One Of These Men Lost His Job; The Other Appears On Major Televisions Shows And Writes Columns In All The Major Newspapers.

Ward Churchill called the people who died in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center "Little Eichmanns" in an attempt to make the point that America's financial and corporate interests were culpable for America's policies in the Middle East -- policies that Churchill believed led to the 9/11 attacks. (I've always wanted to punch Churchill in the mouth for apparently considering the deaths of janitors, food service workers, and messengers "collateral damage." This was real life, not some "Bridge of San Luis Rey," vehicle for Churchill's message.)

Dinesh D'Souza said that people in the "cultural left" (and New York City is certainly the center of the "cultural left" in the minds of D'Souza and his ilk) "are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world. The Muslims who carried out the 9/11 attacks were the product of this visceral rage, some of it based on legitimate concerns . . . Thus without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened." (I've always wanted to punch D'Souza in the mouth for being one of the dumbest, most opportunistic twerps to ever misuse the English language.)

Ward Churchill, according to Wikipedia "has been "relieved of his duties by [University] interim chancellor Phil DiStefano . . . ." as a result of an investigation begun only after the American rightwing erupted in criticism of Churchill's essay on the causes of the 9/11 attacks. Dinesh D'Souza, according to Media Matters, has been allowed to promote his blame-America-first book "in four major newspapers and [has] appeared in interviews with all three major cable news channels to discuss his latest book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 (Doubleday, 2007)."

Which, I suppose, just goes to show that IOKIYAR.

From: On The Justice of Roosting Chickens by Ward Churchill:

On the morning of September 11, 2001, a few more chickens – along with some half-million dead Iraqi children – came home to roost in a very big way at the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center. Well, actually, a few of them seem to have nestled in at the Pentagon as well.

The Iraqi youngsters, all of them under 12, died as a predictable – in fact, widely predicted – result of the 1991 US "surgical" bombing of their country's water purification and sewage facilities, as well as other "infrastructural" targets upon which Iraq's civilian population depends for its very survival. . . . As things stand, including the 1993 detonation at the WTC, "Arab terrorists" have responded to the massive and sustained American terror bombing of Iraq with a total of four assaults by explosives inside the US. That's about 1% of the 50,000 bombs the Pentagon announced were rained on Baghdad alone during the Gulf War (add in Oklahoma City and you'll get something nearer an actual 1%).

They've managed in the process to kill about 5,000 Americans, or roughly 1% of the dead Iraqi children (the percentage is far smaller if you factor in the killing of adult Iraqi civilians, not to mention troops butchered as/after they'd surrendered and/or after the "war-ending" ceasefire had been announced).

In terms undoubtedly more meaningful to the property/profit-minded American mainstream, they've knocked down a half-dozen buildings – albeit some very well-chosen ones – as opposed to the "strategic devastation" visited upon the whole of Iraq, and punched a $100 billion hole in the earnings outlook of major corporate shareholders, as opposed to the U.S. obliteration of Iraq's entire economy.

With that, they've given Americans a tiny dose of their own medicine.. This might be seen as merely a matter of "vengeance" or "retribution," and, unquestionably, America has earned it, even if it were to add up only to something so ultimately petty.

From Media Matters concerning Dinesh D'Souza's new book that also claims that Americans are to blame for the attacks of 9/11:

I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector, and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world. The Muslims who carried out the 9/11 attacks were the product of this visceral rage, some of it based on legitimate concerns, some of it based on wrongful prejudice, but all of it fueled and encouraged by the cultural left. Thus without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened (Pages 1-2). . . . Asked by Colbert on the January 16 edition of The Colbert Report whether he "agrees with some of the things these radical extremists are against in America," D'Souza replied: "I agree with it." . . . Asserting on Page 21 that 9-11 was "a message" from Osama bin Laden and other "Islamic radicals" that the United States is a "repulsive sewer" and an "immoral, perverted society," D'Souza concludes: "Thus we have the first way in which the cultural left is responsible for 9/11. The left has produced a moral shift in American society that has resulted in a deluge of gross depravity and immorality." D'Souza asserts on Pages 122-123 that the "radical Muslim critique" of America largely relates to the belief that there is "no moral standard" condemning licentious behavior, concluding on Page 130, "It seems that there are none, just as the Muslims allege." On Page 131, D'Souza adds that the "Muslim case against American popular culture" is actually "understated" if one does not also take into account that America's "cultural depravity" is "actively championed by leading voices on the cultural left." He states on Page 119 that "[t]he accusation of decadence against the West is obviously valid in one sense: Western societies (including America) are not reproducing themselves."

D'Souza similarly suggested in his Christian Science Monitor op-ed that "the radical Muslims [are] right," and that "pious Muslims ... rightly fear that this new morality will destroy their religion and way of life."
D'Souza bemoaned in his Post op-ed that Warren Bass, senior editor of the Post's Book World section, claimed D'Souza "think[s] Jerry Falwell was 'on to something' when he blamed the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, on pagans, gays and the ACLU." Yet while D'Souza correctly noted in the op-ed that his book's argument "has nothing to do with Falwell's suggestion that 9/11 was God's judgment on the ACLU and the feminists for their sins," he did not address his assertion in the book that Falwell nonetheless stumbled upon the true parties responsible for 9/11:

"The real issue raised by Falwell's comments is entirely secular. What impact did the abortionists, the feminists, the homosexual activists, and the secularists have on the Islamic radicals who conspired to blow up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Unfortunately this crucial question got buried, and virtually no one has raised it publicly" (Page 5).

D'Souza goes on to assert throughout the book that the groups Falwell targeted provoked the terrorists' hatred of America by exporting their values to the Muslim world.

In The Enemy at Home, D'Souza asserts that bin Laden "developed his theory of American weakness during the Clinton years," because "[i]t was [former President Bill] Clinton, after all, who ordered the withdrawal of American troops from Mogadishu [Somalia]." D'Souza dismisses the notion that Republican President Ronald Reagan could have similarly emboldened bin Laden by pulling American forces out of Beirut, Lebanon, after an attack on U.S. troops there. "Although Reagan had ordered the pullout of America troops following the 1982 embassy bombing in Beirut, Muslim radicals recognized that Reagan was a strong leader," D'Souza writes (Page 213).

. . .

In the book, D'Souza touts the words of criticism bin Laden has issued about U.S. culture, quoting extensively from bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America" that criticized the United States for its "oppression, lies, immorality, and debauchery" (Pages 102-103), while downplaying one of bin Laden's major stated reasons, in the letter and elsewhere, for opposing the United States: The American troop presence in the Middle East. Rather than quoting bin Laden's frequent criticisms of this policy, D'Souza simply asserts that bin Laden's "occasional condemnations" of America's military presence in the Middle East -- as well as his criticism of America's support for Israel -- "must be understood in a metaphorical sense" (Page 100). Without citing bin Laden saying so himself, D'Souza suggests that bin Laden opposes a U.S. military presence in the Middle East only because he sees U.S. foreign policy as "the vehicle for the coercive transmission of corrupt American values to the Muslim world":

"Does the radical Islamic case against America, then, not have a foreign policy component? Of course it does. But as bin Laden and his associates see it, U.S. foreign policy is the vehicle for the coercive transmission of corrupt American values to the Muslim world" (Page 103).

Earlier, D'Souza states as fact that "Islamic hatred of America ... is not based on the presence of American troops abroad" (Page 25).

But in his Post op-ed, D'Souza went even further in seeking to discredit this alternative explanation for bin Laden's hatred of America, setting up a straw man argument that "Bin Laden isn't upset because there are U.S. troops in Mecca, as liberals are fond of saying. (There are no U.S. troops in Mecca.)" D'Souza cited no examples of liberals explaining bin Laden's fury under the mistaken assumption that the United States has a military presence in Mecca, either in the op-ed or upon explaining that "there are no American troops in Mecca" in his book (Page 100). In his appearance on the January 17 edition of CNN's Paula Zahn Now, D'Souza falsely claimed that bin Laden "talks about U.S. troops in Mecca" in the November 2002 "Letter to America."