Your critique comes off as a troll. You take his *very* brief essay, pick out one part which was largely an aside, then say he's wrong. No, that he's exagerating, or misusing words. No, that no one can make any claims because the situation is too confusing. Make up your mind.

I've found the recent posts from Chomsky interesting, because they are brief and directed to a sympathetic audience. They aren't a thoroughly documented set of arguing points, because he's an intelligent man and knows that point-for-point arguments are both boring, not useful to a sympathetic audience (the arguments tend to wander and lose focus), and never convince anyone of anything. A short format is much more useful.

Of course, this means he has to say things without fully qualifying every statement and without presenting his research on the topic. I don't think it's because he lacks research -- if you know anything about Chomsky, you ought to know he is incredibly knowlegable in history and current affairs. But he leaves himself open to weak attacks like this, because you can take one small statement and say he's wrong, or he didn't provide enough proof, or you can misinterpret it in a way that makes your point easier to prove.

If you want to make an honest argument, attack the real conclusion of that post. He claims we are doing poorly in the occupation -- purely from a practical perspective -- relative to other historical occupations. Honestly, I don't know -- what seems like a lot of deaths and casualties in Iraq is only because we're much more sensitized than other occupiers have been; the actual numbers aren't very high (at least when I put my cynical bastard hat on).

keeping that hat on, I'd say our failing has been that we haven't been able to set up a Iraqi army/police to wage our occupation by proxy, which is probably the greatest failing as an occupier -- direct occupation, as the Soviet Union did in Afghanistan, as we were forced to do in Vietnam -- is a very hard task. So in my own interpretation, I'd say the US is going to be in trouble as long as the US military serves as the Iraqi state, and that is something I wouldn't really "blame" the administration for. They are in a situation where they will have a difficult time setting up a puppet government, and any real government would invalidate the whole point of the Iraqi invasion (the point that Chomsky talks about in http://blog.zmag.org/ttt/archives/000171.html)

'I'd posit that anyone over here, who says they know exactly what's going on in Iraq, is full of shit — regardless of their position.'
This is a weak argument. There are media in Iraq which report 'facts'. Chomsky follows a wide variety of indpendent and corporate press - these people are there, they report, and by reading or following a wide variety of sources we can find out what's happening. This applies to numerous cases for example where analysts look at historical events.

Most people are eager to point out pedantic errors in Chomsky's writing. Most of the time these claims never attest his core arguments - they are just there to distract. If you have read Chomsky and the best thing you can quote to expose his 'lies' are those two cases, then I am sorry, but that's pretty weak. I've seen the likes of you all around the net, picking at his writing style, calling him a Pol Pot apologist or picking at any other small errors in his referencing . I think that's pretty sad. There's an inexplicable amount of hate going on against Chomsky concerning his astute moral philosophy which is above all else, very unselfish - why?

'Actually, these were just *examples* of the double-talk Chomsky does. I didn't realize that I was obligated to write an all-encompassing treatise every time I had a criticism. A simple search of this website will show that I've linked to several thorough arguments against his techniques.'

Of course you're not obligated, but the examples you chose are suspiciously pedantic.

'I don't think the hate is inexplicable -- Chomsky is phenomenally one-sided and biased'

This depends on what you mean by 'one-sided and biased' and how you support this claim. I don't agree with everything he advocates, yet I just view him as a voice among many - doesn't mean you should hate him for having a different point of view. American society has suddenly developed a hate for criticism and an eagerness to point fingers. The French are a classic example.
The Bush administration's intransigence to admit to doing any mistakes is a part of this phenomenon. So maybe you are right, the hate is explicable, but Chomsky isn't necessarily the one to blame for this.

'his astute moral philosophy is about as unselfish as the Khmer Rouge themselves.'

So what you are effectively saying is that Chomsky is a supporter of mass genocide. I'd be happy if you'd point me to some of his texts where he advocated such a cause.

'Chomsky has never sufficiently acknowledged the sins of anyone but the West.'

But you fail to understand his political moral philosophy which is based on self-critique. He criticises things that he as a citizen can influence, and feels responsible for. He acknowledges the crimes you speak of, but places them on a lower pedestal because as a democratic citizen he feels less responsibility for those acts. It is very simple. I guess it comes down to what you mean by 'sufficiently', though I think in general people are scared to look in the mirror first.

Everyone 'picks and chooses his[/her] sources', just like you picked the examples above to support your claims, yet reading Chomsky his sources are based on a tremendous variety of official facts and reports, which can't really be falsified.

'he just denies that it happened'

The quote you chose doesn't seem to show this.

"[T]he deaths in Cambodia were not the result of systematic slaughter and starvation organized by the state but RATHER ATTRIBUTABLE in large measure to peasant revenge..."

He's saying that genocide did in fact occur, but it wasn't necessarily systematic. A similar situation is going on today in Sudan. It's perfectly possible that a country which is dreaded with starvation, poor organisation, etc. is sensitive to coercion. Especially if a murderous regime tips the balance and causes mass panic to ensue, it's difficult to tell who's responsible. I agree with you that the Khmer Rouge was responsible but it can also be attributed to several other factors - i.e. the disastrous state of post-war Cambodia.

Chomsky's right more or less to claim that death's can be attributed to Cambodia's shambolic state after the war. He might be exaggerating the case, but nevertheless he's more compelled to criticise the causations of American actions anyway because of reasons I point out above.

This is in reply to Ian's post:

'If you want to make an honest argument, attack the real conclusion of that post. He claims we are doing poorly in the occupation -- purely from a practical perspective -- relative to other historical occupations. Honestly, I don't know -- what seems like a lot of deaths and casualties in Iraq is only because we're much more sensitized than other occupiers have been; the actual numbers aren't very high (at least when I put my cynical bastard hat on).'

I think we can find a certain point of comparison. Mainly that of the differences between troops under British and US command. If you look at Basra - during war time and shortly following the war - it was the center of resistance and a really difficult place, but now(although I don't know about the future) the city is pacified. The British control this area and I don't see them using brute force in times of diffulties. For example the economist reported that the US army has done a worse job at peacekeeping than the British. I think Chomsky's post is politically addressed to how the US initially handled the falluja affair and other similar cases - they've exercised downright aweful diplomacy and politics. The results are culminated in the movements we see being formed right now. I'm glad the US has decided to remove the blockade in Falluja, maybe Blair and Annan(they did meet prior to Bush and Blair's joint press conference) have managed to communicate a message to Bush and co.

And let's go further into the whole debate about Robert Faurisson since you brought it up. The facts on it are clear and they've been presented by Chomsky. He wrote the preface, without actually reading the book and the contents of the preface have nothing to do with the actual contents of the book - it's a profound statement of the freedom of speech. French intellectuals were so keen to attack Chomsky, because they figured 'now we've got you!' But again, it was a case where people distort the actual facts for their own political purposes. Chomsky is an astute defender of the freedom of speech, and if you apply this in practice, no matter how ludicrous a statement is, people should be allowed to make it and defend it. Faurisson's argument is terrible and I find it disgusting, nevertheless, if we believe in the freedom of speech, he should be allowed to make it.

No problem.

The Social and Political Thought of Noam Chomsky (Routledge Studies in Social and Political Thought)
~Alsion Edgley
Routledge, - April 2002

-This is probably more objective and academic than a lot of stuff that's written about him. It also incorporates his view of human nature into his moral political philosophy. This text really helped me to understand how much depth there is to Chomsky, when the pieces fall into place. Its amazing how leftist tend to trivialise his positions - I find it off-putting.

Foucault and His Interlocutors
~Arnold Davidson
University of Chicago Press
- March 30, 1997

-there's a very interesting 'debate' in here between Foucault and Chomsky that I found interesting, you might be able to find it online
(i put debate in quotation marks of course becuase it comes across more as a love affair, but it still clears up a few things)

Chomsky's System of Ideas
~Fred D'Agostino
Clarendon Press
- March 24, 1988

helpful in conjunction with other readings

Chomsky on Democracy and Education
~Noam Chomsky, Carlos Otero (Editor)
Routledge, Inc
Hardcover - December 19, 2002
-some helpful readings in here

There are lots of things written on Chomsky which are heavily biased. What initially drew me into his ideas were his arguments(I began thinking that they were increasingly biased, but I wondered whether a man with the likes of his conscience would make that mistake), but I only truely started understanding his position after reading Edgley's work. If you have time check em out at your local library - and I hope you find them as helpful as I did.