Just for fun I googled Noam Chomsky, renowned linguist and leftist-commie-pinko, fifth columnist-America hater. I thought it might be entertaining to contrast and compare his analysis of America’s policy toward Iraq over the last 6 years with that of Our Dear Leader, champion of our freedoms and compassionate conservative extraodinaire, and best codpiece wearing war president ever, George W. Bush. I thought a timeline presenting the development of their respective views on the issue of Iraq just might lead to — oh, I don’t know — enlightenment? Amusement? A chance for all real Americans to bash an icon of the antiwar, anti-freedom left? Yeah, one of those.
Let’s start back in 2002, shall we, with this little blurb from a speech our esteemed President gave in Cincinnati regarding the threat Iraq posed to the American Way of Life:
(cont.)
Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America’s determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime’s own actions — its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. […]
Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?
In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq’s military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions.
We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September the 11th. […]
We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. {…]<[We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy — the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.
Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. […]
The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his “nuclear mujahideen” — his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.
If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed.
Well, you gotta give Georgie Boy points for fear mongering, even if his list of “known knowns” (to pay homage to that master of the neologism, the great Donald Rumsfeld) regarding the threat Iraq posed turned out to be so much refried and over-baked meadow muffins. Now let’s see what the traitorous Mr. Chomsky was saying about Mr. Bush’s grand scheme to liberate Iraq and save us from all those WMDs in an interview he gave back in September 2002:
1. Has Saddam Hussein been as evil as mainstream media says? Domestically? Internationally?
He is as evil as they come, ranking with Suharto and other monsters of the modern era. No one would want to be within his reach. But fortunately, his reach does not extend very far. […]
2. Looking into the future, is Saddam Hussein as dangerous as mainstream media says?
The world would be better off if he weren’t there, no doubt about that. Surely Iraqis would. But he can’t be anywhere near as dangerous as he was when the US and Britain were supporting him, even providing him with dual-use technology that he could use for nuclear and chemical weapons development, as he presumably did. […]
[L]inks [to Al Qaeda] are not very likely. Despite enormous efforts to tie Saddam to the 9-11 attacks, nothing has been found, which is not too surprising. Saddam and bin Laden were bitter enemies, and there’s no particular reason to suppose that there have been any changes in that regard.
The rational conclusion is that Saddam is probably less of a danger now than before 9-11, and far less of a threat than when he was enjoying substantial support from the US-UK (and many others). That raises a few questions. If Saddam is such a threat to the survival of civilization today that the global enforcer has to resort to war, why wasn’t that true a year ago? And much more dramatically, in early 1990?
Damn. I hate to say it, but it looks like that filthy little scumbag was right. And he was right back in the Fall of 2002 when practically everyone in the American media was buying into the “Saddam is Hitler with Nukes!” story line our good and great President and his advisers were peddling to Congress and the American people. I don’t like doing this, but fairness requires me to award the first point to Chomsky.
But what about 2003? Did Bush gain any ground or did he let Chomsky win another round in their mano-a-mano duel? Well here’s the president in his own words telling a grateful nation that major combat operations were over in Iraq:
Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. […]
In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment, yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other made this day possible.
Because of you our nation is more secure. Because of you the tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free.
Ooops. Jumped the gun a little there, didn’t he? I mean who could have foreseen that ordinary Iraqis would consider foreign troops from a western nation as occupiers, and not as liberators? At least Mr. Bush looked good in that flight suit, and hey — wasn’t that “Mission Accomplished” banner a nice touch? Still did Chomsky have any better handle on the situation over there? What nonsense about Iraq was he spouting in the Summer of 2003, anyway?
SEPTEMBER 2002 was marked by three events of considerable importance, closely related. The United States, the most powerful state in history, announced a new national security strategy asserting that it will maintain global hegemony permanently. Any challenge will be blocked by force, the dimension in which the US reigns supreme. At the same time, the war drums began to beat to mobilise the population for an invasion of Iraq. And the campaign opened for the mid-term congressional elections, which would determine whether the administration would be able to carry forward its radical international and domestic agenda.
The new “imperial grand strategy”, as it was termed at once by John Ikenberry writing in the leading establishment journal, presents the US as “a revisionist state seeking to parlay its moment ary advantages into a world order in which it runs the show”, a unipolar world in which “no state or coalition could ever challenge it as global leader, protector, and enforcer” (1). These policies are fraught with danger even for the US itself, Ikenberry warned, joining many others in the foreign policy elite. […]
The grand strategy authorises the US to carry out preventive war: preventive, not pre-emptive. Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive war might be, they do not hold for preventive war, particularly as that concept is interpreted by its current enthusiasts: the use of military force to eliminate an invented or imagined threat, so that even the term “preventive” is too charitable. Preventive war is, very simply, the supreme crime that was condemned at Nuremberg.
That was understood by those with some concern for their country. As the US invaded Iraq, the historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote that Bush’s grand strategy was “alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at the time of Pearl Harbor, on a date which, as an earlier American president [Franklin D Roosevelt] said it would, lives in infamy”. It was no surprise, added Schlesinger, that “the global wave of sympathy that engulfed the US after 9/11 has given way to a global wave of hatred of American arrogance and militarism” and the belief that Bush was “a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein”
Geez, you’d think the guy was channeling Kofi Annan for chrissakes, talking about “illegal” this and “war crimes” that. Look, just because he was right that preventive war without justification was the basis for war crimes charges (and convictions) against the Nazi and Japanese leaders after World War II ended does not justify his holier than thou attitude. Bush was wrong headed, but I’m sure he was sincere. Chomsky on the other hand, no matter how right he was, comes off like a sanctimonious priest who caught an altar boy smoking a cigarette in the sacristy. I call 2003 a tie (of course those scoring at home are free to disagree — I’m not completely close minded about those who beg to differ with my superior judgment).
So the score stands Chomsky: 1 and 1/2 points to Bush: 1/2 point. On to 2004! Bush first, in a May 24, 2004 speech outlining his grand plan to help turn Iraq into a beacon of democracy:
The United Nations Special Envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, is now consulting with a broad spectrum of Iraqis to determine the composition of this interim government. The special envoy intends to put forward the names of interim government officials this week. In addition to a president, two vice presidents, and a prime minister, 26 Iraqi ministers will oversee government departments, from health to justice to defense. This new government will be advised by a national council, which will be chosen in July by Iraqis representing their country’s diversity. This interim government will exercise full sovereignty until national elections are held. America fully supports Mr. Brahimi’s efforts, and I have instructed the Coalition Provisional Authority to assist him in every way possible.
In preparation for sovereignty, many functions of government have already been transferred. Twelve government ministries are currently under the direct control of Iraqis. The Ministry of Education, for example, is out of the propaganda business, and is now concerned with educating Iraqi children. Under the direction of Dr. Ala’din al-Alwan, the Ministry has trained more than 30,000 teachers and supervisors for the schools of a new Iraq.
All along, some have questioned whether the Iraqi people are ready for self-government, or even want it. And all along, the Iraqi people have given their answer. In settings where Iraqis have met to discuss their country’s future, they have endorsed representative government. And they are practicing representative government. Many of Iraq’s cities and towns now have elected town councils or city governments – and beyond the violence, a civil society is emerging.
The June 30th transfer of sovereignty is an essential commitment of our strategy. Iraqis are proud people who resent foreign control of their affairs, just as we would. After decades under the tyrant, they are also reluctant to trust authority. By keeping our promise on June 30th, the coalition will demonstrate that we have no interest in occupation. And full sovereignty will give Iraqis a direct interest in the success of their own government. Iraqis will know that when they build a school or repair a bridge, they’re not working for the Coalition Provisional Authority, they are working for themselves. And when they patrol the streets of Baghdad, or engage radical militias, they will be fighting for their own country.
The second step in the plan for Iraqi democracy is to help establish the stability and security that democracy requires. Coalition forces and the Iraqi people have the same enemies — the terrorists, illegal militia, and Saddam loyalists who stand between the Iraqi people and their future as a free nation. Working as allies, we will defend Iraq and defeat these enemies.
What a noble strategy! What stirring and compassionate words he had for the Iraqi people! And we did pass sovereignty to the Iraqis — sort of, kind of, maybe. And maybe that stability and security thing is taking longer than he planned back in 2004, but who could have known sectarian strife and foreign jihadis from all over the Middle East were about to destroy the best laid plans of the greatest President ever? Right, Noam. Well, right?
As predicted, the war increased the threat of terror. Middle East expert Fawaz Gerges found it “simply unbelievable how the war has revived the appeal of a global jihadi Islam that was in real decline after 9-11.” Recruitment for the Al Qaeda networks increased, while Iraq itself became a “terrorist haven” for the first time. Suicide attacks for the year 2003 reached the highest level in modern times; Iraq suffered its first since the thirteenth century. Substantial specialist opinion concluded that the war also led to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. […]
As the anniversary of the invasion approached, New York’s Grand Central Station was patrolled by police with submachine guns, a reaction to the March 11 Madrid train bombings that killed 200 people in Europe’s worst terrorist crime. A few days later, the Spanish electorate voted out the government that had gone to war despite overwhelming popular opposition. Spaniards were condemned for appeasing terrorism by voting for withdrawing troops from Iraq in the absence of UN authorization – that is, for taking a stand rather like that of 70 percent of Americans, who called for the UN to take the leading role in Iraq.
Bush assured Americans that “The world is safer today because, in Iraq, our coalition ended a regime that cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction.” The president’s handlers know that every word is false, but they also know that lies can become Truth, if repeated insistently enough.
See, even Chomsky didn’t predict the civil war that broke out. And Noam was really, really snotty about what he said, too. So that’s a point for Bush on general principles. His firm resolution in the face of unrelenting failure must count for something. Besides, in 2004 he had a mandate to win and a certain Senator John Kerry to swift boat.
So, now we move along to 2005, the score all tied. I’m sure the President is going to start pulling away from Chomsky, especially since, as we all know, he always gets the benefit of lower expectations for his performance than his opponents get for theirs. It’s a personal family trait.
So anyway, here’s Our Dear Leader in mid-2005 expounding on his hopes for Iraqi freedom, and peace in the Middle Eat. And when Bush talks freedom he, of course, always talks about those nasty terrorists big time:
Our mission in Iraq is clear. We’re hunting down the terrorists. We’re helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We’re advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability, and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren. […]
Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia and Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and others. They are making common cause with criminal elements, Iraqi insurgents, and remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime who want to restore the old order. They fight because they know that the survival of their hateful ideology is at stake. They know that as freedom takes root in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty, as well. And when the Middle East grows in democracy and prosperity and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits, and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world.
Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: “This Third World War is raging” in Iraq. “The whole world is watching this war.” He says it will end in “victory and glory, or misery and humiliation.”[…]
These are savage acts of violence, but they have not brought the terrorists any closer to achieving their strategic objectives. The terrorists — both foreign and Iraqi — failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They failed to break our Coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war. They failed to prevent free elections. They failed to stop the formation of a democratic Iraqi government that represents all of Iraq’s diverse population. And they failed to stop Iraqis from signing up in large number with the police forces and the army to defend their new democracy.
The lesson of this experience is clear: The terrorists can kill the innocent, but they cannot stop the advance of freedom. The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September the 11th, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi, and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden. For the sake of our nation’s security, this will not happen on my watch.
See that? Terrorism is losing! Freedom is winning! No civil war! Oh. Right. Just forget about that last one, would you please. Sometimes freedom means saying whatever the hell you want reality to be rather than accepting the real reality for what it is. Besides, the important thing was that Bush was dreaming big. Fighting the terrorists over there so the Iraqis and us can all go to heaven someday in unmitigated freedom and peace, having killed all the terrorists before they can come over here to kill us in our beds or shopping malls, or something. And I for one think Mr. Bush deserves credit for his vision, regardless of how wrong his facts might have been.
Naturally, old Mr. “Ivory Tower Intellecshual” Chomsky just had to take an opposing view of the central front in the War on Terror:
[T]he [Iraqi] elections were a success … of opposition to the United States. What is being suppressed – except for Middle East specialists, who know about it perfectly well and are writing about it, or people who in fact have read the newspapers in the last couple of years – what’s being suppressed is the fact that the United States had to be brought kicking and screaming into accepting elections. The U.S. was strongly opposed to them. […] Of course once the United States was forced into accepting elections, the government and the media immediately pronounced that it was a great achievement of the United States. But it was quite the opposite. But it’s a good thing that it happened, in opposition to the U.S. In fact it’s a major triumph of nonviolent resistance, and it should be understood as such. […] And maybe it’s a basis – now comes the question of whether Iraqis can succeed, in reaching, moving towards a stage where they will actually be able to run their own country, which the U.S. is certainly going to oppose. There is no doubt of this. The last thing the United States wants is a democratic, sovereign Iraq. To see why, it’s enough to think for five minutes about what its policies are likely to be. Let’s suppose there were a democratic Iraq with some degree of sovereignty. The first thing it’ll do is try to improve relations with Iran.
Okay, maybe Noamy boy called that Iraqi rapprochement with Iran thing correctly. And maybe he was right that we (the Us of GW Bush) didn’t really want a real sovereign, democratic government in Iraq, we wanted a democracy we could control for our benefit. So what? As Mr. Bush so succinctly put it we’re fighting Jesus fricking World War III here! Point to Mr. Bush because — well, he’s the president goddamit! And a war president too. It doesn’t matter what he says (or that his facts are all wrong), it’s how he says it that counts. He now leads Chomsky by 2 and 1/2 points to 1 and 1/2 points. Take that you old America hating lefty! USA! USA!
On to 2006, where Mr. Bush has the chance put a lock on his victory over that America hating, quiche eating commie fraud, Noam Chomsky, once and for all. Right Mr. Bush?
By their courage, the Iraqi people have spoken and made their intentions clear.
They want to live in democracy, and they are determined to shape their own destiny.
In the past few weeks, the world has seen very different images from Iraq, images of violence and anger and despair. We have seen a great house of worship, the Golden Mosque of Samarra, in ruins after a brutal terrorist attack. We’ve seen mass protests in response to provocation. We’ve seen reprisal attacks by armed militias on Sunni mosques, and random violence that has taken the lives of hundreds of Iraqi citizens. […]
Okay, maybe that’s not the best example, what with all that talk of violence and mosques blowing up and stuff. Let’s try this one from August 2006 instead:
The images that come back from the front lines are striking and sometimes unsettling. When you see innocent civilians ripped apart by suicide bombs or families buried inside their homes, the world can seem engulfed in purposeless violence.
The truth is, there is violence, but those who cause it have a clear purpose. When terrorists murder at the World Trade Center, or car bombers strike in Baghdad, or hijackers plot to blow — blow up planes over the Atlantic, or terrorist militias shoot rockets at Israeli towns, they are all pursuing the same objective: to turn back the advance of freedom and impose a dark vision of tyranny and terror across the world. The enemies of liberty come from different parts of the world, and they take inspiration from different sources. Some are radicalized followers of the Sunni tradition who swear allegiance to terrorist organizations like al Qaeda. Others are radicalized followers of the Shi’a tradition who join groups like Hezbollah and take guidance from state sponsors like Syria and Iran. Still others are homegrown terrorists, fanatics who live quietly in free societies they dream to destroy.
Despite their differences, these groups from — form the outlines of a single movement, a worldwide network of radicals that use terror to kill those who stand in the way of their totalitarian ideology. {…]
They’re successors to fascists, to Nazis, to communists and other totalitarians of the 20th century, and history shows what the outcome will be. This war will be difficult, this war will be long, and this war will end in the defeat of the terrorists of — totalitarians, and a victory for the cause of freedom and liberty.
Okay, so things weren’t going that well in Iraq in 2006. But, hey, Bush cowboyed up about it. He acknowledged some of the images people saw from Iraq were “unsettling” didn’t he? What more do you want from the guy. It’s all the damn terroristic Islamic extremists fault anyway. Sunni, Shia, it doesn’t matter, they all want the same thing: Islamofascism. War is hard work when you have to fight such a ruthless opponent.
And Chomsky, that cheese eating, French loving surrender monkey? What was he blathering about during those hard times of 2006, times that tried America’s liberty loving soul? Well just see for yourself:
The official Presidential Directive states the primary goal as to: “Free Iraq in order to eliminate Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery and associated programs, to prevent Iraq from breaking out of containment and becoming a more dangerous threat to the region and beyond.” That was the basis for congressional support for the invasion. The Directive goes on with the goal of cutting “Iraqi links to and sponsorship of international terrorism,” etc. A few phrases are thrown in from the standard boilerplate about freedom that accompanies every action, and is close to a historical universal, hence dismissed as meaningless by reasonable people, but there to be dredged up by the doctrinal system when needed.
When the “single question” was answered the wrong way, and the claims about internationational terrorism became too much of an embarrassment to repeat (though not for Cheney and a few others), the goal was changed to “democracy promotion.” The media and journals, along with almost all scholarship, quickly jumped on that bandwagon, relieved to discover that this is the most “noble war” in history, pursuing Bush’s “messianic mission” to bring freedom and democracy to the world. […]
The real reason for the invasion, surely, is that Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, very cheap to exploit, and lies right at the heart of the world’s major hydrocarbon resources, what the State Department 60 years ago described as “a stupendous source of strategic power.” The issue is not access, but rather control (and for the energy corporations, profit). Control over these resources gives the US “critical leverage” over industrial rivals, to borrow Zbigniew Brezinski’s phrase, echoing George Kennan when he was a leading planner and recognized that such control would give the US “veto power” over others. Dick Cheney observed that control over energy resources provides “tools of intimidation or blackmail” — when in the hands of others, that is. We are too pure and noble for those considerations to apply to us, so true believers declare — or more accurately, just presuppose, taking the point to be too obvious to articulate.
See that? Did you see what Chomsaky said? Why he’s an out and out defeatist, by God (and that’s a Christian God we’re talking about all you atheistic leftists)! And he called our President nasty names, and said this war was based on lies, and was fought for oil, not freedom, and …
I just can’t take it anymore. Mr. Chomsky clearly threw a few too many low blows and so he loses the round for 2006, and Bush gets 2 points for Chomsky’s unpatriotic conduct. Hell, if we were in the old Soviet Union this guy would already be locked up in some psychiatric asylum being force fed psychoactive, mind altering drugs til the cows came home (which with any luck could still happen — hint, hint).
So that’s game set and match to President Bush. We don’t even have to look at 2007 because Mr. Bush has an insurmountable lead over the soulless, terrorist loving Mr. Chomsky. Score another victory for American Patriots everywhere. And Chomsky, you loser, go back to France. In America we never let facts get in the way of what the truth should be, especially during wartime. Mr. Bush, congratulations. Your steadfast belief in your vision in the face of everyone who wants America to fail in Iraq is impressive. Who cares if we are really winning the war over there? You have won the war of rhetoric against Chomsky and his “fellow travelers” on the left, and that’s all that really matters.
Now everyone, go home, eat a big Turkey dinner on Thursday, and while your slicing up that golden browned Butterball or watching lousy football games half asleep in your easy chair, make sure to remember to give the Good Lord thanks that we have the Bestest Leader of the Free World sitting in that oval office protecting us from any and all harmful, ugly truths that may come our way.
