ward churchill supporters lie about death threats

[agitpropagent9]

fromn today's NYT:

But the passions have led to some dishonesty. University officials said on Monday, for instance, that they were canceling a speech by Professor Churchill because of security concerns. The student organizers of the speech had received death threats because of their support for the professor, university officials said, and safety could not be guaranteed.

The students, whose names were not released, admitted on Tuesday that the death threats were embellished.

"They said, 'We were just being political,' " Ron Stump, the vice chancellor for student affairs, said. "We expressed our disappointment."

The speech came off without incident - and without any apologies from Professor Churchill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/11/national/11professor.html?pagewanted=2

[DenverDem]

1. busholini supporters lie about everything.

What's your point?

[agitpropagent9]

2. my point is churchill is disingenuous about his heritage...

... his supporters are disingenuous about death threats, and progressives are misguided in holding him up as some sort of icon.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. Hmm let's talk about disingenuous

tons of stories on this board about Gannon claiming he got threats and then you post this about a person so controversial there is very little agreement about him on DU.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[FredScuttle]

6. Indulge me...

Explain how Churchill has been disingenuous about his heritage...I'm not playing "Gotcha", but am genuinely interested in the proof for this accusation I've seen flying around.

And, why should Churchill apologize if some of his student supporters were moronic enough to lie about death threats? Is he their keeper? I can promise you the threats HE's receiving are real.

[agitpropagent9]

11. re: his heritage

http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/churchill05.html

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410295

http://www.aics.org/AIMGGC/press110399.html

[oasis]

14. Don't you just hate ALL lying assholes?

[cyclezealot]

4. I would not classify myself as a Churchill supporter.

But I support his right to speak without retribution...And yes, aspects of his talk need be heard..If some of his ideas had been incorporated into the American response to 911 well before 911,there would have been No 911.
And I do wonder if his speech was taken out of context...I have no trust of the American press....
about Death threats...Where, I live..I believe it..You can have death threats over letters to the newspaper..Over far less infuriating stuff than what Churchill said..We have a group called "Protest Warriors." Gun nuts who have infiltrated anti war groups and afterwards threatened their membership..Sometimes physical violence...Asashmed to say..one of the members of this "Protest warriors' would you believe is a sheriff deputy..

[othermeans]

19. You're absolutely right. I read his commentary which was published

almost 3 years ago. The vast majority of his arguments I believe are held by a majority of the people on DU.

Here is the link for the whole commentary:

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

[rodeodance]

7. ".....he is so extreme challenges people to think more."" I agree. We

do not need to throw out or demonisze him because of one or two things he says.

......Many students interviewed on campus in recent days said they feared that the lines being drawn around Professor Churchill were also creating boundaries about what could be freely and safely talked about in the United States.

"I think it's no longer about free speech - it's turned into this kind of thing that we can't talk about Sept 11, that it's kind of become a sacred issue," said Erin Langer, 22, a senior humanities major from Naperville, Ill. "People forget we're in a university setting, and the way ideas are challenged is by looking at an extreme view. The fact that he is so extreme challenges people to think more."

Michelle York contributed reporting from New York for this article.

[cyclezealot]

21. You got it right , Rodeo..

From the very beginning when Dubya wanted to limit the 911 commission..Recall, they said Al Qaeda had no connections with Hussein..That is Bushie's hand picked commission..
Books like "Blowback ' get no play in the US...
Keep us dumb and feed us crap..
We need more Churchill's..Just not so strident...An effective Churchill would blame the US government for the innocent American deaths shed over bad policy.

[LittleClarkie]

8. I think I will transplant Sen. Kerry's flag-burning response to this man

Kerry said in the American Legion Magazine that he upheld a person's first amendment right to burn the flag in protest. And also his right to pound the guy into the ground if he catches him at it.

So in reponse to Prof. Churchill I will say that I uphold his right to his beliefs and his comments on those beliefs. I also uphold my right to biff him upside the head if he comes within 5 feet of me in the future.

He'll have expressed his opinion, and I will have expressed mine.

[DenverDem]

10. His expression would have been constitutional

yours criminal.

Nice.

[LittleClarkie]

13. Hm. I'm picturing the sort of "upside the head" biff...

... a girlfriend will give her mate when he says something stupid. A nice "back of the head" maneuver that will make his hair fly forward into his eyes while I simultaneously, and at the same time, call him a putz.

Or how about a nice tongue lashing then? It wouldn't be as satisfying, but a nice loud "YOU'RE A SHMUCK" would seem appropriate at the very least.

[DenverDem]

15. "YAS"

Totally constitutional.

[AlCzervik]

9. I'm not defending Churchill here but when he lies us into a war

then i'll be really full of outrage. I don't agree with what he said but he's covered under the 1st ammedment.

[ConsAreLiars]

12. Churchill's supporters being lied about

Maybe you need to learn the difference between "embellish" and "lie" and change your topic header accordingly. This may help: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=embellish

[pretzel4gore]

16. of course he's getting death threats!

how stupid can anyone be? churchill's not a bushevik; he's openly critical of bush and his ism, therefore he get death threats...night follows day....

[Maddy McCall]

17. I love Churchill and I respect his academic work.

He alone has caused anthropologists to consider a reverse-migration American genesis. He is a rabble rouser and that's why I adore him. Fuck paradigms.

[durutti]

18. Your title is misleading.

As I read it, the article says that University officials used death threats as a justification for cancelling Churchill's lecture. And indeed, security concerns are frequently cited as a reason for trouncing free speech.

[No Exit]

20. Pardon me for not giving a good g*d damn

If Ward Churchill is a liar, he's a mere amateur next to Bush.

It appears that a lot of people are not really in favor of freedom of speech, unless they only hear an echo chamber of their own narrow views.

What Ward Churchill said was unpopular and, frankly, I think it was kind of insensitive. But I believe his motive was not to insult people, but to wake people up. I am not against a verbal insult or two if that is what is needed to wake up some people to the lie that is the official story of the motives for 9/11.

If people with opposing views don't speak out about why they think 9/11 happened, then we are left with ONLY THE BUSH VERSION OF THE STORY.

I REFUSE to be left with nothing but lies. Maybe what Churchill said wasn't accurate. It is not easy for any average citizen to KNOW the facts it would take to figure out the real story behind 9/11, b/c we are all denied access to most of the evidence.

So carry on with your witch-hunt. Frankly, your harping on Churchill is reminiscent of the harping which the neocon, anti-American, repukelican machine has unleashed on others who speak the truths they don't like, such as Dan Rather or Scott Ritter. Next thing we know, you and your ilk might be posting something alleging that Churchill or some other unpopular speaker is a "child molester" or something. After all, that is what the neocon, anti-American, repukelican machine did to Scott Ritter. Continue with your attempts to purge America of anyone who dares to hold a view which might be uncomfortable for the Bush blood capitalists. I don't care, b/c I've already seen the light about this corrupt, poisonous, treasonous administration. Okay--I do care enough to at least say that I support Churchill's right to voice an unpopular viewpoint. So--when do you think Bush's henchmen will drag him off to Guantanamo?