Chomsky in his own words
MORE ON NOAM CHOMSKY
by
Ken Eliasberg
Chomsky in his own words.- Perhaps a statement that captures the man’s sentiments, as well as his capacity for both duplicity and his flair for exaggeration, is this one of Chomsky’s gems with respect to 9/11:
“The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not
reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton’s bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people (no one knows, because the U.S. blocked an inquiry at the UN and no one cares to pursue it).”
This statement sounds dangerously close to saying that we deserved what we got on 9/11. However, when confronted by Bill Bennett, in a debate that the two had on CNN, Chomsky denied that the statement could be so construed. Bennett said “ - - it is grossly irresponsible to talk about this country as a terrorist nation, and to suggest, as do you in your book, that there is justification, moral justification, for what happened on 9/11. For that, sir, you really should be ashamed.” Chomsky responded by saying “You should be ashamed for lying about what is in the book, because nothing is said—in fact, the quote was just given, nothing can justify the terrorist attacks of September 11. You just heard the quote, if you want to falsify it, that’s your business.”
Help me out, here—while I’m not a linguistics professor, when you read the above quote, what conclusion do you reach regarding Chomsky’s assessment of 9/11? He is saying that, in magnitude, it does not reach the level of many others (presumably American others), “for example Clinton’s bombing of the Sudan” (“with no credible pretext,” no less). Now what is stated here, and what are the clear implications? Well clearly, Chomsky, by plainly stating that the 9/11 attack was not worse than (indeed, not as bad as) Clinton’s bombing of the pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan, is making the case for moral equivalence, i.e. what they did to us was no worse than what we have done to them. Is it such a linguistic leap of logic to conclude from the fact that, since we have done worse to them, we deserve what we got? I don’t think so, and I believe many would so construe the import, if not the plain language, of Chomsky’s statement. I suspect that Chomsky, on the other hand, would argue that the statement merely means that, while he understands the ferocity of the 9/11 attack, he does not condone it. To me this is a play on words. However, giving Chomsky the benefit of the doubt, why would any American try to minimize, trivialize, or in any way, make an excuse for 9/11?
Moreover, and more to the point, Chomsky misstates the case (assuming that, in the first instance, there is any need to state a case with respect to 9/11) in that I do not believe the two incidents are remotely comparable. I suppose a Republican might find comfort in the fact that at least Chomsky is even handed, criticizing Democrats as well as Republicans. But he can’t even get that straight. As you know, I am no fan of Bill Clinton’s (finding him a disgrace in every sense of the word “least of all for his tawdry sex life), but here Chomsky has done him a dreadful disservice. While one may leap to the conclusion that Clinton’s response to the bombing of our embassies in Africa had a “wag-the-dog” quality about it, no one who is at all familiar with the event can accuse Clinton of a reckless disregard for human life (at least not in this instance). Every portrayal of the events surrounding the bombing of the pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan that I have come across indicated that Clinton went to great pains to avoid killing anyone, particularly innocents. He chose to bomb at night when the building was supposed to be empty (or at least as empty as could be expected). Thus, in this instance, Chomsky’s facts are not in line, and he has needlessly defamed Clinton (although it is hard to see how a man as sleazy as Clinton could be defamed).
Moreover, Clinton had a completely credible case for conducting such a bombing in response to the attacks on our Embassies in Africa, i.e. he had been informed, by virtue of intelligence that seemed credible at the time, that this “innocent” pharmaceutical factory was really turning out toxic materials that could be used against us. As it turned out, the intelligence was wrong, but I believe that Clinton acted on the best information available, went out of his way not to injure innocents (in sharp contrast to those who conducted the 9/11 attacks), and was justified in taking some action in reprisal to the attacks on our embassies. To equate what appears to be a clear mistake on Clinton’s part, conducted in a manner calculated to reduce damage to innocent civilians, with the terrorist attacks on 9/11 is more than a sophistry, it is absurd and either the product of a stupid or a viciously anti-American mind (and, since we know that Chomsky is anything but stupid, the latter seems to be the more appropriate characterization of this misguided “intellectual moron” ).
Whether it is Cuba, Nicaragua El Salvador, Guatemala, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, or any of the other places that the U.S. has had a presence in a conflicted environment, Chomsky almost always concludes that our presence is the source of the problem; that we are a “terrorist” nation, and that our presence is the result of either our desire to economically exploit the region or to prevent its becoming a success, thereby furnishing a positive example as an alternate to American capitalism. Chomsky does not find this consistent attack on his own country as incompatible with recognition that it is “the freest country on earth.” Thus, it would seem that what Chomsky sees himself doing is deliverying tough love to his errant offspring. The problem here is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to find the love in any of Chomsky’s writings; on the other hand, the “tough” part is anywhere and everywhere in his writings. On rare occasions, he may throw America a bone, but that is extrarordinarly rare, while his animus is found in abundance. And, to his credit, he condemns every president since WWII (albeit reserving special hostility toward Republican presidents). And, by the way, while his brilliance is trumpeted home and abroad, a careful reading of his body of work will rarely produce support for the positions he takes or the authorities he cites.
In an essentially favorable commentary on Chomsky, Larissa MacFarquhar, in a 2003 piece in the New Yorker entitled The Devil’s Accountant, makes the following observation:
“To read Chomsky’s recent political writing at any length is to feel
almost physically damaged. The effect is difficult to convey in a quotation because it is cumulative. The writing is a catalogue of crimes committed by America, terrible crimes, and many of them, but it is not they that produce the sensation of blows: it is Chomsky’s rage as he describes them. His sentences slice and gash, envenomed by a vicious sarcasm. His rhythm is repetitive and monotonous, like the hacking of a machine. The writing is as ferocious as the actions it describes, but coldly so. It is not Chomsky’s style to make death live, to prick his readers with lurid images. He uses certain words over and over, atrocity, murder, genocide, massacre, murder, massacre, genocide, atrocity, atrocity, massacre, murder, genocide, until, through repetition, the words lose their meaning and become technical. The sentences are accusations of guilt [always against America], but not from a position of innocence or hope for something better: Chomsky’s sarcasm is the scowl of a fallen world, the sneer of Hell’s veteran to its appalled naifs.”
But, despite the fact that I find Chomsky despicable, I think he is worth reading, if only to see how far the left has drifted from its “liberal” beginnings, and to get a clear picture of the thinking of those who played such an instrumental role in initiating the “drift.” Besides, as I have often suggested, don’t take my word for it, read Chomsky’s outpourings—if you have the stomach for it.
Chomsky was equally harsh with Jack Kennedy whom he accused of terrorist conduct in his dealings with Cuba. With respect to Cambodia, where the Khmer Rouge slaughtered approximately 25% of the country’s population (some 2 million people), Chomsky denied the excessive killing until it was no longer possible to do so, and then, when it became clear to him that such slaughter had occurred, Chomsky blamed it on America “w ho else? In Afghanistan, Chomsky warned of a silent American genocide when we invaded that country. In short, wherever America is involved in a negative situation, whether on the giving or receiving end, America is to blame.
Chomsky’s view of America - Bennett Dialogue.
Chomsky’s solution—turn it over to the UN
Chomsky’s interpretation of the above quoted language on 9/11