Noam Chomsky, Hero or Zero?

[moustache]

Quote by: fedfem Do you even know what a remote viewer is?

yes I do...and I classify Chomsky as a remote viewer..because of his radical views..

[ghost]

a little something I whipped up not so long ago. Have a read if you wish:

Exposing a Left-Wing Idol

What if I were to tell you that there is a professor, right here in Boston , who has helped promote holocaust denial, made himself an apologist for genocide and praised oppressive regimes? Would you say that this professor was some kind of fascist or perhaps a Nazi?

What if I told you this man is considered one of the preeminent historians in America and a philosophical leader of an entire generation of youth and intellectuals. He is a man many refer to as a “progressive.”

If you hadn’t guessed already, the man I am speaking of is Noam Chomsky, professor, linguist, professional propagandist.

One of the most popular authors in America , Noam Chomsky has captured the attention of many with his hyperbolic anti-American screeds and radical denunciations of capitalism. Chomsky has been lionized by the left as an intellectual leader who has fought for freedom and against genocide. They have adorned him with idol status as the very archetype of the new left intellectual, a man who represents their values and commitments.

While many Chomsky devotees are familiar with his work denouncing America and the West in general, few question the author’s motives or credibility on the subject or bother to look deep into the character of the man or what he represents.

Although hitherto many in the mainstream media have ignored Chomsky, there is a nascent underground effort to expose the man’s true politics. From South-East Asia to Latin America , Chomsky has put his seal of approval on the worst tyrannies in the world to fuel his anti-American vitriol and statist causes. The case against Chomsky is becoming too obvious for leftists to continue to ignore.

Nowhere is Chomsky’s hypocrisy more evident than in his support for the communist forces during the Vietnam war. In a 1967 debate entitled “The Legitimacy of Violence as a Political Act?” (as if such a question even needs to be debated) Chomsky stated “I don’t accept the view that we can just condemn the NLF (National Liberation Front, more popularly known as the Viet Cong which had committed numerous atrocities during the war) terror, period, because it was so horrible. I think we really have to ask questions of comparative costs.” Chomsky certainly had no such hang-ups when it came to condemning the American use of force.

At the same debate Chomsky defended communist China calling the country where millions of innocent people had been killed a ”just society” and praising the collectivization programs which had stripped it citizens of any remnant of individual freedom they had, binding them to the state. Chomsky insisted that “China is an important example of a new society in which very interesting and positive things happened at the local level, in which a good deal of the collectivization and the communization was really based on mass participation and took place after a level of understanding had been reached in the peasantry that led to this next step.” This was just several years after Mao’s catastrophic famine had ripped through the nation killing millions.

In his 1970 book At War With Asia, Chomsky praises the revolution in Vietnam in which thousands and eventually close to 1 million people would be murdered while many more were left to die in concentration camps.

In the book he claims that his visit to Vietnam found him with people who were “healthy, well-fed, and adequately clothed” going so far as to suggest that the reforms being made were so progressive that “direct democracy” was in the foreseeable future. Vietnam today is an impoverished tyranny, in part thanks to the effort of people like Noam Chomsky. Like the “useful idiots” Lenin and Stalin counted on to distort the image of the USSR , Chomsky was more than willing to lie to the American people for political advantage.

While in Vietnam , he also addressed the people being oppressed saying that the developments taking place there were “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.” He said this on state radio in a nation where freedom of the press didn’t exist and men were being herded into concentration camps while all opposing political views were being stamped out.

In 1977 Chomsky went so far to defend the communist faith as to publish an article titled “Distortions at Fourth Hand” in The Nation suggesting that reports of genocide in Pol Pot’s Cambodia were anti-communist propaganda. First he had stood up for the NLF, then he covered-up the failed and murderous policies of communist China and now he was trying to legitimize the Khmer Rouge.

With little evidence to back him up, Chomsky was again rushing to play cheerleader for tyranny. The New York Times Magazine and The Christian Science Monitor had estimated the death toll between one and two million people out of a total population of about 8 million. Chomsky scoffed at this total bending over backwards once again to make the best out a horrid situation. Once again Chomsky had the facts wrong and was up at bat for the devil.

As if this wasn’t bad enough, Chomsky wrote a book in 1979 entitled After the Cataclysm, where he defended the actions taken by Pol Pot’s murderous regime "If a serious study…is someday undertaken” he said, “it may well be discovered…that the Khmer Rouge programs elicited a positive response…because they dealt with fundamental problems rooted in the feudal past and exacerbated by the imperial system.” Of course these programs included wholesale oppression and the murder of nearly 3 million innocent people.

After the war in Vietnam ended and America pulled out of South-East Asia Chomsky, like many on the left, become bored with the murder taking place in the region. There were no Americans and far too many socialists involved. Instead he turned his attention to Latin America where political upheaval presented an opportunity to once again rally the cult of anti-Americanism.

In an interview in 1986 on WHDH right here in Boston , Chomsky addressed the situation in Nicaragua under the Sandinistas saying “...what we should do is very simple and everyone in the government knows it. Call of the war and they [the Sandinista regime] will return to what they were doing before we attacked them; namely creating the most effective reforms in the hemisphere.” Those reforms included massacres, the suspension of freedom of press and most democratic rights, censorship and the repeal of laws that protected illegal searches. What is really outrageous about this incident, however, is that years after his tacit approval of and complicity in genocide, Chomsky was still being touted by the mainstream media as an important voice in American foreign policy.

If all this isn’t bad enough, Chomsky has lent his name to a historian who denies that the holocaust ever took place and has gained a considerable following among neo-nazis. So enthralled was Chomsky with Robert Faurisson’s work, he wrote an essay defending the author which he eventually gave permission to be used in as the forward for a book in which the author claims that gas chambers in Nazi Germany did not exist.

Noam Chomsky has demonstrated a clear pattern through the years of distorting the facts of history and excusing some atrocities to criticize lesser ones, all in the name of political expediency. Historian Keith Windschuttle is dead-on in his analysis of Chomsky: “Chomsky’s moral perspective is completely one-sided. No matter how great the crimes of the regimes he has favored, such as China, Vietnam, and Cambodia under the communists, Chomsky has never demanded their leaders be captured and tried for war crimes” he said in The New Criterion, adding “instead, he has defended these regimes for many years to the best of his ability through the use of evidence he must have realized was selective, deceptive, and in some cases invented.”

Indeed contemporary American youth and new left intellectuals still accept Chomsky’s works and worldview uncritically. His screeds serve as fuel necessary in driving their visceral anti-American bigotry. Moreover, Chomsky’s popularity illustrates the moral bankruptcy of leftist historians and authors who are more concerned with orthodoxy than facts or freedom. Without true diversity on our college campuses, works like Chomsky’s will continue to proliferate unchecked and inundate the next generation with shoddy propaganda rather than judicious historical analysis.

© copyright 2004, please do not duplicate without author's consent

[moustache]

I like it

[PatrickHenry]

So, ghost, you accuse the Sandinistas of massacre(presumably the two known incidents against the Miskito Indians). Do you also excuse massacre by US forces against the American Indians, the Filipinos in their insurgency and Operation Phoenix in Vietnam? If so, I would say you are no logician but rather a jingoist...

I also note that you find fault with suspensions of civil rights by the Nicas during the contra war. Are you similarly critical of the abuses of Americans rights in the so-called "War On Terror" under the Declared State of Emergency? Wars do unusual things to the rights of citizens, don't they?

[Nono]

Quote by: ghost Those reforms included massacres, the suspension of freedom of press and most democratic rights, censorship and the repeal of laws that protected illegal searches.

"Repeal of laws that protected illegal searches"? My-my, so illegal searches suddenly lost their protection. Shazzam!

Forget that the Sandinistas were under constant military attack by the creatures of Reaganite Washington, who illegally funded them -- in breach of the US constitution -- with money obtained by selling goodies to the Iranian mullahs. Creatures, by the way, who were themselves a byword for massacring of civilians (and the odd American nun, not let's not forget that, ghost).

And what of Nicaragua's neighbours at the time, Honduras and El Salvador say. Was the situation there better, or worse? C'mon, ghost, a bit of real interest in human and civil rights now.

By the way, ghost, do you have any idea who was running Nicaragua before the Sandinistas overhtrew him. I have to guess not, or you wouldn't be drivelling on about Sandinista attacks on personal liberties.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: ghost who has helped promote holocaust denial, made himself an apologist

These are all lies that have been debunked. Read the links that I posted on the first page. This has all been discussed before.

[Gorgo]

Horowitz's worshippers don't have much trouble lying or taking things out of context:

http://www.chomsky.info/debates/19671215.htm

[Gorgo]

On Cambodia and Faurisson: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/other/85-hitchens.html

[Mr.Vicchio]

Gorgo, your using a website, Chomsky.info and Zmag, both VERY pro-Chomsky to defend.. Chomsky.


That would be like using FrontPageMag to defend horowitz...

Is that the best you can muster? Partisan spin sites dedicated to the cause of promoting Chomsky as your "proof"?

[fedfem]

Incredible...I can't speak for the "leftists" you mention but as I and others have stated, we don't agree will all of Chomsky's views but find them thought provoking.

It is impossible to debate with those who see the world in black/white. I would argue that moderates(as I consider myself)and writers like Chomsky, look beyond and know how important the grey areas are.

I am starting to think those against Chomsky have never actually read him at all but depend on the neocon writings. Those are the real "useful idiots."

This does remind me of a conversation/debate I had months ago regarding Coulter. I went out and bought her books because I could not believe some of the stuff coming from the left about her views. Many radical right types hold her in the same esteem they accuse the left of holding Chomsky. The difference is Coulter is all about shock and rhetoric where as Chomsky is about facts and perspective.

Since I have read Chomsky, I know he is not what is being described by the neocons.

[Gorgo]

Vicchio, this once again shows that you have no intent to reasonably discuss anything. You don't even bother to read the first few lines to find out that the article was written by Christopher Hitchens, who does not publish in 'Z' magazine, and the article itself was published in Grand Street Magazine.

However, unlike your web sites, 'Z' magazine deals in reality, so if you have something to say, at least act like you're attempting to deal with facts, unlike your usual "ANTI-AMERICAN" screaming freak show authors.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Zmag is a Pro-Chomsky Site, period, reguardless whatever else you say. Thus using that site as defense of Chomsky against negative critisism is absurd, and irrellivent.

If all you have is your favored Chosky Cheerleader site to defend him, I say that says alot about him and you.

[Matt W]

the article was written by Christopher Hitchens, who does not publish in 'Z' magazine, and the article itself was published in Grand Street Magazine.

Mr.V , did you bother to read this line? Did you bother to see if Grand Street Magazine has a website of its' own? Obviously not....

Your lack of willingness to even look at sources says an awful lot about your rhetoric.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio If all you have is your favored Chosky Cheerleader site to defend him, I say that says alot about him and you.

Again, you can't deal with the facts, so go away and leave those people alone who want to to discuss the issue. I didn't just howl about how stupid someone was for quoting a frontpagemag site article, I did some research. It is stupid, but that doesn't mean that even David Horowitz can't be right once in a while.

[Gorgo]

I won't go to the trouble of quoting, but from what I see, Chomsky has denied ever speaking on Hanoi Radio, and says that he does not remember speeches made at that time, but anyone can see what he wrote at the time to see if those things that he was purported to have said agree with what he was saying at the time.

I'm told, and did not verify, that the purported transcript was probably a translation of something that he said or wrote translated into Vietnamese and back into English again.

I see no reason to think that Chomsky made a speech for Radio Hanoi.

[Lou Minotti]

Quote by: moustache Noam Chomsky-Zero Anybody who claims that the real terrorist's are major powers such as the U.S, has to be insane. Also I cant believe how Anti-American this guy really is... This is what qualifies him as a zero in my book. thats my two-cents.

That's pretty funny. Throughout history, the elite have always been corrupt. Always. I'm not a fan of Chomksy's political stances but could you be more specific? What makes him "anti american"?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Matt W Mr.V , did you bother to read this line? Did you bother to see if Grand Street Magazine has a website of its' own? Obviously not.... Your lack of willingness to even look at sources says an awful lot about your rhetoric.

I'm sorry Matt, that's pretty sad you had to ride to Volconvo's favorite posters rescue.


The articles he listed were a Chomsky site and Zmag.

I don't give damn WHO wrote the article, those are PRO-Chomsky sites.

If I were to use PRO-BUSH partisan sites to defend Bush, even if Marueen Dowd WROTE the article, would it matter? No. Why because it was off of a PRO-BUSH partisan web site. Thus making the article suspect and unuseable as a defense.

The Chomsky.info and Zmag sites are what I am reffering to.


But as usual, if Gorgo gets into a hole, along will come a Mod to defend him. Surprised it took this long, and on such weak grounds as that.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Gorgo Again, you can't deal with the facts, so go away and leave those people alone who want to to discuss the issue. I didn't just howl about how stupid someone was for quoting a frontpagemag site article, I did some research. It is stupid, but that doesn't mean that even David Horowitz can't be right once in a while.

I will have to remember this itme from you, Even Horowitz can be right? From you? You must be desperate.

I was argueing not against the claims, facts or ANYTHING else listed in those articles, I was only pointing out that using pro-chomsky links form Chomsky-cheerleaders immediatly raises WTF flags.

Now, instead of trying to deflect that point, which is the ONLY one I made, you try to run me off the discuss because.. damn I through something out there you cannot defend against.

[The Analog Kid]

Wow. I missed the fun.

It seems that many of the supporters/defenders of Chomsky want to state that criticism of one's own nation is patriotic and indeed it is a Constitutional right.
I don't dispute any of that nor would I want to see Chomsky silenced.

One thing I've noticed is not only has he criticised the US but he's heaped praise on and in fact has essentially sided with our adversaries. That is not "patriotic".


I have one question though. Can any of the Chomsky supporters find some statements by Chomsky that are positive about the US or provide any commentary by him on any of the good things the US has done?


You see, it's not really the criticism that bothers me. It's the whole siding with the enemy crap coupled with his (apparrant) inability to praise the US.
He also seems to be morally confused and has an inability to differentiate between good and evil.

I'm not a liberal.

Are you a marxist? anarchist?

Again, your support of criminal behavior is noted.

What makes it "criminal behaivior"? Because a group of nations in the UN being bribed by Saddam didn't give their consent?

Analog, had you cared what the population of Volconvo thought, you would have done a search to see what we thought, and would have mentioned your search.

I was curious as to how he's viewed by the membership.

I think what you'll find, is that while Chomsky is definitely human, and capable of error, his loudest critics are generally people like David Horowitz, whose career is based on lies and extreme right-wing nonsense.

What has Horowitz lied about?
What extreme right-wing nonsense?

I've found him to be an interesting person seeing that he was in the middle of the crap in the 60's and feels a tremendous amount of guilt over it.

No. It is illegal to attack other countries. Again, the United States is part of the UN.

What are nations supposed to do when this "world government" does not live up to it's obligations and refuses to enforce it's own resolutions?

People who love the United States and wish it to live up to the standards that it purports to promote are "anti-American" and criminals who attack other countries without regard for law or human life are pro-america, I suppose.

We can document a ton of Anti-American statements made by Chomsky. One can affix any motivation to it.

Can anyone document any Pro-American statements by Chomsky?

Again, you just use your neocon buzzwords like "freeing the nation of Iraq" as though there were any truth to it and don't bother backing anything up.

Liberating Iraq was always used as a justification. It was used long before the start of the war.

I can't find any reasonable refutation of the idea that this was not a pharmaceutical plant, necessary to the lives of millions of people,

Far be it for me to defend the Clinton administration but I seem to remember that they claimed they found EMTA outside of the factory.

Please explain how our bombing of a pharmaceutical building in Sudan was justified. I am not aware of any evidence to supports the Clinton administration's claim that the building was being used to develop chemical weapons.

Clintons Sec of Defense Cohen testifying before the 9/11 commission:

COHEN: Senator Gorton, let me give you a real case involving actionable intelligence, the so-called pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. I want to use that as an example because there we were given information that bin Laden, following the bombings of the embassies in East Africa, was seeking to get his hands on chemical and biological weapons to kill as many people as he could.

We were real concerned about that. I was very concerned about that.

COHEN: Intelligence started to come in about this particular plant. They had been gathering information on it, and I think I point this out in my written testimony, but, frankly, I apologize for not getting it to you much sooner. I was still working on it as of yesterday, last night.

But to give you an example, this particular facility, according to the intelligence we had at that time, had been constructed under extraordinary security circumstances, even with some surface-to-air missile capability or defense capabilities.

That the plant itself had been constructed under the security measures, that the plant had been funded, in part, by the so-called military industrial corporation, that bin Laden had been living there, that he had in fact money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program, and that the CIA had found traces of EMTA nearby the facility itself.

According to all the intelligence, there was no other known use for EMTA at that time other than as a precursor to VX.

Under those circumstances, I said, that's actionable enough for me -- that that plant could in fact be producing not baby aspirin or some other pharmaceutical for the benefit of the people, but it was enough for me to say we should take it out -- and I recommended that.

Now, I was criticized for that, saying, you didn't have enough. And I put myself in the position of coming before you and having someone like you say to me, "Let me get this straight, Mr. Secretary, we've just had a chemical weapons attack upon our cities or our troops and we've lost several hundred or several thousand. And this is the information which you had at your fingertips. You had a plant that was built under the following circumstances, had you manager that went to Baghdad, you had Osama bin Laden who had funded at least the corporation, and you had traces of EMTA and did you what? You did nothing? Is that a responsible activity on the part of the Secretary of Defense?"


Coupled with what Moustache posted makes a compelling case.

So should we bomb everyone who uses Round Up on their yard in case they may be making chemical weaponst?

That is sort of disingenious. Your own article stated that "Empta is chemically similar to several commercially "

"Chemically similar" and "identical" are not the same.

So we have competing articles, both with the appearance of credibility.
It boils down to who do you want to believe.
You choose not to believe what's been reported. What motivations do you assign to the US making up a big story about the factory?
What evidence do you have that suggests a big story was manufactured?

I do not feel the website of a "remote viewer" or an article from a neocon should be considered factual without some backup.

LOL. That is the most lame argument being used on the internet today. Can't refute whats stated, just attack the source.
Do you have any evidence that shows that the source of the article is either incorrect or lying?

Ah, so you hate the likes of Geogre Washingon, Jefferson, etc?

Wow! You mean Washington and Jefferson spent the bulk of their time attacking the very nation they in part created?

Astounding! Where are these historical documents? I haven't seen them yet.

Frontpage.com This is where he gets his "america hater" insanity.

Same for you. Lamest argument going on the internet.

None of this has anything to do with Chomsky. It is illegal to attack other countries, except to remove an "imminent threat," such as a plane in the air. Otherwise, this must be taken up with the UNSC.

And what is a nation to do when persons associated in the UN, even possibly the UN's chairman, are being paid off and have a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power?
The UN is corrupt.

The articles he listed were a Chomsky site and Zmag. I don't give damn WHO wrote the article, those are PRO-Chomsky sites. If I were to use PRO-BUSH partisan sites to defend Bush, even if Marueen Dowd WROTE the article, would it matter? No. Why because it was off of a PRO-BUSH partisan web site. Thus making the article suspect and unuseable as a defense. The Chomsky.info and Zmag sites are what I am reffering to.

Interesting. Lets get this straight.
Leftists, Anarchists, Communists, Chomsky boot lickers can post anything from any source and it's credible.

The rest of us must post things from sources approved by Leftists, Anarchists, Communists, and Chomsky boot lickers, otherwise they are just dismissed.

Did I get that right?

Of course your point is right on the money here. Had you used Horowitz supporting websites to defend Horowitz the same persons using Chomsky supporting websites to defend Chomsky would be dismissing the facts because they came from a Horowitz supporting website.

This is called leftist hypocracy, they do it all the time.

But as usual, if Gorgo gets into a hole, along will come a Mod to defend him. Surprised it took this long, and on such weak grounds as that.

Are you serious? Does this kind of crap happen often here?




BTW, Mr. Ghost. Excellent writing.

[fedfem]

Quote by: The Analog Kid Wow. I missed the fun. It seems that many of the supporters/defenders of Chomsky want to state that criticism of one's own nation is patriotic and indeed it is a Constitutional right. I don't dispute any of that nor would I want to see Chomsky silenced. One thing I've noticed is not only has he criticised the US but he's heaped praise on and in fact has essentially sided with our adversaries. That is not "patriotic". I have one question though. Can any of the Chomsky supporters find some statements by Chomsky that are positive about the US or provide any commentary by him on any of the good things the US has done? You see, it's not really the criticism that bothers me. It's the whole siding with the enemy crap coupled with his (apparrant) inability to praise the US. He also seems to be morally confused and has an inability to differentiate between good and evil. Are you a marxist? anarchist? What makes it "criminal behaivior"? Because a group of nations in the UN being bribed by Saddam didn't give their consent? I was curious as to how he's viewed by the membership. What has Horowitz lied about? What extreme right-wing nonsense? I've found him to be an interesting person seeing that he was in the middle of the crap in the 60's and feels a tremendous amount of guilt over it. What are nations supposed to do when this "world government" does not live up to it's obligations and refuses to enforce it's own resolutions? We can document a ton of Anti-American statements made by Chomsky. One can affix any motivation to it. Can anyone document any Pro-American statements by Chomsky? Liberating Iraq was always used as a justification. It was used long before the start of the war. Far be it for me to defend the Clinton administration but I seem to remember that they claimed they found EMTA outside of the factory. Clintons Sec of Defense Cohen testifying before the 9/11 commission: COHEN: Senator Gorton, let me give you a real case involving actionable intelligence, the so-called pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. I want to use that as an example because there we were given information that bin Laden, following the bombings of the embassies in East Africa, was seeking to get his hands on chemical and biological weapons to kill as many people as he could. We were real concerned about that. I was very concerned about that. COHEN: Intelligence started to come in about this particular plant. They had been gathering information on it, and I think I point this out in my written testimony, but, frankly, I apologize for not getting it to you much sooner. I was still working on it as of yesterday, last night. But to give you an example, this particular facility, according to the intelligence we had at that time, had been constructed under extraordinary security circumstances, even with some surface-to-air missile capability or defense capabilities. That the plant itself had been constructed under the security measures, that the plant had been funded, in part, by the so-called military industrial corporation, that bin Laden had been living there, that he had in fact money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program, and that the CIA had found traces of EMTA nearby the facility itself. According to all the intelligence, there was no other known use for EMTA at that time other than as a precursor to VX. Under those circumstances, I said, that's actionable enough for me -- that that plant could in fact be producing not baby aspirin or some other pharmaceutical for the benefit of the people, but it was enough for me to say we should take it out -- and I recommended that. Now, I was criticized for that, saying, you didn't have enough. And I put myself in the position of coming before you and having someone like you say to me, "Let me get this straight, Mr. Secretary, we've just had a chemical weapons attack upon our cities or our troops and we've lost several hundred or several thousand. And this is the information which you had at your fingertips. You had a plant that was built under the following circumstances, had you manager that went to Baghdad, you had Osama bin Laden who had funded at least the corporation, and you had traces of EMTA and did you what? You did nothing? Is that a responsible activity on the part of the Secretary of Defense?" Coupled with what Moustache posted makes a compelling case. That is sort of disingenious. Your own article stated that "Empta is chemically similar to several commercially " "Chemically similar" and "identical" are not the same. So we have competing articles, both with the appearance of credibility. It boils down to who do you want to believe. You choose not to believe what's been reported. What motivations do you assign to the US making up a big story about the factory? What evidence do you have that suggests a big story was manufactured? LOL. That is the most lame argument being used on the internet today. Can't refute whats stated, just attack the source. Do you have any evidence that shows that the source of the article is either incorrect or lying? Wow! You mean Washington and Jefferson spent the bulk of their time attacking the very nation they in part created? Astounding! Where are these historical documents? I haven't seen them yet. Same for you. Lamest argument going on the internet. And what is a nation to do when persons associated in the UN, even possibly the UN's chairman, are being paid off and have a vested interest in keeping Saddam in power? The UN is corrupt. Interesting. Lets get this straight. Leftists, Anarchists, Communists, Chomsky boot lickers can post anything from any source and it's credible. The rest of us must post things from sources approved by Leftists, Anarchists, Communists, and Chomsky boot lickers, otherwise they are just dismissed. Did I get that right? Of course your point is right on the money here. Had you used Horowitz supporting websites to defend Horowitz the same persons using Chomsky supporting websites to defend Chomsky would be dismissing the facts because they came from a Horowitz supporting website. This is called leftist hypocracy, they do it all the time. Are you serious? Does this kind of crap happen often here? BTW, Mr. Ghost. Excellent writing.

I will only respond to the part that mentions my post here...

Quote:
I do not feel the website of a "remote viewer" or an article from a neocon should be considered factual without some backup.

LOL. That is the most lame argument being used on the internet today. Can't refute whats stated, just attack the source.
Do you have any evidence that shows that the source of the article is either incorrect or lying?

My original quote says "without some backup" and by that I mean verifiable. Using the tactic of trying to make detractors prove a negative is obvious.