Chomsky: 'There Is No War On Terror':

George Bush would be in severe political trouble if there were an opposition political party in the country. Just about every day, they're shooting themselves in the foot. The striking fact about contemporary American politics is that the Democrats are making almost no gain from this. The only gain that they're getting is that the Republicans are losing support. Now, again, an opposition party would be making hay, but the Democrats are so close in policy to the Republicans that they can't do anything about it. When they try to say something about Iraq, George Bush turns back to them, or Karl Rove turns back to them, and says, 'How can you criticize it? You all voted for it.' And, yeah, they're basically correct.

Democrats read the polls way more than I do, their leadership. They know what public opinion is. They could take a stand that's supported by public opinion instead of opposed to it. Then they could become an opposition party, and a majority party. But then they're going to have to change their position on just about everything.

Progressive US blogs like dailykos and many others rail against the Democrats for their spineless attitude to the crisis issues of the day, but there is much less discussion of why this miserable situation exists and what can be done about it. As Chomksy has pointed out countless times, the Democrats are the second wing of the corporate party, or in the phrase that has been used, 'two horses with the same owner in a two horse race.'

You can measure the number of terrorist attacks. Well, that's gone up sharply under the Bush administration, very sharply after the Iraq war. As expected -- it was anticipated by intelligence agencies that the Iraq war would increase the likelihood of terror. And the post- invasion estimates by the CIA, National Intelligence Council, and other intelligence agencies are exactly that.... The fact of the matter is that there is no War on Terror. It's a minor consideration. So invading Iraq and taking control of the world's energy resources was way more important than the threat of terror.

Its an obvious fact that the invasion of Iraq increased terrorism (as predicted) just as it is obvious that there were no WMDs or that the invasion was to secure control over energy reserves. There is no such thing as a 'war on terror' (the very concept is an absurdity, like a 'war on night tactics' or a 'war on enfilading'). That phrase simply should not be used, and anyone who does use the phrase 'war on terror' is accepting the propaganda constructs of the aggressor states and acting as an accomplice and enabler for their crimes and transgressions. Its not a 'war on terror', its a war against the Arabs for control of the oil.

Same with global warming. They're not stupid. They know that they're increasing the threat of a serious catastrophe. But that's a generation or two away. Who cares? There's basically two principles that define the Bush administration policies: stuff the pockets of your rich friends with dollars, and increase your control over the world. Almost everything follows from that.

They start by saying the United States aims to bring about a sovereign democratic independent Iraq. I mean, is that even a remote possibility? Just consider what the policies would be likely to be of an independent sovereign Iraq. If it's more or less democratic, it'll have a Shiite majority. They will naturally want to improve their linkages with Iran, Shiite Iran. Most of the clerics come from Iran. The Badr Brigade, which basically runs the South, is trained in Iran. They have close and sensible economic relationships which are going to increase. So you get an Iraqi/Iran loose alliance. Furthermore, right across the border in Saudi Arabia, there's a Shiite population which has been bitterly oppressed by the U.S.-backed fundamentalist tyranny. And any moves toward independence in Iraq are surely going to stimulate them, it's already happening. That happens to be where most of Saudi Arabian oil is. Okay, so you can just imagine the ultimate nightmare in Washington: a loose Shiite alliance controlling most of the world's oil, independent of Washington and probably turning toward the East, where China and others are eager to make relationships with them, and are already doing it. Is that even conceivable? The U.S. would go to nuclear war before allowing that, as things now stand.

The propaganda about the 'democratisation of Iraq' is massive and relentless through the broadcast corporate media, and in fact nearly every channel existing except the radical dissidents like Chomsky, but the reality is this propaganda is entirely meaningless nonsense.

Chomsky: 'There Is No War On Terror':

George Bush would be in severe political trouble if there were an opposition political party in the country. Just about every day, they're shooting themselves in the foot. The striking fact about contemporary American politics is that the Democrats are making almost no gain from this. The only gain that they're getting is that the Republicans are losing support. Now, again, an opposition party would be making hay, but the Democrats are so close in policy to the Republicans that they can't do anything about it. When they try to say something about Iraq, George Bush turns back to them, or Karl Rove turns back to them, and says, 'How can you criticize it? You all voted for it.' And, yeah, they're basically correct.

Democrats read the polls way more than I do, their leadership. They know what public opinion is. They could take a stand that's supported by public opinion instead of opposed to it. Then they could become an opposition party, and a majority party. But then they're going to have to change their position on just about everything.

Progressive US blogs like dailykos and many others rail against the Democrats for their spineless attitude to the crisis issues of the day, but there is much less discussion of why this miserable situation exists and what can be done about it. As Chomksy has pointed out countless times, the Democrats are the second wing of the corporate party, or in the phrase that has been used, 'two horses with the same owner in a two horse race.'

You can measure the number of terrorist attacks. Well, that's gone up sharply under the Bush administration, very sharply after the Iraq war. As expected -- it was anticipated by intelligence agencies that the Iraq war would increase the likelihood of terror. And the post- invasion estimates by the CIA, National Intelligence Council, and other intelligence agencies are exactly that.... The fact of the matter is that there is no War on Terror. It's a minor consideration. So invading Iraq and taking control of the world's energy resources was way more important than the threat of terror.

Its an obvious fact that the invasion of Iraq increased terrorism (as predicted) just as it is obvious that there were no WMDs or that the invasion was to secure control over energy reserves. There is no such thing as a 'war on terror' (the very concept is an absurdity, like a 'war on night tactics' or a 'war on enfilading'). That phrase simply should not be used, and anyone who does use the phrase 'war on terror' is accepting the propaganda constructs of the aggressor states and acting as an accomplice and enabler for their crimes and transgressions. Its not a 'war on terror', its a war against the Arabs for control of the oil.

Same with global warming. They're not stupid. They know that they're increasing the threat of a serious catastrophe. But that's a generation or two away. Who cares? There's basically two principles that define the Bush administration policies: stuff the pockets of your rich friends with dollars, and increase your control over the world. Almost everything follows from that.

They start by saying the United States aims to bring about a sovereign democratic independent Iraq. I mean, is that even a remote possibility? Just consider what the policies would be likely to be of an independent sovereign Iraq. If it's more or less democratic, it'll have a Shiite majority. They will naturally want to improve their linkages with Iran, Shiite Iran. Most of the clerics come from Iran. The Badr Brigade, which basically runs the South, is trained in Iran. They have close and sensible economic relationships which are going to increase. So you get an Iraqi/Iran loose alliance. Furthermore, right across the border in Saudi Arabia, there's a Shiite population which has been bitterly oppressed by the U.S.-backed fundamentalist tyranny. And any moves toward independence in Iraq are surely going to stimulate them, it's already happening. That happens to be where most of Saudi Arabian oil is. Okay, so you can just imagine the ultimate nightmare in Washington: a loose Shiite alliance controlling most of the world's oil, independent of Washington and probably turning toward the East, where China and others are eager to make relationships with them, and are already doing it. Is that even conceivable? The U.S. would go to nuclear war before allowing that, as things now stand.

The propaganda about the 'democratisation of Iraq' is massive and relentless through the broadcast corporate media, and in fact nearly every channel existing except the radical dissidents like Chomsky, but the reality is this propaganda is entirely meaningless nonsense.