Unfotunately, he's just being incoherent.

Just kidding; a real response: I disagree that Chomsky ever implied that the US is responsible for the intolerance of the Taliban or bin Ladenism. He simply proffered a more nuanced reaction for why such factions might choose to bomb us than "we're liberals and they're fundamentalists" (a reaction to which Hitchens adds plenty of support in his proceeding essay.) I'm not sure why Hitchen intimates that Chomsky (plus his intellectual allies) blames the US for fundamentalist thought. He does blame us for helping it prosper in certain areas of the world.

“Does anyone suppose that an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza would have forestalled the slaughter in Manhattan?’

Probably not Chomsky, so why ask? It’s curious that while making his point against the "masochistic left" Hitchens, for once, overlooks the economical and military support of these fundamentalist sorts when it benefits our needs. (Even more curious, he concludes with an example of this very thing.)

“But the bombers of Manhattan represent fascism with an Islamic face, and there's no point in any euphemism about it."

Has Chomsky said anything different?

“What they abominate about "the West," to put it in a phrase, is not what Western liberals don't like and can't defend about their own system, but what they do like about it and must defend: its emancipated women, its scientific inquiry, its separation of religion from the state. Loose talk about chickens coming home to roost is the moral equivalent of the hateful garbage emitted by Falwell and Robertson, and exhibits about the same intellectual content.”

Agreed, but if, say, we helped train and/or fund some totalitarian or fundamentalist group that later comes around to bite us on the ass, doesn’t the phrase ‘chickens coming home to roost’ fit quite aptly?

“The new talk is all of "human intelligence": the very faculty in which our ruling class is most deficient. A few months ago, the Bush Administration handed the Taliban a subsidy of $43 million in abject gratitude for the assistance of fundamentalism in the"war on drugs." Next up is the renewed "missile defense" fantasy recently endorsed by even more craven Democrats who seek to occupy the void "behind the President." There is sure to be further opportunity to emphasize the failings of our supposed leaders, whose costly mantra is "national security" and who could not protect us. And yes indeed, my guide in Peshawar was a shadow thrown by William Casey's CIA, which first connected the unstoppable Stinger missile to the infallible Koran. But that's only one way of stating the obvious, which is that this is an enemy for life, as well as an enemy of life.”

Which is another way of saying, contrary to the more strident intonation of his preceding paragraphs (not knocking Hitchens here, it’s part of what I often love about his writing), Chomsky should’ve been more assertive (manly, even) in condemning the supposed nonthought of Fundamentalist thinking -- not just the economical and political matrix in which it is able to flourish -- it being presumably an entirely irrational human endeavor. In fine sophistic style, he was both able to agree with Chomsky’s thinking and dismiss it at the same time. I'm fairly certain, as Chomsky probably is too, that, ceteris paribus, fundamentalism and liberalism wouldn't be the peanut-butter and chocolate of the moral realm, but that doesn't mean other issues aren't at stake when a fundamentalist kills a liberal. Hitchens has a flair for gaining media attention (a characteristic which I don’t particularly love), and this nonargument of a polemic should provide a vehicle through which his prompt return to Chris Matthews’s show is guaranteed. (More fun to read than any other current popular political writer, nevertheless.)


[This message has been edited by Charles Reece (edited 09-21-2001).]

And why does Chris K. always follow one of my posts with some irrelevant slam against Fantagraphics? Very perplexing.

Because without Fantagraphics we would never know what opinions to have.

DUH, Charles.

Did Gary ok that admission amongst our enemies?

The debate's over. Choose your sides.

And this, I promise, is my last statement on the matter.

The Chomsky-led Fantanistas against the US!

Are YOU willing to die for your WEASEL?

I'm a guy, so yes of course I'd be willing to die for my weasel.

Anyway, if an economic downturn was likely to hurt any publisher most it would be the already shakey publicly traded Marvel. Chris' whole boycott/I-hope-it-goes-out-of-business stance on a line of quality comics just because the co-publisher disagreed with him on foreign policy is pretty fucking stupid.

[This message has been edited by Steve Hogan (edited 09-21-2001).]

>>>The debate's over. Choose your sides.
And this, I promise, is my last statement on the matter.<<<

Does that mean I won't be getting my quote?

Leaving our little internecine quarrels aside, I am increasingly worried by what I see:

-- the mountain of evidence coming to light now showing that we (the FBI, the CIA) had virtually 90% of the pieces of the puzzle that would have enabled us to anticipate this attack -- and why do we think the same intelligence people will be better able/prepared tomorrow?

-- the stark incomprehension displayed by Those in Power of the motives of the terrorists and, more generally, of those who hate America -- the Japanese used kamikaze pilots in WWII; they were educated, had families, etc, etc. what is so hard to grasp here?

-- the total overeaction of the authorities, both in rethoric and in so-called safety measures verging on the fascistic -- maybe it's playing to the hysterics, maybe not -- when the current arsenal of laws etc. is quite sufficient to do the job, thank you. Ask the French and the British, they've been living with terrorism for three decades -- hell *I* grew up with the OAS trying to blow De Gaulle -- and they haven't had to worry about plastic knives either.

-- the frankly naive / utopian / unreasonable goals set up by the President: eradicate terrorism, destroy evil... why not locate a gateway to Hell and go after Satan? Are we idiots to believe this? Do we deserve to be treated like idiots? I heard that speech before we wrnt into Vietnam; it dodn't work thewn, it won't work now.

-- if we have reasonably convincing evidence of Bon Laden's involvement (and I'm sure we do) where the hell is it?! Why don't we put on a show for the world with blown-up photos, etc like we did at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis? What's wrong with making a case? Where's the downside?

All this (and more) does not bespeak well of the strategies of Those in Charge who, if you recall, are the same team that got us here in the first place, under Bush Sr...

JM