Noam Chomsky vs. Charlie Rose on Iraq War, Thomas Friedman,Paul Wolfowitz, George Bush Sr., etc

A) Thomas Friedman's long forgotten article on the 1991 Shia Uprisings:
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/07/weekinreview/the-world-a-rising-sense-that-...

B) On Paul Wolfowitz's (1997) praise for "strong and remarkable leadership of President Suharto": http://www.atimes.com/se-asia/CJ11Ae01.html



C) On US authorization and support for Saddam's brutal crackdown on the rebellion:
Surviving In The Ruins," Spectator (U.K.), August 10, 1991, pp. 8-10:

"Our programme [Panorama on England's B.B.C.-1] has found evidence that several Iraqi generals made contact with the United States to sound out the likely American response if they took the highly dangerous step of planning a coup against Saddam. But now Washington faltered. It had been alarmed by the scale of the uprisings [against Saddam Hussein] in the north and south.

For several years the Americans had refused to have any contact with the Iraqi opposition groups, and assumed that revolution would lead to the break-up of Iraq as a unitary state. The Americans believed that the Shi'as wanted to secede to Iran and that the Kurds would want to join up with the Kurdish people of Turkey. No direct answer was returned to the Iraqi generals; but on 5 March, only four days after President Bush had spoken of the need for the Iraqi people to get rid of Saddam Hussein, the White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said, "We don't intend to get involved . . . in Iraq's internal affairs. . . ."

An Iraqi general who escaped to Saudi Arabia in the last days of the uprising in southern Iraq told us that he and his men had repeatedly asked the American forces for weapons, ammunition and food to help them carry on the fight against Saddam's forces. The Americans refused.

As they fell back on the town of Nasiriyeh, close to the allied positions, the rebels approached the Americans again and requested access to an Iraqi arms dump behind the American lines at Tel al-Allahem. At first they were told they could pass through the lines. Then the permission was rescinded and, the general told us, the Americans blew up the arms dump. American troops disarmed the rebels."

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Noam Chomsky
• Charlie Rose
• Iraq War
• Thomas Friedman
• Paul Wolfowitz
• George H.W. Bush
• New York Times

[phooey108]

@canada2D

Isnt it funny that liberal Charlie Rose reacts the same way the conservative Buckley did in 1968, when Chomsky tore his "benevolent imperialism" thesis to shreds... Like Rose, Buckley, was stunned, offended at Chomsky's implication that Washington power players consistently act like the Mafia on the international stage. Just goes to show you that mainstream liberals and conservatives have equally delusional opinions about the moral credibility of their leaders.

[canada2D]

If Charlie Rose would just shut up and listen he might learn something and appeal to more intelligent people. Who cares what he's sure of.

[sringer007]

@canada2D Rose is famously a Conservative.

[peoman2]

lol it's funny to hear the interviewer. He clearly doesn't know the facts and yet still tries to argue.

[peoman2]

Oh yeah the Iraq war was awesome! I mean look at Iraq now in 2012 it's freaking paradise I wanna go for holidays there.

[MultiMudskipper]

My opinion of Charlie just dropped precipitously.

[fleebenworth]

It's amazing how Charlie can listen unflinchingly to the biggest liars and prevaricators of our age and yet when Chomsky is trying to drop some pretty obvious knowledge about American imperialism he does nothing but challenge him with talking points from establishment blowhards. Mr. Rose's interviews are nothing more than a pandering mouthpiece for the oligarchy.

[duftyboxing]

@phooey108 well said, and yeah it's crazy how similar Buckley and Rose were towards Noam.

[phooey108]

@fctchk

I dont like Charlie Rose at all.  Do not like his pandering to the establishment.

[fctchk]

@ast453000 "Rose is such a tool. I think this is from the only interview he did with Chomsky"

Keenly observed. Online there is indeed record of only 1 other (equally, if not more, adversarial) appearance and in Rose's absence. Perhaps to grant Rose the plausible deniability of 1. not being seen with Chomsky. 2.having him on yet signaling that Chomsky is not worth his time of day.

Compare to 51 appearances by Rose's buddy and war criminal Henry "power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" Kissinger.

[bozolazic]

@Philfa Nope.Count me in.

[Philfa]

Am I the only one who finds the phrase "your own sense of international law" fucking hilarious? What a concept!