Chomsky / Moynihan
Brian Turner
>>For example, a writer like Chomsky who gives no page number to Moynihan's
memoir
so that his readers won't readily check and see that he has shamelessly
misrepresented it, or who fabricates source material, is not scholarly.<<
Here's the whole thing, so people can judge for themselves.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan A DANGEROUS PLACE (1978)
pgs 245-247
On December 8 Dili fell. A place of no great importance, it was the capital
of Portuguese Timor, a colony of Portugal since 1596. On July 12, Portugal
had announced that the territory would probably remain under Portuguese rule
until October, 1978. Early in August, however, a coup took place, mounted
by a centrist party seeking independence. This was followed by civil strife
between the centrist group and the left-wing Revolutionary Front for the
Independence of Timor, known by the acronym FRETILIN. By early September
the leftist group had evidently prevailed, and was soon recognized by the
People's Republic of China. On December 8 the forces of neighboring
Indonesia seized Timor's capital of Dili, and soon took over the whole of
the colony. Indonesian Foreign Minister Adam Malik said that this was done
in response to a request from the centrist rivals of FRETILIN, and that a
plebiscite would soon be held. President Ford had been in Jakarta just two
days before the invasion. The White House press secretary, when asked,
stated that the Indonesian President Suharto had raised the subject in "very
general terms", but had no further comment.
Portugal broke diplomatic relations with Indonesia, insisting on the right
of the people of Timor to self-determination. Portugal requested a meeting
of the Security Council. The Times declared: "By any definition, Indonesia
is guilty of naked aggression." China, acting for a group of nations,
introduced a draft resolution in the General Assembly's Committee on
Dependent Territories calling on all parties to work for independence, and
on the Indonesian troops to withdraw "without delay". On December 22 the
Security Council unanimously approved a resolution calling on Indonesia to
remove its military forces from Portuguese Timor - also without delay.
There were many suggestions as to what the Secretary-General might do.
Fighting went on for a bit. A U.N. special envoy, Vittorio
Winspeare-Guicciardi, was appointed. In February the deputy chairman of the
provisional government forecast that the Indonesian forces would complete
their takeover in three to four weeks, and estimated that some sixty
thousand persons had been killed since the outbreak of civil war. This
would have been 10 percent of the population, almost the proportion of
casualties experienced by the Soviet Union during the Second World War. The
three-to-four week estimate must have been correct, as the subject
disappeared from the press and from the United Nations after that time. A
dispatch from Canberra in the Christian Science Monitor of January 26, 1978
began: "In a move seen here as premature, unnecessary, realistic, and even
tragic, the Australian Government formally has acknowledged that Indonesia
has sovereignty over East Timor."
Spanish Sahara was a place of somewhat greater self importance in itself -
as Spanish Sahara was the fourth largest producer of phosphates in the
world, a commodity whose value had quintupled when the price of oil had been
quintupled - and of vastly greater importance to the rule of law and the
authority of the United Nations Charter. In December of 1975, the territory
was partitioned. Eight weeks earlier, the International Court of Justice,
in an advisory opinion requested by the General Assembly, had solemnly
affirmed the right of self-determination of the people of this, the last
Spanish colony.
Twelve months earlier, December 13, 1974, the General Assembly, "reaffirming
the right of the population of Spanish Sahara to self determination," had
requested an advisory opinion by the court on whether this area had been, at
the time of Spanish colonization in 1884, "a territory belonging to no one
(terra nullius)," as asserted by Spain. Both the Kingdom of Morocco and the
Islamic Republic of Mauritania were making claims prior to suzerainty over
the region, and whether Spain would actually leave the place was still an
open question. No one might have cared - there were at most seventy
thousand inhabitants of the bleak territory, and of these almost all were
nomads - save for the discovery that its northern region was pure phosphate.
The opportunity to win yet another victory over colonialism now combined
with the prospect of profit. There was talk of invasion. Generalissimo
Franco was adroit to the last. He would not have a war, no matter how
miniature. In May 1975, he announced that Spain would grant independence to
the territory in the shortest possible time, and thereupon asked the
Secretary-General to send U.N. observers to be on hand for the transfer. On
October 17 the International Court of Justice issued its opinion. The Court
found that at the time of colonization by Spain, Western Sahara "was not a
territory belonging to no one (terra nullius)," but neither did the
information and the materials presented to it "establish any tie of
territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the
Kingdom of Morrocco or the Mauritanian entity. Thus, the decision
concluded, independence should go forward "through the free and the genuine
expression of the will of the peoples of the Territory."
With that, King Hassan II of Morocco announced that he would lead a peaceful
"march of conquest" of a quarter million of his subjects into Spanish
Sahara. Algerian President Houari Boumedienne announced that if Morocco did
this Algeria would go to war. Secretary-General Waldheim called for the
"utmost restraint" to "avoid tragedy." The Security Council appealed to all
"concerned and interested parties" to avoid any action that might heighten
tension. The marchers went forward. Then they went back. Franco stepped
down and Price Juan Carlos de Borbon succeeded him. As Acting Chief of
State he flew to the colony and declared that Spain would protect the
"legitimate rights" of the people of Spanish Sahara and the "honor and
prestige of the Army of Spain." He thereupon turned the territory over to
Morocco and Mauritania to divide between them. Algeria, which also bordered
on the territory, was outmaneuvered. The General Assembly passed two
resolutions. One sided with Algeria; the other sided with Morocco.
These two events spoke to the nature of the new world system. It was not so
different from the old. It was for the moment more stable, but a reasonable
forecast would be that Africa in particular had a century of border wars
ahead of it. On the other hand, such was the power of the anticolonial idea
that great powers from outside a region had relatively little influence
unless they were prepared to use force. China altogether backed FRETILIN in
Timor, and lost. In Spanish Sahara, Russia just as completely backed
Algeria, and its front, known as Polisario, and lost. In both instances,
the United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring
this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove
utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given
to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success.
Duncan C Mitchel
Thanks for posting this. I'd checked the passage in Moynihan myself a few
weeks ago but hadn't had time to write anything about it here. I'd say
it's fairly obvious to anyone who bothers to read it that Chomsky has not
misrepresented Moynihan -- who if anything comes across here as even more
thuggish than I expected. Moynihan makes it clear that he knew the extent
of Indonesian atrocities in East Timor, but this doesn't bother him at
all; Dili is after all "a place of no importance."
Moynihan also neglected to mention that the US was underwriting
Indonesia's invasion and occupation of East Timor -- which it continued to
do through the Clinton administration. This was not, as Chomsky and
others have pointed out many times over the decades, a case of the US
helpless and passively standing by the sidelines as one of our allies did
regrettable things. The US directly supported Indonesia's aggression, and
as Moynihan boasts, ensured that
One other point: if Chomsky's failure to give a page number proves him
"not scholarly," according to Kamm, then by Kamm's logic Arthur
Schlesinger isn't scholarly either. In the passage from _Cycles of
American History_ that Kamm has cited for Chomsky's alleged "fabrication
of a quotation from Truman, Schlesinger gives no page number either:
Noam Chomsky in American Power and the New Mandarins (New York, 1969)
twice claimed that Truman had said: "All freedom is dependent on
freedom of enterprise...."
In order to track down Schlesinger's accusation, I had to reread _American
Power and the New Mandarins_ (which doesn't have an index), though that
was no great hardship. (The chapter on Schlesinger is especially
worth a look in this context.) Even Schlesinger didn't accuse Chomsky of
fabricating the quotation, at least not here. Schlesinger also quoted
Stephen Ambrose using the same quotation, apparently lumping Chomsky and
Ambrose together with other "Open Door" school historians. Which means
that Schlesinger takes Chomsky more seriously as a "scholar" than Kamm
does.
As well he might, since Chomsky *is* a scholar, as Kamm knows: Chomsky has
a long and distinguished scholarly career as a linguist. Why Chomsky gave
no page number for the Moynihan quotation, I don't know -- he certainly
should have, if not when he originally cited it then on later occasions
-- but his failure to do so doesn't prove that he's not a scholar, unless
Kamm wants to claim that Schlesinger isn't a scholar either.
Brian Turner <myr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Oliver Kamm wrote
>
>>>For example, a writer like Chomsky who gives no page number to Moynihan's
>memoir
>so that his readers won't readily check and see that he has shamelessly
>misrepresented it, or who fabricates source material, is not scholarly.<<
>
>Here's the whole thing, so people can judge for themselves.
>
>Daniel Patrick Moynihan A DANGEROUS PLACE (1978)
>
>pgs 245-247 ...
John Caruso
>In article <h5ih7.22700$Ki1.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>
>Thanks for posting this.
My thanks as well (I was going to do it myself, so it saved me a lot of
typing). BTW, for those with the paperback copy, it's on pages 276-9,
and is referenced--though inadequately--in the index.
>I'd checked the passage in Moynihan myself a few
>weeks ago but hadn't had time to write anything about it here. I'd say
>it's fairly obvious to anyone who bothers to read it that Chomsky has not
>misrepresented Moynihan -- who if anything comes across here as even more
>thuggish than I expected. Moynihan makes it clear that he knew the extent
>of Indonesian atrocities in East Timor, but this doesn't bother him at
>all; Dili is after all "a place of no importance."
Yes. In fact, the quote doesn't really require the additional context.
Moynihan makes it perfectly clear: "the Department of State desired
that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective *in whatever measures
it undertook*." The "measures" he mentions refer to the attempts to
respond to Indonesia's invasion of East Timor, as expressed in UN
Security Council resolutions 384 and 389, available at:
http://www.un.org/peace/etimor/docs/sres384.pdf
http://www.un.org/peace/etimor/docs/sres389.pdf
Note the US abstention on 389 (it's interesting that the US voted in
favor of 384, despite Moynihan's mandate and "no inconsiderable success";
possibly the US didn't want to risk appearing to give outright support
to Indonesia while the blood was still freshly flowing).
Doubtless there were Cold War rationalizations behind this, as there
were behind nearly all US foreign policy maneuvers in that era. The
fact remains that Moynihan is admitting--with a sickening pride and
arrogance, to boot--how the US made sure that the UN would be unable to
do anything to counter Indonesia's brutal invasion. And he's admitting
this AFTER he notes the number of dead. It's a grotesque passage, and
I understand why Chomsky cites it frequently.
>In the passage from _Cycles of
>American History_ that Kamm has cited for Chomsky's alleged "fabrication
>of a quotation from Truman, Schlesinger gives no page number either:
>
> Noam Chomsky in American Power and the New Mandarins (New York, 1969)
> twice claimed that Truman had said: "All freedom is dependent on
> freedom of enterprise...."
Good point. Not that it much matters in either case (as you'd probably
agree)...this has to be one of the most inane criticisms I've seen.
The interesting thing about this quote for me is how closely it echoes
one by Clinton last year, in a speech before the Council of Americas
in which he laid out the rationale for the US push to massively fund
Colombia's military:
"We need all your help. We have to win in Colombia. We have to win
the fight for the free trade area in the Americas," he said. "We
have to prove that freedom and free markets go hand in hand."
This is from a Reuters dispatch in May of 2000. I find the directness
of it refreshing. The only thing I saw that topped this was the (surreal)
report of the NYSE chairman's visit to Colombia to meet with the FARC and
explain to them the wonders of globalization, in an apparent effort to
get them to lay down their arms and embrace Wall Street.
- John
John McCarthy
wanted, or else resign. We can suppose that Moynihan thought the
things he was allowed and encouraged to do outweighed what he found
mistaken. The phrase "the Department of State desired that the United
Nations prove utterly ineffective *in whatever measures it
--
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Maynard Glitman
I've come across some shabby sophistry in this ng, but that one pretty much
takes the cake.
Maynard
"John McCarthy" <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:x4h7kvr...@Steam.Stanford.EDU...
John McCarthy
> HAHAHA. That's one of the funniest things I think I've ever read.
>
> I've come across some shabby sophistry in this ng, but that one pretty much
> takes the cake.
>
> Maynard
>
>
> "John McCarthy" <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
> news:x4h7kvr...@Steam.Stanford.EDU...
> > As a diplomat, Moynihan had to do what the Administration of the time
> > wanted, or else resign. We can suppose that Moynihan thought the
> > things he was allowed and encouraged to do outweighed what he found
> > mistaken. The phrase "the Department of State desired that the United
> > Nations prove utterly ineffective *in whatever measures it
> > undertook*." is obviously crtitical.
> > --
Should Glitman ever find himself spokesman for an organization whose
policies he himself doesn't determine, he may find himself in the
situation Moynihan reports. For example, suppose his organization
advocates that Moynihan be boiled in oil, whereas the merciful Glitman
thinks hanging would be sufficient. In his subsequent memoirs Glitman
may be able to write that he only wanted to hang the man but had to
make speeches advocating boiling in oil.
Maynard Glitman
> policies he himself doesn't determine, he may find himself in the
> situation Moynihan reports. For example, suppose his organization
> advocates that Moynihan be boiled in oil, whereas the merciful Glitman
> thinks hanging would be sufficient. In his subsequent memoirs Glitman
> may be able to write that he only wanted to hang the man but had to
> make speeches advocating boiling in oil.
Ever heard of the "Nuremberg defense"? Well, it didn't work for the Nazis
and it certainly wouldn't get Moynihan off the hook were he to be tried for
his many war crimes (would that it were...). In any event, it is blindingly
obvious from Moynihan's memoirs that he is proud of his actions during this
episode (anyone in doubt, please read the relevant extract below). The
cynicism of the man is almost palpable (of course, he'd call it
"Realpolitik" or some such euphemism routinely bandied about by war
criminals). Your absurd attempts at radical interpretation reveal either an
astounding insincerity or a very warped mind. Once again, Tacitus comes to
mind: "Crime once exposed has no refuge but in audacity."
Maynard
-------
Daniel Patrick Moynihan A DANGEROUS PLACE (1978)
pgs 245-247
On December 8 Dili fell. A place of no great importance, it was the capital
"John McCarthy" <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:x4h4rqu...@Steam.Stanford.EDU...
John Caruso
>As a diplomat, Moynihan had to do what the Administration of the time
>wanted, or else resign. We can suppose that Moynihan thought the
>things he was allowed and encouraged to do outweighed what he found
>mistaken.
We can, or we can suppose nothing and check what his words tell us.
And...
>The phrase "the Department of State desired that the United
>Nations prove utterly ineffective *in whatever measures it
>undertook*." is obviously crtitical.
...I find your judgement of this phrase incomprehensible. That phrase
is neutral, neither critical nor supportive. He's simply describing the
source of his mandate.
If you want to see his own feelings about it, look at the boasting tone
of his "with no inconsiderable success"--and this said AFTER he notes
the number of people killed. Look at his statement that Dili is "a
place of no great importance". Look at the fact that he expresses not
one iota of regret, remorse, or even the faintest sympathy for the
victims of the Indonesian invasion that was furthered by his efforts
to make sure the UN was "utterly ineffective".
A thought experiment for you: try translating this paragraph under the
assumption that it describes an invasion of Israel by an Arab nation,
and imagine your response in that case.
- John
John McCarthy
Timor matter. Maybe the State Department was right at the time. A
takeover East Timor by a Chinese allied group might have led to even
more people being killed. They might have acted similarly to the Khmer
Rouge.
It is only after the collapse of the Soviet Empire that Cold War
considerations became irrelevant.
Elise R Hendrick
policy has been substantially the same since long before the Cold War, and
continues in the same vein even now.
Élise
"John McCarthy" <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:x4h3d6e...@Steam.Stanford.EDU...
John Caruso
>The Glitman and Caruso posts have made me think twice about the East
>Timor matter. Maybe the State Department was right at the time. A
>takeover East Timor by a Chinese allied group might have led to even
>more people being killed.
Better that 200,000 people are killed in the name of democracy than
Something Else, right? Just like Suharto--"our kind of guy", despite
(or because of?) his willingness to slaughter hundreds of thousands.
Obviously we live in different moral universes.
- John
Elise R Hendrick
- a similiarly inane justification for a similarly appalling atrocity
Élise
"John Caruso" <caSPAMr...@paradiso.umuc.edu> wrote in message
news:slrn9ojolv.lj4...@paradiso.umuc.edu...
john z
>The Glitman and Caruso posts have made me think twice about the East
>Timor matter. Maybe the State Department was right at the time. A
>takeover East Timor by a Chinese allied group might have led to even
>more people being killed. They might have acted similarly to the Khmer
>Rouge.
>
Setting aside the crazy logic embodied in this post (one could speculate as
usefully that a takeover of East Timor by a Zeta Reticuli allied group could
lead to the deaths of billions of Klingons.), what in Glitman's and Caruso's
post could lead one to this "rethinking"? - what was this evil Chinese allied
group? Fretilin? - they showed no such tendencies in the short time they were in
control, and in resistance to the Indonesians , one comes to the question:
Why would a "Chinese allied group" which "acted similarly to the Khmer Rouge"
lead to "even more people being killed"? IIRC the Indonesians killed
proportionately substantially *more* Timorese than the Khmer Rouge killed
Cambodians, so a mythical Timorese Khmer Rouge, if it had kept out the
Indonesians, would have been a blessing to the Timorese.
In any case, the Timorese *were* the victims of the Indonesian "Khmer Rouge"
with the wink and the nod of Uncle Sam, rather than Uncle Joe, behind them.
>It is only after the collapse of the Soviet Empire that Cold War
>considerations became irrelevant.
Yup, clearly the key place that the Good Ole USA and the Soviet Empire were
battling over was East Timor. We were all saved from certain death on its
battlefields because no one could find the place.
Finally, why shouldn't we invade France, since they *might* be taken over by
Stalinists who would genocide all who do not bow down to their idol Jerry Lewis
while wearing a red beret?
Wade Ramey
John McCarthy <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
> As a diplomat, Moynihan had to do what the Administration of the time
> wanted, or else resign.
Good point. Let's see: My career, or complicity in mass murder on a
horrific scale. Mmmm ... drat, tough one. Mmmm ... familiy'll be upset if I
resign. Mmmm ... have to change offices and all that, and I like the
carpeting here, not to mention that babe of a receptionist. Hot damn, I
think I'll go with the mass murder!
--W.
--W.
John McCarthy
My opinion differs from yours as to what Moynihan thought he was doing
and what he was actually doing.
ogkamm
greatest mass slaughterers of modern history were, in fact, all Communists.
As George Orwell - a leftist, like me - pointed out, it's one of those
inconvenient facts that Right-wing ideologists like you wish to forget that
Stalin was responsible for more murders than Hitler.
Elise R Hendrick
for later. I am quite a while out of high school.
I'm definitely not a right-wing ideologist. Let us not forget, however, that
Stalin had considerably more time to work on it. And, while it is true that
Stalin (since we've decided to include self proclaimed Fordists such as him
in the definition of "Communist") did manage to kill more people than Hitler
did, it would be fallacious to extrapolate those figures. It would be more
proper to compare th numbers killed by the entirety of the Soviet leadership
(including Warsaw Pact states) and other self-proclaimed "Communist"
dictators with those killed by the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco,
Batista, Pinochet, the Argentine generals, Rios Montt, Soeharto, the Somoza
dynasty, Diem, the Shah, Sadam Hussein, Noriega, Duarte, the Duvaliers, etc.
A comparison based on the proportion of the murders to the population of the
respective countries would also be sensible. The famine, poverty, and social
havoc created by the respective regimes should also be compared. If one does
so, it becomes clear that capitalism in its various permutations (excepting
Sovietite state capitalism) has caused quite a bit more suffering and death
than "Communism".
I am not one to be drawn into the puerile "Who was worse? The Nazis or the
Soviets?" "debate" of the likes of the Livre Noire du Communisme.
By the way, why the hell would a rightist want to make a right-wing regime
such as Hitler's appear worse than that of Soviet "Communism"? This is,
indeed, an interesting claim.
BTW, when Orwell would have pointed that out, much of the worst had not yet
been done.
Élise
"ogkamm" <ogk...@netscapeonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3B8C1C78...@netscapeonline.co.uk...
John Caruso
>Wade Ramey <wrame...@home.remove13.com> writes:
>> In article <x4h7kvr...@Steam.Stanford.EDU>, John McCarthy <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>>
>> > As a diplomat, Moynihan had to do what the Administration of the time
>> > wanted, or else resign.
>>
>> Good point. Let's see: My career, or complicity in mass murder on a
>> horrific scale. Mmmm ... drat, tough one. Mmmm ... familiy'll be upset if I
>> resign. Mmmm ... have to change offices and all that, and I like the
>> carpeting here, not to mention that babe of a receptionist. Hot damn, I
>> think I'll go with the mass murder!
>
>My opinion differs from yours as to what Moynihan thought he was doing
>and what he was actually doing.
Moynihan was quite clear about what he thought he was doing: making
sure the UN was "utterly ineffective" in responding in any concrete way
to the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which was at that time being
almost universally condemned (so much so that even the US felt compelled
to cast a cynical vote for the UN Security Council resolution, while
undermining everything that the resolution actually stated).
If by "what he was actually doing" you mean that perhaps he'd have felt
differently had he known the consequences of his actions, that doesn't
wash in interpreting this portion of his memoir, because he observes
that 60,000 people had been killed--and he evinces not even a hint of
contrition or shame for what his actions helped to facilitate. He's
writing after the fact, and if he wanted to say that *at the time* it
seemed right, but perhaps the results were a bit unfortunate, he could
have said so. He didn't.
If you mean that he thought that the bloodbath he facilitated was lesser
in scope than the bloodbath that would have ensued otherwise, he should
have said something to that effect. He didn't. His tone is one of
arrogance and childish boasting.
The fact that you're willing to excuse his odious performance is a perfect
illustration of the double standard that's applied to the US and to its
official enemies. I seriously doubt you'd be so generous (or intentionally
blind, rather) if we were discussing a Soviet official writing in this
way about an analogous situation.
- John
John McCarthy
the ideology of no compromise. This leads to eternal squabbles and
splits in leftist organizations. The organizations never accomplish
much until a maximal leader takes charge. He can suppress the
squabbling by dealing ruthlessly with dissent. Once he can kill
dissenters, he will become as a god, a Stalin, a Hitler, a Mao,
Castro.
Elise R Hendrick
who aids and abets, solicits, or procures genocidal acts or other war
crimes.
Élise
"John McCarthy" <j...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:x4h1ylv...@Steam.Stanford.EDU...
Nathan Folkert
> The moralism about Moynihan is a symptom of a common leftist disease -
> the ideology of no compromise.
"No compromise" is the common symptom of extreme ideologists of left,
right, and every religion - a defect of ideologies, not an ideology
itself. But this is not a good case of "no compromise". I've seen no
reasonable argument concluding that the tens or hundreds of thousands of
deaths in East Timor were unavoidable or that nothing should have been
done to prevent them. To add a touch of irony to your post, was it not
Moynihan himself who was charged with more or less blocking compromise on
this issue?
[snip]
Nathan Folkert
nfol...@cs.stanford.edu
http://www.stanford.edu/~nfolkert
*************************************************
* Here we are in New South Wales, *
* Shearin' sheep as big as whales! *
* With leather necks and jaggy tails, *
* and hides as tought as rusty nails! *
*************************************************
* Though you live beyond your means, *
* Your daughters wear no crinolines, *
* Nor are they bothered by boots or shoes, *
* But live wild in the Bush with the Kangaroos! *
*************************************************
- New South Wales
Dan Clore
> Daniel Patrick Moynihan A DANGEROUS PLACE (1978)
>
> pgs 245-247
There is something truly remarkable in these passages from
Moynihan's book. Take the logic here:
> In February the deputy chairman of the
> provisional government forecast that the Indonesian forces would complete
> their takeover in three to four weeks, and estimated that some sixty
> thousand persons had been killed since the outbreak of civil war. This
> would have been 10 percent of the population, almost the proportion of
> casualties experienced by the Soviet Union during the Second World War. The
> three-to-four week estimate must have been correct, as the subject
> disappeared from the press and from the United Nations after that time.
And compare the inference of cause-and-effect with the later
boasting:
> In both instances,
> the United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring
> this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove
> utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given
> to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success.
So, after deducing that Indonesia had fully conquered East
Timor within a few weeks because the subject had disappeared
from the press and from the United Nations, Moynihan goes on
to brag that *his own actions* directly caused the United
Nations to drop the matter. (In fact, of course, while the
matter had vanished from the press, it did not entirely
vanish from the UN, so Moynihan's dishonesty goes even
further than is apparent from his own words. Also, Indonesia
*never* managed to fully conquer East Timor.)
--
Dan Clore
mailto:cl...@columbia-center.org
Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608