> But it was the failure of the US and the rest of the first world (who I
> wouldn't excuse from guilt) to compensate for the damage that caused the
> deaths. Unless of course the bombing was intentional.
>
> And this is the implication that Chomsky wouldn't go out and say: that the
> U.S. INTENTIONALLY hit that plant. He's uncomfortable saying it, but not
> uncomfortable in stirring up the thought of it in the minds of more
radical
> readers of his.
>
> That is a profoundly dishonest tactic that I've noticed in Chomsky's
> writing, on and off, for years. It is hardly unique to him among widely
read
> left writers, though he is among the more crafty at it.
Well, of course the Sudan bombing was intentional. That wasn't a stray cruise missile that hit the factory. The question is whether the Clinton gang knew it was a pharmaceutical plant or not. They certainly knew what it was AFTER the fact, and they lied about their intentions to cover up what was an act of terrorism. Chomsky's point is that the US has blocked the UN from going in to assess the numbers of those who've died and continue to die as a result, which he estimates is easily in the thousands, if not tens of thousands. That no one really cares what the numbers are, and that people like Hitchens take offense with the mere question in relation to WTC, this is what Chomsky finds immoral and racist. And I agree with him.
DP