> What troubles me about the capacity of a Chomsky to take such a morally
> blind stance is that he and I started out politically from the same
> position, on the democratic left and in opposition to the war in Vietnam.
> We started out from a motivation of ending needless human suffering and
> death. It is deeply disturbing that he has become so fixated on the ways
in
> which the American state contributes to that suffering and death, that he
> can no longer see any other source of it, that he has become so fixated on
> the American state that he is prepared to minimize the deaths of these
> untold innocents, so long as their lives are taken in opposition to
> "American imperialism," that he has lost complete touch with actual human
> suffering as he parades his concern for human suffering in the abstract.
> This blindness is so awful that my fear, if anything, is that I might, at
> some point, have participated in it.
Oh good God, Leo. Next you'll tell us that had the left supported Humphrey in '68, the Vietnam War would have ended a year or so later. I agree with you that Noam's comparative example was weak if, as I've repeatedly said here, there are no hard numbers to match the estimated dead. But Noam's primary target is the American state because, as he's repeatedly said, this is where he lives and this is where he can have an impact.
Anyone can denounce a bin-Laden (or a Saddam or a Khadaffi) without fear of reprisal. Indeed, you'll be slapped on the back for your fine reason. After all, you and I have no impact on their conduct (though in bin-Laden's case, we did when he was on the US payroll; same with Saddam). Personally I think bin-Laden is a murderous, theocratic reactionary who cares little for the fate of the poor of the region. That said, what have I done? Chimed in with the chorus and nothing more, which is what you are doing by trying paint Clinton's cowardly bombing raid as something noble, however mistaken -- only in your case, your comments do have consequences because as an American you are helping to keep the truth of the matter from coming to light, to make it seem that Clinton was fighting "terrorism" (while financing far worse crimes in against Turkey's Kurds, for instance), and cover up the fact that those medical supplies have not, to my knowledge, been replaced. You simply parrot the Clinton/Sandy Berger line, and use the murder of those on Tuesday as your "moral" cover. In this case, I think your comments are worse than Chomsky's, to the degree I find Noam to be mistaken.
DP