"Monster" implies a fixed state, which is of course impossible (death being the only presumptive "fixed state", at least for the foreseeable future), hence the usage of same is wholly, blatantly rhetorical. Which is fine in some cases, not so in others.
To cite one somewhat archaic example, "Monster!" is the kind of word a speaker might yell from the podium in front of a crowd when the object of his or her vilification appears at the edge of the square, whereupon the crowd might be persuaded to set upon him or her to exact vengeance or attempt to right a perceived wrong. That said set-upon individual may in fact have been identified as the town Baker up til then (itself an elaborately constructed identity - owns the ovens, chooses to bake bread and sell it, etc.) may be irrelevant at that moment, but it is no less accurate.
"Monstrous" in this context, also rhetorical, but less so owing to its role as a modifier rather than all-encompassing subject, refers to a single act or composite of acts, rather than the totality of the individual, and consequently allows space for a more nuanced evaluation of a given situation. It acknowledges the fact that the above-mentioned individual may have committed a single, perhaps unpardonable, act in the eyes of the citizens - widely understood to be a "monstrous" act - while still implying the possibility of an analysis of the circumstances and events surrounding the act, and other aspects of the individual's multi-faceted role and relations in the community at large.
This is certainly not an argument against the use of the word monster - in fact, one could be all for it, depending on the circumstances.
People can (and will) toy with the objectifying rhetoric of words like "monster" and the like on a regular basis, using such words to persuade, incite, bend others to their will, etc., and others will routinely allow themselves to fall into the seductive trap engendered by those words. George Bush takes ample advantage of this. But each incidence of such rhetoric is best understood as a kind of "spell". That someone like Chomsky chose to say "monster" rather than "monstrous" (or whatever else) would imply that he saw a benefit in playing the game a given way at that moment - that his evaluation of the situation in which he was speaking told him that whatever goal he perceived for his efforts would be furthered by his usage of the word. He, of all people, is not foolish enough to be taken in by his own verbal necromancy. It's a calculated effort, as is most human linguistic interaction. That we all participate in this daily charade mostly negates any overly cynical interpretations of same, and simply exposes it as the delicate dance that it is.
It doesn't necessarily matter that Chomsky has provided detailed expositions at other times in other places regarding the minutiae of the affairs of Hussein or anyone else. What matters is that he, as a public speaker, chose to use the words he did in a specific instance in a specific context where the presumption should ideally be that those hearing or reading them have never encountered Chomsky before, and possibly might never again as long as they live.
So was it a productive use of the word? What we "say" in the world is not what comes out of our mouths, but is ultimately better understood as the actions that result from our utterances. In a fleeting moment before we speak aloud (there are some exceptions), we inevitably imagine the fallout, or avoid doing so at our peril. So what Chomsky actually "said" will be better understood in time. And I'm sure he knows it...
--
/ dave /