That was incredible. If anyone actually read that entire thing, less than a quarter of it had anything at all to do with his essay in Faurisson's book.
And if he didn't want it in the book, and really believed in the point ... after all, he is known for taking stands, no wallflower he, right? ... then why did he just say "oh" and roll over when it was actually published? My skepticism knows no bounds.
And in all of that verbal diarrhea (& thanks, dado, for providing specific evidence of the 42-sentences-vs-1 concept
) he wonders why no one got upset with him when he signed petitions for Eastern Europeans whose writings were suppressed.
East Europeans didn't have any sort of freedoms (at the time of the controversy) that the French enjoyed, did they. Didn't have any sort of freedom of speech in any way, did they. They were actually living under an oppressive regime, weren't they.
If I may quote Deborah Lipstadt (she of the recent victory against David Irving in the British courts): "Free speech does not guarantee them the right to be treated as the "other" side of a legitimate debate ... most important, it does not call for people such as Chomsky to stand by them and thereby commend their views to the public."
Oh, and so good that somewhere in there The Good Professor mentioned his stance on Vietnam.
He didn't mention this, a quote from his book "American Power and the New Mandarins":
"By accepting the presumption of legitimacy of debate on certain issues, one has already lost one's humanity."
Rather accurate description of the Professor himself, doncha think?