From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Dec 11 2002 - 11:18:01 MST
Dickey, Michael F wrote:
>David Horowitz is one of the most vocal Chomsky critics Ive read, here is an
>article of his detailing much of what some people would consider 'nonsense'
>by Chomsky.
>
>Michael
>
> -----------------------
>
>The Sick Mind of Noam Chomsky
>
>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1020
>
>By David Horowitz
>FrontPageMagazine.com | September 26, 2001
>
>Excerpts -
>
>According to Chomsky, in the first battle of the postwar struggle with the
>Soviet Empire, "the United States was picking up where the Nazis had left
>off."
>
>According to Chomsky, during the Cold War, American operations behind the
>Iron Curtain included "a 'secret army' under US-Nazi auspices that sought to
>provide agents and military supplies to armies that had been established by
>Hitler and which were still operating inside the Soviet Union and Eastern
>Europe through the early 1950s."
>
That's probably a reference to the CIA. A lot of german nationals were
recruited after the war. von Braun wasn't the only one. Many of them
were intelligence operatives. So, allowing a bit for a double-dose of
hyperbole (once from Chomsky [I didn't read the original] and once from
Horowitz) it may well be describing something "real". (Were they
Nazis? Who knows. They were German military under Hitler, so they must
have professed naziism, but wanting to stay alive and not be invaded
doesn't really make you the kind of sicko the SS and Gestapo [Homeland
Security] were.)
>According to Chomsky, in Latin America during the Cold War, U.S. support for
>legitimate governments against Communist subversion led to US complicity
>under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, in "the methods of Heinrich
>Himmler's extermination squads."
>
That could certainly use a bit of explanation. It could be a revulsion
against napalm, or any of many other things. Great rhetoric, though.
>According to Chomsky, there is "a close correlation worldwide between
>torture and U.S. aid."
>
It's a matter of record that the US maintains training camps where
foreign nationals are taught "interrogation techniques", and that these
techniques include methods for which torture is not an inappropriate
description.
>According to Chomsky, America "invaded" Vietnam to slaughter its people, and
>even after America left in 1975, under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, "the
>major policy goal of the US has been to maximize repression and suffering in
>the countries that were devastated by our violence. The degree of the
>cruelty is quite astonishing." (6)
>
I *STILL* don't know why we invaded Vietnam. Not even yet. Stupid is
the kindest thing I can say about it. But I really doubt that this is
the reason, and I doubt that this was the purpose. I also doubt that
Chomsky claimed that the purpose was to slaughter the people of
Vietnam. This sounds like an extraction out of context. (Still, it was
the policy of the US for some period of time after the war to cause the
people of Vietnam to be unhappy with their government, even if it meant
that the US suffered extra so that they would suffer more. So this
isn't total nonsense. [We were *very* upset about loosing, even if what
we stood to gain isn't clear.])
>According to Chomsky, "the pretext for Washington's terrorist wars [i.e., in
>Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Guatemala, Iraq, etc.] was self-defense, the
>standard official justification for just about any monstrous act, even the
>Nazi Holocaust." (7)
>
Listened to George Bush lately? This one sounds dead accurate. The
claim to the right to first strike with nuclear weapons as an act of
defense??? In Public!! I've got to think that ... well, read Sigmund
Freud on his experiences with cocaine addiction.
>In sum, according to Chomsky, "legally speaking, there's a very solid case
>for impeaching every American president since the Second World War. They've
>all been either outright war criminals or involved in serious war
>crimes."(8)
>
That's true. In fact, if you are a strict constitutional
constructionist (which I consider myself to be) feeling pissed off at
the president for having won is sufficient grounds. All you need to do
is convince enough representatives to go along with you. The reason is
totally unimportant, except as a public relations justifier. Ditto for
the Senate to convict him.
> - End Excerpts -
>
>
>LEGAL NOTICE
>Unless expressly stated otherwise, this message is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. Access to this E-mail by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not an addressee, any disclosure or copying of the contents of this E-mail or any action taken (or not taken) in reliance on it is unauthorized and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please inform the sender immediately.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:40 MST