> Chuck, no one belongs on a pedastal, but if there's anyone who deserves
> to be taken seriously, even if you don't agree with him, it's Chomsky.
> There's a lot of stuff I don't agree with him on, but he's still a
> thoroughly admirable fellow. You can't accuse him of being soft on U.S.
> power, even when it's the Dems he's voted for doing the dirty work - his
> criticism of Clinton's attack on the drug factory in the Sudan, for
> example.
Don't get me wrong, I really admire Chomsky's work and agree with almost everything he argues. But for a tireless critic of U.S. foreign policy and American imperialism, you would think that Chomsky would take a principled stand that *both* parties and their supporters are equally culpable in the crimes of the United States. Chomsky has not pulled any punches when it comes to criticizing Democratic administrations. If there is anything that people should come away from Chomsky's writings is a clear understanding about how both parties are different sides of the same coin. The Democrats are not going to be kinder, gentler war criminals. Granted, A President Gore might not have invaded Iraq, but he would have pursued a war in Afghanistan after 9/11 and who can tell how many Balkans wars would have come along if Gore had become president.
Ack, I'm tired of arguing about the election.
Chuck