Chomsky presumes that the US and US foreign policy are evil, when in fact the US is good and US foreign policy is often seriously mistaken (but not evil), with occasional evil individuals in leadership and non-leadership positions.

So, Chomsky is wrong, and he does demonize the US and US foreign policy.

And "we may soon lose our nation" is not at all wrong. The US government conducts constant surveillance on practically all citizens, as I imagine you're aware of, and Obama is trying to violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution (which he clearly has no respect for) using executive orders. At what point is freedom "lost"? In principle, a long time ago. From here on out, it's just a slippery slope.

I say this as an atheist, so I agree with you that Chomsky being an atheist has nothing to do with anything.

Tending towards an anarchist position, he presumes all concentrated power is bad. On what metric is the US government and foreign policy (like any) a clear, unequivocal 'good'? Take Vietnam for example. You seem to have enough issues yourself with overarching, expanding state power, but think these issues stop at the border?

But Chomsky has never called the US, it's government, or it's foreign policy 'evil'. Care to refute a position he has actually taken?. I don't believe he has any bias against the US, it obviously attracts most attention because of it's place as the world's current superpower (and as such holds the most power too).

Disagree that Chomsky is demonizing the US by being critical of our foreign policy.

Chomsky is very specific with his criticism of foreign policy, and one of the things that impresses me is that he seems to read more of 'Foreign Policy' and the Wall Street Journal than most of the right-wing, and certainly more than most of his critics.

Have you read much or any of his political writing? The dude is huge on footnotes and resources.

Often in his political lectures, Chomsky will quote very non-lefty sources for quotes and context, to demonstrate the rather matter-of-fact nature of what they say their true goals are.

Chomsky presumes that the US domestic and foreign policy are tailored to the narrow self-interest of US elites.

The spirit of modern political analysis is to judge organizations as they do, not as they say through a mouthpiece. Terrorists don't get a free pass on this. The activity of Al-Qaeda and similar organizations in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan seems, to my eye, not oriented around fighting global capitalist oppressors or that sort of first-world ivory tower nonsense, but oriented around killing a lot of people who don't believe what they believe.

I find it helpful to cut through the BS in these cases to consider what would be the case if the roles were reversed. American citizens would be the first to form 'freedom fighter' guerilla armies to fight off an occupying nation.

For me it what OBL claims on the matter is not the most important; Chomsky's proposal for the likely underlying motivations for attacking the US are just far more credible than yours. The fact that he said it just strengthens the case. It's worth noting that OBL doesn't have electoral motivation to lie, too.