Jump to content
The Education Forum
Paul Rigby

Discredited CIA hack gets boost from Pentagon

Recommended Posts

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/Chomsky...091025-639.html

October 25, 2009 at 13:40:56

Chomsky Gets Top Pentagon "Honor"

By Sherwood Ross

The Pentagon has paid anti-war activist Noam Chomsky the highest honor any totalitarian entity can bestow upon an author: they've banned his book “Interventions” at Guantanamo Bay prison.

They won't say precisely why they “honored” Chomsky, but Navy spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Brook DeWalt told the Miami Herald that “Interventions”(City Lights Books) might negatively “impact on (Gitmo's) good order and discipline.”

The Pentagon, of course, insists on “good order and discipline” running its prison camp. Chomsky likes order, too. What he objects to is the Pentagon spreading disorder globally.

Instead of thanking the Pentagon for his “honor,” Chomsky, is said to be angry. The Herald quotes him as saying, “This happens sometimes in totalitarian regimes.”

Indeed! Nazi newsreels show Hitler's brown shirts igniting huge bonfires in German streets into which they pitched banned books. Hitler banned over 4,000 books ranging from anti-war novel “All Quiet on the Western Front” by Erich Maria Remarque to Jack London's “The Call of The Wild.”

And just as Communist Russia wouldn't let its citizens read “The First Circle” and “Cancer Ward” by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, comrades in the Pentagon refused to allow Gitmo prisoner Hamza al Bahlul to read Chomsky's “Interventions,” sent him by a defense lawyer.

The Pentagon's ban mimics Iran's campaign to kill British novelist Salman Rushdie for his 1988 epic “The Satanic Verses.” Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeni indicted Rushdie as “blasphemous against Islam.” The Pentagon, according to The Herald, won't authorize a book that is “anti-American, anti-Semitic, (or) anti-Western.” Note the similarities of the Pentagon's objections and the Ayatollah's. Kissin' cousins, maybe? Some might suspect its Pentagon censorship that's “anti-American.”

Censorship of Chomsky is not unique. The Pentagon has long pressured Hollywood to show the military in a favorable light. It also bans photographers from war zones if they snap pictures of slain U.S. troops. “I took pictures of something they didn't like, and they removed me (from Iraq),” complained photographer Zoriah Miller who, like Chomsky, may also be said to be angry. “Deciding what I can and cannot document, I don't see a clearer definition of censorship,” he said.

Back to Chomsky: What has he written the Pentagon doesn't want Gitmo prisoners to read? Perhaps it's where he quotes President Bush's remark “the United States---alone---has the right to carry out ‘preventive war'"using military force to eliminate a perceived threat"” Chomsky adds this is the “supreme crime” condemned at Nuremberg.

If the Pentagon is upset over “Interventions” they'll be really ticked at Chomsky's “Imperial Ambitions(Metropolitan Books).” In that book, he writes about how the Pentagon's troops burst into Falluja General Hospital, (November, 2004) on asinine grounds it was “a center of propaganda against allied forces,” and kicked the patients out of their beds and handcuffed them and their doctors to the floor, which Chomsky rightly branded “a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions.”

The Pentagon might also oppose Chomsky for accusing them of genocide: “If civilians managed to flee Falluja, they were allowed out---except for men. Men of roughly military age were turned back. That's what happened in Srebrenica in 1995. The only difference is the United States bombed the Iraqis out of the city, they didn't truck them out. Women and children were allowed to leave; men were stopped, if they were found, and sent back. They were supposed to be killed. That's universally called genocide, when the Serbs do it. When we do it, it's liberation.”

Banning Chomsky will only call attention to his incisive depictions of Pentagon war crimes. While the Pentagon may worry Chomsky's work might get Muslim prisoners angry, maybe it should be concerned that Chomsky's comments such as the following on the Military-Industrial Complex might yet arouse bamboozled and disgusted U.S. taxpayers:

“Empires are costly. Running Iraq is not cheap. Somebody's paying. Somebody's paying the corporations that destroyed Iraq and the corporations that are rebuilding it. In both cases, they're getting paid by the U.S. taxpayer. Those are gifts from U.S. taxpayers to U.S. corporations"..first you destroy Iraq, then you rebuild it. It's a transfer of wealth from the general population to narrow sectors of the population.” Like the Pentagon, which will reap $664 billion next year.

Time to replace the Pentagon with the Peace Corps.

Time, more like, to replace Chomsky with a real dissident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chomsky is only a "discredited CIA hack” in the minds of a few ‘truther’ extremists. He must be doing something right because he’s hated equally by them and the NeoCons.

Truthers are one of the biggest impediments to real dissent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chomsky is only a "discredited CIA hack” in the minds of a few ‘truther’ extremists. He must be doing something right because he’s hated equally by them and the NeoCons.

A small dose of triangulation. I thank you for it. By way of repaying that generous donation to the fund of human wisdom, a couple of examples of the CIA hack in action:

The Pentagon Papers, as characterised in Rethinking Camelot (London: Verso, 1993):

Line the first: They’re great and you can trust them…

“The record of internal deliberations, in particular, has been available far beyond the norm since the release of two editions of the Pentagon Papers…While history never permits anything like definitive conclusions, in this case, the richness of the record, and its consistency, permit some unusually confident judgments, in my opinion” (p.32).

Line the second: Er, they’re not, and you can’t…

“This critically important document is grossly falsified by the Pentagon Papers historians, and has largely disappeared from history” (p.41).

A small bonus while we’re on this subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/us/17inquire.html?_r=2

C.I.A. Is Still Cagey About Oswald Mystery

Chomsky’s logic, example 2:

The kibbutzim I visited in 1953, as characterised in James Peck’s The Chomsky Reader (London: Serpent’s Tail, 1992):

Line the first: Freethinker’s paradise

“a functioning and very successful libertarian commune,” that he “liked…very much in many ways”, so much so that he “came close to returning there to live” (p.10)

Line the second: A Stalinist hell-hole

“…the ideological conformity was appalling. I don’t know if I could have survived long in that environment because I was very strongly opposed to the Leninist ideology, as well as the general conformism…” (p.10).

Truthers are one of the biggest impediments to real dissent.

How would you know? You've never offered a piece of meaningful dissent in your life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Due to your ironclad logic I'm just going to have to "fold my tent", Chomsky contradicted himself a few times (perhaps decades apart in one case) therefore he is a CIA assets. You're so right that settles it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald Gibson covers Chomsky and Bertrand Russell in his book "The Kennedy Assassination Cover Up"

http://books.google.com/books?id=7n_sF3PSv...;q=&f=false

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked up Chomsky’s comments about the kibbutz and your surgically selective editing was quite misleading:

QUESTION: Was it after college that you went to live on a kibbutz in Israel?

CHOMSKY: I went for a few months when I was at the Society of Fellows, in 1953. The kibbutz where we lived, which was about twenty years old, was then very poor. There was very little food, and work was hard. But I liked it very much in many ways. Abstracting it from context, this was a functioning and very successful libertarian community, so I felt. And I felt it would be possible to find some mixture of intellectual and physical work.

I came close to returning there to live, as my wife very much wanted to do at the time. I had nothing particularly attractive here. I didn't expect to be able to have an academic career, and was not particularly interested in one. There was no major drive to stay. On the other hand, I did have a lot of interest in the kibbutz and I liked it very much when I was there. But there were things I didn't like, too. In particular, the ideological conformity was appalling. I don't know if I could have survived long in that environment because I was very strongly opposed to the Leninist ideology, as well as the general conformism, and uneasy -- less so than I should have been -- about the the exclusiveness and the racist institutional setting.

http://www.chomsky.info/books/reader01.htm

To make a long story short he acknowledged that his feelings were contradictory. Is your view of everything so simplistic that you’ve never had mixed emotions about anything? A person, place or thing that you like/love or certain occasions but hate/dislike on others or ones that you simultaneously like some aspects of but dislike others. When foreigners who live in Brazil get together we almost inevitably bitch a bit about things we don’t like here but few of us are planning on returning to our homelands anytime soon.

The Pentagon Papers quotes were also taken completely out of context; he was talking about two different parts of the lengthy history of the US’s involvement in the Vietnam conflict. He thought that “the record of internal deliberations” in “the two chapters…devoted to the record of planning for the Vietnam war in the crucial 1961-1964 period” were reliable because of “the richness of the record, and its consistency”. On the other hand without going into detail, but citing GeorgeKahin’s book Intervention, said that a 1954 National Security Council Resolution (NSC 5429/2) was “grossly falsified by the Pentagon Papers historians, and has largely disappeared from history”

http://www.cyberspacei.com/jesusi/authors/.../rc/rc0_008.htm

http://books.zcommunications.org/chomsky/rc/rc-c01-s01.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Chomsky appeared on a COPA panel in the 1993-1994 time frame he sat back and listened quietly and respectfully as that hack Donald Gibson

blamed "the Jews on Wall Street" for the entire JFK plot. And Lisa Pease did the same, cornering that escapee from The Planet of the Apes and quizzing him respectfully

on the points he had been making instead of taking him to task for following in the footsteps of Michael Collins Piper. Chomsky could at least have offered some token opposition

to Gibson's outrageous statements and so could Lisa.

Then L. Fletcher Krauty stood up and made his famous comment about how the Kennedys were 2nd generation Irish immigrants who thought they could run the country the way they wanted to. Followed up by: "I guess we showed them a thing or two." And I was the only one who called him out on that statement. How many of you knew about that Krauty statement, or that he was indeed a Kennedy hater from way back? Not many I would bet.

Only Lou Wolf from Covert Action Quarterly thanked me for nailing Krauty to the wall and for challenging Gibson. When I asked Mark Lane to release the files of the Liberty

Lobby and The Congress of Freedom, do you know what his answer was? "Files! What Files? There are NO FILES!" Using the microphone for effect I could only say:

"Where have we heard THAT BEFORE?" And his jaw just dropped open... as everyone tittered and laughed nervously. Of course the entire COPA Board just sat there with collective thumbs buried where the sun don't shine.

Earlier, some guy who looked like he could have been Goldwater's son told me that: "Colonel Prouty is like us on the n issues!" He also added that: "the Holocaust

was a Polish thing, not a German thing. Did you know that Auschwitz was in Poland and not in Germany?"

And these are the types who are invited to speak on the podium of COPA... What a joke!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To make a long story short he acknowledged that his feelings were contradictory. Is your view of everything so simplistic that you’ve never had mixed emotions about anything? A person, place or thing that you like/love or certain occasions but hate/dislike on others or ones that you simultaneously like some aspects of but dislike others. When foreigners who live in Brazil get together we almost inevitably bitch a bit about things we don’t like here but few of us are planning on returning to our homelands anytime soon.

Len, baby, that's pitiful. Have another go. Please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To make a long story short he acknowledged that his feelings were contradictory. Is your view of everything so simplistic that you’ve never had mixed emotions about anything? A person, place or thing that you like/love or certain occasions but hate/dislike on others or ones that you simultaneously like some aspects of but dislike others. When foreigners who live in Brazil get together we almost inevitably bitch a bit about things we don’t like here but few of us are planning on returning to our homelands anytime soon.

Len, baby, that's pitiful. Have another go. Please.

Translation from P.Rigbese

“I can’t refute what you wrote, claiming that Chomsky having mixed feelings about a Kibbutz was evidence he is a CIA asset was absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Translation from P.Rigbese

“I can’t refute what you wrote, claiming that Chomsky having mixed feelings about a Kibbutz was evidence he is a CIA asset was absurd.

Psst! Len, read Rethinking Camelot before making a complete arse of yourself - it's such a crude piece of CIA hackwork. Do you really want to waste time defending the incompetent?

Oops, I'd forgotten, pace 9/11 - that's your job.

Ignore the above, read it, and then let's eviscerate its author's reputation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Translation from P.Rigbese

“I can’t refute what you wrote, claiming that Chomsky having mixed feelings about a Kibbutz was evidence he is a CIA asset was absurd.

Psst! Len, read Rethinking Camelot before making a complete arse of yourself - it's such a crude piece of CIA hackwork. Do you really want to waste time defending the incompetent?

Oops, I'd forgotten, pace 9/11 - that's your job.

Ignore the above, read it, and then let's eviscerate its author's reputation.

Paul if you have anything more than insults, quotes taken out of context and tortured logic to support your theory don't be shy.We've been over this before previously haven't we?IIRC your main objection to the book is that it correctly points out that JFK escalated the US presence in Vietnam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul if you have anything more than insults, quotes taken out of context and tortured logic to support your theory don't be shy.We've been over this before previously haven't we?IIRC your main objection to the book is that it correctly points out that JFK escalated the US presence in Vietnam.

I am undone by your genius, Len, I confess. There really isn't any reasonable or rational ground for insisting Chomsky the dissident is the creation of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Then again, perhaps not...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14981

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chomsky is one of the most renowned leftists in the country, and like so many others, he would like us to believe that JFK was really no different from Ike or LBJ, and his death caused no changes in foreign or domestic policy. If there is such a thing as "false alternative," then Chomsky would certainly fall into that category.

I hope the other moderators on this forum will agree with me that John Bevilaqua's use of the ethnic slur "Krauty" to refer to L. Fletcher Prouty is completely inappropriate. The term itself shouldn't be allowed on this forum, and it's especially offensive to those of us who have great respect for Col Prouty and his work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chomsky is one of the most renowned leftists in the country, and like so many others, he would like us to believe that JFK was really no different from Ike or LBJ, and his death caused no changes in foreign or domestic policy. If there is such a thing as "false alternative," then Chomsky would certainly fall into that category.

I hope the other moderators on this forum will agree with me that John Bevilaqua's use of the ethnic slur "Krauty" to refer to L. Fletcher Prouty is completely inappropriate. The term itself shouldn't be allowed on this forum, and it's especially offensive to those of us who have great respect for Col Prouty and his work.

Yea Don,

I too object to Bevilaqua's insults.

First off, I don't believe that Chomsky ever attended any COPA conference. Period.

So everything Bevilaqua says after that is also his own perverted beliefs, regardless of the truth and reality.

I am checking back COPA conference lineups to see, and will get back and correct the record if I am wrong about Chomsky attending a COPA conference, even as a member of the audience, but I am not wrong about his insulting Prouty and all COPA members. COPA is a very diverse group who have maintained their integrity despite being insulted by Bevilaqua, who has also made COPA presentations, and should be on moderation and medication.

Prouty wouldn't have been the first Pentagon officer to despise the Kennedys, but at least he came clean on how they were killed and who killed them, and he was on the Board of Advisors of COPA, along with Peter Dale Scott, Cyril Wect, Oliver Stone, Jim DiEugenio, Gary Aguliar, oh, yea, and Sarah McLendon, and many other professionals who Bevilaqua can insult without any repercussions.

Bill Kelly

Edited by William Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul if you have anything more than insults, quotes taken out of context and tortured logic to support your theory don't be shy.We've been over this before previously haven't we?IIRC your main objection to the book is that it correctly points out that JFK escalated the US presence in Vietnam.

I am undone by your genius, Len, I confess. There really isn't any reasonable or rational ground for insisting Chomsky the dissident is the creation of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Then again, perhaps not...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14981

LOL in response to me saying you have nothing "more than insults, quotes taken out of context and tortured logic to support your theory" I asked you on the other thread if you could:

"...show that any of Chomsky's "errors" were lies as opposed to honest mistakes? Any evidence that he had ties to CIA AFTER the 1950's when he merely worked on a project they funded. Far more recently truthers like Barrett and Jones received funding or grants from the State Department and DoE."

You can answer there if you prefer

Don wrote:

Chomsky is one of the most renowned leftists in the country, and like so many others, he would like us to believe that JFK was really no different from Ike or LBJ, and his death caused no changes in foreign or domestic policy.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that any major difference between LBJ and JFK on foreign policy were theoretical he MIGHT have made peace with Cuba he MIGHT have pulled out of Vietnam (though RFK said the opposite). As to domestic policy LBJ was more progressive than his predecessor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...