Chomsky is more libertarian than Tom McClintock, Arnold Schwarzenneger, Dennis Miller, Eric Dondero, Bruce Cohen, Neal Boortz, or anyone in the Republcian Party. That's not saying much though.
--- In [email protected], "wgilbert02" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Why in the world would anyone post something by Chomsky in here? I > suppose since he is against the war and for open borders then we > should all look beyond his neo-communist (modern socialist) rhetoric > on social spending and his belief that we should base our justice > system on internalional law. He also states that we should allow the > U.N. to take care of all international issues. Such an stupid belief > from an educated man. I am embarrassed for him. The U.N. is just > like the Alliance system before world war I and the League of Nations > before WW II. And we foot the bill for an organization that has > routinely shit on our country for the past 25 years. > > > > > 'Democracy Now" Monday, April 3, 2006 > > > > > > - Tens of Thousands March in NYC Immigration Rally plus more news > AND Part II of interview with world-renowned linguist and political > analyst Noam Chomsky on Iraq troop withdrawal, Haiti, democracy in > Latin America and the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Chomsky's > latest book is titled "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the > Assault on Democracy." [includes rush transcript] > > http://www.democracynow.org/index.pl?issue=20060403 > > > > WindowsMedia Audio download aprx 7mb to playback at 16kbps > > http://txliberty.dyndns.org/inetpub/wwwroot/webfiles/DN060403.wma > > > > > > > > > > 'Democracy Now' Friday, March 31st, 2006 > > > > > > EXCLUSIVE...Noam Chomsky on Failed States: The Abuse of Power and > the Assault on Democracy > > > > > > Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3 > > Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript > > Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend > Purchase Video/CD > > at http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/31/148254 > > > > WindowsMedia Audio download aprx 7mb to playback at 16kbps > > http://txliberty.dyndns.org/inetpub/wwwroot/webfiles/DN060331.wma > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > The New York Times calls him "arguably the most important > intellectual alive." > > > > The Boston Globe calls him "America's most useful citizen" > > > > He was recently voted the world's number one intellectual in a > poll by Prospect and Foreign Policy magazines. > > > > We're talking about Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at the > Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the foremost critics > of U.S. foreign policy. Professor Chomsky has just released a new > book titled "Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on > Democracy." [includes rush transcript] > > > > It examines how the United States is beginning to resemble a > failed state that cannot protect its citizens from violence and has a > government that regards itself as beyond the reach of domestic or > international law. > > > > In the book, Professor Noam Chomsky presents a series of > solutions to help rescue the nation from turning into a failed state. > > > > They include: Accept the jurisdiction of the International > Criminal Court and the World Court; Sign the Kyoto protocols on > global warming; Let the United Nations take the lead in international > crises; Rely on diplomatic and economic measures rather than military > ones in confronting terror; and Sharply reduce military spending and > sharply increase social spending > > > > In his first broadcast interview upon the publication of his > book, Professor Noam Chomsky joins us today from Boston for the hour. > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------ > > RUSH TRANSCRIPT > > This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations > help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on > our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. > > Donate - $25, $50, $100, more... > > AMY GOODMAN: In this first broadcast interview upon publication > of his book, Professor Noam Chomsky joins us today from Boston for > the hour. We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Noam. > > NOAM CHOMSKY: Glad to be with you again. > > AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Failed States, what > do you mean? > > NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, over the years there have been a series of > concepts developed to justify the use of force in international > affairs for a long period. It was possible to justify it on the > pretext, which usually turned out to have very little substance, that > the U.S. was defending itself against the communist menace. By the > 1980s, that was wearing pretty thin. The Reagan administration > concocted a new category: terrorist states. They declared a war on > terror as soon as they entered office in the early 1980s, 1981. `We > have to defend ourselves from the plague of the modern age, return to > barbarism, the evil scourge of terrorism,' and so on, and > particularly state-directed international terrorism. > > A few years later -- this is Clinton -- Clinton devised the > concept of rogue states. `It's 1994, we have to defend ourselves from > rogue states.' Then, later on came the failed states, which either > threaten our security, like Iraq, or require our intervention in > order to save them, like Haiti, often devastating them in the > process. In each case, the terms have been pretty hard to sustain, > because it's been difficult to overlook the fact that under any, even > the most conservative characterization of these notions -- let's say > U.S. law -- the United States fits fairly well into the category, as > has often been recognized. By now, for example, the category -- even > in the Clinton years, leading scholars, Samuel Huntington and others, > observed that -- in the major journals, Foreign Affairs -- that in > most of the world, much of the world, the United States is regarded > as the leading rogue state and the greatest threat to their > existence. > > By now, a couple of years later, Bush years, same journals' > leading specialists don't even report international opinion. They > just describe it as a fact that the United States has become a > leading rogue state. Surely, it's a terrorist state under its own > definition of international terrorism, not only carrying out violent > terrorist acts and supporting them, but even radically violating the > so-called "Bush Doctrine," that a state that harbors terrorists is a > terrorist state. Undoubtedly, the U.S. harbors leading international > terrorists, people described by the F.B.I. and the Justice Department > as leading terrorists, like Orlando Bosch, now Posada Carriles, not > to speak of those who actually implement state terrorism. > > And I think the same is true of the category "failed states." The > U.S. increasingly has taken on the characteristics of what we > describe as failed states. In the respects that one mentioned, and > also, another critical respect, namely the -- what is sometimes > called a democratic deficit, that is, a substantial gap between > public policy and public opinion. So those suggestions that you just > read off, Amy, those are actually not mine. Those are pretty > conservative suggestions. They are the opinion of the majority of the > American population, in fact, an overwhelming majority. And to > propose those suggestions is to simply take democracy seriously. It's > interesting that on these examples that you've read and many others, > there is an enormous gap between public policy and public opinion. > The proposals, the general attitudes of the public, which are pretty > well studied, are -- both political parties are, on most of these > issues, well to the right of the population. > > JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Professor Chomsky, in the early parts of the > book, especially on the issue of the one characteristic of a failed > state, which is its increasing failure to protect its own citizens, > you lay out a pretty comprehensive look at what the, especially in > the Bush years, the war on terrorism has meant in terms of protecting > the American people. And you lay out clearly, especially since the > war, the invasion of Iraq, that terrorist, major terrorist action and > activity around the world has increased substantially. And also, you > talk about the dangers of a possible nuclear -- nuclear weapons being > used against the United States. Could you expand on that a little > bit? > > NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, there has been a very serious threat of > nuclear war. It's not -- unfortunately, it's not much discussed among > the public. But if you look at the literature of strategic analysts > and so on, they're extremely concerned. And they describe > particularly the Bush administration aggressive militarism as > carrying an "appreciable risk of ultimate doom," to quote > one, "apocalypse soon," to quote Robert McNamara and many others. And > there's good reasons for it, I mean, which could explain, and they > explain. That's been expanded by the Bush administration consciously, > not because they want nuclear war, but it's just not a high priority. > So the rapid expansion of offensive U.S. military capacity, including > the militarization of space, which is the U.S.'s pursuit alone. The > world has been trying very hard to block it. 95% of the expenditures > now are from the U.S., and they're expanding. > > All of these measures bring about a completely predictable > reaction on the part of the likely targets. They don't say, you > know, `Thank you. Here are our throats. Please cut them.' They react > in the ways that they can. For some, it will mean responding with the > threat or maybe use of terror. For others, more powerful ones, it's > going to mean sharply increasing their own offensive military > capacity. So Russian military expenditures have sharply increased in > response to Bush programs. Chinese expansion of offensive military > capacity is also beginning to increase for the same reasons. All of > that threatens -- raises the already severe threat of even -- of just > accidental nuclear war. These systems are on computer-controlled > alert. And we know that our own systems have many errors, which are > stopped by human intervention. Their systems are far less secure; the > Russian case, deteriorated. These moves all sharply enhance the > threat of nuclear war. That's serious nuclear war > > that I'm talking about. > > There's also the threat of dirty bombs, small nuclear explosions. > Small means not so small, but in comparison with a major attack, > which would pretty much exterminate civilized life. The U.S. > intelligence community regards the threat of a dirty bomb, say in New > York, in the next decade as being probably greater than 50%. And > those threats increase as the threat of terror increases. > > And Bush administration policies have, again, consciously been > carried out in a way, which they know is likely to increase the > threat of terror. The most obvious example is the Iraq invasion. That > was undertaken with the anticipation that it would be very likely to > increase the threat of terror and also nuclear proliferation. And, in > fact, that's exactly what happened, according to the judgment of the > C.I.A., National Intelligence Council, foreign intelligence agencies, > independent specialists. They all point out that, yes, as > anticipated, it increased the threat of terror. In fact, it did so in > ways well beyond what was anticipated. > > To mention just one, we commonly read that there were no weapons > of mass destruction found in Iraq. Well, it's not totally accurate. > There were means to develop weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and > known to be in Iraq. They were under guard by U.N. inspectors, who > were dismantling them. When Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest sent in > their troops, they neglected to instruct them to guard these sites. > The U.N. inspectors were expelled, the sites were left unguarded. The > inspectors continued their work by satellite and reported that over a > hundred sites had been looted, in fact, systematically looted, not > just somebody walking in, but careful looting. That included > dangerous biotoxins, means to hide precision equipment to be used to > develop nuclear weapons and missiles, means to develop chemical > weapons and so on. All of this has disappeared. One hates to imagine > where it's disappeared to, but it could end up in New York. > > AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Noam Chomsky, and we're going to > come back with him. His new book, just published, is called Failed > States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy. We'll be > back with Professor Chomsky in a minute. > > [break] > > AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Professor Noam Chomsky, upon the > release of his new book, Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the > Assault on Democracy. Noam Chomsky, a professor of linguistics at the > Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I'm Amy Goodman, here with > Juan Gonzalez. Juan? > > JUAN GONZALEZ: Professor Chomsky, in your book you also talk > about how Iraq has become almost an incubator or a university now for > advanced training for terrorists, who then are leaving the country > there and going around the world, very much as what happened in the > 1980s in Afghanistan. Could you talk about that somewhat? > > NOAM CHOMSKY: Actually, that's -- actually, these are just quotes > from the C.I.A. and other U.S. intelligence agencies and analysts. > Yes, they describe Iraq now as a training ground for highly > professionalized terrorists skilled in urban contact. They do compare > it to Afghanistan, but say that it's much more serious, because of > the high level of training and skill. These are almost entirely > Iraqis. There's a small number of foreign fighters drawn to Iraq. > Estimates are maybe 5% to 10%. And they are, as in the case of > Afghanistan, are expected to spread into throughout many parts of the > world and to carry out the kinds of terrorism that they're trained > in, as a reaction to -- clearly reaction to the invasion. Iraq was, > whatever you thought about it, was free from connections to terror > prior to the invasion. It's now a major terror center. > > It's not as President Bush says, that terrorists are being > concentrated in Iraq so that we can kill them. These are terrorists > who had no previous record of involvement in terrorism. The foreign > fighters who have come in, mostly from Saudi Arabia, have been > investigated extensively by Saudi and Israeli and U.S. intelligence, > and what they conclude is that they were mobilized by the Iraq war, > no involvement in terrorist actions in the past. And undoubtedly, > just as expected, the Iraq war has raised an enormous hostility > throughout much of the world, and particularly the Muslim world. > > It was the most -- probably the most unpopular war in history, > and even before it was fought. Virtually no support for it anywhere, > except the U.S. and Britain and a couple of other places. And since > the war itself was perhaps one of the most incredible military > catastrophes in history, has caused utter disaster in Iraq and has -- > and all of that has since simply intensified the strong opposition to > the war of the kind that you heard from that Indonesian student of a > few moments ago. But that's why it spread, and that's a -- it > increases the reservoir of potential support for the terrorists, who > regard themselves as a vanguard, attempting to elicit support from > others, bring others to join with them. And the Bush administration > is their leading ally in this. Again, not my words, the words of the > leading U.S. specialists on terror, Michael Scheuer in this case. And > definitely, that's happened. > > And it's not the only case. I mean, in case after case, the Bush > administration has simply downgraded the threat of terror. One > example is the report of the 9/11 Commission. Here in the United > States, the Bush administration didn't want the commission to be > formed, tried to block it, but it was finally formed. Bipartisan > commission, gave many recommendations. The recommendations, to a > large extent, were not carried out. The commission members, including > the chair, were appalled by this, set up their own private commission > after their own tenure was completed, and continued to report that > the measures are simply not being carried out. > > There are many other examples. One of the most striking is the > Treasury Department has a branch, the Office of Financial Assets > Control, which is supposed to monitor suspicious funding transfers > around the world. Well, that's a core element of the so-called war on > terror. They've given reports to Congress. It turns out that they > have a few officials devoted to al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, but > about -- I think it was -- six times that many devoted to whether > there are any evasions of the totally illegal U.S. embargo against > Cuba. > > There was an instance of that just a few months ago, when the > U.S. infuriated even energy corporations by ordering a Sheraton Hotel > in Mexico City to cancel a meeting between Cuban oil specialists and > U.S. oil companies, including some big ones, seeking to explore the > development of offshore Cuban oil resources. The government ordered -- > this OFAC ordered the hotel, the U.S. hotel, to expel the Cubans and > terminate the meeting. Mexico wasn't terribly happy about this. It's > a extraordinary arrogance. But it also reveals the hysterical > fanaticism of the goal of strangling Cuba. > > And we know why. It's a free country. We have records going from > way back, and a rich source of them go back to the Kennedy-Johnson > administrations. They had to carry out a terrorist war against Cuba, > as they did, and try to strangle Cuba economically, because of > Cuba's -- what they called Cuba's successful defiance of U.S. > policies, going back to the Monroe Doctrine. No Russians, but the > Monroe Doctrine, 150 years back at that time. And the goal was, as > was put very plainly by the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, > to make the people of Cuba suffer. They are responsible for the fact > that the government is in place. We therefore have to make them > suffer and starve, so that they'll throw out the government. It's a > policy, which is pretty consistent. It's being applied right now in > Palestine. It was applied under the Iraqi sanctions, plot in Chile, > and so on. It's savage. > > AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Noam Chomsky, his new book, after > he wrote Hegemony or Survival, one of scores of books, if not a > hundred books that Professor Chomsky has written, his new one is > called Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on > Democracy. > > You mention Israel, Palestine, and I wanted to ask you about this > new study that's come out. A dean at Harvard University and a > professor at the University of Chicago are coming under intense > criticism for publishing an academic critique of the pro-Israel lobby > in Washington. The paper charges that the United States has willingly > set aside its own security and that of many of its allies, in order > to advance the interests of Israel. In addition, the study accuses > the pro-Israel lobby, particularly AIPAC, the America Israel Public > Affairs Committee, of manipulating the U.S. media, policing academia > and silencing critics of Israel by labeling them as anti-Semitic. The > study also examines the role played by the pro-Israel > neoconservatives in the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. > > The authors are the Stephen Walt, a dean at Harvard's Kennedy > School of Government, and John Mearsheimer of the University of > Chicago. They, themselves, are now being accused of anti-Semitism. In > Washington, a Democratic congressman, Eliot Engle of New York, > described the professors as dishonest so-called intellectuals and > anti-Semites. The Harvard professor, Ruth Wisse, called for the paper > to be withdrawn. Harvard Law School professor, Alan Dershowitz, > described the study as trash that could have been written by neo-Nazi > David Duke. The New York Sun reported Harvard has received several > calls from pro-Israel donors, expressing concern about the paper, and > Harvard has already taken steps to distance itself from the report. > Last week, it removed the logo of the Kennedy School of Government > from the paper and added a new disclaimer to the study. The report is > 81 pages. It was originally published on Harvard's website and an > edited version appeared in the London Review of > > Books. > > The controversy comes less than a year after Harvard law > professor Alan Dershowitz attempted to block the publication of > Norman Finkelstein's book Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti- > Semitism and the Abuse of History. Now, this goes into a lot of > issues: the content of the study, what you think of it, the response > to it and also the whole critique. In this country, what happens to > those who criticize the policies of the state of Israel? Noam > Chomsky. > > NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, the answer to your last question is well > described in Norman Finkelstein's quite outstanding book and also in > the record of Dershowitz's attempts to prevent its publication. Some > of the documents were just published in the Journal of Palestine > Studies. Finkelstein's book gives an extensive detailed account, the > best one we have, of a frightening record of Israeli crimes and > abuses, where he relies on the most respectable sources, the major > human rights organizations, Israeli human rights organizations and > others, and demonstrates, just conclusively, that Alan Dershowitz's > defense of these atrocities, based on no evidence at all, is > outrageous and grotesque. > > Nevertheless, Finkelstein comes under tremendous attack for being > anti-Semitic, and so on. Now that's pretty normal. It goes back, I > suppose, to the distinguished diplomat, Abba Eban -- it must be > thirty years ago -- wrote in an American Jewish journal that "the > task of Zionists," he said, "is to show that all political anti- > Zionism" � that means criticism of the policies of the state of > Israel � "is either anti-Semitism or Jewish self-hatred." Well, okay, > that excludes all possible criticism, by definition. As examples of > neurotic Jewish self-hatred, I should declare an interest. He > mentioned two people. I was one; the other was Izzy Stone. > > Once you release the torrent of abuse, you don't need arguments > and evidence, you can just scream. And Professors Walt and > Mearsheimer deserve credit for publishing a study, which they knew > was going to elicit the usual streams of abuse and hysteria from > supporters of Israeli crimes and violence. However, we should > recognize that this is pretty uniform. Try to say a sane and > uncontroversial word about any other issue dear to the hearts of the > intellectual elite that they've turned into holy writ, you get the > same reaction. So � and there's no lobby, which does raise one of a > few minor points that raises questions about the validity of the > critique. > > It's a serious, careful piece of work. It deserves to be read. > They deserve credit for writing it. But it still it leaves open the > question of how valid the analysis is, and I notice that there's a > pretty subtle question involved. Everyone agrees, on all sides, that > there are a number of factors that enter into determining U.S. > foreign policy. One is strategic and economic interests of the major > power centers within the United States. In the case of the Middle > East, that means the energy corporations, arms producers, high-tech > industry, financial institutions and others. Now, these are not > marginal institutions, particularly in the Bush administration. So > one question is to what extent does policy reflect their interests. > Another question is to what extent is it influenced by domestic > lobbies. And there are other factors. But just these two alone, yes, > they are � you find them in most cases, and to try to sort out their > influence is not so simple. In particular, it's not > > simple when their interests tend to coincide, and by and large, > there's a high degree of conformity. If you look over the record, > what's called the national interest, meaning the special interests of > those with -- in whose hands power is concentrated, the national > interest, in that sense, tends to conform to the interests of the > lobbies. So in those cases, it's pretty hard to disentangle them. > > If the thesis of the book � the thesis of the book is that the > lobbies have overwhelming influence, and the so-called "national > interest" is harmed by what they do. If that were the case, it would > be, I would think, a very hopeful conclusion. It would mean that U.S. > policy could easily be reversed. It would simply be necessary to > explain to the major centers of power, like the energy corporations, > high-tech industry and arms producers and so on, just explain to them > that they've � that their interests are being harmed by this small > lobby that screams anti-Semitism and funds congressmen, and so on. > Surely those institutions can utterly overwhelm the lobby in > political influence, in finance, and so on, so that ought to reverse > the policy. > > Well, it doesn't happen, and there are a number of reasons for > it. For one thing, there's an underlying assumption that the so- > called national interest has been harmed by these policies. Well, you > know, you really have to demonstrate that. So who's been harmed? Have > the energy corporations been harmed by U.S. policy in the Middle East > over the last 60 years? I mean, they're making profits beyond the > dream of avarice, as the main government investigation of them > reported. Even more today � that was a couple years ago. Has the > U.S. � the main concern of the U.S. has been to control what the > State Department 60 years ago called "a stupendous source of > strategic power," Middle East oil. Yeah, they've controlled it. There > have been � in fact, the invasion of Iraq was an attempt to intensify > that control. It may not do it. It may have the opposite effect, but > that's a separate question. It was the intent, clearly. > > There have been plenty of barriers. The major barrier is the one > that is the usual one throughout the world: independent nationalism. > It's called "radical nationalism," which was serious. It was > symbolized by Nasser, but also Kassem in Iraq, and others. Well, the > U.S. did succeed in overcoming that barrier. How? Israel destroyed > Nasser. That was a tremendous service to the United States, to U.S. > power, that is, to the energy corporations, to Saudi Arabia, to the > main centers of power here, and in fact, it's in � that was 1967, and > it was after that victory that the U.S.-Israeli relations really > solidified, became what's called a "strategic asset." > > It's also then that the lobby gained its force. It's also then, > incidentally, that the educated classes, the intellectual political > class entered into an astonishing love affair with Israel, after its > demonstration of tremendous power against a third-world enemy, and in > fact, that's a very critical component of what's called the lobby. > Walt and Mearsheimer mention it, but I think it should be emphasized. > And they are very influential. They determine, certainly influence, > the shaping of news and information in journals, media, scholarship, > and so on. My own feeling is they're probably the most influential > part of the lobby. Now, we sort of have to ask, what's the difference > between the lobby and the power centers of the country? > > But the barriers were overcome. Israel has performed many other > services to the United States. You can run through the record. It's > also performed secondary services. So in the 1980s, particularly, > Congress was imposing barriers to the Reagan administration's support > for and carrying out major terrorist atrocities in Central America. > Israel helped evade congressional restrictions by carrying out > training, and so on, itself. The Congress blocked U.S. trade with > South Africa. Israel helped evade the embargo to all the � both the > racist regimes of Southern Africa, and there have been many other > cases. By now, Israel is virtually an offshore U.S. military base and > high-tech center in the Middle East. > > AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, we have to break for stations to > identify themselves, but we'll come back. Professor Noam Chomsky is > our guest for the hour. His latest book has just been published, and > it's called Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on > Democracy. > > [break] > > AMY GOODMAN: Our guest today is Professor Noam Chomsky. His new > book is Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on > Democracy. Noam Chomsky, longtime professor at Massachusetts > Institute of Technology, world-renowned linguist and political > analyst. I'm Amy Goodman, here with Juan Gonzalez. Juan? > > JUAN GONZALEZ: Professor Chomsky, in your book you have a > fascinating section, where you talk about the historical basis of the > Bush doctrine of preemptive war, and also its relationship to empire > or to the building of a U.S. empire. And you go back, you mention a > historian, John Lewis Gaddis, who the Bush administration loves, > because he's actually tried to find the historical rationalization > for this use, going back to John Quincy Adams and as Secretary of > State in the invasion by General Andrew Jackson of Florida in the > Seminole Wars, and how this actually is a record of the use of this > idea to continue the expansionist aims of the United States around > the world. > > NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah, that's a very interesting case, actually. > John Lewis Gaddis is not only the favorite historian of the Reagan > administration, but he's regarded as the dean of Cold War > scholarship, the leading figure in the American Cold War scholarship, > a professor at Yale. And he wrote the one, so far, book-length > investigation into the roots of the Bush Doctrine, which he generally > approves, the usual qualifications about style and so on. He traces > it is back, as you say, to his hero, the great grand strategist, John > Quincy Adams, who wrote a series of famous state papers back in 1818, > in which he gave post facto justification to Andrew Jackson's > invasion of Florida. And it's rather interesting. > > Gaddis is a good historian. He knows the sources, cites all the > right sources. But he doesn't tell you what they say. So what I did > in the book is just add what they say, what he omitted. Well, what > they describe is a shocking record of atrocities and crimes carried > out against what were called runaways Negros and lawless Indians, > devastated the Seminoles. There was another major Seminole war later, > either exterminated them or drove them into the marshes, completely > unprovoked. There were fabricated pretexts. Gaddis talks about the > threat of England. There was no threat from England. England didn't > do a thing. In fact, even Adams didn't claim that. But it was what > Gaddis calls an -- it established what Gaddis calls the thesis that > expansion is the best guarantee of security. So you want to be > secure, just expand, conquer more. Then you'll be secure. > > And he says, yes, that goes right through all American > administrations -- he's correct about that -- and is the centerpiece > of the Bush Doctrine. So he says the Bush Doctrine isn't all that > new. Expansion is the key to security. So we just expand and expand, > and then we become more secure. Well, you know, he doesn't mention > the obvious precedents that come to mind, so I'll leave them out, but > you can think of them. And there's some truth to that, except for > what he ignores and, in fact, denies, namely the huge atrocities that > are recorded in the various sources, scholarly sources that he cites, > which also point out that Adams, by giving this justification for > Jackson's war -- he was alone in the administration to do it, but he > managed to convince the President -- he established the doctrine of > executive wars without congressional authorization, in violation of > the Constitution. Adams later recognized that and was sorry for it, > and very sorry, but that established it and, > > yes, that's been consistent ever since then: executive wars > without congressional authorization. We know of case after case. It > doesn't seem to bother the so-called originalists who talk about > original intent. > > But that aside, he also -- the scholarship that Gaddis cites but > doesn't quote also points out that Adams established other principles > that are consistent from then until now, namely massive lying to the > public, distortion, evoking hysterical fears, all kinds of deceitful > efforts to mobilize the population in support of atrocities. And yes, > that continues right up to the present, as well. So there's very > interesting historical record. What it shows is almost the opposite > of what Gaddis claims and what the Reagan -- the Bush administration - > - I think I said Reagan -- the Bush administration likes. And it's > right out of the very sources that he refers to, the right sources, > the right scholarship. He simply ignores them. But, yes, the record > is interesting. > > AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, I wanted to ask you a question. As > many people know, you're perhaps one of the most cited sources or > analysis in the world. And I thought this was an interesting > reference to these citations. This was earlier this month, program, > Tim Russert, Meet the Press, questioning the head of the Joint Chiefs > of Staff, General Peter Pace. > > TIM RUSSERT: Mr. Jaafari said that one of his favorite American > writers is Professor Noam Chomsky, someone who has written very, very > strongly against the Iraq war and against most of the Bush > administration foreign policy. Does that concern you? > > GEN. PETER PACE: I hope he has more than one book on his > nightstand. > > TIM RUSSERT: So it troubles you? > > GEN. PETER PACE: I would be concerned if the only access to > foreign ideas that the Prime Minister had was that one author. If, in > fact, that's one of many, and he's digesting many different opinions, > that's probably healthy. > > AMY GOODMAN: That's General Peter Pace, head of the Joint Chiefs > of Staff, being questioned by Tim Russert, talking about Jaafari, who > at this very moment is struggling to be -- again, to hold on to his > position as prime minister of Iraq. Your response, Noam Chomsky? > > NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, I, frankly, rather doubt that General Pace > recognized my name or knew what he was referring to, but maybe he > did. The quote from Tim Russert, if I recall, was that this was a > book that was highly critical of the Iraq war. Well, that shouldn't > surprise a prime minister of Iraq. After all, according to U.S. > polls, the latest ones I've seen reported, Brookings Institution, > 87%, 87% of Iraqis want a timetable for withdrawal. That's an > astonishing figure. If it really is all Iraqis, as was asserted. That > means virtually everyone in Arab Iraq, the areas where the troops are > deployed. I, frankly, doubt that you could have found figures like > that in Vichy, France, or, you know, Poland under -- when it was a > Russian satellite. > > What it means essentially is that virtually everyone wants a > timetable for withdrawal. So, would it be surprising that a prime > minister would read a book that's critical of the war and says the > same thing? It's interesting that Bush and Blair, who are constantly > preaching about their love of democracy, announce, declare that there > will be no timetable for withdrawal. Well, that part probably > reflects the contempt for democracy that both of them have > continually demonstrated, them and their colleagues, virtually > without exception. > > But there are deeper reasons, and we ought to think about them. > If we're talking about exit strategies from Iraq, we should bear in > mind that for the U.S. to leave Iraq without establishing a > subordinate client state would be a nightmare for Washington. All you > have to do is think of the policies that an independent Iraq would be > likely to pursue, if it was mildly democratic. It would almost surely > strengthen its already developed relations with Shiite Iran right > next door. Any degree of Iraqi autonomy stimulates autonomy pressures > across the border in Saudi Arabia, where there's a substantial Shiite > population, who have been bitterly repressed by the U.S.-backed > tyranny but is now calling for more autonomy. That happens to be > where most of Saudi oil is. So, what you can imagine -- I'm sure > Washington planners are having nightmares about this -- is a > potential -- pardon? > > JUAN GONZALEZ: I would like to ask you, in terms of this whole > issue of democracy, in your book you talk about the democracy > deficit. Obviously, the Bush administration is having all kinds of > problems with their -- even their model of democracy around the > world, given the election results in the Palestinian territories, the > situation now in Iraq, where the President is trying to force out the > Prime Minister of the winning coalition there, in Venezuela, even in > Iran. Your concept of the democracy deficit, and why this > administration is able to hold on in the United States itself? > > NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, there are two aspects of that. One is, the > democracy deficit internal to the United States, that is, the > enormous and growing gap between public opinion and public policy. > Second is their so-called democracy-promotion mission elsewhere in > the world. The latter is just pure fraud. The only evidence that > they're interested in promoting democracy is that they say so. The > evidence against it is just overwhelming, including the cases you > mentioned and many others. I mean, the very fact that people are even > willing to talk about this shows that we're kind of insisting on > being North Koreans: if the Dear Leader has spoken, that establishes > the truth; it doesn't matter what the facts are. I go into that in > some detail in the book. > > The democracy deficit at home is another matter. How have -- I > mean, they have an extremely narrow hold on political power. Their > policies are strongly opposed by most of the population. How do they > carry this off? Well, that's been through an intriguing mixture of > deceit, lying, fabrication, public relations. There's actually a > pretty good study of it by two good political scientists, Hacker and > Pearson, who just run through the tactics and how it works. And they > have barely managed to hold on to political power and are attempting > to use it to dismantle the institutional structure that has been > built up over many years with enormous popular support -- the limited > benefits system; they're trying to dismantle Social Security and are > actually making progress on that; to the tax cuts, overwhelmingly for > the rich, are creating -- are purposely creating a future situation, > first of all, a kind of fiscal train wreck in the future, but also a > situation in which it will be > > virtually impossible to carry out the kinds of social policies > that the public overwhelmingly supports. > > And to manage to carry this off has been an impressive feat of > manipulation, deceit, lying, and so on. No time to talk about it > here, but actually my book gives a pretty good account. I do discuss > it in the book. That's a democratic deficit at home and an extremely > serious one. The problems of nuclear war, environmental disaster, > those are issues of survival, the top issues and the highest priority > for anyone sensible. Third issue is that the U.S. government is > enhancing those threats. And a fourth issue is that the U.S. > population is opposed, but is excluded from the political system. > That's a democratic deficit. It's one we can deal with, too. > > AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, we're going to have to leave it there > for now. But part two of our interview will air next week. Professor > Noam Chomsky's new book, just published, is called Failed States: The > Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy. > > > > To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, for > our new online ordering > > call 1 (888) 999-3877 > > > > > > -end > > > > > > SundayNiteCall-InTV: Immigration & kids protesting > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TerryLiberty/message/247 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. > Great rates starting at 1¢/min. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
