Nichols misquotes Chomsky by omitting Chomsky's explanation for his claim that Krushchev was needlessly humiliated by
John F. Kennedy's actions during the Cuban missile crisis
p. 52
    On page 52 Thomas M. Nichols misleads readers by not showing them Chomsky's justification for claiming that Kennedy needlessly humiliated Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis.  On this page Nichols says,
Then again, Chomsky once referred to "the needless humiliation" of Nikita Khrushchev during the Cuban missle crisis, a phrase so strange, given the historical circumstances of the event, that it defies further analysis.28
    It defies further analysis only because Nichols deceives his readers by totally omitting anything about Chomsky's analysis: a clearly stated rationale that seems quite persuasive to me.
     The corresponding note 28 on page 64 of The Anti-Chomsky Reader directs readers to page 194 of Chomsky's book Towards a New Cold War (New York: Pantheon, 1982).  On the cited page Chomsky does indeed refer to "the needless humiliation" of Nikita Krushchev during that crisis.  However, Chomsky gave the phrase an endnote number and the corresponding endnote in the page of the book has a 70-word (thereabouts) explanation for the phrase. In it Chomsky says,
    (a) Kennedy could have offered to Krushchev to pull US missles out of Turkey, enabling Khrushchev to save face with his countrymen and the world
    (b) US missles in Turkey were scheduled to be pulled out anyway...their effect was scheduled to be replaced by the effect of Polaris submarines
    (c) US decision-makers didn't make such an offer out of a desire to make Kennedy appear tough and manly
    (d) the resulting humiliation of the Soviets was a factor in the USSR's subsequent accelerated military buildup
     I find Chomsky's explanation very convincing.  Yes, by not offering to remove our missiles from Turkey Kennedy caused needless humiliation to the Russian leader.  Moreover, Chomsky's point (d) suggests that the lack of such a reciprocating offer may have damaged the interests of the United States.
     This omission by Nichols has several effects, all obviously unfair to Chomsky:
--the omission substitutes a clearly-reasoned argument by Chomsky with an insinuation that Chomsky is crazy.
--the omission hides from readers an instance of Chomsky making  an ostensibly pro-US argument (when making point (d)).
--the omission implies that Chomsky abusively gave no rationale to his readers.  That in turn should alarm readers because the phrase expresses a rarely-expressed view that really requires explanation, especially for US readers that are Chomsky's primary audience.
--the omission implies that Chomsky may have been hiding a traitorous rationale for the phrase that would have damaged Chomsky's reputation had he revealed it.  Such a possible hidden rationale appears obvious to me: by "needless" a writer could be suggesting that the entire crisis itself was needless, and that Kennedy shouldn't have confronted the USSR at all about such missiles near our borders.
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1