In August 2003, loony professor Ward Churchill spoke in Seattle before a crowd of moonbats and advised them on how to conduct acts of terrorism. Churchill's voice is unmistakable on these tapes, obtained and released by Denver radio station hosts Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman.

You must hear the the clips to believe them:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001588.htm

Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV

Hat tip: reader Anthony J.

Update:

Transcript for Part I:

Question from audience: You mentioned a little bit ago, ‘Why did it take a bunch of Arabs to do what you all should have done a long time ago,’ that’s my question.

And as a white man standing here in your midst from a fairly liberal/conservative/middle of the road background—and I tell people I’m so far left I’m coming up on the rigt—and I’d like you to respond to, why shouldn’t we do something and how could we move so they don’t see us coming?

Churchill: I’m gonna repeat that, tell me if I got that right: Why shouldn’t we do something and how do you you move so they don’t see you coming.

As to the first part, not a reason in the world that I could see. I can’t find a single reason that you shouldn’t in a principled way—there may be some practical considerations, such as do you know how (laughter from audience)—you know, often these things are processes. It’s not just an impulse. And certainly it’s not just an event. And the simple answer, although it probably should be more complicated, but I’m not being flip and giving the simple answer, is: You carry the weapon. That’s how they don’t see it coming.

You’re the one…They talk about ‘color blind or blind to your color.’ You said it yourself.

You don’t send the Black Liberation Army into Wall Street to conduct an action.
You don’t send the American Indian Movement into downtown Seattle to conduct an action. Who do you send? You. Your beard shaved, your hair cut close, and wearing a banker’s suit.

There’s probably a whole lot more to it, you know that. But there’s where you start.

Transcript for Part II:

If you are Arab, for example, you are automatically profiled as a potential terrorist. Period. And you can be asked to leave a plane because some Nordic-looking woman two rows down tells the stewardess she’s not comfortable with you being there—her presence makes her uncomfortable—why? Because it was Arabs who flew planes into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. See. And that fact—she’s on an airplane and there’s an Arab and somehow psychologically it makes her uncomfortable so it’s very understandable that she not be asked to leave since she’s made it clear that she’s not going to be a very big risk to the flight, but rather the individuals sitting there doing nothing have to leave.

And why by the way did it take Arabs to do what people here should have done a long time ago?

Transcript for Part III:

Question from audience:

I’m backing up a step to the Twin Towers falling down, um, there’s been implications about how…well, the first thing I thought about when it down was ‘Oh [expletive], that plays right into what they want to do to us.’ Maybe you can follow up on that. [applause]

Churchill: Your first thought was, well, yeah, you put it pretty well, I’ll accept you at your word, your first thought was ‘Oh [expletive], that plays right into what they want to do to us.’

Well, then, welcome to the club! Welcome to the club along with 565,000 Iraqi children who were systemically starved and denied medical attention to death in less than 10 years while Madeline Albright goes on television on 60 Minutes no less, receives the number, and says yes, ‘I’ve heard it, we’ve decided it’s worth the cost.’

Welcome to the club with the rest of the world. A little bit. I don’t care if it plays into the hands of what they had in mind for you unless you’re doing something tangible to make it stop, what’s already being done to those people on the receiving end.

Why should you be exempt and immune?
So instead of ‘Oh [expletive],’ right on. Right on.

And I’m trying to elicit some response. I want someone to take this up, because I know you all aren’t agreeing with me on this.

Transcript for Part IV:

Churchill on getting revenge for speeding tickets: …And I’m not really comfortable with, since I’m presenting no public hazard ever when I’m ticketed, can attest to that, we can take that further at some point tonight if you’d like to, if you’d like to challenge it, but I’m presenting no public hazard, I’m simply being asked to ante up to pay for my own repression.

Not being comfortable with that, I have a rule of thumb: I smile very politely to the cop, take the ticket, look to see how much the fine is going to be, and before I leave that state, I make sure I cause at least that much property damage in state material before I go, so it’s a wash, boys and girls (laughter and applause).

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001588.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.americans-working-together.com/id222.html

.

On June 6, 1971, John Kerry described the work of Vietnam Vets to the Washington Star as follows:

"We established an American presence in most cases by showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks. Those were our instructions, but they seemed so out of line that we finally began to go ashore, against our orders, and investigate the villages that were supposed to be our targets. We discovered we were butchering a lot of innocent people, and morale became so low among the officers on those 'swift boats' that we were called back to Saigon for special instructions from Gen. Abrams. He told us we were doing the right thing. He said our efforts would help win the war in the long run. That's when I realized I could never remain silent about the realities of the war in Vietnam."

What John Kerry told the Washington Star was a lie.

Contrary to Kerry's claim, our consistent policy was to take every precaution to avoid harming civilians. On many occasions we did this at the cost of suffering additional casualties ourselves. We have interviewed hundreds of veterans who served on the Swift Boats or supported them, and there is simply no justification for Kerry's statement. Several members of our organization addressed the issue of atrocities during our May 4 press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

John Kerry also completely misrepresented our meeting with General Abrams and Admiral Zumwalt. Far from being a pep talk for officers distressed by their butchery of civilians, the purpose of this conference with the two highest-ranking American officers in Vietnam was to announce a new Swift boat mission: to drive the Vietcong out of the Ca Mau Peninsula. The goal of Operation SeaLords was to dominate the rivers in this area, and to eventually establish a permanent presence in the Cua Lon River, an effort later named Operation SeaFloat. This was to be done publicly, with the full participation of the media, to negate the claim of North Vietnamese negotiator Lee Duc Tho that Henry Kissinger could not legitimately represent South Vietnam because the U.S. did not control these areas.

We succeeded in that mission. We returned to Anthoi and drove the Vietcong out of the region, and soon the North Vietnamese and Vietcong representatives in Paris returned to the negotiating tables.

----------

As its dominant tactic in their battle against the war, the antiwar movement successfully demonized Vietnam veterans by calling a series of "tribunals" or hearings into war crimes. But... they were packed with pretenders and liars -- historian Guenter Lewy, writing in "America in Vietnam"

John Kerry's lies about the activities of the Swift boats were part of a larger pattern of deception. As a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), Kerry testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971, telling the Senators and a national audience that American troops "...had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam..." and accused the U.S. military of committing war crimes "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

Kerry's charges were based on a VVAW conference called the "Winter Soldier Investigation" -- a leftist propaganda event funded primarily by Jane Fonda. None of the Winter Soldier "witnesses" Kerry cited were willing to sign affadavits, and their gruesome stories lacked the names, dates and places that would allow their claims to be tested. Few were willing to cooperate with military investigators. The Naval Investigative Service found that several of the veterans said to have given statements at Winter Soldier were in fact imposters using the name of real veterans.

False testimony and exaggerations were primary characteristics of the war crimes disinformation campaign, and also of the VVAW itself. Executive Secretary Al Hubbard, for example, claimed to have been an Air Force Captain wounded in Vietnam piloting a transport plane. In fact, Hubbard had been a staff sergeant who was not a pilot and who was never assigned to Vietnam.

John Kerry and the VVAW worked closely with America's wartime enemies, arranged multiple meetings with the North Vietnamese and Vietcong leadership, and consistently supported their positions. Kerry and his radical comrades also played a key role in defining the false, damaging image of Vietnam veterans as psychologically disabled alcoholics and addicts, haunted by the crimes they had been forced to commit in a "racist" war.

Detailed information about the anti-war activities of John Kerry and the VVAW can be found at WinterSoldier.com.

http://www.americans-working-together.com/id222.html