Hmmmm .. well, first O'Reilly and then all the little O'Reillyites ... who knew?
The problem with the McCarthyism section is that Ward Churchill in his original essay actually did seem to approve of the September 11 attacks as morally justified and tactically sound. From the essay:
- The most that can honestly be said of those involved on September 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course. That they waited so long to do so is, notwithstanding the 1993 action at the WTC, more than anything a testament to their patience and restraint.
- 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. 
The whole section is premised on O'Reilly misrepresenting Churchill's words, and it's not clear that he did. Given the many, many things O'Reilly has misrepresented, this seems like a poor choice for a case study. I'm inclined to cut the whole thing.Jim Naureckas 16:45, 21 Oct 2006 (EDT)