University instructor likens Bush to Hitler

[voivod]

University of Wisconsin-Madison instructor Kevin Barrett

MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin (AP) -- A university instructor who came under scrutiny for arguing that the U.S. government orchestrated the September 11 attacks likens President Bush to Adolf Hitler in an essay his students are being required to buy for his course.

The essay by Kevin Barrett, "Interpreting the Unspeakable: The Myth of 9/11," is part of a $20 book of essays by 15 authors, according to an unedited copy first obtained by WKOW-TV in Madison and later by The Associated Press.

The book's title is "9/11 and American Empire: Muslims, Jews, and Christians Speak Out." It is on the syllabus for Barrett's course at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, "Islam: Religion and Culture," but only three of the essays are required reading, not including Barrett's essay.

Barrett, a part-time instructor who holds a doctorate in African languages and literature and folklore from UW-Madison, is active in a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth. The group's members say U.S. officials, not al-Qaida terrorists, were behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

"Like Bush and the neocons, Hitler and the Nazis inaugurated their new era by destroying an architectural monument and blaming its destruction on their designated enemies," he wrote.

Barrett said Tuesday he was comparing the attacks to the burning of the German parliament building, the Reichstag, in 1933, a key event in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship.

"That's not comparing them as people, that's comparing the Reichstag fire to the demolition of the World Trade Center, and that's an accurate comparison that I would stand by," he said.

He added: "Hitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush, so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler."

Moira Megargee, publicity director for the Northampton, Massachusetts, publisher Interlink, said the book is due out at the end of November and the editing isn't finished.

"It is not final and for all we know that essay may not be in the book or may be edited," she said.

The university's decision to allow Barrett to teach the course touched off a controversy over the summer once his views became widely known.

Sixty-one state legislators denounced the move. One county board cut its funding for the UW-Extension by $8,247 -- the amount Barrett will earn for teaching the course -- in a symbolic protest, even though the course is unrelated to that branch of the UW System.

Democratic Governor Jim Doyle and his Republican challenger, Mark Green, have both said they believe Barrett should be fired.

One essay Barrett is requiring students to read is entitled: "A Clash Between Justice and Greed," and argues that conflicts between Islam and the western world were made up after the "collapse of the Soviet Union to justify U.S. 'defense' spending, and to provide a pretext of controlling the world's resources."

The author of another essay, "Interpreting Terrorism: Muslim Problem or Covert Operations Nightmare?," contends some western intelligence agencies are commiting acts of terrorism to make them look like the work of radical Islamics.

The university's chief academic officer, Provost Patrick Farrell, decided to retain Barrett for the course after reviewing his plans and qualifications. He said Barrett could present his ideas during one week of the course as long as students were allowed to challenge them.

He later warned Barrett to stop seeking publicity for his personal political views.

Farrell said he has not seen the essay, but faculty can assign readings that may not be popular to everyone.

"I think part of the role of any challenging course here is going to encourage students to think of things from a variety of perspectives," he said.

[ZORBA5150]

What a sad individual. I'm sure he's Ford's hero.

[graeme]

Academics and the authorities have always been fighting it out: look at any country with "political" prisoners, most seem to be educators and thinkers.

So this guy has questioned the government and you just know that they'll find some dirt to discredit the guy and bang goes another career.

Whether he's right or wrong, in a democracy you should be able to question. As they said, this guy's thoughts may not even be in the book (they won't be I guess) and they were never to have been planned to be required reading. What's the big deal?

Sad state of affairs when it comes to this.

[edwardv]

Good to know that you save all your life to send your kid to college and they could be in a class with this asshole, what a waste of money. God bless the usa and free speech.

[WinterlessIceness]

God bless the USA for the free speech. As it was said in another thread, it's all about the perspective and a different angle. It's a good exercise for a brain.

[vistadelrey]

God bless the USA for the free speech. As it was said in another thread, it's all about the perspective and a different angle. It's a good exercise for a brain.

nice thougt but in my "liberal" neck of the woods this is a rampant running culture filled with hatred. it's commonplace because the hate filled lies are encouraged and accepted. I can't imagine that other communities deal with this as much. (save for san fransisco). the universities are breeding grounds for it as well.

[Red]

The question is, should the state (taxpayers) fund something like this?

If he were putting forth Christian thought, it wouldn't be allowed.

When does censorship and constitutional rights cross the line to state-financed hatespeak? Is there a line at all?

UNC-Chapel Hill went through this a couple of years ago with a freshman required-reading assignment of an Islamic text. I think it was a "go" then.

Interesting debate.

[WinterlessIceness]

nice thougt but in my "liberal" neck of the woods this is a rampant running culture filled with hatred. it's commonplace because the hate filled lies are encouraged and accepted. I can't imagine that other communities deal with this as much. (save for san fransisco). the universities are breeding grounds for it as well.

I don't know how much hatred is in his work, as graeme said there might have been little to void of his own thoughts there.
I personally don't believe it was a conspiracy, but people's ignorance sometimes goes beyond me. The only reason it's believed Al-Q/Bin L. standed behind 9/11 is because mass-media told so.

[loveevhsince79]

I don't know how much hatred is in his work, as graeme said there might have been little to void of his own thoughts there.
I personally don't believe it was a conspiracy, but people's ignorance sometimes goes beyond me. The only reason it's believed Al-Q/Bin L. standed behind 9/11 is because mass-media told so.

Huh? Osama came out and said they were responsible plus all the investigations into the person's show they were part of Al-Quaida. Where is that mass media saying it's so?

I'm all for exploring different avenues of thought including religious ones. A "rounded" education should include all theories for discussion. A professor's opinion however, should not be presented as fact and this IMO is borderline.

[WinterlessIceness]

Huh? Osama came out and said they were responsible plus all the investigations into the person's show they were part of Al-Quaida. Where is that mass media saying it's so?

And we know that from FoxNews/CNN/Al-Jazeera
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html

^ the article is dated Oct. 2004, years after invasion of Afganistan. What it was - was an aired video tape of Bin Laden saying blah blah in Arabic with "Hell yeah I ordered Sept. 11 attacks on the US" in English as a sub-text at the bottom. Again on FoxNews.
What I mean is, for many people it's enough for terrorists who flew into WTC to appear being Arabic to have an ultimate proof of Arabic organization to be the primary source of their action. People can't see that while it most probably was Al-Q., whatever else could have stanted behind Al-Q. in the first place. Is it really this hard to imagine?

Declaimer once again, I don't believe it was a conspiracy.

[loveevhsince79]

Actually it would have to be a huge conspiracy to think all of the news agencies and the different governments around the world thought that the video of Osama and the investigation findings were false. It's not the news agencies trying to brainwash the public as they would jump on chance to say we went after the wrong group or person.

You said "The only reason it's believed Al-Q/Bin L. standed behind 9/11 is because mass-media told so" and it's not the only reason. There have been millions of man hours involved to prove it was Al Quada.

[stratogibson]

I guess then we should burn his books. These writings do not reflect the majority opinion and the "truth." Burn them. OOOOOOPS, that would make us even more like the Nazi's. HHHHMMMM, what to do?

[te5150]

Just want to keep my scorecard accurate here.

Bush is behind what might be the greatest conspiracy in world history AND he's dumber than a bag of hammers?

OK. Got it.

[Axxman300]

God bless the USA for the free speech. As it was said in another thread, it's all about the perspective and a different angle. It's a good exercise for a brain.

I have a better exercise for his brain, it involves a .762 round fired at close range.

[LegallyInsane]

While guys like this teaching does bother me, I am even more troubled that "political debate" has atrophied to the point of name calling and tired cliche's. I also find it ironic that the party which preaches tolerance fails to practice what it preaches.

Did anyone see South Park last night about the 9/11 Conspiracy? Matt Stone and Trey Parker demonstrated once again that they might be the most brilliant political satirists of our time. (The 9/11 Conspiracies are actually a product of the government wanting people to think there was a conspiracy so that they will believe the government is all-powerful...)

What this professor seems to forget: It is far better to the let the world think you are a fool than to open your mouth and prove it...