Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Chomsky to Debate William Bennett 5/30 5:20am
Noam Chomsky will Debate William Bennett on CNN, Paula Zahn's morning show 5:20am pacific time, 8:20am eastern standard time. 5/30
Perhaps it will be shown later in the day. Perhaps this isn't worthy of the newswire.
William Bennett is a 'blowhard' strongly conservative ex-liberal who was the secretary of education and the drug czar during the previous republican administration, and he is sponsored by the Heritage Foundation. An expert on morality, he is author of 'the book of virtues' and "list of leading cultural indicators", and he is very antigay and blames poor people for being poor etc.
Here is Bennett's invitation to the debate. This might be one of the only times Noam Chomsky has been invited on, despite his wide availability and willingness to go on nat'l TV shows.
AMERICAN MORNING WITH PAULA ZAHN
Noam Chomsky Book on 9/11 Best-seller
Aired May 9, 2002 - 08:18 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: A controversial book that says, in effect, America has itself to blame for the events of September 11 has become a surprise best-seller in this country. In the book "9-11," author Noam Chomsky calls the U.S. "a leading terrorist state." Still, it has sold 160,000 copies, made five national best-seller lists, been translated into dozens of languages and has sold especially well on college campuses.
And joining us now from Washington with his take on this and other issues of the day, Bill Bennett, CNN contributor and co-director of Empower America.
Good morning, Bill. Welcome.
WILLIAM BENNETT, EMPOWER AMERICA, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Good morning, Paula. Thanks.
ZAHN: All right, Bill, just, let's just set up for a moment for the audience some of what Mr. Chomsky writes. He -- and we'll put up on the screen just a very small chunk of this book -- he says, "We can think of the United States as an innocent victim only if we adopt the convenient path of ignoring the record of its actions and those of its allies."
All right, this basically gives us a sense of what he's trying to communicate here. It is selling so well. How do you explain it at a time when the president has all time popularity ratings and where clearly the American public supports this war on terror?
BENNETT: Well, we may -- I should comment first, Paula, this may be a television first. I wrote a book on the same topic. The net effect of this segment may be to increase sales of the book with a totally opposite point of view of mine. And I say this not as...
ZAHN: Are you just smarting because this book is selling better than yours right now?
BENNETT: No. I'm actually not smarting because although it is selling better than my book, it's not a matter of sour grapes, but there is a matter of I told you so. Let me just give you a little background.
In my book, "Why We Fight," I said at the beginning of that book that there is a small but influential group of critics who will end up blaming the United States for this attack. When I said it, and in a number of reviews of my book, people said that's nonsense. That's ridiculous. There won't be any groundswell of opinion saying that the United States was at fault. Well, you just pointed out 160,000 copies is a pretty substantial number of books. It may be a surprise to some people, but not to me.
Look, Chomsky says in the book that the United States is a leading terrorist state. That's a preposterous and ridiculous claim. We can debate it. You know I'd be happy to be on your show with Chomsky. I'm sure you guys have asked him to come on.
But it's a ridiculous claim. The interesting thing culturally is that this thing is taking hold among intellectuals, having some hold and influence on college campuses, and this is, if I can say, just what I predicted would happen. Everybody said no, you know, the United States, everybody is being patriotic. Everybody is waving the flag. This kind of criticism won't happen. And if there is, if it does happen, there won't be people who will take it seriously.
There are a lot of people who take this view seriously.
ZAHN: Why do they take it seriously, Bill?
BENNETT: For whatever reasons. There may be psychological reasons. It may be that there is some deep hatred of America and American institutions. It may be that the state of our educational system is so bad at some institutions that kids are ready to believe anything bad said about the United States. And when you think about the lead notion in this book, that the United States is a leading terrorist nation, you know, if one knew history, if one knew, for example, what we have done for Europe, what we have done against terrorism, what we have done for Muslims in the world -- you know, the leading killer of Muslims in the world is Saddam Hussein.
What we have done is liberated Kuwait, helped in Bosnia and the Balkans. We have provided sanctuary for people of all faiths, including Islam, in the United States. We tried to help in Somalia. I mean the historical record is clear that America is the great hope of the earth.
Do we have faults and imperfections? Of course. The notion that we're a leading terrorist state is preposterous yet...
ZAHN: Yes, and what does he base...
BENNETT: Yet is sells.
ZAHN: Yes. And what does he base that theory on, for people who haven't picked up this book?
BENNETT: Well, the book is really a series of interviews with Chomsky. And what he does is he talks about everything in American history for the last 50 or 60 years, but only, if you will, the dark side. If there was ever, if we ever had an ally, if we were ever linked with anyone who ever did anything wrong, he puts the entire bill at the foot of the United States. In terms of the good that we have done, there is very little, very little mentioned by Noam Chomsky.
ZAHN: What is the harshest example...
BENNETT: Again...
ZAHN: ... he uses that would support his theory that in some way that America was a terrorist state?
BENNETT: I guess the harshest example -- I don't know which one would be the harshest. There's so much misinformation. I think probably his discussion of what we have done in Europe and in the Middle East. And, again, most of it is preposterous.
We're all for free speech. No one is for banning books. It is interesting culturally that six months -- what are we, eight months, nine months past 9/11, a very successful book takes the United States to task and says essentially it was our fault that we were hit.
ZAHN: Yes, well, it's interesting because we've spoken about this other book before, the best-seller in France, which basically said in some way the American government was behind the attacks of 9/11, which, of course, hasn't sold well here. But...
BENNETT: You've got it.
ZAHN: ... it's a best-seller in France.
BENNETT: The number one best-seller in France. And Gore Vidal has a book that is almost equally critical of the United States, which is making its way up the charts. The point here is just, is to be ready, is to be aware of what's going on and not to lull ourselves into some notion that, you know, everyone is proud of the United States, everyone feels this is a great country, that, you know, this euphoria of flag waving has taken over the nation and that there aren't deep and serious haters and critics of the U.S. who have profound influence on our campuses and in intellectual circles. It makes the debate a real debate.
ZAHN: Well, we'd love to have you on with Mr. Chomsky. We'll keep on working on that. That will be quite a...
BENNETT: You've got my number. I'm available 7-24.
ZAHN: ... fiery segment to watch.
BENNETT: Good.
ZAHN: OK. Thanks, Bill. Take care.
BENNETT: Thank you.
ZAHN: And keep us posted on how your book is chalking up there with Mr. Chomsky's.
William Bennett is a 'blowhard' strongly conservative ex-liberal who was the secretary of education and the drug czar during the previous republican administration, and he is sponsored by the Heritage Foundation. An expert on morality, he is author of 'the book of virtues' and "list of leading cultural indicators", and he is very antigay and blames poor people for being poor etc.
Here is Bennett's invitation to the debate. This might be one of the only times Noam Chomsky has been invited on, despite his wide availability and willingness to go on nat'l TV shows.
AMERICAN MORNING WITH PAULA ZAHN
Noam Chomsky Book on 9/11 Best-seller
Aired May 9, 2002 - 08:18 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: A controversial book that says, in effect, America has itself to blame for the events of September 11 has become a surprise best-seller in this country. In the book "9-11," author Noam Chomsky calls the U.S. "a leading terrorist state." Still, it has sold 160,000 copies, made five national best-seller lists, been translated into dozens of languages and has sold especially well on college campuses.
And joining us now from Washington with his take on this and other issues of the day, Bill Bennett, CNN contributor and co-director of Empower America.
Good morning, Bill. Welcome.
WILLIAM BENNETT, EMPOWER AMERICA, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Good morning, Paula. Thanks.
ZAHN: All right, Bill, just, let's just set up for a moment for the audience some of what Mr. Chomsky writes. He -- and we'll put up on the screen just a very small chunk of this book -- he says, "We can think of the United States as an innocent victim only if we adopt the convenient path of ignoring the record of its actions and those of its allies."
All right, this basically gives us a sense of what he's trying to communicate here. It is selling so well. How do you explain it at a time when the president has all time popularity ratings and where clearly the American public supports this war on terror?
BENNETT: Well, we may -- I should comment first, Paula, this may be a television first. I wrote a book on the same topic. The net effect of this segment may be to increase sales of the book with a totally opposite point of view of mine. And I say this not as...
ZAHN: Are you just smarting because this book is selling better than yours right now?
BENNETT: No. I'm actually not smarting because although it is selling better than my book, it's not a matter of sour grapes, but there is a matter of I told you so. Let me just give you a little background.
In my book, "Why We Fight," I said at the beginning of that book that there is a small but influential group of critics who will end up blaming the United States for this attack. When I said it, and in a number of reviews of my book, people said that's nonsense. That's ridiculous. There won't be any groundswell of opinion saying that the United States was at fault. Well, you just pointed out 160,000 copies is a pretty substantial number of books. It may be a surprise to some people, but not to me.
Look, Chomsky says in the book that the United States is a leading terrorist state. That's a preposterous and ridiculous claim. We can debate it. You know I'd be happy to be on your show with Chomsky. I'm sure you guys have asked him to come on.
But it's a ridiculous claim. The interesting thing culturally is that this thing is taking hold among intellectuals, having some hold and influence on college campuses, and this is, if I can say, just what I predicted would happen. Everybody said no, you know, the United States, everybody is being patriotic. Everybody is waving the flag. This kind of criticism won't happen. And if there is, if it does happen, there won't be people who will take it seriously.
There are a lot of people who take this view seriously.
ZAHN: Why do they take it seriously, Bill?
BENNETT: For whatever reasons. There may be psychological reasons. It may be that there is some deep hatred of America and American institutions. It may be that the state of our educational system is so bad at some institutions that kids are ready to believe anything bad said about the United States. And when you think about the lead notion in this book, that the United States is a leading terrorist nation, you know, if one knew history, if one knew, for example, what we have done for Europe, what we have done against terrorism, what we have done for Muslims in the world -- you know, the leading killer of Muslims in the world is Saddam Hussein.
What we have done is liberated Kuwait, helped in Bosnia and the Balkans. We have provided sanctuary for people of all faiths, including Islam, in the United States. We tried to help in Somalia. I mean the historical record is clear that America is the great hope of the earth.
Do we have faults and imperfections? Of course. The notion that we're a leading terrorist state is preposterous yet...
ZAHN: Yes, and what does he base...
BENNETT: Yet is sells.
ZAHN: Yes. And what does he base that theory on, for people who haven't picked up this book?
BENNETT: Well, the book is really a series of interviews with Chomsky. And what he does is he talks about everything in American history for the last 50 or 60 years, but only, if you will, the dark side. If there was ever, if we ever had an ally, if we were ever linked with anyone who ever did anything wrong, he puts the entire bill at the foot of the United States. In terms of the good that we have done, there is very little, very little mentioned by Noam Chomsky.
ZAHN: What is the harshest example...
BENNETT: Again...
ZAHN: ... he uses that would support his theory that in some way that America was a terrorist state?
BENNETT: I guess the harshest example -- I don't know which one would be the harshest. There's so much misinformation. I think probably his discussion of what we have done in Europe and in the Middle East. And, again, most of it is preposterous.
We're all for free speech. No one is for banning books. It is interesting culturally that six months -- what are we, eight months, nine months past 9/11, a very successful book takes the United States to task and says essentially it was our fault that we were hit.
ZAHN: Yes, well, it's interesting because we've spoken about this other book before, the best-seller in France, which basically said in some way the American government was behind the attacks of 9/11, which, of course, hasn't sold well here. But...
BENNETT: You've got it.
ZAHN: ... it's a best-seller in France.
BENNETT: The number one best-seller in France. And Gore Vidal has a book that is almost equally critical of the United States, which is making its way up the charts. The point here is just, is to be ready, is to be aware of what's going on and not to lull ourselves into some notion that, you know, everyone is proud of the United States, everyone feels this is a great country, that, you know, this euphoria of flag waving has taken over the nation and that there aren't deep and serious haters and critics of the U.S. who have profound influence on our campuses and in intellectual circles. It makes the debate a real debate.
ZAHN: Well, we'd love to have you on with Mr. Chomsky. We'll keep on working on that. That will be quite a...
BENNETT: You've got my number. I'm available 7-24.
ZAHN: ... fiery segment to watch.
BENNETT: Good.
ZAHN: OK. Thanks, Bill. Take care.
BENNETT: Thank you.
ZAHN: And keep us posted on how your book is chalking up there with Mr. Chomsky's.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
This sort of sucked. It was really short, and it was Bennett throwing out these low-brow accusation that Chomsky should leave the country, and that he supports the khmer rouge, and then they would give Chomsky 15 seconds to respond. That was probably the first time he's been on CNN, even though his book is the #5 best seller on some lists, and they have plenty of nobodies on.
---------------------
AMERICAN MORNING WITH PAULA ZAHN
Interview with Noam Chomsky, Bill Bennett
Aired May 30, 2002 - 08:33 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: They are two best selling authors with two very different takes on terrorism. In his book, "9-11," Noam Chomsky accuses the United States of being a terrorist state. He says the war in Afghanistan is wrong, states that in recent history, America has committed acts of terrorism, and maintains that America's foreign policy is hypocritical.
In Bill Bennett's "Why We Fight," he says the war on terror is morally just. He maintains that democracy and human rights are America's noblest exports, and that we must be prepared to respond to anti-American critics. Talk about a war of words.
Well, Bill Bennett joins us now from New York, and Noam Chomsky joins us from Boston. Welcome, gentlemen. Great to have both of you with us.
BILL BENNETT, AUTHOR, "WHY WE FIGHT": Thank you.
NOAM CHOMSKY, AUTHOR, "9-11": Hello.
ZAHN: I would like to start off, professor, by reading a very small excerpt from your book where you write that nothing can justify crimes such as those of September 11, but we can think of the United States as an innocent victim only if we adopt the convenient path of ignoring the record of its actions and those of its allies, which are, after all, hardly a secret. What are you referring to here?
CHOMSKY: Well, for example, the United States happens to be the only state in the world that has been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism, would have been condemned by the Security Council, except that it vetoed the resolution. This referred to the U.S. terrorist war against Nicaragua, the court ordered the United States to desist and pay reparations. The U.S. responded by immediately escalating the crimes, including first official orders to attack what are called soft targets -- undefended civilian targets. This is massive terrorism. It is by no means the worst, and it continues right to the present, so for example...
ZAHN: Bill Bennett, your response to what the professor said, and then we will let him pick up from there.
BENNETT: It's quite extraordinary to hear a supposedly learned person call the United States a leading terrorist nation, one of the leading terrorist nations in the world. It's false and very treacherous teaching. In the situation Mr. Chomsky is talking about, of course, the United States supported the Contras in Nicaragua. The condemnation or judgment by the World Court was not that it was terrorism, but that we supported some unlawful activity. However, when there were free elections in Nicaragua, and Mrs. Chamorro took office, all the lawsuits, all the complaints against the United States were dropped, when you had a democratically elected country.
We have done more good for more people than any country in the history of the world. What I want to know of Mr. Chomsky is if he believes we are a leading terrorist state, he is obviously welcome in the United States, why do you choose to live, sir, in a terrorist nation?
CHOMSKY: First of all, the World Court condemned the United States for what it called "the unlawful use of force and violation of treaties."
BENNETT: Which is not terrorism.
CHOMSKY: That's international terrorism.
BENNETT: No, it is not.
CHOMSKY: Yes, it is exactly international terrorism.
BENNETT: No, it is not, sir.
CHOMSKY: Furthermore, the escalation to attack undefended civilian targets is just a classic illustration of terrorism. And furthermore, it continues right to the present, as I was saying, so for example...
BENNETT: It's quite...
CHOMSKY: May I continue?
BENNETT: Sure.
CHOMSKY: In the late 1990s, some of the worst terrorist atrocities in the world were what the Turkish government itself called state terror, namely massive atrocities, 80 percent of the arms coming from the United States, millions of refugees, tens of thousands of people killed, hideous repression, that's international terror, and we can go on and on.
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: Before you go further, let's give Bill a chance to respond to respond to the Turkish string (ph) of this -- go ahead, Bill.
BENNETT: America responsible for hideous repression and refugees? Why is it, Mr. Chomsky, whenever there are refugees in the world, they flee to the United States rather than from the United States? Why is it on balance, Mr. Chomsky, that this nation, when it opens its gates, has people rushing in? Why is it that it is this nation the world looks to for support and encouragement and help? We rebuilt Europe twice in this century, after two world wars. We liberated Europe from Nazi tyranny. We have liberated Eastern Europe in the last few years from communist tyranny, and now we are engaged in a battle against something else.
When we went in to Kabul, even the "New York Times" in mid- November showed pictures of people smiling at the presence of American troops, because this country was once again a force for freedom, and a force for liberation. Have we done some terrible things in our history? Of course we have. But as Senator Moynihan has pointed out, our people find out about them from reading the newspapers and watching television. When you look at this nation on balance, in terms of what good it has done and what bad it has done, 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: 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.
BENNETT: No -- well, I...
CHOMSKY: Just a minute -- did I interrupt you? Did I interrupt you?
ZAHN: Professor, let me jump in here, but implicit in that -- aren't you saying that you understand why America was targeted?
CHOMSKY: Do I understand? Yes, so does the U.S. intelligence services, so does all of scholarship. I mean, we can ignore it if we like, and therefore lead to further terrorist attacks, or we can try to understand. What Mr. Bennett said is about half true. The United States has done some very good things in the world, and that does not change the fact that the World Court was quite correct in condemning the United States as an international terrorist state, nor do the atrocities in Turkey in the last few years -- they are not obviated by the fact that there are other good things that happen. Sure. That's -- you are correct when you say good things have happened, but if we are not total hypocrites, in the sense of the gospels, we will pay attention to our own crimes. For one reason, because that's elementary morality -- elementary morality. For another thing, because we mitigate them.
ZAHN: All right, professor, I'm going to have to leave it there with you, Bill Bennett, and we have got to leave it to about 20 seconds.
BENNETT: It there any nation that acknowledges its errors and its sins and its crimes and the things it has done that are not consistent with its principles more than the United States? No, there is not.
This is also the man, just let it be said for the record, who said that the reports of atrocities by the Khmer Rouge were grossly exaggerated. This is the man who said when we engaged the Soviet Union that we...
CHOMSKY: No, it's not. But that is...
BENNETT: I didn't interrupt you -- that we were continuing the Nazi effort against Russia. Go through the Chomsky work, line by line, argument by argument, and you will see this is a man who has made a career out of hating America and out of trashing the record of this country. Of course, there is a mixed record in this country, why do you choose to live in this terrorist nation, Mr. Chomsky?
CHOMSKY: I don't. I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world, which is committing horrendous terrorist acts and should stop.
BENNETT: I think you should say greatest -- I think you should say greatest a little more often.
CHOMSKY: If you want to be a hypocrite...
(CROSSTALK)
BENNETT: I think you should acknowledge its virtues a little more often, Mr. Chomsky.
CHOMSKY: And you should acknowledge its crimes.
BENNETT: I do. Read my book. You will see it.
CHOMSKY: No, you never do. No, sorry. And if you want to...
BENNETT: I am reading other people's books.
CHOMSKY: If you want to know what I say, do not listen to Mr. Bennett's falsifications of which I just gave an example.
BENNETT: Read both books.
ZAHN: Gentlemen, we are going to have to cut off both of you there. Noam Chomsky, Bill Bennett, thank you for both of your thoughts, and I think probably the best course of action anybody can take out there, is buy both of your books so they can make their own judgment.
BENNETT: That's fine.
ZAHN: Gentlemen, thank you very much for your time.
CHOMSKY: Yes.
---------------------
AMERICAN MORNING WITH PAULA ZAHN
Interview with Noam Chomsky, Bill Bennett
Aired May 30, 2002 - 08:33 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: They are two best selling authors with two very different takes on terrorism. In his book, "9-11," Noam Chomsky accuses the United States of being a terrorist state. He says the war in Afghanistan is wrong, states that in recent history, America has committed acts of terrorism, and maintains that America's foreign policy is hypocritical.
In Bill Bennett's "Why We Fight," he says the war on terror is morally just. He maintains that democracy and human rights are America's noblest exports, and that we must be prepared to respond to anti-American critics. Talk about a war of words.
Well, Bill Bennett joins us now from New York, and Noam Chomsky joins us from Boston. Welcome, gentlemen. Great to have both of you with us.
BILL BENNETT, AUTHOR, "WHY WE FIGHT": Thank you.
NOAM CHOMSKY, AUTHOR, "9-11": Hello.
ZAHN: I would like to start off, professor, by reading a very small excerpt from your book where you write that nothing can justify crimes such as those of September 11, but we can think of the United States as an innocent victim only if we adopt the convenient path of ignoring the record of its actions and those of its allies, which are, after all, hardly a secret. What are you referring to here?
CHOMSKY: Well, for example, the United States happens to be the only state in the world that has been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism, would have been condemned by the Security Council, except that it vetoed the resolution. This referred to the U.S. terrorist war against Nicaragua, the court ordered the United States to desist and pay reparations. The U.S. responded by immediately escalating the crimes, including first official orders to attack what are called soft targets -- undefended civilian targets. This is massive terrorism. It is by no means the worst, and it continues right to the present, so for example...
ZAHN: Bill Bennett, your response to what the professor said, and then we will let him pick up from there.
BENNETT: It's quite extraordinary to hear a supposedly learned person call the United States a leading terrorist nation, one of the leading terrorist nations in the world. It's false and very treacherous teaching. In the situation Mr. Chomsky is talking about, of course, the United States supported the Contras in Nicaragua. The condemnation or judgment by the World Court was not that it was terrorism, but that we supported some unlawful activity. However, when there were free elections in Nicaragua, and Mrs. Chamorro took office, all the lawsuits, all the complaints against the United States were dropped, when you had a democratically elected country.
We have done more good for more people than any country in the history of the world. What I want to know of Mr. Chomsky is if he believes we are a leading terrorist state, he is obviously welcome in the United States, why do you choose to live, sir, in a terrorist nation?
CHOMSKY: First of all, the World Court condemned the United States for what it called "the unlawful use of force and violation of treaties."
BENNETT: Which is not terrorism.
CHOMSKY: That's international terrorism.
BENNETT: No, it is not.
CHOMSKY: Yes, it is exactly international terrorism.
BENNETT: No, it is not, sir.
CHOMSKY: Furthermore, the escalation to attack undefended civilian targets is just a classic illustration of terrorism. And furthermore, it continues right to the present, as I was saying, so for example...
BENNETT: It's quite...
CHOMSKY: May I continue?
BENNETT: Sure.
CHOMSKY: In the late 1990s, some of the worst terrorist atrocities in the world were what the Turkish government itself called state terror, namely massive atrocities, 80 percent of the arms coming from the United States, millions of refugees, tens of thousands of people killed, hideous repression, that's international terror, and we can go on and on.
(CROSSTALK)
ZAHN: Before you go further, let's give Bill a chance to respond to respond to the Turkish string (ph) of this -- go ahead, Bill.
BENNETT: America responsible for hideous repression and refugees? Why is it, Mr. Chomsky, whenever there are refugees in the world, they flee to the United States rather than from the United States? Why is it on balance, Mr. Chomsky, that this nation, when it opens its gates, has people rushing in? Why is it that it is this nation the world looks to for support and encouragement and help? We rebuilt Europe twice in this century, after two world wars. We liberated Europe from Nazi tyranny. We have liberated Eastern Europe in the last few years from communist tyranny, and now we are engaged in a battle against something else.
When we went in to Kabul, even the "New York Times" in mid- November showed pictures of people smiling at the presence of American troops, because this country was once again a force for freedom, and a force for liberation. Have we done some terrible things in our history? Of course we have. But as Senator Moynihan has pointed out, our people find out about them from reading the newspapers and watching television. When you look at this nation on balance, in terms of what good it has done and what bad it has done, 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: 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.
BENNETT: No -- well, I...
CHOMSKY: Just a minute -- did I interrupt you? Did I interrupt you?
ZAHN: Professor, let me jump in here, but implicit in that -- aren't you saying that you understand why America was targeted?
CHOMSKY: Do I understand? Yes, so does the U.S. intelligence services, so does all of scholarship. I mean, we can ignore it if we like, and therefore lead to further terrorist attacks, or we can try to understand. What Mr. Bennett said is about half true. The United States has done some very good things in the world, and that does not change the fact that the World Court was quite correct in condemning the United States as an international terrorist state, nor do the atrocities in Turkey in the last few years -- they are not obviated by the fact that there are other good things that happen. Sure. That's -- you are correct when you say good things have happened, but if we are not total hypocrites, in the sense of the gospels, we will pay attention to our own crimes. For one reason, because that's elementary morality -- elementary morality. For another thing, because we mitigate them.
ZAHN: All right, professor, I'm going to have to leave it there with you, Bill Bennett, and we have got to leave it to about 20 seconds.
BENNETT: It there any nation that acknowledges its errors and its sins and its crimes and the things it has done that are not consistent with its principles more than the United States? No, there is not.
This is also the man, just let it be said for the record, who said that the reports of atrocities by the Khmer Rouge were grossly exaggerated. This is the man who said when we engaged the Soviet Union that we...
CHOMSKY: No, it's not. But that is...
BENNETT: I didn't interrupt you -- that we were continuing the Nazi effort against Russia. Go through the Chomsky work, line by line, argument by argument, and you will see this is a man who has made a career out of hating America and out of trashing the record of this country. Of course, there is a mixed record in this country, why do you choose to live in this terrorist nation, Mr. Chomsky?
CHOMSKY: I don't. I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world, which is committing horrendous terrorist acts and should stop.
BENNETT: I think you should say greatest -- I think you should say greatest a little more often.
CHOMSKY: If you want to be a hypocrite...
(CROSSTALK)
BENNETT: I think you should acknowledge its virtues a little more often, Mr. Chomsky.
CHOMSKY: And you should acknowledge its crimes.
BENNETT: I do. Read my book. You will see it.
CHOMSKY: No, you never do. No, sorry. And if you want to...
BENNETT: I am reading other people's books.
CHOMSKY: If you want to know what I say, do not listen to Mr. Bennett's falsifications of which I just gave an example.
BENNETT: Read both books.
ZAHN: Gentlemen, we are going to have to cut off both of you there. Noam Chomsky, Bill Bennett, thank you for both of your thoughts, and I think probably the best course of action anybody can take out there, is buy both of your books so they can make their own judgment.
BENNETT: That's fine.
ZAHN: Gentlemen, thank you very much for your time.
CHOMSKY: Yes.
At least from the transcript it seems like all Fat Bill could do was sling mud compared to Chomsky's careful citation of facts. Shows you the level of idiocy that is allowed to exist as so-called "experts" on these morning talk-shows.
Yes. Did you see how Bennett kept repeating the idea that Chomsky should move to another country if he thinks the US is bad. This is aking to a little kids' joke "if you love it, why don't you marry it?"
Bennett clearly seems to have difficulties with higher levels of abstract thought, which is supposed to be the quality that separates humans from other mammals and other animals. You know how it is said that drawing a portrait is the only behavior that humans have that no other animals can do. Language is itself an abstraction, and Bennett is able to speak, and if you put a nontransparent box over an object, he would probably recognize that it was still under the box, yet his
higher level abstraction seems really limited and he stays in this firmly concrete area where everything is either 'good' or 'bad' and no nuances are possible. Either that, or he is fully aware but he thinks that the CNN audience are concrete thinkers. It's kind of disturbing to see in the ex secretary of education. Chomsky kept kind of rolling his eyes, but he looked good, and was politely staying silent while Bennett was interrupting to call him a pol pot lover, but after that Chomsky started striking back and in turn talking back over him and saying 'liar' 'hypocrite'.
Chomsky is my dope-ass nigga! Talk about a ruthless trouncing. He ran rings around Bennet...My favorite part was:
CHOMSKY: 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.
BENNETT: No -- well, I...
Is that beautiful or what? That is the exact moment where Chomsky knocks Bennet on his ass!
CHOMSKY: 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.
BENNETT: No -- well, I...
Is that beautiful or what? That is the exact moment where Chomsky knocks Bennet on his ass!
Notice how CNN ended this interview as quick as they could.
They just cannot stand anybody giving away the truth on National TV -- not even for a few minutes.
They just cannot stand anybody giving away the truth on National TV -- not even for a few minutes.
We should be watchful to who out there is secretly sympathetic to what we are saying. I think Paula Zahn is sort of like this.
The lead-up to this was Paula throwing some heavy barbs at Bennet, including making fun of him because Chomsky's book is out-selling his. That is what led to this "debate" ...
In addition, notice how Paula refers to Noam as "professor" ... notice how she summarizes his viewpoint in a more hardline way than he does, giving him leverage to appear moderate while delivering a crushing blow to American PR (she starts off calling the USA a "terrorist nation," now when have you head that on CNN).
All in all, I think Paula is secretly leaning our way.
The lead-up to this was Paula throwing some heavy barbs at Bennet, including making fun of him because Chomsky's book is out-selling his. That is what led to this "debate" ...
In addition, notice how Paula refers to Noam as "professor" ... notice how she summarizes his viewpoint in a more hardline way than he does, giving him leverage to appear moderate while delivering a crushing blow to American PR (she starts off calling the USA a "terrorist nation," now when have you head that on CNN).
All in all, I think Paula is secretly leaning our way.
That may be true, hard to know.
Fact is, individual journalists may want to tell the truth. And tell it in an objective and impartial way, but they are prevented from doing so by the chief editors and their bosses -- all the way up to the ownership.
If too much of the truth gets out, heads will roll.
Fact is, individual journalists may want to tell the truth. And tell it in an objective and impartial way, but they are prevented from doing so by the chief editors and their bosses -- all the way up to the ownership.
If too much of the truth gets out, heads will roll.
I refrain from calling Paula Zahn a serious journalist. She *is* just there for her looks after all.
I forgot who cited this, but it is said most newspeople are actors and models. I mean, it is true; how many of the people reporting on the news actually understand what is being reported? How many times have you watched the news and it's been flubbed somehow?
If you want proof, try something Jello Biafra suggested on a spoken word CD; put the evening news on mute and watch the anchor's lips. See how many times they seem to be laughing. You'll see. It's all a joke to these people. They distort - you decide.
I forgot who cited this, but it is said most newspeople are actors and models. I mean, it is true; how many of the people reporting on the news actually understand what is being reported? How many times have you watched the news and it's been flubbed somehow?
If you want proof, try something Jello Biafra suggested on a spoken word CD; put the evening news on mute and watch the anchor's lips. See how many times they seem to be laughing. You'll see. It's all a joke to these people. They distort - you decide.
CHOMSKY ROCKS THE HOUSE!
159 days left. Let's see who's laughing then.
>CHOMSKY: I don't. I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world, which is committing horrendous terrorist acts and should stop.
On the left side of his mouth he calls the USA a terrorist nation, and on the right he mutters how great it is here.
The reason he thinks it's so great here is because his wallet is getting fat from you retards buying his ramblings.
Bennet ate Chomsky's lunch. You know it, I know it, and he knows it. Chomsky is like a babbling imbecile burdened with schizophrenia.
On the left side of his mouth he calls the USA a terrorist nation, and on the right he mutters how great it is here.
The reason he thinks it's so great here is because his wallet is getting fat from you retards buying his ramblings.
Bennet ate Chomsky's lunch. You know it, I know it, and he knows it. Chomsky is like a babbling imbecile burdened with schizophrenia.
HA-HA-HA, RIGHT WING CONEHEADS!!!!! NOW THAT CHOMSKY HAS BESTED BENNETT ON NATIONAL TV, IT IS YOUR DAYS THAT ARE NUMBERED AS THE EDIFICE OF OPPRESSION TUMBLES BEFORE THE WEIGHT OF THE MULTITUDE'S WRATH!!!!!!! HA HA HA HA HA!!!! HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!
"HA-HA-HA, RIGHT WING CONEHEADS!!!!! NOW THAT CHOMSKY HAS BESTED BENNETT ON NATIONAL TV, IT IS YOUR DAYS THAT ARE NUMBERED AS THE EDIFICE OF OPPRESSION TUMBLES BEFORE THE WEIGHT OF THE MULTITUDE'S WRATH!!!!!!! HA HA HA HA HA!!!! HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!"
En Ingles, por favor...
En Ingles, por favor...
How come you left wingers never answer that question. If the USA is such a bad, bad nation with such a bad, bad governement...why do you choose to stay here? Why??
The majority obviously likes it the way it is here. That's why it is the way it is. Isn't that what Democracy is all about?
And why does everyone in the world rush to the USA when we lax our borders? Why?
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
The majority obviously likes it the way it is here. That's why it is the way it is. Isn't that what Democracy is all about?
And why does everyone in the world rush to the USA when we lax our borders? Why?
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
IT IS CHOMSKY THAT BESTED BENNETT, YOU IMBECILIC EPITOME OF RIGHTIST HATRED!!! HE SWEPT THE CNN FLOOR WITH THAT MORON'S MOP OF MANGLY HAIR!! MAY THE MULTITUDE DESTROY THE EDIFICE OF OPPRESSION THAT KEEPS MAGGOTS LIKE YOU FEASTING ON THE SWEAT OF THE BODY POLITIC! HA HA HA HA HA! WE WILL HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR YOU! YOU WILL HAVE TO GET JOBS AT THE PEOPLE'S COLLECTIVE FARM SERVING CAVIER TO THE ONCE-OPPRESSED MASSES WHO WILL NOW RULE OVER THE FESTERING CARCASS OF THE MASTER CAPITALIST CLASS!!! HA HA HA HA HA!!!
that hilarious! you crack me up man!
he said I'll "have to get a job"!!!
too funny!!
HAR!
he said I'll "have to get a job"!!!
too funny!!
HAR!
1) you may want to stop shouting, unless your ignorant fallacy-ridden mind prevents it (in which case, please yell away - you have my sympathies)
2) Read up on the current status of the remaining "workers paradises"... Cuba? N. Korea? Vietnam (oh, no wait - they're embracing the evil "CAPITALIST MASTER CLASS")
3) Seems like you can't wait to get into power so YOU can start opressing people - wow, very enlightened of you...
In theory, Socialism sounds like a neat idea - unfortunately it gets f**ked up EVERY TIME by this thing called human nature...
2) Read up on the current status of the remaining "workers paradises"... Cuba? N. Korea? Vietnam (oh, no wait - they're embracing the evil "CAPITALIST MASTER CLASS")
3) Seems like you can't wait to get into power so YOU can start opressing people - wow, very enlightened of you...
In theory, Socialism sounds like a neat idea - unfortunately it gets f**ked up EVERY TIME by this thing called human nature...
<How come you left wingers never answer that question. If the USA is such a bad, bad nation with such a bad, bad governement...why do you choose to stay here? Why?? >
Because it is a great country burdened by a corrupt ruling corporate and militarist elite that practices terrorism.
It is a great country because of things like: the eight hour day, won by unions; the weekend, also won by the unions; by free speech, secured by leftists; by the separation of church and state, which rescued the U.S.A. from a possible right wing Taliban, and was implemented by ACLU liberals; by the triumph over Nazism waged by liberals like FDR despite initial opposition of Republicans; by Social Security and Medicare, which rescued millions of people from poverty and was won by leftists, also despite fierce opposition by conservatives; by the overthrow of slavery and segregation, also a leftist triumph; by environmental laws passed over the objections of corporate fascists; by the vast improvements in food quality won by socialist reformers like Upton Sinclair.
The question is: why do YOU conservatives live here? The answer is because you are freeloading off the hard work of your political enemies, and we won't let you turn this country into a vast right wing death camp. You are the real parasites, the true terrorists.
Because it is a great country burdened by a corrupt ruling corporate and militarist elite that practices terrorism.
It is a great country because of things like: the eight hour day, won by unions; the weekend, also won by the unions; by free speech, secured by leftists; by the separation of church and state, which rescued the U.S.A. from a possible right wing Taliban, and was implemented by ACLU liberals; by the triumph over Nazism waged by liberals like FDR despite initial opposition of Republicans; by Social Security and Medicare, which rescued millions of people from poverty and was won by leftists, also despite fierce opposition by conservatives; by the overthrow of slavery and segregation, also a leftist triumph; by environmental laws passed over the objections of corporate fascists; by the vast improvements in food quality won by socialist reformers like Upton Sinclair.
The question is: why do YOU conservatives live here? The answer is because you are freeloading off the hard work of your political enemies, and we won't let you turn this country into a vast right wing death camp. You are the real parasites, the true terrorists.
>Because it is a great country burdened by a corrupt ruling corporate and militarist elite that practices terrorism.
Again, sounds like a schizophrenic. "It's the greatest...but it's a terrorist."
Why not just say "It's the greatest country in the world" and leave it at that? Are you afraid that we might have some common ground??
>The answer is because you are freeloading off the hard work of your political enemies.
Yep. Can't have any common ground with an enemy, can we?
We both think it's the greatest country in the world.
But only one side tries to take credit for WHY it's so great.
And they call me a facist.
Again, sounds like a schizophrenic. "It's the greatest...but it's a terrorist."
Why not just say "It's the greatest country in the world" and leave it at that? Are you afraid that we might have some common ground??
>The answer is because you are freeloading off the hard work of your political enemies.
Yep. Can't have any common ground with an enemy, can we?
We both think it's the greatest country in the world.
But only one side tries to take credit for WHY it's so great.
And they call me a facist.
"I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
Ah yes, the first lesson of propaganda: selectively quote someone to change the meaning of their statement. Chomsky actually said, "I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world, which is committing horrendous terrorist acts and should stop."
"If the USA is such a bad, bad nation with such a bad, bad governement...why do you choose to stay here?"
The second lesson is that everything should be painted as either black or white -- there is no gray. In the real world, however, this is not the case. America as a people enjoy a lot of freedom compared to the citizens of many other states, and America is a leading terrorist state. These facts are not diametrically opposed, though America does indeed derive much of its economic success from its military and economic oppression of much of the world. We don't need to oppress others in order to enjoy our political freedom.
In short, I appreciate the ideals on which America is based: a free, democratic society with a representative government. It's the specific implementation of the power structure that I abhore and protest against.
If the OPEC states had their own oil companies for delivering crude to the U.S., they would retain more profit to invest in their own markets. Instead, the U.S. keeps them fighting with each other such that they do not organize for their collective well being. This is Israel's main function as a U.S. client state. If you believe that the U.S. supports Israel because it feels bad about the Holocaust, you need to read more. The U.S. government cares about others only for how they can benefit the U.S. power structure.
"Read up on the current status of the remaining "workers paradises"... Cuba? N. Korea? Vietnam."
How convenient that you mention two countries that the U.S. has recently beat to a pulp without paying reparations or helping to clean up the mess and Cuba which is still under the harshest internationally-condemned sanctions because they are perceived as a "security threat" to the U.S. As well, you are speaking of specific implementations of various forms of socialism and communism. Similarly, I condemn the U.S.'s form of democracy through indoctrination and propaganda without claiming that democracy is evil.
Yeah, let's recap...
Left: "America is ruled by a corporate and military elite that practices terrorism."
Right: "Well why do you stay here?"
Left: "We like it here. It the greatest country in the world!"
Right: "Well we agree on that! but it seems hypocritical."
Left: "No it isn't! We are the reason the USA is SO great!! Not you! Why do you stay here? You are a parasite thriving on all our hard fought victories! You are a terrorist! Out with you! Expletive expletive invective taliban scum!!"
Right: "umm ok. anything you say dude! chill! maybe try decaf."
Left: "America is ruled by a corporate and military elite that practices terrorism."
Right: "Well why do you stay here?"
Left: "We like it here. It the greatest country in the world!"
Right: "Well we agree on that! but it seems hypocritical."
Left: "No it isn't! We are the reason the USA is SO great!! Not you! Why do you stay here? You are a parasite thriving on all our hard fought victories! You are a terrorist! Out with you! Expletive expletive invective taliban scum!!"
Right: "umm ok. anything you say dude! chill! maybe try decaf."
>I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world" - Chompky
>Ah yes, the first lesson of propaganda: selectively quote someone to change the meaning of their statement. Chomsky actually said, "I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world, which is committing horrendous terrorist acts and should stop."
How does that change the meaning of what he said?? He took tow separate issues and put them together in one sentence.
America is great. America is committing terrorist acts.
Only one of those statements answers the question of why he chooses to live here. Unless of course, you are saying he lives here because it is a great country AND because (he thinks) it commits terrorism. Is that what you are saying??
>Ah yes, the first lesson of propaganda: selectively quote someone to change the meaning of their statement. Chomsky actually said, "I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world, which is committing horrendous terrorist acts and should stop."
How does that change the meaning of what he said?? He took tow separate issues and put them together in one sentence.
America is great. America is committing terrorist acts.
Only one of those statements answers the question of why he chooses to live here. Unless of course, you are saying he lives here because it is a great country AND because (he thinks) it commits terrorism. Is that what you are saying??
<Left: "America is ruled by a corporate and military elite that practices terrorism." >
I said America is a great country despite being ruled by a terrorist elite
<Right: "Well why do you stay here?">
I said we are fighting to save it from the militarist elite that practices terrorism. The country belongs to the people, not to the militarist elite.
< "No it isn't! We are the reason the USA is SO great!! Not you! Why do you stay here? You are a parasite thriving on all our hard fought victories! You are a terrorist! Out with you! Expletive expletive invective taliban scum!!">
Funny how conservatives whine like babies when their own vile tactics are used against them. My statement was a rhetorical device meant to provoke you into engaging in these tactics. It worked perfectly.
Conservatives constantly accuse their opponents of being freeloaders and tell anyone who disagrees with them to "love it or leave it." They can dish it out, but they can't take it. Pathetic.
I said America is a great country despite being ruled by a terrorist elite
<Right: "Well why do you stay here?">
I said we are fighting to save it from the militarist elite that practices terrorism. The country belongs to the people, not to the militarist elite.
< "No it isn't! We are the reason the USA is SO great!! Not you! Why do you stay here? You are a parasite thriving on all our hard fought victories! You are a terrorist! Out with you! Expletive expletive invective taliban scum!!">
Funny how conservatives whine like babies when their own vile tactics are used against them. My statement was a rhetorical device meant to provoke you into engaging in these tactics. It worked perfectly.
Conservatives constantly accuse their opponents of being freeloaders and tell anyone who disagrees with them to "love it or leave it." They can dish it out, but they can't take it. Pathetic.
<Only one of those statements answers the question of why he chooses to live here. Unless of course, you are saying he lives here because it is a great country AND because (he thinks) it commits terrorism. Is that what you are saying??>
No, we (and he) are saying that we live here because it is great country despite the fact that its ruling elite practices terrorism. We're fighting to save it from the terrorists. It's our country, not theirs.
No, we (and he) are saying that we live here because it is great country despite the fact that its ruling elite practices terrorism. We're fighting to save it from the terrorists. It's our country, not theirs.
Evaluate the Chomsky double-talk further...
>Chomsky actually said, "I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world, which is committing horrendous terrorist acts and should stop."
Not exactly. This is how the dialogue went...
BENNETT: why do you choose to live in this terrorist nation, Mr. Chomsky?
CHOMSKY: I don't. I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world, which is committing horrendous terrorist acts and should stop.
So I guess we can practice terrorism and not be considered a terrorist nation. That makes sense!!
Well, ok, maybe not. But to a schizophrenic it would!
>Chomsky actually said, "I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world, which is committing horrendous terrorist acts and should stop."
Not exactly. This is how the dialogue went...
BENNETT: why do you choose to live in this terrorist nation, Mr. Chomsky?
CHOMSKY: I don't. I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world, which is committing horrendous terrorist acts and should stop.
So I guess we can practice terrorism and not be considered a terrorist nation. That makes sense!!
Well, ok, maybe not. But to a schizophrenic it would!
"How convenient that you mention two countries that the U.S. has recently beat to a pulp without paying reparations or helping to clean up the mess "
As I recall, the US did not invade N. Korea, in fact it was the "peace-loving" communists of N. Korea who invaded S. Korea and started to concflict. The US (and UN forces) barely fought to a draw (after the "peace-loving" Chinese communists joined the war)
As for Cuba - aside from the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, I'm not exactly sure how the US has "beaten them to a pulp"... They were an devout ally of the USSR, and had even allowed the staging of nuclear missiles on thier soil - so we put an embargo on them. If you're going to be hostile towards a nation, don't expect that nation to give you Most Favored Trading status...
Reparations? Ar you f**king kidding me? WE didn't make the mess, why the hell should we have to pay for the clean up, ESPECIALLY when those we were fighting against have continued to show their hostile and agressive tendencies? The Marshall plan helped rebuild Europe (including Germany) as the leadership/policies of the once-hostile nations ceased to exist. Once that occurs in N. Korea and Cuba you will see the embargos end.
As I recall, the US did not invade N. Korea, in fact it was the "peace-loving" communists of N. Korea who invaded S. Korea and started to concflict. The US (and UN forces) barely fought to a draw (after the "peace-loving" Chinese communists joined the war)
As for Cuba - aside from the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, I'm not exactly sure how the US has "beaten them to a pulp"... They were an devout ally of the USSR, and had even allowed the staging of nuclear missiles on thier soil - so we put an embargo on them. If you're going to be hostile towards a nation, don't expect that nation to give you Most Favored Trading status...
Reparations? Ar you f**king kidding me? WE didn't make the mess, why the hell should we have to pay for the clean up, ESPECIALLY when those we were fighting against have continued to show their hostile and agressive tendencies? The Marshall plan helped rebuild Europe (including Germany) as the leadership/policies of the once-hostile nations ceased to exist. Once that occurs in N. Korea and Cuba you will see the embargos end.
>No, we (and he) are saying that we live here because it is great country
ok, that answers the question.
>despite the fact that its ruling elite practices terrorism.
let's through that in there for good measure. Ruling elite! Give me a break. No war to fight again so let's make one up. Elite!!! I'd love to see Chomsky's tax return!! I'd post it on indybay so all you liberals can see who the ruling elite is.
>We're fighting to save it from the terrorists. It's our country, not theirs.
You guys are like the fricken ghostbusters...
When the ruling elite,
is in yo neighborhood,
Who ya gonna call??
LEFT WINGERS!
I AIN'T AFRAID-A NO REPUBLICAN!
ok, that answers the question.
>despite the fact that its ruling elite practices terrorism.
let's through that in there for good measure. Ruling elite! Give me a break. No war to fight again so let's make one up. Elite!!! I'd love to see Chomsky's tax return!! I'd post it on indybay so all you liberals can see who the ruling elite is.
>We're fighting to save it from the terrorists. It's our country, not theirs.
You guys are like the fricken ghostbusters...
When the ruling elite,
is in yo neighborhood,
Who ya gonna call??
LEFT WINGERS!
I AIN'T AFRAID-A NO REPUBLICAN!
so i guess 15 years of pointless war with vietnam doesn't count as beating to a pulp. and as for reparations, we didnt offer reparations because we didnt win(despite beating them to a pulp) in europe we crushed germany and installed a new government and then funelled a bunch of money so they could spend it on american industrial goods. in vietnam and N. Korea they are leninist(not communist) and so we refused any help.
and as for Cuba being hostile, they aren't certainly not anymore. they couldn't be hostile to us if they wanted.
and as for Cuba being hostile, they aren't certainly not anymore. they couldn't be hostile to us if they wanted.
"As for Cuba - aside from the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, I'm not exactly sure how the US has 'beaten them to a pulp'"
I was refering to Vietnam and Korea as a whole. As for Cuba, I only said that it "is still under the harshest internationally-condemned sanctions because they are perceived as a 'security threat' to the U.S." I understand the confusion though, no big deal.
"They were an devout ally of the USSR"
Do you think that should still apply in 2002? Does Cuba have nukes? Does Cuba have an army, navy, or air force? Are they in the top ten largest military powers in the world? What threat does this great power pose to the U.S. that is still under sanctions that go far beyond what was ever levied against South Africa? And what right does the U.S. have to impose its sanctions regime on other nations that wish to trade with Cuba?
"Reparations? Ar you f**king kidding me? WE didn't make the mess, why the hell should we have to pay for the clean up, ESPECIALLY when those we were fighting against have continued to show their hostile and agressive tendencies?"
No, I'm not kidding. You've heard of the U.S. Invasion of South Vietnam, right? Or perhaps you've heard it called the U.S. defense of South Vietnam. I don't recall Vietnam boming California, using biological agents in Washington, or slaughtering U.S. civilians in their homes and villages. No, after the mass popular uprising in South Vietnam in support of communism we began an extensive terror campaign against the civilian peasant population in South Vietnam.
Later we extended our campaign into Cambodia and Laos. During the secret war in Laos, the U.S. dropped more bomb ordnance than all forces involved in the entire WWII theatre. Laos was a completely rural farm population, and we destroyed every farm and village we could find. To this day children are being killed and maimed by unexploded bombs in Loas. Their crime? The North Vietnamese sent troops and supplies on roads that went through Eastern Laos, and those evil Laotians didn't raise their hoes to stop them.
And what exactly was South Vietnam's crime? The people mistakenly believed that they had some sort of right to self-determination by choosing their own form of government. How silly indeed! And the U.S. is still fighting all attempts to bring itself to the table to discuss reparation payments. I suppose as long as Southest Asia remains subservient to American transnational corporations they can avoid further "defensive actions" by the U.S.
>Funny how conservatives whine like babies when their own vile tactics are used against them.
yeah, ok, whining. yeah that's it. uh huh. ok. right.
>My statement was a rhetorical device meant to provoke you into engaging in these tactics. It worked perfectly.
"I MEANT to do that!! Ha-ha!" - Pee Wee Herman
Oh yeah, well my statement was dialogue designed to induce you into saying you meant to say that to make me say what I did! Infinity!! haha! Jix! now you gotta buy me a coke!!! lalalaala
>Conservatives constantly accuse their opponents of being freeloaders and tell anyone who disagrees with them to "love it or leave it."
"I know you are but what am I?? I know you are but what am I?? I know YOU are but what AM I??" - Pee Wee Herman
>They can dish it out, but they can't take it. Pathetic.
Fred, I don't mean to be rude but you need to get some new material dude. Pee Wee Herman already made a whole act out of your sideshow.
yeah, ok, whining. yeah that's it. uh huh. ok. right.
>My statement was a rhetorical device meant to provoke you into engaging in these tactics. It worked perfectly.
"I MEANT to do that!! Ha-ha!" - Pee Wee Herman
Oh yeah, well my statement was dialogue designed to induce you into saying you meant to say that to make me say what I did! Infinity!! haha! Jix! now you gotta buy me a coke!!! lalalaala
>Conservatives constantly accuse their opponents of being freeloaders and tell anyone who disagrees with them to "love it or leave it."
"I know you are but what am I?? I know you are but what am I?? I know YOU are but what AM I??" - Pee Wee Herman
>They can dish it out, but they can't take it. Pathetic.
Fred, I don't mean to be rude but you need to get some new material dude. Pee Wee Herman already made a whole act out of your sideshow.
We didn't beat Vietnam to a pulp until the LineBacker II raids were sent in to try and force the N Vietnamese to the Paris talks... Until that point - certain targets were off limits for "political" reasons, and LBJ and McNamara micromanged the war to a ridiculous level - prolonging the conflict and adding to the total of dead on both sides. We should have never have been there in the first place.
Yes - we funneled money into Germany and Japan after the war to help rebuild their economies so they could buy American products (and so we would have stable allies in the region to fight the Cold War which we saw coming). So what? Look what it has done for them - they are in many ways better off than some of the countries that were our allies in WW2. In some ways they're better off the we are (I'll take Germany's vacation scedule over ours ANY day)
Cuba is not a military threat - not many countries in the world are to the US. However, the rhetoric Castro spews is as virulent and hostile as it was 30 years ago... He's not a threat in any other way as he doesn't have the means to be. Lifting the sanctions would give him the ability/funding to do so.
Yes - we funneled money into Germany and Japan after the war to help rebuild their economies so they could buy American products (and so we would have stable allies in the region to fight the Cold War which we saw coming). So what? Look what it has done for them - they are in many ways better off than some of the countries that were our allies in WW2. In some ways they're better off the we are (I'll take Germany's vacation scedule over ours ANY day)
Cuba is not a military threat - not many countries in the world are to the US. However, the rhetoric Castro spews is as virulent and hostile as it was 30 years ago... He's not a threat in any other way as he doesn't have the means to be. Lifting the sanctions would give him the ability/funding to do so.
...with a tiny Pee Pee.
"[Castro]'s not a threat in any other way as he doesn't have the means to be. Lifting the sanctions would give him the ability/funding to do so."
How would trading food and medicine with Cuba allow Castro to become a threat? Are you saying that if we alleviate some of the suffering of Cuba's citizens by feeding them that they'll suddenly invade America?
And why then did we allow China to join the WTO? China has openly threatened the U.S. if we interfere with their imperial aspirations, yet we don't impose sanctions against them. Once again America chooses its "national enemies" based upon their usefulness as a way to enhance corporate profits and U.S. economic control.
Your sophomoric humor offends, sir. Perhaps if you were not so busy attempting to appeal to the lowest common denominator of this fine establishment, you’d have been able to see that I was completely correct in stating that…
You lefties are a bunch of sniveling goo-goos. Ask yer mom how big my pee pee is you waste of organic tissue.
Nahnny-nahnny nah-nah!
You lefties are a bunch of sniveling goo-goos. Ask yer mom how big my pee pee is you waste of organic tissue.
Nahnny-nahnny nah-nah!
>China has openly threatened the U.S. if we interfere with their imperial aspirations
you got that right...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/8/14/174213.shtml
I say we get the bastards before they get us!
you got that right...
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/8/14/174213.shtml
I say we get the bastards before they get us!
Until the Vietnam War, most Americans lived in a warm cocoon of cozy ignorance. The War shattered our innocence, our sense of self, our reason for being, the naivete of our inner child, the soul of our shoes, the bubble in our fruit loop; we realized that we had previously seen only a black and white world, untouched by the defining colors of a more nuanced view. Now, as the flag flows brightly over our terrorist-ravaged land, we must confront the fact that America's inner child has grown into an embittered adolescent who feels betrayed by a cold, uncaring world. Who will lift us out of this fog of despondency? Who will give us back our amber waves of grain, our fruited majesty, our inter-locking corporate directorships? We must all pull together in this teary-eyed time of trial, this morbid moment of monumental mendacity. Yes, all of us: black, white, pastel, blue, turquoise green, yellow, orange, purple, noam and bill . We must all take a moment each day to embrace each other on the street, in the supermarket, or at the FBI Detention Center. Yes, even suspected terrorists are welcome in our big, loving family, as long as they promise not to re-enroll at the flight training school and to put away the suitcase with the dirty bomb. Could any of us say we would not throw the first stone at the Taliban Adultery Prevention Center? I know it sounds idealistic, but life is idealistic, God is idealistic, American is idealistic. Yes, America, that city on a hill, that mobile home on the mountain, that pup tent on the prairie. America loves us, and we love America. Thank you, God bless you, and a teary good night from here at the Kabul Pizza Hut, high above the fruity plain, cheese and no pineapples please.
"Conservatives" are here to spread venom, call people names, make threats, and try to "spoil" the room with negativity. Recognize the following:
1. This is a sign that they can't win on the issues! If they could they wouldn't resort to this childish behavior.
2. They don't really believe in their principles! There is NO WAY they would open their big mouths like that in public, OR have the balls to gather in public for a protest. You ever see a right-wing action as big as the one in SF on April 20? OR in Seattle? OR in Italy? OR anywhere? All talk and no action.
3. They act like children so treat them like children! Ignore their negative behavior-don't respond. Don't even finish reading their invective. Acknowledge them only when they are reasonable, respectful and are genuinely trying to come to an understanding on the issues. Eventually they will get sick of the endless, useless circle of hate.
4. Pity them. There never was an abusive person who wasn't abused Can you imagine what the home-life is like for RacerX? I read his post and see a miserable person leading a miserable life. Wake up "conservatives": hatred, resentment, and venom ALWAYS leads to sickness. Go to any cancer ward and they will tell you this.
1. This is a sign that they can't win on the issues! If they could they wouldn't resort to this childish behavior.
2. They don't really believe in their principles! There is NO WAY they would open their big mouths like that in public, OR have the balls to gather in public for a protest. You ever see a right-wing action as big as the one in SF on April 20? OR in Seattle? OR in Italy? OR anywhere? All talk and no action.
3. They act like children so treat them like children! Ignore their negative behavior-don't respond. Don't even finish reading their invective. Acknowledge them only when they are reasonable, respectful and are genuinely trying to come to an understanding on the issues. Eventually they will get sick of the endless, useless circle of hate.
4. Pity them. There never was an abusive person who wasn't abused Can you imagine what the home-life is like for RacerX? I read his post and see a miserable person leading a miserable life. Wake up "conservatives": hatred, resentment, and venom ALWAYS leads to sickness. Go to any cancer ward and they will tell you this.
You are truly and amazing person. Barely worth this comment, except I just couldn't help noting the maturity of the person noting the maturity of the aforementioned. Just amazing???!!!
My god, some of the conservatives in this comment line are doing exactly the same thing that I was criticizing in Bennett earlier, in that you are showing an inability to engage in abstract thinking of any level of complexity.
Why are you all hung up on this idea that "why do you live here if you have criticisms of the US"? How can something be both good and bad at the same time? error-error-does not compute.
Come on - this isn't that hard. Did you all attend schools that suppressed critical thinking? Do you realize that child psychologists define stages of development where children start to develop the ability to think abstractly, and to be able to go beyond pure black and white. If you don't mind my pointing it out, this is an essential stage for developing complete moral understanding.
States, and people too, can have both good and bad elements at the same time! And because something or someone has done good things, that doesn't excuse them from responsibility for the bad things they have done! If you have ever read anything Chomsky has written, you would have encountered his statement of opinion that the US allows one of the greatest amounts of freedom internally to its citizens among states in the world - and this comes from the people making and keeping it that way rather than the government nobly permitting that.
For the literal minded - here are some concrete examples. If we were to go back in time to late medieval europe where every country was a monarchy, and we focused on the most benevolent kingdom where the monarchs take quite as much of the produce and wealth from their subjects and didn't conscript so many of the people for selfish wars over territory, it wouldn't be surprising that many people would prefer to live there and would have happy lives, and even might like the king and embrace myths that describe the kings and princes and princesses as glorious special people. But it would be completely inappropriate in a moral sense to say that monarchy is acceptable in any way, and the wrong things that the monarch still do such as skimming off wealth from the people while being unelected is okay, just because it is the state has the relatively nicest living conditions.
What if a great person, a mother theresa, who had done all sorts of humanitarian altruistic acts, started to do bad things - let's say they assaulted their child. It would be difficult to believe, but would this mean that either they turned into a completely bad person, or that they couldn't have done this because they are a good person and therefore nothing should be done? no - it's just more complex than that.
Why are you all hung up on this idea that "why do you live here if you have criticisms of the US"? How can something be both good and bad at the same time? error-error-does not compute.
Come on - this isn't that hard. Did you all attend schools that suppressed critical thinking? Do you realize that child psychologists define stages of development where children start to develop the ability to think abstractly, and to be able to go beyond pure black and white. If you don't mind my pointing it out, this is an essential stage for developing complete moral understanding.
States, and people too, can have both good and bad elements at the same time! And because something or someone has done good things, that doesn't excuse them from responsibility for the bad things they have done! If you have ever read anything Chomsky has written, you would have encountered his statement of opinion that the US allows one of the greatest amounts of freedom internally to its citizens among states in the world - and this comes from the people making and keeping it that way rather than the government nobly permitting that.
For the literal minded - here are some concrete examples. If we were to go back in time to late medieval europe where every country was a monarchy, and we focused on the most benevolent kingdom where the monarchs take quite as much of the produce and wealth from their subjects and didn't conscript so many of the people for selfish wars over territory, it wouldn't be surprising that many people would prefer to live there and would have happy lives, and even might like the king and embrace myths that describe the kings and princes and princesses as glorious special people. But it would be completely inappropriate in a moral sense to say that monarchy is acceptable in any way, and the wrong things that the monarch still do such as skimming off wealth from the people while being unelected is okay, just because it is the state has the relatively nicest living conditions.
What if a great person, a mother theresa, who had done all sorts of humanitarian altruistic acts, started to do bad things - let's say they assaulted their child. It would be difficult to believe, but would this mean that either they turned into a completely bad person, or that they couldn't have done this because they are a good person and therefore nothing should be done? no - it's just more complex than that.
Chomsky shouldn't have said that the USA is the greatest country. He shouldn't have allowed himself to be baited by a moralizing bag-of-gas like Bennett. Has Chomsky been to every country? How do we measure these things anyway? Is America the greatest because it has the most McDonalds? The most urban sprawl? The greatest levels of atomization? The most cretinizing mass culture and tedious cityscapes? Or is it the massive chasm between the rich and poor? Or the number of poor and working class people in prison? Or the murder rate? The conformism and ignorance of Americans?
All of those things make America the greatest nation in the world in their own ways, among many other reasons.
But probably the greatest reason is the fact that citizenship here comes with an option. That being, if you don't like it here then you can always go elsewhere. Ultimate freedom!
Unfortunately for the rest of us, you don't see any of these complaining folks renouncing their citizenships do ya? And it's unlikely you ever will.
And of course, if you've ever seen the line outside an American Embassy for VISAs or at customs and immigration at an American international airport, you'd know that I'm not alone in thinking America is number 1.
But to all you anarchists, liberals, activists, socialists, progressives or whatever you call yourselves, if you wanna make a statement, make it the ultimate one. Renounce your citiezenship! It's as easy as sending a letter to the Department of State. Imagine how much of a statement that will make to the rest of us!! You'd be admired for your courage and there'd be one less car in front of me at McDonald's drive through!
Of course now you can feel free to banter on about how it should be me leaving and giving up my citizenship and blah blah blah. I've heard all the fantastical leftist "logic" before. I usually refer to it as schizophrenia, but I'm sure that there's probably a more accurate name for the neurosis posessed by you folks.
Ciao!
But probably the greatest reason is the fact that citizenship here comes with an option. That being, if you don't like it here then you can always go elsewhere. Ultimate freedom!
Unfortunately for the rest of us, you don't see any of these complaining folks renouncing their citizenships do ya? And it's unlikely you ever will.
And of course, if you've ever seen the line outside an American Embassy for VISAs or at customs and immigration at an American international airport, you'd know that I'm not alone in thinking America is number 1.
But to all you anarchists, liberals, activists, socialists, progressives or whatever you call yourselves, if you wanna make a statement, make it the ultimate one. Renounce your citiezenship! It's as easy as sending a letter to the Department of State. Imagine how much of a statement that will make to the rest of us!! You'd be admired for your courage and there'd be one less car in front of me at McDonald's drive through!
Of course now you can feel free to banter on about how it should be me leaving and giving up my citizenship and blah blah blah. I've heard all the fantastical leftist "logic" before. I usually refer to it as schizophrenia, but I'm sure that there's probably a more accurate name for the neurosis posessed by you folks.
Ciao!
>Bennett: Go through the Chomsky work, line by line, argument by argument, and you will see this is a man who has made a career out of hating America and out of trashing the record of this country.
I saw the interview. The above line pretty much sums it up.
Here's a good question for you: If those of you who agree with Chomsky are the true intellects of our nation, how come you're not in power? or, if pwer is not your game, why haven't you convinced everyone to see it your way? Seems if you were that smart, you could have figured out how to do that already. No corporate media, corporate money, rich people rule, just wait it's coming, etc.. excuses either. Just a simple answer. Why aren't we doing it your way right now, even as we speak?
I saw the interview. The above line pretty much sums it up.
Here's a good question for you: If those of you who agree with Chomsky are the true intellects of our nation, how come you're not in power? or, if pwer is not your game, why haven't you convinced everyone to see it your way? Seems if you were that smart, you could have figured out how to do that already. No corporate media, corporate money, rich people rule, just wait it's coming, etc.. excuses either. Just a simple answer. Why aren't we doing it your way right now, even as we speak?
HE HATES YOU SUSEJ CAUSE YOU SMELL BAD.
YES SUSEJ YOU OR YOUR ODOR ARE NOT LIKED
SO GO BACK TO THE ROCK YOU CRAWLED OUT FROM UNDER YOU WORTHLESS PIECE OF TURD
YES SUSEJ YOU OR YOUR ODOR ARE NOT LIKED
SO GO BACK TO THE ROCK YOU CRAWLED OUT FROM UNDER YOU WORTHLESS PIECE OF TURD
Eric, I encourage you to continue eating at McDonald's, once all the liberals get out of your way.
In fact, I encourage all conservatives to show their patriotic spirit by eating at McDonald's, spraying toxic weed killer on their lawns, eating greasy potato chips, and consuming massive quantaties of that swill that Budweiser and other U.S. brewers charmingly refers to as "beer."
It won't be long before one or all of these things kills you off, and we leftists can get on with our work of creating the People's Republic of the United States of North America, with Justice, Equality, and Free Tofu for All.
Oh, and don't exercise; just watch lots of crappy commercial television while all those granola health freaks go jogging by every evening. Sure they'll live longer, but it's such hard work, and besides, "Friends" is on!
All conservatives: Show your support for the American way by consuming its lousy food and celebrating its slob lifestyle! And don't forget to wave the flag when the managed care company turns down your request for heart surgery and then moves off-shore to save on its taxes!
God Bless America! If you don't buy all the right wing propaganda, the terrorists win!
In fact, I encourage all conservatives to show their patriotic spirit by eating at McDonald's, spraying toxic weed killer on their lawns, eating greasy potato chips, and consuming massive quantaties of that swill that Budweiser and other U.S. brewers charmingly refers to as "beer."
It won't be long before one or all of these things kills you off, and we leftists can get on with our work of creating the People's Republic of the United States of North America, with Justice, Equality, and Free Tofu for All.
Oh, and don't exercise; just watch lots of crappy commercial television while all those granola health freaks go jogging by every evening. Sure they'll live longer, but it's such hard work, and besides, "Friends" is on!
All conservatives: Show your support for the American way by consuming its lousy food and celebrating its slob lifestyle! And don't forget to wave the flag when the managed care company turns down your request for heart surgery and then moves off-shore to save on its taxes!
God Bless America! If you don't buy all the right wing propaganda, the terrorists win!
I second Mike's recommendations.
I'd find your complacency humorous, eric, if it weren't so god-damn dime-a-dozen. Like Mike suggests, you rightist conservatives are slobs -- mental slobs. I could come up with the shit you clog Indymedia up with in my sleep. It's trite, it's stupid, it's thoughtless, it's basically just junk.
But I appreciate that you and like-minded clones expound as frequently and as loudly as you do. After all, you further discredit yourselves with each passing day. As far as I can tell, 911 galvanized your ilk. It filled you with righteous indignation, it gave your life meaning. In the months immediately after 911 your kind had the floor and people were susceptible to your simplifications and red-white-and-blue rhetoric. But have you noticed, eric, that your glory days are dwindling? Why? Think thousands dead in Afghanistan and Osama on the lamb. Think Enron. Think Argentina's free-market implosion. Think stock market. Think shitty wages. Think rocketing health-care costs. Think huge rents. Think Bush's lies about what he knew prior to 911.
Just think, eric.
I'd find your complacency humorous, eric, if it weren't so god-damn dime-a-dozen. Like Mike suggests, you rightist conservatives are slobs -- mental slobs. I could come up with the shit you clog Indymedia up with in my sleep. It's trite, it's stupid, it's thoughtless, it's basically just junk.
But I appreciate that you and like-minded clones expound as frequently and as loudly as you do. After all, you further discredit yourselves with each passing day. As far as I can tell, 911 galvanized your ilk. It filled you with righteous indignation, it gave your life meaning. In the months immediately after 911 your kind had the floor and people were susceptible to your simplifications and red-white-and-blue rhetoric. But have you noticed, eric, that your glory days are dwindling? Why? Think thousands dead in Afghanistan and Osama on the lamb. Think Enron. Think Argentina's free-market implosion. Think stock market. Think shitty wages. Think rocketing health-care costs. Think huge rents. Think Bush's lies about what he knew prior to 911.
Just think, eric.
>Bennett: Go through the Chomsky work, line by line, argument by argument, and you will see this is a man who has made a career out of hating America and out of trashing the record of this country.
Pop quiz:
An ad hominem is not a what?
Pop quiz:
An ad hominem is not a what?
and so do you bitch!!!!!!!and so do you and so do you bitch!!!!!!!bitch!!!!!!!and so doand so do you bitch!!!!!!! you bitch!!!!!!!and soand so do you bitch!!!!!!! do you bitch!!!!!!!and so do you band so do you bitch!!!!!!!itch!!!!!!!and so do you bitch!!!!!!!and so do you bitch!!!!!!!and so do you bitch!!!!!!!and so do you and so do you bitch!!!!!!!bitch!!!!!!!and so doand so do you bitch!!!!!!! you bitch!!!!!!!and soand so do you bitch!!!!!!! do you and so do you bitch!!!!!!!and so do you and so do you bitch!!!!!!!bitch!!!!!!!and so doand so do you bitch!!!!!!! you bitch!!!!!!!and soand so do you bitch!!!!!!! do you and so do you bitch!!!!!!!and so do you and so do you bitch!!!!!!!bitch!!!!!!!and so doand so do you bitch!!!!!!! you bitch!!!!!!!and soand so do you bitch!!!!!!! do you and so do you bitch!!!!!!!and so do you and so do you bitch!!!!!!!bitch!!!!!!!and so doand so do you bitch!!!!!!! you bitch!!!!!!!and soand so do you bitch!!!!!!! do you bitch!!!!!!!and so do you band so do you bitch!!!!!!!and so do you bitch!!!!!!!and so do you and so do you bitch!!!!!!!bitch!!!!!!!and so doand so do you bitch!!!!!!! you bitch!!!!!!!and soand so do you bitch!!!!!!! do you and so do you bitch!!!!!!!and so do you and so do you bitch!!!!!!!bitch!!!!!!!and so doand so do you bitch!!!!!!! you bitch!!!!!!!and soand so do you bitch!!!!!!! do you and so do you bitch!!!!!!!and so do you and so do you bitch!!!!!!!bitch!!!!!!!and so doand so do you bitch!!!!!!! you bitch!!!!!!!and soand so do you bitch!!!!!!! do you bitch!!!!!!!and so do you band so do you bitch!!!!!!!itch!!!!!!!and so do you bitch!!!!!!!and so do you bitch!!!!!!!bitch!!!!!!!and so do you band so do you bitch!!!!!!!itch!!!!!!!and so do you bitch!!!!!!!and so do you bitch!!!!!!!bitch!!!!!!!and so do you band so do you bitch!!!!!!!itch!!!!!!!and so do you bitch!!!!!!!and so do you bitch!!!!!!!itch!!!!!!!and so do you bitch!!!!!!!and so do you bitch!!!!!!!bitch!!!!!!!and so do you band so do you bitch!!!!!!!itch!!!!!!!and so do you bitch!!!!!!!and so do you bitch!!!!!!!bitch!!!!!!!and so do you band so do you bitch!!!!!!!itch!!!!!!!and so do you bitch!!!!!!!and so do you bitch!!!!!!!bitch!!!!!!!and so do you band so do you bitch!!!!!!!itch!!!!!!!and so do you bitch!!!!!!!and so do you bitch!!!!!!!
>I second Mike's recommendations.
Do you think we conservatives actually listen to your liberal recommendations? Don't flatter yourselves!
>I'd find your complacency humorous, eric, if it weren't so god-damn dime-a-dozen.
god, you are boring.
>you rightist conservatives are slobs -- mental slobs.
It's not a mental workout to make a career from calling America a terrorist nation. It's really pretty easy. As long as super-absorbant sponges like yourself are out there to buy it up.
>I could come up with the shit you clog Indymedia up with in my sleep. It's trite, it's stupid, it's thoughtless, it's basically just junk.
at least it's not boring. like some people.
>But I appreciate that you and like-minded clones ... blah blah blah blah banter mutter stutter blah blah rant rant blah blah double blah.
boring.
>Just think, eric.
me thinks you should:
1. try decaf.
2. work on your personality (or lack thereof).
Do you think we conservatives actually listen to your liberal recommendations? Don't flatter yourselves!
>I'd find your complacency humorous, eric, if it weren't so god-damn dime-a-dozen.
god, you are boring.
>you rightist conservatives are slobs -- mental slobs.
It's not a mental workout to make a career from calling America a terrorist nation. It's really pretty easy. As long as super-absorbant sponges like yourself are out there to buy it up.
>I could come up with the shit you clog Indymedia up with in my sleep. It's trite, it's stupid, it's thoughtless, it's basically just junk.
at least it's not boring. like some people.
>But I appreciate that you and like-minded clones ... blah blah blah blah banter mutter stutter blah blah rant rant blah blah double blah.
boring.
>Just think, eric.
me thinks you should:
1. try decaf.
2. work on your personality (or lack thereof).
Main Entry: 1ad ho·mi·nem
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
Date: 1598
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
>Bennett: Go through the Chomsky work, line by line, argument by argument,
appeals to intellect.
>and you will see this is a man who has made a career out of hating America and out of trashing the record of this country.
states an intellectual fact.
The only contentions made during the debate were why Chompsky chooses to live in a terrorist nation. Of course, Chompsky practices the logical debate fallacy of:
Avoidance.
for more information on this and other logical fallacies of debate, see:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm
Pronunciation: (')ad-'hä-m&-"nem, -n&m
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin, literally, to the person
Date: 1598
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
>Bennett: Go through the Chomsky work, line by line, argument by argument,
appeals to intellect.
>and you will see this is a man who has made a career out of hating America and out of trashing the record of this country.
states an intellectual fact.
The only contentions made during the debate were why Chompsky chooses to live in a terrorist nation. Of course, Chompsky practices the logical debate fallacy of:
Avoidance.
for more information on this and other logical fallacies of debate, see:
http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.htm
>>Bennett: Go through the Chomsky work, line by line, argument by argument,
>appeals to intellect.
True.
>.and you will see this is a man who has made a career out of hating America and out of trashing the record of this country.
>states an intellectual fact.
False.
This is ignoratio elenchi. (see: http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/irrelev.htm) Just because the first statement is true, in no way means the second is true. In fact, Chomsky has made a career out linguistics. His political commentary is, at most, a paying hobby.
>appeals to intellect.
True.
>.and you will see this is a man who has made a career out of hating America and out of trashing the record of this country.
>states an intellectual fact.
False.
This is ignoratio elenchi. (see: http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/irrelev.htm) Just because the first statement is true, in no way means the second is true. In fact, Chomsky has made a career out linguistics. His political commentary is, at most, a paying hobby.
Bennett claims we can "go through Chomsky's work, line by line, argument by argument", but rarely do Chomsky-bashers ever present a coherent line-by-line rebuttal. Which makes sense, because Chomsky backs up what he says, often with extensive footnotes.
Bennett also tries to get in the Khmer Rouge-lover smear, which has also been debunked by Chomsky (see _Manufacturing Consent_, among others).
Bennett also tries to get in the Khmer Rouge-lover smear, which has also been debunked by Chomsky (see _Manufacturing Consent_, among others).
"propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship" -Noam Chomsky
i have been on the left/truthful side for many years, and am still deeply satisfied to see Noam Chomsky rip apart some conservative liar on national television. but it feels like this debate goes nowhere--the truth is there to take, seemingly obvious, and yet some see it differently. is this wrong? i'm not so sure anymore. when you look at the whole picture, left right and center are just a part of the whole damn thing. there's no righteous words to scream that will make the soldiers turn around and go home, and there's no way to silence an oppressed majority (even with a pretense of democracy).
"literary or scientific, liberal or specialist, all our education is predominantly
verbal and therefore fails to accomplish what it is supposed to do. instead of
transforming children into fully developed adults, it turns out students of the
natural sciences who are completely unaware of nature as the primary fact of
experience, it inflicts upon the world students of the humanities who know nothing
of humanity, their own or anyone else's." -Aldous Huxley, 'the doors of perception'
so we look for a common ground. search for the hidden divinity in all people, and this might be easier to find if we stop attacking the apparent differences. and base it on compassion. obviously something is wrong and there are many rich captains going down with the ship. i'll leave you all with an ancient native-canadian/american saying, and a request for peaceful feedback. nobody got anywhere with a hockey referee by calling him an asshole, but if you complain softly and tactfully, looking into his eyes, appealing to his human sense of good, you might get a little luck the next time around.
"our enemies are sacred because they make us strong"
i have been on the left/truthful side for many years, and am still deeply satisfied to see Noam Chomsky rip apart some conservative liar on national television. but it feels like this debate goes nowhere--the truth is there to take, seemingly obvious, and yet some see it differently. is this wrong? i'm not so sure anymore. when you look at the whole picture, left right and center are just a part of the whole damn thing. there's no righteous words to scream that will make the soldiers turn around and go home, and there's no way to silence an oppressed majority (even with a pretense of democracy).
"literary or scientific, liberal or specialist, all our education is predominantly
verbal and therefore fails to accomplish what it is supposed to do. instead of
transforming children into fully developed adults, it turns out students of the
natural sciences who are completely unaware of nature as the primary fact of
experience, it inflicts upon the world students of the humanities who know nothing
of humanity, their own or anyone else's." -Aldous Huxley, 'the doors of perception'
so we look for a common ground. search for the hidden divinity in all people, and this might be easier to find if we stop attacking the apparent differences. and base it on compassion. obviously something is wrong and there are many rich captains going down with the ship. i'll leave you all with an ancient native-canadian/american saying, and a request for peaceful feedback. nobody got anywhere with a hockey referee by calling him an asshole, but if you complain softly and tactfully, looking into his eyes, appealing to his human sense of good, you might get a little luck the next time around.
"our enemies are sacred because they make us strong"
Yes - a debate can be a very useful tool for people to explore points of view and examine arguments. Debates can be flawed in that they channel an issue into appearing to be only two sided when there are many possible sides, and a good debater can 'win' any debate even if they represented a ridiculous point of view - but it can psychologically appear that that 'side' is the better point of view, by itself. A really short contrived debate where people interrupt each other and have 20 seconds to present an argument doesn't demonstrate anything either.
Here is what William Bennett is up to. He got them to invite Chomsky on for the first time because he is involved with this AVOT thing - 'Americans for Victory Over Terrorism'. http://www.avot.org/stories/storyReader$29
I *wish* that the US would actually promote democracy, like they say.
AVOT:
"The threats we face today are both external and internal: external in that there are groups and states that want to attack the United States; internal in that there are those who are attempting to use this opportunity to promulgate their agenda of 'blame America first.' Both threats stem from either a hatred for the American ideals of freedom and equality or a misunderstanding of those ideals and their practice. Our goal is to address the present threats so as to eradicate future terrorism and defeat ideologies that support it."
Here is what William Bennett is up to. He got them to invite Chomsky on for the first time because he is involved with this AVOT thing - 'Americans for Victory Over Terrorism'. http://www.avot.org/stories/storyReader$29
I *wish* that the US would actually promote democracy, like they say.
AVOT:
"The threats we face today are both external and internal: external in that there are groups and states that want to attack the United States; internal in that there are those who are attempting to use this opportunity to promulgate their agenda of 'blame America first.' Both threats stem from either a hatred for the American ideals of freedom and equality or a misunderstanding of those ideals and their practice. Our goal is to address the present threats so as to eradicate future terrorism and defeat ideologies that support it."
I infer from your response, eric, that you have no response at all. Like most rightwingers your specialty is straw-man arguments and sneering at ideas that you don't understand nor able to refute. Like I said: you're a slob.
What would you like me to say aaron? That I really didn't think you were boring? Perhaps you wanted me to agree with you and disassociate myself from my Americanism? Or maybe, just like a 6 year old thows a tantrum, you just want daddy's attention? Ok wittle aawon. Let dah-dah show ew sum attenchun. Heaw yew go awwwon. Dah-dah luves! Yes dah-dah does! Yes he does!
Now do you feel better? Got your daily dose of attetion from daddy? Ok, now get on with your pathetic life. We'll come back here tomorrow and do it again. Dah-dah doesn't have anything better to do then to tend to the like of you you stupid brat.
And to think, I could have such a lousy, good for nothing child.
Now do you feel better? Got your daily dose of attetion from daddy? Ok, now get on with your pathetic life. We'll come back here tomorrow and do it again. Dah-dah doesn't have anything better to do then to tend to the like of you you stupid brat.
And to think, I could have such a lousy, good for nothing child.
Eric Daddy, have I ever told you how attractive you are to me right now--oops, sorry, wrong e-mail.
Anyway, as the great social philosopher Sting said:
De do do do, de da da da
All I want to say to you
De do do do, de da da da
Their innocence will pull me through
If you could renounce your Americanism, that would be great. However, don't stop eating those cheeseburgers and fries, and remember--no exercising! We don't want you to lose that 46 inch waist or that all-American, cholesterol enriched blood. The best news is that it sounds from your baby talk that you are regressing into that primitive evolutionary state so typical of the right wing crowd. GRRRRRR!!!!! ARRRRRGGGG!!!!
That's it--conservatives are the missing link! No wonder they want us all to buy this creationism stuff: so we won't catch on! Newt Gingrich looks like an orangutan after a monthlong diet of vanilla milk shakes and ring dings!
Conservative: a largely herbivorous arboreal anthropoid political ape (Pongo republicanus) of Borneo, Sumatra and the United States that is about two thirds as large as the gorilla and has brown skin, long sparse reddish brown hair, and very long arms.
Anyway, as the great social philosopher Sting said:
De do do do, de da da da
All I want to say to you
De do do do, de da da da
Their innocence will pull me through
If you could renounce your Americanism, that would be great. However, don't stop eating those cheeseburgers and fries, and remember--no exercising! We don't want you to lose that 46 inch waist or that all-American, cholesterol enriched blood. The best news is that it sounds from your baby talk that you are regressing into that primitive evolutionary state so typical of the right wing crowd. GRRRRRR!!!!! ARRRRRGGGG!!!!
That's it--conservatives are the missing link! No wonder they want us all to buy this creationism stuff: so we won't catch on! Newt Gingrich looks like an orangutan after a monthlong diet of vanilla milk shakes and ring dings!
Conservative: a largely herbivorous arboreal anthropoid political ape (Pongo republicanus) of Borneo, Sumatra and the United States that is about two thirds as large as the gorilla and has brown skin, long sparse reddish brown hair, and very long arms.
and the next one steps up for his beating! Amazing isn't it. How they chirp out my name as if gluttons for punishment. They're like Jehovah's witnesses, man I swear to God! Persistant little freaks that you can't shake off no matter how hard you try. Like scabes or the mange.
Ok mike. Now consider yourself acknowledged. I typed out your name, happy now. No? Here:
mike mike mike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike
now get back to your frito eatin', american gov't cussin life.
Ok mike. Now consider yourself acknowledged. I typed out your name, happy now. No? Here:
mike mike mike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike mikemike
now get back to your frito eatin', american gov't cussin life.
hey mike you weren't by chance the guy that wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Left of left
I'm left of left. I'm so far to the left nobody can touch me. U can't touch this! My leftism is so pure, so unadulterated, it's purer than CIA heroin from Afghanistan.
You anarchists and vanguardists are all a bunch of right wingers in my book. I purge you. I purge you from everything. I purge myself. That's right. I'm so leftist I realize that even I have rightist tendencies so I announce a Cultural Revolution against myself. I put myself in a reeducation camp.
I'm so leftist I purge myself of rightism by shooting myself. That's right. I'm so leftist I don't even exist. I am pure spiritual ehter in a cloud of pure, perpetual leftism. Ah, freedom!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A guy named mike wrote this here on indybay and he is my hero. This is pure, unadulterated sarcasm. I love sarcasm. I worship this guy. I printed it out and posted it on my bulletin board for all those who pass by to see. We love your work here at headquarters. Keep it up buddy, your doing our job for us!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Left of left
I'm left of left. I'm so far to the left nobody can touch me. U can't touch this! My leftism is so pure, so unadulterated, it's purer than CIA heroin from Afghanistan.
You anarchists and vanguardists are all a bunch of right wingers in my book. I purge you. I purge you from everything. I purge myself. That's right. I'm so leftist I realize that even I have rightist tendencies so I announce a Cultural Revolution against myself. I put myself in a reeducation camp.
I'm so leftist I purge myself of rightism by shooting myself. That's right. I'm so leftist I don't even exist. I am pure spiritual ehter in a cloud of pure, perpetual leftism. Ah, freedom!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A guy named mike wrote this here on indybay and he is my hero. This is pure, unadulterated sarcasm. I love sarcasm. I worship this guy. I printed it out and posted it on my bulletin board for all those who pass by to see. We love your work here at headquarters. Keep it up buddy, your doing our job for us!
it was me. but i'm not exactly "doing your job." note the reference to CIA herion from Aghanistan. as a leftist, i reserve the right to make fun of ultra-leftists, conspiracy thinkers, etc. Which humor i never see you direct at your own "allies." so i think the joke's on you.
In fact, I can't even think of one conservative who is at all funny, including even "humorists" like pj o'rourke or christopher buckley. (ok reagan told a few funny ones now and then).
He who can laugh at his own politics has a more grounded and in depth philosophy. And that's no joke.
In fact, I can't even think of one conservative who is at all funny, including even "humorists" like pj o'rourke or christopher buckley. (ok reagan told a few funny ones now and then).
He who can laugh at his own politics has a more grounded and in depth philosophy. And that's no joke.
... intellectual about Chomsky. He's a metal midget.
for injecting some humor into these proceedings. i actually think o'rourke is funny, albeit in a small-spirited sort of way. he's no lenny bruce, fer sure (or stony burke for that matter).
anyway, my mistake was taking a clown seriously.
anyway, my mistake was taking a clown seriously.
well said Fred
But i would suggest there is no point in trying to
educate the blind patriot.
The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
But i would suggest there is no point in trying to
educate the blind patriot.
The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.
On the question why Noam Chomsky and the real patriots choose to live in the United States:
In case even the blindest so-called patriot hasn't noticed:
if you see your house going up in smoke, do you run from it? No, you obviously try to put out the flames, unlike the people who are clapping at the blaze and dancing around it in a circle, like those supporting the war on terrorism that they end up paying for, in dollars and in blood.
You people probably have our founding fathers tearing at the top of their coffins. Would you have told them, the disseneters that they were, to leave this country? If your father went out every night, inebriated out of his mind, and beat up people, would you clasp him on the back and congratulate him for a job well done? Yet that is exactly what you patriots are doing. You should be ashamed of fiddling while your house and the whole of our country is burning.
Good luck with your future. I think you should leave our country and go where your kind is in demand, like iraq.
In case even the blindest so-called patriot hasn't noticed:
if you see your house going up in smoke, do you run from it? No, you obviously try to put out the flames, unlike the people who are clapping at the blaze and dancing around it in a circle, like those supporting the war on terrorism that they end up paying for, in dollars and in blood.
You people probably have our founding fathers tearing at the top of their coffins. Would you have told them, the disseneters that they were, to leave this country? If your father went out every night, inebriated out of his mind, and beat up people, would you clasp him on the back and congratulate him for a job well done? Yet that is exactly what you patriots are doing. You should be ashamed of fiddling while your house and the whole of our country is burning.
Good luck with your future. I think you should leave our country and go where your kind is in demand, like iraq.
Name me one fact that Chomsky cited??? The Turkish Government had every right to surpress the Kurdish uprisings in thier eastern territories. What Chomsky failed to mention is Kurdish atrocities commited against Turkish civilians. The Turkish government is a member of NATO. The US government had an obligation to supply Turkey with military aid. Another thing Chomsky failed to mention was the US government opposed massive Turish involvement in Kurdistan
Name me one fact that Chomsky cited??? The Turkish Government had every right to surpress the Kurdish uprisings in thier eastern territories. What Chomsky failed to mention is Kurdish atrocities commited against Turkish civilians. The Turkish government is a member of NATO. The US government had an obligation to supply Turkey with military aid. Another thing Chomsky failed to mention was the US government opposed massive Turish involvement in Kurdistan
>The Turkish Government had every right to surpress the Kurdish uprisings in thier eastern territories.
By this logic, the Iraqi government had every right to surpress the Kurdish uprisings in thier northern territories.
Is that what you're trying to say, here?
By this logic, the Iraqi government had every right to surpress the Kurdish uprisings in thier northern territories.
Is that what you're trying to say, here?
http://www.iht.com/articles/87424.html
Peter W. Galbraith
Friday, February 21, 2003
Betrayed again?
WASHINGTON Zalmay Khalilzad, President George W. Bush's special envoy to
the Iraqi opposition, went to Ankara this month and told top Kurdish
leaders to accept that a large deployment of Turkish troops - supposedly
for humanitarian relief - would enter northern Iraq after any American
invasion.
He also told the Kurds that they would have to give up plans for self-
government, adding that hundreds of thousands of people driven from
their homes by Saddam Hussein would not be able to return to them.
For the Kurds this brought bitter memories. They blame Henry Kissinger for
encouraging them to rebel in the early 1970s and then acquiescing quietly
as the shah of Iran made a deal with Iraq and stopped funneling American
aid to them. (Kissinger's standing among Kurds was not helped by his
explanation: "Covert action should not be confused with missionary work.")
After the Gulf War, the first President Bush called on the Iraqi people to
overthrow Saddam. When the Kurds tried to do just that, the American
military let the Iraqis send out helicopter gunships to annihilate them.
The elder Bush partly salvaged his standing with the Kurds a month later
when he cleared Iraqi forces from the region, thus enabling the creation
of the first Kurdish- governed territory in modern history.
In the latest buildup to war, the Kurds took comfort from their special
status as the only Iraqi opposition group to control a territory, to possess
a significant population and to have a substantial military force.
But Turkish consent to the deployment of American troops for a northern
front is considered an important element in American planning. In addition
to billions in cash, Turkey has demanded ironclad assurance that there will
not be a separate Kurdish state.
The Kurds did their best to meet Turkish and American concerns. They
promised that they would not seek independence, confining their
ambitions to a self-governing entity within a federal Iraq. They also
promised not to take Kirkuk, an oil-rich city that they describe as their
Jerusalem.
However, this proved inadequate for the Turks. They fear that federalism
could be a way station to Kurdish independence - and they may be right.
The 4 million Kurds who live in the self-governing area overwhelmingly do
not want to be Iraqis. After 12 years of freedom, the younger people have
no Iraqi identity and many do not speak Arabic. The older generation
associates Iraq with poison gas and mass executions.
Still, Washington sided with Turkey. The Kurds were told that federalism
would have to wait for deliberation by a postwar elected Iraqi Parliament,
in which they would be a minority.
The Bush administration may have got the power calculus wrong. The
Kurds have established a real state within a state, which meets all
governmental responsibilities from education to law enforcement. Their
militias number 70,000 to 130,000, and there is a real risk of clashes with
any Turkish "humanitarian" force.
The democratically elected Kurdistan assembly has completed work on a
constitution that would delegate minimal powers to a central government
in Baghdad, and could submit it for a popular vote. Short of arresting
Kurdish leaders and the assembly, a U.S. occupation force might have no
practical way of preventing the Kurds from going ahead with their
federalist project.
The younger Bush's war has always had a moral component to it: liberation
of the Iraqi people from a brutal regime. If it sides so completely with
Turkey in putting down the democratic hopes of Iraq's Kurds, the
administration looks shortsighted and cynical. And not just to the Kurds.
The writer is a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia.
Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune
Peter W. Galbraith
Friday, February 21, 2003
Betrayed again?
WASHINGTON Zalmay Khalilzad, President George W. Bush's special envoy to
the Iraqi opposition, went to Ankara this month and told top Kurdish
leaders to accept that a large deployment of Turkish troops - supposedly
for humanitarian relief - would enter northern Iraq after any American
invasion.
He also told the Kurds that they would have to give up plans for self-
government, adding that hundreds of thousands of people driven from
their homes by Saddam Hussein would not be able to return to them.
For the Kurds this brought bitter memories. They blame Henry Kissinger for
encouraging them to rebel in the early 1970s and then acquiescing quietly
as the shah of Iran made a deal with Iraq and stopped funneling American
aid to them. (Kissinger's standing among Kurds was not helped by his
explanation: "Covert action should not be confused with missionary work.")
After the Gulf War, the first President Bush called on the Iraqi people to
overthrow Saddam. When the Kurds tried to do just that, the American
military let the Iraqis send out helicopter gunships to annihilate them.
The elder Bush partly salvaged his standing with the Kurds a month later
when he cleared Iraqi forces from the region, thus enabling the creation
of the first Kurdish- governed territory in modern history.
In the latest buildup to war, the Kurds took comfort from their special
status as the only Iraqi opposition group to control a territory, to possess
a significant population and to have a substantial military force.
But Turkish consent to the deployment of American troops for a northern
front is considered an important element in American planning. In addition
to billions in cash, Turkey has demanded ironclad assurance that there will
not be a separate Kurdish state.
The Kurds did their best to meet Turkish and American concerns. They
promised that they would not seek independence, confining their
ambitions to a self-governing entity within a federal Iraq. They also
promised not to take Kirkuk, an oil-rich city that they describe as their
Jerusalem.
However, this proved inadequate for the Turks. They fear that federalism
could be a way station to Kurdish independence - and they may be right.
The 4 million Kurds who live in the self-governing area overwhelmingly do
not want to be Iraqis. After 12 years of freedom, the younger people have
no Iraqi identity and many do not speak Arabic. The older generation
associates Iraq with poison gas and mass executions.
Still, Washington sided with Turkey. The Kurds were told that federalism
would have to wait for deliberation by a postwar elected Iraqi Parliament,
in which they would be a minority.
The Bush administration may have got the power calculus wrong. The
Kurds have established a real state within a state, which meets all
governmental responsibilities from education to law enforcement. Their
militias number 70,000 to 130,000, and there is a real risk of clashes with
any Turkish "humanitarian" force.
The democratically elected Kurdistan assembly has completed work on a
constitution that would delegate minimal powers to a central government
in Baghdad, and could submit it for a popular vote. Short of arresting
Kurdish leaders and the assembly, a U.S. occupation force might have no
practical way of preventing the Kurds from going ahead with their
federalist project.
The younger Bush's war has always had a moral component to it: liberation
of the Iraqi people from a brutal regime. If it sides so completely with
Turkey in putting down the democratic hopes of Iraq's Kurds, the
administration looks shortsighted and cynical. And not just to the Kurds.
The writer is a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia.
Copyright © 2002 The International Herald Tribune
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$270.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network