Wednesday, February 02, 2005

Super Patriot, Ward Churchill

By Rosemarie Jackowski

Read full article...

Posted 02/02 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. If nothing else,the attacks on Ward Churchill speak to the climate of hatred and fear(which as always existed in the US to some degree but has become more pronounced since Bush took the office)and show us exactly what happens to those who would seek the truth and then dare to speak(or write)it.

    While the sound of Churchill as President has a definite appeal,Ward has not run for political office for a reason,that being that he sees the system as inherantly flawed,I believe the proper phrase is"get the US out of America”.

    As for all the “patriots"out there who think Churchill is disgusting and repugnant,I have to ask if they have even bothered to read anything he’s written beyond the 9/11 essay.I get the feeling that if they did,they’d find his work to be thoroughly researched with checkable resources.This is alot more than I can say about any of the garbage that passes for “news"in the US.

    The fact that anyone would deliver death threats to Churchill or faculty and staff at Hamilton says alot about the character of this country.Blindly following leadership without question(or learning something besides what’s on FOX news)is NOT patriotic,it’s lazy and dangerous.

    I sincerely hope Professor Churchill remains not only safe in the wake of this,but is not deterred from writing,teaching and lecturing.He has my support,because I know he’s not a traitor or a coward.

    Posted by Quietly Contemplating from GA,USA  on  02/03  at  06:47 AM

  2. Quietly Contemplating...I agree.  Ward Churchill probably would not want to be President. In my opinion, that would be a step down for him. I put that statement in the article as an attempt to get some of the voters out there to start thinking out of the box.

    Posted by rosemarie jackowski from  on  02/03  at  08:55 AM

  3. How about Rosemarie for Supreme Court justice?  As always Rose, way to go!  Just one quibble: in answer to your rhetorical question, “Were those 500,000 deaths (of Iraqi children], plus the deaths of the additional 100,000 slaughtered Iraqi civilians [in the current war], worth the price that we may eventually have to pay?” these numbers should be see as supplemented by another 500,000 additional Iraqis - and both those 500k numbers may be as high as 750,000 each - as well as another 130,000 Iraqis, most of them conscripts serving the Saddam regime against their will, killed in the first Gulf War.

    Of course it’s never stated outright, but that those genocides are of the mere dusky-hued, in combination with the fact that all our oil is under their soil, it matters not significantly next to a blip on the stock market ticker for the corporate market fundamentalists and their ruling elite toadies.

    Peace,

    Posted by Tracy McLellan from Chicago  on  02/03  at  01:57 PM

  4. Thanks, Tracy. I stand corrected. You are right!

    Posted by rosemarie jackowski from  on  02/03  at  04:43 PM

  5. WOW! Who are you nuts?
    Perhaps you should read what he has done and said from a source closer to the action:

    http://denverpost.com

    I do not mind you defending his right to speak, but calling people working in the towers reponsible because they worked for “the engine of profit” is insanity. He too works for that. Without the engine of profit, he would not have a paycheck. His income depends on the forced taking (taxes) from those who depend on that engine.

    If you ask me, he sounds quite a lot like Ted Kaczynski.

    Besides.... “From A Native Son” as you have posted on your article.....
    he is not even Native American. He duped a Native American group to give him a membership.
    The American Indian Movement (AIM) kicked out Mr. Churchill, who they called “deceitful” and “treacherous.” They condemned him as a white man masquerading as an Indian. That’s interesting for a professor of ethnic studies and coordinator of American Indian studies. Perhaps relevant to the controversy today is another quote from AIM: “We request that organizations such as the National Indian Education Association and the American Indian Higher Education Consortium create a watchdog-type agency to review what books are being published by these literary, academic, and Indian frauds so that their revisionist writings are not finding their way into our education curriculum. This problem is of epidemic proportions, and must be stopped.”

    Freedom of speech and tenure cannot protect anyone who is a fraud. The real tradgedy here is that these types of frauds are hired and given protection while teaching our children.

    Read some more before defending this nut. You will then see that he is not this misunderstood professor, but a Marxist fraud who should not be teaching our kids.

    Posted by Shane from Concerned with TRUTH  on  02/03  at  05:35 PM

  6. Congratulations to Press Action. It looks like PA is being read by the folks at Fox News. Because of the Churchill article, I have been asked to be on the Alan Colmes Fox RADIO program tomorrow night at 10:15. It will be aired on the 65 radio stations across the country and also some will be able to get the program online.

    Posted by rosemarie jackowski from  on  02/03  at  07:48 PM

  7. If Ward Churchill is a fraud, then it is time for the Washington Redskins to come clean and admit to the fact that there is not a single redskin on the entire team.

    George Washington lived a lie when he married Martha.

    Then there’s Greyowl.

    Oh, yeah, then there is ‘Mission Accomplished’ fraud.  That one takes the cake, don’t cha think?

    All of this obfuscation takes the focus off of the stupidest war ever.  There is a net full of red herrings on the deck of the USS Lincoln.

    How much more fraudulent can you get?

    Posted by MDPB from  on  02/03  at  08:15 PM

  8. No person is really ever truly “white”. Many of us who are tarred with that convenient epithetical and entirely racist brush are truly degraded by those who seek to separate themselves through their own racism by designating others as of an arrogant abstract category which the writers above say is “white”. Shame on all of you who in this new millenium still persist in the racist categories of the past centuries. Rise above your easy indexes and look toward the newer but more difficult reality of class. It was clearly elucidated in the time of Marx but its import is lost in the current racist dialogue.

    To spell it out for you: race is a convenient vehicle for those who will not do the real work of societal evolution but instead are only marking time and treading water on this dear beautiful planet.

    Posted by Mike Jordan from Kensington, Northern California  on  02/04  at  08:04 AM

  9. It might serve some readers and posters better to look at AIM history from BOTH perspectives within AIM.

    AIM split into two “factions"several years ago.The Bellecourt brothers,Dennis Banks and others are part of the"original"AIM.Churchill is part of Autonomous AIM,the split off group.Both groups have stated they disavowed themselves from each other,Ward wasn’t"kicked out"of AIM,he left because he didn’t like what he saw happening within the organization.(look up Colorado AIM on google,read that site before passing judgement)

    Churchill has written a HUGE body of work,all carefully researched(he’s the god of footnotes and references)and yet his 9/11 essay is all people are focusing on.His latest book about the continued effect of the forced attendance of residential indian “schools"(which continued until 1990,btw,so it’s not"old news")on the indigenous peoples of North America is heart wrenching and SHOULD make people angry.But no,conservatives nearly always seek to make anyone who disagrees with those agendas look like liars and crazies.

    Once again,the American Public misses the point entirely,focuses on a small portion of a larger(much larger)picture,and the real message is lost.It also might be worth noting that Hitler himself stated(in Mein Kampf I believe)that he admired US policy in their systematic genocide of American Indians and took some cues from the US in his treatment of Jews,Gypsies and other targets of the Third Reich.

    Posted by Quietly Contemplating from GA,USA  on  02/04  at  08:47 AM

  10. First and foremost we are human beings.  That, we can’t escape. 

    “When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.”
    --J. Krishnamurti, Freedom from the Known

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/

    Posted by MDPB from  on  02/04  at  09:06 AM

  11. Dear Quietly Contemplating:  So he left instead of getting kicked out. I guess Nixon voluntarily left too. If you READ about the actual breakup (and NOT from ONLY Colorado AIM’s website), you will see what actually happened.

    The fact is, as has been stated by two Native American groups that I know of, he is not, or at least cannot prove he is even at least 1/16th Native American, although he has professed to being everything from 1/4 - 1/2. The national AIM called him ‘deceitful’ and ‘treacherous’. PERIOD.

    Here is a man using Native Americans to further his own objectives and wealth.

    Since you (of course) bring up Hitler, the sole person responsible for my living in America (all 4 of my grandparents came here to escape that a**h*le’s wrath), I would like to put up your point for scrutiny.

    You state that everyone is focussing on this ONE thing. They are now - focussing on the worst thing. If you look at much of his work, there are other ones like this. This is a man that called the victims ‘little Eichmanns’ (basically, calling those killed in the towers little Nazis) That sounds like hate-speech to me. If a white, ‘conservative’ professor called them little Kikes or little N***ers, you would want him out with no other questions, wouldn’t you? I thought so. I bet you wouldn’t even bother to read his past work.

    I could also make the point (one that is just as STUPID) that everyone should stop focusing on that one thing, exterminating Jews, that Hitler did. He wrote so much and did so many other good things for Germany. He did - but that’s a stuipid argument, is it not? That’s the argument you are making.

    This man is a fraud, an admitted marxist, using race (not even his own) to get ahead, enrichen himself and teach a generation of students. He (partially) got his job under false pretenses - he stated he was a member of the Keetoowah band of Cherokee (among others earlier in his writings), he is not. If I lied and said I had an MBA at my job and was caught, I’d get canned.

    And then you knock conservatives? I am not, but people like you make me almost want to move into that group. These ‘conservatives’ (I would NOT call the Denver Post conservative) are exposing a fraud. Pure and simple. Geeee.... I could say Nixon was a good guy who made just a couple of mistakes, just let him be, he didn’t mean to hurt anyone, and you’d call me crazy. What’s good for one leader, is good for any other.

    Posted by Shane from  on  02/04  at  01:35 PM

  12. I’m THRILLED to see J. Krishnamurti’s words paying a visit here (thanks, MDPB).  He has been a mentor-from-the-grave of mine for quite some time.

    “Then there is the whole question of patriotism. When do we feel patriotic? It is obviously not an everyday emotion. But we are sedulously encouraged to be patriotic through school-books, through newspapers and other channels of propaganda, which stimulate racial egotism by praising national heroes and telling us that our own country and way of life are better than others. This patriotic spirit feeds our vanity from childhood to old age.

    The constantly repeated assertion that we belong to a certain political or religious group, that we are of this nation or of that, flatters our little egos, puffs them out like sails, until we are ready to kill or be killed for our country, race or ideology. It is all so stupid and unnatural. Surely, human beings are more important than, national and ideological boundaries.

    The separative spirit of nationalism is spreading like fire all over the world. Patriotism is cultivated and cleverly exploited by those who are seeking further expansion, wider powers, greater enrichment; and each one of us takes part in this process, for we also desire these things.

    Conquering other lands and other people provides new markets for goods as well as for political and religious ideologies.” - JK

    Posted by Nader Rider from  on  02/05  at  02:32 AM

  13. #11 - “Little Niggers” or “Little Kikes” are phrases that do not refer to historical figures.  Calling people “little Eichmann’s” may or may not be fair, but it’s not the same as a general epithet, though I’ll grant you that the Nazi analogy is so overused that it becoming little more than a knee-jerk discrediting device.  Still, Churchill’s use of the analogy is more thoughtful than most, even if more inflammatory than illuminative.

    I don’t think it’s at all stupid to step back from focusing laser-like on Hitler’s annihilation of millions of Jews.  Over 50 million people supposedly died in WWII, so there’s a lot more to look at than just what happened to European Jews. 

    Churchill is hardly an “admitted Marxist.” He wrote an entire book “Marxism and Native Americans,” trashing Marxism.

    Posted by Michael from Sab Francisco  on  02/05  at  01:27 PM

  14. Ward Churchill sees through our enemies eyes!
    I watched Professor Churchill’s interview with Paula Zahn.  I took the trouble to research and understand the context he said he wished he might have expanded upon.  Aside from the issues of academic freedom and the constitutional issue of free speech, what Professor Ward Churchill has to say is important to the American people to hear and understand.  The man’s perspective is unusual, to say the least.  Sir, the man is telling us how and what terrorists think and feel.

    Ward Churchill, like Michael Scheuer, “… sees through our enemies’ eyes …”.  What the Professor has to say is important to hear and understand.  If perception is reality, then the perception of the US by much of the rest of the world is important.

    Please peruse my article on this subject:
    http://blony.com/index.php/2005/02/05/ward_churchill_sees_through_our_enemies

    Posted by Dan O'Donnell from Florida  on  02/05  at  01:59 PM

  15. A couple of things,
    1)Churchill calling someone a Nazi is not a racial slur.Nazism is not an ethnic connotation,it’s a set of political and social beliefs,not a whole lot unlike Manifest Destiny.

    2)Churchill isn’t a Marxist,just because he wrote a book with the word in the title.Read the damn book,it should be obvious afterward.

    3)I HAVE researched the AIM split,with more than a cursory reading of a few internet sites.The"original"AIM members aren’t exactly bastions of truth and honesty themselves.It might serve them well to clean their own house before they comment on how dirty someone else’s is.

    4)As far as blood quantum goes,how little or how much Churchill possesses doesn’t automatically negate anything the man has said or written.

    5)"People like me"was obviously intended as an insult.I’ll respond to that as I would any other insult directed at me by saying,you don’t know a thing about me,so this remark really doesn’t do much but make you look hostile because I happen to agree with someone you obviously intensely dislike.

    6)Instead of saying “conservatives"as a blanket statement,I should have said “neo cons ala PNAC”,it’s more accurate.I’m a mom with young kids,this means I too have some conservative values(the world isn’t always kid friendly these days),but not neo conservative views.

    7)Lastly,I NEVER said we should just ignore the extirpation of Jews,Gypsies and others at the hands of Nazis(we should also remember this was not the first or last incidence of genocide either).To focus solely on one essay out of a HUGE body of work is to ignore the points Churchill makes.One major one being American Exceptionalism rampant among the American public as a whole.

    Posted by Quietly Contemplating from GA,USA  on  02/06  at  08:42 AM

  16. #1 - Unless the CD in question is identified, I can’t take your claim seriously.

    #17 - I’m sympathetic to Churchill’s general take on U.S. Empire, but this phrase does seem to be an endorsement of the 911 attacks.  According to my dictionary, “befitting” means “suitable,” “appropriate,” “proper,” and “decent,” so Churchill is saying that the attacks are the only justified response to U.S. foreign policy - unless someone can demonstrate the contrary.  One has every right to argue this, of course, since U.S. targeting policy routinely indulges the mass killing of civilians as mere “collateral damage,” but it is disingenuous to pretend that one has not advocated killing in taking this position.

    Churchill also speaks of further attacks against the U.S. being “unnecessary” only if we find the means to get our government to stop committing crimes and obey international law, adding that our “compensatory obligation” would not be exhausted if every last American were killed.  He even mentions that if he himself were to die in such attacks he would have no cause for complaint.

    Posted by Michael from San Francisco  on  02/06  at  11:31 AM

  17. The writer of this article is, quite simply, a traitor.  It’s unfashionable to be this blunt, but it is true.

    Yes, there will undoubtedly be other attacks.  The day will arrive when traitors will pay dearly for the type of idiocy displayed on this board.  I won’t shed a tear.

    Churchill is a fraud and a monster.  That he can find any support only tells you that we have quite a few degenerates on our hands.  I strongly suggest that this board be shut down.  There is no need to parade your moral depravity and your Nazi sentiments in public.

    Posted by Stephen from New York City  on  02/10  at  04:50 PM

  18. To be a traitor, don’t we have to be at war?  When’s the last war you heard of where the commander-in-chief told the people to pull together and go shopping while he bankrupted the government with astronomical tax cuts for the rich?

    Not to mention, how can one be a traitor for defending someone’s point of view?

    Posted by Michael from San Francisco  on  02/10  at  06:09 PM

  19. Churchill is a Super Patriot.  He is calling for the US to follow the Rule of Law. He is one of the very few who has mentioned the slaughtered Iraqi children. If you missed his speech on C-span, you have to find a way to see it. It was the best speech I have ever heard in my whole life. He explained his views very clearly. I know that no one could win a debate with him. It would be quite an event if he would ever debate his critics. He could take them all on, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Scarborough...all of them simultaneously. Maybe the media is afraid of Churchill, because they realize that his body of knowledge is so much greater than theirs, so they resort to ad hominem attacks and take his words out of context.

    Posted by rosemarie jackowski from  on  02/11  at  09:36 AM

  20. I doubt O’Reilly and his lynch mob have even read the essay in question, nor could they profit by it if they did.  They are so deeply indoctrinated in American mythology that facts and logical analysis don’t penetrate.

    I saw Churchill’s C-SPAN appearance.  I thought the talk was kind of rambling, and the constant shifting back and forth from one U.S. atrocity to another - and covering 100 years in time at that - was probably confusing for viewers not well acquainted with his work already.

    Posted by Michael from San Francisco  on  02/11  at  03:16 PM

  21. Rosemarie,

    Churchill is a Super Patriot? He advocates the destruction of the US. He wants the US “out of North America” and “off the planet”. No matter what you think of his views, to call him patriotic in any sense is ludicrous. Strike one against your credibility.

    You wrote “ If you missed his speech on C-span, you have to find a way to see it. It was the best speech I have ever heard in my whole life.”
    His speech was mediocre by an standards, get out much Rosemarie? Stike two.

    “It would be quite an event if he would ever debate his critics.” Maybe you don’t know this, so no strike, but he has been invited, agreed and then failed to show up without letting anyone know he wouldn’t. He would get slaughtered in any debate with someone with a half-days prep.

    “Maybe the media is afraid of Churchill, because they realize that his body of knowledge is so much greater than theirs”. Ha ha, his scholarship is not only mediocre, some of it is outright fraudulent. An example: he refers to Alexander Hamilton in one of his papers as the president of the United States. I guess he missed third grade history, and probably just an ignorant mistake. Worse is the outright fraud.
    My neighbor here in Boulder is a noted western historian and professor at CU. She has had her work misquoted by Churchill. In addition she taught the true Native American and noted historian LaVelle at Yale. See what he says about Churchill’s fraud.
    http://lawschool.unm.edu/faculty/lavelle/allotment-act.pdf

    Churchill is the current poster boy for the left, your support for him is intellectual suicide. Strike three, your out.

    Posted by Scott Big Bee from Boulder, CO  on  02/11  at  04:06 PM

  22. Michael...I still say that it was the best speech ever. I prefer the passion from the heart kind of speech rather than the canned, rehearsed, in-the-box type that you usually see.......Scott, about ending the US occupation of North America...sounds like you are one of the few who still believes that Columbus discovered America.

    Posted by rosemarie jackowski from  on  02/13  at  07:09 PM

  23. Scott -

    Who’s the fraud?  I’ve asked you to identify the CD on which you claim Churchill mocked 911 victims being crushed and burned to death.  You’ve not done so.  So claims of fraud coming from you are pretty absurd.

    Churchill could easily out-debate his mainstream critics, all of whom are politically illiterate.  Put Bill O’Reilly up against him with a neutral moderator.  O’Reilly couldn’t even handle Al Franken.  No way he’d win against Ward Churchill.  Not a chance.

    Posted by Michael from San Francisco  on  02/13  at  08:57 PM

  24. I can’t imagine Ward Churchill singing John Lennon’s “Imagine”.  There’s plenty of room in North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Syria, France, etc if he cares to leave and hates America that much.
    Every true American would donate to his leaving.
    Bottom line,an old Cliche, “America - Love it or leave it.”

    Posted by fred from Denver, Colorado  on  02/15  at  04:31 PM

  25. Fred...Churchill made it very clear that he supports the Rule of Law...he said that that was his bottom line. It is really sooooo unAmerican to invite anyone to leave the country just because they don’t agree with you. Come on now, you ought to be able to come up with a better argument than that to support your position. Try again and I would like to hear your opinion on the 500,000 Iraqi children that Madeleine Albright referred to when she said that the position of the US government was that their deaths “were worth it”. That is the Official Policy of the US Government. Why are YOU in support of a policy that results in the deaths of babies? Don’t you like babies? You used to be one, I think.

    Posted by rosemarie jackowski from  on  02/15  at  06:29 PM

  26. I first have to comment on the numbers of civilian deaths in Iraq, so easily bandied about by Tracey McLellan on 2/3.  If 500,000 children died in Iraq prior to the recent war, it is just plain ignorance to say this was the cause of the US.  Saddam himself caused those deaths when he used the $ from the Oil for Food program to build even more palaces and to replenish his weaponry, rather then use it for food and medicine.  Get real!

    To say that there were 500,000 to 750,000 civilian deaths since the last invasion of Iraq is just plain left-wing propaganda.  You cannot show any credible evidence of that.  Least of all Rosemarie Jackowski, who you notice does not offer credible evidence, and I do not think Ward Churchill is credible, given his history.  I am sorry to say, but Jackowski’s critical thinking leaves much to be desired.  An example of how she reaches her beliefs is clearly shown when she stated that one death threat made against Churchill, “says a lot about the character of this country.” I am sorry, but one person out of 300 million does not establish the character of this, or any other nation.  Again, I have to say, get real!

    According to the Project on Defense Alternatives, sponsored by the Commonwealth Institute (a non-partisan group in Massachusetts) there were 3200-43– civilian deaths during the war, when the bombing strikes took place.  According to Civic Worldwide, an Iraqi humanitarian group, there have been 16 - 18,000 civilian deaths from March 2003 to just recently.  And it is obvious that over the past two years, the terrorists have caused most of the civilian deaths - not coalition forces. 

    Remember, you can oppose the war and offer dissent without manufacturing facts to fit your belief system.

    Posted by Bruce Redding from Spokane, WA  on  02/19  at  08:08 PM

  27. Wake up, Bruce.  Madeleine Albright did not dispute the fact that U.S. sanctions killed 500,000 Iraqi children by 1996.  So you’re engaging in revisionist history.  The oil-for-food excuse is just the latest attempt to shift the blame.  Don’t be so gullible.

    Iraq could not spend its revenues without the approval of a sanctions committee in New York.  They refused to allow expenditures for all kinds of medical supplies and other essential goods, this after the U.S. bombed the sewage system, electrical system etc. in 1991 - both war crimes.  U.S. documents show that the planners knew this would result in mass civilian deaths, as indeed it did. 

    The British medical journal Lancet has estimated that 100,000 Iraqi deaths have resulted from the U.S. launched slaughter in March 2003. 

    It’s ridiculous to call the resistance fighters “terrorists.” If I invade your house and start murdering your family, are you a terrorist for trying to shoot me?

    Please wake up.

    Posted by Michael from San Francisco  on  02/19  at  09:13 PM

  28. No, you wake up Michael from San Fransisco.  I know you selectively follow the news from only sources that follow your ideological bent, but to bring you up to spead, the Oil for Food program was a huge hoax - too bad it was a hoax on the people of Iraq.  Saddam, some in the French government, and it looks like several from the almighty UN, including Kofi’s son, and many large companies from around the world made off with billions and billions of dollars - all of which was to go to the people.  You can believe what you want but those are the facts.  For the sake of argument, let’s use your figure of 500,000 dead children as a result of sanctions. 
    The sanctions were the result of a UN resolution, and enforced by UN resolution.  To listen to the left-wing haters of America, the sanctions were imposed only by the US.  Wake up, your touted UN imposed them.

    There have not been 500,000 to 750,000 civilian deaths since the latest war began.  That is a hideous lie mnaufactured by people with the same sensibilities of Ward Churchill.  These are people who say nothing about anything unless they can attack the US or the Bush administration in doing so.  Sounds a bit like Rosemarie How come no one from the loud-left took up the banner of protest when Clinton bombed Yugoslavia for 78 straight days, killing tens of thousands of Serbians.  Was it because it was Clinton doing the killing?  The hypocrisy of the left is legendary.

    Posted by Bruce Redding from Spokane Washington  on  02/19  at  10:54 PM

  29. 500,000 dead children in Iraq from sanctions as of 1996 was Leslie Stahl’s figure, not mine, Bruce.  You don’t read very carefully.  Madeleine Albright accepted the figure and did not dispute that the U.S. was responsible for the deaths.  So you have a disagreement with Albright, not me.

    Agreed that there haven’t been 500,000 to 750,000 Iraqi deaths since March 2003. 

    You’re wrong about Yugoslavia. There WERE protests against the U.S. led war. Not enough of them, but there were some.

    Posted by Michael from San Francisco  on  02/20  at  05:00 AM

  30. 600,000 Estimated civilian executions under Saddam Hussein. 100,000 Kurds killed in a single operation. 500,000 Killed in the war with Iran. Oh wait...that’s the fault of the US. We supported Hussein. Avg. per day: between 70 and 125 for every day he was in power.

    Does anyone have any numbers of the avg daily deaths since the US occupation? It would be interesting to compare.

    Posted by karlli ebha from sac valley  on  02/22  at  11:16 AM
    31. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: Leslie Gelb Asks Iraq: Who's Your Daddy?

    Previous entry: American and Canadian Media Continue to Fail: Four Nonsensical Conjectures about Iraq

    [ads]

    Support Press Action