Responding to a differing viewpoint

Ok, my quick response to criticism of my post re: Arab Columnists, but specifically my indictment of Chomsky. (See below for the original post and response)
First off, establishing a straw man argument by mentioning Ann Coulter is pretty weak. I never even referenced Coulter, therefore I'm not beholden to defending her, as if it's Coulter's team vs. Chomsky's team.
I grant that Chomsky is a bright guy, at least in the realm of his focus, which is Language Analysis primarily. Why he is taken seriously in regards to Foreign Policy studies is beyond me. Now specifically I've never heard him reference Qutb, even in pieces specifically about terrorism; if someone can show me to be incorrect, then I willingly retract my statements. I would argue at that point, that he apparently chooses to ignore Qutb impact in his analysis, which is usually (if not always) an analysis of what America has done wrong in the world.
As for the MSM. Admittedly, on 9/11 I was living in Europe, so I can't vouch for what they did or did not say in the immediate time after the attack. Since returning to the States, I have yet to hear any MSM reference Qutb in their analysis, particularly in regard to Iraq. (HA! You say, but Iraq has no connection to al-Qaeda!) Well, regardless of if al-Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the war, they are unmistakably there now. To this end, then, it would be logical to place in context the ambition of Zarqawi, et al.. They are not "minutemen" as Michael Moore would have us believe. They are totalitarian disciples of Sayyid Qutb who wish to eliminate Liberalism from the face of the Earth. The mainstream media should be trumpeting that message from the hills. The fact is, they are too busy blaming us for everything that goes wrong in the world.