Thursday, June 30, 2005

Ward Watch

Ward Churchill is defending himself in the Denver Post against a recent speech he made in which he suggested fragging officers (something I take a bit personally). His defense is that he was not advocating such an act, merely "sparking discussion" Hat tip Michelle Malkin.

Controversial University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill says he does not advocate "fragging" U.S. military officers in spite of how recent comments he made have been portrayed.

Churchill, speaking at an anti- military forum in Portland, Ore., military remarks

"Conscientious objection removes a given piece of the cannon fodder from the fray," he said. "Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect."

His remarks were posted Sunday on the Pirate Ballerina blog site, which carries mostly anti- Churchill content. On Wednesday, Fox News' Bill O'Reilly played a tape of the remarks.

Reached at his home in Boulder County on Wednesday night, Churchill said the comments were made merely to spark discussion and not to take a position on fragging, which is the killing or injuring of an officer in combat by a subordinate.

He said that his remarks were being taken out of context and sensationalized in an effort to drive him from his job as a CU professor.

"I neither advocated nor suggested to anyone, anything," Churchill said. "I asked them to think about where they stood on things."

While it may be true that he posed this sentence in the form of a question, is that really a defense? Remember, Larry Summers caused quite a stir, one could even say an uproar, for asking the question, of whether men and women have differences in their congnitive abilities. He didn't advocate that position, he merely asked the question. A better question is, why does Ward even think this is an issue that needs to be raised for discussion?