Chomsky clearly did not understand that by him claiming that those who bombed the Al-Shifa plant should be locked up, he was claiming that those responsible for the bombing were as morally culpable as those who those who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Chomsky says: "Our crimes, for which we are responsible: as taxpayers, for failing to provide massive reparations, for granting refuge and immunity to the perpetrators, and for allowing the terrible facts to be sunk deep in the memory hole. All of this is of great significance, as it has been in the past."

Why would we not grant refuge and immunity to members of the military who made a mistake based upon poor intelligence? This is why Chomsky is confused, because if it was a mistake, then this is completely different than someone intentionally killing civilians. If the U.S. military set out to intentionally kill civilians, then sure, the government would be culpable for granting refuge and immunity to those people.

Chomsky is predicating all of this on the assumption that Clinton knew that the target was either a pharmaceutical plant or that Clinton knew the collateral damage would be on par with the damage from 9/11. He has no evidence of this. It is just as likely that, sure, this was a retaliation, but a retaliation based upon intelligence that this was a chemical weapons site. Chomsky couldn't find any evidence? Do you really think the government is going to share intelligence with Noam Chomsky?

Chomsky just didn't seem to have his head screwed on right for this one. He was reacting unnecessarily emotionally to Harris and clearly had it out for him because of what Harris had published about him.