So why does Herman want to carry water for Milosevic
> > One paraphrased reply mentions Chomsky’s “insights.” DeLong then goes on as
>> follows: “Insights? Like his writing a preface for a book by Robert
> > Faurisson,” which he follows up with selective partial quotes like that
>> Chomsky said that Faurisson seemed to be “a relatively apolitical
>>liberal” and
>> that Chomsky admitted to “no special knowledge” of the topic
>>Faurisson dealt
>> with and hadn’t read anything by Faurisson “that suggests that the man was
>> pro-Nazi.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Neither Chomsky nor his ”followers” ever claimed these phrases were
>> “insights”—that is the trick of a smear artist, who searches for vulnerable
>> language in the target, takes the words out of context, and elevates them to
>> supposed “insights.” Note too the illogic—it was an alleged
>>“insight” to write
>> a “preface.” Note also the dishonesty in not mentioning that the preface was
>> only written as an independent avis and inserted in the book as a preface
>> without Chomsky’s prior approval (see Chomsky’s “The Right to Say It,” The
>> Nation, Feb. 28, 1981:
>> http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/8102-right-to-say.html).
>>
>>
>>
>> Most important in this phase of the smear enterprise is DeLong’s refusal to
>> recognize that the avis was solely a defense of the right of free
>>speech and
>> that from beginning to end that was all the struggle was about for Chomsky.
I got bored reading Ed Herman, and I'm sure everybody else did too. So let me confine my reply to one single point, rather than further boring everyone with responses to ten of Herman's errors and misrepresentations.
Ed Herman claims that Chomsky's defense of Nazi sympathizer Robert Faurisson "soley [as] a defense of the right of free speech and that from beginning to end that was all the struggle was about for Chomsky."
PUH-LEEAAZE! Chomsky did not write that Faurisson was a Nazi sympathizer--and for that reason it was the more important to protect his free speech. Chomsky wrote that Faurisson seemed to be "a relatively apolitical liberal" who was being smeared by zionists.
Herman then repeats the lie by claiming that Faurisson's critics were "unable to provide any credible evidence of anti-Semitism or neo-Naziism."
Shame on him.
Brad DeLong