| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Kerry gains another important important endorsement - Chomsky |
| 2004-03-25 |
| EFL from Tech Central Noam Chomsky has endorsed, however reluctantly, John Kerry. This is an endorsement from the man who, on hearing about 9/11, attempted to put it in perspective for the American people by arguing that President Clinton had murdered many times more people in his response to the Al Qaeda bombing in Kenya than Al Qaeda had murdered on 9/11. The fact that Mr. Chomsky had not a shred of evidence for this blood libel did not kept him from making it. After all, he had something far better than evidence -- he had his own opinion; or what Jeremy Bentham called ipsedixitism: something is true because I myself have said it is true. Yet Noam Chomsky was by no means alone in standing up in the days immediately following 9/11 and declaring that 9/11 was the expected and natural reaction of those who had been oppressed by American hegemony, and who, however immaturely, were fighting back in retaliation for what we had done to them. True, there were different theories of what exactly we had done to them, and at times, as I watched America’s leading public intellectuals apologize for the terrorists, I felt as if I were watching a contest in which these various intellectuals had been invited to write a theme on the question: "Why I would have flown planes into the WTC if I were a terrorist," and in each case, the major intellectual had a ready answer -- an answer that, oddly enough, was invariably couched in terms of their own pet theories concerning the evil of the very empire from whom they derived their power, prestige, and status. But in every case, the basic fundamental theme was unchanged: it was all really, in the last analysis, our fault. In short, we had it coming. Now let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that these critics of America are right. Let us suppose that when the terrorists struck us we had done more than enough bad things to deserve such an attack. But now let me ask these apologists for terrorism a simple question: If we had it coming then, don’t we have it coming even worse right now? If two thousand of us deserved to die on September 11, 2001, less than a year after Bush stole the election and plunged America into the arms of the military-industrial complex, how many more of us deserve to die today, this very moment, after giving George Bush more than three years to consolidate his empire? Those apologists for terror who ascribed to the "complex and nuanced" view that we had it coming are not merely apologizing for the wanton slaughter of two thousand men and women on 9/11, they are advancing a justification for killing a whole lot more of them right now. To say that we deserved 9/11 is to say that they were right to do it to us. And, since from 9/11 to today, as judged by their standards, we have only gotten worse, then they would be even righter to do it again. To tell a man that he is right to shoot his wife, if not positively inciting to murder, is not working very hard to discourage it. So the first thing that Senator Kerry needs to do before he begins to celebrate the endorsement of the man the New York Times calls our leading public intellectual would be to ask him frankly, "Do you believe that the terrorists would be justified if they were to strike us again?" Senator Kerry needs to know this in advance, as do the American people. It is a simple question, and it is one that deserves a straightforward answer -- not just from Mr. Chomsky, but from all those who tried to explain away the deaths of two thousands of their fellow human beings. "If we had it coming then, do we have it coming now?" |
| Posted by:Super Hose |
| #11 I fear you are right Lucky. I'm counting on a 3 pecentum nut factor. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-03-25 7:33:51 PM |
| #10 D'oh! |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-03-25 6:57:09 PM |
| #9 If a Republican were to "gain" the endorsement of the KKK, some White Power group .... You are right that this kind of argument happens all the time and that perhaps the mass media treats various cases unfairly. Two wrongs don't make a right. |
| Posted by: Homer Simpson 2004-03-25 6:41:25 PM |
| #8 Of course the idiotarians would say that we don't deserve an attack, today. However, if we do get hit, heaven forbid, they would then say that we had it coming. I don't think the same people who say the 9/11 atrocities were a reaction to our "crimes" said on 9/10 that it would be understandable if someone were to launch a major terrorist attack on us. Mr. Sylwester: If a Republican were to "gain" the endorsement of the KKK, some White Power group, or such, there would be a lot of media coverage and he would be forced to decline the "honor." OTOP, the Communist Party has endorsed the Democrat candidate in the past several elections. Did you know that? They do it openly, make press releases, etc, but somehow it doesn't get much coverage. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2004-03-25 3:52:04 PM |
| #7 Boy thats got to hurt Nader. I'm sure Ralph thought he had the fruits locked up. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-03-25 12:39:08 PM |
| #6 Don't worry, Kerry will both accept and reject his endorsement. "I only said I really liked Chompsky so I could further discuss how much of a maroon I think he is..." |
| Posted by: Rawsnacks 2004-03-25 10:07:32 AM |
| #5 Mike S., Kerry will be asked about this endorsement much the same as Wesley Clark was asked about Mike Moore's endorsement of him and his comments calling Bush a draft dodger; Clark tried to deflect the question during the ensuing dem debate and it turned out badly for him. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-03-25 8:31:41 AM |
| #4 It's not a valid political argument that a candidate is responsible for all the opinions of all his endorsers. John Kerry doesn't have to respond about Chomsky's statements any more than George Bush has to respond about all the statements ever made by everyone who endorses him. John Kerry never said "we had it coming." Why then should he be put on the defensive because someone else said it? |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-03-25 7:20:59 AM |
| #3 hey leave amerikka's only remaining anarcho-syndicalist alone--after all the 4 month barcelona commune proved his theories and allowed him to have a house--car--boat and those silly crew neck sweaters he wears as he pontificates to the sophmoric in that bastion of democracy in which he resides--academia--medic bring the emetic |
| Posted by: SON OF TOLUI 2004-03-25 2:29:36 AM |
| #2 Chomsky is the high priest of the Hate America Cult, Ramsey "Cointelpro" Clark is it shaman, and Howard "Goebbels" Zinn is its chief scribe. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2004-03-25 1:52:42 AM |
| #1 I loathe Chomsky. I mean REALLY loathe him. He epitomizes someone who was a complete failure in his career. His theory of innate grammar his only significant intellectual achievement turned out to be completely wrong. Something even after 40 years of evidence Chomsky refuses to accept. He then made career out of a lunatic world view dreamed up by Marxists who had to explain why none of their predictions came true. So the world is a vast conspiracy. In a rational world this guy would be on heavy duty meds for own protection. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-03-25 1:41:19 AM |