NOAM'S INCREDIBLE 11/22 ARTICLE ON TRUTHOUT. Few articles are so transparent in their purpose..DON'T

[Magda Hassan]

There are so few public intellecuals of any note in most areas these days. Period. As a class they are timid, co-opted and captured or content. I blame them for a huge part in allowing the current dismal state of affairs. Zizek and Lawrence Krause come to mind. There's more of course but not many.

[Jim DiEugenio]

This is not really an article or interview.

I got in contact with the guy who posted it.

These are excerpts from past interviews with the fruitcake.

[Albert Doyle]

Somebody should smack him upside the head with a thick copy of The Unspeakable.

[Richard Coleman]

Many "leftists" who suffer no other discernable maladies, harbor a visceral blood-and-guts-dripping-from-their-teeth hatred for all things Kennedy. Even mention of the name can send them into seizures.

I know one such. His hate for the Democrats is so deep, that he prefers the Repubs, although he is in denial about it. He stated to me that the Dems are more dangerous than the Repubs because, "everybody knows what the Repubs are, but the workers are totally fooled by the Dems". And leading the list is JFK.

It's impossible to have a rational discussion with him about the man. Last time I tried he wound up shouting that he was glad JFK was killed! (You can't mention Barbra Streisand to him either; he loses control of himself. Her crime? She's a democrat!)

To people like this, JFK, Raygun, Nixon and the Bushes are all same-same. That would include such non-dangerous Repub stalwarts as Kissinger too.

Sheesh.

[Magda Hassan]

...That would include such non-dangerous Repub stalwarts as Kissinger too....

There is no known safe amount of Kissinger. Dangerous in any amount ::willynilly::

[Peter Lemkin]

"There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them." - George Orwell

I think Chomsky decided back in the Sixties that LBJ was just continuing Kennedy's policies, and that was the end of it. Don't bother me with learning new facts, don't ask me to reevaluate anything.

Yes, a great quote by Orwell. Take a look in JFK and the Unspeakable [sorry can't find the exact pages now, but near the end] where Douglass documents how two of then top JFK assassination critics and researchers had an extended dialogue, in person at times, with Chomsky on Dallas...and he was, at first, engaged and interested; then at a certain point, he rejected all the information given that they gave him and he read and even discussed in depth with him. Since then he's maintained his current 'position' that it is not important, that the official version is sufficient and need not be questioned further, and that JFK was a Cold Warrior. Sadly, 'Chomsky' is not in the index. But it is there! I'll try to find the pages later and post.

So, it is NOT that Chomsky always ignored the facts nor that he didn't entertain [for several weeks or months] the possibility of Conspiracy, but he did - and then for reasons unknown, totally rejected what he had once started to embrace.

[Tracy Riddle]

Peter, you must be thinking of a different book. I have a PDF of Unspeakable, and a search for "Chomsky" turns up nothing.

I do remember an interview with Chomsky where he said there may have been a conspiracy, but it just didn't matter because Kennedy's policies were the same as every other Cold War president. That's a favorite fallback position by some on the Left. I won't invest any time in this because it's just like a bunch of gang lords murdering each other. It's a great way to keep people on the Left from investigating further.

[Dawn Meredith]

This is not really an article or interview.

I got in contact with the guy who posted it.

These are excerpts from past interviews with the fruitcake.

And I am sure he knows better. Vince Salandria had extensive correspondence with him back in the day.
He ignores any thing that will educate him.
"Fruitcake" is too kind a word Jim.
He is intellectually dishonest to the core.
On purpose.
I call that evil.
He deserves a check from Langley.

Dawn

[Albert Doyle]

The man is too in-tune with politics and too smart to not know. He has other reasons.

[Peter Lemkin]

Peter, you must be thinking of a different book. I have a PDF of Unspeakable, and a search for "Chomsky" turns up nothing.

I do remember an interview with Chomsky where he said there may have been a conspiracy, but it just didn't matter because Kennedy's policies were the same as every other Cold War president. That's a favorite fallback position by some on the Left. I won't invest any time in this because it's just like a bunch of gang lords murdering each other. It's a great way to keep people on the Left from investigating further.

Right. Sorry all. Total Brain malfunction. Been reading several books at the same time. It is in History Will Not Absolve Us. There is much about Chomsky in several places. I quote but one...which is a good summary.

"Well-known left-wing radical critic of U.S. foreign policy and MITProfessor of Linguistics, Noam Chomsky has pleaded "agnosticism" on
the question of whether there was a plot to kill the President, but
asserts that even if there was a plot, it would not be relevant, since it
had no political significance. When confronted with Salandria's articles,
Chomsky took the position that he was "unconvinced," without
offering any explanation as to what aspect of the analysis left him
unconvinced. In correspondence decades earlier with Marcus, Chomsky
seemed quite clear that there had definitely been a conspiracy. See
Appendix VIII. When pressed by Morrissey in recent correspondence,
he merely retreated to saying that he refused to believe that his friends
in the Academy of Arts and Sciences would lie (private correspondence)."