Jump to content
The Education Forum

Cracking the Chomsky Code


Recommended Posts

Step 1: Chronicle of autobiographical deceit: Building the “legend”

One of the major problems in dealing with the real career and purposes of Chomsky the pseudo-dissident is the widespread refusal of his readers to pay attention to his actual words and texts. Such is the desire to believe in the Chomsky myth that a great deal of contradictory and, in many instances, plainly dishonest, rubbish is permitted to pass unchallenged. Here’s a classic example of what I’m getting at.

Readers of The Chomsky Reader, edited by the sycophantic James Peck, learn that the great one visited Israel in 1953 “at the time of the Slansky trails in Czechoslovakia”(1).

We are first informed that the kibbutzim on which he stayed was “a functioning and very successful libertarian commune,” that he “liked…very much in many ways”(2), so much so that he “came close to returning there to live”(3). So far so clear.

Yet in the very next paragraph, we learn that this same “functioning and very successful libertarian commune” was nothing of the sort. It was, instead, a sectarian hellhole: “…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…”(4).

This is ridiculously contradictory as straight autobiographical reminiscence, but then to read these paragraphs in that conventional way is to miss the point. For these “recollections” have nothing to do with an accurate history of Chomsky’s life and intellectual development. Instead, the great, shameless, absurd volte-face is “legend” creation.

If his opinions were to carry weight with the CIA’s particular target audiences, and thus help set the limits of American dissent, Chomksy had to be armoured against two principle likely objections: that he was a self-hating Jewish intellectual, and/or a Stalinoid fellow-traveller. Now we have the key to unlocking the contradictory farrago that is Chomsky’s characterisation of the kibbutzim he visited in 1953.

(1) James Peck (Ed.) The Chomsky Reader (London: Serpent’s Tail, 1992 reprint), p.10.

(2) Ibid., p.8.

(3) Ibid., pp.8-9.

(4) Ibid., p.9.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Chomsky is a retired language professor at MIT.

2. MIT is one of the leading recipients of CIA contracts.

3. Enough said.

Jack

By the same ""logic"" PD Scott is a CIA agent because he worked for UC-Berkley a major recipient of intelligence/defense spending. Even more damning, he used to be a diplomat.

I wonder how much BYU got? The Mormons are known for their ties to right wing cold warrior types. What about the (former) member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth who used to work at the Sandia National Laboratories, where you need security clearance just to walk in the door?

Paul -

Your post is absurd but I have stuff to do tonight. I'll try and get back to you tomorrow.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Chomsky is a retired language professor at MIT.

2. MIT is one of the leading recipients of CIA contracts.

3. Enough said.

Jack

2. Of plumbing, MIT, and elementary consistency

In 1966/7, the CIA snake began shedding an uncongenial skin. As part of divesting itself of the tiresome NCL (Non-Communist Left), the Agency blew details of its funding of student bodies, university research programmes etc. This left Chomsky, by now launched upon a classic wedge operation (separating anti-war activists from Warren Commission dissidents), with a little local difficulty – how to reconcile his own unhindered dissidence with the revelations concerning the funding sources of US academia in general, and MIT in particular. Bogus outrage was the solution. Here’s an extract from a less-than-probing May 1969 NYT Sunday magazine profile:

”The quintessential outside man at MIT is Noam Chomsky…(Chomsky was at one point, but is no longer, supported by the Air Force)…Chomsky…takes a hard line on the question of defence money. ‘My own view…is that science’s association with the Department of Defense is a tragic development. It has harmed the scientist’s own work, but worse than that, it has harmed national policy. The real tragedy is that people, out of their own free will, have involved themselves with the Defense Department. The Defense Department constitutes a menace to human life. I think people simply have to ask what they can do that is useful. If they can’t do anything, then they should become plumbers,,”

Richard Todd, “The ‘Ins’ and ‘Outs’ at MIT,” NYT Magazine, 18 May 1969, pp.32-33, 63-64, 66, 68, 70, 73, 76, 83-84, 91, 93-94.

It was testing profile, as you can imagine, appearing as it did within the CIA’s paper of record. Unasked went all the obvious, important questions, such as: How had his own lengthy subvention by the USAF et al harmed his work? Was Chomsky’s work – machine translation seem to have been the ultimate goal - “useful” to any body other than US military and intelligence agencies? Just why hadn’t he become a plumber?

By the late 1980s, of course, the moment of danger on the issue, slight though it had been, was long gone, and Chomsky could drop the feigned – and utterly hypocritical – anger in preference for that old favourite, insouciance:

”One the related issue of university connections with the CIA, Chomsky remarked that he had never become particularly interested in the topic: ‘The institution pretty much serves the interests of the state where it can. Whether it’s being directly funded by the CIA or in some other fashion seems to me a marginal question.’ In fact, Chomsky advocated direct, open funding by the CIA: ‘At least everything would be open and above-board,’”

Milan Rai. Chomsky’s Politics (London: Verso, 1995), p.130.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to know the precise nature of what the USAF were funding Chomsky to research, whether he was witting, and when & why he decided to refuse further DoD funding?

Me, too.

3. Chomsky on the Lone Nutter in the White House, 1961-63

Stone’s JFK, whatever its precise strengths and weaknesses, provoked a new generation to look at the assassination. This bubble of interest had to be swiftly deflated, and America’s centre-left preserved from contamination by conspiratorialist froth. Who better to inject the narcotic of conformity than the CIA’s favourite left-gatekeeper, the Gnome?

Rethinking Camelot, the preferred delivery mechanism, is one of the crudest pieces of CIA hackwork ever written. Much of it is laughably bad. Consider the question of responsibility for the US assault on Vietnam.

Early on in the book - all the quotation to follow are from the Verso paperback edition published in London in 1993 – Chomsky serves up one of those impressive-seeming, quasi-aphoristic criterion which so intoxicate his army of academic exegetes and hagiographers: “Policy flows from institutions reflecting the needs of power and privilege within them, and can be understood only if these factors are recognized, including the case now under review” (p.9). That eternal verity solemnly proclaimed, Chomsky proceeds to ignore it more or less entirely for the rest of the book.

How so? The text is littered with a mantra which makes nonsense of Chomsky’s assertion: It wasn’t an institution what done it, after all, it was that bloody awful man Kennedy. Single-handedly. He was a macho Irish Papist, don’t you know? Count the violations of Chomsky’s own tenet:

“Kennedy escalated” (p.2); “John F. Kennedy’s escalation” (p.23); “Kennedy’s escalation” (p.27); “Kennedy…escalated the war” (p.37); “JFK raised the level of US attack” (p.43); “As he prepared to escalate the war…in late 1961” (p.46); “Kennedy’s 1961-62 escalation” (p.51); “his 1961-1962 escalation” (p.67).

Just in case his less nimble readers missed the point, the Gnome served up a variation on the theme. Subtlety, as we shall see, was not his strongpoint:

”Kennedy’s war” (p.2); “Kennedy’s war” (p.36); “Kennedy’s war” (p.39); “Kennedy’s war” (p.52); “Kennedy’s war” (p.53); “Kennedy’s war” (p.69); “Kennedy’s war” (p.73); “Kennedy’s war” (p.81); “Kennedy’s war” (p.86); “Kennedy’s war” (p.105).

Still not got it? Chomsky had a third variant on the same basic slogan:

”Kennedy…his aggression” (p.15); “Kennedy moved on to armed attack” (p.25); “JFK’s aggression” (p.32); “JFK’s aggression” (p.35); “Kennedy’s aggression” (p.52); “Kennedy’s aggression” (p.63); “JFK’s 1961-1962 aggression” (p.66); “JFK’s aggression” (p.115).

Impressively sophisticated stuff: If you can’t convince ‘em with the quality of your argument or evidence, beat ‘em into submission by mindless repetition. Was Chomsky’s real research at MIT anything to do with mind control/MK Ultra, one wonders? Psychic driving, anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1966/7, the CIA snake began shedding an uncongenial skin. As part of divesting itself of the tiresome NCL (Non-Communist Left), the Agency blew details of its funding of student bodies, university research programmes etc...Chomsky, by now launched upon a classic wedge operation (separating anti-war activists from Warren Commission dissidents...

4. To mislead a Nation: Chomsky and the censorship of Roger Hilsman

In Milan Rai’s dreary Chomsky’s Politics (London: Verso, 1995), we find the following. Note the extent of the quiet, sustained effort to create a “left” that would ignore the November 63 coup as irrelevant; and the way in which a doctrinaire line is sold as empowerment, or similar such nonsense:

”The new options which might be opened up in academia were demonstrated by Chomsky’s own work at MIT, teaching courses in political and social thought. Together with Louis Kampf…Chomsky began teaching a course entitled ‘Intellectuals and Social Change’ in 1965, and another…entitled ‘Contemporary Issues in Politics and Ideology,’ which began in 1971. The two courses ran in alternate years thereafter until they were discontinued in 1987. Activists and observers came from as far away as Maine and Connecticut to join MIT students on the courses, which became a focus for activism. Teaching assistants, including two future presidents of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), were encouraged to make the course student-led and –organized as much as possible…Chomsky and Kampf issued a reading list of conventional texts such as Roger Hilsman’s To Move a Nation…They would then proceed to test these standard works to destruction, by exposing and exploding their basic assumptions…,” (p.133).”

In Rethinking Camelot we see the full fruits of these many years of disinterested scrutiny: the wholesale censorship of Hilsman’s passages on the CIA. You mean there were any? There certainly were: Try chapter 6, The Problem of the CIA, pp.63-68. After all the usual, time-honoured disclaimers – CIA a haven of liberalism during the McCarthyite terror; a fine bunch of patriots etc. – we get this: “But the CIA still represented a most serious problem,” p.65. Rethinking Camelot tells us that the CIA was Kennedy’s faithful servant: It cannot acknowledge or permit any criticism of the Langley mob. Chomsky therefore censored Hilsman’s writings on the subject.

Nor was this an isolated instance of pro-CIA censorship by Chomsky in that appalling book:

Tribune, 21/28 August 1998, p.11

Letters: Noam, Sweet Noam

Is Noam Chomsky a dissident? Donavan Pedelty insists so (Tribune, July 31) but the truth is otherwise. Chomsky’s bogusness is revealed by his repeated insistence upon the CIA’s unwavering fidelity to successive Presidents. Where the evidence is contrary, he ignores it. Nowhere is the suppression more systematic than in Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and US Political Culture (Verso, 1993). Consider, in particular, his survey of the Vietnam coverage of the New York Times from October 3 to December 4, 1963. One omission, among many, will suffice.

On October 3, 1963, the NYT carried a column entitled “The Intra-Administration War In Vietnam.” It opened: “The Central Intelligence Agency is getting a very bad press in despatches from Vietnam…”

Its author, Arthur Krock, proceeded to quote extensively from one such despatch, “Arrogant CIA Disobeys Orders in Vietnam”, by Richard Starnes of the Scripps-Howard group. The quotes below are from Starnes’s courageous and hauntingly prophetic original.

According to Starnes’s senior diplomatic source, “Twice the CIA flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge”, even though one set had been brought direct from Washington. Likening the CIA’s growth to a “malignancy”, which he was “not sure event the White House could control any longer”, the source predicted: “If the United States ever experiences a Seven Days in May it will come from the CIA” (Washington Daily News, October 2).

PAUL RIGBY,

BANKS, LANCASHIRE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
In 1966/7, the CIA snake began shedding an uncongenial skin. As part of divesting itself of the tiresome NCL (Non-Communist Left), the Agency blew details of its funding of student bodies, university research programmes etc...Chomsky, by now launched upon a classic wedge operation (separating anti-war activists from Warren Commission dissidents...

5. Dwight Macdonald’s heir

There is a touching naïveté about the intermittent attempts by Warren Report dissidents to convert Chomsky to the cause: It was never going to happen.

Some of Chomsky’s early legend-building, it is true, took place in Ramparts, which published a number of early and influential critiques of the CIA, the Vietnam War, and the official whitewash of the November 22 coup; but proximity should not have been confused with affinity, let alone tacit endorsement. All we were really witnessing was the Agency’s attempt to a) drive a wedge between dissidents while B) fabricating the legend of Noam-as-dissident; c) the same organisation’s move against the China lobby (in part, via the setting of limits to the expansion of the attack on North Vietnam); and d) the conscription of Warren Report scepticism by the Eastern establishment for its own geo-strategic and domestic purposes.

In fact, Chomsky had given the game away as to his true lineage and purposes as early as 1966 in a lecture that became the essay entitled The Responsibility of Intellectuals:

”Twenty years ago, Dwight Macdonald published a series of articles in Politics on the responsibilities of peoples and, specifically, the responsibility of intellectuals. I read them as an undergraduate, in the years just after the war, and had occasion to read them again a few months ago. They seem to me to have lost none of their power or persuasiveness,” (1).

It was in the course of this essay that Chomsky offered one of his most resonant and oft-quoted sentences: “It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies,” (2). Of course, he didn’t mean it to apply to eminent US New Leftists contemplating the work of one Dwight Macdonald.

For Macdonald was the US establishment’s favourite Yale pseudo-leftist – an institution as American as apple pie, or carpet bombing – in which capacity, in the form of a letter to The New Republic published in a late January 1964 edition, he so generously embraced the Dallas patsy on behalf of the entire US Left: “I agree it was a great pity that the assassin turned out to be not a lunatic Birchite, as we all assumed in that first hour of shock, but a lunatic ‘Marxist.’ But such was the fact. Oswald is our baby, not theirs,” (3).

Macdonald had “previous,” though not that one would know it from reading the responsible intellectual Noam. In the mid-1950s, for example, DM had submitted a lengthy application - in the form of New Yorker-published encomium to that font of disinterested charitable-giving, the Ford Foundation - to jump aboard the editorial gravy train Encounter (4). In that prescient and probing masterpiece, Macdonald had sought to combine whitewash with francophobia, a rewarding cultural “amalgam” – to use a Trotskyite art term of disapproval much favoured in the 1930s – for ambitious US intellectuals, then as now. Ferdinand Lundberg examined the distilled wisdom of DM on the FF in a footnote to his agreeably acerbic The Rich and the Super-Rich: A Study in the Power of Money Today:

”A more prevalent attitude among the pseudo-knowledgeable is reflected in a report of an unidentified young sociologist quoted by Dwight Macdonald, p.20, infra. ‘The French seem totally unable to understand the Ford Foundation,’ he wrote from Paris where he was working on a Ford-financed project. ‘The “inside-dopesters” are sure of the explanation of such an otherwise incredible institution – to “cheat” the government out of tax money…Some suspect that these foundations are some sort of quasi-official intelligence agencies working for the State Department under cover of scientific respectability,’ (5).

As Lundberg noted, “As more recently it has been disclosed in massive detail that foundations as well as universities have widely acted as ‘covers’ for the CIA, it appears that the young sociologist at the time he wrote still had much to learn and the French had their wits about them,” (6). It is a reasonably safe bet that Macdonald knew of the relationship between the CIA and the foundations, and of the foundations to Encounter, even as he quoted his youthful sociologist’s penetrating observations in 1955 (7).

All of which leads us to a very different understanding of Chomsky’s silence on Macdonald’s role in the 1950s and in the decade that followed: The responsibility of responsible US intellectuals is to whitewash the role of the CIA.

Notes

(1) James Peck (Ed.). The Chomsky Reader (London: Serpent’s Tail, 1992 reprint), p.59.

(2) Ibid., p.60.

(3) “Correspondence: Our Baby,” TNR, 25 January 1964, p.30.

(4) Frances Stonor Sanders. Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War (London: Granta Books, 1999), p.308.

(5) Ferdinand Lundberg. The Rich and the Super-Rich: A Study in the Power of Money Today (NY: Bantam, June 1969), p. 976, note 2.

(6) Ibid.

(7) ) Frances Stonor Sanders. Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War (London: Granta Books, 1999), p.395.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to know the precise nature of what the USAF were funding Chomsky to research, whether he was witting, and when & why he decided to refuse further DoD funding?

Me, too.

3. Chomsky on the Lone Nutter in the White House, 1961-63

Stone’s JFK, whatever its precise strengths and weaknesses, provoked a new generation to look at the assassination. This bubble of interest had to be swiftly deflated, and America’s centre-left preserved from contamination by conspiratorialist froth. Who better to inject the narcotic of conformity than the CIA’s favourite left-gatekeeper, the Gnome?

Rethinking Camelot, the preferred delivery mechanism, is one of the crudest pieces of CIA hackwork ever written. Much of it is laughably bad. Consider the question of responsibility for the US assault on Vietnam.

Early on in the book - all the quotation to follow are from the Verso paperback edition published in London in 1993 – Chomsky serves up one of those impressive-seeming, quasi-aphoristic criterion which so intoxicate his army of academic exegetes and hagiographers: “Policy flows from institutions reflecting the needs of power and privilege within them, and can be understood only if these factors are recognized, including the case now under review” (p.9). That eternal verity solemnly proclaimed, Chomsky proceeds to ignore it more or less entirely for the rest of the book.

How so? The text is littered with a mantra which makes nonsense of Chomsky’s assertion: It wasn’t an institution what done it, after all, it was that bloody awful man Kennedy. Single-handedly. He was a macho Irish Papist, don’t you know? Count the violations of Chomsky’s own tenet:

“Kennedy escalated” (p.2); “John F. Kennedy’s escalation” (p.23); “Kennedy’s escalation” (p.27); “Kennedy…escalated the war” (p.37); “JFK raised the level of US attack” (p.43); “As he prepared to escalate the war…in late 1961” (p.46); “Kennedy’s 1961-62 escalation” (p.51); “his 1961-1962 escalation” (p.67).

Just in case his less nimble readers missed the point, the Gnome served up a variation on the theme. Subtlety, as we shall see, was not his strongpoint:

”Kennedy’s war” (p.2); “Kennedy’s war” (p.36); “Kennedy’s war” (p.39); “Kennedy’s war” (p.52); “Kennedy’s war” (p.53); “Kennedy’s war” (p.69); “Kennedy’s war” (p.73); “Kennedy’s war” (p.81); “Kennedy’s war” (p.86); “Kennedy’s war” (p.105).

Still not got it? Chomsky had a third variant on the same basic slogan:

”Kennedy…his aggression” (p.15); “Kennedy moved on to armed attack” (p.25); “JFK’s aggression” (p.32); “JFK’s aggression” (p.35); “Kennedy’s aggression” (p.52); “Kennedy’s aggression” (p.63); “JFK’s 1961-1962 aggression” (p.66); “JFK’s aggression” (p.115).

In case you were unaware of basic history US involvementin Vietnam sharply increased under JFK. At the end of 1960 there were about 800 US ‘advisors’ there (and 9 had been killed) by the end of 1963 there were 16,300 (and 118 had been killed). That was a 20x increase in manpower in a 3 year period for which Kennedy was president all but 58 days. The amount of US military equipment and other aid increased in similar fashion. It would also be interesting to see Chomsky’s quotes in context rather than surgically edited.

Impressively sophisticated stuff: If you can’t convince ‘em with the quality of your argument or evidence, beat ‘em into submission by mindless repetition.

Sounds like the Rigby Doctrine to me! :cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to know the precise nature of what the USAF were funding Chomsky to research, whether he was witting, and when & why he decided to refuse further DoD funding?

Me, too.

3. Chomsky on the Lone Nutter in the White House, 1961-63

Stone’s JFK, whatever its precise strengths and weaknesses, provoked a new generation to look at the assassination. This bubble of interest had to be swiftly deflated, and America’s centre-left preserved from contamination by conspiratorialist froth. Who better to inject the narcotic of conformity than the CIA’s favourite left-gatekeeper, the Gnome?

Rethinking Camelot, the preferred delivery mechanism, is one of the crudest pieces of CIA hackwork ever written. Much of it is laughably bad. Consider the question of responsibility for the US assault on Vietnam.

Early on in the book - all the quotation to follow are from the Verso paperback edition published in London in 1993 – Chomsky serves up one of those impressive-seeming, quasi-aphoristic criterion which so intoxicate his army of academic exegetes and hagiographers: “Policy flows from institutions reflecting the needs of power and privilege within them, and can be understood only if these factors are recognized, including the case now under review” (p.9). That eternal verity solemnly proclaimed, Chomsky proceeds to ignore it more or less entirely for the rest of the book.

How so? The text is littered with a mantra which makes nonsense of Chomsky’s assertion: It wasn’t an institution what done it, after all, it was that bloody awful man Kennedy. Single-handedly. He was a macho Irish Papist, don’t you know? Count the violations of Chomsky’s own tenet:

“Kennedy escalated” (p.2); “John F. Kennedy’s escalation” (p.23); “Kennedy’s escalation” (p.27); “Kennedy…escalated the war” (p.37); “JFK raised the level of US attack” (p.43); “As he prepared to escalate the war…in late 1961” (p.46); “Kennedy’s 1961-62 escalation” (p.51); “his 1961-1962 escalation” (p.67).

Just in case his less nimble readers missed the point, the Gnome served up a variation on the theme. Subtlety, as we shall see, was not his strongpoint:

”Kennedy’s war” (p.2); “Kennedy’s war” (p.36); “Kennedy’s war” (p.39); “Kennedy’s war” (p.52); “Kennedy’s war” (p.53); “Kennedy’s war” (p.69); “Kennedy’s war” (p.73); “Kennedy’s war” (p.81); “Kennedy’s war” (p.86); “Kennedy’s war” (p.105).

Still not got it? Chomsky had a third variant on the same basic slogan:

”Kennedy…his aggression” (p.15); “Kennedy moved on to armed attack” (p.25); “JFK’s aggression” (p.32); “JFK’s aggression” (p.35); “Kennedy’s aggression” (p.52); “Kennedy’s aggression” (p.63); “JFK’s 1961-1962 aggression” (p.66); “JFK’s aggression” (p.115).

In case you were unaware of basic history US involvementin Vietnam sharply increased under JFK. At the end of 1960 there were about 800 US ‘advisors’ there (and 9 had been killed) by the end of 1963 there were 16,300 (and 118 had been killed). That was a 20x increase in manpower in a 3 year period for which Kennedy was president all but 58 days. The amount of US military equipment and other aid increased in similar fashion. It would also be interesting to see Chomsky’s quotes in context rather than surgically edited.

Impressively sophisticated stuff: If you can’t convince ‘em with the quality of your argument or evidence, beat ‘em into submission by mindless repetition.

Sounds like the Rigby Doctrine to me! :)

Glad you're enjoying the series! As for the claims of Chomsky re: Kennedy's policies towards Vietnam, what a pity Chomsky entirely omitted all context - and contours! Small details, you know, like the fact that attempts to assassinate and overthrow Diem began as early as 1957; or that Kennedy repeatedly refused to escalate on the scale demanded by the Joint Chiefs and the CIA.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a recovering Chomskyite hand-painting left-of-center milk cartons so that I may be of service to others, I have to chime in here.

I agree that what stands out more than anything else about Chomsky's Kennedy Vendeta is the absolute lack of context that he provides in terms of the

premanent military bureacracy and CIA. There is no discussion of military pressures and CIA pressures from Chomsky. Never is the Laos neutralization and JFKs refusal to send in ground troups to southern Vietnam in 1961 mentioned as it effected the changeg in the number of US military advisers between

1961 and 1963. From Chomsky its just "Mad Dog Kennedy even rose the number of US Military personnel in Vietnam!". I have heard the attempts of Mellon and her Ex to deride the Laos neutralization and even the potential RFK neuralization plan of 1968 as bloodbaths in another name.

These depictions are absurd. As absurd as the sometimes stated and often unstated assumption (hummed mantra, in the case of other left of center writers who are allowed to circulate-- see Chalmers Johnson) that... all together now... "The President is at all times that Master of the CIA, and the latter can do nothing contrary to the wishes of the Commander in Chief" This seems to be the line good leftists must toe if they ever want to make it out of Southend Press.

Let us just imagine the legnth of memorial walls with names of the dead. Walls both built and those left unbuilt because it would maybe comeet with the one we can see from the moon.

Neutralization: Just Another Bloodbath? Reminds me of Barry Goldwatter's description of nuclear weapons as "just another weapon".

To enemies of the possible in 1961 and 1968, I pose the question: can you imagine another president-- that implies his ability to actually BE the president-- making a better choice, given the Cold War structure of american society in 1968? No I don't mean a protester in the street with more

ethically sound positions than RFK on the Vietnam War. I mean a presidente with the (nominal?) power to end the damn thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a recovering Chomskyite hand-painting left-of-center milk cartons so that I may be of service to others, I have to chime in here.

I agree that what stands out more than anything else about Chomsky's Kennedy Vendeta is the absolute lack of context that he provides in terms of the premanent military bureacracy and CIA. There is no discussion of military pressures and CIA pressures from Chomsky. Never is the Laos neutralization and JFKs refusal to send in ground troups to southern Vietnam in 1961 mentioned as it effected the changeg in the number of US military advisers between 1961 and 1963. From Chomsky its just "Mad Dog Kennedy even rose the number of US Military personnel in Vietnam!". I have heard the attempts of Mellon and her Ex to deride the Laos neutralization and even the potential RFK neuralization plan of 1968 as bloodbaths in another name.

These depictions are absurd. As absurd as the sometimes stated and often unstated assumption (hummed mantra, in the case of other left of center writers who are allowed to circulate-- see Chalmers Johnson) that... all together now... "The President is at all times that Master of the CIA, and the latter can do nothing contrary to the wishes of the Commander in Chief" This seems to be the line good leftists must toe if they ever want to make it out of Southend Press.

Let us just imagine the legnth of memorial walls with names of the dead. Walls both built and those left unbuilt because it would maybe comeet with the one we can see from the moon.

Neutralization: Just Another Bloodbath? Reminds me of Barry Goldwatter's description of nuclear weapons as "just another weapon".

To enemies of the possible in 1961 and 1968, I pose the question: can you imagine another president-- that implies his ability to actually BE the president-- making a better choice, given the Cold War structure of american society in 1968? No I don't mean a protester in the street with more ethically sound positions than RFK on the Vietnam War. I mean a presidente with the (nominal?) power to end the damn thing.

Given the quality of this response, I hereby entrust parts 6-10 of this series to Mr. N. Heidenheimer. Time to hose down the Augean stable of Anglosphere pseudo-dissent.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad you're enjoying the series!

:cheersB) B) Oh yes I'm enjoying it immensely!

As for the claims of Chomsky re: Kennedy's policies towards Vietnam, what a pity Chomsky entirely omitted all context - and contours!

Funny this coming from the guy who edited Chomsky's comments down to 2 or 3 words at a time

Small details, you know, like the fact that attempts to assassinate and overthrow Diem began as early as 1957;

Citation? In any case is Ike wanted to do it to a defense? Bumping off or deposing Diem seems to indicate he wasn' ready to disengage in Vietnam

or that Kennedy repeatedly refused to escalate on the scale demanded by the Joint Chiefs and the CIA.

Citation? In any case by mid-1962 the JCS and heads of the CIA were JFK appointees.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...is Ike wanted to do it to a defense? Bumping off or deposing Diem seems to indicate he wasn't ready to disengage in Vietnam

Ike never wanted to engage in Vietnam in the first place - it was a classic Dulles bros. end-run round which saw Diem installed in the first place - see the thread on Richard Starnes' "Arrogant" CIA despatch on the JFK assassination forum for details.

... by mid-1962 the JCS and heads of the CIA were JFK appointees.

McCone wasn't Kennedy's first choice; and the pool of card-carrying members of ADA from which he could draw for both the Agency and JCS was, how shall I put, a tad dry.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...