Go read the original piece for context. Here's a quote that I think is his thesis statement of the piece: "Nor is there any discussion in the Times of the "cas

Go read the original piece for context. Here's a quote that I think is his thesis statement of the piece: "Nor is there any discussion in the Times of the "case of the missing bloodbath," although forecasts of a holocaust were urged by the U.S. leadership, official experts and the mass media over the entire course of the war in justifying our continued military presence." He's saying that there was no holocaust/bloodbath, and that it was a bad reason to justify American involvement in the region. He was wrong, there was a massive bloodbath. He and people like him argued against the American presence in the war and argued that it was a mostly peaceful local movement and that the Americans were the aggressors, and the Khmer Rouge and North Vietnamese were liberators. He was wrong, and millions of people died as a result of people like Chomsky and Jane Fonda and anti-war protestors. I'm in Vietnam now and was in Cambodia a few months ago. These places are still less prosperous than they were before the war, everything is dirty, run down, broken, no safety, minimal infrastructure, and there's not much rule of law. Vietnam will recover eventually. Cambodia probably never will. Had the United States and South Vietnam won, or at least fought to a standstill, South Vietnam would be more like South Korea today, and less like North Korea. Cambodia would be more like South Korea and less like North Korea. Chomsky, Fonda, and the protestors against the war did a massive disservice to the people of Southeast Asia. Millions dead as a result of their incorrect, ignorant moralizing. The United States and South Vietnam were winning militarily, and lost public opinion. Without people like Fonda and Chomsky to turn the tide, millions more survive and live in prosperity instead of horror and poverty and bloodshed.