A Slate headline captured the essence of this situation: the article was titled "Ward Churchill: Victim, Moron." You can read one analysis here. I don't understand why Churchill was chosen for such attacks--if you open up the most current issue of Harper's magazine, you can read scathing criticism of Bush in poems by North Koreans; or just look at any Ted Rall cartoon. Perhaps it's because he's a hack and his credentials are so weak; perhaps not. I wish someone would have written an academic rebuttal to his work from a liberal perspective. Maybe I will do so at some point.