentagon was a legitimate military target the manner of attack was not legitimate. The WTC was not a legitimate target and same goes for method.

Let me ask you something if the terrorists hadnt used civil aircraft and had only targeted military/government offices would they in fact still be terrorists?

also do your research on the first gulf war and what really led up to it (start looking after about a year from when Saddam took office). This stuff is common knowledge in the ME and isnt hyped up out of some fanatics mouth.

Finally, Im a devout pacifist so I abhor all violence, ours or theirs and for almost any reason. also sorry for seemingly to have upset you enough to illicit that kind of tone out of you.

[Bono71]

209. No problem...my thoughts in no particular order

1) Bush is bad, as well as fanatical Christians who equate murder with the will of God.
2) Nice catch re: Othello.
3) The thing that upsets me most about Bush (well, almost the most) is that he has destroyed our "image" a broad...no small feat in the wake of sympathy after 9-11.
4) Despite the dangers of our present government, Osama Bin Laden is a nutcase that makes other nutcases proud, he is very dangerous, and fanatical islam is a scourge that must be dealt with.
5) In my opinion, the best way to deal with FI is along the lines of the Marshall Plan (work to eliminate extreme poverty) because people are less likely to go for the ravings of a lunatic when they have access to the basics and their economy is strong.
6) No targets on 9-11 were legitimate.

[frictionlessO]

227. Ok, well we're mostly agreed! See we are on the same side!!

I hope all of us here remind ourselves of that when we log off. We have many enemies AQ and bushco top the list and in many many minds the world over they areeach as evil as eachother.

Thanks for being fair in dealing with me.

[Red State Blues]

242. Speaking of credibility...

Attack the messenger, ignore the message.

Do you think ONE of these 245 hits might be from a reputable source? ANY possibility that she might have actually said it?

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22This+is+a+very+hard+c...

In respect to your post, you lose credibility when you confuse bombing military targets with bombing infrastructure.

Sensationalism indeed.

[JackRiddler]

244. Source completely irrelevant

This is what Albright said, well-reported in many press venues at the time.

And you have apparently no idea what the Guardian is.

[vincent_vega_lives]

245. You mean the foreign policy

of supporting Israel and cooperating militarily with the House of Saud? Because that is what "caused" the 9-11 attacks.

[seatnineb]

247. Interesting.........

So BEFORE 9/11.....

The 9/11 hijackers were full of hatred for the U.S due to it's support for Israel and the House Of Saud........

...and AFTER 9/11......

The U.S still supports Israel and the House Of Saud......

With Afghanistan and Iraq in the bag to boot.......

Great achievement for Al-CIA-DA..........

[bloom]

102. Thanks for the links

It's an interesting interview.


"I think the first thing, and the only thing, people can do to mark a point of departure, to turn this around, is to look it squarely in the face and stop lying to themselves, to call things by their right names. Stop pretending fascism is conservatism. Stop pretending that incarceration is freedom. Stop pretending that expropriation is somehow a natural entitlement. All of it."

[el_gato]

114. no problem, glad to see somebody engaging in something besides

knee-jerk reactionary behavior

[CreekDog]

175. This assumes that if we had another foreign policy...

that we would not have been attacked. Unlikely, but even so...

the terrorists killed immigrant restaurant workers and many folks like that, some probably not even citizens and not here very long to be blamed or share in the collective guilt of wrong U.S. policies.

That you could suggest that these people (though not all) in the World Trade Center and Pentagon are culpable suggests that you cannot think straight.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

236. That is nice. But my friend Mike who died there had nothing

to do with that crap.
Neither did my cousin, who lost both legs there.
Or the other two people with whom I was well acquainted who died there.

This was a CIVILIAN target.

Sorry, don't buy it.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[supernova]

2. Oh Wow!

He can deservedly kiss his comfortable professorship lifestyle good bye.

Again, I can't believe anybody not taking medication would say something like this.

[420inTN]

24. Maybe he needs medication. eom

[el_gato]

127. Maybe you need to go to the source and actually see what he had to say

[420inTN]

152. I did.

[DS1]

3. Colorado, eh? Sounds like he's trying to pull a "Mr. Garrison" and get

fired so he can sue

[MrScorpio]

4. This is NEOCON thinking

Pure and simple

Straight out of the POWER OF NIGHTMARES

[Mystified]

5. Truly deluded

in my humble opinion

[McKenzie]

6. the article gives the impression of propaganda

agitpro-type propaganda. Pity the article/essay doesn't cite any empirical data, studies, evidence etc. It's big on sensational comments - devoid of authoritative material. Who knows, the author could be just the type of person who deliberately tries to inflame public debate to further another agenda.

[skypilot]

7. Some of what he is saying...

...isn't that different from what others have said, namely that the Sept.11th attacks didn't just come out of nowhere but were in response to US foreign policy. However, the cavalier tone of the essay is horrifying:

"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."

It really sounds as though the guy is very deliberately trying to stir up controversy. Ultimately, he sounds like a shit.

[Inland]

9. That 9/11 was a response to US foreign policy doesn't change the

status of the trade center victims.

Most terrorists acts are a response to something. But if the people in the trade center are only civilians "of a sort" and there is a war "of a sort", then there is no such thing as a war atrocity.

[skypilot]

11. I didn't say that it changed their status.

I was merely pointing out that he'd taken an opinion that has been expressed by others and gone way overboard with it. I am as disgusted as anyone that he'd try to make the victims out to be anything other than victims. That is why I hilighted the quote that I did. His statement about the Pentagon victims is just as horrible but I think people get the idea what an asshole the guy is.

[TO Kid]

17. Response to foreign policy? Which one?

Would that be Bubba's random missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan or his bombing of Kosovo? Or maybe the Muslim world was outraged over our support for the Muslims in Serbia?

[skypilot]

69. Oh, I see where this is going.

It was Clinton's fault, right? The Muslim world loved us before "Bubba" came along, right? And if you think that those things that you listed that occured on Bubba's watch helped bring on the Sept.11th attacks then you should brace yourself for what Chimpy's little adventures are going to bring our way.

[livinginphotographs]

86. Think a little further back...

i.e. Reagan.

9/11 was a response to America's foreign policy, but I seriously doubt Clinton was too involved in that.

[Inland]

217. Another freeper using 9/11 to score partisan points. Must be Thursday.

Look, I know you want to blame the fact Clinton fought terror for 9/11. Go right ahead. And while you are at it, blame him for Iraq and Enron and the price of tea in China.

The rest of us know that Clinton's attacking alqaeda wasn't random, although it was opposed--by republicans who were more interested in sniffing sheets than fighting terror. I'm not saying republicans are for terror. But they sure don't seem to care much, they don't rally around a democratic president to help defend America, and they seem to profit a good deal come election time blaming everyone but themselves when another day brings thirty or so dead marines.

Sorry if I can't tell which side you are on. Feel free to be on America's.

[Zebulon]

134. No kidding

Most terrorists acts are a response to something. But if the people in the trade center are only civilians "of a sort" and there is a war "of a sort", then there is no such thing as a war atrocity.

This is no different than saying that the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis were only civilians "of a sort". Consider the response if some professor said,

"As for those in the way of American bombs, well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."

Such a statement would rightly be eviscerated.

[Inland]

218. Yes, that would be wrong.

But I also feel many americans feel that way.

I think many are too willing to let God sort them out.

It is just more obvious when we talk of our own.

[diamond14]

75. WE THE PEOPLE are all responsible for what OUR government does

when OUR government BOMBS Iraq, WE THE PEOPLE are responsible...we pay for the Iraq massacre, we fund it, we support it, most Americans cheer it on, so much so, that they SACRIFICE their own children as CANNON FODDER....

There is a collective responsiblity...a good book to read on this subject is

"People of the Lie"
by M.Scott Peck

Dr. Peck reviews individual LIES, and then works up to whole GROUPS that LIE together, as a SOCIETY, as a NATION....which leads to things like the Holocaust and Mai Lai...and right now...the leveling of Falluja with OUR tax money...

[bloom]

116. From Churchills article:

"There may be a real utility to reflecting further, this time upon the fact that it was pious Americans who led the way in assigning the onus of collective guilt to the German people as a whole, not for things they as individuals had done, bur for what they had allowed – nay, empowered – their leaders and their soldiers to do in their name.

 If the principle was valid then, it remains so now, as applicable to Good Americans as it was the Good Germans. And the price exacted from the Germans for the faultiness of their moral fiber was truly ghastly. Returning now to the children, and to the effects of the post-Gulf War embargo – continued bull force by Bush the Elder's successors in the Clinton administration as a gesture of its "resolve" to finalize what George himself had dubbed the "New World Order" of American military/economic domination – it should be noted that not one but two high United Nations officials attempting to coordinate delivery of humanitarian aid to Iraq resigned in succession as protests against US policy."

[Coastie for Truth]

Ward Churchill

is a featured speaker at American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee presentations and a leader of the Colorado Native American Movement. He generally refers to the US as "occupied territories"--

Although I haven't seen him associated with any movements to call the Treaty of Guadalupe-Dialog null and void (and give the South west back to Mexico)

[Bono71]

8. His punishment should be to read the essay during the 7th inning

stretch of a NY Yankees games in the Bronx...I am sure the good people of New York would take kindly to it.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

10. Well you certainly live up to your name agit man

do you ever find anything good to post on Dems and liberals?

[Bono71]

12. How do we know this professor is a "liberal" or a Dem...he sounds

more like an asshole, to me.

He certainly isn't a main stream democrat.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bono71]

50. Yep its all our fault...sounds like someone has a "victimhood"

complex...

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bono71]

71. Victimhood. n/t

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[el_gato]

82. how pathetic

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rinsd]

167. He sounds more like a right-wing bogeyman if you ask me...

...shit if guys like this didn't exist for the right to point to as an example of the left, they would need to invent him.

[Bono71]

212. I swear I thought the same thing. He reminds me of

the "God Hates Fags" people...my republican friends (yes, I have them) get so pissed when the crazy right-wingers and religious christian nutcases get media face-time becaase they are afriad the entire party will get painted in the same light...I just laugh and tell them that the majority of Repubs to hate gays...

[skippythwndrdog]

13. What an ass. eom

[wicket]

14. What a fucking jackass

Talk about blaming the victim!

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[el_gato]

64. Is that a non-sequitor ?

I am assuming so since you are not making any sense.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

15. Funny...

he's using pretty much the same arguments conservatives use to justify bombing people in Iraq. They're "military targets," they're "little Osama's," it's "revenge for 9-11."

[diamond14]

16. sadly, most here obviously didn't read the whole article....this prof

makes a LOT of good points....I am so sick of the 911 victims being called HEROES...I am sad for every 911 victim, but the reason they were attacked was RETALIATION for our government's actions...several 911 families have said that....and how much MORE retaliation will occur from bush* wars???....the people at the pentagon were MILITARY TARGETS, they are the 'little eichmanns', they make the WARS and KILL for a living....




From the article, here are the controversial Statements from his essay (and HOW MANY here have read the essay???)...

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

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."

[DistantWind88]

18. So the secretaries at the pentagon are combatants, how?

I could make a stretch and say those people in uniform that day were legitimate military targets (even if the attack was unprovoked and was given with no warning), but what about the janitors, and salespeople, and cleaning ladies? Are THEY legitimate military targets?

[DrWeird]

20. The Pentagon was indeed a legitimate military target.

It's about as legitimate a military target as legitimate military targets can get. As for the secretaries and janitors, no, they wouldn't be legitimate. Anymore then the janitor working in some chemical weapons factory in some third world country.

[Bono71]

22. It is a military target yes...legitimate, you really want to go there? n/t

[DrWeird]

23. As legimate as anything we've bombed in Iraq.

This guy isn't saying anything different than what people who support the war in Iraq are saying.

[Bono71]

28. Right, and I think those people are dumb, as well. So put this

guy on the list of assholes.

[DrWeird]

34. Indeed I would...

but I suspect he's arguing Devil's Advocate, to point out the hypocrasy of the right, and is being taken out of context.

[diamond14]

37. the prof said the pentagon was a "military target".....adding the

"legitimate" crap is a ploy, in order to shift this to something else....

Where'd you learn those tricks? IMO, such tricks are illegitimate in this discussion of the CU Professor's article (have you read the actual article?)

There is NO ARGUMENT from me that the pentagon is a MILITARY TARGET...in fact, it is THE military target in America...THE big one...

[Bono71]

103. Sorry, I equate "not innocent" with legitimate...I guess there may

be a subtle difference, but in my mind it is a matter of semantics.

[diamond14]

110. here's a LINK to the actual essay...never argue just on MSM distortions

grabbing a distortion by the Rocky Mountain News and running with it all over DU is truly garbage....



the actual essay is very good...explains all the nuances, gives great details....here's the link to THE ESSAY, which the RMN is distorting for you and your peers....

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html