Terry, you got it, we don't have to marry them, to join them because we work with them on some things. I find useful stuff all the way from Marxist Liennist publications to radical Fascist racist, antisemtic shortwave radio shows even stuff from the National Review and The Nation but i'm boycotting the New York Times except when I can read it for free because of their eminet domain policy in New York City.--- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear wgilbert, you react as if I had proposed MARRIAGE with > Chomsky, instead of just some limited but satisfying attention! > > As a matter of fact, one need not contemplate 'getting in bed' > with the dude at all. But, his streaming interview is chock > full of 'military-industrial complex' update about US govt policy > abroad. You know, that thing about which 1950s USA Prez Eisenhower > had warned. > > What do you think of what he said in the interview, or are you > bashing something you have not even yet heard? :) > > > -Terry Liberty Parker > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TerryLiberty > > > > --- In [email protected], "wgilbert02" <buckygilbert@> > 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/
