Noam Chomsky - 'Obama is Worse Than Bush'

[travc]

As he is a linguist, I find his choice of words interesting. Some call it drone strikes and Chomsky calls it an international assassination campaign

He isn't that sort of linguist.

What sort of linguist? The type who carefully and deliberately chooses their words? The sort of linguist who is able to see through the abuse of language when it is used by politicians and re state what is happening in plain English?

The type of linguist who studies what sort of "languages" (in the abstract sense) different sorts of computational automata can model from a finite sets of exemplars. Not the sort who thinks much about natural language, much less the specific definitions and denotations of English words.

How careful he may or may not be with word choice has nothing at all to do with him being a linguist. From stories I've heard from students of his, I seriously doubt that he gives much thought to it. When challenged, he reportedly has a very annoying habit of just spouting off a blizzard of tangentially related but ultimately irrelevant shit to overwhelm/shut-down the questioner. (This is in the context of questions/criticisms in computational linguistics, not politics... stuff where there often really is a correct answer, not just opinions.)

PS: Once again, I am not criticizing this particular stance/comment/whatever of his. I was responding to an misplaced assumption that the specific terms Chomsky uses are somehow particularly meaningful or carefully chosen because he is a linguist. I'm not trying to make an ad homenim attack either, but people shouldn't do the opposite logical fallacy either and view Chomsky as some sort of trustworthy authority on this (or any IMO) subject. He's no dummy, but he's also far from infallible, unbiased, or exceptionally intellectually honest. (ETA: I'm not saying he is dishonest either! Just a normal person.).

 

[Bronzeage]

Is this discussion really a rehashing of the question, "Is it moral to steal bread if your children are starving?"

Chomsky says President Obama is worse than Bush because he has ordered(officiated over, delegated, PYL) the death of more people than Bush? Some might argue that Obama would not have faced those choices, if not for the situation he found when Bush left office. Does that make him worse than Bush?

Since metaphor is part of this discussion, is Chomsky talking out his ass, or is his reasoning valid?

I think his reasoning is perfectly valid and, in fact, he discussed that in his comments. He said that Bush didn't have very good procedures for deciding who should get killed, but at least he had some, whereas Obama has no checks on the process at all. I don't think it was about the numbers as to why he said Obama was worse but with regard to the procedures. And I think he also cited the increase in presidential powers with the NDAA which Obama insisted upon.

So it's a question of Obama's willingness to use presidential powers in an even more arbitrary way than Bush was. It isn't about who killed more (although I suspect Obama would win that one too).

Well now, there's something. Chomsky says Obama has no checks, but Chomsky has no way of knowing that. He is going by unrefined statistics, sort of like comparing baseball players from 100 years ago and today. In 1900, there were 140 games in a season. There are twenty two more today, so any player's numbers maybe higher than his 1900 counterpart.

Obama may simply have more targets from which to choose, and if all the numbers were revealed, we might find he is the model of restraint. It could be that Bush had no discrimination and struck at ever opportunity, but opportunities were few.

 

[untermensche]

Obama may simply have more targets from which to choose, and if all the numbers were revealed, we might find he is the model of restraint.

No doubt there are many that would want more targeted assassinations.

But Chomsky is talking about the loss of basic well founded rights, like the presumption of innocence.

You start chipping away at basic rights and soon you have very little.

 

[Bronzeage]

Obama may simply have more targets from which to choose, and if all the numbers were revealed, we might find he is the model of restraint.

No doubt there are many that would want more targeted assassinations.

But Chomsky is talking about the loss of basic well founded rights, like the presumption of innocence.

You start chipping away at basic rights and soon you have very little.

There has always been a distinction between killing and murder. Military action is usually put in the killing category. Chomsky seems to be demanding cake for dinner and cake, too. Now, we can debate what is military and what is not, but unless someone wants to argue all human life is sacred and there are no justifications for the state(just to keep it simple) taking any life, the argument is over where to draw a line.

Imagine a scenario where the 911 plot was discovered while the planes were in midair. Military force would be required to kill a handful of terrorists and in the process, several hundred innocent civilians, but also save thousands in the WTC. Would Chomsky consider this murder? Is there a distinct difference, or only a difference of degree?

 

[untermensche]

Obama may simply have more targets from which to choose, and if all the numbers were revealed, we might find he is the model of restraint.

No doubt there are many that would want more targeted assassinations.

But Chomsky is talking about the loss of basic well founded rights, like the presumption of innocence.

You start chipping away at basic rights and soon you have very little.

There has always been a distinction between killing and murder. Military action is usually put in the killing category. Chomsky seems to be demanding cake for dinner and cake, too. Now, we can debate what is military and what is not, but unless someone wants to argue all human life is sacred and there are no justifications for the state(just to keep it simple) taking any life, the argument is over where to draw a line.

Imagine a scenario where the 911 plot was discovered while the planes were in midair. Military force would be required to kill a handful of terrorists and in the process, several hundred innocent civilians, but also save thousands in the WTC. Would Chomsky consider this murder? Is there a distinct difference, or only a difference of degree?

Calling something a military action doesn't magically make it so.

Human rights trump the desire for perfect safety.

 

[Bronzeage]

Obama may simply have more targets from which to choose, and if all the numbers were revealed, we might find he is the model of restraint.

No doubt there are many that would want more targeted assassinations.

But Chomsky is talking about the loss of basic well founded rights, like the presumption of innocence.

You start chipping away at basic rights and soon you have very little.

There has always been a distinction between killing and murder. Military action is usually put in the killing category. Chomsky seems to be demanding cake for dinner and cake, too. Now, we can debate what is military and what is not, but unless someone wants to argue all human life is sacred and there are no justifications for the state(just to keep it simple) taking any life, the argument is over where to draw a line.

Imagine a scenario where the 911 plot was discovered while the planes were in midair. Military force would be required to kill a handful of terrorists and in the process, several hundred innocent civilians, but also save thousands in the WTC. Would Chomsky consider this murder? Is there a distinct difference, or only a difference of degree?

Calling something a military action doesn't magically make it so.

Human rights trump the desire for perfect safety.

Why not? What would make something a military action?

 

[fromderinside]

Calling something a military action doesn't magically make it so.

Human rights trump the desire for perfect safety.

Precedent suggests that any time the president orders military to do something he says is in the interest of the US outside the US it is a military action. If you can find counter examples be my guest to present them and I'll be happy to eat my words.

We're not at the point yet where punishing the actions of foreign combatants must meet muster with rights we are guaranteed in the constitution.

INHO a non-state entity warring on the US is actually a war between our state and whatever entity wherever that entity resides.

 

[Bomb#20]

Okay admittedly I'm not across Noam and all his positions but what is he an apologist for?

The Khmer Rouge

 

[untermensche]

Why not? What would make something a military action?

You can't just declare unending war and claim every action you take is a military action.

A military action has a clear military objective.

Randomly killing suspects based on rumors and testimony extracted by torture is not a clear military objective, especially when the evidence is showing that the targeted assassinations many times create more likely terrorists than they kill.

 

[untermensche]

Okay admittedly I'm not across Noam and all his positions but what is he an apologist for?

The Khmer Rouge

Many deniers or doubters of the Cambodian genocide recanted their previous opinions, but Chomsky continued to insist that his analysis of Cambodia was without error based on the information available to him at the time

Chomsky could in no way be described (rationally) as a denier or doubter of the genocide. The writer has a clear agenda.

Chomsky compared the genocide to the Indonesian genocide in East Timor, which was massive.

No thinking person can make the connection between comparing the genocide to the East Timor genocide and denial.

 

[Bronzeage]

Why not? What would make something a military action?

You can't just declare unending war and claim every action you take is a military action.

A military action has a clear military objective.

Randomly killing suspects based on rumors and testimony extracted by torture is not a clear military objective, especially when the evidence is showing that the targeted assassinations many times create more likely terrorists than they kill.

That's not really an answer to my question. I'll concede that just calling something a military action does not make it so, but what does?

 

[boneyard bill]

Is this discussion really a rehashing of the question, "Is it moral to steal bread if your children are starving?"

Chomsky says President Obama is worse than Bush because he has ordered(officiated over, delegated, PYL) the death of more people than Bush? Some might argue that Obama would not have faced those choices, if not for the situation he found when Bush left office. Does that make him worse than Bush?

Since metaphor is part of this discussion, is Chomsky talking out his ass, or is his reasoning valid?

I think his reasoning is perfectly valid and, in fact, he discussed that in his comments. He said that Bush didn't have very good procedures for deciding who should get killed, but at least he had some, whereas Obama has no checks on the process at all. I don't think it was about the numbers as to why he said Obama was worse but with regard to the procedures. And I think he also cited the increase in presidential powers with the NDAA which Obama insisted upon.

So it's a question of Obama's willingness to use presidential powers in an even more arbitrary way than Bush was. It isn't about who killed more (although I suspect Obama would win that one too).

Well now, there's something. Chomsky says Obama has no checks, but Chomsky has no way of knowing that. He is going by unrefined statistics, sort of like comparing baseball players from 100 years ago and today. In 1900, there were 140 games in a season. There are twenty two more today, so any player's numbers maybe higher than his 1900 counterpart.

Obama may simply have more targets from which to choose, and if all the numbers were revealed, we might find he is the model of restraint. It could be that Bush had no discrimination and struck at ever opportunity, but opportunities were few.

Your argument is the exact opposite of what Chomsky was saying at least as far as I understood it. He WASN'T saying that the numbers killed or the opportunities and whatever are what matter. It is the procedures for determining that. And the White House HAS said what their procedures are at least in general terms so it isn't something Chomsky would have no way of knowing.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Bush at least invaded a country on false pretext. Come on, cut him some slack guys.

 

[boneyard bill]

Okay admittedly I'm not across Noam and all his positions but what is he an apologist for?

The Khmer Rouge

Many deniers or doubters of the Cambodian genocide recanted their previous opinions, but Chomsky continued to insist that his analysis of Cambodia was without error based on the information available to him at the time

Chomsky could in no way be described (rationally) as a denier or doubter of the genocide. The writer has a clear agenda.

Chomsky compared the genocide to the Indonesian genocide in East Timor, which was massive.

No thinking person can make the connection between comparing the genocide to the East Timor genocide and denial.

Chomsky only did that very late in the game, and after the Khmer Rouge were overthrown. When they were in power he definitely wrote apologetics for them. It was quite subtle but unquestionable. In fact, he appears to be the one who started the ridiculous idea, still being repeated, that the mass starvation in Cambodia was due the US bombing of that country. (That bombing had ended two years before the Khmer Rouge took power).

Chomsky is a polemicist. He presents an issue with his own particular spin, and that spin isn't simply an interpretation of the events. It is an interpretation derived from a pre-existing agenda.

That said, I think he does happen to be right on this issue, and he is right to focus on the process as the crucial factor that makes Obama worse than Bush.

 

[Narapoia]

Okay admittedly I'm not across Noam and all his positions but what is he an apologist for?

The Khmer Rouge

Interesting. I can see how he might have been opposed to the media handling of the KR at the time but surely he is rational enough to understand that as a well educated linguist he would have been one of the fist in front of the firing squads? Herman's defence, that he and Chomsky were 'asking questions about the anti-KR propaganda campaign', doesn't seem to gel with their acceptance on the regimes official propaganda. They must have known by then that such information should be treated with extreme suspicion - as much suspicion as that in the 'anti-KR' propaganda.

It's distasteful that he questioned the media's portrayal of a regime that, in the end, was probably worse than they were depicted at the time. My understanding of that era paints questioning of the 'official line' as understandable. (Hell, even today - look at Iraq and how the country/leadership were depicted in the media and by western governments in the lead-up to that clusterfuck). Since his defence of the KR is confined to the time before the truth was verified I could see how his defenders might say that he was opposing the official vilification of yet another target for anti-communist US aggression in SE Asia. That said, it is pretty unforgivable that he would not question the line supplied by the KR and disregard the information coming from refugees. I find this a strange case, he should have known better and it appears he let his idealogical affiliations and distaste for US aggression of the day cloud his judgement in the extreme.

 

[untermensche]

Why not? What would make something a military action?

You can't just declare unending war and claim every action you take is a military action.

A military action has a clear military objective.

Randomly killing suspects based on rumors and testimony extracted by torture is not a clear military objective, especially when the evidence is showing that the targeted assassinations many times create more likely terrorists than they kill.

That's not really an answer to my question. I'll concede that just calling something a military action does not make it so, but what does?

All we have done is militarize our response to political strife (the root causes of terrorism), just as we militarized the fight against the use of prohibited drugs.

Neither is productive, or rational. But some are making incredible amounts of money in both activities.

And we are abandoning well established principles of justice in the process. Like the presumption of innocence, which is no little thing.

 

[untermensche]

Okay admittedly I'm not across Noam and all his positions but what is he an apologist for?

The Khmer Rouge

Many deniers or doubters of the Cambodian genocide recanted their previous opinions, but Chomsky continued to insist that his analysis of Cambodia was without error based on the information available to him at the time

Chomsky could in no way be described (rationally) as a denier or doubter of the genocide. The writer has a clear agenda.

Chomsky compared the genocide to the Indonesian genocide in East Timor, which was massive.

No thinking person can make the connection between comparing the genocide to the East Timor genocide and denial.

Chomsky only did that very late in the game, and after the Khmer Rouge were overthrown. When they were in power he definitely wrote apologetics for them. It was quite subtle but unquestionable. In fact, he appears to be the one who started the ridiculous idea, still being repeated, that the mass starvation in Cambodia was due the US bombing of that country. (That bombing had ended two years before the Khmer Rouge took power).

Chomsky is a polemicist. He presents an issue with his own particular spin, and that spin isn't simply an interpretation of the events. It is an interpretation derived from a pre-existing agenda.

That said, I think he does happen to be right on this issue, and he is right to focus on the process as the crucial factor that makes Obama worse than Bush.

Oh yeah it was subtle.

It was subtle because it is nonsense.

He tried to get to the facts as best he could. He had no agenda beyond trying to know what really happened.

It is those with an agenda that distort his position and call it subtle.

 

[tupac chopra]

Yes Obama is worse than Bush. Everybody understood that Bush as a moron, probably suffering from alcoholic brain damage. Obama is far worse and far more dangerous, as he seems to have hypnotized people in a way Bush was not capable of.

Obama’s Sleepwalk Toward War

Obama’s speech on March 26 at the Palace of Fine Arts in Brussels is surreal. It is beyond hypocrisy. Obama says that Western ideals are challenged by self-determination in Crimea. Russia, Obama says, must be punished by the West for permitting Crimeans to exercise self-determination. The return of a Russian province on its own volition to its mother country where it existed for 200 years is presented by Obama as a dictatorial, anti-democratic act of tyranny. http://on.rt.com/sbzj4o

Here was Obama, whose government has just overthrown the elected, democratic government of Ukraine and substituted stooges chosen by Washington in the place of the elected government, speaking of the hallowed ideal that “people in nations can make their own decisions about their future.” That is exactly what Crimea did, and that is exactly what the US coup in Kiev contravened. In the twisted mind of Obama, self-determination consists of governments imposed by Washington.

Here was Obama, who has shredded the US Constitution, speaking of “individual rights and rule of law.” Where is this rule of law? It is certainly not in Kiev where an elected government was overthrown with force. It is certainly not in the United States where the executive branch has spent the entirety of the new 21st century establishing government above the law. Habeas corpus, due process, the right to open trials and determination of guilt by independent jurors prior to imprisonment and execution, and the right to privacy have all been overturned by the Bush/Obama regimes. Torture is against US and international law; yet Washington set up torture prisons all over the globe.

How is it possible that the representative of the war criminal US government can stand before an European audience and speak of “rule of law,” “individual rights,” “human dignity,” “self-determination,” “freedom,” without the audience breaking out in laughter?

 

[Bomb#20]

Chomsky could in no way be described (rationally) as a denier or doubter of the genocide. The writer has a clear agenda.

Chomsky compared the genocide to the Indonesian genocide in East Timor, which was massive.

No thinking person can make the connection between comparing the genocide to the East Timor genocide and denial.

Indonesia killed some 100,000 to 200,000 in East Timor. And while we should no doubt all deplore the general degradation of precision in the terminology used in public comment and the Wikipedia author probably ought to have said "minimizer" instead of "denier", the fact remains that people who suggest that He Who Must Not Be Named killed 500,000 Jews are customarily categorized as "Holocaust deniers".

Chomsky only did that very late in the game, and after the Khmer Rouge were overthrown. When they were in power he definitely wrote apologetics for them. It was quite subtle but unquestionable. In fact, he appears to be the one who started the ridiculous idea, still being repeated, that the mass starvation in Cambodia was due the US bombing of that country. (That bombing had ended two years before the Khmer Rouge took power).

^^^ This ^^^. I recall at the time photos of piles of skulls began to be smuggled out of Cambodia reading a report of Chomsky suggesting that they were piles of victims of U.S. bombing.

Chomsky also opined that the documentation of Gareth Porter's book was superior to that of Ponchaud's -- although almost all the references cited by Porter came from Khmer Rouge documents while Poncaud's came from speaking to Cambodian refugees.

He tried to get to the facts as best he could. He had no agenda beyond trying to know what really happened.

And we obtained this information about Chomsky's inner soul, no doubt, from Chomsky's own declarations of what his agenda was.

 

[ksen]

People still listen to Chomsky?

Wait, Chomsky's still alive?