MIM also deploys its irrefutable dialectic to attack the New York Post's anti-Churchill editorial yesterday:
In May, 2007 the New York Post is still claiming that Ward Churchill is an ethnic fraud;(3) even though, all the arguments for that were known decades ago and Ward Churchill received his lifetime contract called tenure nonetheless. Remarkable timing the New York Post has--maybe it should have been on the ball back in the day for its argument about Churchill's tenure.Almost forgot the footnotes!
We all know that the real reason the New York Post is attacking is support for U.$. imperialism in the Mideast. The owner of the New York Post Murdoch is also behind the making of prime minister John Howard in Australia. The New York Post in February 2007 was still supporting the Iraq War and quoting Howard against Obama to do so.(4)
Perhaps Murdoch should loosen the reins a little and let his 175 newspapers talk about recent news since others have moved on from Ward Churchill's ethnicity and the alleged link of 9/11 to Saddam Hussein. Many have figured out that Ron Paul and Ward Churchill were closer to the truth than the majority of Amerikans when the ground invasion of Iraq started. Murdoch was a key factor in the ground invasion of Iraq: "Rupert Murdoch argued strongly for a war with Iraq in an interview this week. Which might explain why his 175 editors around the world are backing it too."(5)
What we are seeing as a general pattern is that the reactionaries issue a flood of accusations, most of which do not stand. Yet they cling to individual points of their accusations when their report has been whittled down to a small percentage of possibly arguable points. When we look at it, we see that the people still opposing Churchill are supported by rubes who brought us the Iraq War.
5. "Their master's voice," 12Feb2003, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,897015,00.html.