[tptacek]

I don't think the "character assassination" argument is tenable. Chomksy later condemned the Khmer Rouge, long after it was politically relevant, but he was indeed an apologist for it during its era in power, and he hasn't (to my knowledge?) acknowledged having done so.

https://web.archive.org/web/20010915014621/http://www.zmag.o...

This is hard to read knowing what actually happened.

[scotty79]

I think Chomsky is so focused of USA wrongdoings that sometimes outside wrongdoing slips his mind for extended period of time. Especially if USA is somehow involved in that situation too which it almost always is in one way or another.

He focuses on USA to the point of being boring now.

At this point nobody outside US believes any justifications to US foreign wars. If there was any willingness to believe any of that George W Bush pretty much trew in on a pile and set it on fire while doing stupid face.

Everybody knows USA just goes around the world and starts wars with whatever local evil they can safely engage (from geopolitical standpoint) to further their economical interests, both global and domestic.

It's not that the rest of the world is doing nothing because they believe any word USA puts out. It's because they can do nothing against current military and market hegemon.

Other countries will even happily pretend they believe US propaganda so they can calm their populace and keep themself safe from the next round of "democracy spreading" that comes out of US.

[VictorPath]

> he was indeed an apologist for it during its era in power

The US did indeed arm the "Khmer Rouge", whatever that is, after its era in power.

[kasey_junk]

That’s a highly contended assertion.

We know the Carter administration contemplated arming the Khmer Rouge and we know they hated the idea.

There is no evidence that they actually ever gave military aid.

[tptacek]

And? The US also committed countless atrocities in Vietnam. I'm talking about the misdeeds of Noam Chomsky, not of the US.