Brad writes of Chomsky and Hermann:
> Can I say that there is something really weird about claiming that
> person x's condemnation of genocide y lacks "integrity" because person x
> did not sufficiently condemn genocide z?
Your analogy doesn't hold. In the case of the US and Cambodia, party "X" -- in this case, the United States -- was actually *responsible* for genocide "Z." Furthermore, genocide "Y" -- the Khmer Rouge's -- was a consequence of the original genocide "Z."
> Genocide is a bad thing, no matter who it is done by, no matter where,
> no matter when. Condemnations of acts of genocide are always welcome.
> They never lack "integrity."
Sure. And Captain Renault was being a paragon of honest policing when said he was "shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on" in Rick's Cafe.
Chomsky's position is neither simple nor mainstream, but misrepresenting it won't wash. Any legitimate critique of it has to procede from what it actually is. End of story.