Friends And Allies Of Rome: Professor Paul Campos Tries To Explain His Actions (Live-Blogged)

Professor Paul Campos, of the University of Colorado, wrote a piece today for the Rocky Mountain News where he "slagged" both Hugh Hewitt and Glenn Reynolds. The piece (which I won't cite because this post isn't about that) accuses both Hugh and Glenn of being cheerleaders for the Bush administration.

Um, both Marcie and I support the administration. We give respect where it is due, and to the commander in chief of the nation, a great deal is due. And we defend the administration. However, there is a difference between having a gripe with a person, and a policy. There are a few policy decisions the administration has made that we dislike. So, to Professor Campos, does that make my fiancee and I cheerleaders for the administration as well? His logic is anything but sound in making his assessment in his piece. He is, in all respects, an unhinged academic nutter who, like Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky, and a host of other academics on the Left, believes that they're right and we're just lemmings following our party off the cliff. I disagree. However, in a display of bravery, Professor Campos has agreed to an interview with Hugh today.

This post is not just about the interview, but my reactions. Things dealing with the interview will be done in red; my reactions will be done in blue.

The interview begins. Hugh cordially introduces Professor Paul Campos. He is the head guy of UC, Boulder's Con Law program. He has written a number of columns for the Rocky Mountain News (which Hugh will go into throughout the course of the interview), and Professor Campos thanks him for the intro and the chance to speak on his own behalf.

Hugh starts off by asking if Ward Churchill should be fired. Campos agrees that he should, citing the academic fraud that he's used to prop himself up. Campos confirms that he has plagerised works of others, and believes that this--along with his other actions--make it necessary to remove Churchill. Campos assures Hugh the report on him wasn't "white-washed;" it went straight to the heart of his tenure, and how he got where he is. When Hugh challenges him on other academic nutters, Campos admits it, but states that Churchill is an extreme case. Hugh asks him about other professors elsewhere, even in UC, Boulder. Campos claims he's never seen anyone like Churchill anywhere else.

Campos is challenged about his statements of Haditha, and his comparison to My Lai. Campos states that in wars like this (guerilla tactics, etc.,) this sort of thing happens. He admits that those enemies will use civilians in attacks against us, and that is why things like Haditha and My Lai will occur. Hugh states that in his column, he lashes out at the military, and he's willing to condemn them, but grant passes on academics with unhinged problems. Campos tries his best to handle the comparison, but fails. Hugh asks him whether or not he believes that the military "knowingly killed civilians." Campos agrees that they have, and possibly based on intelligence mistakes, but that yes, the military has done that. Hugh asks him about his association with the military, and Campos admits he has one friend in the military, but refuses to give a name; they're on active duty. Hugh asks him if he thinks that he slandered the troops. Campos disagrees. He claims that civilians are killed by the military; including the American military. Hugh asks him if the American military had committed a lot of war crimes. Campos states that in Vietnam we did, but can't answer--definitively--whether or not we have done that in Iraq.

At the end of the first break, it's evident that Campos is backpeddling, and spinning. His ideas don't match his column today, and as it will come out in the course of the interview (I'm sure), neither do his archives. Intellectual dishonesty comes to mind while I'm listening to this. He thinks the US knowingly engages in war crimes, and has no problem stating that we might find that our war crimes in Iraq are even greater long after the war is over. I can't understand how people think that. As the last superpower on earth, and one that tries to play by the rules as much as we can, people still think that our military is willingly capable of committing atrocities in war. While I'll admit that sometimes bad things happen in war, I disagree with Professor Campos. We have a professional military that goes by the book. 99.9% of those serving abide by the rules of warfare, and do their best to avoid the deaths of civilians. But if Haditha was a kill-or-be-killed incident, I don't fault the troops for firing on the enemy that might have been using civilian shields.

Back from break, and we're right back into it. Hugh starts us up by asking Campos if the military is covering up Haditha. Campos believes that our investigations into crimes in Iraq are being investigated, but based on history (My Lai, Tiger Force) he doesn't hold his breath. Campos cites Iraqi complaints to the coalition seemingly go untouched. He states that Haditha really wasn't investigated until the media jumped on the issue. Hugh says he doesn't believe that's correct, but moves on. Hugh brings up the fact that he did bring him up in the column. He asks him if he's read his columns/.blogs, listened to the show, or ever met. Yes to the former two, no to the latter. Hugh challenges him on his overstatement. Campos claims it's sarcasm, but states that hugh is a staunch defender of the administration. Hugh defends himself as still being objective, and cites the DHS budget, the Dubai deal as evidence of his objections to the administration. Hugh asks him about his slap regarding the accusation that he's accusing the liberal bias driving the story. Campos believes that he did blame the media bias, and Hugh reads exactly what he wrote to refute him. Campos is given a chance to respond after the break.

OK, while I recognize that the three instances he stated in his column are atrocities. Despite his ideas that there was no justice served, the troops responsible were punished. Troops were punished in Abu Ghraib. But Haditha isn't even out of the investigative phase of the JAG offices yet, and the media is already crucifying them. John Murtha is slandering them. And people like Paul Campos are basically painting with a broad brush with his allegations that we'll find more atrocities in Iraq after the war. I doubt it. I seriously think that these sorts of incidents are few and far between. Further, I think that the media tends to blow them out of prportion. They did it over the Marine who shot the terrorist playing dead in the Fallujah mosque. They did it over Lt. Ilario Pantano. They gnashed their teeth over Abu Ghraib, and they're doing it again over Haditha. They always do this. It's what draws viewers and sells papers.

Back from break, and Campos is getting his chance to answer Hugh's challenge about misquoting him in Campos's piece today. He says that Hugh implied it. Hugh disagrees, and states that the bias is aware. But he also states that there is a media frenzy over Haditha, and not a bias. When Hugh challenges him about Glenn, Campos states that he picked him because he quoted Hugh. Campos maintains that Hugh implied it. Hugh states that his overstatement and misrepresentation is Churchill-like. Campos states it was sarcasm. Hugh replies that the Left can do that, but the center-right isn't allowed.

We move onto the column archives. Campos claims the first one that Hugh brings up (about a bumper sticker) is an assessment of the sticker itself, and the idea behind it. The article is scathing to the owners of the vehicle. Hugh states that his reaction to a yellow ribbon bumper sticker is insane; to go to the lengths of his conclusios that he reached regarding his own view of the war. Hugh is befuddled; he can't understand where Campos's "moral failure" argument about people who support the war, yet they drive an SUV. (Adjust your tin-foil hats.) Hugh asks him if the troops are in Iraq because of oil. Campos says yes; if the countries have oil or al-Qaeda we'll invade. Hugh asks him about war crimes in Afghanistan, and Campos states that he believes in a guerilla war, it's inevitable.

All right, the obvious misquote and misrepresentation of Hugh's opinion regarding Haditha is typoical of the Left. Campos made the accusation, and can't back it up, stating the meaning was "implied." Implied? Here's the link to the post cited. You tell me what Hugh was inferring. I see no such implication of the liberal bias in the media, but rather an indictment that the media is jumping the gun again. And he's right. The media, just as much as John Murtha has enrolled in the John McCain Media Whore College, has decided to hype the Hell out of this. And it's sad.

Back from break, again. Hugh brings up Campos's column about the comparison of a gulag to Gitmo. Hugh starts asking tough questions, such as was anyone killed in either one. Campos agrees that the gulags had many murdered while Gitmo hasn't had one. Campos brings up the fact that Gitmo, basically, sits outside the legal framework (figure that one out). Hugh cites his piece--word for word--and states that his comment in the piece about the "only difference" between the two is the gravity of the crime is refuted.

This exchange (before moving onto the end of the hour break) shows that Professor Paul Cmapos has a problem with history. In comparing the gulags of Soviet Russia, Castro's Cuba, Kim's North Korean hell-holes to Gitmo is the ultimate act of intellectual dishonesty. We're basically coddling the detainees down there, to the point where a number of them attempted to ambush a couple soldiers just weeks ago. These people down there are intent on killing us. The gulags had innocent people--for the most part--sent there as "social agitators," to use a North Korean term courtesy of Barbara Demick. Gitmo is housing enemies of the United States, and keeping them from harming us further. Professor Campos needs to get a clue.

Top of the Housr, and we're back into it, and Campos has been called out on his attack of "armchair generals," and "pajama-clad bloggers." He attacks the mil-bloggers, who do a superb job of analyzing the military's actions in the war. Campos blows them off; not enough mil-bloggers have served. We go to the service argument, which is a staple of the Left's arguments towards us "chickenhawks." (Thank God the 101st is on the job.) Hugh brings up his attacks on Bush. Campos states that his opinions about Bush are founded based on the president's experiences. Hugh cites the president's experience, in terms of schooling and real-life issues. Hugh points out that Bush is compared to Howard Dean by Campos; that they avoided combat during Vietnam. Campos doesn't believe that flying a fighter jet in Texas is avoiding combat. This despite the fact that they could have been deployed. Campos disagrees.

To attack the bloggers is a typical tactic of the Left. "They're losing to bloggers," Marcie would say. She's right, they are. But to blow off the mil-bloggers out there because a few may not have served is foolish. Regardless of their service (or non-service, as Campos asserts), it's morally reprehensible to ignore people speaking about military matter simply because they haven't served. Many mil-bloggers have, and continue to do so. Many have had family in the military, and speak of their experiences in that fashion. And for him to state we have no right to speak about the military if we haven't served is just plain stupid. I've never served, but I know enough about the military (Marcie would say too much , at times) to be able to speak intelligently on the subject. And for him to assert that the president "dodged the draft" by enlisting in the TANG is pure folly. The president's squadron could have been called up, and was after he left the service. (Insert wacky conspiracy theories here about how he was never deployed.) Compared to others that dodged the draft, the president's record is impeccable.

Hugh brings up a primary argument made by Campos (and many on the Left) regarding the fact that the troops were sent to Iraq by Ivy-League draft dodgers. He brings up the Downing Street Memo, the intelligence regarding WMDs, and the fact that we have had problems in Iraq. Hugh quickly nullifies the arguments by citing that Britain still stands behind their intelligence, only our agencies are admitting fault, and that war is never predictable.

This segment shows, more than anything, just how deranged the Left is. The UN is on record in the World Tribune stating that they knew WMDs were being moved out of Iraq. General Georges Sada and Ibrahim al-Tikriti confirm that they oversaw the removal of WMDs from Iraq in the run-up to the war. We have found little in terms of actual WMDs, and certainly not in the large caches that were expected. Our largest find to date is 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium that the BBC on 7 July, 2004. While we may not have found all of the WMDs, we have freed this nation, and have their greatest WMD in custody, and on trial in Iraq right now. Professor Campos chooses to latch onto talking points rather than take a thoughtful look at all the details on the table of the debate over the invasion of Iraq.

When they come back, Campos is still on the Dowqning Street Memo where he is accusing the Brits and the US of spinning intelligence. Hugh confronts him on his wording, which gives the idea that the administration knowing and willingly lied to the public. Campos argues that he embellished the intelligence. Hugh states that not how it works, and brings up the Silberman/Robb report that backs up the president. Hugh starts running through his opinion archives, and starts questioning him about some of his ideas. He asks him if America is morally superior to Iran. Campos disagrees, and states that our government may be, but the people themselves aren't. Again, he asks him if we are morally superior. Campos dodges the question, so Hugh narrows it; are we better than Sudan. Campos keeps trying to spin. He refuses to answer the question straight. He keeps stating that nation-states and nation-states really can't be compared like that. Campos states that such rhetoric emanating from the US is dangerous right now; that it's "messianic." Hugh asks him if the US is a good agent or a bad agent in history. Campos agrees that the US--for the most part--has done good, but he has deemed that it's not our job to "save the world." Hugh manuevers him into questioning World War II; were we right and good to join with the Allies in stopping Hitler. He admits that we did good, again, but he wavers on whether or not we really have a moral relevance to keep doing that. Campos states that he believes the GWOT isn't as important or comparable to wars of the past.

Hugh moves onto the Ahmadinejad letter to Bush. Campos admits that Ahmadinejad is clearly unhinged. Hugh asks him whether or not we should stand opposed to Iran becoming a nuclear power. He spins, again, stating that no one can make a blanket statement regarding whether or not Iran should be confronted; it carries dangers. Campos clearly doesn't want to go through the motions of answering tough questions regarding our moves in the world today.

I'm struck by the moral ambiguity that Professor Campos is exhibiting in this segment. Each time Hugh received an affirmation that the US was good, it was like he had to drag it out of Professor Campos. He hemmed and hawed over the questions of World War II, and finally admitted that Hitler dominating Europe and Russia would have been atrocious. (Well, at least he's not Ahmadinejad, and recognizes the evil of Adolf Hitler; it's a start.) Another thing that hit me was the fact he clearly understands how out-of-control nuts Ahmadinejad is, but hedges when it comes to confronting him. And when the question comes up regarding whether we should stand up to him over nukes, again Campos hedges. It's clear he's not one to make decisions.

Back again, last segment, and Hugh moves to law. Campos is the lead professor of UC's Con Law studies. Hugh asks him if he believes that property wrought from "conquest" is illegitimate. Campos states that while we have to have the rule of law, but then points to the taking by force as the first rule of property ownership. Hugh then moves onto the war, where Campos made an outrageous take on the soldiers; he takes a couple dirty swipes at mil-bloggers. Campos tries to defend this. He states that while there are Islamofascists, they aren't necessarily wanting to "destroy" the US. Campos finds the idea ridiculous. Hugh brings up the Canadian cell busted over the weekend, and asking about their [the terrorists] targets. Campos agrees that some were willing to move in favor of a cause, that cause wasn't exactly to eradicate Canada, or turn it into a Muslim theocracy. Time runs out. Hugh states that he thinks Professor Campos--in his current column and his previsous columns--has had a series of misstatements and innuendo that isn't backed up. Campos still believes that Hugh is nothing more than a Bush apologist.

First things first--while Hugh is a Republican, and emphasizes grass-roots activism of his listeners to be engaged in the election process for the GOP, he is hardly an apologist. As someone who never misses Hugh's show, and Marcie agrees with this, I can say that he has held the president accountable on a number of occasions over a number of issues. An apologist, in my understanding, is someone who will do anything to excuse the actions of someone they support. In fact, Professor Campos makes such a low blow evident in his piece today:

But in the end it's not very interesting to point out that Bush administration dead-enders are willing to defend anything it does. (Hewitt in particular seems past praying for: If President Bush came out in favor of compulsory late-term abortions for the wives of NASCAR drivers, I wouldn't be surprised if Hewitt found something to praise in the proposal).

Campos clearly has either not listened to Hugh's show often, or reads his columns once in a while. Hugh is no apologist, or a "dead ender." Neither is Mr. Reynolds. I won't demand an apology because it's not worth the waste of breath. He thinks what he thinks, and nothing will change that. (If 11 September didn't change his mind, then neither will spending 40 minutes talking to Hugh.) That's the thing I couldn't wrap my head around, as well.

He believes Islamofascists exist, but they aren't that much of a threat. Obviously Professor Campos has missed the decapitations in Iraq, or maybe he was out of town on 11 September. He doesn't see the threat of Islamic terror as legitimate. Not legitimate? These people--these blood-thirsty followers of Muhammed--believe in three simple things:

--You will convert, or

--You will surrender and be subjugated, or

--You will be destroyed.

What part of that mental framework does Professor Campos not get? As a matter of fact, where does he get off thinking that we don't have any business "saving the world," thereby ensuring our security? And with his idea that the war, in his eyes, is illegitmate, I have a question for him. Where do you draw the line? Where does Professor Campos believe we have the right to defend ourselves. Was 11 September not enough? The deliberate attack, and targeting of innocent civilians wasn't enough for the professor to say "OK, that's it; we're done with this. It's time to kick a little @$$." I didn't hear the answer to that question. I heard only dilly-dallying about whether or not we were right to go after our enemies.

He can state that Saddam had no ties to al-Qaeda. The Saddam documents, and investigative journalism, proves him wrong. We were right to go after al-Qaeda in a sanctuary as Saddam's Iraq was. Al-Qaeda is spread to the furthest ends of the earth right now. Are we to sit idly by and await attack number thirty or forty? We had a decade of attacks from al-Qaeda under President Clinton, and none of them compared to 11 September. The last time a sneak attack was launched on this nation was in 1941, and we responded in like kind by declaring war on them.

If Professor Campos can't comprehend why we're at war, and has a serious problem with admitting that we are a right and just nation (one morally superior to many, many nations in the world). I find that sad. I don't dislike this man. I don't hate him. I pity him.

As a Con Law professor, I question this man's mindset. It's clearly not in line with any sort of originalist thinking, or even thinking I could qualify as within the constraints of the Constitution.

Publius II

Special Note: Marcie and I received our Hugh Hewitt "Painting the Map Red" T-shirts yesterday. We wore them today, and some of the looks we received were interesting. Many that we know pooh-pooh the idea--clearly upset with the GOP. Democrats challenged us. We know the key to 2006:

The fifteen word platform--Win the War, Confirm the Judges, Cut the Taxes, Control the Spending, Secure the Border--will be the game breaker this year if the GOP buys it and emphasizes it. And, the answer to the problems in America is not the removal of Republicans, and replacing them by Democrats; this will happen if the Tapscottians get their way.

Get your shirts. Stand on the platform. Make 2006 another year of defeat for the Democrats.