Guerrilla News Network: Interview with Chomsky: "The foundation of Chomsky's moral universe is the belief that intentions and rhetoric have no meaning outside of actions. In other words, you can talk all the bullshit you want about democracy, but when you're blowing up children, you're a fascist."

"Chomsky: There were also reactions in Iraq [to Bush's speech lauding democracy]. There was a poll shortly after asking people why they thought United States came to Iraq. And some people did agree with this, actually one percent in the poll. Throughout most of the region, and in places like Latin America, the reaction was mostly ridicule. For several reasons: for one thing this sort of change of course - we did some bad things in the past now we're going to wonderful, this doctrine is in vogue every two or three years.

"Furthermore, it's uniform in the history of aggression and imperialism. If you look at Hitler or Stalin, Japanese fascists, they all used that kind of terminology, certainly the British Empire used that kind of language, and others. So it basically carries no information. It is kind of the routine reflexive terminology, freedom, democracy justification that Stalin even introduced with what he called People's Democracy. No one takes it seriously, you look at the practice."

Some people take it seriously... all too many in fact, especially in the West. Just as some people were defending the Soviet Union after the 1956 invasion of Hungary, and even after the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia, some people of the same sort of mental character are defending the United States after its more blatant than ever naked aggression against Iraq.

Guerrilla News Network: Interview with Chomsky: "The foundation of Chomsky's moral universe is the belief that intentions and rhetoric have no meaning outside of actions. In other words, you can talk all the bullshit you want about democracy, but when you're blowing up children, you're a fascist."

"Chomsky: There were also reactions in Iraq [to Bush's speech lauding democracy]. There was a poll shortly after asking people why they thought United States came to Iraq. And some people did agree with this, actually one percent in the poll. Throughout most of the region, and in places like Latin America, the reaction was mostly ridicule. For several reasons: for one thing this sort of change of course - we did some bad things in the past now we're going to wonderful, this doctrine is in vogue every two or three years.

"Furthermore, it's uniform in the history of aggression and imperialism. If you look at Hitler or Stalin, Japanese fascists, they all used that kind of terminology, certainly the British Empire used that kind of language, and others. So it basically carries no information. It is kind of the routine reflexive terminology, freedom, democracy justification that Stalin even introduced with what he called People's Democracy. No one takes it seriously, you look at the practice."

Some people take it seriously... all too many in fact, especially in the West. Just as some people were defending the Soviet Union after the 1956 invasion of Hungary, and even after the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia, some people of the same sort of mental character are defending the United States after its more blatant than ever naked aggression against Iraq.