17-10-2012, 03:50 PM
People who haven't read DiEugenio will take Chomsky's Kennedy in Lederhosen history at face value and believe it.
What Chomsky is doing is attributing the aggressive actions of CIA to Kennedy as if they were his. This ignores the internal battle JFK was having with CIA as shown in The Unspeakable.
This is a good example of why those actions are more correctly applied to CIA as an institution per say than Kennedy. While The Unspeakable shows why it is seriously wrong to apply those rogue actions to Kennedy, a proper analysis shows that it isn't so for CIA itself. You can write a book like Unspeakable to show why it is travesty to blame Kennedy for those Cuban actions. You can't do so for CIA in general.
What Chomsky is doing is a phony "further left than left" piety to criticize Kennedy as being part of the conservative status quo guarded by the right and therefore part of it. Chomsky has no excuse for doing this post-Unspeakable. Like Caro he's inexcusably writing a conscious false history for effect.
Let Chomsky join Phil's "pile of asses".
What Chomsky is doing is attributing the aggressive actions of CIA to Kennedy as if they were his. This ignores the internal battle JFK was having with CIA as shown in The Unspeakable.
This is a good example of why those actions are more correctly applied to CIA as an institution per say than Kennedy. While The Unspeakable shows why it is seriously wrong to apply those rogue actions to Kennedy, a proper analysis shows that it isn't so for CIA itself. You can write a book like Unspeakable to show why it is travesty to blame Kennedy for those Cuban actions. You can't do so for CIA in general.
What Chomsky is doing is a phony "further left than left" piety to criticize Kennedy as being part of the conservative status quo guarded by the right and therefore part of it. Chomsky has no excuse for doing this post-Unspeakable. Like Caro he's inexcusably writing a conscious false history for effect.
Let Chomsky join Phil's "pile of asses".