13-11-2012, 01:01 AM
There is some truth to this.
Cockburn got picked up by the LA times as a columnist after JFK.
Bugliosi--who is not a conservative, but who's book is wacky--used Chomsky's Vietnam stuff to critique Stone. And there is little doubt that their followers, at places like Counter Punch and Zee magazine--a community that is much smaller today thank GOd--do not consider JFK pure enough.
But what I tried to do in the article was to show just how agenda driven and wrong on the facts Chomsky is. In other words to discredit him as a scholar and show how he is just so twisted on the topic of JFK that he is useless. BTW, in AFter the Cataclysm, I don't recall him taking back what he said about Pol Pot.
Again, I invite Nathaniel to write an appendix to the piece and submit it to ctka.
Cockburn got picked up by the LA times as a columnist after JFK.
Bugliosi--who is not a conservative, but who's book is wacky--used Chomsky's Vietnam stuff to critique Stone. And there is little doubt that their followers, at places like Counter Punch and Zee magazine--a community that is much smaller today thank GOd--do not consider JFK pure enough.
But what I tried to do in the article was to show just how agenda driven and wrong on the facts Chomsky is. In other words to discredit him as a scholar and show how he is just so twisted on the topic of JFK that he is useless. BTW, in AFter the Cataclysm, I don't recall him taking back what he said about Pol Pot.
Again, I invite Nathaniel to write an appendix to the piece and submit it to ctka.