A fellow comrade of Chomsky has posed the question did Bush lie on the reasons for 9-11? His answer: a resounding NO. Why you ask, because George W. Bush, much like other conservative presidents before him are, poor souls whose knowledge of the world [are] restricted pretty much to their note cards. He goes on to rave that much like a three year old who can't tell the difference between fact and fiction, President Bush doesn't have competence to understand the difference between truth and falsehood.
Like his previous diatribes this one reveals more about Chomsky than it does President Bush. In his analysis Chomsky points out the reason why America was attacked on 9-11 was because they are so hated. And why are they so hated, because the decisive US support for vicious Israeli repression of Palestinians and robbery of their resources, and the murderous US-UK sanctions that were devastating the civilian society of Iraq. Chomsky goes on to claim that these are unpleasant truths. Leaving aside the fact that the sanctions where passed in the United Nations, there is overwhelming evidence that has accumulated both before and after the war on Iraq, that points to the main culprit - Saddam - for the reasons that the sanctions have been so devastating. See here, here, here and here. Even The Nation could not help but notice the blood on Saddams hands. The most damming evidence seemingly comes from Shafeeq N. Ghabra, a professor of political science at Kuwait University. As the professor notes:
The Arab summit in March 2001 revealed two key aspects of Iraq's policy. First, Iraq's undermining of the Arab position during the summit to ask the U.N. Security Council to lift the sanctions shows that Baghdad does not in fact want the sanctions lifted. Sanctions benefit the regime in several ways, winning it sympathy in Arab circles and allowing it to control the Iraqi people. Lifting the sanctions that hurt the people of Iraq while keeping the military sanctions and the U.N.-controlled escrow account would open a dynamic the regime could not control. Second, Iraq continues to harbor negative intentions towards Kuwait. This became clear when Iraq's representatives in the summit refused a clause that obliges Iraq to guarantee Kuwait's security and sovereignty.
So why would Chomsky propagate such an obvious falsehood? And why would he and many others like him let themselves become the pawns of tyrants and "evil doers" around the world. Maybe they just don't have the competence to understand it.