Response to Ward's response

The tone of Ward's second piece has been obviously affected by the reaction to his first piece; he is more methodical, and besides this he is speaking to people who do not agree with him. In fact, they heartily disagree with him. I find it funny (but not funny "ha-ha") that his life was threatened - maybe the person who posed that threat never read his article!

First, it must be kept in mind that Churchill is native American - and his job is to be outspoken on the behalf of his people, and on behalf of others who have been persecuted. I respect that. I think he's also very wary of American government, and that he has more than just a chip on his shoulder. He got carried away, that's for sure - but then again, didn't our president? I think it's safe to say "dubya" stuck his foot in his mouth for some of the things he proclaimed soon after the attacks - who didn't have an opinion?

Second, Churchill brings up a good point about our country's policies being hypocritical; our president could be charged as an international criminal by the ICC. A lot of other leaders could be met with the same charges, too, but then again not all leaders make moral claims as big as ours does.

In terms of his argument, Churchill could have done a better job at organizing himself, in both cases. Especially in the second, though, because he essentially composes a sheet of FAQ's. I know he has a lot of credibility scholastically, but if I didn't know that I'd probably not pay much attention to his response. If the response was a transcript, though, I think it would have been much more effective than his first attempt because he uses the terms of his audience and not exaggerated, pathos-charged verbiage. I also think that if I were in his audience for the initial article I'd be afraid of being verbally sliced for asking a question; in the response he is much more receptive. Maybe because someone is holding a gun to his head as he writes. At any rate, I agree with his last statement that "The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country." Maybe that's because no one thought his essay was academic.