TroyAthlete saidI like Chomsky, but his reasoning here is specious. The Nazis were not hanged because of the side effects of war (death, destruction, refugees, and division).
They were hanged because they were found guilty of egregious human rights violations including genocide and ethnic cleansing -- both of which are well outside of international law governing the rules of war.
As for Osama bin Laden, he was an enemy combatant. A well-known one yes, but neither a citizen nor sovereign of any state. No one is going to cry about his killing on what was for all legal purposes a battlefield.
George W. Bush, meanwhile, was a sovereign head of state who sought and received authorization for military action from the representatives of the people of the United States of America.
His Iraq war was ill-advised but sanctioned by Congress, perfectly legal, and conducted well within the bounds of international rules of engagement.
Chomsky is comparing apples, oranges, and spaceballs here, and not making much sense.
I see Chomski's point in the matter.
The Iraqi people can (rightfully) look at the reams of evidence from the 2000 and 2004 elections, and conclude that Bush stole both elections. Therefore, Bush is an illegitimate head of state...and far more dangerous than OBL. (Birther republicans drew the same conclusion about Obama...but on zero evidence.)
But wait, there's more!!
This illegitimate head of state (and his surrogates) engaged in a relentless campaign of lies, deceptions and phony evidence about WMD. They told other heads of state, congress, the media, and the American people that we needed to go to war and destroy Iraq. They demanded the power to go to war...and anybody who dare opposes would have the blood of mass death and destruction on their hands.
Bush ran a big con...and hundreds of thousands of young men and women are dead or maimed. Far worse than OBL? The answer is obvious.
Although obscure and in my opinion wrong, your "tongue and cheek" analysis has more logic than Chomsky's
But if you want to go there. The guy below ( Iraqi) could believe and imagine just about any story.http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/05/11/world/IRAQ-1/IRAQ-1-articleLarge.jpghttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/world/middleeast/11iraq.html
And I am sure as in your discussion about a illegitimate 2004' election you could also believe just about any story.
It really just who you talk to . But even less than conservative news organizations shoot this stolen election theory down. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/06/03/kennedy
But even if you think Bush was illigitimate. Regime change from violation's of the ceese fire agreement from the first WAR preceded BUSH.
Congress formally endorsed the vision of bringing democracy to Iraq during the Clinton Administration.
Chomsky goes on ad-nauseum about propaganda. But this "essay" is just full of the same thing he speaks against.
He claimed Obama "simply lied". There is no way on this earth he could support that accusation without a statement from Obama that he lied.
Chomsky would have to know all that intelligence about 9/11 and what was known afterwards. Does Chomsky have security clearance?
Since he is a "linguist" why would he say such a thing?
But you cannot be suprised at what he writes and thinks. On September 11th 2001 he wrote
On September 12, 2001, Chomsky wrote:
"The terrorist attacks were major atrocities. In scale they may not reach the level of many others, for example, Clinton’s bombing of the Sudan with no credible pretext, destroying half its pharmaceutical supplies and killing unknown numbers of people."
Even before the smoke clears, before the United States knew if there would be more attacks Chomsky here states it couldn't be worse than what the U.S had been guilty of.
But Chomsky also defended Pol Pot in Cambodia, although lauded by the left , time has allowed him to be relatively discredited in his attempts to "lie".
Ironic he accuses Obama of lying .