Contary to what you say, Windschuttle's article on Chomsky is nothing more than a series of lies and distortions.

Keith Windschuttle misrepresents and blatantly lies about Noam Chomsky's views. If you wish to know what Chomsky says and believes don't waste your time reading Windschuttle and don?t make the mistake of believing anything Windschuttle says. Read Chomsky. A good online collection of Chomsky?s work is at http://chomsky.info .

Following are some examples of Windschttle?s many lies in "The Hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky". In this article Windschuttle blatantly lies about Chomsky's views in the December 1967 debate "The Legitimacy of Violence as a Political Act?" The transcript for this 1967 debate is available under Debates at http://chomsky.info . Winschuttle tells us that in that debate Chomsky defended the use of terror by the National Liberation Front (NLF) in South Vietnam. This is a blatant lie. In that debate Chomsky's clearly stated position is that NLF terror against officials of the U.S. backed South Vietnamese regime was unjustified.

Windschuttle also fails to mention that the kind of NLF terror Chomsky was discussing was terror against government officials, not terror against ordinary civilians. He also quotes Chomsky out of context to help create the false impression that Chomsky's position is the opposite of what it actually is. Windschuttle fails to mention that the point Chomsky is making in the paragraph from which he quotes is that Chomsky and Dr. Hannah Arendt have different reasons for their shared position that the NLF terror was unjustified. Windschuttle omits the first two sentences and the last sentence of the paragraph he quotes from in the transcript. These sentences inconveniently indicate the context, specifically Chomsky's opposition to NLF terror, and the fact that Chomsky?s purpose in that paragraph is to explain how his reasons for opposing NLF terror differ from Dr. Hannah Arendt's. (The paragraph from which Windschuttle quotes his out of context excerpt is the 19th paragraph from the end of the transcript.)

Windschuttle also blatantly lies about Chomsky's position on the killing of landlords by the North Vietnamese and Chinese communists. Chomsky's clearly stated position in the said 1967 debate is that those killings were unjustified.

I could go on and on, but I think this is enough to show what a brazen liar Windschuttle is. If you wish to confirm this for yourself, start by reading the said 1967 debate and then compare it to Windschuttle?s deceptive nonsense.

Windschuttle's lack of references in his said article is perhaps to hide the fact that he is a liar by making it difficult to check his sources. I had to figure out for myself what Windschuttle is quoting from and referring to for his lie about Chomsky's views on NLF terror, and it took me a while to find it online.

Windschuttle tells us ad nauseum that Chomsky is anti-American. But Chomsky's as American as apple pie to anyone who makes a distinction between America and its government. Criticizing the government and big corporations is not anti-American, no more than it is for example anti-Chinese for a Chinese person to criticize the Chinese government or Chinese big business, or anti-British for a Brit to criticize Tony Blair and company. It also happens that Chomsky has some pritty positive things to say about America.