08-11-2009, 06:15 PM
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:For the record, I don't believe that Chomsky is a "left-gatekeeper".
Chomsky is far more interested in structures than individuals.
Except in the case of responsibility for the escalation in Vietnam; and the structures of the CIA, for which he has offered next to nothing. In the case of the former, we are solemnly invited to believe one man was responsible:
Quote:“Kennedy escalated” (p.2); “John F. Kennedy’s escalation” (p.23); “Kennedy’s escalation” (p.27); “Kennedy…escalated the war” (p.37); “JFK raised the level of US attack” (p.43); “As he prepared to escalate the war…in late 1961” (p.46); “Kennedy’s 1961-62 escalation” (p.51); “his 1961-1962 escalation” (p.67).
Just in case his less nimble readers missed the point, the Gnome served up a variation on the theme. Subtlety, as is clear, was not his strongpoint:
Quote:”Kennedy’s war” (p.2); “Kennedy’s war” (p.36); “Kennedy’s war” (p.39); “Kennedy’s war” (p.52); “Kennedy’s war” (p.53); “Kennedy’s war” (p.69); “Kennedy’s war” (p.73); “Kennedy’s war” (p.81); “Kennedy’s war” (p.86); “Kennedy’s war” (p.105).
Still not got it? Chomsky had a third variant on the same basic slogan:
Quote:”Kennedy…his aggression” (p.15); “Kennedy moved on to armed attack” (p.25); “JFK’s aggression” (p.32); “JFK’s aggression” (p.35); “Kennedy’s aggression” (p.52); “Kennedy’s aggression” (p.63); “JFK’s 1961-1962 aggression” (p.66); “JFK’s aggression” (p.115).
Impressively sophisticated stuff: If you can’t convince ‘em with the quality of your argument or evidence, beat ‘em into submission by mindless repetition.
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:It can be argued that his academic linguistic work, including the development of a hypothesis of "universal grammar" shared by all humans, is a logical consequence of this.
Machine translation for intelligence purposes. This why the Air Force etc funded him.
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:He's also an egalitarian: the murder of a child in Denver or Kabul or Bogota matters as much to him as the murder of a President.
A classic non-sequitur, even if true, which I'm less than convinced it is.
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Ultimately though, if it's a battle of the Profs, Peter Dale Scott has done more important work in analysing deep political structures than Noam Chomsky.
Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and US Political Culture (London: Verso, 1993), p.144
Quote:Another common belief is that JFK was so incensed over the failure of the CIA at the Bay of Pigs that he vowed to smash it to bits, sowing the seeds for right-wing hatreds. Again, there are problems. As historians of the Agency have pointed out, it was Lyndon Johnson who treated the CIA “with contempt,” while JFK’s distress over the Bay of Pigs “in no way undermined his firm faith in the principle of covert operations, and in the CIA’s mission to carry them out.” JFK promised to “redouble his efforts” and to “improve” covert operations. He fired the CIA’s harshest critic (Chester Bowles) and appointed as Director the respected John McCone, who “revitalized the intelligence process,” though persistent failures kept the Agency from returning to the “golden age.” Nevertheless, the CIA was “re-established…in White House favor” and became a “significant voice in policy making” under Kennedy, particularly in 1963, “as covert actions multiplied in Cuba, Laos, Vietnam and Africa” (including new instructions in June 1963 to increase covert operations against Castro). Under JFK, the CIA Director became “a principal participant in the administration, on a par with the Secretary of State or of Defense.” The enthusiasm of the Kennedy brothers for counterinsurgency and covert operations is, of course, notorious.
One of the crudest, and most dishonest, pieces of CIA hackwork ever written.