Noam Chomsky Has His Osama’s Dead Liberal Talking Points Down Pat

Can we assume that Noam Chomsky will NOT be voting for Obama again?

It’s increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition—except, they claim, from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I stress “suspects.” In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could say no more than that it “believed” that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 2002, they obviously didn’t know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with evidence—which, as we soon learned, Washington didn’t have. Thus Obama was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that “we quickly learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda.”

Got that? In Noam’s world (remember, he is supposedly one of the pre-eminent liberal intelligentsia), Osama was a “victim”, one whom, Chomsky goes on to explain, really has no viable evidence provided to link Osama to terrorist attacks.

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden’s, and he is not a “suspect” but uncontroversially the “decider” who gave the orders to commit the “supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

I’m thinking Noam would cheer if that happened to Bush, but, notice, only Bush seems to be getting blamed. Obama barely appears on the narrative. So, I guess in Noam’s World, Bush gets all the Blame, and, also, therefore, all the Credit for Osama getting whacked.

Chomsky had a conundrum: how to say how bad Osama being killed was, and how to not blame Obama. Simple solution: forget who’s now president, and only mention his name in passing, like he’s some mid level flunky.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

17 Responses to “Noam Chomsky Has His Osama’s Dead Liberal Talking Points Down Pat”

  1. captainfish says:

    Yep, you called that right Teach. He never called for the “assassination” of Obama because he is the current president who authorized this hit.

    And one thing these idiot psychopaths forget, WE ARE AT WAR!! There is no civil legal process during a time of war on the battlefield.


    Now, one does have to ask, does this violate the no assassination order issued by Pres Ford, I think it was. Yet, once again, we are at war therefore its not murder but a regular battlefield shooting.

  2. ORPO1 says:

    I wonder if Chomsky was using that LSD stuff in college? I mean, talk about detachment from reality! This guy makes some old stoners look really smart!

  3. Interesting point about Ford’s order, Captain. But, it was simply an executive order that could be rescinded by any future president, and, I’m betting that there is a secret one signed by Obama, and maybe Bush, previously.

    The funniest part, ORPO1, is that the quote at the top that I use actually comes from Chomsky. I’ve gotten a nasty email or two about that from liberals 🙂

  4. […] does Chomsky,  William Teach, Pirates Cove: Noam Chomsky Has His Osama’s Dead Liberal Talking Points Down […]

  5. Missed the point says:

    I think you missed his point a bit. He is blaming the Obama administration for the assassination. The reason he brings up the Bush metaphor is because Chomsky believes that the war crimes under the Bush administration (authorized torture, the death of thousands of Iraqi civilians under false pretenses) are directly comparable to the crime of 9/11 and similar terrorist attacks. The main difference is simply in the label. We control the narrative so we label one thing as “terrorist victims” and another as “casualties of war.” This is Chomsky’s point. If Obama had authorized torture or gone to war under false pretenses, he would have been the better comparison. As it is, Obama did indeed break international law and authorize an assassination, so you are right that he could also be an example, but the Bush one makes more sense in that both of those events (9/11, Iraq War) happened at around the same time, were interrelated, and involved men who clearly committed crimes. Chomsky’s assertion that Osama may not have done the attacks is much stranger, in my mind, though the point that a nation that believes in the rule of law should seek to have a fair trial rather than an execution, no matter how guilty the accused may be, is extremely important.

  6. Joey says:

    The entire argument of Chomsky’s is to take the Obama administration to task. He’s not blaming Bush for the assassination order, he’s merely using this as an example to prove a point.

  7. captainfish says:

    Then why bring up Bush at all. Osama authorized three wars, increased man-power in the second, with the third war being even more for oil than Iraq.

    So, the analogy is for mere political sophistry than making an educated point.

    And for the record one more time…. WAR is not an act of civil crime where you can take one’s antagonist to civil court and try them for murder. Leftist\Socialists always miss that distinction because they don’t believe in war. They don’t believe there is anything worth fighting a war for. In their mind, there is no evil.

  8. gitarcarver says:

    He’s not blaming Bush for the assassination order, he’s merely using this as an example to prove a point.

    No, he is blaming Bush for the justification of the operation saying that Bush’s “crimes” were much worse than that of bin Laden’s.

    That is demonstrably false.

    Yet people like “Missed the Point” still buy into the idea that thousands of Iraqis were killed indiscriminately, the war conducted on false premises and that “torture” was ordered.

    You cannot argue with people who start with beliefs in false premises. Clearly Chomsky, Missed the Point and Joey fall into that category.

  9. Joey says:

    GitarCarver – I agree with you that the thousands of Iraqis killed were not done indiscriminately, and I feel that our army, by and large, handles itself with morals and care. But torture (without quotations) was most certainly ordered, as it was clearly endorsed by the Bush administration. As McCain so bravely and correctly said, we should not torture, period. It is against our morals, our core beliefs as a country, and against human dignity. The war was conducted under false pretenses- I don’t see how you can so quickly dismiss that argument. I DO NOT agree with Chomsky that Bush’s crimes against humanity are at all comparable to Osama’s in terms of intent and general moral conduct, but I do see his larger point that another country could see a leader who authorized torture and/or went to war without just cause (always completely subjective, and I personally believe there were some decent causes for the war, though not the main ones used to defend and promote it to the American people) and feel justified in attempting to arrest him or kill him. I think Chomsky is being somewhat ridiculous when he intimates that perhaps Osama is in any way innocent of the crimes he takes credit for, but the larger idea is that a country that believes in the rule of law should always seek to have an open and fair trial for those we accuse. To say that this was an act of war seems equally ridiculous to me; this was clearly an assassination, and it personally disgusts me that Obama’s administration would do such a thing.

    I appreciate your argument (I’m not sure why you state that you can’t argue with people like me) and also that you did not resort to name-calling or meanness.

  10. Joey says:

    captainfish – Exactly. I do not believe in “evil.” I believe in acts that cause great suffering and harm to innocent people, such as the terrorist attacks. I also believe in the need to stop such acts whenever possible, up to and including war as a last resort.

    I think you make a very good point that Obama is “guilty” of many of the same things as Bush is, and perhaps Chomsky is avoiding that for political purposes, though the entire argument he makes is to take Obama to task for this assassination. And, of course, Obama did not as obviously take the country to war for reasons proven false or authorize illegal torture, so I feel Bush makes a stronger example to show how different we would feel about the legality of such an action happening on our soil.

    To call this assassination an act of war is as ridiculous as declaring a “war on terror.” It is so all-encompassing that it excuses any actions, no matter what location, as long as it is nominally related to terror. Would we have been justified if we had found Timothy McVeigh in a house, unarmed, and shot him in the head? Why wouldn’t that be considered an “act of war” in the “war on terror?” If he could have been taken alive, and it is hard to imagine that a squad of trained seals could not capture an unarmed man alive, then I believe we should have done so. We didn’t murder the Nazis – we gave them a fair trial, open and in front of the world. This separates us from those that do not believe in the rule of law, of moral care. I have little problem with going into Pakistan when that country so clearly was protecting terrorists while at the same time taking our aid and talking false lipservice to the contrary. My problem is with the killing of Osama unarmed rather than affording us the chance for a fair and open trial, like the Nuremberg Trials. Perhaps you believe that they tried to capture him alive, and sincerely felt threatened enough to need to kill him, but I believe they went in with orders that they were to kill him (with perhaps some knowingly “wink-wink” orders to try to capture him alive if there was no other choice. This is my issue with what happened.

  11. gitarcarver says:


    The problem is that you and I are going to disagree on what “torture” is. I don’t care what John McCain calls it. He is not a perfect individual and so he is free to make, as he often does, ridiculous statements.

    As part of military SARS training, we subject our own military men and women to waterboarding, sleep deprevation and other techniques that McCain considers “torture.”

    Is it really your position that the US military “tortures” its own? Does that make any sense at all?

    When people such as yourself level the “torture” charge, the problem is that we do not agree on what is “torture.” Making a prisoner “uncomfortable” is not torture and it never has been until countries and people decided to level the charge against the US in order to defame it and limit its capabilities.

    Secondly, I am dismissing your charge that the war was conducted on false premises because your statement is factually inaccurate. Please take the time to actually read the “Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq,” and you will find that all – not some but all – of the statements and justifications for going into Iraq were valid and true.

    Furthermore, when the US signed the cease fire agreement ending the first Gulf War, it was under the conditions that Iraq would abide by the terms of that agreement. No reasonable person can argue that Iraq complied with the cease fire. Therefore, under the terms of the original agreement, the US, with or with coalition partners or UN approval, had the moral and legal right to hold Iraq accountable for the violations and resume offensive operations to bring Iraq into compliance with the agreement. The fact that the US waited 10 years and 19 worthless “resolutions” from the UN, is testament to the patience and willingness of the US to seek a resolution to the conflict without additional boots on the ground. However, there comes a time when talking is done and a person or country must stand up to their word.

    We did that.

    The US followed the cease fire agreement. The US warned Iraq many times over many years. The US’s “Authorization for Force” lays out the reasons and there is not a single reason that you or anyone can point to that was not true and accurate.

    It is therefore a lie when you say that the war was initiated and conducted under “deceptive means.” Whether that lie is one of deliberate deception or based on ignorance matters not to the fact that the second Gulf War was not based on deception.

    It is easy to dismiss claims which are not true.

    As to whether the killing of bin Laden was an “assassination” will, to me, depend on the rules of engagement SEAL Team 6 was given. If the orders were to bring bin Laden back “dead or alive,” then it was not an assassination. If the orders were “bring bin Laden back,” then it was not an assassination as we know that bin Laden made a move for one of two weapons that were close by after pushing a woman toward the SEALS causing a moment of confusion. In a time much shorter than it took you to read this sentence, members of SEAL Team 6 had to decide whether to fire or try and capture bin Laden from a distance of 15-20 feet away. It is not a decision I would want to make. It is also a decision that would be based on the safety of the team. If they are under a threat, they should shoot and shoot to kill.

    The only time this would be an “assassination” would be if the orders were to “shoot on sight.” That would be an extraordinary order and given the political ramifications, I am not sure Obama would have the intestinal fortitude to issue it. In fact, I am sure he doesn’t have those type of guts.

    I am not sorry that the person who masterminded the killing of thousands of people, both here and abroad, who advocated killing more people, and who was planning other operations is now fish food.

    I am not sorry for that one bit.

  12. Joey says:

    I hear what you’re saying, though I’d like to point out some info you might like to look at.

    Re: Iraq war: I do not appreciate you calling what I said a lie, and insinuating that it was either malicious or ingorant. It is a little hard to dispute the sheer amount of deception involved here. Again, reasonable people can disagree, I guess, but please do not insult me, as I am not coming from an ignorant position nor one of open and unreasonable malice. Please respect me as I respect you.

    Re: Torture: You are absolutely correct that “torture” is a label which is entirely a matter of subjective opinion. It matters little that we would subject our soldiers WILLINGLY to an act that, in the context of subjecting prisoners UNWILLINGLY, could be considered torture under only one of those circumstances. I may allow my girlfriend to punch me in the face. But if a stranger punched me in the face, I would have him arrested. Context, and willingness, matter. Yes, McCain says plenty of crazy things, but I do happen to respect him a great deal as a principled man, and as a subject of torture, he does, in my opinion, come from a more knowledgeable position on the label of “torture” than you or I. Again, I understand that you disagree that these procedures are torture. I simply disagree.

    I see nothing in Obama’s history to question his courage.

    I also feel no sadness for Osama being killed. Live by the sword, die by the sword. My problem is with the implications, morally, for our country of such an action. Again, I have no more proof that there was an implicit or explicit order to kill him than you do that this was not so. This is just my gut feeling based on his being unarmed and the general inability for me to believe that this was not the desired outcome. Certainly, I could be wrong here, no question. But the way it appears, the facts at hand, I interpret the evidence a certain way, and I mourn, not the man killed, but the absence of the chance to try him in a system of law and allow for proper justice.

  13. captainfish says:

    Joey, yes, we can respect each other and also disagree. However, you must at least apply some common sense to your thinking.

    The link you supplied from MSNBC, one is from MSNBC so there is an inherent bias there already. Two, the organizations that put that “report” out are far-left organizations. Every socialist and democrat during that time (after the “Authorization For The Use Of Force” vote demanded by Democrats) came out as anti-war no matter the evidence.

    Quote from your own MSNBC link:
    “”It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida,” according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members,”

    No WMD?!?!? Then how did Saddam kill all those thousands of Kurds in N.Iraq? How about those findings of WMD trailers and stockpiles? Clandestine attempts to purchase WMD elements? The other major members of the UN had also done their homework and found the same evidence that we did. And, please also remember what GC had said, there were dozens of UN sanctions that they violated. Violations that upheld the right to restart the original war. So, how ever you slice it, the war on Saddam was legal, legit, and justified.

    Your arguments are tiring and old.

    In your “Context” argument, then we should arrest every TSA employee who touches another human being? If “context matters”. Torture is only a label for those who refuse to “get their hands dirty”. Everything we do to another human being is torture when we take away any single liberty. When we arrest someone and place them in jail, that is torture. When we place a prisoner in solitary – that is torture. When we play loud music to people holed up in a compound in order to psychologically impact them – that is torture.

    Again, your arguments are tiring and old.

    The fact you believe that Sen McCain is a “principled man” tells everything about you. Once again, you need to apply common sense to your thinking. He can not be a principled man if he flip-flops his stance all over the place depending on which side of the aisle has the power.

    And, yes, he does know of torture in the true sense of the meaning. He was subjected to true torture, more than we have ever inflicted upon our prisoners or enemy combatants. Remember, enemy combatants have no, absolutely no, protections from inhumane treatment. Also please remember, using common sense, that these people we have been able to capture on the battlefields in the War on Terror, are part of the cult that believes in cutting innocent’s heads off. ….

    Quote you:
    I also feel no sadness for Osama being killed. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

    And yet, you feel all squishy about our imprisoned enemy combatants to the point that you probably would like to release them and close Guantanamo Bay Facility. And yet, you feel all squishy about the War on Terror enough to bash Pres Bush but DEFEND Pres Obama.

    Quote you:
    This is just my gut feeling

    And yes, we’ve seen how squishy and illogical your gut is.

    Quote you:
    Certainly, I could be wrong here, no question. But the way it appears, the facts at hand, I interpret the evidence a certain way, and I mourn, not the man killed, but the absence of the chance to try him in a system of law and allow for proper justice.

    That’s the problem with you liberals. You don’t believe in the concept of war. You have already stated that you don’t believe in evil. When there is a war, you kill your enemy. Last man standing wins. The “court” you liberals love to throw around, The Nuremberg Trials, were held after the war was over and certain people were then found and arrested under the CIVIL jurisdiction. During a time of war, WAR rules apply. After a war, CIVIL rules apply. We are still at war.

    Please use a bit of common sense. Giving terrorists a public civil venue to attack and defend their cultic anti-US beliefs is the wrong venue. Doing so, suggests that you believe that the avowed terrorists are innocent until proven guilty. Do you also believe that we should release them outright because they were not given their Miranda Statement? Do you believe that they should be released because their “legal team” was not allowed to gather evidence at the time of their “arrest”?

    The reason why Osama was unarmed at the time of his killing was because he was a coward. He loved telling others to die for him and his cult. That is the basis of the cult. The “preachers” tell others to go out and die.

    There is no way to really know what went down in that compound as their is no true story yet. We have gotten tons of versions from the WH thus far. And as we all know, based on common sense, that the WH is a political outlet that loves to bend outgoing information to suit their wishes and needs. The only way that we can know for sure what happened is to have the SEALS interviewed or to have the debriefing documents released to the public or the live on-site tape released. As none of that will ever happen, then we, and you, can only guesstimate what happened.

    There are no FACTS right now. But, we can use some common sense. We, not you obviously, give our soldiers the benefit of the doubt and not claim that they are murderers and assassins. We, not you, can believe that they are doing the job they were told to do and were born and trained to do. We, not you, know that these are some of the most patriotic and selfless people on the planet for USA.

    Again, your arguments are tiring and old.

  14. gitarcarver says:

    Iraq war: I do not appreciate you calling what I said a lie, and insinuating that it was either malicious or ingorant.

    Those are the only choices Joey. The idea that some little research by a left leaning group doesn’t take away from the fact that we did find WMD’s in Iraq as well as proscribed weapons systems. What we did not find was the volume of WMD’s that every intelligence organization in the world thought Iraq possessed. Heck, even the UN said right before the second Gulf War that Iraq had not complied with the terms of the cease fire and that there were KNOWN QUANTITIES of WMD’s missing and unaccounted for. Repeating a lie over and over does not make it true, Joey. Secondly, the link between Al-Queada was not given as a reason for going to war. This is a classic case of people hearing what they want to hear. The statements were that Iraq supported terrorism by allowing groups to train in the northern desert. These groups then helped Al-Queada in terrorism efforts. Since 2008, when this ridiculous little article was written, the evidence has increased, not decreased. I don’t care if you want to cite a million articles that lie about what was found and said. The truth will stand on its own. Whether you believe the truth is up to you.

    It matters little that we would subject our soldiers WILLINGLY to an act that, in the context of subjecting prisoners….

    A procedure knows no context, Joey. Either the act of waterboarding or sleep deprivation is torture or it is not. Period. People that have gone through it (take the hint) know it is not. Your assessment of McCain is noted. I would not call someone who goes against the people of his state – the people he is elected to represent – on so many issues “principled” other than right or wrong, he sticks to what he believes. You would hope that one of the principles in which he believes is to represent the people of his state, but that would just be me.

    I see nothing in Obama’s history to question his courage.

    Really? Where was his courage in the face of the shoe bomber? Where was his “courage” when he lied about the Gulf Oil spill? Where is his “courage” in standing up to extortion by unions? Where is his “courage” to propose a budget? Where was his “courage” in the health care debate as he said publicly that he wanted no back room deals while all the time participating in making those very back room deals? Where is his courage in making a swift decision on the bin Laden raid? If you want me to keep going, I can.

    There is no courage and no leadership from this man. He is an excellent campaigner. He is not a leader. He cannot inspire by his actions. He never stands out in front of any issue and says “follow me.” He allows others to take the point and then claims credit for successes. A real leader makes sure that successes are always given to those whom one leads. For Obama, it is always about him.

    but the absence of the chance to try him in a system of law and allow for proper justice.

    What court?

    Remember that the US is not a member of the International Court, and has never joined because the International Court deprives US citizens of Constitutionally guaranteed rights. So what court are you talking about?

    And by the way, bin Laden was not armed. He made a move for a weapon which makes him armed.

  15. captainfish says:

    And, I would not call it leadership and courage from this NMP to blackball and defame certain citizens because they just happen to believe differently in the budget process, or that they believe our borders should be secure, or they decide to become doctors, or they choose to become police officers…. I could go on.

  16. gitarcarver says:

    And, I would not call it leadership and courage from this…

    Agreed. It is not “leadership” to condemn partisan rancor and then make attacks on people that disagree with you.

    He simply cannot lead. He doesn’t have it in him. It is not in his makeup.

Pirate's Cove