If Chomsky and co. had spent a fraction of the energy defending the victims of genocide in the Balkans, that they spend on defending Milosevic and the Serb fascists, then Srebrenica might never have happened. Is the point of being on the left to defend people from fascism and ethnic cleansing, or to defend the fascists from negative media coverage ?
"That's being kept under wraps because it explodes the Tribunal, which is unusually dishonest even by those not glorious standards."
Kept under wraps ! Kept under wraps so thoroughly that the information reaches Chomsky in his armchair ! And the idea that this dubious claim "explodes the Tribunal" is frankly laughable.
"Furthermore, one can easily explain the imbalance, and the great powers, particularly Germany and the US, have a lot to answer for as well."
Yes, they colluded with Milosevic's genocidal campaign. That during the 1990s, Chomsky, Herman, Johnstone et. al. fell in behind the Clinton-Major policy of appeasing Milosevic's Serbia only shows that their genocide denial is very far from being an "alternative" to the mainstream view...
"There is very good material on this, including even the Canadian general and the head of US intelligence in Sarajevo -- all public, kept under wraps."
Yes, if the representatives of Western imperialism say things in defence of Milosevic and Karadzic, and against the Bosnians, then they must be right ! But how can something be both "public" and "kept under wraps" ??
"This was a crucial event in Western intellectual history: an opportunity for self-adulation on the part of Western intellectuals because of their heroism in condemning crimes by Serb peasants, at a time when Serbia was an enemy -- not because of its crimes, real but irrelevant, but because it was the only corner of Europe not following the Don's commands. Therefore any questioning of the Party Line is met by the usual hysteria of the commissar class."
More Chomsky atrocity denial - as if Milosevic, Arkan and their fellow fascists were "peasants". Serbia was NOT viewed as the enemy by Western leaders; Milosevic was Clinton's favoured collaborator in the Dayton Accords.
The only reason that Chomsky and co insist that the Western alliance viewed Milosevic as "the enemy", is because they'd like to think that the neo-Stalinist tyrannies they sympathise with are somehow "anti-imperialist". Yet the truth is that, like Pol Pot and Stalin, Milosevic was an ally of leading elements in the Western alliance. Just as Ronald Reagan followed Chomsky's lead in defending the Khmer Rouge, so Chomsky has followed the lead of Britain's John Major and France's Francois Mitterand in defending Milosevic.