Hacker News Reader

A communist caring about "his" democracy? That's new. Wasn't he pro-Pol Pot?

Not really. He was - as always - exaggerating the ills caused (directly or indirectly) by "western imperialism" while simultaneously dismissing the reports of the atrocities by communist regimes as "propaganda".

When the truth came out, his opinion did not need to change. Rather, he would point out that he was right in his position with the "information available at the time".

No

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-01/brull---the-boring-tru...

That whole controversy centers around him pointing out that a book by a guy called Ponchaud which was being used as a pretext to try and go to war was full of errors.

It was full of errors.

Ponchaud's book was not full of errors, it was based on accounts that were (at the time) unverifiable and Chomsky went on to question their credibility.

For an outline of the points brought forth, you may read this: http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomsky/wma.html

What the article you linked refers to as "full of errors" was in fact a review of the book by Jean Lacouture.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com