>doug wrote:
>Is it ok to say the Ba'athist regime was monstrous? Or is that a
>contravention of the Correct Line as well? If it is, better tell Noam
>Chomsky and Tariq Ali, who both used that sort of language when I
>interviewed them.
>
>--i'm not sure about that. they described saddam as a vicious dictator,
>serious human rights violator, etc. but the monster aspect i don't really
>see in their rhetoric. i don't get the impression from ali or chomsky that
>saddam was a 'monster', he was a run of the mill dictator, not much
>different from many others that exist worldwide. they certainly never
>bought into the hitler comparisons. in fact they go out of their way to
>make it clear that saddam wasn't a 'monster' as is understood in the monster
>discourse (i.e. monsters stick out from other bad guys)...
>
>
Utterly untrue. I have read Chomsky's use of the word "monster" in
describing Saddam Hussein. A quick search on Google using the terms
"chomsky monster saddam" turned up several talks and interviews where he
described Saddam as a "monster" without a trace of irony or sarcasm. For
example:
"It has nothing to do with terrorism, it has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein's atrocities. We know that for certain. The reason we know that is because, you hear Clinton, [British Prime Minister]Tony Blair, Bush and [former Secretary of State] Albright, and the rest of them talking about what a monster Saddam Hussein is, we can't let him survive, he used chemical warfare against his own population and he carried out major massacres and so on. All of those charges are correct. But they're just missing three words, namely: with our support."
Or, consider the following:
"Pre-emptive strikes need extremely strong evidence and there's a heavy burden of justification. There's nothing remotely like that. It's extremely hard to take Bush and his advisers seriously when they talk about their reasons for wanting to depose Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is a monster, there's no doubt about that. Getting rid of him would be a boon to the people of Iraq and the world. But Bush's advisers are not opposed to him because of his crimes or because of his efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and we all know that."