> Mark
Who among those you've listed supported hitting al-Qaeda and throwing their Taliban sponsors out of power? None that I know of. Yes, yes -- Chomsky said that "some force" may be needed down the line, but he didn't specifically spell out what kind he had in mind, and if "some force" were eventually exerted (maybe after the pro-Taliban elements of the ISI took control of the nuclear-armed Pakistani state?), whether under UN auspices or through direct US action, how different would it be from what has occured? Would there be no aerial bombing? No ground troops? No direct battles with al-Qaeda/Taliban loyalists in the mountains? And besides, I seem to recall Chomsky admitting that, if after exhausting diplomatic means to get bin Laden and his gang turned over to international authorities failed, perhaps we should "do nothing."
Instead of running ahead of the White House and baying corporate press to not only denounce the criminal violence waged by these theocratic gangsters, but to demand their destruction while also pointing out US complicity with these thugs and similar violence waged by theocratics in Israel and in Palestine, the "left" would have staked out a unique position and would have shown itself commited to a single human standard. Instead, many, if not most, of the "left" recycle chants and rants from the 60s, say that they are "against" al-Qaeda but offer nothing substantive when asked "What would you do?"
It is perhaps the lowest point I've seen the "left" on since I considered myself part of it in 1980.
DP