Are we so high and mighty that we, Americans, can never admit our country has made mistakes? I don't see what the fuss is about--I agree with the guy!
********************************************************************

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/02/05/...hill/print.html

Professor refuses to apologize for 9/11 essay


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




Feb. 5, 2005 | DENVER (AP) -- A professor who likened World Trade Center victims to a notorious Nazi refused to apologize, but said his treatise was a "gut response" in his first public comments since the University of Colorado began a review that could lead to his dismissal.

"I don't believe I owe an apology," Ward Churchill said Friday on CNN's "Paula Zahn Now" program.

He defended the essay in which compared those killed in the Sept. 11 attack to "little Eichmanns," a reference to Adolf Eichmann, who organized Nazi plans to exterminate European Jews. He said the victims were akin to U.S. military operations' collateral damage -- or innocent civilians mistakenly killed by soldiers.

"I don't know if the people of 9-11 specifically wanted to kill everybody that was killed," he told Zahn. "It was just worth it to them in order to do whatever it was they decided it was necessary to do that bystanders be killed. And that essentially is the same mentality, the same rubric."

In an interview published Saturday in the Rocky Mountain News, Churchill added, "This was a gut response opinion speech written in about four hours. It's not completely reasoned and thought through."

Churchill said his speech had been misinterpreted. "They take, as is usually the case with propaganda, some kernel of truth to anchor, and then they go wild. I never said anything about 'justifying.' I never said anything about 'advocating.' I never called for the deaths of millions of Americans," he said.

The university's Board of Regents apologized to all Americans on Thursday, especially those targeted by the attacks.

The furor over Churchill's essay erupted last month after he was invited to speak at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y. Campus officials discovered that an essay and follow-up book by Churchill characterized the Sept. 11 attacks as a response to a long history of U.S. abuses abroad, particularly against indigenous peoples.
Churchill, who recently resigned as chairman of the ethnic studies department but remains a tenured professor, said he would sue if he were dismissed.


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

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/02/05/...hill/print.html

Just more republican words to shut up any discussion over 9-11
over what happened

Whatever happened to free speech?

9-11 was Bush's pearl harbor, the way to get into Iraq

The professor was right

You are as nuts as this guy then if you agree - that some innocent secretary, some old lady in a wheel chair, or some wall street worker is guilty of anything other then trying to make a living - and of anything worth being murdered for.

Anyone comparing everyday Americans to "little Nazis" who were responsible for planning the extermination for an entire race - for the deaths of MILLIONS of Jews is an A$$.

Talk about 9/11 all you want, but to blame it on the people who died, other then the terrorist pilots, is just plain assanine.

Free speach is all well and good - but should not be used as a viable excuse for idiocy.

You should be ashamed of yourself for agreeing that innocents murdered on 9/11, or any other day, deserved it. its embarassing and disgusting...

With more open minds like this professor who's willing to leave his thoughts for open discussion, America will not become like the hated era of Nazism of the past so easily.

Read the article (although I'll give you that its a bit ambiguous, slightly misleading). I read his piece. He wasn't comparing the VICTIMS to Nazis but the HIJACKERS (although the article makes it appear as if it were the victims). He was comparing the victims to collateral damage in a military operation (which is valid) and the mentality of the hijackers to those of the Nazis. But, it came across wrong, and he caught a lot of flack for saying the 9/11 happened as a response to US policy.

As a matter of fact, free speach (sic) IS a viable excuse for idiocy, as well as a number of other lapses including poor spelling. There is nothing in the First Amendment that restricts the right of free speech to those having intellectual competence. Defending the First Amendment entails the responsibility to defend other's rights to say things that one considers assinine.

"Academic freedom," on the other hand, does not protect a professor's right to say or write something that is ill-informed or unethical. We really need to link to the full text of what Churchill said. I suspect that his remarks may have been quoted out of context. Nonetheless, his remarks may have been hurtful and insensitive toward 9/11 victims and hence, unethical. If so, there would be some justification for a university to take personnel actions against him to protect their public relations.

Everyone has the right to free speech as long as they are willing to pay the price for it. Here in this forum we can say what we want, at least once, but the price for it may be having the post modifed, deleted, being placed on pre-mod status or even being banned. I sometimes have to bite my tounge and not tell a customer what I actually think and I've made it clear to those who work for me that they must also do the same.

I have read his original article, too.

A few of his exact words I will quote here:

"As to 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".

Anybody who agrees with this is beneath contempt.

Yeah, amen, and verily!!!!

- No reasonable person can dispute your words.

Osama and his followers declared war on the US back in '98. As such the Pentagon is a legit military target and one could even say the WTC was one also considering it's importance to the nation's finanacial and economic well being. I think the professor could have worded his article in a different fashion that wouldn't have caused such controversy.

how SWEET to see comments giving one country's civilians far greater value than some other country's..

<_< <_< <_< <_< hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

I believe his words meant that the events of 9-11 WERE collateral damage(as I believe myself) to obtain the results the neo-cons had planned for.
Getting into Iraq and assassinating Saddam's sons.

The neo-cons cared not about the victims or the firemen either.
I don't believe the planes took the buildings down (esp.7WTC).
these were implosions rigged.

This was a planned calculated military event.

Not 19 bumbling people not knowing what the weather would be like that morning, or the wind. Even though the buildings were tall, they were small compared to the entire city.
A bumbling terrorist could not have done what he did.

And the PA flight was brought down by probably someone without authority to bring it down, which is why it never came out yet.
That person is probably buried 6 feet under somewhere.

and who, exactly, did that?

Freedom of Speech!

I can say what ever I want , well , within reason

Like I can't go into a theater and yell "FIRE" without a real fire

But it's his opinion. Period. Just like no one is stopping you from your descent

here. Get over it

THANK YOU.

If Republicans objected to what he said, and (as you seem to imply) Democrats do not, I'll proudly stand with the Republicans on this one.

BTW, nobody violated his right to free speech. He's still as free as ever to spout his nonsense. He simply free to spout it as an unemployed professor.

What happened to a professor having the independence to say what ever it is he believed?
Had this censorship been around in the 60s, we would still be in Vietnam.

I am talking about the article, not a poster.And I believe his views have been distorted (as usual by the msm)

Why should he be fired?

The most important thing any student or kid can learn is still the old

QUESTION AUTHORITY (and do so every single time)

Another thing-we as Americans are in away the problem.

We (USA) has stuck our nose where it does not belong.

Bush and his friends in Saudia Arabia have deeply offended the mass people there (just as Bush offends us here)
Because we are we we do not belong, they in turn do not like us.

So in theory, it is our own fault, and each person is guilty as charged
(even if we did not vote for him, there is no way for anyone to know who is who)
But-regardless-they are the neo-cons, and they took it down, no one else did.

The professor is correct. Wish there were more of him. In numbers there is a voice.
as one, they are fired and have no voice (and that keeps the others in line)

I'm not sure who you are directing these comments to, G., or what you mean by "descent", but the notion of "free speech" does not really mean that one person needs to give up theirs in order that another's is to be "free". I, for one, will not get over it, and if your intent is to silence peopel with this "get over it" comment, I might ask you to reevaluate your attitudes towards free speech if you are trying to simultaneously support it and suppress it.

I might point out as well, that the notion free speech does not protect people like Mr Churchill from the consequences of his free speech. He used his to dehumanize those who lost their lives in the wtc tragedy as well as proferring the same rationales supporting their death as did Bin Laden in his "letter To The American People".

This simple fact seems lost on many people, but one can be against the actions of our current administration and also denounce terrorism. By rationalizing the actions of terrorists, Mr. Churchill and his ilk do a great disservice to those who oppose this administration as we all get painted with the same brush. The lack of clear denunciation of terrorism in the rhetorec of the extreme left hurts us all.

Well first I have to say there your comments about the buildings being rigged with explosives when you have absolutely no concrete evidence is funny as hell. Just shows how warped some people are in this matter. And by the way I have heard all this crap before and seen several of the conspiracy websites that don't provide any proof that would hold up in court.

As to this professor. He has the right to say what he wants. That being said the University has the right to dismiss him. I believe he is getting paid by the tax payers and if what he says shed unfavorable light on the University they are (IMHO) well within their rights of letting him go. He is a representative of the University and people can construe that is how the University thinks whether its true or not.

Hey GOP guy. Figures.
Have a great day.

thought was never censored in the 60s.

What was great about the 60s is, some in authority agreed with the other side, and wasn't so scarred to say it
That is one reason protests worked

Now, do you think any teacher would ok a sit in with kids?
They will scarred witless.

With the trade center-proove it happened the way it did. Show me the proof it did.

As I say to my duped friends in real life, What if you are totally wrong?
What if say, everyting that was rumored about the clinton's is true, and everything rumored about W is also true.

What if?

There is never a problem with questioning authority or questioning the norms of how things work. Many times thats how discoveries are made and ideas come about which is the point I think you are trying to make with what if. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with protecting this professors free speech, but what is his intent. This should be the key. His words are trying to make people think, or question things. The intent is clearly insult people. There is a difference.

I remember in taking US Constitutional History in college we would go over the protection of rights. Like protecting the right of the KKK to march/protest. What limits if any would one put on that. And one interesting point we discussed was intent. So if the KKK wanted to march through an all black or all Jewish neighborhood, whats the intent of doing that? Is it intimidation, is it trying to tick people off. Whats the professors intent?

As for 9/11 I point to the numerous video tape evidence from the myriad of sources that show planes flying into them full of airline fuel. And here is on peice of logic to throw a wrench into your conspiracy theory. Lets say for the sake of argument that the US government knew of the terrorist attack and let it happen. Why would we need to rig the building with explosives. The attack already occurred and that in itself would be sufficient for the US government to attack afghanistan etc. Why would there be the need to put explosives in it????????

Because there was something in the building/basement that was the other part
(gold??? stocks??? clues???) That is the question

It is my personal opinion, that Iraq was done solely to kill Saddam's son as revenge for the assassiation attempt on41.
That is why Saddam is alive to live without his kids.

And of course for the oil and rights to rebuild, etc.

A nervous terrorist might have crashed the plane into the statue of liberty.
Taking both out was probably million to one shot by people who were not real pilots.
The wind alone down there would make it impossible. (the planes had to fly low for it to happen. There is a terrible wind there.)
Someone was in on it

I have not read his essay as of yet and I do want to be able to take what he says in context.

Most articles insert their opinions in their compositions, so that the casual reader can not really discern for themselves.

He has a right to what he says, but he must suffer the consequences of it. However, I do not know if things are just over-blown, which they might be. So, I'd read his essay before I denounce or laud it. Keep an open mind, you might just learn something.

As for Graham, I do not know, even if I would question things, that is a bit of a stretch for me. Have to always consider human desire and capability in being able to do what they did. Perhaps it could be an inside job, but at the moment, things show otherwise. Need more than just supposition to sell a theory.

Pictures, statistics and other things work though to convince me.

I AGREE!

Graham;

I understand your total disdain for the neo-cons and BushCo. in general! You know there isn't anything I would put past them!

That said;

I am an American, and a decent human being! I want anyone and everyone who had anything to do with 9/11, DEAD, or running to avoid being killed for the rest of their (hopefully short) lives! Right now the preponderance of evidence, (including admissions by Bin LadenCo.) points to Al Queda!

I know you and some others believe that BushCo. was behind it! When and IF such proof ever comes out, THEY would have to run for THEIR lives! I've read the evidence presented by the theorists, and it SHOULD be investigated fairly, BUT DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH!

That's reality! Meanwhile this professor is being repudiated even by the supposed people he claims to be racially connected with (American Indians)! Who have NO love for this government! He can say what he wishes, but he has proved Lincoln's parable;

"It is better to remain silent, and be THOUGHT dumb!

Than to open ones' mouth, and remove ALL doubt"!

Whether we agree with what Churchill wrote is one issue. I do not agree with much of what he has to say -- particularly with regard to the Eichmann comment.

But a second issue -- the First Amendment free speech issue -- is extremely important here. I hope it will not be lost in the shuffle. We may not agree with his views, but don't we have an interest in making sure his rights (and therefore OUR rights) to speak out about important political issues are protected?

My understanding is that the "Eichmann comment" was made, not in the classroom, but as part of a three-year old essay that later became a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. The book recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award for best writing on human rights. Here is Churchill's explanation of that essay and his comments: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0201-05.htm

Why is it important where these comments were made? I believe he was speaking and writing as a citizen in making this comment -- not as a professor. In doing so, shouldn't he be protected from university discipline or censorship? The American Association of University Professors would appear to agree: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech...cademic_freedom

This forum is an excellent example of how important free speech is to our country, and to the integrity of our political process. I believe one of the most severe problems we face as a country right now is the centralization of the media in the hands of conservative (some would say right-wing) elements. God help us all when the only people who have the right to speak are the Limbaughs, the Hannitys, the Armstrong Williamses, and Maggie Gallaghers.

Even if these comments had been made in the classroom, if a tenured professor does not have the right to speak as this man has, what else may tenured professors be fired for? Should a professor be fired for writing an essay saying that Bush was wrong about invading Iraq? Should a professor be fired for saying in an article that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush are war criminals? Should Juan Cole be fired for his blog, http://www.juancole.com/?

Where do we draw the line? And when you draw it, remember that you are not just drawing it for the Ward Churchills or the Juan Coles of this country. You draw it for yourself, and for your children, and for their children.

Ahhhh - the craziness of conspiracy continues...

Anyway, this professor "suggests that more 9/11s are necessary", thinks anyone killed on that day deserved what he/she got, "victims were little Eichmanns", etc. So he wants more Americans dead? why? so we can learn our lesson? so we can all see how evil our country is?...all see how guilty we are?

He is anti-American, and just plain full of hate.

SOO it is OUR fault (all of US) because "Bush and Saudi Arabia offended a mass of people"? It was enough for them to declare war on us because Clinton offended someone? Bush Sr.? Let me tell you this - of course America offended them!! Woman's rights offends them, homosexuality offends them, freedom of expression offends them, Hollywood offends them, capitialism offends them, secularism offends them... So we are to stop being who we are because some murdering extremists get offended??? We deserve to die - all of US - because some nut takes offense at who we are, what God we pray to (or not), and our very freedoms?

What Bull! People who think like this should be shunned - people who think innocents should die, deserve to die, who excuse their murder - for whatever reason - can not really be taken seriously.

OK then-

Why don't they fire every person in the nation who has continnued to perpetrate the LIE that 9-11 and Iraq are connected.

let's fire them all!!! Start with W and Cheney and go from there...
Can them for their stupid lies

watergate and the holocaust didn't happen either, right?

I think its strange that the people here (g4a ,me and other NY'ers) question the entire thread. We live, work and were the direct target of the attack Yet we live with open
eyes waiting for the 4th attack

9-11 was not the 1st

everytime I go into Manhattan 3x wk I am prepared with my car having a ready kit

What if next time I am in the Lincol Tunnel or GWB its attacked?

The Professor has apoint

The only "point" he has, is on the top of his head!

gmanders this guy has the RIGHT to be an idiot, don't join him!

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR MURDER, MUCH LESS MASS MURDER OF INNOCENTS!!

Glad to see I am not the only one who goes in the Tunnel and worries.
Sometimes I want to stop at the entrance going in, wait five minutes, then drive 100 miles an hour striaght through without any stop and go traffice that is there 24 hours a day

Same as everyone hates those Northeasterners, yet we were the ones that got blown up (why not, its only a blue state), and the vast majority of workers killed
were in fact liberal or moderate democrats AND that all those little kids going to school down in that area are probably already affected with something that in a decade will grow to be cancer.
And the fact that everyone I know, myself included, no longer breathes the same way we did before.

The more people that speak out, the less chance it will happen again

This one I can agree to.
gmanders, I work in Washington DC and as such a prime target too. I have relatives that work in New York, and still keep in contact with the families of the friends I lost. We do have to question things, agreed, and I do not trust all that the government says especially now. However, some of the things said were a stretch for me, I mean it could be as graham4anything has said, but without more solid information, that idea would scarcely leave the ground.

tell that to George W. Bush who has blood of 100,000 innocent people on his
stinkin' hands all in the name of revenge and oil and Haliburton
collateral damage

But a stretch is what brings investigation!

OTherwise,we are drones

lemmings lead off to our demise

Edie,
I have not read the original article, so I cannot comment on it, however I did want to comment on the excellent points you have made in your own post.

Thank you, DWB. I know it is easy to get caught up in the Eichmann comment, and overlook the broader issue of free speech. I hope that will not happen.

Thing is, was that really part of the essay he wrote or just an interview? I haven't read his essay myself, so I can't get riled up like that.

However, I do not mind papers like that so much, just due to the fact that, sometimes thoughts need to be aired out. I can say a bunch of s..t that I don't believe in, but just thought about in the wee-hours of the morning. It is an exercise in showing a new view. I consider this almost like a Limbaugh, Stern or Savage, messages meant for shock value than anything else, to provoke thought. Sometimes, I really think people need to chill.

Someone said that the essay was not saying that the victims were little Eichmans, but the terrorists were, while the ones that were taken out was collateral damage. That is completely different from what you are saying, so since I haven't read it myself, who would I believe? Needless to say, I opt for finding out for myself first.

Next they will come for everyone posting on boards such as these, and those that work and have bosses will be told to fire them.
Others will lose benefits.
They will pressure their spouse/mates/others better not to associate with these deviants, shun them, get people to throw rocks through your car and where you live.
Set you up
Plant drugs in your house
Then you disappear all based on what they tell us we should or should not do

No longer will 58 million people act like the 6 million Jews like my ancestors and walk meekly into the showers

Oh but G,
I can understand looking in to it, and I agree to looking in to things, what I can't do, is to just take what he says in face value. I have not been provided with more than just supposition. Needless to say, I have my own views on it too, completely different from Graham's, and other niggling thoughts that I also consider, thinking this may not be right. So, entitled to that point of view, me, I want to see more and observe first, before saying a thing. That is personal choice. Just really waiting to see if I can get charts or pictures and graphs. I am too much of a skeptic otherwise.

from your lips(keyboard) to G-d's ears

Actually,
It is much easier than that, if you are still not a complete citizen.

All they need, is a past traffic violation before detaining you, right now. They will flag it, as a deviance and place you under detainment. Which has happened by the way, and the one I have heard of was sent to New Jersey. Where prison abuse seems to happen.

with just suspicion we got olberman to cover election fraud?

we sent thousands of e-mails, got someone to notice?

joutwest wrote

I agree 100%. Thank you for saying it.

Churchill is not presuming that 911 was an inside job, so please keep that out of it as it has nothing whatsoever to do with his essay.

Essentially, he is saying that the US did things to other people that caused them to take this action. He said that the people who worked in the towers were Adolph Eichmann's BECAUSE Eichmann did not kill anyone himself, instead he worked on machines that would. The people in the trade centers were at the helm of Capitalism. They were stokebrokers and banking people, and by working towards a capitalist society that allows the US to be the place in the world with the highest standard of living, instead of spreading the wealth so the things were more equal they attacked those targets. He said that some of the people that worked in the towers were also working on projects or contracts with the US Government. This means they were cogs in the machine that enabled the government to work. This means they were complicit in actions the government takes.

What this means in another context is this: Suppose that a group of Mexicans decided that they were poor and we were rich. That we took their land, and they want it back. That thousands had died because we did not give them more money to fix that problem. Then suppose they blew up the Border Partol building in LA along with Los Alamos national labs and then they blew up the University of San Diego because they have labs there that work on government projects that may be used in warfare.

Did they have reasons? Yes. Were they wronged in the past? Yes. Do we have more wealth than them? Yes. Would you say that we should expect this? NO.

Should we have just decided that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor was to be expected because we were blocking their ability to trade where they wanted? Under Churchill's logic they had every right to do this. We should be understanding of this.

Churchill is a communist. I do not say that lightly, I say it because it's true. To him, no one has ever done anything to anyone else except the US. The US has done it all. He is stuck in moral relativism, and stuck in the idea that wealth must be redistributed because othewise people feel they are getting a bad deal and they will NATURALLY want to attack us....and according to him ALL of us are fair game unless we are "workers". So if you own something, or you work in government, or you employ people and maybe have a contract with the government you are guilty of supporting the system that puts other people down.

More importantly Churchill ignores that in the middle east there are more wars betweeen members of those countries that killed more people than we ever did. He ignores the Iraq/Iran war, the Iranian killing machine, the war in Yemen, the war in Algeria, the war in Chad, Quadafi's attempts to kill the Saudis, Syria's attempt to invade Jordan (which was prevented) and a 100 other wars in Muslim lands that have never had anything to do with the west.

Churchill sits in his Ivory Tower, taking full advantage of his protected status, his decent salary, his purchased home, his comfortable life and decides to pass judgement on everyone else....when he is just as much to blame, even by his own criteria as anyone in the world trade centers were. I wish he would volunteer himself up to act as blood libel for the rest of us who do not feel that we are to blame. I hope that gmanders and onlyinny understand that according to this guy they are legitimate targets, collateral damage, just to stop the economy of the US.

Should he be teaching our kids? I don't know. Where is the line? What if he was to teach them that abortion was murder? That evolution is riddled with holes such that no one could believe it? That Native Americans reservations should be abolished? That African Americans have less IQ than others? Would you still support his right to teach this? Believe me, I've heard very convincing arguments, however offensive they may be, for all of the preceeding lines of inquiry. It's really easy to say he has the right to teach it when it doesn't offend you personally right?

Should any professor be able to teach anything they wish? If so, should the University be required to provide an option to students so they do not have to take classes with this professor? If parents boycott that program and the school loses students and all the rest of the professors have to lose their jobs because of this one person is that okay too?

I don't want to stop Churchill from saying anything he wants. However, I don't want him teaching my kids that. I won't send my children to learn from him....would you? Should the school, the state, his fellow professors suffer the consequences of his folly?

Actually,
There was the report of the discrepancy between actual tallies and exit-polling, which was documented, next was the fact that there were alleged ties between the administration and Diebold, not to mention many reports of voter suppression and long lines. What was just mentioned now, was the supposition of it being impossible for bumbling terrorists to fly a plane to the WTC, as well as "explosives" on the lower levels? Just need more substance than that. I mean, it is interesting to think of now, and it is a question, but being given that view, without being told of a starting point to look for, just does not help much.

Sheesh, I would consider someone walking someone through flying it before I consider such a thing. I would even consider the Pentagon being shot by a missile rather than a plane going through it, before that suggestion.

Here is a starting point-
Who is the only person(family) better off on sept.12, than on sept.10

THE BUSH CLAN

A failed one term president vs. the new (what people think of him who like him)
Messiah

Bush accomplished his goals (and I still believe he didnot need to win reelection
either.) His goals were done.
Bush was in the school with the kids-(after knowing the 1st one hit)
Why? Alibi.

And the microphone at the WTC was a plant. Pre-planned soundbyte to create superstardom

Not quite what I would want, but thanks for the starting point.

I was more looking for picture evidence that may support, that such a blast would occur because of something like that.

Like purported flight paths and such, or at least one person saying that there was a secondary explosion from the bottom. Which doesn't make sense, since there are those that have been able to escape from the building after all, before it fell.

I mean, the motive might be there, but the method, is in review.

the buildings were not suppose to fall in the first place.

Not to mention too, Lawrence Silverman the owner of the building had a brand new policy

and what about 7WTC falling the next day? No plane hit it, and the command center was inside that building (Guiliani almost trapped himself in the building.)

(in theory, there should have only been 100 or so people killed in the building-those at the exact point of entry.

Had the roof stairs and back stairs not been blocked, the people above could have gotten down, had the fireman not gone up, they would not have been there...
Had a helicopter been there, they could have evacuated. There was plenty of time
(plus the phone system did not work, telling people to go back up in the other building who would have been out of the building in plenty of time.)

No. something doesn't sit right

Regardless, those people were collateral damage who died.

And-even if you say there was no conspiracy-well, as Bush lied about his reasons-he used those 3000 people to get into Iraq and as such, 1500 soldiers are dead of ours,thousands injured and how many tens of thousands of Iraqi's who had nothing to do with 9-11 were killed or harmed???

Those are also innocent citizens. INNOCENT until killed by GWB for no reason at all.
Was Sadddam good or bad? Who cares. We did not belong there. W put us there.

Thank You, Heart for expanding on and explaining more of Churchill and his ways of thinking - in more suscint ways then I could.

For those looking for his specific 'comments' - http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

This guy has a REAL blame America - for EVERYTHING - mentality.