portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

government | human & civil rights | media criticism

Bill Maher takes on Ward Churchill

A review of Bill Maher's latest show.
An Iraqi killer and her terrorist baby get scanned
An Iraqi killer and her terrorist baby get scanned
I was surprised to see Ward Churhill on Bill Maher. He had a sit down with him at the beginning of the show and a family member of one of the victim's of 9/11, Michael Faughnan.

Maher doesn't agree with Churhill's "ikeman" comment, but mentioned that if someone doesn't ride the edge of what is acceptable, then we won't have a democracy to speak of. I agree there, but I don't think Churhill rides the edge. In our current conditions, what is the edge? The Bush administration, while robbing civil liberties at home, likes to use "american freedom" whenever they can, but we know that the edge, is when you speak out about anything that is not part of our pro-fascist government.

Ward talks about the 12-15million american indians we killed via manifest destiny, he talks about all the murders that have taken place at our hand, but Bill disagrees that we "think" about it. Bill's take on this, is that we may care more for our I-pods and SUV's, but we don't wake up wanting to murder people. That is the difference between the "terrorists" and "americans".

Without going into if 9/11 was a hoax, there are still holes in his analysis. Because the "terrorists" are a CIA invention. They learned how to do what they do, from us. These "terrorists" were once called "freedom fighters" by the reagan administration. So, it's hard to accept that "terrorists" have it out for "us", considering the fact that we "made" them. Even today, the engineers of these "freedom fighters" feel it was better to bring down the "commies" and so what if we have a few radical muslims running around, we brought down the soviet union, it was worth it! Churchill makes the argument that the WTC was a legitimate target and it's because we're killers. This is what upsets people. I agree with him, because the WTC was already a target before, you'd have to be stupid to think "terrorists" would want to hit a strip mall before a symbol of American capitalism, especially since they did it before.(even if we stick with the official story)

Churchill seemed a little depressed, maybe he will make the fascists happy and get suicided, but I guess we can speculate on that if/when it happens. First they go after you financially, then emotionally, and then you get "depressed".

Moving on, Michael Faughnan, brother to a victim at Cantor/Fitzgerald, was clearly distraught and he was the "other side" of the debate. He asked Ward Churchill for an apology...he didn't get it. He made the case that Churchill was insensitive to the victims. I agree with that, but, Churchill said, "no more insensitive then we have been". This was met with much applause. However, Michael didn't back down and made another point. His brother was not a killer, not a murderer, he was a "good man". Again he stated that he doesn't understand how Churchill could think his brother was a legitimate target. Churchill explained that it was the "technorati" and as politely as possible, he said his brother was part of that.

Michael got a little teary eyed and came back assertively that his brother was not a killer. This is when Maher asked what he would like and Michael asked Churchill for an apology.

In any case, it was nice to hear Bill mention that he doesn't agree with the comment, but agrees that we are not always the good guys and that Churchill has the right to his opinion no matter how uncomfortable it makes you feel. Bill told Churchill that he faced similar backlash from the corp. media.

The argument that Michael's brother was not a "pull the trigger" killer, I agree with, but one only needs to look at Iraq and ask, are they legitimate targets or are they all killers? I challenge Michael Faughnan to look into the woman's face in F9/11 that asks the same questions he asks. "Why my son? Why my husband? They were just going to work, they were just living, what did they do to deserve this?"

Michael might then be able to understand why, someone other then him, might look at the WTC and everyone in it as part of the killing machine. The janitor had nothing to do with invading Iraq, but like our own government says, "they are just collateral damage". That may be upsetting to hear - take a look at the Iraqi woman, go tell her that her family was a legitimate target and that she is a killer - she'll be the first one in line to be a suicider. This point was brought up in a broad stroke of, "america has done bad things"...but not, "michael, you are the same as that iraqi woman"

The rest of the show was a little lackluster, Whoopi Goldberg was on and said her piece. Other guests included Dave Foley(who knows his geo-politics and left some speechless at times), former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno(said very little) and former NIH administrator Bernadine Healy.(she reminded me of Dr. Laura Schlesinger-too much ambien).

how about the notion that 06.Mar.2005 06:06

neither are legitimat targets

war is obsolete, killing is wrong, neither killing Iraqis or Americans can be justified. Both Churchill and Bush are from the same fold

what? 06.Mar.2005 06:30

are you high?

Bush is killing people.

Churchill is COMPLAINING about (non-Anglo-American) people getting killed. All he did was point out that 9-11 was a predictable response to the American occupation (under false pretenses, Iraq never massed troops at the border) of Saudi Arabia. He never said it was a GOOD THING.

Equating mass murder with the feeble transgression of insulting the dead is bizarre.

war is not personal 06.Mar.2005 07:44


I think the issue stems form our belief that war is not personal, as long as it is not our family that has to die. So, to us its just collateral dammage when we kill 100K Iraqis but a total outrage when 3500 Amerikans are killed. It is hypocracy at its best...a continuing saga of death at the hands of religious and capitalist fascist pigs.

Have a problem with "obsolete" and "wrong" 06.Mar.2005 11:24


War is obsolete?

Is it? In 1965, according to the UN (defined as 1000 deaths or more a year) there
were 10 major wars in the world. As of 2003 there where 15 major wars and at least
20 minor conflicts. The continent of Africa alone has had 20 civil wars since 1960.

Looks to me like it is growing in popularity. How is it "obsolete"?

War is wrong?

Was Spartacus wrong for leading a slave revolt? Where the indigenous people of north
America wrong for fighting European invaders? "War" is simply a way of describing
what happens when one person or persons have a conflict with another person or persons.
Some times (even often) you may be able to describe the conflict as foolish or even
ignorant. I doubt anyone would argue that the spilling of blood is a good thing.
But WRONG, that is a value judgment that can't be easily applied to something as complex
as war.

Facts are facts far more people in the world have secured justice through violent means
than by nonviolent means. Even India used violence when dealing with the British.

What makes it wrong?

Killing A Rapist 06.Mar.2005 12:21

Lorena Bobbitt

Killing a rapist is wrong.
You become a rapist when you fight back against rape.
If you are a woman and you resist rape with physical force, you will automatically grow a penis and become a rapist.

Submission/death is your only moral option.

Lie back and think of Ghandi.

Or Hanze? 06.Mar.2005 20:17


911? What about my whole lifetime???

Whore politicains of both major parties have been buying special intrest votes and campain contributions with the blood of our Palestinian neighbors for decades. And for decades, the hatred, that gets created by Democraps and Republitrash reloading Zionist guns as fast as the Zionists can unload them into our Palestinian neighbors, has been finding its way back at Americans in the form of terrorism. Whore politicians have been sacrificing thier fellow American's lives for decades. It wasn't just 911.

We hear it all the time. Zionists are "our friends and allies." Allies??? Against whom??? Palestinians, obviously. But why are Americans allied with Zionists against Palestinians??? because whore politicians have been allowed to sell out American's peace for political intrests.

Eikmann probably was a poor choice of descriptors. But then, who knows about Fritz, a machanic who worked at the Messrschmitt factory before US Arny Air Corps pilots bombed the factory and killed him. Eikmann, like Fritz, was a cog in an offense. And unlike Fritz and Eikmann, 911's victims of whore politician's adventures had the democratic means to change thier country's offenses. They didn't. They just watched, decade after decade, as the Democraps's and Republitrash's offenses got OTHER Americans killed.

ditto 08.Mar.2005 06:15

10,000 friends of lorena

Submission/death is your only moral option.

Lie back and think of Ghandi.

I'll answer for Michael Faughnan 11.Mar.2005 16:59

kerri hecox

I don't normally get involved with this sort of on-line discussion, but after reading the above posting I felt compelled to do so. Michael and Christopher Faughnan are my brothers, so I feel I can respond to to the "challenge" you posed to Michael. By asking Ward Churchill to step away from his inappropriate Nazi rhetoric we were not asking that he stop questioning the history or the motivations of the United States. On the contrary, we asked in an open letter published in the Boulder Camera for Churchill to phrase his arguments in a manner that would further public dialogue--not simply spread intolerance and deepen political divisions, which has been the net effect of his writings. We as a family are very much aware of, and concerned by, the actions of the American government in the world today. We are particularly offended by the use of 9/11 as a political carte blanche, an excuse for any and all military action. 9/11 itself has become a weapon to control public opinion and stiffle dissent.
Examining our history, our culture, and our overwhelming power in the world today is imperative. However, Nazi comparisons will most certainly not start this dialogue. Not only is the Nazi rhetoric Churchill uses offensive, it is grossly inaccurate. Adolf Eichmann himself ordered the execution of 50,000 Hungarian Jews. This is not something to be throw out lightly in a a search for convenient metaphors. These were real human beings, as every single person who died on 9/11 was a real human being. They were no more symbols of the "capitalist machine" than any of us are. We are all part of a society that values money and material comfort, and the results of this are often disasterous for others in the world. We need to face this and do something about it. Not name call and point fingers.
My brother Chris was a beautiful man: he DID speak out against unjust government policies, gave to charity, worked for social justice, helped everyone who crossed his path. He does not deserve to be defaced because of his job, the unfortunate location of his office. To do this is to commit the same crime that has allowed so many to die unnoticed in this world: render faceless, deny their individual humanity.