Noam Chomsky

Mr. Chomsky is one of those people I have a hard time figureing out. I mean, on the one hand, I think he's a valuable voice in our national discussion. On the other hand, I don't necessarily agree with most of what he says, and he has a condescending tone that suggests that as an acedemic he knows a hell of a lot more than I do. In other words, he's not much fun to actually read.

Kind of a contridiction? No. While I don't agree with Chomsky's conclusions, I do think the evidence he brings forward is worth looking at. More to the point, I might be wrong and he might be right. I don't think that's the case, but it could be.

At any rate there is an interview over at American Amnesia (great name for a site, very memorable) with him where in he did make a very good point I think.

"The most significant aspect of the failure to find WMD is that it has lower the bars for aggression. If you look back to the original security strategy that was used as the justification for the invasion, which claims that the U.S. has the right to invade another country if that country means of destruction that could harm us ? suggesting WMD ? the effect of not finding them has been to lower the bars for aggression. If you read Colin Powell or Condaleeza Rice or the rest of them today, they say ?Well, it was justified because Iraq had the capability and intent of developing WMD, so that means we?re entitled to attack them.? Well just think that through ? every country in the world practically has the capability! Who has the intent? Right now ? probably everybody if they can do it. So that means every country in the world is subject to U.S. invasion and attack if Washington decides. That?s the position that Colin Powell and Rice and Rumsfeld are maintaining."

It is kind of scary to consider the lowered bar for attacking another nation.