<Quote>
Excellent! I always wanted to read a completely unbiased (and totally not cherry-picked and wasn't compiled by a fanatical detractor) resource on Chomsky's collected works.
Clearly, this is it.
</quote>
Well, clearly you will also want to read the criticisms leveled against the hokey "logic" and arguments employed by Bogdanor himself. It is difficult to take Bogdanor seriously as a contribution to the body of knowledge on the topics covered by Chomsky over decades and decades of in-depth study when Bogdanor argues from an unabashedly pro-Israeli nationalist point of view. Views often basted with copious amounts of neo-con jingoism.
This site is a collection of articles written by scores of writers of various political persuasions over decades.
I would expect Chomsky supporters with an iota of critical thinking to be able to read them and see for themselves how reliable they are (and not just jump to wikipedia to check who assembled them).
Right. Since we are all in favour of being critical (which is all good), can we only look at some of the main points Bogdanor compiles against Chomsky which he parades them as hoaxes. This in order to see who the true hoaxer is (Chomsky or Bogdanor?):
Your article main point is that 'Chomsky's lies are not lies - they are things that reasonable men can disagree about'. As someone who actually grew up in USSR and knows a lot about its history, I can tell you that reasonable men (ie historians) do not disagree about these things.
The more time passes from each issue, the more clear it becomes - which is why he's not taken seriously anymore. His excuses for tyrannical regimes just because they were anti-American are blatant.
We should all be thankful that we don't live in a world he wishes were true - that was already done on massive scale in Russia and millions have suffered as a result.
Well, clearly you will also want to read the criticisms leveled against the hokey "logic" and arguments employed by Bogdanor himself. It is difficult to take Bogdanor seriously as a contribution to the body of knowledge on the topics covered by Chomsky over decades and decades of in-depth study when Bogdanor argues from an unabashedly pro-Israeli nationalist point of view. Views often basted with copious amounts of neo-con jingoism.
Unbiased? Hardly.