Hanoi Chomsky

[MMMMMM]

A revelatory speech, hitherto yet unknown, which Chomsky gave in North Vietnam in 1970. A direct look into his true feelings and loyalties.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles...le.asp?ID=6087

[brad]

funny i was just on frontpage.

david horowitz said peace protesters were 'fifth columnists' and a great danger to america.

somehow i doubt chomsky ever visited north vietnam but i am willing to believe it if you cite a more neutral source.

[MMMMMM]

Why don't you investigate a little more before forming instant opinions?

In fact, while there are many sincere protesters amongst the anti-war movement today, much of its leadership has indeed been hijacked by ultra-radicals: Ramsey Clark, one major leader, serves as legal counsel for Saddam Hussein at present, and is leading a campaign to impeach Bush.

The VERBATIM transcript of Chomsky has been confirmed, and even loosely admitted to by Chomsky himself. This thread isn't about the anti-war movement--that's in other threads. Can you say "on-topic" please?

[brad]

my point is that the author of your piece is on the record as calling peace protesters of today a 'fifth column'.

if you will provide another source for chomsky's visit to n.v. other than that article (and the book it references) then i will agree with you.

but just because some crazy right winger trashes chomsky thats not enough in itself to damn him.

also our president and staff were in business partnerships with saddam did u know that?

[MMMMMM]

READ HIS OWN WORDS--that's what the thread's about--and more detail on verification, including Chomsky's own response--is available in Hanoi Chomsky II.

Get past the "source" block, brad, and I think there's hope for you yet (by the way, there IS a fifth column in the anti-war movement--along with lots of genuine folk hoping for peace--but that's another thread please).

Just because a "biased" site prints an article doesn't mean you can dismiss the facts in the article or the article itself wholesale--especially when the facts are subject to, and appear to have been, confirmed.

[brad]

cant you provide even one more source (so far you have one, maybe two if you count the book but proably i think book shouldnt count as seperate one since its probably written by same group)?

is that too much to ask?

if i post a link to a site that says jews put blood in cakes and they quote a rabbi as saying its an ancient ritual 'in his own words', would u believe it?

[Chris Alger]

Verbatim? Really? Radio Hanoi broadcast Chomsky in English although hardly anyone North Vietnam spoke English? Why then would the transcript (as opposed to translation) have come from the U.S. government? Is it inconceivable that the Hanoi government took certain liberties with the speech when it came to praising the Hanoi regime, which elsewhere Chomsky has criticized?

Chomsky's reply: "I know nothing of any speech broadcast on North Vietnamese radio 30 years ago, or ever." He admits that portions of the speech are similar to things he was writing at the time, but most of those that have read most of his work believe that it doesn't "sound" like what he usually says (it's too effusive, for one, and he's usually detached and sardonic; and he's a bitter foe of Marxism-Leninism and state or non-libertarian socialism).

http://www.isp.nwu.edu/~fprefect/politics/chomsky.html

So where has he "loosely admitted" it? Never mind. Let's just point out that in order to attack someone who's published hundreds of articles, speeches and books about US foreign policy, they have to hang their hat on an "official" transcription of a foreign speech given 30 years ago that no one can remember him giving. How very persuasive.

[MMMMMM]

see this quote in Hanoi Chomsky II:

Chomsky's own personal reply to the question about whether he gave the speech confirms that he did say and write such things at the time: "The passage quoted is reminiscent of things I actually wrote at the time, touching on the very same topics..."

[brad]

you keep quoting the same thing trying to legitimize it more and more.

if its an attack piece then its an attack piece. assuming they manufactured or lied about radio interview why would a quote in same article be any more honest or whatever.

having said that chomsky is for the UN and gun control and so is grey at best, but still i think his ideas are good if looked at critically.

[Chris Alger]

Indeed much of it sounds like him then, but certain phrases don't: "the cause of humanity as it moves forward toward liberty and justice, toward the socialist society in which free, creative men control their own destiny."

This would be a rare bit of optimism for him. Anyway, exactly what in the speech do you find offensive? Do you dispute that North Vietnam was a target of unprovoked U.S. aggression? Do you think that anyone who believes this is a traitor? What's your point?