Why do so many think Chomsky is an unimpeachable source?

[Zuni]

I find him to be highly deceptive. He misrepresents events, uses loaded terms to create labels, and often cites obscure incidents so no one questions his accounts. When i happen to know about an event he discusses, I often find him to be way off the mark. When i do reasearch on other stuff to test my hypothesis, I find him to be deceptive about that as well.
He also will take one quote or one phrase to make an example of his points
The main reason I cannot read him is that he comes up with his conclusion before looking at the facts, and will tailor the facts to fit his own opinion. He is not above distortion to suit his own agenda.

Why do so many people think of his books as some sort of Gospel? Why doesn't anyone fact check him like I do?

[damnraddem]

1. Why is this relevant here?

Is this about politics or linguistics? Is your problem with him that he is a Green?

[Zuni]

8. I like his linguistics work

it is his political distribes that I do not trust.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

150. His linguistic work . . .

I think he work on linguistics is equally questionable, though FAR and away more reliable and thought out. But his politics and linguistics derive from the same theoretical position: Chomsky believes in human nature, a structural mechanism behind human action and, and this is most important, believes that human can ultimately attain the knowledge of how this mechanism works. His thesis, for politics and linguistics (and his political is founded on his linguistic scientific model), is quite simple: unless there is some form of fixed human nature, true scientific understanding is impossibel. Starting from his own research, Chomsky asks one question (applicable to linguistics and politics): how is it that on the basis of a partial and fragmentary set of experiences, individuals in every culture are able not only to learn their own language, but to use it in a creative way?

In response this, at least to a post that will probably not be read and not be responded to, I quote Emo Williams: "I used to think the brain was the most incredible organ in the human body; but then I thought, 'look what's telling me this.'"

[YNGW]

10. He's a Green??

He calls himself an anarchist.

[Iverson]

12. correct, he is not a Green

Thank you for pointing out his self-description as anarchist. I was concerned that most of DU would stop reading him if he was identified as a Green.

[Capn Sunshine]

50. he's a greenarchist-but makes some damn good points, flawed or not

:nuke:

[Terwilliger]

93. Libertarian Socialist

[SEAburb]

2. I guess because he says what some people

want to hear.

[Blue_Chill]

71. I was going to write exactly that

:)

[Laughing Mirror]

3. I have fact-checked Chomsky and always found him on the mark

Can you cite some examples, please?

[brainshrub]

6. I would like to second that.

But I do agree that sometimes Chomsky sounds more like a conspiracy theorist than a scholar.

[Zuni]

7. I can think of a few off the top of my head

I am at work right now, and i no longer possess any chomsky books at my home, but I can name a few.

1. His accounts of the 'Darlan affair' and the 'Bagdolio affair' in WWII are dead wrong.
2. his accounts of the Italian postwar elections are extremely deceptive.
3. His accounts of the Greek civil war are highly deceptive.
4. His accounts of the sandanistas are wrong and deceptive.
5. He once stated that torture was not practiced much anymore in the USSR (in 1979) and in Soviet sponsored states.
6. His 'Distortions at a Fourth Hand' is a reminder of how Chomsky works--- calls Communists progressives, freedom fighters, agarian reformers until they slaughter people wholesale. thyen he distances himself from them. 'Fourth Hand' is an article Mr. Chomsky wishes he never wrote.

there are more, but I cannot think of them all. His way of calling even the most doctrinaire stalinists in the communist insurgencies 'progressive' and lumping all anti-communists together as fascists and thugs is just one deeply disturbing aspect of this man's works.

[thebigidea]

20. can you explain what's deceptive about them?

I mean, that's hardly a compelling rebuttal of his work.

Just saying he's "wrong" doesn't convince anybody.

[Zuni]

30. I will do the Italian elections---I have had to explain this one before

The Italian elections of 1948 were the first democratic elections in Italy since mussolini took power. There were two main parties, The Christian democrats who were moderate centrists and the Communist party of Italy, which was a stalinist comintern controlled party, funded by moscow.
Now Chomsky describes the Communists as 'progressives' and agarian reformers and such. He then goes to try to connect the Christian democrats to fascism, without showing any evidence. Of course he does not tell you that the CDs were led by a anti-Mussolini Librarian who went into voluntary exile because of Fascism.
Chomsky refers to the Italian Police as 'the fascist police' and tries to make it seem like the US/UK armed Blackshirt militias to fight the communists--which is absurd because the US/UK occupation forces outlawed the fascist party and party militias.
He says correctly that the US was giving money to parties in the elections. The CIA spent 1 million to aid the Christian Democrats. What he doesn't say is that the CIA only responded to the fact that Moscow was paying the Communist Party bills. He condemns US involvement, says we stopped 'progressives' and used 'fascist police' to break up labor. The US put 1 million dollars to support a moderate party against a Stalinist party funded by moscow.
I think it was the right thing to do. Italy going Stalinist would not have been good for Italy or the world.
He also talks about the US/UK forces fighting 'the Anti-fascist resistance'. unfortunately for him, the US/UK only fought for a short time with only a small part of the anti-fascist resistance, groups of hardcore, doctrinaire Stalinist militias in Northern italy.


I hope this answers your questions.

[Sterling]

54. Here is the real problem

"which is absurd because the US/UK occupation forces outlawed the fascist party and party militias."

You seem to be under the impression that the US and UK were not harbouring Nazi's or that they favored the Reds over the Commies.

The western powers were willing to back Nazi's to stop the commies. They still are to this day.

[toddzilla]

66. the real answer to that question is...

what the fuck business is it of ours what happens in italy?

[lancemurdoch]

68. quite a load of spin

No one in the world believes what you're saying, except Americans, and only 50% of Americans at that. The CIA was manipulating governments and elections in "allies" like Italy (where in 1976 PCI got over one third of the vote, the Christian Democrats winning the election by a margin of less than 5% of the vote) and Australia (the Whitlam-Kerr affair, Christopher Boyce is in US prison right now due to circumstances relating to that) and the like.

It's funny how you characterize PCI as a "stalinist comintern controlled party, funded by moscow" but then have not much of a problem with correctly saying that the Christian Democrats were a party controlled by wealthy foreign capitalists. In fact PCI had a lot of autonomy, as the autonomous movement and the whole eurocommunism period demonstrated.

The Christian Democrats connected to fascism? Why would people think that, because they were backed by the same people who backed the fascists, and half of them were in Propaganda Due?

If PCI was a Stalinist, Moscow-controlled party, then over one third of Italians was voting for it in 1976, with the Christian Democrats getting less than 5% of the vote more than them. So that means either you're being overhanded in your description of PCI, or over one third of Italians were supporters of a Stalinist, Moscow-controlled party. And the "moderate centrists" had less than a 5% edge on them. I could go on with details, but I think that's what people should dwell on after reading your post - if it is true, why did over one third of Italians vote for PCI in 1976, with the Christian Democrats beating them by less than 5%?

[Blue_Chill]

75. He said the CD was backed by the CIA.

And you claim that he didn't say they were backed by wealthy capitalists. The CIA my friend is a much more telling friend, had he only said "capitalists" then I would agree he was being misleading.

Also why do you have a problem with them being backed by capitalists but you seem fine with the other side getting communist money? Interesting......

Face it the point was proven Chomsky was misleading and dishonest.

[lancemurdoch]

81. Huh?

I was complimenting the poster for admitting that the Christian Democrats got money from the US, not criticizing him. I said there was an equivalency - the American capitalists funded one side and the Russian bureaucrats funded the other side.

Only in the US do you get this Russian-on-the-brain so much. I was reading a Wall Street Journal editorial recently that said Irish opposition to the British was Moscow-directed. Knowing something about the subject, I found this amusing, as Irish resistance to English/Norman rule goes back to the 12th century, started erupting more post-Cromwell like Wolfe Tone's 18th century rebellion and continues to the present. If the nationalists outbreeding of the unionists in the six counties wasn't soon to make them a majority, they'd still be shooting each other up there probably.

People of this sort of mind are the ones who really can't see reality. Europeans are the only ones who see the Cold War with a clear head - they are skeptical of propaganda coming from the US *and* the USSR. The reality is that the USSR cared little about communist expansionism beyond a bit of land beyond it's contiguous borders around the time Trotsky fled Russia. The Russians actually helped put down a general strike in France in 1968 that may have well turned into a full-scale workers revolution. In fact, in many ways the USSR undermined the left wide of the Spanish Civil War. I find it hard to take most American's seriously when it comes to these things, the Europeans have more perspective.

[Mairead]

35. Real quotes, please, with sources.

Your charges are far too vague.

[pnorman]

36. "calls Communists progressives, freedom fighters, agarian reformers ..."

I too would like specifics on this. It sounds very much like the right wing generic generalization of the "hypocritical, deceitful (treasonous?) left". it might have applied to CP'ers and their fellow travelers, but the non-Stalinist left was pretty well "on" to Stalinism by the late twenties. The anarchists in particular, had NO such illusions by around 1921, and Chomsky is a libertarian socialist (aka: anarchist).

I really don't know anyone who regards Chomsky as an "unimpeachable source". To anarchists at any rate, that concept is anathema. As for myself, I initially found his stuff dense and almost impenetrable. I kept at it, now and realize that it was his high degree of intellectual honesty that kept him from "simplistic" explanations. Just reacquire one of those books ("Chomsky Reader"?), and try it again, and with an open mind.

pnorman
STAND UP, KEEP FIGHTING http://shows.implex.tv/wellstone/

[Westegg]

48. Are you serious?

By which I mean, can you really back up your following statement? "The non-Stalinist left was pretty well 'on' to Stalinism by the late twenties. "


The early '40s, perhaps. Not the late '20s.

[pnorman]

67. By "non-Stalinist Left",

I meant the Socialist Party USA, from which the CPUSA split from (under various designations), as well as the IWW. They both had serious problems with the concept of Leninism, but when Stalin worked his way to power by around 1926, they LOATHED the Stalinified Comintern even more, along with the Moscow-following CPUSA. The Trotskyists and a little later the (USA) Lovestoneites, then became part of this "non-Stalinist Left", but not always in amity. The anarchists of course, were firmly opposed to what was developing in Russia from 1921 on. Since the Russian Revolution personified ALL that the socialist movement had DREAMED for, for so many years, it was heartbreaking to regard it with suspicion and then hostility. But after making as many allowances as they could ... the broke with it, and in that time frame I has given.

Can I "back it up"? Not here, in this thread that's already becoming far too unwieldy. But I've given enough specifics along with chronology for you to check it out in standard references. (But NOT Ann Coulter).

pnorman
STAND UP, KEEP FIGHTING http://shows.implex.tv/wellstone/

[lancemurdoch]

69. Some of his books are dense, some aren't

I'd say half of Chomsky's books are dense and half aren't. The ones that aren't are ones that are collections of interviews, where he's speaking off the top of his head - these are easy reads. The dense ones are when he sits down to write a book - these are dense, scholarly works with tons of examples, footnotes and so forth - the stuff that Zuni says he finds lacking in Chomsky. I myself have found Chomsky's sources to convince me more of his argument - he'll quote one or two thing Samuel Huntington said and cite it, then I'll go and read Samuel Huntington myself and find myself even more in agreement with Chomsky.

[pnorman]

132. "I initially found his stuff dense and almost impenetrable".

That was probably the initial reaction of many here. But I came across a theme that had appeared in several of Chomsky's articles/interviews, that went "click!" ("Well, let me give an example. When I'm driving ..."). Thereafter, I realized that I was dealing with a man whose driving passion was to teach others HOW to think, rather than WHAT to think. That meant that WHATEVER effort was required to read him, was well worth it. That doesn't take all that much, so TRY IT. Along with some other of Chomsky's works, I have that excerpt in my PDA at this moment. Here it is:

What the World is Really Like: Who Knows It -- and Why
Noam Chomsky

Excerpted from The Chomsky Reader, 1983
QUESTION: You've written about the way that professional ideologists and the mandarins obfuscate reality. And you have spoken -- in some places you call it a "Cartesian common sense" -- of the commonsense capacities of people. Indeed, you place a significant emphasis on this common sense when you reveal the ideological aspects of arguments, especially in contemporary social science. What do you mean by common sense? What does it mean in a society like ours? For example, you've written that within a highly competitive, fragmented society, it's very difficult for people to become aware of what their interests are. If you are not able to participate in the political system in meaningful ways, if you are reduced to the role of a passive spectator, then what kind of knowledge do you have? How can common sense emerge in this context?

CHOMSKY: Well, let me give an example. When I'm driving, I sometimes turn on the radio and I find very often that what I'm listening to is a discussion of sports. These are telephone conversations. People call in and have long and intricate discussions, and it's plain that quite a high degree of thought and analysis is going into that. People know a tremendous amount. They know all sorts of complicated details and enter into far-reaching discussion about whether the coach made the right decision yesterday and so on. These are ordinary people, not professionals, who are applying their intelligence and analytic skills in these areas and accumulating quite a lot of knowledge and, for all I know, understanding. On the other hand, when I hear people talk about, say, international affairs or domestic problems, it's at a level of superficiality that's beyond belief.

In part, this reaction may be due to my own areas of interest, but I think it's quite accurate, basically. And I think that this concentration on such topics as sports makes a certain degree of sense. The way the system is set up, there is virtually nothing people can do anyway, without a degree of organization that's far beyond anything that exists now, to influence the real world. They might as well live in a fantasy world, and that's in fact what they do. I'm sure they are using their common sense and intellectual skills, but in an area which has no meaning and probably thrives because it has no meaning, as a displacement from the serious problems which one cannot influence and affect because the power happens to lie elsewhere.

Now it seems to me that the same intellectual skill and capacity for understanding and for accumulating evidence and gaining information and thinking through problems could be used -- would be used -- under different systems of governance which involve popular participation in important decision-making, in areas that really matter to human life.

There are questions that are hard. There are areas where you need specialized knowledge. I'm not suggesting a kind of anti-intellectualism. But the point is that many things can be understood quite well without a very far-reaching, specialized knowledge. And in fact even a specialized knowledge in these areas is not beyond the reach of people who happen to be interested.
>
>
http://www.chomsky.info/books/reader02.htm

pnorman
STAND UP, KEEP FIGHTING http://shows.implex.tv/wellstone/

[lostnfound]

154. Well-put. Too bad it won't be read as much as it should be. n/t

[Chomskyite]

74. Nothing specific here

Only your judgements as to what you think is deceptinve. Not one quote from him. Not one bit of counterevidence.

Nothing to see here.

Let's move on.

[Blue_Chill]

124. You see the claim and you obviously ar a fan

provide some counter evidence of your own. You can't, you know it I know it and the tactic you are using is obvious. Challenge build of a argument instead of the content.

[Chomskyite]

145. No way to argue counter-evidence

. . . if there's no evidence to counter.

[Room101]

148. Chomskyite - No kidding, the burden of proof lies on the accuser

I love when people accuse Chomsky of -fill in the blank- yet can’t site a quote or give a source.

[toddzilla]

4. i don't consider it "gospel"

I'm not saying i believe everything he says, but i do confess that i really haven't disagreed with his assesment of any situation. We ALL use selective quotes to prove a point, it's in our nature.

[barbaraann]

5. Because he isn't an elected official.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :-)

[cryofan]

9. 46 years of experience and learning brought me to Chomsky

I have been interested in politics since the 70s. and started running into Chomsky's ideas about the media and the nature of the state in the 80s. When I first learned of his ideas, I thought he was a paranoid.

However, with the advent of the net, I have been able to greatly expand my reading about various subjects, and I have come back around to Chomsky. This time I think he is correct in his assessment of the media and the state.

In order to convince me of your thesis, you would have to give me some specifics.

BTW, the examples you cite briefly are rather obscure ones. Can you tell us how they came to your attention?

[Zuni]

13. I read them

I cannot think of better ones off the top of my head. i am at work and am not able to pick apart chomsky's claims and fact check them.

I happen to be very familiar with WWII, and various aspects of the Cold War and I can tell when Chomsky is BSing.

[Mairead]

37. "i am at work and am not able to ... fact check them"

Well, why don't you wait til you get home again and then provide us some substance rather than vague claims?

[mobuto]

11. Chomsky isn't a leftist, let alone a liberal

he's simply anti-American.

If you look at the positions he's taken as a whole, they make no sense. He attacks the US for being racist and cold-hearted and not intervening in one crisis. Then he attacks the US for being racist and imperialist for intervening in another. There isn't any sort of consistent logic to his arguments - any of which may be semi-rational in the abstract - when looked at as a whole. No consistent logic save opposition to the United States.

[toddzilla]

15. opposition to the US government..

there's a big distinction that you are missing here. The US government, and actually all governments are violent, ruthless institutions. This is his argument and i agree with him, governments are run by the wealthy elite.

[Zuni]

17. That is a given

Chomsky then goes off and writes article after article blaming every incident on US policy. his theory seems to be 'only the US government is greedy and evil' and only the US can do wrong.

[Iverson]

21. not correct

Over and over, Chomsky affirms that the USA has a high degree of freedom compared to the rest of the world.

I am a little disturbed to see a right-wing attack trotted out (simply anti-American) with no specific examples to back it up.

[Zuni]

25. there are millions

of examples. I am a certified liberal Social Democrat and I cannot stand seeing Chomsky deified and worshipped at DU. I find his writings lacking all perspective and highly deceptive.
The same reason I hate Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity is the same reason that I dislike chomsky

[Iverson]

28. well and good

I think that deification and worship is totally misguided, and I suspect that Chomsky would agree.

Also, I am perfectly happy to take you at your word aobut your own preferences. The accusation of anti-Americanism, however, is as I said: a convenient tool of the right wing that relieves the attacker of any need to support the claim.

Since Chomsky encourages readers to make evaluations for themselves, and Coulter and her ilk are simply dogmatic, I'd think that even a Chomsky opponent should see important differences between them.

[Emboldened Chimp]

29. Your tacit comparison of Chomsky to Coulter and Hannity is off-base

Chomsky does not engage in hyperbole or bombast in presenting his ideas like those other two. And he doesn't participate in outright propaganda, nor does he have any over political agenda, sans shedding light on U.S. foreign policy. Is he wrong sometimes? Of course he is. Is he right sometimes as well? Definitely. If you've paid attention to Chomsky--and it sounds like you have--you would know that he always tells his audience not to take his word on anything and to check up on what he says. And Chomsky does cite his sources, which vary from small alternative media to the pages of the NY Times and Wall Street Journal (a favorite of his).

[Zuni]

32. I disagree

He does nothing but engage in propaganda. He has a very obvious political agenda.
Coulter cites sources, and so does Hannity. Having a lot of sources means nothing. I can right 200 pages of crap and put a long bibliography on it to impress people too.

Chomsky, to his credit, does in fact tell people to question everything he says. That is excellent. I would tell anyone who reads anything i write to question my knowledge and agenda too. i have my own biases, my owm agenda, my ownm politics, my own reality.

[Terwilliger]

97. PLEASE elaborate

what propaganda?

what is his obvious political agenda...that he's not happy with American foreign policy?

[bpilgrim]

114. lol

u r right... anybody can provide sources but not everyone provides false sources like they - insanity and devilwoman - are known to do.

anyone who can't see the DEGREES that seperate insanity and his ilk and the SCHOLAR chomsky only reveal their own lack of reasoning skills.

peace

[BiggJawn]

38. He's not nearly the "Gawd" here that he was at MWO's board...

Oh, gee, to even QUESTION a statement from "The Great Perfesser" was tantamount to heresy on MWO's long-defunct message board.

I've never seen the same level of "Chomsky Worship" here at DU.
I have read a few of his short pieces (I find him difficult to read since I wasn't a LA major) and he does make some points that should be talked about.
But even a broken clock is right twice a day, isn't it? :-)

[bpilgrim]

116. "Chomsky Worship" is all in your head

yall are just jealous ;->

peace

[Room101]

153. Zuni - You just got ignored

For you to compare Chomsky to the likes of Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity is beyond what I can tolerate. You have yet to give a quote or source to back your claims. I will file this under someone reading something on Chomsky without actually fact checking Chomsky’s actually work. You should have your facts and sources ready before throwing accusations, what do you think this is FREE Republic?

[alarcojon]

34. We're not reading the same work!

Chomsky has been very critical of just about every government. Naturally, he writes most extensively about the U.S., both because he lives here and because we are the most powerful and influential state in the world.

Like some others here, I just don't find your arguments very convincing. I'm not doubting your credentials or your sincerity, and I know you probably don't have the time right now to back up your so far weakly substantiated arguments. I hope that at some later date, you give us more to go on.

Nobody is an unimpeachable source, but none of us has the time to fact-check everything that is out there. When we find someone whose overall analysis makes sense to us, we tend to give their work more credibility than the work of others. Chomsky' work has always been high on the credibility list for me. But like I say, If you have some substance to back up your arguments, I am interested in checking it out.

B-)

[lancemurdoch]

76. US policy

First of all, Chomsky's work was banned in the USSR, and I don't think it was because he ignored what they did wrong in foreign policy. In fact, his work was more devastating within the USSR than normal American propaganda - US criticism meant for domestic consumption that said the USSR was after US territory, was promoting atheism and was against capitalism could be safely read by the Russian public. But Chomsky attacked them from the left, which was more dangerous to them.

Besides that, Chomsky said he has little effect on Russian, or whatever, foreign policy, but being in the US, currently the most powerful military force in the world, with military in over half of the earth's countries, which is a democratic republic, he CAN have an effect on foreign policy, which is why he spends his time criticizing it instead of being another American commissar, giving the administration line, and attacking official enemies (e.g. great guys in the 1980's - Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Bad guys, the worst in 2000's - OBL and Hussein). In fact Chomsky was criticizing Hussein and Bin Laden's group back into the 1980's and, like you, people called him anti-American for it.

[rman]

143. no point in guessing

"his theory seems to be"..

Chomsky does lay out his theories quite clearly.

[Zuni]

16. I agree with you

He basically finds fault with America's policy, without explaining alternatives or giving the whole story.

And I KNOW you are very well read and could probably debate anyone in here on History.

[YNGW]

24. His alternative...

... is anarchy, which I personally believe is unattainable. If the whole word were "anarchy as a way of life", mankind is heirarchial in nature. Sooner or later someone, because of leadership traits or other talents, would take on a more prominent role within the "collective", and the whole heirarchy thing would start all over again.

[Cat Atomic]

55. But that's not what anarchy is about.

It's about the dispersal power away from a single, potentially abusive center. It's not about everybody running around, stealing furniture and electronics. :P

[SahaleArm]

127. Anarchy is an absence of governement.

And all that it would entail - Freedom with no laws and no responsibility.

The Law of the Jungle.

[Selwynn]

133. You are 100% dead wrong in your definition

Ararchy as a political movement has nothing to do with the statements you just made.

You should read some Emma Goldman, for example, to get a better understanding of the fact that arachism as a proposed political and social alternative, has very little if anything in common with the common angst-filled teenager understanding of the term as chaos and destruction.

Unrealistic? Perhaps. But nothing like you describe. A least ararchism in terms of political theory has no resembleance to what you said.

From "Anarchism and Other Essays" by Emma Goldman


Anarchism cannot but repudiate such a method of production: its goal is the freest possible expression of all the latent powers of the individual. Oscar Wilde defines a perfect personality as "one who develops under perfect conditions, who is not wounded, maimed, or in danger." A perfect personality, then, is only possible in a state of society where man is free to choose the mode of work, the conditions of work, and the freedom to work. One to whom the making of a table, the building of a house, or the tilling of the soil, is what the painting is to the artist and the discovery to the scientist,--the result of inspiration, of intense longing, and deep interest in work as a creative force. That being the ideal of Anarchism, its economic arrangements must consist of voluntary productive and distributive associations, gradually developing into free communism, as the best means of producing with the least waste of human energy. Anarchism, however, also recognizes the right of the individual, or numbers of individuals, to arrange at all times for other forms of work, in harmony with their tastes and desires.

Such free display of human energy being possible only under complete individual and social freedom, Anarchism directs its forces against the third and greatest foe of all social equality; namely, the State, organized authority, or statutory law,--the dominion of human conduct.



"Anarchism does not mean bloodshed; it does not mean robbery, arson, etc. These monstrosities are, on the contrary, the characteristic features of capitalism. Anarchism means peace and tranquility to all."
--August Spies

[lancemurdoch]

159. Like on the Pacific Islands?

It's amazing how people living on Pacific islands have no government, no laws yet manage to exist nicely. Not at the economic level of the average American perhaps, but with many benefits lacked by most Americans - no crime, strong communities, no prisons, lack of rapists and a lot of other oddballs. In many ways capitalism and government generate these problems - as capitalist states obviously have these problems while other places don't.

The US locks up more of it's population than any other country on the world - yet people still feel unsafe, women don't walk around at night (my grandmother used to walk around New York City in the middle of the night feeling perfectly safe). Michael Moore showed in his movie how Canadians don't even lock their doors. The US has tons of prisons, sends more black men to prison than college, has laws more draconian than other industrialized countries, yet it still has a massive crime problem.

It's clear to me that more and more and more prisons hasn't solved anything. They're not a solution to a problem, they're a way of trying to contain a problem generated by another source.

[blindpig]

39. pot & kettle

chomsky just holds the US gov to the standards which it preaches. History, read it and weep.

[IrateCitizen]

43. He's said the alternative on numerous occasions...

And it's quite simple. The overarching rule of US foreign policy, if you apply to the US the standards it likes to apply to others, should be, "First, do no harm."

Now, we can debate whether or not certain policies will cause harm or not after that has been adopted until the cows come home. But it has been clear that the overarching goal of US foreign policy -- upon which Chomsky is dead-on, IMHO -- is the projection of US power, both militarily and economically. It has NOTHING to do with the grand ideals laid out in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. It is about POWER, plain and simple.

In this case, the US is really no different than the other empires who have come before it.

[Chomskyite]

78. He proposes many many solutions

. . . beginning with the public taking an active role in making its views about the government's and about corporations' actions known in public nonviolent demonstrations.

He also argues that the government and that corporations make their decision-making proceedings public, their records public and that they deal in an honest way with other interested parties, whether they be states or non-states or individuals.

You reallly haven't read ANY Chomsky have you? Be honest.

Can you even name a single title of a single book for us so we won't dismiss you as a moron based on your inarticulacy and lack of command over the facts alone?

[bpilgrim]

118. muboto you're back

and still calling folks who speak truth to power anti-american - whatever the fuck that means - how PREDICTABLE.

wonder what would be the total if we added up all your post?

APOLOGIST for the STATUS QUO

:hi:

peace

[Room101]

151. mobuto- You are lacking logic and don't understand that.

They are two different animals, one being the state power and the other being the country. If a dissent in Canada criticizes the prime minister would he be called anti- Canadian? It is a great accomplishment of indoctrination that people don’t know the difference.

[vi5]

14. My problem with Chomsky was when he got too political...

I know that sounds odd. But his work in linguistics and semiotics is invaluable and just some amazingly solid work. In that arena he is brilliant. And as such he could be and is a phenomenal media critic through his understanding of words and signs and language and how they are used. I can't think of anything more accurate in this day and age than the concept of "manufacturing consent".

However when he talks about more specific political issues I don't see where he has any more qualificiations to expound on them in print than anyone else.

Not that it means he shouldn't be able to write books and speak. It's just the weight that he's given in one area because of his skills in a completely different area that I tend to find suspect.

[Zuni]

18. His linguistics work is far more

important overall than his political work. Not only that, it is truly revolutionary. He is a giant in that field.

[depakid]

138. Maybe you should have said THE Giant

his work literrally changed everthing and had repurcussions throughout developmental pyschology to anthropolgy.

[toddzilla]

19. What makes anyone "qualified"?

I always take offense at these types of statements. Who determines one to be an "expert" or "qualified" to discuss certain issues? Is it a college degree? is it experience in the field? both?


What makes one qualified is a wide range of things, most importantly the ability to absorb facts and process them without interference by dogmatic or traditional theories, but by one's own critical thinking skills, and the inherent moral compass that we are all born with.

In a nutshell, what's right, what's wrong, and how to figure it out given the information provided.

[Zuni]

22. Chomsky

is very dogmatic in my opinion. He has the verdict before he looks at the evidence

[creativelcro]

23. could not agree more on that... he should stick to linguistics

[Iverson]

31. everyone go back home

I don't make my living in politics, so by the same reasoning, I should stick to what I do professionally.
Same with you if you're not in politics for a living.

I guess DU is about to be disbanded. No political writing allowed now outside of professional work.

:eyes:

[Booberdawg]

26. This might be a good thread to link this post from the Lounge

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=552359

[Cocoa]

27. I find his analysis valuable

as part of a balanced diet. I don't take his word as gospel, and he very specifically instructs his audience not to do that.

One thing you won't see from Chomsky is the kind of broad attack that you are leveling against him.

[toddzilla]

33. rarely will you hear anyone say more often "check it out for yourself"

eom

[dfgrbac]

40. Chomsky is the most renowned expert on media distortion.

Where do you check sources to discredit Chomsky? If you are looking at the mass American media, you will find exactly what Chomsky has been discrediting for bias. The American media is owned by a few huge corporations that tell us only what they want us to know - about the foreign affairs of our Corporate Military empire. Americans need to come to the realization that our government is bought and paid for by corporate America. We, the people, have no say in what goes on any longer.

Noem Chomsky didn't start his study of the media because he wanted to. He saw cases of news distortion, and decided to check it out. As he saw more and more what was going on here, it became more of an obsession to document it as well as he could for the rest of us.

[KittyWampus]

41. Because Despite His Verbosity He Essentially Simplifies Things

down to black versus white... which appeals to some on the Left in the same manner that Junior's Us versus the Evil Muslims appeals to some on the Right.

And who needs Consistentcy or Intellectual Honesty when you can produce a framework on which to hang your preconceptions and which appeals to others self loathing.

Plus, I think there are people who never really grow out of the "questioning authority" stage children go through around age 2. Yes, you should question authority but not always ultimately reject it.

[Cocoa]

42. I "grew up" for a while

then I realized how stupid it was, I'm now back in my adolescent questioning authority "phase."

Kucinich is right, Koppel is the fool for saying we have to stay in Iraq, and Brokaw is the fool for saying peace with North Korea is impossible.

[cryofan]

49. good point...and personally he made me feel like I was not crazy

I first read and rejected Chomsky ideas in the late 80s. THen I started to get really interested in the media, and even wrote TV news scripts for the local CBS affiliate for a while.

When the internet came along, I was able to greatly extend my reading range, and of course my interest in the media continued. Gradually, over the last few years, I have come to the conclusion that the major news media is programmed and structured to perpetuate power as it currently exists, i.e,. to maintain the status quo, and to even encourage America to be run in a method that follows the standard business management philosophy found in most MBA classes, i.e., to consistently improve profits. This philosophy may be what is behind our consistently deteriorating quality of life here in America.

I began to feel as if I were having some sort of paranoid delusions. Why was it that no one else around me even noticed these things? Then, I came back to Chomsky and looked at his ideas. And of course by that time my ideas had pretty much converged with his.

[arendt]

44. As a linguist, his analysis of media is dead on...

He long since attracted a well-paid contingent
of right-wing sponsored haters who put his every
statement threw a microscopic analysis.

Chomsky being smarter than they, rebuts their
microscopic analysis, point by point.

Then they selectively quote the rebuttal and
he winds up sounding like a screaming lunatic.

Great tactic, all it takes is lots of money.

Chomsky has been fighting the right wing for forty
years, mostly single-handed. He doesn't get a TV
show, a newspaper column, or any publicity. He
lives on his professor's salary and his writing
and speaking income.

You want to call him "anti-American" and "deceptive",
well excuse me, but then what words do you keep for
the GOP?

The man is an avowed anarchist and you expect him
to be nice to the gang of crooks and militarists
in DC?

Get real, and stop with the Italian elections of 48
crap. The OSS (pre-CIA) was heavily funding the
anti-Communists (there was a Civil War going on
next door in Greece at the same time). You want to
pretend that the Italian conservatives were "clean"?
The Italian conservatives and their P2 Masonic Lodge
bombers? AFAIK, the Italian Communists actually got
to hold political office in Italy, like Mayor of
Naples. And they didn't wreck the place any more
than 50 national governments in 40 years did.

You're outrage feels contrived.

arendt

[buddhamama]

45. Hogwash

Chomsky is not unimpeachable here.

here's a fact:
facts are subjective.

he, like you, is going to interpret events,etc., that fit with his point of view and present them that way.

i've read Chomsky and, he overall he gets it right. He asks his readers to verify for themselves what he has stated as 'fact' and determine for themselves if he is correct. hardly seems the likely attitude for a man who is lying.

[tinnypriv]

46. Why don't you take it up with him?

If he's wrong about something, I'm sure he'd appreciate you pointing it out.

[durutti]

103. Yup

He'll actually answer your emails.

[youngred]

47. Oh you're back on the Chomsky hating line again?

goodie!

[many a good man]

51. To understand Chomsky you have to have read a lot of Chomsky

Starting with Manufacturing Consent. As a mainly academic writer he posits his theses and adds supporting information. Everything is intended to fit within the framework.

This is both a blessing and a curse. Look at his premises and the information he uses to support them. He has made incredibly strong arguments in support of an interpretation of American policies that lie far outside the mainstream of conventional thought. He interprets all events to fit within his overarching thesis.

IMO his overarching interpretation is strongly supported by the evidence, but I find certain details are made to "fit" where I think maybe a different explanation would be more accurate. When he writes of recent events, you and I can probably point to mitigating factors that are more influential in the immediate time frame. However, when seen as part of a longer term pattern his interpretation is usually justified.

Chomsky is not a pop historian or pundit. He writes like a good academic historian should. If you want to argue with him you have your work cut out for yourself. You have to pore through his notes, read the existing literature on each point, and make your argument against his. Do this on each one of his points and show how his interpretation is flawed. If you're right, he'll agree and change. If you're wrong, he'll argue his point against yours.

"Fact checking" does not really apply to Chomsky in the same way it would to someone like Rush Limbaugh. Usually there is a whole set of "literature" in academia about an event or an era. Historians take sides and build on (or destroy) the works of others. There is no "right" or "wrong" in history. Its all a battle of interpretation. The strength of the evidence and arguments may eventually discredit one interpretation where it is eventually considered "false" by all except the most ideological. I don't think that has happened yet to Chomsky, except maybe in some specific isolated instances.

[littlejoe]

53. Why do you think it is important to understand Chomsky?

[Sterling]

59. I think maybe you are upset because so many think so highly of him?

:eyes:

[littlejoe]

65. What makes you think I'm upset? I could care less about Chomsky.

He can take the horse he rode in on and go to Hell for all I care.

[littlejoe]

52. Good question. Personnaly I don't care for people with puffed up

opinions of themselves.

[Cat Atomic]

56. Whoever said Chomsky was an unimpeachable source?

I've read a fair amount of his work, and I've never found him to misrepresent facts. I disagree with his conclusions at times, but generally I think he's pretty accurate.

At any rate- his is only an interpretation. People can draw different conclusions from the same facts without either of them being wrong.

[jpgray]

57. Here's a fresh example of a Chomsky goof

On Charlie Rose I remember him stating that Bush declared at the Azores that they would invade even if Saddam stepped down, etc. Well, I didn't recall that, so I went back and read the transcripts--nothing. He is also over-generalizing when he says that Democrats are wholly owned by business. Explain Dennis Kucinich, explain Wellstone, etc.

I do agree with much of his statements about how popular opinion can be used as a powerful political tool or shunted away when it is inconvenient. Like anyone else, some topics he has dead right, others he can exaggerate or over-simplify.

[thebigidea]

60. no, they definetely did say that

Let me dig it up, but I recall being incredibly pissed at Bush - "war is the last option" my ass!

[Cocoa]

62. I remember that too

I don't know if it was at the Azores, but I am under the distinct impression that exile for Saddam Hussein was at one time proposed by someone and that Bush ruled it out without a good reason.

[jpgray]

64. Maybe he had the location wrong?

Because I read the (very brief) transcript of the press conference, and the only substantive statements I saw were "Saddam can choose to avoid war by leaving the country" etc. etc.

[Cocoa]

82. looks like you're right

his ultimatum was leave the country or face war.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.int.main/

Chomsky may have actually smeared Bush.

[jpgray]

85. Hey, he may have made a mistake

And I'm still looking for a similar comment at another locale.

But Chomsky is not above making mistakes, whether he makes them on purpose or not--nobody is.

[cryofan]

88. He is NOT right--on 3-18 Fleischer said Bush would invade anyway

see my URLs in a post near the bottom.

Chomsky is God....well, good enough, anyway....

[jpgray]

91. Your lack of critical thinking would appall Chomsky

Chomsky's claim--Bush and Blair, at the Azores summit
Your link--Ari Fleischer, not at the Azores summit.

Admit it, he made a mistake. I don't see what wholesale hero-worship that is blind to faults gains by being focused on a leftist personality--it's just as bad as hero worship based on the right.

[Cocoa]

109. thanks

that makes me think that Chomsky was right, that the public statements that suggested Saddam could avoid war by leaving the country were lies. That if Saddam had left the country, we would invade, just not call it invading, call it WMD hunting.

But he did say that the Bush-Blair resolution "explicitly" provided for this loophole, if that's not true then I'd say Chomsky was making shit up.

[jpgray]

63. Great! Show me the quote when you get it

I couldn't find it, and my memory was hazy. But it's a great point to use then in the Saddam capture climate to show the war was supposedly about WMDs and not at all about Saddam Hussein, since we would go in anyway.

[bpilgrim]

79. "exaggerate or over-simplify" - good charecterazation of his distractors

here thats fer sure.

he is a highly regard world renowned scholar NOT a fox news commentator, hello...

i notice how all yall sober critics have plenty of one liners but hardly ever any links.

let me know when one of yall actually write your own sourced paper on how chomsky tends to "exaggerate or over-simplify" and then we'll have something to actually debate.

:hi:

peace

[jpgray]

80. Calm down, friend. I have no axe to grind with Chomsky or anyone else

But it is a hallmark of all political writing to exaggerate and oversimplify. I gave two examples. So far people have crowed about them, but can't produce anything to disprove it. Read the transcript of the Azores summit and then watch his comment on Charlie Rose. What he says about Democrats being "all beholden to business" is false. Not all Democrats are that way--it is an oversimplification.

[bpilgrim]

86. look... fox news 'OVERSIMPLIFIES and EXAGERATES'

chomsky writes well reasoned, researched books on america politics/foreign policy and would argue he comes closer, than most of his peers, to the truth.

i find it tedious to come to the DU during these dark times and see folks, who CONSISTANLY speak TRUTH to POWER getting attacked and SPUN,

i would agree that no writer is totally objective but i will argue that this scholar is being unfairly charecterized by your - and others on this thread - SIMPLISTIC charecterization of his work.

to not admit to the fact that our country has been and is run, for the most part and all pracitcle concerns for the benifit of corporations are only kidding themselves.


sure... it ain't %100 but it is still TAKEN



peace

[jpgray]

90. I don't argue that, but I argue Chomsky is fallible and makes mistakes

He also has an agenda, which will inevitably color his writing. He is not objective--nobody is. Is he better than Fox News? You bet. Is he perfect? No.

[bpilgrim]

104. hello...

that was my point AND there go one of those LOADED words 'agenda'

fine to use when describing corp media but a lazy OVERSIMPLIFICATION when it comes to one of our greatest scholars on american foreign policy EVER.

degrees... many degrees seperate what he does between what MOST other 'analyst' working today.

later

peace

[jpgray]

105. Political writing without an agenda--wholly objective--doesn't exist

I can't say it more clear than that.

[bpilgrim]

111. ding-ding-ding

peace

[jpgray]

83. Well, I found the transcript again--the only relevant part I could find:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/side/1821060

QUESTION: ... regardless of whether the resolution goes up or down, or gets withdrawn, it seems to me you're going to be facing a moment of truth.

Given that you've already said you don't think there's very much chance Saddam Hussein is going to disarm, and given that you say you don't think there's very much chance that he's going to go into exile, aren't we going to war here?

BUSH: Tomorrow is the day that we will determine whether or not diplomacy can work.

And we sat and visited about this issue, about how best to spend our time between now and tomorrow. And as Prime Minister Blair said, we'll be working the phones, talking to our partners, talking to those who may not clearly understand the objective. And we'll see how it goes tomorrow.

Saddam Hussein can leave the country, if he's interested in peace. You see, the decision is his to make. It's been his to make all along, as to whether or not there's the use of military. He got to decide whether he's going to disarm, and he didn't. He can decide whether he wants to leave the country. These are his decisions to make. And thus far he has made bad decisions.

Frankly, I don't see where anyone says they will invade regardless of whether or not Saddam leaves the country/steps down. Chomsky claimed that Bush and Blair stated at the Azores even if Saddam and his family leave the country, we're going to invade anyway. Please point out to me where they say that. I still may have missed it, and I would appreciate knowing whether or not the statement exists because it would be valuable to use against Bush.

[Chomskyite]

I have the Charlie Rose interview on mp3

Chomsky never says the word Azores once.

But thanks for trying and enjoy your Rice-a-roni and the home edition of the game.

Bye bye.

[jpgray]

101. So do I, and yes he does

His exact words are:

At the Azores summit, coupla days before the invasion started, uh, Bush and Blair were there and they issued a declaration in which Bush "even if Saddam Hussein and his family leave the country, we're gonna invade anyway" and that's consistent with a long-standing US policy.

edit: make the transcription more exact.

[lancemurdoch]

58. Fact check him like you do?

Chomsky always cites many examples of what he is saying. You say he is deceptive, and then say you "fact check" him. If Chomsky had written what you are saying, he would have given multiple examples. You give none, you make an accusation, and leave it at that. You say he cites obscure incidents, but you cite no incidents. I think you yourself make a perfct counterpose to Chomsky - you throw mud at him with no evidence, while he when looking at something usually gives a rigorous logical examination, and then gives numerous examples. Your own post, and the difference from how Chomsky makes arguments, is proof of why Chomsky is so great.

[MrPrax]

61. Just when GD was getting better...then this

This is dishonest crap...probably trolling.

You ask a question, but you NEVER answer it any specific examples from either his books or articles or anything...

In fact this 'highly deceptive'?
Here goes:
He misrepresents events? Which
uses loaded terms to create labels? where
cites obscure incidents so no one questions his accounts? who

This is 'cold reading' and why should the people on the forum do your work for you...

Why doesn't anyone fact check him like I do? for instance...yer as phoney as a three dollar bill

[KG]

70. i worship chomsky like a god that can do no wrong!

:P

[Chomskyite]

72. Would you care to give us actual cases in which he is lying . . .

. . . or are you content to talk in generalities and thereby render your point automatically suspect?

Of course the first tip-off that you have no idea what you're talking about comes when you say Chomsky is a source for anything. He is an interpreter, not a source. Journalists are sources. Witnesses are sources. Chomsky is an analyst and commentator.

[jpgray]

73. The Azores comment above is a good example

If George Bush said "we will still invade if Saddam leaves/steps down" he did not say it at the Azores--I've read through the transcript.

[cryofan]

84. on 3-18-03 Ari Fleischer said that Bush would invade anyway

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:_H82rQJZY_YJ:www.counterpunch.org/grossman03212003.html+Bush+invade+%22even+if+Saddam%22+exile&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:28jev1Es1fcJ:www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/18/iraq/main544517.shtml+Bush+invade+%22even+if+Saddam%22+exile&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[jpgray]

87. Is Ari Fleischer George Bush or Tony Blair, and was he at the Azores?

Please don't obfuscate this--I'm glad Chomsky may have only made a mistake about the location and speaker, but he still made a factual goof. That's all I ever claimed in the beginning.

Chomsky--Bush and Blair at the Azores.

Fact--Ari Flesicher not at the Azores.

We could also argue about whether "peaceful entrance" and "invasion" are the same thing, but I don't think it's worth it--certainly the "reconstruction" would have turned out similar, even if the military conflict may have been less violent.

[cryofan]

92. Oh, puhleeze...is quibbling all you have??

The issue was whether Bush was after war and not a peaceful resolution, and obviously Ari Fleischer WAS Bush's mouthpiece--that WAS his JOB.....

This kind of intellectual bankruptcy is not doubt a common aspect of anti-Chomskyans.....I hope those who have not already made up their minds about Chomsky can see through this kind of obfuscatory quibbling.

Chomsky's main thesis is that the govt and the media and corporations operate closely in a symbiotic relationship in order to maintain the status quo and keep power in the hands of those who now have it. He gives volumes of citations and no doubt in the occassional interview he makes minor mistakes, such as whether Bush said at the Azores that America would invade even if Saddam went into exile, or whether his spokesman Ari Fleischer said it, which he plainly did, and was reported in the major media as I showed above...



QED

[jpgray]

99. No, the issue was "is Chomsky right on the facts"

We aren't debating Chomsky's thesis, or Ari Fleischer's role. The question was "does Chomsky sometimes goof on the facts?" Here demonstrably is a case where he did. Tie yourself in as many knots as you like trying to explain it away, but the fact remains--he was wrong about where and how the comment was made. The man made a mistake, period.

It's not a big deal, and that makes your denial all the more ridiculous.

[Chomskyite]

147. NO

The issue was Is Chomsky a liar. All you have is a purported transposition of something we know Ari Fleaisher said onto the Azores setting.

Chomsky never said it, number one. Number two, it's ONE case that has nothing to do with what that idiot zuni said in his original post.

What's next?

[jpgray]

152. I don't think Chomsky is a liar, I think he misplaced the comment

I posted his exact words above, under your previous reply. Here's the mp3 I have (hope it's okay to post this, Wonk):

http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/wonk/PBS/CharlieRose.NoamChomsky.mp3

He clearly says, after Charlie Rose half-interrupts him while he is talking about how we didn't care about removing Saddam, "At the Azores summit... Bush and Blair" made it explicitly clear that if Saddam left we would still invade. About that he is wrong--Bush and Blair didn't say we would invade regardless of whether or not Saddam went into exile. They didn't put that in their statement, and they didn't say it in the press conference. The links are here and you are free to view the transcripts for yourself.

Now Chomsky is correct on his general point--we didn't care if Saddam was there or not, we were going in. I'm not out to get Chomsky--the evidence shows he was right in general, but he misplaced some specifics. This doesn't mean he was a liar, nor would I use this data to show that. I'm not trying to uphold Zuni's post, but people said "are there any examples of where Chomsky got a fact wrong?" Here is such an example. All I'm trying to say is this--he misplaced the comment. End of story. Not the end of the world.

Peace?

:hi:

[Cocoa]

95. then again, Chomsky referred to a "resolution"

I can't find the text of this, but I think it's very possible it doesn't quite match the public statements.

However, I can't find it. But that comment by Ari does make it look like there might have been language allowing for that technicality.

[jpgray]

100. I'll look for it

If it makes that claim, no one will be happier than I--the witchtrial can end. :)

[jpgray]

112. Got it

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/18/iraq/main544517.shtml

Text: Azores summit statement
Statement issued by US President George W. Bush, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at their summit meeting in the Azores, 16 March 2003.

A vision for the Iraqi people

Iraq's talented people, rich culture, and tremendous potential have been hijacked by Saddam Hussein.

His brutal regime has reduced a country with a long and proud history to an international pariah that oppresses its citizens, started two wars of aggression against its neighbours, and still poses a grave threat to the security of its region and the world.

Saddam's defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding the disarmament of his nuclear, chemical, biological, and long-range missile capacity has led to sanctions on Iraq and has undermined the authority of the UN.

Liberation

For 12 years, the international community has tried to persuade him to disarm and thereby avoid military conflict, most recently through the unanimous adoption of UNSCR i1441.

The responsibility is his. If Saddam refuses even now to cooperate fully with the United Nations, he brings on himself the serious consequences foreseen in UNSCR 1441 and previous resolutions.

In these circumstances, we would undertake a solemn obligation to help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbours. The Iraqi people deserve to be lifted from insecurity and tyranny, and freed to determine for themselves the future of their country.

We envisage a unified Iraq with its territorial integrity respected. All the Iraqi people - its rich mix of Sunni and Shiite Arabs, Kurds, Turkomen, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and all others - should enjoy freedom, prosperity, and equality in a united country. We will support the Iraqi people's aspirations for a representative government that upholds human rights and the rule of law as cornerstones of democracy.

Oil and terror

We will work to prevent and repair damage by Saddam Hussein's regime to the natural resources of Iraq and pledge to protect them as a national asset of and for the Iraqi people.

All Iraqis should share the wealth generated by their national economy. We will seek a swift end to international sanctions, and support an international reconstruction program to help Iraq achieve real prosperity and reintegrate into the global community.

We will fight terrorism in all its forms. Iraq must never again be a haven for terrorists of any kind.

Commitment

In achieving this vision, we plan to work in close partnership with international institutions, including the United Nations; our Allies and partners; and bilateral donors. If conflict occurs, we plan to seek the adoption, on an urgent basis, of new United Nations Security Council resolutions that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq.

We will also propose that the Secretary General be given authority, on an interim basis, to ensure that the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people continue to be met through the Oil for Food programme.

Any military presence, should it be necessary, will be temporary and intended to promote security and elimination of weapons of mass destruction; the delivery of humanitarian aid; and the conditions for the reconstruction of Iraq.

Our commitment to support the people of Iraq will be for the long term. We call upon the international community to join with us in helping to realise a better future for the Iraqi people.


I only scanned this, because I am going to bed. I didn't see a statement "if Saddam and his family leave, we invade anyway". The only goal here of mine is to investigate whether or not Chomsky made a factual goof about Bush and Blair making that statement at the Azores. I don't care what Chomsky's opnions are when I am looking for factual inaccuracy, I just look for factual inaccuracy. If you can't see that saying "Bush and Blair at the Azores" is different from "Ari Fleischer not at the Azores" then congratulations--you win the most ironic Chomskyite award. You are one who doesn't critically examine the person who tells you to critically examine everything. I'm sure that's the hardly the type of fan he would want to have for himself.

I agree with Chomsky on many things, such as his curiosity about the allowance of helicopter flights in post Gulf War I Iraq. This comes from thinking critically. The Republicans who believe immediately that it was a "mistake" because they blindly believed in their leaders cannot be ridiculed if we blindly believe in our own leaders.

edit: forgot the link--didn't want to be taken to task for it again. :)

[Cocoa]

119. thanks

there's no excuse, imo, for that kind of sloppiness. He very clearly said that the Bush-Blair resolution "explicitly" said they would invade no matter what.

Even if Ari's statement justifies his larger point, which I think it does, he has to get his facts straight. Otherwise, it's impossible for people to do what he says, to look it up themselves. He should have said it was Ari that said it.

[jpgray]

121. Yes, but if he got his places and players mixed up on TV , I understand

As someone mentioned above, it was a TV performance, not a thoroughly fact-checked published book. Everyone is allowed a few goofs from time to time, and it is very reassuring that his main point is correct--the Bush administration would have moved the troops in no matter what Saddam did in regards to exile. But when the idea that Chomsky doesn't make mistakes on the facts persists in a thread after an example is in evidence, I tend to fight it.

So sorry if I dragged anyone out for an argument they didn't really want to go on. I plan to post something in GD that was, to me at least, the most productive part of this thread--that the Bush administration wasn't interested in war only to remove Saddam, they were to have soldiers in the country no matter what happened.

And then I really am going to bed.

:)

[bpilgrim]

89. of chomsky speaking on the idiot box

one of his RARE appearances.

but the media has been innundated by americans who want to hear more than they hate us for our freedoms.

when yall come up with a pattern of deceptions of his conclusions from his writings let me know cause then i will certainly be interested.

but the LAME examples i ALWAYS see whenever someone tries to demonstrate who chomsky is WRONG are telling in their minority considering his body of work.

can't say the same bout the 'conventional wisdom' fools out there today who even today think we are on the right track and can't understand the deep anger out there with the policies of our nation and bush is the unifying principal straw that is breaking the rabbles back. - 1 good thing ;->

sorry... i'm just gruchy tonight, too much bad news.

nothing personal :hi:

peace

[Blue_Chill]

77. Zuni this is a great thread and you have proven your point well

You chose a powerful target and made your case. Well done.

[Chomskyite]

96. With no quotes

no references and no evidence.

Boy, you're an easy sell. Need a vaccum? Need some encyclopedias?

Need an invasion of Iraq to stop Saddam from hitting us with a nuke?

[bpilgrim]

117. lol

peace

[Blue_Chill]

122. Funny

But the content of Chomsky's writing was presented and shown to be false. Are you saying that Chomsky did not for example fail to mention Italy communist party was backed by Moscow, while mentioning that the US backed the Christian Democrats? No you aren't, what you are doing is trying to win a debate by demanding things in hopes they won't be provided. If that's what you have been reduced to....well it just proves my point.

[Chomskyite]

146. I dont have access to a library,

. . . but correct me if I'm wrong. If we do wrong toward a party backed by Moscow, isn't it still wrong?

Wasn't the My Lai massacre wrong? Weren't the atrocities committed by Reagan's contras against the civilians of Nicaragua wrong?

Am I missing something here?

[Room101]

158. LOL- I need a Vaccum

:)

[tkmorris]

106. Man I hope that is sarcasm

In fact he completely failed to make any case whatsoever. He made a series of claims without any evidence of any kind. When he was called on that, he simply refused to offer any evidence and made more undocumented claims.

This is proving a point to you? BC I KNOW you're a centrist and don't care much for Chomsky but you have always struck me as fairly level-headed. Misguided in my humble opinion, but even-handed at least.

This whole post was nothing but an unwarranted smear campaign.

[Blue_Chill]

123. unwarranted smear campaign?

I don't think so, I am glad to see that some on the left do speak out against this hack. I haven't read much of his works, because I can't stand the Coulter like bias, but I have noticed some of his claims fail to stand up to even simple scutiny.

This is my opinion, I know that we favor those we agree with but seriously Chomsky strikes hard at the US while going so easy on Moscow that I can't trust the guy. He obviously is extremely bias and it shows in his work.

[tkmorris]

125. See now you are doing the same thing

"Coulter like bias"? OK, fine. The trouble is if you expect such a statement to be taken seriously you have to back it up with something. Otherwise it's just so many pixels arranged in an interesting way. Here, let me try.

"Jimmy Hoffa is alive and well and runs a donut shop in Miami."

"In July of 2001 Time magazine was scheduled to run an article examining the possibility of airplanes being used in a large scale terrorist attack in the United States but they pulled the article before publication at the request of Dick Cheney."

"McDonalds french fries do not actually contain beef tallow, it is in fact human fat bought wholesale from liposuction clinics."

Man this is fun. But it doesn't mean a thing without evidence which, sadly, I no longer have. I lost it during the alien abduction I underwent last summer. :evilgrin:

[Blue_Chill]

128. I see your point

but what you fail to notice is that the chomsky nuts here aren't disputing his claim about the DC and the communists in Russia. He didn't just pull it out of his ass.

What you are doing is attacking the build instead of the content. If his content is false then say so.

[tkmorris]

140. Well ok

I'm not really failing to notice that, the trouble is he hasn't actually documented the claim in any way. He is making a statement without offering any basis for it, then claiming to be right because no one disproves it.

Frankly that is the reason why I haven't bothered to seek evidence to disprove his claims. He makes them while offering nothing by way of proof himself, merely declaring that he is at work and cannot access documentation and, oh by the way, he doesn't have any Chomsky works at home either.

One has to wonder just why he bothers. He has no Chomsky immediately at hand, none at home, none anywhere. He offers merely his vague impressions, backed by nothing but memory. Given all of this it seems clear this is intended to be nothing more than an attempt to discredit a leftist without basis. Sorry BC, that's just how I see it.

[Room101]

155. Blue_Chill - You are ignored

To compare Chomsky to coulter is more than I can tolerate.

[Blue_Chill]

157. BEFOREATHOUGHT - thanks for letting me know

:eyes:

[Terwilliger]

94. Hmmm...because he's got credentials?

do you have any?

Do you have something specific you can challenge him on, or just this blanket assertion of what you say?

[Octafish]

98. Me too. Why's he hate JFK?

I always found it odd that supersemioticfrajalisticmetamememeisterdocious Chomsky always says JFK was a Cold Warrior in the tradition of Truman and Eisenhower (and "in context" Nixon and Reagan), disregarding the evidence:

1. JFK negotiated Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
2. JFK avoided nuclear war during Cuban Missiles Crisis.
3. JFK ordered all US troops out of Vietnam by 1965.

Worst of all, old mealy-mouth Chomsky sides with J Edgar Hoover in regards to the JFK assassination.

[Room101]

156. Octafish- Kennedy-authorized Operation Mongoose

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1024-06.htm

Kennedy implemented a crushing embargo that could scarcely be endured by a small country that had become a "virtual colony" of the US in the sixty years following its "liberation" from Spain. He also ordered an intensification of the terrorist campaign: "He asked his brother, Attorney-General Robert Kennedy, to lead the top-level interagency group that oversaw Operation Mongoose, a program of paramilitary operations, economic warfare, and sabotage he launched in late 1961 to visit the 'terrors of the earth' on Fidel Castro and, more prosaically, to topple him."

The terrorist campaign was "no laughing matter," Jorge Dominguez writes in a review of recently declassified materials on operations under Kennedy, materials that are "heavily sanitized" and "only the tip of the iceberg," Piero Gleijeses adds.

Operation Mongoose was "the centerpiece of American policy toward Cuba from late 1961 until the onset of the 1962 missile crisis," Mark White reports, the program on which the Kennedy brothers "came to pin their hopes." Robert Kennedy informed the CIA that the Cuban problem carries "the top priority in the United States Government -- all else is secondary -- no time, no effort, or manpower is to be spared" in the effort to overthrow the Castro regime. The chief of Mongoose operations, Edward Lansdale, provided a timetable leading to "open revolt and overthrow of the Communist regime" in October 1962. The "final definition" of the program recognized that "final success will require decisive U.S. military intervention," after terrorism and subversion had laid the basis. The implication is that US military intervention would take place in October 1962 -- when the missile crisis erupted.

[durutti]

102. No source is unimpeachable.

But Chomsky is considerably more reliable than most, and willing to admit his mistakes.

[Tinoire]

107. Why are Clark supporters so eager to discredit Chomsky?

Why are Clark supporters so eager to discredit Chomsky?
Must be the way he exposes the war against Yugoslavia which was step one of the PNAC plan. Give it up- ain't gonna happen. Chomsky's reputation is solidly established and these attempts to smear him only make people look desperate and foolish.

[Darranar]

120. How was the bombing of Serbia Step One of the PNAC plan?

Please expand on that.

[bpilgrim]

126. i would say that it was just another step forward in our imperial agenda

NATIONAL SECURITY STATE/EARTH CHARTER

The national security state, of course, is the system of institutions that this nation built up to help it win the cold war: the Pentagon, the CIA, the National Security Council led by the National Security Advisor, the National Security Agency, and many others. Ultimately, it can only be understood historically, and I don't think I was asked here to give a history lecture either. In my own attempt to understand where this all came from, I did finally write an essay called the "The Origins of the National Security State in the 1920s," which will be published in a few months in Prism, the publication of PLU's Division of Humanities. To summarize briefly, I think that even though it was only in the years during which that boy I mentioned earlier was breathing his first breaths and taking his first steps that the national security state emerged in all its power, the basic tilt in our society that led to its creation took place in the 1920s, and this tilt was the culmination of a generation-long struggle before the First World War during which progressive forces struggled against what historians call "anti-radicalism." In the end, anti-radicalism won, and the character of the United States changed, perhaps forever. Our historic commitment to human equality and freedom and the hostility to privilege expressed in the founding texts of the American republic, celebrated in the lifted torch of the Statue of Liberty, after sputtering for at least half a century, failed in the early 1920s. My essay arrives at the conclusion that although the values of "liberty and justice for all" continue to receive rhetorical support from our leaders, they are no longer at or even near the heart of America's role in the world.

more...
http://www.uuat.org/Sermons/LivingInTheNationalSecurityState.htm

peace

[mmonk]

108. Chomsky may be a little extreme

but I still like his work and some valid points he brings occassionally to the discussion. I have one of his books on power and terrorism.

[bpilgrim]

110. extreme when compared with the corp media cartoon world view, sure

but on the whole i think he is closer to the truth than most foreign policy writers i have read.

but i would love to learn of any other writers who are as close as he.

:hi:

peace

[mmonk]

113. He at least gives you points

which the media will never give you and in depth examples as well.

[bpilgrim]

115. and whole books of analysis as well

the man is one of the GIANTS in the field of scholarly research and analysis of our foreign policy on the planet and folks who can't see that only prove that old maxum that mediocrity recognizes nothing greater then itself.

:hi:

peace

[Blue_Chill]

129. He shares your "its americas fault" mind set so....

I can see how "mediocrity recognizes nothing greater then itself" is a perfect fit.

[Selwynn]

136. It ****IS**** America's fault

[toddzilla]

130. try some howard zinn..

i'm not sure what he's written on foriegn affairs, but what i've read of him suggests he pulls no punches.

[bpilgrim]

134. another BIGGIE

and then there is Michael Parenti ;->

:hi:

peace

[whirlygigspin]

135. Anarchy & Chaos theory

http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html

[Selwynn]

137. Political Anarchism <> Chaos theory

[Selwynn]

131. No one should take anything by anyone as Gospel - but here's your answer

All human beings wrestle with bias. There is no such thing as an unbiased opinion. All we can hope to do is admit our biases and do our best to counter them honestly. No human being is perfect. Every human being will make errors in interpreting facts of hold opinions that others will see as wrong.

Now having said that, I have done my own research many times on a lot of Chomsky's source material and claims through various books, and I will say this: in my opinion it stands up to scrutiny far better than most published works I read, on both sides of the spectrum.

Another complicating factor is that different people will come to any source with their own personal biases. For instance, when Chomsky discusses an event I happen to know something about, and presents a conclusion contrary to one I have long held, my initial reaction quite honestly goes beyond mere skepticism - it is defensive. Sometimes I'll continue to disagree with Chomsky's analysis, but more often as I continue to dig into it I began to see the evidence for a broader perspective on an issue than the one I once had.

On a personal level there is one main reason why Chomsky is a critically important voice. And that is, because his conclusions about the nature of power and its relationship to public policy are in my opinion dead on. Chomsky isn't just about a recitation of facts of a historical reflection on past events. Chomsky's books on politics are political philosophy. Its discussions about history are evidentiary discussions only, by which he seeks to support his philosophical claims. Some of these discussions are very strong; some are less strong. But in the end, the reason Chomsky remains an extremely important recourse is because I believe his fundamental theories about power are absolutely correct, philosophically speaking.

You are absolutely correct that Chomsky does have a conclusion from the start, which he then seeks to justify. That is because he is a linguist and a philosopher, not a historian, not a scientist. His books are political philosophy which by definition will start for the place of given premises and seek to provide evidence for those premises. I appreciate the fact that you question some of Chomsky's facts, but in the end, no source - not one - has all the facts right. However in Chomsky's case, the number of things he has right staggeringly outweigh the things he has wrong. To ignore his voice is to be tragically missing out on extremely important input.

[depakid]

139. Well said

major props for that analysis,

[0rganism]

141. Why is it important for you to attempt to discredit Chomsky?

It seems particularly important to you, and I'm pretty sure this is not the first time you've posted this thesis on the DU forum. Has he done something particular that annoys you greatly, other than disagree with your conclusions? Did his dog piss on your leg? Did he diss your linguistics papers at MIT?

I gather Noam Chomsky will actually respond to serious e-mails. Perhaps you can write him for specific clarifications? So far, I see ZERO specific source citations in your posts on the topic. That makes the process of fact checking your accusations nearly impossible. In contrast, everything I've read by Chomsky, excepting his motivational speech to the North Vietnamese, HAS been well sourced and thoroughly footnoted.

Speaking of that, there ARE some good critiques of Chomsky, which you can probably find and read for yourself. This one gives the kind of analysis I would expect from someone who wants to seriously and publicly discredit a common source: http://www.jim.com/chomsdis.htm

Give it a try. Apply that level of detail to your dissatisfaction, and perhaps Chomsky himself will deign to rebut. Of course, you'll have to go to the library first, if, as you say in this archived thread, you completely lack the source material you intend to critique.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=427347#429989

cf posts 34, 45, 53, et al

[rman]

142. I think Chomsky is a knowledgable, reliable source

I don't understand how "unimpeachable" fits in here.

please provide evidence for you allegations regarding
- deception
- misrepresenation of events
- obscure incidents

What's wrong with using one quote as an example

How do you know this if you don't ("can't") read Chomsky?

Why don't you present your 'facts'?

[KG]

144. never let facts get in the way

of a weak, but level-headed, attempt to discredit a world reknown analyst.

[Spider Jerusalem]

149. No source is unimpeachable.

Chomsky is, however, far more accurate in the facts he takes as starting points for his discourses than most politicaL commentators; one may disagree with his conclusions, but those conclusions are usually thoughtful, well-considered, and arrived at honestly.