On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Luke Weiger wrote:
> "Eight months after the bombing, FBI director Robert Mueller could
> only inform a Senate Committee that US intelligence now 'believes' the
> plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though planned and implemented
> elsewhere. [Walter Pincus, 'The 9-11 Masterminds may have been in
> Afghanistan,' Washington Post Weekly, June 10-16.]" Chomsky at
> <www.zmag.org/chomsky4-30-03.htm."
>
> Is not equivalent to
>
> "Robert Mueller informed a Senate Committee that US intelligence wasn't sure
> if bin Laden was responsible for 9/11."
>
> -- Luke
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2004 7:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Why do they hate Moore?
>
>
> > You were right to be "initially worried about possible mass starvation in
> > Afghanistan," because the Bush administration was perfectly willing to see
> > it happen; there is no reason to think that would have shown any more
> > compunction about causing hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in
> > Afghanistan than the Clinton administration did about hundreds of
> > thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq. The fact was obvious and generally
> > recognized (for citations, see the notes to Chomsky's talk at
> > <http://www.zmag.org/lakdawalalec.htm>.)
> >
> > "Eight months after the bombing, FBI director Robert Mueller could only
> > inform a Senate Committee that US intelligence now 'believes' the plot was
> > hatched in Afghanistan, though planned and implemented elsewhere. [Walter
> > Pincus, 'The 9-11 Masterminds may have been in Afghanistan,' Washington
> > Post Weekly, June 10-16.]" Chomsky at <www.zmag.org/chomsky4-30-03.htm>.
> >
> > Some rightist hacks said Chomsky predicted a "silent genocide" in
> > Afghanistan that didn't take place. Here's his answer:
> >
> > QUESTION: Professor Chomsky, do you think you overestimated the
> > humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan? Pakistan News Service has you saying
> > on a November trip to Pakistan, only ten days before the bombing, the U.N.
> > Food and Agricultural Organization had warned that over seven million
> > people would face starvation in Afghanistan if military action was
> > initiated.
> >
> > CHOMSKY: I wasn't overestimating it. I was quoting the Food and
> > Agricultural Organization.
> >
> > QUESTION: But you give the impression that the bombing alone would
> > endanger the lives of seven million people.
> >
> > CHOMSKY: I didn't give that impression at all. What I said is that, before
> > the bombing, there were, according to UN estimates, about five million
> > people facing starvation. According to the New York Times, the effect of
> > the threat of bombing, let alone the bombing, would be to place an
> > additional two and a half million people at risk. They were quoting UN
> > sources. And I quoted them. If it's an overestimate, it's not mine. It's
> > the overestimate of the New York Times, the Food and Agricultural
> > Organization, the World Food Program, and others. There's a separate
> > question: did it happen? Totally separate. Interesting and important
> > question but it's not the basis on which we carry out--
> >
> > QUESTION: So you were still right to issue the warning--?
> >
> > CHOMSKY: I was right to quote the warnings of every international
> > authority on the basis of which the actions were undertaken and commentary
> > was made. And, furthermore, I was right to point out the elementary truism
> > that we evaluate the actions, and the commentary on them, on the basis of
> > the expectations on which the actions were taken. Now, there's a separate
> > question -- important separate question: what are the effects? Well, what
> > I said at the same point is: we'll never know.
> >
> > QUESTION: Well, the effects, according to Oxfam, are that for some the
> > dangers have receded -- for others, they've got worse.
> >
> > CHOMSKY: Exactly.
> >
> > QUESTION: It's a mixed and complex picture.
> >
> > CHOMSKY: Let's first establish the fact, which is elementary, that
> > whatever the consequences are -- and they're important -- they're
> > completely irrelevant to this issue. Okay, having established that, let's
> > look at the consequences. The consequences, first of all, are mixed and,
> > secondly, the point that I made in the book, back in October, is, I
> > believe, correct. They will never be investigated. I hope I'm wrong about
> > that. As I said there, I hope that we will break the historical pattern, a
> > very overwhelming historical pattern, and actually look at the
> > consequences of our own actions. That almost never happens...
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Luke Weiger wrote:
> >
> > > C.G. Estabrook wrote:
> > >
> > > > We get to kill people if we suspect their government is not sincere?
> > > > Robert Mueller, head of the FBI, testifying the summer after 9/11,
> > > could > not say that he "_knew_ Al Qaeda was responsible."
> > >
> > > Where's the quotation?
> > >
> > > > The administration was certainly willing to starve many people in >
> > > Afghanistan to death, as the UN recognized.
> > >
> > > What's your evidence, apart from the warnings of some aid workers?
> > >
> > > > Part of the reason it didn't happen was the world-wide outcry
> > > against the vicious plans of the US.
> > >
> > > Again, where's your evidence? I'll admit that I was initially worried
> > > about possible mass starvation in Afghanistan--but folks like Jon
> > > Chait, who predicted that the invasion would actually help matters,
> > > proved to be correct.
> > >
> >
> >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>