Monday, August 30, 2004

Manufacturing Fear

Chomsky frequently states that 'terrorism' or another invented threat is used by America as a justification to invade another country. He claims that American officals and more specifically President Bush has to "'manufacture' another threat to American security to win reelection in 2004 after U.S failure in occupying Iraq." Chomsky made the claim while he was in Cuba in October of 2003. The message was clear America abuses terrorism, or invokes it, so that it can justify what it wants. One should note, however, America has yet to 'manufacture' any threats to invade any countries contrary to Chomsky's assumptions.

Leaving aside the sheer nonsense of the above statement, it is interesting to note that a similar pattern of abusing human suffering, or a fore seeable event of suffering, is done by Chomsky himself. For example take what Chomsky said when asked if he thought that America was "going to stop in Iraq" or if they would attack another country,

No, they already made this clear [they will attack another country]. For one thing they need something for the next presidential election ... So Syria is a possibility. Iran is a more difficult possibility because it's a harder country to dominate and control. Yet there is a reason to believe that for a year or two now, efforts have been under way to try dismantle Iran, to break it into internally warring groups.
Basically what Chomsky is claiming here is that America was going to invade Syria and Iran before the next presidential election. Besides the fact that Chomsky was wrong, America has yet to invade any country prior to 2004 presidential election, he has managed to ‘manufacture’ fear, with an invented threat, in the minds of all those who listen to him. If one wants evidence of this they need not look any further than the person interviewing Chomsky, Atilio A. Boron. Before Atilio asks Chomsky anymore questions he states, "This is really frightening." So Chomsky has managed to frighten at least one Chomskyte into believing America was going to war with Syria or Iran. How many others there are out there will probably never be known.

Apparently Chomsky's has become aware of his miscalculation and has reneged on his attack Iraq or Syria conspiracy theory. Hence we see him state on his website the following:
If the Iraq invasion hadn't been such a remarkable failure, by now the US would probably have gone forward with plans to subordinate the region more fully to its interests, which would mean actions against the more independent states, Iran and Syria.
However, this is in direct contradiction to what Chomsky told John Junkerman in July of 2003. Witness the following:
What they will probably do is just what Karl Rove indicated, manufacture another extremely dangerous situation. It doesn't take much to manufacture one. It doesn't have to be real, as we saw with Iraq. Whatever you think of Iraq, it was certainly no threat, but they were able to convince the country that it was a very serious threat. And if they manufacture another one then, somehow, people will forget about the problems in Iraq.
In attempt to get a clarification from Chomsky on what he really meant Junkerman asks to following, "So, if you had to predict, you'd say they were going to be moving on to another target to distract the public’s attention?" Chomksy retorts by stating the following, "If things go badly at home and in Iraq, they'll have to." So in July we have Chomsky claiming that if the occupation of Iraq becomes a complete failure President Bush will have to invent a threat, so that he can invade another country. Now Chomsky is claiming because the war in Iraq was such a 'remarkable failure' that America will no longer attack another country in the region. So which is it? You can't have it both ways. But that is exactly what Chomsky is doing. Or maybe Chomsky just thinks that winning the Presidential election is no longer in vogue at the White House. Anyway what is apparent is Chomsky can't get his story straight or even worse noticing that he was wrong he makes a bogus claim in hopes no one will notice.

When Chomsky was in Cuba he also stated,
"It is a frightened country and it is easy to conjure up an imminent threat...They have a card that they can play ... terrify the population with some invented threat, and that is not very hard to do."
The irony of it all is that Chomsky is describing American policy when in fact it is his own phony claim that America would invade Syria or Iran that has 'frightened' the 'population with some invented threat.'