Leave it to Noam to Smackdown the 9/11 Truthers

Good stuff ...



"There happen to be a lot of people around who spent an hour on the Internet and think they know a lot of physics. But it doesn't work like that ... There's a reason there are graduate schools in these departments."

Sal wrote:Good stuff ....



"There happen to be a lot of people around who spent an hour on the Internet and think they know a lot of physics. But it doesn't work like that ... There's a reason there are graduate schools in these departments."

In September 2007, Chomsky was praised by Osama bin Laden as "one of the most capable" citizens of the United States.

What else needs to be said? Good to see that you and Wordslinger worship the same communists and hater of America.

Markle wrote:

Sal wrote:Good stuff ....



"There happen to be a lot of people around who spent an hour on the Internet and think they know a lot of physics. But it doesn't work like that ... There's a reason there are graduate schools in these departments."

In September 2007, Chomsky was praised by Osama bin Laden as "one of the most capable" citizens of the United States.

What else needs to be said?  Good to see that you and Wordslinger worship the same communists and hater of America.

You have any proof other than Limbaugh that Chomsky's a communist?

Wordslinger wrote:

Markle wrote:

Sal wrote:Good stuff ....



"There happen to be a lot of people around who spent an hour on the Internet and think they know a lot of physics. But it doesn't work like that ... There's a reason there are graduate schools in these departments."

In September 2007, Chomsky was praised by Osama bin Laden as "one of the most capable" citizens of the United States.

What else needs to be said?  Good to see that you and Wordslinger worship the same communists and hater of America.

You have any proof other than Limbaugh that Chomsky's a communist?

As one of your idols, I'm sure you have reams of proof. Who does you hero defend? America or Communists of any persuasion and regardless of the millions they murdered?

Whether Chomsky is or is not a commie doesn't take away from the point he makes with his answer to the truther.

The truther theory is that 9/11 was an "inside job".  Or to use the current vernacular of the truthers,  a "false flag".  That it was not muslim terrorists who did it.  That instead it was done by our own government.  
And the insiders' motive for doing this false flag/inside job was to gain support for an invasion of Iraq.

What Chomsky is pointing out is,  the insiders would have to be "total lunatics" (as he puts it) to put the blame for the attack on Saudis.  
That it would make no sense to pin the blame on anyone except Iraqis.
Especially since the Bush administration was so strongly allied with the Saudis.

What's he talking about? Is he saying that a physics professor like Stephen Jones "spent an hour on the internet"? Or that the other professional engineers and architects who question the 9/11 Commission Report based on the immutable laws of physics are misled or lying? There's an entire book called DUST that examines only that one aspect.

Here are other scholarly articles:

http://www.consensus911.org/references-evidence-based/

Why accept Chomsky's view without question? I certainly never have.

http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project


http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayairdefense
"...No Warnings at All?

In his May 2003 testimony, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta stated to the Independent Commission, “I don’t think we ever thought of an aircraft being used as a missile. We had no information of that nature at all.” [Norman Mineta Testimony, 5/23/03] FAA Administrator Jane Garvey said, “I was not aware of any information about (planes) being used as weapons that was credible.” [UPI, 5/22/03 (B)] Mineta and Garvey were merely repeating the same claims many Bush administration officials have made since 9/11. For instance, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated in May 2002, “All this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking.” [Washington Post 9/18/02] Even President Bush stated, “Never did anybody’s thought process about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets—never.” [NATO, 9/16/01]..."

--------

If no one envisioned a second attack on the World Trade Center, or hijacked airplanes used in such an attack, why was US air defense running simultaneous exercises on the day of the actual event, simulating just such a scenario?

Floridatexan wrote:
http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project


http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayairdefense
"...No Warnings at All?

In his May 2003 testimony, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta stated to the Independent Commission, “I don’t think we ever thought of an aircraft being used as a missile. We had no information of that nature at all.” [Norman Mineta Testimony, 5/23/03] FAA Administrator Jane Garvey said, “I was not aware of any information about (planes) being used as weapons that was credible.” [UPI, 5/22/03 (B)] Mineta and Garvey were merely repeating the same claims many Bush administration officials have made since 9/11. For instance, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated in May 2002, “All this reporting about hijacking was about traditional hijacking.” [Washington Post 9/18/02] Even President Bush stated, “Never did anybody’s thought process about how to protect America did we ever think that the evil-doers would fly not one, but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets—never.” [NATO, 9/16/01]..."

--------

If no one envisioned a second attack on the World Trade Center, or hijacked airplanes used in such an attack, why was US air defense running simultaneous exercises on the day of the actual event, simulating just such a scenario?  

Once AGAIN for the very, very S-L-O-W!

As you well know, President William Jefferson Clinton erected a wall of silence between each of the 16 or 17 intelligence agencies so they were NOT able to communicate. The IDEA was admirable. To prevent security leaks through different agencies having access to top secret information. That was also the fatal error.

The agency who learned that Muslim's were taking flight lessons, and not particularly interested in landing or taking off, were NOT allowed to communicate that information to the agency that learned that al Qaeda was planning to use aircraft to launch a terrorist attack. Yet another agency that picked up increased "chatter" concerning an attack, could not communicate that to the other agencies and on, and on and on.

There was NO LEGAL WAY for them to connect the dots. It was done in the interest of security. Someone in one agency, would not find out what was known in another.

After President George Bush brought down the Gorelick Wall of Silence.... the pre-Patriot Act "wall" prevented foreign intelligence and criminal investigative communities from collaborating. ... the wall barred anti-terror investigators from accessing the computer of Moussaoui, the 20th hijacker.

The wall was originally erected by Jamie Gorelick to hide contributions to Clinton's presidential campaign from foreign sources...over $1.2 million was hidden by straw donors....but in turn it also prevented the sharing of foreign and domestic intelligence.

Bush assigned Stanley McChrystal as the commander of Joint Special Operation Command from 2003-2008...Under McChrystal JSOC had a dramatic change in worldwide intelligence....he successfully combined military, domestic and international intelligence to form a worldwide sharing of intelligence data.....and Obama continues JSCO...they were responsible for Bin Laden's demise.

Legislation put forth by President George Walker Bush, and a new oversight agency created after the attack, remedied this fatal error and gathers intelligence from all agencies. How many fatal Islamic Terrorist attacks...until President Barack Hussein Obama, did we had since?

NONE of the fatalities on your feeble attempt at proving me wrong were AMERICANS. Try again.

Floridatexan wrote:


Why accept Chomsky's view without question?  

No one should ever accept Chomsky's or anyone else's views without question.
And that goes both for those who accept the opinions of "progressives" without question,  AND those who accept the opinions of "conservatives" without question.  

But Chomsky's take on this has significance for one reason.  And that's because Chomsky,  as much as any other public figure in the country,  despises the American government.   And since Chomsky has a predisposition for pinning blame on the American government whenever he can,  it's noteworthy whenever he does not do so.

Markle wrote:

As you well know, President William Jefferson Clinton erected a wall of silence between each of the 16 or 17 intelligence agencies so they were NOT able to communicate.

The suggestion that Clinton administration officials erected the so-called "wall" echoes a similar accusation popular among conservative media figures: that a 1995 policy, instituted by former deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick and former Attorney General Janet Reno, prohibited Defense Department officials from sharing with the FBI military intelligence purportedly identifying lead 9-11 hijacker Mohammed Atta. But as Media Matters has noted, the memo and guidelines in question merely clarified long-unwritten restrictions on the sharing of information between the FBI's intelligence arm and the Justice Department's criminal division. Indeed, the 1995 documents had no bearing on the military's ability to share information with other intelligence agencies.

Former Sen. Slade Gorton [REPUBLICAN-WA], a 9-11 Commission member, specifically addressed and debunked the theory that Gorelick's memo prevented such intelligence-sharing in an August 18, 2005, letter to the editor in The Washington Times:

The one witness who did name Atta came to our staff shortly before the commission's report went to the printer. He said he thought he had seen something showing Atta in Brooklyn early in 2000. We knew, in fact, that Atta first arrived in the United States in June 2000 with a visa. For this and other reasons, the witness simply was not credible on this subject.

Additionally, the assertion that the commission failed to report on this program to protect Ms. Gorelick is ridiculous. She had nothing to do with any "wall" between law enforcement and our intelligence agencies. The 1995 Department of Justice guidelines at issue were internal to the Justice Department and were not even sent to any other agency. The guidelines had no effect on the Department of Defense and certainly did not prohibit it from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else.

Moreover, the "wall" that conservatives accuse Democrats of erecting had been built well before Gorelick -- or Clinton -- took office. The joint House and Senate intelligence committees' report of pre-September 11 intelligence failures stated: "The 'Wall' is not a single barrier, but a series of restrictions between and within agencies constructed over sixty years as a result of legal, policy, institutional, and personal factors." Similarly, a ruling by the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review -- when it met for the first time in 2002 -- traces the origin of the "wall" to "some point during the 1980s."

Nor did enforcement of the "wall" end with the Clinton administration. In his April 12, 2004, testimony before the 9-11 Commission, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft conceded that his own deputy Attorney General, Larry Thompson, reauthorized the "wall" in August 2001.

http://www.ryze.com/posttopic.php?topicid=751858&confid=1031

Markle wrote:
In September 2007, Chomsky was praised by Osama bin Laden as "one of the most capable" citizens of the United States.

What else needs to be said?

There is something else which needs to be said.

Since bin Laden held Chomsky in such high esteem,  anyone would expect Chomsky to come to the defense of bin Laden in the 9/11 attack and instead want to pin the blame on the American government which both despise.
But he has not done that.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/11/02/jimmyvnoam/

Chomsky covers up world’s worst-ever war crime



"Noam Chomsky has been heroically exposing the crimes of the American war machine for almost five decades. For many of us, he has long been the model engagé intellectual.
I probably never would have gone to graduate school, much less accumulated three MAs and a Ph.D. and taught seven or eight subjects at several universities and colleges, if I hadn’t gotten the notion (mainly from Chomsky) that one could simultaneously teach university and serve as a fearless social critic.
But in the wake of the neocon coup d’état of 9/11, and Chomsky’s subsequent all-out support for the coup faction, more and more people are wondering: WHY is Chomsky constantly paraded in front of us as the leading critic of American war crimes? Is his work that much better than that of so many others, including William Blum and James Petras? Or are there other factors – including his compromised position on Zionism, his gloomy, passive-aggressive demeanor that will obviously never inspire a revolution, and perhaps even his participation in covering up the very information that could inspire the people to rise up and overthrow imperialism – that has made him the kind of “critic of empire” that the empire doesn’t mind having in the spotlight?
In the next few days I will be publishing a glowing review of Chomsky’s new book Western Terrorism (co-authored with my frequent radio guest André Vltchek). I will also re-publish my email exchange with Chomsky in which he demonstrates himself to be certifiably insane with regard to 9/11. In that exchange, Chomsky argues that 9/11 truth books by people like David Ray Griffin and me are benefiting from massive mainstream media PR campaigns in our favor. He also claims that even if 9/11 revisionists prove that the World Trade Center skyscrapers were destroyed in controlled demolitions, that would simply prove that Bin Laden was behind the demolitions.
The man is either stupid, crazy, or lying. And I’m pretty sure he isn’t stupid. That leaves us with only two alternatives.
Chomsky displays classic “guilty demeanor” in his many speeches and writings covering up 9/11 – arguably the world’s worst-ever war crime. (9/11 launched a 100-years-war by the US and the West against the enemies of Israel – a war that has already killed millions and will, if it continues, kill tens or hundreds of millions.)
Why would the world’s leading critic of American war crimes cover up the worst-ever American war crime? Perhaps because it was actually a Zionist war crime against America?..."

---------------

At a University of Florida speech, Chomsky proves himself
a limited hangout mole
by Jimmy Walter
Chomsky resorts to unsupported character assassination and assertions. He uses limited hangouts, lies, and misdirection to try to dismiss the scientific discussion on the WTC. : the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq, the alleged perpetrators were Saudi’s (he does not use “alleged”, but implies there is no doubt despite the many reports of many still being alive and well), and only a small number of Architects and Engineers have stood up. He lies that only “a couple” of the 2000 plus A&Etruthers “are serious” and that they are not writing papers or giving talks. He dismisses the “one or two minor articles published” as if his lack of technical skill and their small numbers makes them wrong! He slurs the many educated believers and internet with implications that s=1/2 at^2 and seeing the overwhelming similarities to controlled demolitions requires an advanced degree to understand!
He asserts “overwhelming evidence the Bush administration was not involved” with totally confused & absurd statements: ~”since the Bush admin wanted to invade Iraq, it would have been “total lunacy” for them not to blame Iraq for 911, “if [Iraq] were involved in any way”. He contradicts this by admitting the WMD’s claims were “wild stories” and attacking Afghanistan was “useless”. Moreover, since Bush had absolutely zero evidence that Iraq was involved, claiming the Iraqis were involved would have been easily refuted “total lunacy”.
What was total lunacy was to claim Iraq had WMD’s, it would be a cake walk victory soon over, and to bankrupt the US in a series of needless wars. But they did it anyway! They used the alleged Al-Qaeda Terrorism to create a paranoid, patriotic mind set in order to silence opponents of war, create an imperial presidency, support the Military-Spy-industrial-comple-x, take oil off the market to get the price up, to surround Russia with military bases, to support Israel’s expansion, and to dominate the Middle East.
Chomsky claims that opposing the official position on 911 is “one of the safest things you can do” and therefore the lack of published papers and talks given at universities is absolute proof that the A&Etruth people are wrong! Non-sequitur. More misdirection. The schools and editorial boards refuse to publish A&Etruth’s works or allow them to present on their campuses. Academics depend on funding! People who have opposed AIPAC and the official 911 story have had their funding cut, been fired or asked to retire without any scientific refutation of their work. Even at this talk at the UF, the moderator cuts off discussion, proof positive of the prejudice of the alleged academic community.
One can only conclude that Chomsky, an expert on logic and political subterfuge, is a limited hangout mole.


"Limited hangout" is intelligence jargon for a form of propaganda in which a selected portion of a scandal, criminal act, sensitive or classified information, etc. is revealed or leaked, without telling the whole story. The intention may be to establish credibility as a critic of something or somebody by engaging in criticism of them while in fact covering up for them by omitting many details; to distance oneself publicly from something using innocuous or vague criticism even when ones own sympathies are privately with them; or to divert public attention away from a more heinous act by leaking information about something less heinous.
This is a common tactic used by political extremist groups on both ends of the political spectrum as well as by government intelligence agencies caught in scandals..."

-------------------------

E-mail exchange between Dr. Kevin Barrett & Dr. Noam Chomsky:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/11/05/chomsky-emails/

Floridatexan wrote:


-------------------------

E-mail exchange between Dr. Kevin Barrett & Dr. Noam Chomsky:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/11/05/chomsky-emails/

Dr. Kevin Barrett is a converted muslim.

from wiki...

Recent history

In April and October 2007, Barrett did a series of speaking engagements in Michigan, Chicago, and Wisconsin with William Rodriguez. The month after this tour, Barrett announced to the press his intention to fly to Morocco to "apprehend accused 9/11 hijacker Waleed al-Shehri."[25] Unable to locate his quarry, Barrett had to content himself with penning idiotic dispatches from cafes, and a humorous airport story. Barrett began promoting Captain Eric May and his numerological predictions of upcoming "false flag" (faked) terrorist attacks, none of which ever came to pass. In early August Barrett spoke at a conference in Madison, "The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not" that featured the notion that TV reporting of the World Trade Center attacks was faked.[26]

In early October, Barrett started the website "WhereTheyLive.org — Confronting the elite and their agents WHERE THEY LIVE"[citation needed] which stated as its mission the publishing of home addresses of evil-doers. Though the website espoused nonviolent principles, Barrett's simultaneous promotion of the "War on War Week," a series of demonstrations that were to feature firecrackers and "V for Vendetta" disguises, led some activists to express concern about the vigilante overtones involved, and after a west-coast 9/11 group voted to deny funding,[27] the project flopped. Barrett expressed a fascination with the V for Vendetta movie in an interview on internet radio, adding the claim that apartheid had been ended in South Africa through threats of violence, and stating that political power grows from the barrel of a gun.[28]

Later that fall, Barrett resigned as head of MUJCA.

Barrett introduced architect Richard Gage at Gage's presentation of "9/11: Blueprint for Truth" at the University of Illinois Chicago campus on May 30, 2008.[29]

Barrett's "Truth Jihad" internet radio program on Republic Broadcasting Network was cancelled some time in 2008. As of December the program no longer appears on RBN's schedule[30] and is omitted from RBN's list of archived programs.[31] The last available archives are from mid-July, 2008.[32] As of November 2011, Truth Jihad Radio was currently begin broadcast on American Freedom Radio.

Barrett continues to run an Internet radio show, interviewing such well-known anti-Semitic fringe figures as Carol Moore, who used her appearance to accuse American Jews as a class of having bought off the electoral system.

"The Dynamic Duo" radio program on Genesis Communications Network ceased to broadcast after the November 21, 2008 show. Barrett's final live broadcast on that show was on November 7.[33]

9/11 conspiracy theories

Barrett first drew attention to his views by publishing guest op-eds in the Madison Capital Times, in which he alleged that Muslims had nothing to do with the attacks: "As a Ph.D. Islamologist and Arabist I really hate to say this, but I'll say it anyway: 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam. The war on terror is as phony as the latest Osama bin Laden tape."[34] Barrett has also alleged the 2005 London bombings and the 2004 Madrid bombing appear to have been committed by U.S. or western military intelligence and not Islamic terrorists.

Following a June 28, 2006 talk radio segment on WTMJ, Barrett's views came to the attention of Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, U.S. Representative Mark Green, and State Representative Stephen L. Nass. After conducting a 10-day review of Barrett's past teaching and plans for the class, UW–Madison Provost Patrick Farrell determined that Barrett was fit to teach. Barrett told the Provost that his course will spend one week examining current issues, such as viewpoints on the war on terror which will be based on the discussion on readings representing a variety of viewpoints.[9]

Barrett has written a largely autobiographical book covering the controversy, entitled "Truth Jihad: My Epic Struggle against the 9/11 Big Lie," published by Progressive Press in early 2007. He also edited "9/11 and American Empire" (vol. 2) from Interlink Books, published in Dec. 2006.

Barrett taught the Fall 2006 class he'd been hired for. Comments in students' class evaluation forms were 73% generally favorable, and Provost Farrell said he'd mostly heard positive comments about the class.[35]

Also in fall 2006 Barrett began hosting an Internet talk show weekly on Republic Broadcasting Network titled "Truth Jihad Radio." Twice a week he had another Internet talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called "The Dynamic Duo," (hosted on other days of the week by Dr. James Fetzer). Fetzer was by this time becoming controversial in the 9/11 Truth movement because of his conflicts with Dr. Steven E. Jones, and Barrett's continued loyalty to Fetzer would come to hurt Barrett's prestige in the movement. The topic of both shows is mainly conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.

Toward the end of the Fall 2006 semester Barrett said he would not teach the following spring due to conflicting plans.[36] He applied to teach "Canterbury Tales" during the Fall 2007 semester, but was not hired.[37] After his old lecturer position went to another applicant and Barrett was not hired for another position, Barrett alleged that he had been discriminated against for his political beliefs.[38]

Arrested for alleged domestic abuse

According to the Wisconsin State Journal and the Associated Press;Barrett was arrested in Madison on September 16, 2008, after police said he violated a Sauk County court order forbidding contact with his family. He reportedly turned himself in and was released from the Dane County Jail after posting $500 cash bail. On September 12, Barrett had been charged with disorderly conduct in Sauk County Circuit Court after being accused of hitting his 13-year-old son at home on the morning of the September 9, 2008, 3rd District Libertarian primary, which he won. His wife, Fatna Bellouchi, had obtained a temporary restraining order against Barrett. [47][48]

In October when Barrett appeared in court on the charges, prosecutors filed additional charges alleging that he had violated a restraining order by sending roses to his wife on her birthday. "When roses are outlawed, only outlaws will send roses," Barrett said. In December Barrett pled not guilty to charges of misdemeanor disorderly conduct and bail jumping. He claims his wife invented the disorderly conduct story as part of a scheme to extort money from him. Barrett's campaign manager, Rolf Lindgren, had earlier declared Bellouchi's story to be a publicity stunt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Barrett

Yeah they gave old Charley Sheen psycho-hell after he came out on 911...

Not every crackpot is somebody being falsely accused by The New World Order. Many crackpots are actually crackpots.

"...Chomsky ignores the obvious: 9/11 doubled the military budget overnight, stripped Americans of their liberties and destroyed their Constitution, launched two illegal Nazi-style wars of aggression, and justified the murder of more than one million Muslims because they are Muslims. None of this will magically end when Bush and Cheney step down. The military budget will not return to pre-9/11 levels. The Constitution will not be magically restored, and the many blatant unconstitutional acts, approved by Democrats as well as Republicans, will not magically vanish. The wars of aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, and perhaps Pakistan and Iran – all psychologically justified by the demonization of the “Muslim” 9/11 patsies and by extension Muslims in general – will not magically end. The one-million-Muslim holocaust launched by 9/11 will not magically cease; it will in all probability expand, as oil prices rise and Israel’s strategic situation becomes more precarious. And the use of murderous false-flag attacks to trigger wars, authoritarianism and genocide will not magically follow Bush and Cheney into the proverbial dustbin of history.
Only the full exposure of 9/11 truth – the truth that 9/11 was a false-flag attack designed to demonize Muslims and justify their mass murder, while destroying liberty and militarizing society – will undo all this damage, and then some. Full exposure of 9/11 truth will enrage Americans, who will demand that the military-industrial complex and its national security state be destroyed once and for all. It will enrage them into slashing the military budget by more than 90% and returning to a “defend the borders” rather than “conquer the world” posture. It will enrage them into demanding a return to Constitutional rule. It will enrage them into cutting US ties to Israel, and thereby restoring good relations with the Muslim peoples of the oil-producing lands.
For some reason, Chomsky does not seem to want this to happen. Why not? Read our correspondence, and the rest of Chomsky’s writings on 9/11, along with “The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left” in Barrie Zwicker’s Towers of Deception…and see if you can figure it out. Maybe it will seem obvious to you, “so simple a five-year-old child could understand it.” Well, to quote Groucho, please find me a five-year-old child, because I can’t make heads or tails of it."

-Kevin Barrett, 5/22/08

-------------------------------

Plenty of people lost their jobs or were marginalized or "disappeared" because of their views on 9/11.

Here, Bob, tell me what TRUTH you find in this:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/jan/21/kurtvonnegut

Bob wrote:

Markle wrote:
In September 2007, Chomsky was praised by Osama bin Laden as "one of the most capable" citizens of the United States.

What else needs to be said?

There is something else which needs to be said.

Since bin Laden held Chomsky in such high esteem,  anyone would expect Chomsky to come to the defense of bin Laden in the 9/11 attack and instead want to pin the blame on the American government which both despise.
But he has not done that.

I hear David Duke is a big fan of Rand Paul. Should Paul embrace the KKK connection because Duke is a "fan"? No, Bob, "anyone" would not expect Chomsky to defend Bin Laden.

Floridatexan wrote:

Here, Bob, tell me what TRUTH you find in this:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2006/jan/21/kurtvonnegut

What I found to be most interesting is his statement that "Einstein and Twain had given up on the human race at the end of their lives".

So I googled to get clarification of this.  I've just read a great many quotes using the search words "humanity quotes" associated with both.  
I didn't really find anything to justify Vonnegut's blatant assertion when it comes to Einstein.  But there are many Mark Twain quotes which tend to indicate that Vonnegut got it right with Twain.  Particularly this one...


"Such is the human race. Often it does seem such a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat."

Floridatexan wrote:

Bob wrote:

Markle wrote:
In September 2007, Chomsky was praised by Osama bin Laden as "one of the most capable" citizens of the United States.

What else needs to be said?

There is something else which needs to be said.

Since bin Laden held Chomsky in such high esteem,  anyone would expect Chomsky to come to the defense of bin Laden in the 9/11 attack and instead want to pin the blame on the American government which both despise.
But he has not done that.

I hear David Duke is a big fan of Rand Paul.  Should Paul embrace the KKK connection because Duke is a "fan"?  No, Bob, "anyone" would not expect Chomsky to defend Bin Laden.  

That's a fair point. So I'll take that part back.

Can you imagine spending your entire life writing and speaking out about the cost of war like Vonnegut did and finding yourself in your sunset years witnessing this? Of course, Vonnegut was cynical. So was his friend, Joseph Heller (CATCH 22).

That's why I love you, Bob. Here, enjoy:

Here's a scene from the screen adaptation of Heller's book. I know you've seen it, but...the guy riding shotgun in the beginning of this clip is Martin Balsam.






Remember how I said I had an interview once back in the 70's and I didn't feel comfortable in that interview, but I couldn't remember the name of the guy. Well, it was Martin Balsam. Yep, I blew an interview with Martin Balsam.

Floridatexan wrote:
That's why I love you, Bob.  Here, enjoy:

That was a hoot . . . some great lines!

Robin Williams is an amazing talent and that whole bit is spot on.

But you're missing the irony of your presenting it to us in the context of this particular thread, tex.
Bush can't be BOTH an ignorant hayseed (which he obviously is),  AND at the same time be Ernst Blofeld and Spectre who blows up the World Trade Center and gets away with it.  
That's not real-life,  that's a Hollywood movie, tex.  And in the Hollywood movie,  Agent 007 always gets old Ernst in the end and puts Spectre out of business.  lol