A few people have commented on my post below, in which I argue that whatever else you think about Chomsky, it's very odd to regard him as beyond the pale considering all the things which seem to be quite within bounds these days.
At his own blog, Brian Leiter makes another worthwhile point about Chomsky:
Here's David Bernstein (George Mason Law) from the right-wing Volokh Conspiracy putting it clearly and directly:Indeed. A few years ago, when I was further to the right than I am now, I remember reading a fairly mainstream book on Cold War history. It was only about half-way through that I realized how jarring I was finding some of the straightforward descriptions of the strategic ambitions and calculations of American policymakers. I don't want to exaggerate, but decent sized parts of it would have read as straight Chomsky if the writing had been (much) worse and the tone angry."I did support the war to remove Saddam and provide a lesson to others in the Arab world what becomes of leaders who defy the U.S., try to acquire WMDs, etc....I was hopeful that those who suggested that the U.S. could establish democracy there were correct, but thought it likely wiser to simply divide the country in three, ensuring mainly that (1) the oil revenues were in the hands of a friendly government; and (2) the U.S. had bases from which it could project force if needed to Iran and Saudi Arabia."
A few minor changes in emphasis and phrasing, and this could have come from Noam Chomsky. But it is much better coming from the right.
