From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Dec 12 2002 - 17:10:34 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."
>
It is true and documented that we incorporated several Nazi SS
officers and other intelligence people in our own post WWII
intelligence operations. Some of those operations were highly
questionable in their legality and legitimacy. That has been
detailed in part before Congress. I don't know about remaining
secret armies though. I haven't heard even rumors of supporting
evidence of that.
> 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."
>
It is documented that we did engage in industrial espionage,
assasination, incitements of riots, economic espionage and so on
in Latin and Sout America in that period. "Extermination
squads" is going too far though.
> According to Chomsky, there is "a close correlation worldwide between
> torture and U.S. aid."
>
That sounds like purple prose but I would need to see context.
> 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)
>
That *is* purple prose.
> 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)
>
Our actions in Nicaragua were terrorist by our own definitions
and were soundly condemned in the UN as criminal and terrorist
three times. Some of our actions in Iraq are unilateral and
while not "terrorist" as such are certainly not strictly legal.
I can dig up dirt on the others that we would call terrorist
if performed by any nation other than ourselves (or maybe
Israel). So no, this one isn't (unfortunately) proof that
Chomsky is a fruitcake.
> 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)
>
As a Libertarian I would agree although the grounds of the
impeachment would tend more toward trying them for treasonous
violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:42 MST