It's not hard to spot the usual Times derision towards Chomsky: headlining the review "The Everything Explainer" tips readers to expect Chomsky's work to be just more conspiracy theory.
But the review itself isn't nearly as scornful. The reviewer's Samantha Powers, and she goes back and forth on Chomsky's book in ways that aren't entirely bullshit. Apart from a few word-choices (and I'd say that the words "polemic" and "disgruntled" are supportable), it's fun to see the Times publish the following:
"Revered and reviled, Noam Chomsky is a global phenomenon. Indeed, if book sales are any standard to go by, he may be the most widely read American voice on foreign policy on the planet today. With the United States increasingly suspect around the world -- a recent Gallup poll found that 55 percent of citizens in Britain thought the United States ''posed a threat to peace,'' while a June BBC survey found that 60 percent of Indonesians, 71 percent of Jordanians and even 25 percent of Canadians viewed the United States as a greater threat than Al Qaeda -- the appetite for Chomsky's polemics is only increasing. It is but one testament to America's diminished standing that his most recent book, ''9-11,'' a slight collection of interviews (largely conducted via e-mail), was published in 26 countries and translated into 23 languages, finding its way onto best-seller lists in the United States, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan and New Zealand. And at home, as mainstream dissent dissipated in the wake of 9/11, a new generation of disgruntled critics has turned to Chomsky for guidance."
True enough, and the _Times_ has been scrupulously ignoring the man for decades. Powers' review has enough phrases to cite if anyone wants to paint the review as a smear against Chomsky. Frankly, I think Chomsky's writing style's gotten worse over the years, and noting this doesn't strike me as a terrible thing.
What is surprising about this review is how often Powers states that "Chomsky is right" on so many points. Just a few examples:
"Because every state justifies its wars on the grounds of self-defense or altruism, Chomsky is correct that any ''profession of noble intent is predictable, and therefore carries no information.'' He is also right to object to the historical amnesia that American statesmen bring to their dealings with other states. He seethes at the hypocrisy of Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Colin Powell, who invoked Saddam Hussein's 1988 gassing attacks in order to help justify the recent war, but who did not see fit to explain why the Reagan administration (which they served as senior officials) doubled its aid to Hussein's regime after learning of the gassings.
"Chomsky also denounces the dependence of foreign policy elites on special interests. With African agriculture ravaged by American farm subsidies, with Israeli settlements unchallenged by Washington's elites and with campaign contributors to both parties landing mammoth paybacks in overseas contracts, it is certainly well past time to sound the alarm.
"And it is essential to demand, as Chomsky does, that a country with the might of the United States stop being so selective in applying its principles. We will not allow our sovereignty to be infringed by international treaty commitments in the areas of human rights or even arms control, but we demand that others should. We rebuff the complaints of foreigners about the 650 people who remain holed up in Guantanamo kennels, denied access to lawyers and family members, with not even their names released. Yet we expect others to take heed of our protests about due process. We have ''official enemies'' -- those whose police abuses, arms shipments and electoral thefts we eagerly expose (Zimbabwe, Burma, North Korea, Iran). But the sins of our allies in the war on terror (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, Pakistan, Russia, Uzbekistan) are met with ''intentional ignorance.'' Although he is typically thin on prescriptions, Chomsky offers ''one simple way to reduce the threat of terror: stop participating in it.''