I am writing in response to Vincent Adams' article "Conservatives missing point in Churchill fiasco." Mr. Adams, I don't believe that this is a matter of conservative or liberal arguments, but rather an argument of Americans.
While you may think that you are above Churchill's criticisms, you as well as all Americans fall under Churchill's generalized statements. How can you criticize President Bush for lying to the American public and then in the same article lie to all of your loyal readers?
Churchill's article was not simply a critique on U.S. foreign policy with some abrasive language and a poorly thought-out metaphor, but rather a direct attack on Americans — resulting in not just a "brain fart," but into a steaming pile of crap.
Churchill refers to the Sept. 11, 2001, criminals as courageous, and as for Americans who died in the attack, he states: "Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."
However, I will agree with you that most Americans are missing the point on this debate. Churchill will be fired and he probably should be, but the First Amendment cannot protect him here. The degradation of the University of Colorado-Boulder's reputation will be the cause of his firing whether that is the stated reason or not.
After swirling rumors of sex scandals and accusations of rape encircled CU's campus, the last thing the university needed were these outrageous statements from one of its radical professors. If CU does not fire Churchill, there won't be one parent in the nation who would feel comfortable sending his or her child to CU.
Sophomore, construction management