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.
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.