But even if it hadn't, where does the President of Harvard get off making such suggestion when the scientific facts are not clear?
If others can take the other side of the argument "when the scientific facts are not clear", why can't the president of Havard state his opinion?
What's taking the other side of the argument?
For more on my reaction see
Message 21074545
Edit -
As for Ward churchill I think he went beyond anything Lawrence Summers said.
""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. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the 'mighty engine of profit' to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly.... If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."
I thought the comment they were hanging him over was the one where he said that in essense, America had been asking for a 9/11 to happen due to our foreign policies........an argument that Pat Buchanan also makes.
As for the above, its sounds like something Ann Coulter would say........from the other side......and yet, there are no conservative pundits in arms over Coulter's outrageous statements.......with the lone exception of the NRO.
ted |
