Chomskys faulty "there was no JFK assassination conspiracy" logic

[Kenneth Kapel]

IMO Chomsky is a "government lefty", just as were Cockburn & Hitchens, among others. By "government lefty" I mean an agent with poses as a leftwinger, but in actually an hired hand of the establishment. Just my opinion.

[Steve Minnerly]

"One of the few remaining Marxists, Noam Chomsky here undertakes to scold fellow leftists such as Oliver Stone for succumbing to the Camelot myth and asserting that JFK was assassinated by big business, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Mafia, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff (take your choice) because Kennedy intended to pull out of Vietnam. Chomsky rightly ridicules the notion of a Vietnam pullout but-typical of his past political assays-he sees dark, conspiratorial forces directing most actors on the public stage. In Chomsky's world view, presidents are puppets manipulated by America's economic managers (corporations and their lackeys in politics). Thus Kennedy had no freedom of choice but merely did as he was told." Stephen E. Ambrose Review of "Rethinking Camelot" in "Foreign Affairs"

______________________________________________________

Ambrose sounds like the biggest lap dog historian in that quote. Chomsky has been identifying as a libertarian socialist for a long time. And even McNamara admitted they were pulling out. Evidence of Revision has film clips of Kennedy talking about the pullout of the first 1000 so called military advisers.
Ambrose isnt qualified to write comic books much less history if hes gonna get it that wrong.

[Albert Rossi]

but-typical of his past political assays-he sees dark, conspiratorial forces directing most actors on the public stage. In Chomsky's world view, presidents are puppets manipulated by America's economic managers (corporations and their lackeys in politics). Thus Kennedy had no freedom of choice but merely did as he was told."

One would think it fairly easy to accommodate the conspiratorial view of the assassination into this if that were really what Chomsky believed (JFK would then just become "the one that tried to get away"). But Ambrose is not representing his position correctly. For him, there are no dark conspiratorial forces per se; it is just the way the system works, like the blind watchmaker's creation. So he can't believe any one would arrive at the Presidency without conforming in one way or another with the system. No coercion necessary. I don't think Chomsky could become a kind of spokesperson for the Left if that general view of things -- perhaps less extreme than his, but similar -- did not prevail there.

The problem with it is that once you realize someone did resist, the whole applecart of systemic compulsion is overturned. It shows that every once in a while a human agent can choose not to conform, and that agent need not be on the margins of power to exercise that choice. Of course, that choice carries with it consequences.

Also: the statement that Chomsky is one of the few remaining Marxists is doubly laughable. First, because any casual walk through the halls of American academia would prove otherwise to him. Second, because Chomsky calls himself a socialist anarchist. Not the same thing.

[Mitchell Severson]

In the years that I've listened to the man speak and read his books and articles, I can only find one less than honorable tendency. Not a lie, but a willful ignorance that we would not find honorable. Namely, he will not admit (even to himself, I think) to the existence of political conspiracies. There are two obvious answers to compete with the "gatekeeper" interpretation: his "structural" interpretation of our politics and he is already lambasted as a paranoid mush-headed Marxist by those in the press and politics. He is semi-regularly referred to as a conspiracy theorist for rightly claiming that propaganda extensively exists in our media. I would rather he continue to get out the points that he can than sink his medium to small ship by admitting that JFK, RFK and MLK were killed by conspirators for political purposes or that the 1980 election was clearly stolen. I can live with that and I think we all can. And, for Christ's sake, he's been a stubborn old man for decades, maybe you're all just expecting too much out of him.

[Albert Rossi]

In the years that I've listened to the man speak and read his books and articles, I can only find one less than honorable tendency. Not a lie, but a willful ignorance that we would not find honorable. Namely, he will not admit (even to himself, I think) to the existence of political conspiracies. There are two obvious answers to compete with the "gatekeeper" interpretation: his "structural" interpretation of our politics and he is already lambasted as a paranoid mush-headed Marxist by those in the press and politics. He is semi-regularly referred to as a conspiracy theorist for rightly claiming that propaganda extensively exists in our media. I would rather he continue to get out the points that he can than sink his medium to small ship by admitting that JFK, RFK and MLK were killed by conspirators for political purposes or that the 1980 election was clearly stolen. I can live with that and I think we all can. And, for Christ's sake, he's been a stubborn old man for decades, maybe you're all just expecting too much out of him.

I think that the two reasons you give, Mitchell, may very well both have truth to them. The latter particularly in view of the fact that there was a period briefly (in the 70s? I don't remember precisely) when he actually did entertain the notion of conspiracy in the death of JFK.

The problem, as I see it, is not so much the JFK (or other) assassination(s) -- whether he believes there is a conspiracy or not -- but the historical distortions he will utter to support his claim of continuity between JFK & LBJ. Those should not go uncontested.

[Tracy Riddle]

Even a tool like Chris Matthews has come around to admitting that JFK wanted to get out of Vietnam. I've heard him say it a couple of times on Hardball. Ambrose needs to catch up a little.

[Phil Dragoo]

Apologists for Noam Chomsky notwithstanding, his is a calculated deviousness

As he said

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum....


He denies Kennedy was withdrawing from Vietnam, though the evidence NSAM 263 was being implemented is clear, reflecting the conversations with Gullion in 1951 and all efforts to further nationalism and self-determination, eschewing the interference a la Thy Will.

Chomsky is part of the same pervasive biomass emerging from the fungal substrate in the colors of the radical academic.

Ambrose shares the common DNA, presenting in the comfortable button-down scholar costume.

In the phrase of the late Frank Zappa, "They're all made out of plastic; when they melt they start to stink."

[Albert Rossi]

Chomsky is part of the same pervasive biomass emerging from the fungal substrate in the colors of the radical academic.

Phil, you have once again outdone yourself. This one is going to get quoted, sometime, somewhere, by yours truly.

[Mitchell Severson]

Can anyone demonstrate he is not wrong but lying? It's a simple and important challenge. How does an agent convince this man to lie and obfuscate? Cash? Fame? When would this have happened? At the beginning of his activism in the early 60's or after JFK' was released? Is there any supporting evidence to support Chomsky as a "gatekeeper"? I have not seen one piece, but I am not claiming such evidence could not exist. I'm not only trying to defend a man who has accomplished more than any of us ever will and who at the same time seems to be uncommonly ethical, I am also asking the critical community for some evidence and methodology. To paraphrase the case as I understand some making: "any leftist who publishes or speaks publicly to their perception that JFK was just another politician in line with Defense and Intelligence and was killed by a nut is de facto a paid propagandist". Is it implied that such an individual cannot make an ideologically driven mistake, for example.

[Mitchell Severson]

I agree with you Albert, no one and no wrong claim should go unchallenged, even Chomsky. On the other hand, that's why I'm challenging the claim that the man is a spooky "Gatekeeper". Do you remember where you saw/heard Chomsky profess some skepticism on the assassination? . I'd love to see it as I can't imagine him saying anything that could allow the established media to lump him in with "buffs", "nuts" and "truthers". If that is his strategy, I can live with it. If he ever went so far as to claim that JFK had a thousand mistresses and was doped up and was the one pushing for ground troops in Vietnam or something, that would be a whole different story. Jim D.'s criticism of Seymour Hersh's highly dubious book seems relevant to this discussion, it seems, as his published work didn't seem to indicate a typical right wing assault on the critical community. I should look up the other writers Nathaniel mentioned a few pages back as gatekeepers, as well.