I think what Rockwell may have in mind (see below) about Chomsky praising Khmer Rouge economic policies was the quote that David Horowitz and Peter Collier attributed to him in their 1985 Washington Post article where Chomsky allegedly said in 1975 that the Khmer Rouge were brining a new era of peace and prosperity to Cambodia. In 1985 Christopher Hitchens (http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/1985—-.html) showed that Horowitz and Collier had actually taken the words "a new era of peace and prosperity", not from anything written in 1975 about the Khmer Rouge, but from a 1972 preface to a book of interviews with Prince Siahnouk where Chomsky expressed politely, probably thinking that Siahnouk was the only viable alternative to the Lon Nol regime and U.S. war crimes, the hope that that Siahnouk and his people might be able to return to Cambodia and make things better. I would have thought that Rockwell would be a little bit above repeating such lies with such non-existent evidence to back them up. Also he seems to think that because Chomsky will not vote for Ron Paul if he were in a contest with Hillary Clinton, then ipso facto, he would vote for Hillary. It doesn’t seem to occur to him that Chomsky might vote "none of the above." Rockwell is very respected by the Counterpunch brethren, at least by Cockburn and Josh Frank, who get a little too enthusiastic about anti-war right wing libertarians.
December 23, 2007
Posted by Lew Rockwell at December 23, 2007 01:11 PM
Noam Chomsky has written many brilliant books on US foreign policy, the manufacturing of consent by the regime, etc. He holds himself out as antiwar, though he is for UN wars. Murray Rothbard never forgot Chomsky’s endorsement of the Year Zero anti-economic policies of the Khmer Rouge. Here’s more proof of his belief in the state and its war on property owners. He even says that he would support Hillary Clinton over Ron Paul. In other words, despite all his brilliance, Chomsky is a commie