Noam Chomsky is Yesterday

You knew that Noam Chomsky is an intellectual moron, right? I don’t need to tell people with an IQ bigger than their hat size that this lying hypocrite is full of it, right? I mean just look at the lead into his article on the killing of Osama bin Laden:

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.

George W. Bush was a duly elected head of state; Osama bin Laden wasn’t. George W. Bush fought wars in compliance (mostly) with codes of civilized conduct. Innocent people were not directly targeted. Any war carries the risk of killing innocents, but Bush did not deliberately target them. Osama bin Laden happily deliberately blew up women and children, deliberately targeted innocent people, deliberately blew up buildings in places like Kenya and Afghanistan because they weren’t Muslim enough. The comparison of Bush to bin Laden is so stupid, you’d have to be from MIT to think of it. Only higher education can produce sentences so devoid of logic, reason, or common sense.

This was more like if Iraqi commandos came over here, shot Gary Ridgway and dumped his body at sea.

It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial.

In theory — sure. In practice, our soldiers were going into a situation with numerous unknowns. For all they knew, Osama had rigged the entire compound with suicide explosives. In that situation, any move has to be considered hostile.

But … it gets even better. Chomsky goes on to say that it’s never been “proven” that OBL committed the 9/11 acts. O course, only three sentences earlier he was certain that the OBL killing was a targeted assassination. So Osama bin Laden, who has boasted about the attacks, claimed credit for them and whose minions have admitted to their involvement, deserves more of a benefit of a doubt than President Obama.

Oh. Kaaaay.

There is also much media discussion of Washington’s anger that Pakistan didn’t turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said about Pakistani anger that the U.S. invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-American fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to exacerbate it. The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

We should do what we can to minimize Muslim anger. But when a country is harboring someone who is coordinating attacks on you and refuses to do anything about it, you don’t just stand around and let your people get killed. Or would Chomsky rather we go with the route he so often cheered the Soviet Union for using — fomenting a revolution?

Now we get to the comparison to Bush.

Uncontroversially, [Bush’s] crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

Noam, meet Mike Godwin. Mike Godwin, Noam.

See, Noam, what we did in Iraq is called a “war”. War is something that is openly declared and carried out by soldiers who identify themselves and put themselves at risk. Moreover, if we’re going to talk about Iraq, why don’t we talk about people who deliberately targeted civilians, who deliberately planted bombs in crowded markets, executed innocents and set off IED’s everywhere. That would be … Al-Queda in Iraq — Osama bin Laden’s overseas subsidiary.

Now Nuremberg did try the Nazis for waging war. But there is a difference between a war of conquest involving the systematic murder of millions of people and an organized genocide and … a war fought to prevent bloodshed in which the intention is to install a new government chosen by the people to represent them. And Noam’s failure to distinguish between the two is especially galling since he, in effect, acquiesced to North Vietnam’s conquest of South Vietnam in an effort to liberate them from their imperialist oppressors.

What follows is a detour about Orlando Bosch, an anti-Castro terrorist pardoned by Bush the Elder. Chomsky claims this means we were “harboring terrorists” and that, under the Bush doctrine, Bush should have been killed. I’m not sure how he gets there. Bosch shouldn’t have been pardoned, but he was not an active terrorist, was acquitted by several South American countries that had him and tried him. And the comparison is simply bizarre. We didn’t go into Pakistan and kill the President of Pakistan; we killed bin Laden. The comparison is if Castro had sent commandos to kill Bosch. Of course, Chomsky’s beloved communists did do that — constantly. And to people who were not terrorists, such as Leon Trotsky and Georgi Markov. The only reason Castro didn’t kill Bosch is because he couldn’t.

He closes with lamenting the use of “Operation Geronimo” as the code name. Frankly, this bit of political correctness mystifies me. If the capture/kill of Osama bin Laden has been called “Operation Moses”, I can tell you that I, as a Jew, would have been delighted. But Chomsky waxes rhapsodic about Imperialism or something.

This article really distills everything wrong with Noam Chomsky. It sounds very smart and erudite. It makes glib comparisons that make soft-headed liberals say, “Right on, Noam”! But the minute you examine it, if completely falls to pieces. It’s a series of self-contradictions, statements without fact and comparison of apples to bulldozers. And that’s without considering the writer’s past malarky on the Cold War.

People think Barack Obama hates America. This is ridiculous when you put him side by side with Chomsky, someone who does hate America, who has spent his entire political career slagging everything we do and excusing anything anyone else does. (Example: He claimed that the Killing Fields of Cambodia were a Right Wing myth — an inconvenient truth that his disciples keep scrubbed from his Wikipedia page.)

But, in a way, it’s almost refreshing to read this. Chomsky has become irrelevant. History has simply passed him by. His increasingly desperate attempts to blame America for all the evils of the world are a sign of a man losing whatever minimal influence he had and whatever deluded audience follows him. Socialism is dead. Communism is dead. The only thing left to people like Chomsky is a sort of deluded anti-nationalism.

He’s a joke. And a bad one.

Comments are closed.

  1. Rann

    Amusing, isn’t it, that for Chomsky it’s STILL all about Bush. Did he perhaps miss our last election? Does he realize that we have a liberal black dude in office, and said liberal black dude was the one who gave the order to take down bin Laden?

    Also, nice “subtle” word choice to make Bush seem more ominous and cult-leader like with calling his home a “compound”, Chomsky. Guess that specialty in language is actually still good for something (even if you were crap at it, thus why you started trying to throw your credentials around politically instead).

    That word choice would have trouble passing the NPOV review on fucking Wikipedia, and a good handful of their admins are open members of the Communist Party of America.

    Overall he seems to not only still be suffering from BDS, but using it as a kind of shield from having to criticize Obama directly. Ever heard the phrase, often applied to audience reaction on daytime talk shows, “When he cheats, it’s his fault, when she cheats, it’s his fault”? With some sects of liberals it seems to be “When Bush does something I don’t like, it’s Bush’s fault, when Obama does something I don’t like, it’s Bush’s fault”.

    But, y’know, despite clearly being angered by bin Laden’s death, despite calling for Bush’s death, despite displaying every indication that he wishes Osama bin Laden were alive and free and that George W. Bush were assassinated and dead, don’t you dare call him un-American or a terrorist sympathizer, you redneck hick conservative!

    Thumb up 2

  2. Miguelito

    I’m sure if we had gotten someone near OBL with a modified umbrella that injected him with a ricin pellet so he’d die a slow and agonizing death, Chomsky would’ve been totally ok with that. I mean, his heroes did that to a couple of their enemies.

    Thumb up 1

  3. AlexInCT

    Amusing, isn’t it, that for Chomsky it’s STILL all about Bush. Did he perhaps miss our last election?

    It’s precisely because of the last election that the left’s insane people remain so fixated on Boosh! Obama won by pretending not to be Bush, with a hearty load of help from the MSM that covered for him. Then he promptly went and made most sane people miss Boosh, by doing all the things that made the left insane about Bush, while also going out of his way to destroy our economy. Going to Bush is a reflex for these tools. They hope it still scores cheap points while deflecting attention to the abysmal job that the left is doing just after they won big by pretending to be the anti-Bush.

    Personally I think Bush was a so-so president. He was right on the WOT and the tax cuts, but he let the pretend conservatives – because he was one of them – run rampant and precipitated the destruction of our country. I know the left was dead set in making him the worst president ever, especially when he won again, in the 2004 election, and made them look like even bigger chumps, despite the scorched earth policies they used to try and prevent that after the prevented Gore from stealing the 2000 election. Now that the left got us Obama however, a guy that won without any qualifications other than “I am not Boosh! And “Hope & Change””, and he is wrecking the country and making all but the most insane aware that what the left believes in is disastrous, they are going to actually make Bush look like a far better president than he was.

    In their effort to make out Boosh! as the worst president, to defend the first president to make Carter look like a genius, and have no doubt that’s what this fixation still is about, they are all but guaranteed to make people see that they have nothing to offer, as Chomsky, yet again, for the umpteenth time, does.

    Thumb up 0

  4. hist_ed

    All you need to know about Chomsky is that he defended the Khmer Rouge while they were on their killing spree and still has never repudiated that sentiment.

    All you need to know about his supporters and the academy and press that still treat him as a sage is that they know about this and still don’t treat him like a pariah.

    But then these same people all worship Che Guevera-mass murdering thug-so what can you expect?

    Thumb up 1

  5. InsipiD

    Obviously, Chomsky isn’t writing with a mind of passing the NPOV, but he ignores a couple of other things (I was going to write a longer bit, but Rann covered most of it):

    Bush is a former leader. Up until about this time last week, Osama bin Laden was the current leader. He’s suggesting that bin Laden was killed for what he had done and not for what he was continuing to do. That’s a big difference, especially as related to war. Every day that bin Laden lived, things that he was doing were meant to make our lives more dangerous. Going to Bush’s “compound” and killing him literally would do nothing for or against anyone in Al Qaeda.

    Any time that Obama’s folks like Chomsky and Michael Moore are mad about something he’s done, I can’t help but feel happy about it. You know it probably means that, for once, Obama did the right thing.

    Thumb up 0

  6. Hal_10000 *

    Exactly, his_ed. You know, I could even forgive someone for doubting the Killing Fields at *first . It *does* sound crazy (because, well, it was). But once your nose has been rubbed in it, how do you not say, “Holy fuck, was I wrong!”

    Just a few weeks ago, I watched the S21 documentary. It just stuns me that anyone could ignore that crime.

    Thumb up 1

  7. HARLEY

    We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.

    Wasn’t it Obama that had Osama killed?…… did he miss that part too?
    dear gods, this man is thick.

    Thumb up 0

  8. HARLEY

    I seen parts of that, its fucking horrifying is what it is, and there are those on the left, that would not have a problem with such a “experiment” here.

    Thumb up 1

  9. hist_ed

    My family was involved in refugee resettlement in the early 1980s. Vietnamese, Thais and Cambodians all fleeing the people Chomsky was cheering on. As a kid I didn’t hear all the details, but what I did find out sure made an impression (one Cambodian guy had his entire extended family murdered-very clannish family they had all lived in one larger village and some outlying areas. He wasn’t sure, but he said he might have one or two 3rd cousins still alive. Everyone else was dead. If I remember correctly it was over 100 people spread out over 4 generations).

    Crazy thing is my brother loves Chomsky. He got a Ph D in international relations and drinks deep of the lefty cool aid. We’ve had long arguments about communism (he’s a “we just haven’t done it right” type). Once we were eating in a restaurant that was started by one of our Vietnamese refugee families. My bro didn’t quite get the irony of that situation. He also didn’t really want to hear from our Vietnamese friend, a man with some direct experience with communism, on the subject.

    Thumb up 1

  10. HARLEY

    He also didn’t really want to hear from our Vietnamese friend, a man with some direct experience with communism, on the subject.

    that usually is the typical reaction isnt it. NA NA NA NA I cant hear you, if someone, with the experience, does try to explain it.

    Thumb up 1

  11. Hal_10000 *

    Actually, it doesn’t surprise me that it looks like a hippy crash pad. These guerilla types always think o themselves as revolutionaries and enjoy the sort of bohemia chic of seeming to live on the edge (while actually being very wealthy).

    Thumb up 0

  12. Section8

    Noam’s drivel might not work here, but will be popular in places like Europe. Here’s how the discussion works.

    1) Wait for the US to take action
    2) Find a way to spin it

    I can guarantee you whatever action was taken would be met with the same end result the the US fucked up.

    1) We bomb. Result: We should have captured him, why bomb and risk surrounding areas? Were they trying to silence him? Who else got killed, how sloppy. The US was too chickenshit to meet him face to face.

    2) Gets captured and we don’t parade him around on a daily basis. Result: Well, he’s being tortured in secret obviously.

    3) We put him on public trial. Result: Kangaroo court parading him around how disgusting.

    4) Military court: He doesn’t have any rights, how disgusting.

    5) International court: The US is lurking in the background as always pulling the strings, what a travesty of justice, on and how disgusting.

    Basically it’s a fucking joke, and if it was just Chomsky hashing this shit out, it would be funny, but I read over and over again from our so called Allies the same kind of fucking nonsense.

    We should do what we can to minimize Muslim anger.

    Not sure why they would be angry. If bin Laden is a warped version of Islam, and is not a representative for the so-called mainstream, and he doesn’t represent Islam, then no one should really give a shit. If we’ve outraged the Muslim world with his demise, then we better start looking at realities about the Religion of Peace. Was he an outcast or not?

    Thumb up 1

  13. Hal_10000 *

    Bingo. As the President said, bin Laden has killed thousands of *muslims*. He’s just as eager to kill them as he is to kill Americans.

    Thumb up 1

  14. Kimpost

    All you need to know about Chomsky is that he defended the Khmer Rouge while they were on their killing spree and still has never repudiated that sentiment.

    I realise that Chomsky is a polarizing figure, but I can’t recall him ever defending the Khmer Rouge. I suggest you attack his actual positions, not fictional ones.

    Thumb up 0

  15. Kimpost

    Neither of the sites you just provided support the notion of “Noam Chomsky defending the Khmer Rouge”. He was wrong in death toll estimates, and he might be wrong in his overall analysis of the Cambodia conflict, since that by large is a matter of opinion, but supported the Khmer Rouge he has not.

    Thumb up 0

  16. West Virginia Rebel

    Kind of like how Michael Moore lives in a penthouse in Manhattan on a steady diet of cheeseburgers and Twinkies while telling other people he’s an “old-school American” with his working-class stiff routine…

    Thumb up 1

  17. HARLEY

    Waht I do not understand is WHY is there not a popular uprisng asginst these twats?
    They wantonly kill other Muslims in suicide attacks on civilian targets,where is the outrage, where is the blood lust for those that attack their own civilians?
    One errant bomb from a US aircraft, and there are thousands in the street protesting, one cartoon depicting Muhammad , and there are hundreds, of thousand man protests ……………..
    Some one has their fucking priorities fucked up.

    Thumb up 0

  18. AlexInCT

    What? So the fact that he tried to pretend Pol Pot wasn’t an evil scourge, because he killed fewer people than others who knew better pointed out, makes you believe Chomsky wasn’t defening him and the filthy ideology that’s murdered a couple of hundred million and imprissoned billions of people while pretending to be for the people? Pfeh!

    Chomsky is just one of the many appologists for the most horrible scoreg inflicted on mankind. Only people that actually feel that the killing a few scores of million, to make everyone equally misserable, is a good thing, still take him seriously.

    Thumb up 0

  19. Kimpost

    I’m sorry but what you are saying just isn’t accurate. Chomsky, regardless of how generally wrong you might think he is, has never said (or even implied) that Pol Pot “wasn’t an evil scourge”.

    Attack his actual positions. Preferably without unnecessary hyperbole, and more importantly, without silly fabrications.

    Thumb up 0

  20. AlexInCT

    The proof out there is incontreversable that Chomsky was an appologist for Pol Pot,I lived through him doing that vile stuff. He, like so many of these scumbag leftists that believe the drivel he does, have been enamored with a vile and evil ideoloy, and been making exuses for it, constantly, and shamelessly.

    And that you actually consider me pointing out how disgusting and evil these vile collectivist cults are as “hyperbole”, proves you aren’t intersted in facts or truth.

    Thumb up 0

  21. CM

    If the proof is “incontreversable” then it should be very easy to provide. Where exactly are the “facts and truth” Alex?

    Thumb up 0

  22. Kimpost

    What’s up with the anger, Alex? Labelling someone an apologist is subject to opinion, so you doing that is just fine.

    But it’s another thing to suggest that someone actually is “defending the Khmer Rouge”, or to say that someone has suggested that “Pol Pot wasn’t evil”, without actually backing that up.

    Here’s one example of what Chomsky himself has said about Pol Pot.

    I took the position that Pol Pot was a brutal monster, from the beginning was carrying out hideous atrocities

    http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20051218.htm

    Thumb up 0

  23. balthazar

    So the fact that NC blames the US(western countries) for the killings of people because of KR forcing people to pull plows and/or killing them either by force labor or outright killing them if they were not performing as instructed, isnt justifying and defending Pol Pot? What fucking world do you live in? Please keep it to yourself cuz i sure as hell dont want to be killed there.

    Thumb up 0

  24. balthazar

    They keep people in fear of each other, they havent gotten to the point that eastern Europe did as of yet, when they do, it wont be pretty. Maybe some of the populace has, as evidenced by the current protests, but not enough has.

    Thumb up 0

  25. Kimpost

    To put it short. Chomsky is saying that shit happens in the world of Real Politics. He feels that US, Europe, as well as USSR have plenty of blood on their hands for playing that game.

    Thumb up 0

  26. Rann

    So, in short, it’s basically another way to say that bad things aren’t the fault of the people that do them, but rather the fault of whoever you don’t like the most?

    I mean, seriously, that’s pretty much the only interpretation to take out of that. “Many nations are playing a game. One nation does something bad. That is the fault of these other, different nations because they chose to participate in the game.”

    Thumb up 0

  27. Kimpost

    @Rann

    Nothing is as binary as that. World powers playing kvasi-imperialistic games does not lead to the innocence of Pol Pot.

    Thumb up 0

  28. CM

    Chomsky has also responded to the criticism in articles, interviews and Radio programs, stating

    I would ask the listener whether he harbours any guilt for having supported Hitler and the Holocaust and insisting the Jews be sent to extermination camps. It has the same answer. Since it never happened, I obviously can’t have any guilt for it. He’s just repeating propaganda he heard. If you ask him, you’ll discover that he never read one word I wrote. Try it. What I wrote was, and I don’t have any apologies for it because it was accurate, I took the position that Pol Pot was a brutal monster, from the beginning was carrying out hideous atrocities, but the West, for propaganda purposes, was creating and inventing immense fabrications for its own political goals and not out of interest for the people of Cambodia. And my colleague and I with whom I wrote all this stuff simply ran through the list of fanatic lies that were being told and we took the most credible sources, which happened to be US intelligence, who knew more than anyone else. And we said US intelligence is probably accurate. In retrospect, that turns out to be correct, US intelligence was probably accurate. I think we were the only ones who quoted it. The fabrications were fabrications and should be eliminated. In fact, we also discussed, and I noticed nobody ever talks about this, we discussed fabrications against the US. For example a standard claim in the major works was that the US bombings had killed 600,000 people in 1973. We looked at the data and decided it was probably 200,000. So we said let’s tell the truth about it. It’s a crime, but it’s not like anything you said. It’s interesting that nobody ever objects to that. When we criticize fabrications about US crimes, that’s fine, when we criticize and in fact expose much worse fabrications about some official enemy, that’s horrible, it becomes apologetics.

    http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20051218.htm

    Still waiting on any evidence to back up an alternative view. Criticise the guy all you like, but make sure you’ve got the goods to back it up.

    Thumb up 0

  29. CM

    It doesn’t enrage anyone when I say this about enemies of the United States. Then it’s obvious. What outrages them is when I try to show how these patterns also exhibited in our own society, as they are. If I were talking to a group of Russian intellectuals, they would be outraged that I failed to see the idealism and commitment to peace and brotherhood of the Russian state. That’s the way propaganda systems function.

    http://www.flagrancy.net/khmerchomsky.html

    Thumb up 0

  30. hist_ed

    Kimpost, you do realize that all of your quotes are from Chomsky as he is trying to justify himself right? Quoting, say, Charles Manson or the Nuremberg defendants on their own actions is hardly dispositive.

    I’ll take a stab at this from memory. If need be I will dig up some links.

    Chomsky, while Pol Pot was in power, denied that he was killing millions. He first estimated casualties in the thousands or tens of thousands. He later compared the deaths under Pol Pot with those that happened in the Cambodian Civil War. The Civil war killed hundreds of thousands; Pol Pot killed millions (The Cambodian government has documented over a million corpses).

    Chomsky morally compared the killings by the Khmer Rouge to the reprisals taken against French collaborators after World War Two. While one may recoil from those, most rational people would acknowledge that French collaborators had done something morally wrong. Pol Pot killed people because they owned property or were literate. Striking a moral equivalence between these two events is disgusting. It means that Chomsky thinks that at least some of Pol Pot’s victims deserved punishment.

    Chomksy claimed that the US was responsible for the Khmer Rouge. This removed from Pol Pot and his supporters moral responsibility. This is also, to my mind, quite racist. One can’t imagine Chomsky or his ilk removing responsibility for mass murder from white people. It’s only those funny backward brown people that aren’t responsible for their own actions.

    Yes, Chomsky has said the Pol Pot was a monster. He has also said that there were mass killings. But he has never stopped blaming the United States, he has never repudiated his moral equivalence with the French after World War Two and he has never admitted that his estimates of deaths were off by an order of magnitude (why is he such an expert at estimating these things, anyway).

    Now, try to imagine an academic who argued the following: “Yes Hitler was a monster, but really the French and British are responsible for the Holocaust because of the Versailles Treaty after World War One. Of course he killed lots of people, but really it was more like 600,000 or so Jews. Oh, and of course, Nazi murders weren’t nice, but they really were similar to French reprisals after World War Two, after all, those Jews must have done something to anger the Germans.

    Now, I would say that my statement that he “defended the Khmer Rouge” is justified, given the above. Some might disagree. But only a Chomsky cultists or rabid communist would say that his positions were anything but morally outrageous.

    Thumb up 0

  31. Kimpost

    @hist_ed

    My response in this thread started with me objecting to your labelling Chomsky as a “defender of Khmer Rouge”. He isn’t one. He wasn’t one. Your long post does not change that.

    If you would have stated that you found him to be apologetic towards the Khmer Rouge, I would not have stepped in, since that would have been a clear opinion. You however stated – as a fact – that he defended the Khmer Rouge, and that’s just plain wrong.

    I’m certainly not a “Chomsky cultist”, or a “rabid communist”. :) But out of curiosity, are the terms interchangeable? Chomsky is not a communist, if he hasn’t become one lately.

    Thumb up 0

  32. AlexInCT

    If the proof is “incontreversable” then it should be very easy to provide.

    CM, it was provided and you ignored it. The fact that you still pretend the proof isn’t out there, proves my point that no evidence ever will dissuade apologists like you from defending Chomsky and his love of the vilest and most evil ideology mankind was ever cursed with.

    What’s up with the anger, Alex? Labelling someone an apologist is subject to opinion, so you doing that is just fine.

    I have a very low opinion and severe dislike of anyone that thinks communism and any of its sister collectivist ideologies is anything but a scourge on humanity, and that Chomsky, is anything but a hack, hiding behind academic credentials, and functioning as an apologists for the vilest and evilest people to have committed mass murder.

    BTW, I think I am ready to label you an apologist too. You coming here to pretend Chomsky wasn’t an apologist for Pol-Pot, with the incredible argument that Chomsky’s avowed love of all things communism is just subjective of opinion, sure as hell makes the case for that. And BTW opinions are like assholes. Facts however are indisputable, and the fact is that Chomsky is communist that has either repeatedly functioned as a denier or apologists when he was confronted with the evils of communism. That fact can not be disputed.

    Thumb up 0

  33. Kimpost

    @AlexInCT

    Why label Chomsky a communist when he isn’t one?

    There’s a difference calling someone an apologist (a subjective conclusion, based on your own definition of the term), or “a defender of the Khmer Rouge”, or as you just did, “a communist” (objectively definable terms).

    Thumb up 1

  34. AlexInCT

    Why label Chomsky a communist when he isn’t one?

    Are you f-ing kidding me? Chomsky IS a godamned communist. He has been appologizing for them and demonizing the US since whenever. Is he paying you to come here and post this drivel about him not being an appologist and a communist? Cause if not, I think you have issues.

    Thumb up 0

  35. CM

    CM, it was provided and you ignored it. The fact that you still pretend the proof isn’t out there, proves my point that no evidence ever will dissuade apologists like you from defending Chomsky and his love of the vilest and most evil ideology mankind was ever cursed with.

    Sorry, you didn’t provide any evidence. And now you’re doubling-down on your accusations by suggesting that Kimpost and I are ‘apologists’? Simply because we ask for evidence to support your accusations? As Kimpost says, what’s with all the anger? Instead of being all angry, why not channel that energy into providing some evidence to support what you are saying. Getting even more angry and repeating your opinion yet again doesn’t seem to be working so well.

    Thumb up 0

  36. AlexInCT

    Sorry, you didn’t provide any evidence.

    You are partially correct there. But others did and I see no reason to argue much with people that don’t care about the facts and keep saying they see no evidence. Then you and your buddy – or are you the same guy posting twice and paid by Chomsky to do so – decided to pretend that it was just a misinterpretation because Chomsky got the numbers wrong/was correcting the number, or some such nonsense. No, Chomsky is a scumbag communist and was defending the action by communist butchers by pretending that they had to do some of the population weeding to finally “fix” the country.

    And now you’re doubling-down on your accusations by suggesting that Kimpost and I are ‘apologists’? Simply because we ask for evidence to support your accusations?

    I am doubling down because I have never seen you post here before, and then, when you finally post, it is to defend one of the biggest scumbags ever by claiming that his defense of communism and Pol-Pot wasn’t really that.

    Thumb up 0

  37. JimK

    Just so you know, Alex, CM and Kimpost are regulars from the Moorewatch forums.

    Now we cal all go back to pretending Noam Chomsky has any fucking relevance whatsoever to anyone except Noam Chomsky. Seriously, that dude is more marginalized than Moore these days.

    Thumb up 0

  38. Kimpost

    @AlexInCT

    Getting angry does not help your argument.

    Are you f-ing kidding me? Chomsky IS a godamned communist.

    Eh, no he isn’t.

    He has been appologizing for them and demonizing the US since whenever. Is he paying you to come here and post this drivel about him not being an appologist and a communist? Cause if not, I think you have issues.

    Well, that’s your opinion. One making him an apologist, according to you, but how does that turn him into a communist (a pretty well defined term)?

    If your argument is that he’s criticising US and the Europe more than he is (or has been) criticising “communists” then I would agree with you*. So would probably he, but that’s irrelevant to the point. Critique does not necessarily merit you a political affiliation.

    Incidentally, he has been and continues to be highly critical of the USSR.

    * Chomsky has openly declared that he believes in focusing his critique onto his sphere of influence. Here’s what he has said on the matter.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=Ot6pRjxv2ykC&pg=PA93&dq=noam+chomsky+managua+reactionary+called&hl=en&ei=qohcTLaPAcOC8gaDmO2HAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=accused%20reactionary&f=false

    My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be the larger component of international violence. But also for a much more important reason than that; namely, I can do something about it. So even if the U.S. was responsible for 2 percent of the violence in the world instead of the majority of it, it would be that 2 percent I would be primarily responsible for. And that is a simple ethical judgement. That is, the ethical value of one’s actions depends on their anticipated and predictable consequences. It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century.

    The point is that the useful and significant political actions are those that have consequences for human beings. And those are overwhelmingly the actions which you have some way of influencing and controlling, which mean for me, American actions. But I am also involved in protesting Soviet imperialism, and also explaining its roots in Soviet society. And I think that anyone in the Third World would be be making a grave error if they succumbed to illusions about these matters.

    Thumb up 0

  39. Kimpost

    Now we cal all go back to pretending Noam Chomsky has any fucking relevance whatsoever to anyone except Noam Chomsky. Seriously, that dude is more marginalized than Moore these days.

    I would pretty much agree with that. I was kind of surprised to see him being brought up even. :)

    Thumb up 1

  40. AlexInCT

    Well, that’s your opinion. One making him an apologist, according to you, but how does that turn him into a communist (a pretty well defined term)?

    If your argument is that he’s criticising US and the Europe more than he is (or has been) criticising “communists” then I would agree with you*.

    It would be my opinion if in practice making excuses for something doesn’t practically always coincide with people that are supporters of something trying to defend it. Especially something as deplorable as the massacres in the killing fields. And have you seen anyone defend Hitler and Nazis, for example, especially when everyone sees the evil in that and is repulsed, unless they believe. Similarly I don’t often see people making excuses for communists and communism, unless they empathize. Remember that in his glory days communism was still a dirty word too. The man believes America is evil because it is wealthy. He believes America stood in the way of that paradise communists promised. His anger at Europe is that he thinks they haven’t gone far enouggh to the left. This kind of crap sure as hell makes the argument for me that Chomsky, even if he hasn’t admitted it outside of frriendly cricles, is a communist.

    Incidentally, he has been and continues to be highly critical of the USSR.

    All that does is make him one of those that feel communism just hasn’t been done right yet, by the right people. because otherwise it would be heaven on earth. Chomsky is good at playing word games and attention getting, otherwise he is a docuhe with nothing but stupid ideas.

    Thumb up 0

  41. CM

    Alex all I’m doing is pointing out that you are setting out conclusions, and pretending the facts to support those conclusions are in evidence. When asked to provide some evidence to support your conclusions you start getting abusive. You won’t accept Chomsky’s own detailed explanation for the difference in the numbers and the chonology. You won’t even say why you won’t accept them. You won’t even counter with an alternative argument. You just keep repeating how you hate him, and how we must be his apologists for daring to question your conclusions.
    Thinking something is evil and that someone is defending evil doesn’t negate the need to support those conclusions.
    As JimK says, we’re long-term MW forum posters. I guess we’re used to people actually backing up what they say, and not getting immediately incensed by daring to question.
    And now you say “The man believes America is evil because it is wealthy” – can you back that up with evidence? Seriously, give us the quotes which support/prove that narrative.

    Thumb up 0

  42. CM

    I am doubling down because I have never seen you post here before, and then, when you finally post, it is to defend one of the biggest scumbags ever by claiming that his defense of communism and Pol-Pot wasn’t really that.

    Questioning you doesn’t mean that I’m defending anyone. The concepts are mutually exclusive. You’ve made the accusations, it’s perfectly reasonable for someone to ask you to back them up.

    Thumb up 0

  43. hist_ed

    So you made me dig some stuff up. Happily since my last round of Chomsky bashing I have discovered a nice summary: The Top 200 lies of Noam Chomsky. There are several sections that deal with the Khmer Rouge. Having read through it, I find Chomsky more distasteful and dishonest than previously. I do wonder at his politics since while he criticizes a lot of things I can’t seem to find him explicitely advocating for any political system. While he is certainly an apologist for communists I don’t know if he is an apologist for (or advocate of) communism.

    http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/200chomskylies.pdf

    Another page from the same writer cites in detail Chomsky’s book After the Cataclysm. See here: http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/cataclysm.html

    Note the quotes where Chomsky says positive about the Khmer Rouge-that the evacuation of Phnom Pen saved lives and that commie policies helped save Cambodians from starvation.

    Thumb up 1

  44. CM

    You’ve kinda hit the nail on the head. His rationale, as explained earlier, is not to provide an objective and equal assessment of wrong-doings, but to point out ongoing Western hypocrisy. He’s not even trying to provide a balanced assessment. He’s never claimed to. His argument is that we already have the ‘other side of the argument’ rammed down out throats everyday.
    We don’t need him for the hypocrisy to be seen and discussed. But almost nobody wishes to see it, so it isn’t discussed.
    While I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says (and, for the record, I don’t) I’m constantly fascinated by the reaction (especially when it leads to “you’re an apologist” etc etc).
    Unfortunately, Chomsky is also very prone to being quote-mined, because he is not one for concise statements, so reading more than one sentence of what he says or writes is extremely important. It’s therefore extremely hard to check Bogdanor’s references to see if he is accurately portraying what Chomsky has said.

    Thumb up 0

  45. balthazar

    So CM please give me some modern and accurate sources of where the US executed millions of people?

    If you cant then your “hipocracy” comment doesnt stand.

    Chomsky says what he does because he hates the west, democracy and capitalism in particular, immensly. From reading his “essays” thats blatently apparent. He rarely, if ever, portrays anything but Socialist and/or communist governments in a good light. No matter what you “think” the evidence of his lunacy and biased apologist attitude, is in his own writings.

    Thumb up 0

  46. AlexInCT

    Alex all I’m doing is pointing out that you are setting out conclusions, and pretending the facts to support those conclusions are in evidence.

    Yeah sure, CM. I decided it would be in my advantage to make Chomsky out to be a douche communist, and went from there. Seriously, that’s a lot off effort, for nothing, if the guy isn’t that. Why would I even have bothered, huh? I mean other than the fact that he is an apologist and communist, he would never have otherwise registered on my radar. He is at best a mediocre grieve mongerer, and his writing smacks of the academic drivel that was so popular in that age when these apologists tried so hard to defend the indefensible, while pretending they did so because America was the root of all evil.

    Methinks you have a boner for Chomsky, for whatever reason, none of them good IMO, and that’s why you feel personally attacked and so defensive about me saying he is a communist apologist.

    Thumb up 0

  47. CM

    Where did anyone claim that the US have “executed millions of people”?
    Where does Chomsky claim to hate the west, democracy and capitalism?
    From reading your comments I think it’s pretty clear that you’ve either not actually read any of his books/essays, or you have but you didn’t understand them. I think the former is more likely, and you just parrot the criticism you read on the internet.

    Thumb up 0

  48. AlexInCT

    Where did anyone claim that the US have “executed millions of people”?

    I hear this from the US haters constantly. First about the Native Americans, then about slaves, some will even say that’s what was done in Iraq. America is evil: America murders indiscriminately. You must be lucky not to have to interact with people that hold these opinions and have no problem telling everyone about them, CM. And the largest bunch of them are in academia, like Chomsky, BTW.

    Where does Chomsky claim to hate the west, democracy and capitalism?

    Have you heard the drivel he spouts? hard to believe you do and don’t see that. He may try to claim he is doing this out of some good motive, but that’s like the child rapist telling the kid he is about to strangle, after raping em brutally and repeatedly, that he is doing so for the child’s own good.

    From reading your comments I think it’s pretty clear that you’ve either not actually read any of his books/essays, or you have but you didn’t understand them.

    Right, because if understood him I would think the guy was great or something CM? Basically your point amounts to those “clever “enough to figure Chomsky out know how brilliant he is, and those that are too stupid to know better fail to grasp his brilliance. Next you will tell me I am wrong to think Marx, Engels, and the lot that is enamored with these morons and their ideology too, because I don’t understand them, and they really were all brilliant? Seriously, it is precisely because I think Chomsky is a lightweight and full of shit that, I understand him. I didn’t waste my time with much of his stuff when it was immediately obvious to me that the man was too full of himself. Maybe you are the one to fail at the task of understanding him, if you feel he is so great?

    Thumb up 0

  49. CM

    I hear this from the US haters constantly. First about the Native Americans, then about slaves, some will even say that’s what was done in Iraq. America is evil: America murders indiscriminately. You must be lucky not to have to interact with people that hold these opinions and have no problem telling everyone about them, CM. And the largest bunch of them are in academia, like Chomsky, BTW.

    I sense by your comments that you’re subscribing to the new wave of anti-intellectualism that has firmly gripped the Republican Party. That’s a shame. Logic, reason and science providing answers you don’t like isn’t a justification to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    It’s pointless asking me for “modern and accurate sources of where the US executed millions of people” when I have never claimed anything of the sort. I suggest you direct that question to those who make the claim.

    Have you heard the drivel he spouts? hard to believe you do and don’t see that. He may try to claim he is doing this out of some good motive, but that’s like the child rapist telling the kid he is about to strangle, after raping em brutally and repeatedly, that he is doing so for the child’s own good.

    I’ve read plenty of Chomsky and read numerous interviews. I’ve never heard him claim, or even infer, that he hates the west, democracy and capitalism. I believe you might be hearing what you want to hear, and reading things how you want to read them. Again, where is your evidence to support this claim?

    Right, because if understood him I would think the guy was great or something CM?

    No, you could still think he was completely wrong.

    Basically your point amounts to those “clever “enough to figure Chomsky out know how brilliant he is, and those that are too stupid to know better fail to grasp his brilliance.

    That is the sort of interpretation that you end up with when you subscribe to anti-intellectualism. I never stated or inferred such a thing, nor do I think that it’s necessarily the case.

    Seriously, it is precisely because I think Chomsky is a lightweight and full of shit that, I understand him. I didn’t waste my time with much of his stuff when it was immediately obvious to me that the man was too full of himself.

    You understand him precisely because you think he’s full of shit? That doesn’t really make sense.
    Arrogance is irrelevant to whether what he says is valid, or wrong, or inaccurate.

    Maybe you are the one to fail at the task of understanding him, if you feel he is so great?

    First you accuse me of suggesting that people only think he’s wrong because they don’t understand, but now you’re suggesting that same thing applies to me? Classic.

    Thumb up 0

  50. CM

    Just some comments because I realised that I didn’t actually address the opening post.

    I agree and also disagree with some of the criticism over Chomsky’s reaction to OBL’s death.

    In short:

    It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial.

    I think Chomsky is comparing the actual act of going after and then encountering OBL. He’s comparing the decision to kill him to the decision to apprehend him. He’s using the context of the fundamental Western idea of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, regardless of the crime or crimes. As opposed to the action taken (killing him) in the context of the crimes.

    I stress “suspects.” In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”

    Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin Laden’s “confession,” but that is rather like my confession that I won the Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

    In the tape Bin Laden released in December 2001, he says: “[W]e calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all.”
    Obviously this statement would be pretty hard evidence against him if he was tried. He didn’t say it under duress. He would have difficulty explaining that one away.
    But I think what Chomsky is doing here is pointing out the holes in the US narrative, and again, that Western norms are that people are ‘innocent until proven guilty’, and that the West would have to set out their proof against him like they hadn’t done before.
    I don’t think this is a strong or particularly valid point, but I think it ties in with the rest.

    We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

    Again, the comparison here is not between the crimes committed. It’s about the ‘bringing to justice’ part. To many (and not just those on the extreme left) the Iraqi invasion was an illegal war crime. If you believe that, then bringing Bush ‘to justice’ is just as valid as bringing ‘OBL’ to justice. All criminals deserve to be brought to justice don’t they?
    If crimes were committed, it stands to reason that those who experienced those crimes would want the perpetrator to face justice. However, if Bush had been killed (like Osama was), would people objectively see it in the same light? If the Iraqi’s held Bush accountable for hundreds of thousands of their dead, then would it not seem legitimate to them to get ‘justice’? However, what Chomsky is saying is that if they did in the same way as the US has just done it, what would the reaction be? Presumably that it was ‘barbaric’ and utterly dispicable. Presumably the argument would be that (a) Bush didn’t commit a crime, but (b) if he did, then those who think he did should follow legal processes (in the courts) rather than shooting him dead and then claiming it was legal (“enemy combatant who wouldn’t surrender”).

    I’m sure many of you will respond in disgust. But precisely where is the disagreement? I’m not condoning any violent actions taken by anyone. I was disgusted and horrified and extremely saddened by the terrorist bombings in 2001. I was also disgusted and a little depressed about the invasion of Iraq a few years later. I’m just saying that if you want to be objective, you’ve got to actually look at these things objectively. Not just from an pro-American point of view.

    I also don’t believe for a second that this reaction covers everything. Like all his writings/discussion, it’s clearly not meant to.

    Thumb up 0

  51. AlexInCT

    He’s comparing the decision to kill him to the decision to apprehend him. He’s using the context of the fundamental Western idea of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, regardless of the crime or crimes. As opposed to the action taken (killing him) in the context of the crimes.

    Even when – and for now I will ignore the fact that 9-11 was an act of war and not just some crime with a high casualty count, in the expedience of simply making my point CM – said “criminal” has not only admitted to having committed the “crime”, something we have verified as well, but then rubbed our face in it and promised more? Or, is the point Chomsky is making that somehow there might be extenuating circumstances that should mitigate the punishment? Meaning again that America is evil and deserved this, putting Chomsky on par with Ward Churchill. I suspect that’s the only reason for the US hater dominated community – other than maybe denying the US the right to strike back at its enemies without their express permission, thus controlling America’s ability to threaten their own criminal activities – using an army of lawyers, that “international law” loving community of tyrants, dictators, and weaklings that have forgotten you don’t defend freedom with mere words but the blood of their betters, wrong as hell to treat this as a crime and not the act of war it is in the first place, might still think they can justify the farce of a trial.

    And I find Chomsky’s intellectual exercise where he claims the reason he focuses so harshly on the US and sometimes Europe you link above to be nothing but an excuse, BTW. This one.

    My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be the larger component of international violence. But also for a much more important reason than that; namely, I can do something about it.

    He reminds me of the reporters that claim to be fighting the good fight against religious fanaticism. The same ones that totally ignore anything done in the name of Islam, oft going out of their way to hide that link whenever they do feel they simply can’t just turn a blind eye, while constantly attacking Christians for anything and everything. There is no nobility there but plain cowardice and practically always an ulterior motive. See confronting Islam’s evil comes with the serious risk of deadly reprisals. Pissed off Christians just whine a lot, which in and of itself is something these self identified anti fanaticism crusaders – using the same excuse Chomsky does – relish, which really means one isn’t taking any serious risks. More importantly, they get to hide behind some noble reason while their motivations aren’t anything of the sort. An that’s what Chomsky is all about as well CM.

    Picking on the US is easy, even when you are an enemy hoping to cause damage to it. But if you go try to tell people like Hussein, Assad, Kaddafi, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Castro of old, Kim, or any the greats the left loves – Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Chomsky’s buddy Pol Pot – that what they are doing is wrong, they might just up and turn your arse into fertilizer. No, Chomsky is no great intellectual. He is a coward with a vile agenda pretending at being wise. Frankly the only difference between him and Ward Churchill is that Churchill had the balls to say he really did hate America. Something that puts Churchill far behind Chomsky on the slime ball scale, because at least he is man enough to say what he really believes.

    Thumb up 0

  52. CM

    Even when – and for now I will ignore the fact that 9-11 was an act of war and not just some crime with a high casualty count, in the expedience of simply making my point CM – said “criminal” has not only admitted to having committed the “crime”, something we have verified as well, but then rubbed our face in it and promised more? Or, is the point Chomsky is making that somehow there might be extenuating circumstances that should mitigate the punishment?

    The ‘act of war’ thing equally applies to GWB – which I think is why Chomsky uses that comparison. To many Iraqi’s, GWB carried out an act of war (an illegal one) when he invaded their country.
    Does admitting to a crime prior to or at the point of capture provide justification for immediate execution? Does anything provide justification? Again, GWB was inherently responsible for his ‘crimes’ (to those that see it that way). Does that mean that it would be acceptable for Iraqi commandos to kill him on sight if they got the chance? Would people not argue – ‘that was barbaric (and typical), why didn’t they persue the legal pathways to bring him to justice?’.
    I’m not saying I agree with Chomsky here, I’m just trying to explain what I think he was trying to get across.

    Meaning again that America is evil and deserved this, putting Chomsky on par with Ward Churchill. I suspect that’s the only reason for the US hater dominated community – other than maybe denying the US the right to strike back at its enemies without their express permission, thus controlling America’s ability to threaten their own criminal activities – using an army of lawyers, that “international law” loving community of tyrants, dictators, and weaklings that have forgotten you don’t defend freedom with mere words but the blood of their betters, wrong as hell to treat this as a crime and not the act of war it is in the first place, might still think they can justify the farce of a trial.

    So it WOULD be justified for the Iraqi commandos to execute Bush if they able to get to him, because he’s the leader of the enemy, and has admitted guilt?

    Thumb up 0

  53. CM

    And I find Chomsky’s intellectual exercise where he claims the reason he focuses so harshly on the US and sometimes Europe you link above to be nothing but an excuse, BTW. This one.

    My own concern is primarily the terror and violence carried out by my own state, for two reasons. For one thing, because it happens to be the larger component of international violence. But also for a much more important reason than that; namely, I can do something about it.

    He reminds me of the reporters that claim to be fighting the good fight against religious fanaticism. The same ones that totally ignore anything done in the name of Islam, oft going out of their way to hide that link whenever they do feel they simply can’t just turn a blind eye, while constantly attacking Christians for anything and everything. There is no nobility there but plain cowardice and practically always an ulterior motive. See confronting Islam’s evil comes with the serious risk of deadly reprisals. Pissed off Christians just whine a lot, which in and of itself is something these self identified anti fanaticism crusaders – using the same excuse Chomsky does – relish, which really means one isn’t taking any serious risks. More importantly, they get to hide behind some noble reason while their motivations aren’t anything of the sort. An that’s what Chomsky is all about as well CM.

    I don’t get the comparison. Inherently journalists have a responsibility to provide balance in their reporting. If they don’t cover things accurately, then they are failing in their duties. On the other hand, pundits and commentators don’t have the same restrictions. Glenn Beck isn’t even pretending to be providing a balanced overview on everything he discusses. He essentially uses the same rationale as Chomsky – he sees things so skewed in one direction, he uses his position to try to push it back the other way.
    I haven’t seen any evidence of why Chomsky needs to ‘hide’, or what he is ‘hiding’. And what ‘serious risk’ could be alternatively take? That’s fine to question people’s motivations, but do you have any evidence to support that? Or do you just disagree entirely with their points of view, and find it extremely annoying that they are so prominent?

    Picking on the US is easy, even when you are an enemy hoping to cause damage to it. But if you go try to tell people like Hussein, Assad, Kaddafi, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, Castro of old, Kim, or any the greats the left loves – Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Chomsky’s buddy Pol Pot – that what they are doing is wrong, they might just up and turn your arse into fertilizer.

    WTF? Who on the left (in the West) loves any of those people?

    No, Chomsky is no great intellectual.

    Well of course his political writings/talks are secondary to his linguistics in terms of intellectual prowess.

    He is a coward with a vile agenda pretending at being wise.

    That’s certainly an opinion shared by many.

    Frankly the only difference between him and Ward Churchill is that Churchill had the balls to say he really did hate America. Something that puts Churchill far behind Chomsky on the slime ball scale, because at least he is man enough to say what he really believes

    That all depends on whether Chomsky is hiding his true feelings/thoughts. That he is would simply be a matter of opinion. Like an opinion that Obama hates all white people.

    Thumb up 0

  54. AlexInCT

    The ‘act of war’ thing equally applies to GWB – which I think is why Chomsky uses that comparison. To many Iraqi’s, GWB carried out an act of war (an illegal one) when he invaded their country.

    Yeah many idiots that ignore facts and are deficient when it comes to history and reality. I don’t want to rehash the whole thing again, because people that want to believe GWB was wrong about Iraq, always based on the hindsight of what was or was not found after the fact, driven by idiotic concepts we now know are all artificial – like “No blood for oil” which sure doesn’t seems as popular as it was with the after the fact protesters against Iraq, where we got zero oil BTW, and is completely absent now that we are in Libya, where it is all about the oil – aren’t going to be persuaded by any facts or logic, no matter how well presented, anyway. As has been amply proved now that Obama has not only taken Bush’s policies to the next level, but even started another war in the ME, this time for oil, the problem with Iraq was Bush’s political affiliation. He had an (R) next to his name. That was his crime. That and the fact that the left lied and convinced so many that it was Bush that stole the 2000 election when Gore was the one that had to be stopped from doing so.

    Anyway, let me remind you that GWB went through the UN, got approval from congress, and followed Bill Clinton and the democratic party’s policy of the previous years on Iraq. Saddam was given a deadline but decided to ignore it because the craven French & Russians, for that oil we constantly get accused of going to steal, decided to play games, and assured Saddam that no matter what he did, he was golden because they would block any US action in the UN. The same UN whose leadership was gaming the US, the corrupt autocrats getting rich from the Oil for Food scam, in cahoots with Saddam, and figured they would just rattle their saber but prevent the US from doing anything but help them extort more money from Saddam at the US tax payer’s expense. And after all, Saddam was a great guy too. Iraq was all milk and cookies, as far as the eye could see. Everyone lived in peace & harmony. Saddam put Jesus Christ to shame! Before the evil Americans went to Iraq, against the wishes of people that figure dictators that are dangerous avid supporters of terrorism and to the detriment of their pocketbooks (Saddam sure was making many of the most vehemently opposed people stinking rich), and murdered everybody indiscriminately, often with chemical weapons, after raping them and then forcing them to watch their kids being fed feet first into wood chippers, nobody ever died in Iraq!

    BTW, to equate bin Laden to Bush is proof positive you are insane or don’t care much about reality, or in the case of Chomsky, are an America hating communist turd that is madly in love with the most evil people possible. Next you will tell me Chomsky isn’t an apologist for communist dictators, a coward and a scumbag, either for trying to say stuff like this. At least now I understand why you have a boner for the guy and feel so compelled to defend the indefensible CM. Sad.

    So it WOULD be justified for the Iraqi commandos to execute Bush if they able to get to him, because he’s the leader of the enemy, and has admitted guilt?

    Ah yes. Now UBL is a head of state, and not the leader of a cowardly terrorist organization that attempts to foil his enemy’s ability to strike at them by avoiding such a distinction. Anyway, in case you aren’t aware of this, Saddam did send people to try and murder his father as well. Many on the left even blamed that for him going to Iraq. And Saddam sure as hell would have ordered his commandos to execute Bush if he had had the ability and chance to do so. That you pretend he wouldn’t have done so is plain and simply retarded. No wonder you are impressed by Chomsky’s rantings, jeez.

    Thumb up 0

  55. CM

    Yeah many idiots that ignore facts and are deficient when it comes to history and reality.

    Couldn’t agree more.

    I don’t want to rehash the whole thing again, because people that want to believe GWB was wrong about Iraq, always based on the hindsight of what was or was not found after the fact, driven by idiotic concepts we now know are all artificial – like “No blood for oil” which sure doesn’t seems as popular as it was with the after the fact protesters against Iraq, where we got zero oil BTW, and is completely absent now that we are in Libya, where it is all about the oil – aren’t going to be persuaded by any facts or logic, no matter how well presented, anyway.

    That’s one hell of a sentence!
    I was strongly against the war, based on the facts at the time, and my arguments had nothing to do with oil. Opposition to the war didn’t just come from crazies on the far left. Or those who believed anything that was shoved down their throats. I like to think that I can be persuaded by facts and logic. It’s happened before (over the last 8 years or so my gun control position has moved quite a long way, my government spending position has also shifted quite considerably – and I’m sure I could come up with many more).

    As has been amply proved now that Obama has not only taken Bush’s policies to the next level, but even started another war in the ME, this time for oil,

    In terms of what to do with Gitmo prisoners, I consider Obama’s stance to be worse than Bush’s.
    I’m a bit taken aback by your claim that Obama ‘started another war in ME’ for oil. Huh? Is this sarcasm?

    the problem with Iraq was Bush’s political affiliation. He had an (R) next to his name. That was his crime. That and the fact that the left lied and convinced so many that it was Bush that stole the 2000 election when Gore was the one that had to be stopped from doing so.

    So you believe that whoever was President would have invaded Iraq?
    Personally, I don’t care who it was. Or what happened in the 2000 election.

    Anyway, let me remind you that GWB went through the UN, got approval from congress, and followed Bill Clinton and the democratic party’s policy of the previous years on Iraq.

    Ok, it seems that we ARE going to get into it then….
    1. No, he gave up on the UN when it was obvious that the required authorisation wasn’t going to be given.
    2. Approval from Congress is an internal matter (I have no issue with whether the invasion broke any internal laws, other than those which pertain to adhering to international law).
    3. Clinton didn’t invade Iraq. He might have wanted to, but he didn’t. Big difference.

    Saddam was given a deadline but decided to ignore it because the craven French & Russians, for that oil we constantly get accused of going to steal, decided to play games, and assured Saddam that no matter what he did, he was golden because they would block any US action in the UN.

    All sides played games. Let’s not pretend otherwise. The US was also involved in the Food-For-Oil scandal.
    Saddam was given plenty of deadlines, and constantly extended the middle finger in response. But that, by itself, doesn’t automatically legitimate or legalise an invasion. And before the invasion, the inspectors were making real progress getting through the sites.
    Do you have evidence that the French and the Russians told Saddam that? That’s not something I have seen.

    The same UN whose leadership was gaming the US, the corrupt autocrats getting rich from the Oil for Food scam, in cahoots with Saddam, and figured they would just rattle their saber but prevent the US from doing anything but help them extort more money from Saddam at the US tax payer’s expense.

    Again, this isn’t entirely accurate. We know the US was benefiting from it too.

    And after all, Saddam was a great guy too. Iraq was all milk and cookies, as far as the eye could see. Everyone lived in peace & harmony. Saddam put Jesus Christ to shame! Before the evil Americans went to Iraq, against the wishes of people that figure dictators that are dangerous avid supporters of terrorism and to the detriment of their pocketbooks (Saddam sure was making many of the most vehemently opposed people stinking rich), and murdered everybody indiscriminately, often with chemical weapons, after raping them and then forcing them to watch their kids being fed feet first into wood chippers, nobody ever died in Iraq!

    I’m sure some nutjobs hold that view. I didn’t, and I was still strongly opposed to the invasion, and then the way it was carried out.
    He didn’t murder ‘everybody’ ‘indiscriminately’, didn’t do it ‘often’ with chemical weapons, and didn’t rape everybody either. This is not to say that he wasn’t a murderous dictator who was responsible for many deaths (some of them brutal and/or painful), just that it’s a better idea to stick to facts rather than emotion.

    Thumb up 0

  56. AlexInCT

    I don’t get the comparison.

    Why am I not surprised?

    Inherently journalists have a responsibility to provide balance in their reporting.

    Good luck with that. There isn’t a group that’s more biased than the ones that get attracted to journalism. Ask them why they went there and it will be a rare case that they won’t tell you that they did so to help push “social justice” or to affect the course of events. The only media people I take seriously are the ones that admit they are human and hence biased, tell me their bias, then let me figure out how much of what they are saying is that bias and how much is actual reporting.

    If they don’t cover things accurately, then they are failing in their duties.

    You must not have access to most of the news outlets here in the US then. They are failing major league. Case in point the amateur they help put in the WH by not just covering for him, but making up favorable news.

    On the other hand, pundits and commentators don’t have the same restrictions. Glenn Beck isn’t even pretending to be providing a balanced overview on everything he discusses. He essentially uses the same rationale as Chomsky – he sees things so skewed in one direction, he uses his position to try to push it back the other way.

    What does this have to do with anything? Glenn Beck isn’t attack Christians for bullshit and ignoring the atrocities committed in the name of Islam. That’s being done by your “unbiased journalists”, commentators, and pundits, and all of them are on the left. Chomsky BTW doesn’t see things skewed in one direction. He chose to pick on America and Europe because he is an apologist for communism and even dictators and terrorists now, and because there isn’t any real risk from taking that stand, claiming the moral high ground, while not having it, while better men then him do the dirty work that keeps his hide safe and sound. People like that should be despised, perhaps pitied, not lauded.

    I haven’t seen any evidence of why Chomsky needs to ‘hide’, or what he is ‘hiding’.

    By now it has become very obvious to me that the reason is that you don’t want to find it.

    And what ‘serious risk’ could be alternatively take?

    Serious risk? How about he pointed out that picking on America, or even Europe for that matter, is a waste of time? People that make a storm over the guy that drops a toothpick but ignore others burning down the neighborhood, shouldn’t impress. And Chomsky is one of those.

    That’s fine to question people’s motivations, but do you have any evidence to support that?

    After the evidence was presented long ago in this post, any you and Kimpost dismissed it as opinion, and this entire discussion, you seem to have come back to the same lame tactic. My guess is that even if Chomsky admitted he was a shill for communists, dictators, and terrorists, and an American hater, you wouldn’t find it to be sufficient. At this point it is obvious to me that the correct strategy would have been to do what the others did and to ignore you going forward.

    Or do you just disagree entirely with their points of view, and find it extremely annoying that they are so prominent?

    I am disconcerted that so many people on this planet are that gullible and filled with self loathing that they still find solace in idiotic things. Charles Manson also has appoint of view, not much more different than Chomsky it sounds to me, but I don’t take him too seriously. Hatred of the modern western world and all the self hatred that permeates the, to use your words, “point of view” of these people may be chick and all the rave for people like you that find empathy in this bullshit, but I find little use for practically all of that nonsense. Console yourself that better men than you do the hard work to keep people like Chomsky and you able to then look down upon them and feeling intellectually and morally their superiors when you aren’t. Thanks for the laughs too.

    Thumb up 0

  57. AlexInCT

    I was strongly against the war, based on the facts at the time, and my arguments had nothing to do with oil. Opposition to the war didn’t just come from crazies on the far left.

    About the only legitimate reason I heard other than the usual nonsense was that this would cost way too much, take way too long, and in the end the we would still not prevent the fact that the modern western world and the death cult will never be compatible and that we would end up in a global against these barbarians sooner or later anyway. Of course, it failed to convince me because I understand that even if we do not want to fight this war, they do, and those that choose not to fight when they have the advantage soon will taste the bitter taste of defeat. Saddam had to go. Personally now I feel we should have also focused on Pakistan instead of treating them as an ally but, that’s hindsight.

    In terms of what to do with Gitmo prisoners, I consider Obama’s stance to be worse than Bush’s. I’m a bit taken aback by your claim that Obama ‘started another war in ME’ for oil. Huh? Is this sarcasm?

    Sorry I guess I confused you. Maybe the use of the words “Kinetic engagement” as Obama’s WH has to avoid having to admit they started another war, would be more appropriate? Libya isn’t a war at all! Just NATO training.

    And in case you were not aware of that, we are in Libya because the French & Italians wanted to protect their oil and make sure they were not flooded by a massive wave of those nasty North African refugees these uprisings usually result in when the brutal dictator has his military practice on the population.

    So you believe that whoever was President would have invaded Iraq?

    I said no such thing. In fact, I contend that if Gore had been president his actions would have been half assed and illogical – the man is deranged – we would have had other attacks, and even when Saddam finally did join up with them to come after the US that they would still be trying to appease these murderers. That would have lasted until Gore woke up one day, decided Gaia wanted him to set things straight and stop the warming, and he ordered the tropics nuked so the nuclear winter could then protect us from the 33 foot or more rise of the oceans.

    Personally, I don’t care who it was. Or what happened in the 2000 election.

    Oh, I do. Bush was smart enough to realize that fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan was a lost cause as the Russians showed us. So he decided the guy most likely to be emboldened by Osama’s example and who was causing the US the largest amount of grief needed to go. That also put Iran between US forces and would keep the other Arabs from worrying about them next. Gore, as I pointed out would be offering to blow UBL so he would stop attacking us.

    WTF? Who on the left (in the West) loves any of those people?

    You have not been in contact with enough academics, media people, and politicians have you? Go to any of the “elite” universities and try out their humanities department. It is a den of communists and Western Civilization haters. And let drop but a few big names for you. John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Ward Churchill, Chomsky, Van Jones, Barack Obama, Reverend Wright, Nancy Pelosi. These are all people that have worked with communists and aided their causes, against our own country. And they didn’t do it out of some sense of a higher moral calling. They did it because they are opportunist scumbags.

    Ok, it seems that we ARE going to get into it then….
    1. No, he gave up on the UN when it was obvious that the required authorisation wasn’t going to be given.

    Actually the UN gave him that authorization, then, when they realized he meant it, demanded he ask for more, and clearly so they could then block him from action. As I also already pointed out, that was done by the French and the Russians, whom were promised all the Iraqi oil at cheap prices if they protected Saddam. Aided by others in the UN, including the top bureaucrats, that were getting fat from the bribes paid by Saddam which was abusing the oil for food program.

    Frankly, I wish he had ignored the UN. That is the biggest den of thieves, liars, crooks, despotic tyrants, and murderers you can imagine. It irks me to no end that we give it any credibility by letting it stay on our soil, just so it can then constantly backstab us. It makes the Pakistanis look like our BFFs.

    2. Approval from Congress is an internal matter (I have no issue with whether the invasion broke any internal laws, other than those which pertain to adhering to international law).

    I wipe my arse with international law. Like the UN it is nothing but another bunch of the world’s vilest and most evil people using the excuse of the law to fuck us over.

    3. Clinton didn’t invade Iraq. He might have wanted to, but he didn’t. Big difference.

    I wish he had. Or at least ordered Saddam killed. I would have defended him on that. Saddam needed to go.

    All sides played games. Let’s not pretend otherwise. The US was also involved in the Food-For-Oil scandal.

    Yeah, we knew it was happening nad let it go on. Bush however decided he had enough of it thank god.

    Saddam was given plenty of deadlines, and constantly extended the middle finger in response. But that, by itself, doesn’t automatically legitimate or legalise an invasion.

    Your argument breaks down when you try to conflate legality with invasion. Invasions aren’t a thing of law and they certainly aren’t subjected to any laws. It’s what happens when law breaks down. This concept is a modern wart on the ass on humanity, created by the lawyers that think they can replace force as the guarantor of freedom with words on paper. It’s idiotic. And clearly the international community failed badly in its dealings with Saddam. Had the UN done its job and Clinton put the screws to Saddam the first time he broke the treaty he signed, we wouldn’t have needed to invade Iraq after 9-11. Instead we played a game, ended up looking like we lacked the will, and worse, had those on our team actively working with the enemy to undermine us (that’s the French, the Chinese, and the Russians for you). BTW, I find what’s going on in Libya to be a travesty and the international legal community is all for it. Proves they are all a big ass joke.

    And before the invasion, the inspectors were making real progress getting through the sites.

    Sure they were! They made such great progress that they didn’t even know Saddam had made all his WMD programs dormant or that he had shipped off his existing stock with help from the Russians so they wouldn’t find them when the Russians & French forces us to hold off the invasion and go play in Saddam’s sandbox yet again. Those inspectors were a joke. Seriously. I do not know whether to laugh or cry.

    Again, this isn’t entirely accurate. We know the US was benefiting from it too.

    Really? Then why upend that cart? I know. They wanted to steal all the oil.

    I’m sure some nutjobs hold that view. I didn’t, and I was still strongly opposed to the invasion, and then the way it was carried out.

    Which way was that? The destruction of the Iraqi in weeks with minimal casualties on all sides? Shit, if you had brought up what followed AFTER that and how ineptly it was handled I might have given you some sympathy CM. Maybe, if you had argued that the US should not have relied on the Iraqi military disbanding as they came in and the fighting being light as a strategy, because then they became a huge problem in the aftermath, and that they actually should have gone in and wiped out as much of it as they could have, I might have given you that. Of course, that would have made the grieve mongers all jolly and giddy.

    He didn’t murder ‘everybody’ ‘indiscriminately’, didn’t do it ‘often’ with chemical weapons, and didn’t rape everybody either.

    No, he just did that to people he felt didn’t do what he wanted, looked at him wrong, or were a threat to his power. So that makes it all OK.

    This is not to say that he wasn’t a murderous dictator who was responsible for many deaths (some of them brutal and/or painful), just that it’s a better idea to stick to facts rather than emotion.

    The fact was that he was the world’s biggest supporter of terrorism and that UBL had just showed him how to get his cake and eat it too, and that couldn’t be allowed. History will judge this, and I have a feeling Bush will be judged a lot better than the people of this time that were so driven by BDS.

    Thumb up 0

  58. CM

    About the only legitimate reason I heard other than the usual nonsense was that this would cost way too much, take way too long, and in the end the we would still not prevent the fact that the modern western world and the death cult will never be compatible and that we would end up in a global against these barbarians sooner or later anyway. Of course, it failed to convince me because I understand that even if we do not want to fight this war, they do, and those that choose not to fight when they have the advantage soon will taste the bitter taste of defeat. Saddam had to go. Personally now I feel we should have also focused on Pakistan instead of treating them as an ally but, that’s hindsight.

    I was against it because
    (a) it wasn’t authorised, which means it had no legitimacy, and it introduced a terrible precedent which weaken international structures that had been built over 60 years, which in turn emboldened other dictators
    (b) it wasn’t related to 9/11, and meant talking the focus of the countries that were of relevance (Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan)
    (c) it strengthened the regime in Iran
    (d) it made the world a more dangerous place (it was exactly what nutjob Muslim extremists wanted)
    (e) it was always going to lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people
    (f) it would create division in the West, at a time when the greatest strength was in banding together
    (g) the inspection job, although far from perfect, was finally making real progress
    (h) none of the official reasons were good enough
    (i) the entire operation exposed the extreme cynicism and arrogance of an administration that simply had its eye on a goal, and didn’t care much how sloppy they were getting there (it’s embarrassing that they sold the need for war so atrociously badly, but still managed to do it, and in the end got away with it, taking no personal responsibilty whatsoever)
    (j) Iraq is (as was predicted by anyone paying attention) pretty much fucked, and will be for a long long time

    Which barbarians? Iraqis?

    Thumb up 0

  59. AlexInCT

    I was against it because
    (a) it wasn’t authorised, which means it had no legitimacy, and it introduced a terrible precedent which weaken international structures that had been built over 60 years, which in turn emboldened other dictators

    Authorized by who? The American people, the ones that pay for the military used, sure as hell wanted it. That’s why congress, despite all the whining by the democrats, went along with it. Oh, I didn’t miss what you meant, BTW. I just vehemently disagree with the notion that a sovereign state, doubly so the US which is expected to keep paying for everything, the first to be blamed whenever things go wrong by others, and always accused of being motivated by nefarious reasons, need the permission to do what’s in its own best interest, especially when it also benefits the world at large, from a bunch of tyrants, goons, and retards.

    (b) it wasn’t related to 9/11, and meant talking the focus of the countries that were of relevance (Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan)

    Who are you to determine what the criteria that allow the US to take action in its own interests are? And it WAS related to 9-11. The lesson there was that terrorism could have massive impact, doubly so when sponsored in a way that prevented anyone from pointing at a state, and then exacting punishment on them. Saddam was the biggest state sponsor of terrorism, and the one most likely to go along with this new model.

    Besides, I see others doing far worse things, and the same crowd that is all pissed at the US going into Iraq is constantly defending these others and their vile actions, so you will pardon me for not taking any of you seriously.

    (c) it strengthened the regime in Iran

    Really? Because not going into Iraq would have led Iranians to want the same freedom they saw in Iraq much sooner, and thus had them trying to stand up to their evil government a long time ago? That is until said government brutally squashed the peaceful revolution anyway? Heh talk about reaching for straws.

    (d) it made the world a more dangerous place (it was exactly what nutjob Muslim extremists wanted)

    Much more dangerous place? Says who? Because Saddam was a puppy, right? And let me remind you that the extremist, which declared war on us long before we went to Iraq, even the first time around, they flocked to Iraq and got slaughtered completely and totally, to the point that their actions – the killing of innocent civilians because they feared fighting the military – caused their radicalized movement to lose credibility amongst most muslims.

    (e) it was always going to lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people

    Hundreds of thousands? Exaggerate much? The number is in the low tens of thousands, and most of the killing was done by red on red forces. And, oh these poor people. They would have been much better off getting murdered and tortured by Saddam and his kids, dying in small numbers and in anonymity, so people like you could pretend all was fine. This excuse is plain old pathetic since we are now told that we are engaged militarily in Libya to prevent this exact kind of butchering from happening.

    (f) it would create division in the West, at a time when the greatest strength was in banding together

    Yeah because banding together and singing Kumbayah produces a lot more benefit than figuring out whom the cowards that would either be fine living under the yoke of Islam or alternatively preferred to let others & their betters to do the heavy lifting for them. Weak.

    (g) the inspection job, although far from perfect, was finally making real progress

    The inspections were a joke. If they worked we would have known Saddam had no active WMDs as the left claims everyone knew then based on what happened after the fact, and they would have for certain pointed out that Saddam’s ability to reconstitute his WMD programs remained totally unaffected, instead of the lies they told to try and prevent the US from going in and ruining everybody else’s cherry deals with Saddam. Here is a news flash: the UN, and anything tied with it, is useless. Most of the itnernational community only likes the international community thing because they see it a sa way to prevent others from doing things they don’t like, not because those things are bad, but simply because they don’t serve their interests.

    (h) none of the official reasons were good enough

    And I am now sure any reason ever would have been good enough for you.

    (i) the entire operation exposed the extreme cynicism and arrogance of an administration that simply had its eye on a goal, and didn’t care much how sloppy they were getting there (it’s embarrassing that they sold the need for war so atrociously badly, but still managed to do it, and in the end got away with it, taking no personal responsibilty whatsoever)

    Finally some honesty on your part. Your objection was that you didn’t like Bush and that colored your opinion of Iraq. The need to take personal responsibility is a joke for a war that wasn’t anything but perfect, based on subjective standards by people that would always find a reason to feel things were wrong, isn’t much of a reason, BTW.

    (j) Iraq is (as was predicted by anyone paying attention) pretty much fucked, and will be for a long long time

    So were Germany & Japan. Tell me how they are doing these days?

    Meh, you are nothing but a moonbat leftist CM. Thanks for playing.

    Thumb up 1

  60. CM

    Meh, you are nothing but a moonbat leftist CM.

    Well as you’re clearly not interested in an honest discussion I won’t waste any more time breaking down your narrative. Been there done that, many times over. I can see that you’ll end up just going on about moonbats rather than factual detail. That’s always what happens.

    Thumb up 0