Baiting Noam Chomsky

Andrew Sullivan flew into a snit on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher


Chomsky gave Bill Maher an excellent interview Friday evening. Maher allowed enough time and space for a good airing of important truths concerning Iraq and US foreign policy.

Following the taped Chomsky interview, gay conservative uber-blogger Andrew Sullivan during Maher's panel discussion lit into what Chomsky said with angry venom. Later, he had no trouble finding anti-Chomsky bait to reference on his site. Sullivan is an immature snarler with little critical facility and no honesty concerning views he attributes to Noam Chomsky. His arguing technique is to screech "liar, liar, liar". It's pathetic.

Check out this post and also this one.

Sullivan thinks that these impressive-looking essays railing against Chomsky's intelligence ("America's Dumbest Intellectual" Stefan Kanfer, City Journal, Summer 2002) and character ("...the veils of fanciful rhetoric and careful implication are pulled back and the bloody intentions of the author come through in clear and undisguised language and in all their horrifying banality..." Diary of an Anti-Chomskyite, October 9) support his notion that Chomsky is "the most poisonous intellectual in America".

Okay, fine. Sullivan and these varied writers are abhorred by Chomskian dogma like the principle of universality -- America should apply to itself the same standards it requires of others. It is their choice to swim with the school of American exceptionalism with its rejection of notions of "moral equivalence". It's a popular school. And what Chomsky said in the Maher interview is certainly poisonous there. In my opinion, poisoned that school should be.

Please take the time to read through the transcripts below and tell me if you don't think what Chomsky said to Maher is a sincerely moral position and a reasonable assessment of the criminal nature of the aggression against Iraq, while Sullivan presents arguments like a jingoistic pig.

BILL MAHER: ...I have never had a guy requested more of me in twelve years of doing two shows – every kid wants Noam Chomsky – and we've got him today. Please welcome, Professor Noam Chomsky. (applause)

BILL MAHER: So professor, I'm not kidding, over the last twelve years, on three different networks, people, especially young kids, request you, when they first did it I didn't even know who you were.

BILL MAHER: All right, let me ask you this – It seems to me that the most religious people, are also, at least in this country, the most super-patriotic. Isn't there an inherent conflict there? I mean, if you're truly religious and you believe in God – I mean Jesus is not an American, I assume...

NOAM CHOMSKY: ...just the favorite philosopher of Americans...

BILL MAHER: Isn't it impossible to be truly Christian and also to love one country – even if it's your own – more than every other country.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Depends on how you understand your religion. Religions have taught all sorts of things in the past, from the most horrible to the most elevated. So you pick and choose.

BILL MAHER: Yeah, but Christ doesn't say, "love your country". He doesn't say, "American life is more important than other life". And I would imagine that a lot of people who call themselves Christian in this country believe.

NOAM CHOMSKY: If they do...there are plenty of things you can read in the gospels that are certainly not believed by George Bush and his associates. Are they helping the poor? Did they read the descriptions in the gospels of the hypocrite – the person who refuses to apply to himself the same standards he applies to others? We can go on and on...(applause)

BILL MAHER: Well, I could, but I don't want to go to Gitmo. (laughter)

BILL MAHER: Um, we're about to blow the unholy hell out of Fallujah. Don't you think it's too late? Don't you think it's just going to get more infected the more we pick at it?

NOAM CHOMSKY: The invasion of Iraq was simply a war crime. A straight out war crime. (applause)

NOAM CHOMSKY: If we don't want to be hypocrites in the sense it's condemned in the Bible, we'll apply to ourselves the judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunals, for example, which said that aggression – invasion – is the supreme international crime, which includes within it all subsequent crimes, including all those which are taking place now. So when they invade Fallujah, which I suppose they will after having driven out all the population, they'll probably smash the place up. It'll add to the enormous casualty lists, which may be in the range of 100,000 by now, maybe more, maybe less. And there's more to come.

BILL MAHER: Why do you think we did Iraq? What is the bottom-line reason? I assume you don't think the reasons given were the real reasons.

NOAM CHOMSKY: I think that the polls taken in Baghdad explain it very well. They seem to understand the United States invaded Iraq to gain control over one of the major sources of the world's energy, right in the heart of the world's major energy-producing region; to create if they can a dependent client state; to have permanent military bases; and to gain "critical leverage" – I'm quoting Zbigniew Brzezinski – to gain critical leverage over rivals – the European and Asian economies...

NOAM CHOMSKY: It's been understood since the second world war that if you have your hand on that spigot – the source of the...main source of the world's energy, you have what early planners call "veto power" over others....Iraq is also the last part of the world where there are vast, untapped, easily-accessible energy resources. And you can be sure that they want the profits from that to go primarily to US-based multinationals, and back to the US Treasury and so-on – not to rivals. There are plenty of reasons for invading Iraq.

BILL MAHER: Now, President Bush always says "the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. And I haven't agreed with that. I think the people who were in his rape rooms are better off without Saddam Hussein. That's a far cry...from the whole world. Ah, during the cold war, we selfishly backed any tyrant who was on our side that would have stopped who we thought was the greater ill of communism. Why don't we have that same selfish doctrine with this man? Because certainly we know, somewhere in government must know, that Saddam Hussein would never have allowed a power rival, even if it was a terrorist organization in Iraq. He actually would have been a bulwark for us.

NOAM CHOMSKY: ...Remember, the US supported Saddam Hussein. And that means the people now in office or their immediate mentors, supported him in ways that have absolutely nothing to do with cold war, or with the war with Iran. The support went on after the war with Iran was over; it went on after the Berlin wall fell. In fact it even went on after the first Gulf War when the first Bush Administration authorized Saddam to crush a Shiite uprising, which probably would have overthrown him. It's certainly true that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein, and also without the people who supported him through his worst atrocities, and are now telling us about them. The fact of the matter is, if it hadn't been for the sanctions, which devastated the society and killed hundreds of thousands of people, it's very likely that the Iraqis themselves would have sent Saddam Hussein to the same fate as other brutal monsters, also supported by the people now in Washington, like Ceausescu in Romania or Suharto in Indonesia, or Marcos, a whole string of others, quite a rogues gallery. And probably Saddam would have gone the same way.

BILL MAHER: Professor, I wish I had all night to talk to you. I hope you do this again. Please keep thinking outside the box. I know it's lonely there [Chomsky shrugs], but stay the course. Thank you... (applause)

After the interview, Andrew Sullivan sitting on Maher's in-studio panel, jumped in with a variety of agitated comments. As is typical when a hater hears a presentation by Chomsky, Sullivan launched a ferocious appeal to ridicule in his fallacious attempt to refute Chomsky's statements. I won't type all this out, but here's a lot of it, including a couple of interjections from Maher and a couple of excellent comments from actor/comedian and panel member D.L. Hughley. Former US Representative Pat Schroeder also appeared on the panel, but added little to this segment of the show.

ANDREW SULLIVAN: What? [Sullivan grimaces] He thinks that in the discussion of Saddam Hussein we should raise the issue of Nuremberg trials for the United States? [audience members shout "yes"] Well, yes [Sullivan displays dismissive gesture towards audience].

ANDREW SULLIVAN: Welcome to the world view of the far left, in which the United States is the source of evil, and Saddam Hussein is a source of good....

ANDREW SULLIVAN: I do not believe that the United States is on a par with those regimes...and Chomsky does...

BILL MAHER: He has a right to his opinion.

ANDREW SULLIVAN: [becoming unglued] He doesn't have a right to besmirch freedom and democracy in the world and support tyranny and dictatorship...There are no two ideas...there is either freedom or there is not, there is either democracy or there is not....

ANDREW SULLIVAN: If the United States wanted to invade and get oil supplies, we could invade and control purely the oil fields. We could control and get all the oil we want. This is nonsense, he knows its nonsense...I assume he's smart enough to know he's lying.

D.L. HUGHLEY: ...This country has never taken a good look at itself, it's policies, and what those policies mean to people around the world...now I don't agree...I feel like I'm living in the greatest country in the world, I feel like I have the greatest family in the world, but to say they haven't done some fucked up things, family and country, is idiotic....

ANDREW SULLIVAN: Of course.

D.L. HUGHLEY: ...and we need to be like we always tell other people to do...what they tell black people to do, is pull yourself up by your bootstraps and accept responsibility for the shit that you've done.

BILL MAHER: [to Sullivan] You started off this show...giving me a big lecture...[crosstalk] wait a second about giving people their due. And then you say, "I hope he knows he's lying", "I hope he's smart enough to know he's lying". What if I said that about your half? What if I said, "I hope they know they're smart enough to know they're lying, but they're not because they're dumb goobers".

ANDREW SULLIVAN: [with smug air of superiority] ...There are some views, people who support the Soviet Union, as Chomsky did for so long. Who've supported tyranny in all sorts of places like Chomsky has done. Who've lied consistently as Chomsky has done; who do not deserve fundamental respect....

ANDREW SULLIVAN: For example, he claimed 100,000 dead in Iraq. No one believes that....

BILL MAHER: That was in the paper...I read that too....

ANDREW SULLIVAN: ...If you look at that analysis it is absolutely riddled with exaggerations...

BILL MAHER: ...First of all, neither one of us knows how many are dead in Iraq...

ANDREW SULLIVAN: We have a pretty good idea it could never be near that amount...

BILL MAHER: So the Pentagon, they could never be lying, so Chomsky has to be a liar...I mean give me a break.

ANDREW SULLIVAN: [with childlike affectations] You don't have to believe the United States is perfect to believe it has been a force for good in the world. There are millions and millions of people in this world ... who are living free because of this country. And and and and to denigrate this country as a source of evil, which is his view, or the tool of forces beyond our control is wrong in my view. It's immoral, in my view. And it's one of the reasons the left has lost it's ability to persuade people...

Enough. Sullivan is obviously so immature it's amazing he gets hundreds of thousands of hits per day. His attack is ad hominem, attributing to Chomsky views he clearly does not hold.

The matter of the 100,000 war dead in Iraq is telling. This is Sullivan's big proof that Chomsky lies. In fact Chomsky was quite careful when he spoke about these recently-released casualty figures. He indicated that the actual number may be more or less, but that it it resonable to discuss 100,000. See this story in today's Guardian for a discussion showing that the 100,000 figure is defensible, despite the fact it has been criticized.

Sullivan should take a hard look at his own references. The writers he cites (see links above the transcript) are tortured windbags, but at least they quote Chomsky much more accurately. Sullivan cites a blog self-described as "dedicated to the permanent and total discrediting of the work of noam chomsky and his fellow travelers. VIVA LA COUNTERREVOLUTION!" Here, the author, stupefied with Chomsky hatred (just amazing that a guy would want to focus his blogging talents like this), quotes and critiques What Uncle Sam Really Wants, a book-length electronic collection assembled by Z magazine more than a decade ago.

The Cold War provided that too. No matter how outlandish the idea that the Soviet Union and its tentacles were strangling the West, the "Evil Empire" was in fact evil, was an empire and was brutal. Each superpower controlled its primary enemy -- its own population -- by terrifying it with the (quite real) crimes of the other.

Are those the words of someone who "supported tyranny", as Sullivan claims? Of course that is ridiculous and this whole exercise is asinine. I blame Sullivan for forcing me to it. Jerk.