--ya see, I don't buy that, not even a little. It was just one more excuse to attack anything but Chomsky's position on the coming farce known as the "war on terror". One only has to look at the reaction to Barbara Kingsolver or even Susan Sontag to see that the reaction to Chomsky's "robotic approach" was a distraction from substantive criticisms of how US policy makers manipulatively reacted to 911. We said it at the time and we were right, Chomsky could have shown up on TV wrapped in a flag and blubbering uncontrollably, Bill Bennet still would have been attacking his integrity for having the audacity to criticise US policy.
That reality aside, Chomsky is almost always robotic in his speeches on any topic. He takes seriously the role of dispassionate critic of capitalism, something that was not very much in vogue at the time. That is to say, at the time, it was not very popular to be laying out why we could very reasonably expect that the Bush administration and congress would manipulate the 911 tragedy to rebolster the power of US hegemony. As far as I can tell, whether we are talking about Afghanistan or Iraq, Chomsky has been proven correct. The leaders of the US have manipulated 911 to the advantage of US empire almost masterfully.
By the way, as I write this I am on the ground lying prostrate blubbering uncontrollably for the victims of 911...well, actually i'm not, but on 911 I did my bit by going to a peace gathering sponsored by Peaceful Tomorrows....They told me that they prefer sincere critiques of war and violence that can prevent another 911 instead of ostentatious displays of nationalism...
BTW, when is Hitch gonna write a nasty screed against the Peaceful Tomorrows Cabal? That would really be delicious...bet Horowitz would take it and pay him double what he gets at the Nation for such work.
Steve
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20020927/998a33fe/attachment.htm>