>The factual veracity of Chomsky's remarks is
>beside the point. Offering facts implies a
>political context. The argument is really
>about the implied political context. We
>could acknowledge that the U.S. created
>OBL, or that "worse" things (whatever that
>means) have happened to others with the
>complicity of the U.S., but in the immediate
>wake of *this* atrocity such observations are
>offensive.
So we shouldn't speak the truth because it might be offensive? We shouldn't say that our own government's actions have killed millions over the last few decades alone? That our own misery at the moment has been experienced many times over in Vietnam, Iraq, and the Occupied Territories? Can't you make these points without defending the WTC bombing itself? I've been an emotional basket case for the last week, overwhelmed by shock and grief, yet I also know that this happened in large part because of the way our government acts in the world. Can't we simultaneously hold two or three or four thoughts in our head and feelings in our hearts that don't harmonize neatly with each other?
>In a situation like this, it is inevitable that
>prudence is defined, at least for a while,
>as giving those in authority the benefit of
>the doubt.
And they have such a sterling record, don't they? I don't quite get why you think they're dangerously wrong about fiscal policy, but when thousands-to-millions of lives are at stake, they get a free pass. At least for a while.
Doug