William Ayers on NPR

[FaisonMars]

I wish he had spoken out during the campaign, but at least he's talking now.

http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13&prgDate=11-18-2008&view=storyview

Is or was he a terrorist? No. Was he seriously misguided? Yes. Is there any substantial connection between him and Obama? No. If some right-wing nutjob kills Ayers, will it be on McCain's and Palin's heads? Yes.

[tomwaits]

He's an idiot. That's all I care to know about him.

[Tailgater]

And if he accidently killed someone, would that make a difference to you?

Softballs from useful idiots and other useful idiots lapping it up.

Do you think the death of his friends and girlfriend were on his head? I doubt it. He has no regrets. He's just happy he wasn't killed making that nail bomb and has a bunch of losers who forgive all and follow him like mansonites because they agree with his ideology.

[Tricky]

He's an idiot. That's all I care to know about him.
It is certainly your decision whether or not to investigate his life. He is hardly an iconic presence in American history. His only real relevance today is that he was used as a tool to try to smear Barak Obama.

He is a college professor and an author. He is involved in charitable work. His words, while you may disagree with them, are easy to parse and understand.

He probably doen't try to sum up complex personalities with three words.

He is not an idiot.

[FaisonMars]

And if he accidently killed someone, would that make a difference to you?


I don't agree with his actions in the W.U. at all-- their acts of vandalism were dangerous and ineffective. And, I would add, despicable.


Do you think the death of his friends and girlfriend were on his head? I

Yes-- he says as much in the interview.

[Tailgater]

I don't agree with his actions in the W.U. at all-- their acts of vandalism were dangerous and ineffective. And, I would add, despicable.

Yes-- he says as much in the interview.

He must not have felt too bad. He was involved in at least 3 more bombings and married afterward, but keep lapping it up. He was a domestic terrorist. He's Tim Mcviegh without the intent to kill and the chance to spend the rest of his life making excuses and repenting long enough for people to start lapping it up.

I find it ironic in the interview that he says the weather undeground never killed anyone, yet his friends were killed making a bomb that was designed mainly for injuring people.

ETA: I quit listening after a few minutes of him trying to excuse himself of wrongdoing using examples of moral equivalence.

[FaisonMars]

I wouldn't compare him with Tim McVeigh, he's more like that guy who bombed Sterling Hall at the University of Wisconsin in 1970... the intent was not to terrorize, the intent was to disrupt the war efforts. An astronomer was killed in that bombing, and the perpetrators went to jail for their stupid, misguided, despicable act of vandalism and involuntary manslaughter.

I think Ayers should have gone to jail for his actions with the W.U., it sounds like he would have been happy to go, but he got off on a technicality. It sounds like he's done good work in Chicago since those days.

Do you think that patriots should head to Chicago and take up arms against Ayers, as it seems Palin and McCain were encouraging? I mean, if he's a terrorist, then he's a threat to the state, right?

[tomwaits]

It is certainly your decision whether or not to investigate his life. He is hardly an iconic presence in American history. His only real relevance today is that he was used as a tool to try to smear Barak Obama.

First off, I haven't investigated his life. I hadn't heard of him until the "connection" with Obama. I never thought much of it, and it certainly didn't influence my vote. I only heard one of his post-election interviews because they were playing it on the Roe Conn show, a humorous radio talk show that I like to listen to on my way home from work. However, his being a professor in Chicago certainly makes him locally relevant to me.

He is a college professor and an author.

Sorry, but I've known some pretty idiotic professors/authors in my time. I was one of the students of Kevin Barrett's infamous Islam class.

He is involved in charitable work.

Good for him. Not relevant.

His words, while you may disagree with them, are easy to parse and understand.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. He's not an idiot because he's eloquent?

He probably doen't try to sum up complex personalities with three words.

He certainly loves to sum up complex historical events in few words:

"Let's remember that what you call a violent past that was at a time when thousands of people were being murdered by our government every month, and those of us who fought to end the war were actually on the right side," he said.

[Tricky]

First off, I haven't investigated his life. I hadn't heard of him until the "connection" with Obama. I never thought much of it, and it certainly didn't influence my vote. I only heard one of his post-election interviews because they were playing it on the Roe Conn show, a humorous radio talk show that I like to listen to on my way home from work. However, his being a professor in Chicago certainly makes him locally relevant to me.
If he is locally relevant to you, then you might not want to dismiss him so quickly.

Sorry, but I've known some pretty idiotic professors/authors in my time. I was one of the students of Kevin Barrett's infamous Islam class.
So you knew a professor whose intelligence you didn't respect. How does that make Ayers an idiot?

Not sure what this is supposed to mean. He's not an idiot because he's eloquent?
Most people who can express themselves clearly are not idiots, even if you don't agree with them.

He certainly loves to sum up complex historical events in few words:
You read a selected quote and you figure that's all he said?

It sounds to me that you are basing your judgment on his "idiocy" on the fact that he did something long ago that you find reprehensible. If that is truly "all you need to know", good for you. Don't expect it to win you many points with skeptics. They usually request a little more evidence.

[gdnp]

I listened to the interview, and it was good to get his perspective. Especially his claim that no innocent people were killed with Weather Underground bombs: BAC claimed that they killed a policeman, but Ayers specifically denied involvement of the Weather Underground with that bombing.

I disagree with his assessment that he is not a terrorist. Setting bombs is a terrorist act regardless of whether you intend to injure people or not. The only non-terrorist excuse for placing bombs is to cause strategic damage, and the WU did little of that, and what they did (like at the pentagon) was accidental. So I think what they did was terrorism despite his denials, just as a cross burning by the KKK or clinic bombing by abortion opponents is terrorism. Does the great evil you are fighting justify terrorist actions? Well, terrorists always believe so. It's for each of us to decide.

That being said, I think he paid a certain price by living on the run for a decade, and since that time he has done a lot to give back to the community. We will each have to decide whether he has redeemed himself.

[Cicero]

He is a college professor and an author. He is involved in charitable work. His words, while you may disagree with them, are easy to parse and understand.

He is not an idiot.

He is Timothy Leary in reverse. Ayers was a whack job before his education (although from his remarks, he appears to remain one), while Leary became a whack job after his education.

It seems teaching positions at higher learning institutions are the final refuge for the misguided misfits like Ayres, Leonard Jeffries and Ward Churchill. Yet is Larry Summers who is forced to resign as Harvard's President for making the most innocuous comment.

[Tricky]

I disagree with his assessment that he is not a terrorist. Setting bombs is a terrorist act regardless of whether you intend to injure people or not. The only non-terrorist excuse for placing bombs is to cause strategic damage, and the WU did little of that, and what they did (like at the pentagon) was accidental. So I think what they did was terrorism despite his denials, just as a cross burning by the KKK or clinic bombing by abortion opponents is terrorism. Does the great evil you are fighting justify terrorist actions? Well, terrorists always believe so. It's for each of us to decide.
I disagree. Terrorism, in my mind, involves targeting non-combatants for attack. Damaging property is vandalism, even if your vandalism has a political point. While it is true the bombs might have injured innocent people, that was certainly not their target.

Ayers believed that the US attacks in Vietnam, where bombs and napalm were dropped on women and children who happened to be near where combatants might have been located, was terrorism. That is certainly an debatable point. If the argument is that "soldiers can't be terrorists", it is a very weak one. I am deeply ashamed of the way the government of the country I love, fought that war.

[Cicero]

I disagree. Terrorism, in my mind, involves targeting non-combatants for attack. Damaging property is vandalism, even if your vandalism has a political point. While it is true the bombs might have injured innocent people, that was certainly not their target.

Ayers believed that the US attacks in Vietnam, where bombs and napalm were dropped on women and children who happened to be near where combatants might have been located, was terrorism. That is certainly an debatable point. If the argument is that "soldiers can't be terrorists", it is a very weak one. I am deeply ashamed of the way the government of the country I love, fought that war.

Right. Until Nixon implemented Linebacker I & II, the war was not being fought to win, as in get the North to sign the peace treaty.

[gdnp]

I see the use of violence or the threat of violence as terrorism. The bombs may not have killed anyone, but they had the potential to do so. They were designed to instill fear.

Graffiti is vandalism. Chance of innocent people getting injured: zero. Bombs in public places are terrorism, even if directed towards property.

[Lonewulf]

Bomb placing makes you a terrorist, regardless of whether you intend to injure people or not?

****, that makes a lot of kids with cherry bombs terrorists...

[Tricky]

I see the use of violence or the threat of violence as terrorism. The bombs may not have killed anyone, but they had the potential to do so. They were designed to instill fear.
We shall have to disagree here.
Graffiti is vandalism. Chance of innocent people getting injured: zero. Bombs in public places are terrorism, even if directed towards property.
Graffiti is often directed to cause fear, especially gang graffiti. It implies, or sometimes even states, a threat of violence. I maintain that you must be targeting non-combatants to be a terrorist. Otherwise, many "prank" activities which have some potential of harming people, would have to be classified as terrorism. Setting firecrackers, as Lonewulf notes.

[Whiplash]

Bomb placing makes you a terrorist, regardless of whether you intend to injure people or not?

****, that makes a lot of kids with cherry bombs terrorists...

Are they placing them with the direct intent of trying to affect political or social change?

[Tricky]

If destroying someone's property in order to effect political or social change amounts to terrorism, the the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist activity.

[gdnp]

Graffiti is often directed to cause fear, especially gang graffiti. It implies, or sometimes even states, a threat of violence. I maintain that you must be targeting non-combatants to be a terrorist. Otherwise, many "prank" activities which have some potential of harming people, would have to be classified as terrorism. Setting firecrackers, as Lonewulf notes.

Point taken. Graffiti containing threats is terrorism: spraypainting swastikas in a synagogue, for instance. And firecrackers placed as pranks are, as you say, vandalism. If, however, you right an inflammatory letter to the editor of the local paper and someone places a cherry bomb in your mailbox, it is terrorism: using violence to threaten a critic into silence.

[gdnp]

If destroying someone's property in order to effect political or social change amounts to terrorism, the the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist activity.

Well, the property was not destroyed in a way likely to cause injury. However, an argument could be made that the Tea Party was a terrorist activity. Not the most heinous, but it has been argued that the Sons of Liberty were a terrorist organization.

One man's freedom fighter...

[PixyMisa]

Is or was he a terrorist?
Yes.

Oh no, no, the bombs that killed three of his colleagues were just for... 4th of July celebrations! Yeah, that's the ticket!

A terrorist, and an incompetent one.

[Tricky]

Point taken. Graffiti containing threats is terrorism: spraypainting swastikas in a synagogue, for instance. And firecrackers placed as pranks are, as you say, vandalism. If, however, you right an inflammatory letter to the editor of the local paper and someone places a cherry bomb in your mailbox, it is terrorism: using violence to threaten a critic into silence.
Yeah, the fine points become embroiled in semantics. I think the word "terrorist" should be reserved for heinous activities, i.e. attacking and attempting to kill non-combatants. If it becomes a cherry-bomb in a mailbox, it stops being a thing that deserves international outrage.

Well, the property was not destroyed in a way likely to cause injury. However, an argument could be made that the Tea Party was a terrorist activity. Not the most heinous, but it has been argued that the Sons of Liberty were a terrorist organization.

One man's freedom fighter...

Yes indeed. That is why Ayers has a point when he argues that the US government was engaging in terrorist activities in Vietnam. To the Vietnamese, they were certainly terrorists. It fits my definition too. If you are the sort that believes that no act during a war can be terrorism, then you probably won't agree. That leaves the terrorists free to declare "it is a war" making their acts non-terrorist. And since Vietnam and Korea were never declared wars, but "police actions", it further muddies the waters. That's why I think the definition of "attacks on non-combatants" definition fits the best for all situations. I might modify my definition to say "attempts to kill, without regard for whether targets were non-combatants or not."

[Undesired Walrus]

By the way he was described leading up to the election, I expected a muscle-bound radical with a scar running down his face to his chest tattooed with the collected writings of Bin Laden.

Turns out he is actually someone who looks like they remember the glory days of smoking weed out of a tin-foil pipe.

[applecorped]

It is certainly your decision whether or not to investigate his life. He is hardly an iconic presence in American history. His only real relevance today is that he was used as a tool to try to smear Barak Obama.

He is a college professor and an author. He is involved in charitable work. His words, while you may disagree with them, are easy to parse and understand.

He probably doen't try to sum up complex personalities with three words.

He is not an idiot.

He is an very well spoken, educated idiot.

[Mark6]

First off, I haven't investigated his life. I hadn't heard of him until the "connection" with Obama. I never thought much of it, and it certainly didn't influence my vote. I only heard one of his post-election interviews because they were playing it on the Roe Conn show, a humorous radio talk show that I like to listen to on my way home from work.
First time I heard about Bill Ayers was one week before September 11, 2001. By a strange (and very unfortunate, for him) coincidence, Ayers and Dorhn made a public speech in which they proudly described their 1970's activities as terrorism, said their only regrets are that they did not do more of them, and that US is an oppressive state which deserves to be attacked.

Needless to say, one week later Ayers and Dorhn started receiving death threats. They did their best to stay out of the limelight for a few years, then started their new "moral equivalence" tune. Ayers is not an idiot (although he may have been one once), he is an unprincipled opportunistic con man. Just like Ward Churchill and Leonard Jeffries, for that matter.

[kallsop]

Ayers is a pathetic human and is indeed a domestic terrorist, even if a mediocre one. He should do well on the liberal college lecture circuit now that it's safe to crawl out from under his rock :(

[gtc]

Yeah, the fine points become embroiled in semantics. I think the word "terrorist" should be reserved for heinous activities, i.e. attacking and attempting to kill non-combatants. If it becomes a cherry-bomb in a mailbox, it stops being a thing that deserves international outrage.

The PIRA and its offshoots would sometimes give warnings prior to their bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishopsgate_bombing) (also here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Manchester_City_Centre_bombing)). It can be argued that the warning shows that it was not their intention to hurt people and those injured were due to the PIRA's recklessness.

I think everybody would still classify them as terrorist attacks.

[tomwaits]

If he is locally relevant to you, then you might not want to dismiss him so quickly.

A good point.

So you knew a professor whose intelligence you didn't respect. How does that make Ayers an idiot?

It doesn't. You were the one who brought up the fact that he was a professor and an author to support your point. I was just pointing out that that means little.

Most people who can express themselves clearly are not idiots

Oh? That sounds pretty naive.


You read a selected quote and you figure that's all he said?

I don't have the entire transcript...you apparently have to purchase it from ABC. However, the Tribune gives some further information:

He also disputed whether the actions of the Weather Underground could be considered terrorism: "In trying to end [the war], we did cross lines of propriety, of legality, maybe even of common sense. But we never committed terror."

Ayers also remained unapologetic for his actions during that time.

"I've been quoted again and again as saying, 'I don't regret it,' and saying, 'I don't think we did enough.' And I don't think we did enough," Ayers said. "Just as today I don't think we've done enough to stop these wars and I think we must all recognize the injustice of it and do more."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-bill-ayers-good-morning-america,0,6403435.story

It's my impression that most of the interview touched on his supposed relationship with Obama that didn't really exist.

It sounds to me that you are basing your judgment on his "idiocy" on the fact that he did something long ago that you find reprehensible. If that is truly "all you need to know", good for you. Don't expect it to win you many points with skeptics. They usually request a little more evidence.

Yes, I find terrorism reprehensible. He doesn't seem at all regretful of being associated with such a group.

[geni]

It doesn't. You were the one who brought up the fact that he was a professor and an author to support your point. I was just pointing out that that means little.

Statisticaly not many professors are idiots (remeber Barrett was a lecturer not a professor). There doesn't appear to have been any complaints over his performance as a professor so he would appear to at least be reasonably competant. You may strongly disagree with his idiology but that does not make him an idiot.

[WildCat]

The bomb that killed his g/f was intended to go off at a dance in Ft. Dix NJ. It was packed with nails, and was powerful enough to blow a townhouse and his g/f to smithereens.

The only reason that bomb didn't kill any innocent people was because it blew up the WU asshats who were making it instead.

[WildCat]

I found an old UPI article from 1970 about Ayer's g/f Diana Oughton, who died when the bomb she was making blew up in her face. I don't know where Part 1 is, but here is Parts 2-5:

http://100years.upi.com/sta_1970-09-16-p2.html

http://100years.upi.com/sta_1970-09-16-p3.html

http://100years.upi.com/sta_1970-09-18-p4.html

http://100years.upi.com/sta_1970-09-18-p5.html

Note the WU was described as a terrorist group back then, it wasn't something invented by the McCain campaign last summer.

The story also mentions Ayers, such as this bit where Ayers tried to extort $20,000 from a peace group in return for not causing violence at a rally, it's from Part 5:
The night before the demonstration Diana's boyfriend, Bill Ayers, went to the moratorium headquarters and tried to shake down the group for $20,000 to help cover legal expenses incurred by the Days of Rage. In return for his token "Fraternal Solidarity," Ayers said, the Weathermen would not provoke a violent battle with police.

Ayers was asked what the Weathermen program was.

"Kill all the rich people," Ayers answered. "Break up their cars and apartments."

"But aren't your parents rich?" he was asked.

"Yeah," Ayers said. "Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at."

The moratorium said it didn't have $20,000 to spare and the following day Ayers and Diana, their faces decorated with war paint, joined in a march on the Department of Justice after the main rally. The brief collision was more a revolutionary theatrical than a serious street action, marked by shouting and scuffles with police and clouds of tear gas.

It was the last time the Weathermen found a kind of fun in politics, their last action before turning to a politics of terror which had no place for the humor that called for war paint.

And make no mistake about it, Ayers was no peace activist. He was trying to foment a violent revolutionary communist takeover of the US. He wasn't against the war in Vietnam, he was against the US side in it and for the N. Vietnamese.

While he was on the run he wrote a book called Prairie Fire, here's one extract from it:
We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men, underground in the United States for more than four years. We are deeply affected by the historic events of our time in the struggle against U.S. imperialism.
Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside.

...The only path to the final defeat of imperialism and the building of socialism is revolutionary war. Revolution is the most powerful resource of the people. To wait, to not prepare people for the fight, is to seriously mislead about what kind of fierce struggle lies ahead.

Revolutionary war will be complicated and protracted. It includes mass struggle and clandestine struggle, peaceful and violent, political and economic, cultural and military, where all forms are developed in harmony with the armed struggle.
Without mass struggle there can be no revolution.
Without armed struggle there can be no victory.
He's clearly trying to gain support for a violent revolution, there wasn't anything peaceful about his intentions.

Oh yeah, one of the people Paririe Fire was dedicated to was Sirhan Sirhan.

And then there's this snippet from a 80's-era documentary on the Weather Underground, where a former informant talks about a WU "war council" in Flint, MI:
HWMIwziGrAQ

At that same war council Bernadine Dohrn, now Ayers' wife, turned off many of the participants by praising the Manson family murders of the pregnant Sharon Tate and others by saying: "Dig it!" she told the 400 people gathered in the meeting hall. "First they killed those pigs, then the ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into a victim's stomach! Wild!"

There was nothing nice about the WU and Ayers, they're dispicable people for whom I have nothing but contempt. YMMV.

[gtc]

Given what the WU did and said and given Ayers lack of remorse and what sounds like a call for more terrorism:


"I've been quoted again and again as saying, 'I don't regret it,' and saying, 'I don't think we did enough.' And I don't think we did enough," Ayers said. "Just as today I don't think we've done enough to stop these wars and I think we must all recognize the injustice of it and do more."


I have to ask WTF was Obama thinking?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Did I miss the news that Ayers was getting a job in Obama's cabinet or moving permanently into the Lincoln bedroom.

[gtc]

Did I miss the news that Ayers was getting a job in Obama's cabinet or moving permanently into the Lincoln bedroom.

No. Why?

I have suggested the thread be moved to politics or current events.

[jmercer]

I believe gtc's suggestion has merit; the election is over, and this is about the aftermath - and it's certainly a valid discussion. I'm moving it to Politics where it will (hopefully) get a wider audience.

[Tricky]

The bomb that killed his g/f was intended to go off at a dance in Ft. Dix NJ. It was packed with nails, and was powerful enough to blow a townhouse and his g/f to smithereens.

The only reason that bomb didn't kill any innocent people was because it blew up the WU asshats who were making it instead.
Nevertheless, you cannot simply extrapolate your beliefs into a definite future occurrance. That might have been a plan. That plan might have changed. There is simply no way to tell for sure. Best do go on what actuall DID happen, and what DID happen was nothing, as far as killing non-combatants goes.

You wouldn't call a man a murderer because he ows a gun, would you? Sure, it COULD be used to murder, but to extrapolate would be an error.

[WildCat]

Nevertheless, you cannot simply extrapolate your beliefs into a definite future occurrance. That might have been a plan. That plan might have changed. There is simply no way to tell for sure. Best do go on what actuall DID happen, and what DID happen was nothing, as far as killing non-combatants goes.
"The plan might have changed"? And what evidence is there of that? This wasn't a bomb that anyone would use merely to cause property damage. It was packed with nails, and designed to kill as many people as possible. Certainly not even the type of thing you'd construct to go 'boom' in an empty field on the 4th of July. If the "plan had changed" why on earth were they building it?

You wouldn't call a man a murderer because he ows a gun, would you? Sure, it COULD be used to murder, but to extrapolate would be an error.
So you think an anti-personnel bomb (which is exactly what that device was) has any use other than indiscriminately killing as many people as possible? You think it was to be used as home defense?

Not even Ayers goes so far to excuse this particular act Tricky. You know what Ayers has said about this? He speculated that Oughton blew herself and the 2 others up on purpose, because she didn't want to go through with the plan to detonate it at the Ft. Dix dance. He even says this in the NPR interview! And yet, here you are so desperate to excuse the WU for this that you find an excuse Ayers hadn't even used.

Unbelievable.

[Tricky]

"The plan might have changed"? And what evidence is there of that? This wasn't a bomb that anyone would use merely to cause property damage. It was packed with nails, and designed to kill as many people as possible. Certainly not even the type of thing you'd construct to go 'boom' in an empty field on the 4th of July. If the "plan had changed" why on earth were they building it?


So you think an anti-personnel bomb (which is exactly what that device was) has any use other than indiscriminately killing as many people as possible? You think it was to be used as home defense?

Not even Ayers goes so far to excuse this particular act Tricky. You know what Ayers has said about this? He speculated that Oughton blew herself and the 2 others up on purpose, because she didn't want to go through with the plan to detonate it at the Ft. Dix dance. He even says this in the NPR interview! And yet, here you are so desperate to excuse the WU for this that you find an excuse Ayers hadn't even used.

Unbelievable.
I am not excusing them. I am saying no terrorist act was committed with this bomb. Yes, they were wrong to build it and should have been tried and punished (the ones left alive) for owning illegal weapons, but in order to be a terrorist, you have to commit a terrorist act, which in my mind means attacking non-combatants.

Why is that so hard for you to believe?

[WildCat]

I am not excusing them. I am saying no terrorist act was committed with this bomb. Yes, they were wrong to build it and should have been tried and punished (the ones left alive) for owning illegal weapons, but in order to be a terrorist, you have to commit a terrorist act, which in my mind means attacking non-combatants.
I see. So you don't think Ahmed Ressam (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/inside/cron.html) is a terrorist, correct? After all, his scheme, like the WU dance bombing scheme, was thwarted before it actually happened.

I guess your definition works, in Bizarro World...

[Damien Evans]

Given what the WU did and said and given Ayers lack of remorse and what sounds like a call for more terrorism:



I have to ask WTF was Obama thinking?

Inasmuch as?

[Tailgater]

Well, good thing definitions are not based on opinions, because body count has nothing to do with being a terrorist.

ter⋅ror⋅ist   /ˈtɛrərɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-er-ist] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
–adjective 5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.

a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
adj. Of or relating to terrorism.
ter'ror·is'tic adj.

ter⋅ror⋅ism   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

[Tailgater]

If destroying someone's property in order to effect political or social change amounts to terrorism, the the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist activity.

People did not avoid the dock in fear of getting hit by a flying box, did they?

[Tailgater]

Later in 1969, Ayers participated in planting a bomb at a statue dedicated to riot police casualties in the 1886 Haymarket Riot confrontation between labor supporters and the police.[11] The blast broke almost 100 windows and blew pieces of the statue onto the nearby Kennedy Expressway.

This kind of blast instills fear among people. It's really amazing no one was seriously hurt. Key blasts by Ayers made people afraid to go to work at a government agency. The whole point of terrorism. Body count has nothing to do with terrorism. The word itself has nothing to do with death. It has to do with making people do things through fear of getting hurt.

[Tailgater]

Nevertheless, you cannot simply extrapolate your beliefs into a definite future occurrance. That might have been a plan. That plan might have changed. There is simply no way to tell for sure. Best do go on what actuall DID happen, and what DID happen was nothing, as far as killing non-combatants goes.

You wouldn't call a man a murderer because he ows a gun, would you? Sure, it COULD be used to murder, but to extrapolate would be an error.

You would make a great defense attorney for the next broken terrorist cell.

"C'mon yer honor, with all that fertilizer, those boys might have wanted to become farmers. There is just no way to be sure what the plan was."

[gdnp]

You would make a great defense attorney for the next broken terrorist cell.

"C'mon yer honor, with all that fertilizer, those boys might have wanted to become farmers. There is just no way to be sure what the plan was."

It is my understanding that every other bomb that the WU set off was done with ample warning to evacuate the affected area. Thus no one was killed in any of the WU bombings before or after the explosion that killed the 3 bombmakers.

Ayers does not know exactly what was planned for that bomb. He speculates that his girlfriend set it off on purpose to save innocent lives, which I see as wishful thinking. I still do not see it as out of the realm of possibility that they planned to phone in a warning just as they did with their others. Or these 3 members may have decided to move to more radical tactics. I have heard no claim that Ayers supported changing the focus of WU bombings from property to people.

As I have stated before, I still see this as terrorism because of the inherent threat of injury or death and the political motivation. A loan shark is a loan shark whether he breaks your kneecap or threatens to break your kneecap.

[Bikewer]

I listened to the interview as well; I was just starting in law enforcement back then. I well recall the explosion that killed the bomb-making "Weathermen".

I have some sympathy for the guy, even though I condemn the use of such tactics for "political expression". No matter how carefully one might place one's "device", innocents can always be killed or injured.

Still, I thought one of his final statements had some credibility. When asked if he'd apologize, he said he'd be glad to take part in a "mass" apology including all the administration types participating in a rather ugly episode in our history.

[Lonewulf]

Well, good thing definitions are not based on opinions, because body count has nothing to do with being a terrorist.

ter⋅ror⋅ist   /ˈtɛrərɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-er-ist] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
–adjective 5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.
Oh man. I wore a scary Halloween mask and scared a little girl. Looks like I'm a terrorist.

So glad the definition is black and white, but man. Now I'm going to have to go to Gitmo.

[Tricky]

Well, good thing definitions are not based on opinions, because body count has nothing to do with being a terrorist.

ter⋅ror⋅ist   /ˈtɛrərɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-er-ist] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
–adjective 5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.

a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
adj. Of or relating to terrorism.
ter'ror·is'tic adj.

ter⋅ror⋅ism   /ˈtɛrəˌrɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-uh-riz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
By many of those definitions, the US was a terrorist nation for their actions in Vietnam, which is why Ayers pursued his path.

I'm all for throwing the word "terrorism" away. It is a hot-button word that people fling around too loosely. The actions of Ayers were in no way as dangerous as the actions of Al Qaeda or of McVeigh. It is stretching honesty to equate them by using the same word. AQ and McVeigh are mass murderers. Ayers' group were not.

Is mass murder acceptable in war by calling it "collateral damage"? Is that not simply a rationalization for approving of terroristic acts?

[Tailgater]

Oh man. I wore a scary Halloween mask and scared a little girl. Looks like I'm a terrorist.

So glad the definition is black and white, but man. Now I'm going to have to go to Gitmo.

Now you're just being silly.:p

It at least makes you a big meanie.

[Lonewulf]

Now you're just being silly.:p

It at least makes you a big meanie.

Well, yes, that's always been self-evident...

But the definition there is silly. Someone that inspires terror and frightens others? "Terror" is just a stronger word for "fear". By this definition, causing fear makes someone a terrorist. It's a useless definition.

The first definition just backs up the second. The third pertains to a specific group. The fourth is like the third. The fifth just backs up the second as an adjective.

In short, causing fear makes you a terrorist... I'm sorry, but that definition just doesn't seem strong enough. It makes the man with a scary mask in Halloween a terrorist.

[applecorped]

Well, yes, that's always been self-evident...

But the definition there is silly. Someone that inspires terror and frightens others? "Terror" is just a stronger word for "fear". By this definition, causing fear makes someone a terrorist. It's a useless definition.

The first definition just backs up the second. The third pertains to a specific group. The fourth is like the third. The fifth just backs up the second as an adjective.

In short, causing fear makes you a terrorist... I'm sorry, but that definition just doesn't seem strong enough. It makes the man with a scary mask in Halloween a terrorist.

Does the man in the halloween mask have explosives?


Using powerful explosives to instill fear in others does indeed make one a terrorist. An unrepentant one at that.

[Tailgater]

By many of those definitions, the US was a terrorist nation for their actions in Vietnam, which is why Ayers pursued his path.

I'm all for throwing the word "terrorism" away. It is a hot-button word that people fling around too loosely. The actions of Ayers were in no way as dangerous as the actions of Al Qaeda or of McVeigh. It is stretching honesty to equate them by using the same word. AQ and McVeigh are mass murderers. Ayers' group were not.

Is mass murder acceptable in war by calling it "collateral damage"? Is that not simply a rationalization for approving of terroristic acts?

Seperating "terrorism" into categories would be fine by me. Kind of like involuntary manslaughter and first degree murder?


The problem with creating moral equivalence to an actual war is where to seperate individual acts of soldiers, questionable bombing campaigns, rogue orders from officers, and the justification of being involved in the war. Some acts of "terrorism" in war involve unavoidable acts of violence and some escalate to that point even though the original orders were not intended to be that way. A village might have to be ordered raided to cut supplies to the enemy and not to commit genocide while there, but that's not how things always go down.

Ayers blows up a statue built in honor of police killed in the line of duty generations before he was born? Twice? The NYPD? Those targets barely have relation to his cause. I get the Capitol and Pentagon. Regardless, of no one being hurt, would you want to be a government worker having to face the possibility of a bomb going off? Jokes aside, that's why it is terrorism. That is real fear. Not Halloween mask fear. If they can blow themselves up, they could just as easily blow someone else up unintentionally. There is always a time between planting a bomb and making sure the areas is clear that is a crucial risk for people dying.

The problem I have with Ayers is everything he spouts ends with a "but". "well, I did this wrong, but....". I could have hurt someone, but they killed..." Everything he does is about equating what he did wrong to the evil government or the "what I did wasn't as bad as this group over here" crap. That is where I compare him to Mcviegh and not because of the severity of the bombs.

Someone made a comment about him living in hiding being punishment enough. I'll have to look back on that. Excuse me, but HE WAS STILL BOMBING STUFF then and even managed to get married. I think people who actually went to prison for their crimes would disagree with that being punishment.

[Tricky]

Using powerful explosives to instill fear in others does indeed make one a terrorist. An unrepentant one at that.
You mean like testing a hydrogen bomb?

[Tailgater]

Well, yes, that's always been self-evident...

But the definition there is silly. Someone that inspires terror and frightens others? "Terror" is just a stronger word for "fear". By this definition, causing fear makes someone a terrorist. It's a useless definition.

The first definition just backs up the second. The third pertains to a specific group. The fourth is like the third. The fifth just backs up the second as an adjective.

In short, causing fear makes you a terrorist... I'm sorry, but that definition just doesn't seem strong enough. It makes the man with a scary mask in Halloween a terrorist.

I understand your point, and it doesn't take out the shades of gray involving fear, but it does mean there doesn't have to be a body count for there to be a terrorist act or intent to commit one. Terrorism is based more on fear than dead bodies. The debate after that is what degree of fear can someone cause before being labeled a terrorist.

[Tricky]

I understand your point, and it doesn't take out the shades of gray involving fear, but it does mean there doesn't have to be a body count for there to be a terrorist act or intent to commit one. Terrorism is based more on fear than dead bodies. The debate after that is what degree of fear can someone cause before being labeled a terrorist.
So if we had "degrees of terrorism" like degrees of manslaughter, then it might make sense to call Ayers a "third degree terrorist", as opposed to a "first degree terrorist" like McVeigh.

[Tailgater]

You mean like testing a hydrogen bomb?

Is the guy pushing the button wearing a Halloween mask? If so, then yes.

[IchabodPlain]

You mean like testing a hydrogen bomb?

No political or social objective. Military/science objective? Yes.

Violence intended to instill fear or terror to further a political or social agenda. That's the definition I have always worked with.

[Tailgater]

So if we had "degrees of terrorism" like degrees of manslaughter, then it might make sense to call Ayers a "third degree terrorist", as opposed to a "first degree terrorist" like McVeigh.

Ya, or threat level orange, defcon three, and lasers set to stun. They were similar in the misguided focus of where to direct their anger at the government, but very different in the severity of the actions. Both could be classified as domestic terrorists.

For the record, I'm not speaking in this thread in defense of how Ayers was used in the election or that he's connected with Obama in any way other than Chicago politics. I have equal distate for that as people trying to prop him up as a heroic 60s figure using a war as moral equivalence for individual actions.

[Tricky]

No political or social objective. Military/science objective? Yes.

Violence intended to instill fear or terror to further a political or social agenda. That's the definition I have always worked with.
That's not much of a distinction. Any military man will tell you that bomb tests are as much about scaring your enemies as it is testing your weapons. You think that such tests serve no political or social agenda?

You are essentially saying, "If I agree with your political/social agenda, it's okay. If I don't, you're terrorists."

[Tricky]

For the record, I'm not speaking in this thread in defense of how Ayers was used in the election or that he's connected with Obama in any way other than Chicago politics. I have equal distate for that as people trying to prop him up as a heroic 60s figure using a war as moral equivalence for individual actions.

I'm not calling him a hero either. Ayers was a criminal who should have been punished for his criminal acts. He is not the equivalent of McVeigh or Osama bin Laden. His crimes have been blown far out of proportion in order to serve a political/social agenda.

[Lonewulf]

No political or social objective. Military/science objective? Yes.

Urrr... so the Military objectives and political don't cross?

What about testing bombs in wartime?

We seem to be quick to say that North Korea shouldn't test nuclear weapons... is it only terrorism if non-Western countries test them? Or just countries we're already afraid of?

[IchabodPlain]

That's not much of a distinction. Any military man will tell you that bomb tests are as much about scaring your enemies as it is testing your weapons. You think that such tests serve no political or social agenda?

No, I don't. It was about testing a new technology, the effects of which, were unknown at the time.

You are essentially saying, "If I agree with your political/social agenda, it's okay. If I don't, you're terrorists."

Not at all. I also think the Sons of Liberty's actions against customs officials were terrorist acts (different topic, I know). I am saying if your violence was intended to cause fear or terror to further a political or social agenda, you are committing terrorist acts.

[gdnp]

In short, causing fear makes you a terrorist... I'm sorry, but that definition just doesn't seem strong enough. It makes the man with a scary mask in Halloween a terrorist.

Causing fear makes you a terrorist only if
1) you cause fear through violence or the threat of violence. Obama may cause fear in Libertarians and racists, but he is not threatening violence against them. Nor are you threatening violence in your Halloween mask, except in naive children.
2) The fear you cause is for political or social purposes. Driving people from their homes. Intimidating them not to vote. Altering government policies.

[Giz]

You mean like testing a hydrogen bomb?

Are you going to equate having armed forces with terrorism? Is this a larsonesque game of semantics or are you actually being serious...?!

One of the major reasons for having armed forces is that they will deter aggression by impressing (scaring) foriegn govt's with the number/power of their weapons. Does that make all nations terrorists in your eyes?

I'd say that there is a difference between states having/testing bombs and individuals having/testing bombs. (Maybe this could be analogised to police vs. vigilantes, I am ok with police having a monopoly on force but not with individual vigilantes having the same) (or maybe it could be likened to me being ok with congress telling me to pay $x in tax but not being ok with some mobster telling me to pay him $x).

[IchabodPlain]

Urrr... so the Military objectives and political don't cross?

What about testing bombs in wartime?

They may after the fact, but a legitimate military objective (such as testing an untested weapon) used as a political tool ad hoc isn't the same as violence with the intention of of furthering a political or social agenda meant to instill fear.


We seem to be quick to say that North Korea shouldn't test nuclear weapons... is it only terrorism if non-Western countries test them? Or just countries we're already afraid of?

Where did I mention N. Korea? Non-Western countries? Oh that's right, I didn't.:boggled:

[applecorped]

You mean like testing a hydrogen bomb?

No. Are you are suggesting Ayers and co. were just testing their bombs?

[ZouPrime]

The funny thing is that 10 years ago we wouldn't had this discussion. 10 years ago the definition of terrorism was pretty much well understood by everyone actually studying the question, and of course Ayers would have been labeled a terrorist. What he did is practically the textbook definition of terrorism.

But now we live in a post-Bush world. The US administration has worked very hard to identify terrorists as the worst scums of the world, the numero uno public ennemies. So we can't use the tried and true dictionnary definition anymore because of the huge social significance of the word. Calling Ayers a terrorist is now akin to comparing him to the 9/11 terrorists, and that's something a lot of people would have trouble with because of the difference in scale (of course, that's also why the republicans have been pushing on the Ayers story so much. People wouldn't have care much about a decade-old relationship between Obama and some old and forgotten war protestor, but if you label him a terrorist, you automagically raise the fear factor in the easily impressed voters. Now it becomes serious and important stuff).

The same phenomenon can be seen in reverse. Nowaday, things that are clearly not terrorism (ex: US invasion in Iraq) are labbeled as such, because it greatly helps demonize the US actions. Forget the fact that it's clearly not terrorism by the classical definition of the word. Forget that it is easy to criticize the US invasion without ressorting to labelling it as "terrorism". The goal isn't to make a proper argument, the goal is to make your opponent look bad, and there's nothing more efficient than labelling him as a terrorist. 'Cause everyone understand that Terrorism Is Bad, m'kay?

[IllegalArgument]

Listened to most of the interview, he was very evasive.

A useful idiot, in the classic Soviet sense.

I found the whole attempt to link him to Obama disgusting.

[Tricky]

Are you going to equate having armed forces with terrorism? Is this a larsonesque game of semantics or are you actually being serious...?!
I'm using the definition that was given.
Using powerful explosives to instill fear in others does indeed make one a terrorist.

Was he being serious with that definition? If you are saying "sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't terrorism", then it is not me who is playing semantics.

[Tricky]

Listened to most of the interview, he was very evasive.

A useful idiot, in the classic Soviet sense.
He was certainly used by the McCain campaign.

[gtc]

Inasmuch as?

They worked closely together and, according to Ayers, had a personal relationship.

[applecorped]

I'm using the definition that was given.


Was he being serious with that definition? If you are saying "sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't terrorism", then it is not me who is playing semantics.

I never said "sometimes it isn't". It was terrorism.

Mr. Ayers, who in 1970 was said to have summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: ''Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at,''

http://64.233.169.132/search?q=cache:YEeIkNjCsc8J:query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html%3Fres%3D9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A967 9C8B63%26sec%3D%26spon%3D%26pagewanted%3Dall+list+ of+bill+ayers+bombings&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

[Lonewulf]

They may after the fact, but a legitimate military objective (such as testing an untested weapon) used as a political tool ad hoc isn't the same as violence with the intention of of furthering a political or social agenda meant to instill fear.

Where did I mention N. Korea? Non-Western countries? Oh that's right, I didn't.:boggled:

So, testing weapons, even if you make such tests widespread knowledge and it inspires fear in other nations, is not terrorism. Okay.

[WildCat]

By many of those definitions, the US was a terrorist nation for their actions in Vietnam, which is why Ayers pursued his path.
Not true. Ayers pursued his path as part of a his plan to foment a communist revolution. He wasn't a war protestor, in fact he supported the Vietnam war. He just supported the N. Vietnamese and the VC.

Most of the WU bombings had nothing to do with the Vietnam war, such as the bombing in NYC of a Puerto Rican bank as a show of support for a cement workers strike in Puerto Rico (figure that one out), and the bombing of the State's Attorney's office in California as a reaction to 6 Symbionese Liberation Army asshats getting killed by police in a massive shootout.

Ayers was no peace activist, and peace wasn't his goal. Violent communist revolution was his goal.

He's still an admitted communist btw, and a big fan of Hugo Chavez.

[BeAChooser]

Is or was he a terrorist? No. Was he seriously misguided? Yes.

Between 1970 and 1974, the Weatherman took credit for 12 bombings (others are suspected), including one at the United States Capitol and another at the Pentagon. And you don't call that terrorism?

Bernadine Dohrn was apparently involved in a bombing that killed a police officer and injured many others. And you don't call that terrorism?

And what about the nail bomb plot? You do remember that, don't you? Recall that Ayers' girlfriend at the time (Diane Oughton) died (along with 2 other WUO members) when a nail bomb she was building in a Greenwich Village apartment blew up? In the rubble they found several other already finished nail bombs and enough additional sticks of dynamite for several more. I suppose you don't think using those nail bombs as was intended ... i.e., to kill hundreds of people at a military dance ... would have been an act of terrorism? I suppose you accept Ayers self-serving speculation that Oughton blew the bomb up deliberately to keep it from being used for the purpose it was intended? I suppose you believe Ayers when he claims he wasn't there and didn't know about the plot? I suppose you believe Dohrn was unaware of that plot too?

And what about the bombing of the police station? Remember that one? According the AIM (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/tribune-covers-for-obamas-terrorist-friends/ ) Larry Grathwohl, a former member of the Weatherman Underground testified under oath before a Senate Subcommittee in 1974 that Ayers told him that Dorhn had to plan, develop and carry out the bombing. Here are some quotes from Cliff Kincaid's article:

Ayers told Grathwohl that the bomb was placed on a window ledge and he described the bomb that was used to the extent of saying what kind of shrapnel was used in it.


Grathwohl includes this conversation with Ayers in his 1976 book, Bringing Down America: An FBI Informer with the Weathermen. The park police station bombing in San Francisco was "a success," Ayers is quoted as saying, "but it's a shame when someone like Bernardine Dohrn has to make all the plans, make the bomb, and then place it herself. She should have to do only the planning."



Grathwohl reveals that Ayers himself knew how to make bombs and didn't care about people being killed. At one point, he says, Ayers displayed a diagram of a bomb, with dynamite and a fuse. The plan was to bomb a police station but an objection was raised that it would also destroy a nearby restaurant. "We'll blow out the Red Barn restaurant," Grathwohl said. "Maybe even kill a few innocent customers - and most of them are black."

"We can't protect all the innocent people in the world," Ayers replied. "Some will get killed. Some of us will get killed. We have to accept that fact."


Sorry, but that's more than just "misguided". That's terrorism.

Is there any substantial connection between him and Obama? No.

FALSE. I'm not going to let you get away with this untruth. Despite continued denials from Obama supporters, there is plenty to suggest Obama and William Ayers had a long and substantial connection. They were not just "neighbors" as first claimed by Obama. They didn't first meet at the gathering in Ayers' home which kicked off Obama's political career as also was claimed by Obama's campaign organization later on. We know the following about their relationship ... despite attempts to hide it.

First, for well over a decade they have both lived in the same neighborhood in Chicago and have both been active in the school reform movement. Back in the late 80s, Obama was the Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP) while William Ayers organized the Alliance for Better Chicago Schools (ABCS) group ... of which DCP was a member. During that effort, they met (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1223352000&en=97a61d8ecb16e341&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin ) ... in 1987 in Chicago at a luncheon meeting about school reform. They didn't first meet in 1995 as was claimed.

In 1987 Michelle Robinson (Obama's eventual wife) was hired as a summer associate by the law firm of Sidley and Austin in Chicago. From 1988 to 1991, she worked as an associate at the firm. Well guess what? Sidley and Austin's managing partner was a well known personal friend of Ayers' father, Thomas Ayers. Bernadette Dohrn (William Ayer's wife) worked at this firm as well ... as a para-legal. Presumably, they would have met since the firm wasn't *that* big. In 1989, while Barack was attending Harvard, Michelle first met Barack when she was assigned to mentor him when he was a summer associate at Sidley and Austin.

In 1991, Michelle quit the law firm to work for Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. Mayor Daley recently said he knew Ayers and also said that Obama and Ayers were "friends". Why couldn't they be friends? They've lived in the same neighborhood the entire time they've been in Chicago (decades). They share the same politics (social justice). Their wives worked at the same law firm. They hung out with the same people (i.e., radicals). They worked on numerous related projects. And if you don't believe this train of logic ... believe Ayers. In the forward of his recently republished book (conveniently released days after November 4th), Ayer's states he was a "family friend". "family friend" ... which implies a substantial connection.

After graduating from Harvard, Barack went to work for the law firm of Davis, Miner and Barnhill from 1992 to 1995. What a coincidence ... Judson Miner just happened to be a personal friend and law school classmate of Dohrn, where they were both involved in anti-war activities. And you don't think there was a connection? :rolleyes:

In 1995, Obama was picked to chair the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC). Tell us ... is it reasonable to think that Ayers had nothing to do with this selection (as claimed by Obama supporters) given that it was Ayers who initiated and obtained the first $50 million in funding for this project? Of course it's not reasonable. Of course Ayers had a say in the matter.

During this project, Obama collaborated closely with Ayers. They had to have worked closely together. They were co-chairs over a 5 year period. Obama helped raise another $60 million and, eventually, the two wasted over 100 million dollars on this left-leaning education reform experiment. Is it at all reasonable to think that co-chairs during a 5 year long, 100 million dollar effort would hardly know one another? Of course not. Of course they knew one another. Is it reasonable to believe that during that time they would not socialize? Of course not. Of course they socialized. You'd have to be gullible to believe they didn't.

And this activity led to other shared projects. Like Obama reviewing a book on education written by Ayers, giving it a glowing recommendation. Obama appeared with Ayers on numerous academic panels, including one organized by Michelle Obama to discuss Ayers' book. Yes, even Michelle had an interest and familiarity with Ayers. After all, he was a "family friend" ... by Ayers' own admission.

When Obama became involved in politics, guess who was there? Ayers, of course. As noted earlier, Obama started his journey into politics at a gathering in the home of none other than Ayers and Dohrn. Obama was identified as a "friend" of Ayers by Dr Quentin Young who attended that gathering. Obama got an "official endorsement" from Ayers, maybe not for President of the United States, but several times in his earlier campaigns for political office. Does Ayers endorse people he doesn't know or trust? Of course not. And keep in mind that Obama's campaign claimed he did not get endorsements from Ayers. Another lie.

Obama also got endorsements from radical organizations, such as Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS), which have direct links (via it's members) to the 60's radical group, SDS, and it's terrorist offshoot, the Weather Underground ... and hence to William Ayers. Obama allowed a long time communist friend of Ayers (from back in the days of SDS, Ayers' school reform effort and now MDS), named Mike Klonsky, to run a blog on the official Obama campaign website. Promoting "social justice". It was only shut down when this association was exposed by a conservative blogger. Then the Obama campaign made a concerted effort to eliminate all traces of Klonsky from their site. But not before that association was noted and recorded.

Obama chose as his education advisor, during his recent campaign, a woman (Gloria Ladson-Billings) who was president of the American Education Research Association (AERA) when she proposed a "reparations" approach to education that Ayers endorsed (and may have helped invent). Ayers is now the Vice President-elect of AERA, an organization that pushes the "social justice" agenda of Obama. Ladson-Billings coauthored two books with William Ayers. Are we to believe she also has no significant connection with either Ayers ... or Obama? :rolleyes:

Obama and Ayers served together on the board of directors of the Woods Fund in the late 90's and early 2000's. If one believed the Obama campaign and his supporters, one might think this was their only contact. But now you can see it wasn't. While Obama and Ayers served on the Woods Fund together, Ayers posed standing on an American flag for an article in Chicago Magazine titled "No Regrets" (http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/index.php?cp=1&si=0#artanc ). Are we to believe Obama doesn't subscribe to that magazine? That he didn't know about this? Do you really expect us to believe such nonsense? Because we don't. We think you are gullible.

Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod claimed while on CNN that Obama didn't even know about Ayers' radical past until recently. And then Obama communications Chief Robert Gibbs confirmed that. http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/10/video_obama_didnt_know_about_a.html Do rank and file democrats still really buy this lie? Are you so gullible to think that Obama, with all the connections I noted above, and all his supposed intelligence, didn't know about Ayers past until the middle of the Presidential campaign? Especially when this "I didn't really know him" claim is the same claim made about Wright and Tony Rezko when their pasts came to light? We might buy that excuse once ... but did you really expect us to believe it over and over and over? If Obama really is this clueless about those closest to him, perhaps you folks have made a serious mistake putting him into office. I guess time will tell but I sure hope we don't all pay the price.

David Horowitz interviewed Ayers back in the early 90's According to Horowitz (http://www.islet.org/horowitz/20010914.htm ), "I interviewed Ayers ten years ago, in a kindergarten classroom in uptown Manhattan where he was employed to shape the minds of inner city children. Dressed in bib overalls with golden curls rolling below his ears, Ayers reviewed his activities as a terrorist for my tape recorder. When he was done, he broke into a broad, Jack Horner grin and summed up his experience: "Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. America is a great country." Yet Obama was clueless about this? Ayers' is just a "family friend" ... one who it is admitted now emailed and phoned Obama to share ideas? I guess the subject of Ayers and Dohrn's past never came up once during all that time. Right? :rolleyes:

don't agree with his actions in the W.U. at all-- their acts of vandalism were dangerous and ineffective.

Vandalism? Yeah sure. Looks to me more like intent to kill, or countenancing of intent to kill. Looks to me like Ayers and Dohrn only escaped prosecution because of government misconduct in collecting evidence against them.

As Ayers said, "Guilty As Hell". I don't believe Ayers was in the dark about the nail bombs. Not if he was a leader in the organization and sleeping with one of the bomb builders. You go ahead and believe Ayers if you like. But that will just confirm your gullibility, in my opinion.

It sounds like he's done good work in Chicago since those days.

Guess that depends on what you call good work. Promoting communism, anti-American hatred and ineffective education programs doesn't qualify in my book. But maybe it does in yours. :)

[BeAChooser]

BAC claimed that they killed a policeman, but Ayers specifically denied involvement of the Weather Underground with that bombing.

I didn't just "claim" a policeman was killed, gdnp. I provided sources indicating a policeman died as a result of a bomb that Ayers' wife, Bernadine Dohrn, helped build and place.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/fbi-informant-implicates-obama-associate-in-murder/ "FBI Informant Implicates Obama Associate in Murder"


As we noted in a May 7 column, the testimony that was given by Grathwohl to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee on October 18, 1974, was very specific:

“When he [Bill Ayers] returned, we had another meeting at which time?and this is the only time that any Weathermen told me about something that someone else had done?and Bill started off telling us about the need to raise the level of the struggle and for stronger leadership inside the Weathermen ‘focals’ [i.e., cells] and inside the Weatherman organization as a whole. And he cited as one of the real problems was that someone like Bernardine Dohrn had to plan, develop and carry out the bombing of the police station in San Francisco, and he specifically named her as the person that committed that act.”

Grathwohl added that Ayers “said that the bomb was placed on the window ledge and he described the kind of bomb that was used to the extent of saying what kind of shrapnel was used in it.”

He was asked, “Did he say who placed the bomb on the window ledge?” He replied, “Bernardine Dohrn.”

... snip ...

Grathwohl told AIM, “Bill [Ayers] told me about it before I had even read about it in the paper. When I went to the FBI and gave them this information, I knew nothing about it. And the information Bill had given me was so exact. I knew that the bomb had been left on the window ledge of the Park Police station and I knew what the bomb was comprised of.”*


.

That being said, I think he paid a certain price by living on the run for a decade

Well that's just too bad. I don't think that begins to make up for the harm he and his friends did this country. And are still doing to it.

and since that time he has done a lot to give back to the community.

Like what? Spending other people's money on projects that didn't accomplish anything other than to line his pockets and those of his communist friends? Like filling the minds of children and teachers with racist, communist and anti-American notions? The biggest irony of all is that all this time he's been leaching off the capitalist system he so despises. But I guess that doesn't make him a hypocrite. Right? :rolleyes:

[BeAChooser]

If destroying someone's property in order to effect political or social change amounts to terrorism

It does. Which is why the the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), along with the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), is ranked the No. 1 domestic terrorism threat by the FBI. The FBI attributes over 600 criminal acts and $43 million in damages to the two groups since 1996. And ironically, one of Obama's big supporters, Jodie Evans of Code Pink, sits on the board of directors of an environmental coalition with the man, Mike Roselle, who founded those terrorist organizations.

[BeAChooser]

I found an old UPI article from 1970 about Ayer's g/f Diana Oughton

Thanks. Very informative. And what it notes Oughton saying only a few days before the explosion that killed her puts to lie Ayers' self-serving speculation that she deliberately set the bomb off to keep it from being used as intended.

[gdnp]

Well that's just too bad. I don't think that begins to make up for the harm he and his friends did this country. And are still doing to it.
You certainly have a right to your opinion.

Like filling the minds of children and teachers with racist, communist and anti-American notions? Could you give us examples of the racist, communist, and anti-American notions that Ayers filled the minds of children and teachers with? I know Chicago is liberal, but I find it surprising they would give a Citizen of the year award in 1997 to a person with such a radical agenda.

[ANTPogo]

In 1987 Michelle Robinson (Obama's eventual wife) was hired as a summer associate by the law firm of Sidley and Austin in Chicago. From 1988 to 1991, she worked as an associate at the firm. Well guess what? Sidley and Austin's managing partner was a well known personal friend of Ayers' father, Thomas Ayers.

So, Barack Obama's wife was an intern at a law firm managed by a friend of the father that Ayers himself was quoted in this thread as wanting to kill?

Well, heck, I'm sure convinced by such damning evidence.

[Cleon]

FALSE. I'm not going to let you get away with this untruth.

Instead, you'll tell your own!


First, for well over a decade they have both lived in the same neighborhood in Chicago and have both been active in the school reform movement. Back in the late 80s, Obama was the Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP) while William Ayers organized the Alliance for Better Chicago Schools (ABCS) group ... of which DCP was a member. During that effort, they met (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1223352000&en=97a61d8ecb16e341&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin ) ... in 1987 in Chicago at a luncheon meeting about school reform. They didn't first meet in 1995 as was claimed.Ooh. You didn't actually bother to read that article. It doesn't say they met in 1987, at all, anywhere. It says they met in 1995.


In 1987 Michelle Robinson (Obama's eventual wife) was hired as a summer associate by the law firm of Sidley and Austin in Chicago. From 1988 to 1991, she worked as an associate at the firm. Well guess what? Sidley and Austin's managing partner was a well known personal friend of Ayers' father, Thomas Ayers. Bernadette Dohrn (William Ayer's wife) worked at this firm as well ... as a para-legal. Presumably, they would have met since the firm wasn't *that* big. In 1989, while Barack was attending Harvard, Michelle first met Barack when she was assigned to mentor him when he was a summer associate at Sidley and Austin. That's just silly. Really. Silly.

Obama's future wife worked at a firm, who among the owners was a friend of Ayers' father, and Ayers' future wife worked there as a paralegal...And this indicates, in your mind, that Obama and Ayers had a close working relationship.

Silly.


In 1991, Michelle quit the law firm to work for Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. Mayor Daley recently said he knew Ayers and also said that Obama and Ayers were "friends". Why couldn't they be friends? They've lived in the same neighborhood the entire time they've been in Chicago (decades). They share the same politics (social justice). Their wives worked at the same law firm. They hung out with the same people (i.e., radicals). They worked on numerous related projects. And if you don't believe this train of logic What train of logic? It's discombobulated gibberish.

... believe Ayers. In the forward of his recently republished book (conveniently released days after November 4th), Ayer's states he was a "family friend". "family friend" ... which implies a substantial connection.Oooh...Nice try. But two words do not a substantial case make. Here's what Ayers said about it (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97191218) on Wednesday:


I would say the relationship I had with President-elect Obama was similar to relationships he had with thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people. And just like millions of people today, I wish I knew him better, but the fact is that a lot has been made of this relationship which is just false and not there. We live in the same neighborhood. We live a couple of blocks apart. Of course, we see one another. It's a close knit, but wildly diverse and interesting neighborhood. And so we know each other in that kind of way.


So...According to Ayers, no close working relationship.

Are you going to believe him now, or only when he says things that reinforce your preconceived notions?


After graduating from Harvard, Barack went to work for the law firm of Davis, Miner and Barnhill from 1992 to 1995. What a coincidence ... Judson Miner just happened to be a personal friend and law school classmate of Dohrn, where they were both involved in anti-war activities. And you don't think there was a connection? :rolleyes:
So one of the partners of a law firm Obama worked for was, according to you (I note the lack of substantiation), a friend of Ayers' wife, and this means that Obama and Ayers had a close working relationship.

:rolleyes: indeed.


In 1995, Obama was picked to chair the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC). Tell us ... is it reasonable to think that Ayers had nothing to do with this selection (as claimed by Obama supporters) given that it was Ayers who initiated and obtained the first $50 million in funding for this project? Of course it's not reasonable. Of course Ayers had a say in the matter.
Wow, that's dishonest.

By "initiated and obtained the first $50 million in funding," what you really meant was, Ayers--along with two other people--wrote a grant proposal.

And that same New York Times article you lied about earlier? Here's what it says about how Obama was selected, based on interviews wih the actual participants:


In fact, according to several people involved, Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obama’s appointment. Instead, it was suggested by Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based group whose board Mr. Obama, a young lawyer, had joined the previous year. At a lunch with two other foundation heads, Patricia A. Graham of the Spencer Foundation and Adele Simmons of the MacArthur Foundation (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/m/macarthur_john_d_and_catherine_t_foundation/index.html?inline=nyt-org), Ms. Leff suggested that Mr. Obama would make a good board chairman, she said in an interview. Mr. Ayers was not present and had not suggested Mr. Obama, she said.
Ayers was not involved in the selection. At all.

More, once Obama was Chairman, the two were present at just six meetings together--Ayers to brief them on school issues, and Obama to, well, do his job as Chairman.

And from this, you've determined that Ayers and Obama had a close working relationship.

Silly.


During this project, Obama collaborated closely with Ayers. They had to have worked closely together. They were co-chairs over a 5 year period.Incorrect, as I showed above.


Obama helped raise another $60 million and, eventually, the two wasted over 100 million dollars on this left-leaning education reform experiment....That was largely funded by Reagan conservatives. Funny, that.


Enough. I can only waste so much time debunking this crap. BAC, your claims have no basis in fact, and your "train of logic" depends heavily on lying and misrepresentation of reality.

Your "arguments" are completely bogus. Case closed.

[BeAChooser]

It is my understanding that every other bomb that the WU set off was done with ample warning to evacuate the affected area.

Are you sure? The Washington Post reported that the WU warned of the State Department blast just minutes before it occurred. Are a few minutes enough time to reliably clear an entire building?

http://oldhickorysweblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/contemporary-1975-account-of-weather.html


[From the Washington Star-News, Jan. 29, 1975]

WEATHER UNDERGROUND STRIKES—BOMB SET OFF AT STATE DEPARTMENT

An explosion ripped through a third floor men's restroom at the State Department early today moments after callers here and in San Francisco claiming to represent the anti-war Weather Underground group said they had set bombs in government buildings to protest continued U.S. involvement in Indochina.

... snip ...

A guard assigned to the building said a District policeman came to the building about 12:50 a.m. "He told me there was a bomb and I picked up the phone to call my office and the bomb went off just then," said the officer, who asked not to be identified. The officer noted the exact time of the blast 12:56 a.m.


The guard says that as he picked up the phone to inform his supervisors, the bomb went off. In other words, there was no time to evacuate the building.

And the bomb wasn't placed in some out of the way spot. It went off in the wall of a women's restroom ... suggesting it was placed there by a women (maybe Ayers' wife, Dohrn?). It damaged 5 FLOORS of the building and all but destroyed the bathrooms (men's too) and offices near them. And by the way, a number of people including 11 security guards were still in the building when the bomb went off. Good thing none of them were working late in that area of the building or needed to pee.

And what about the bombs the WU placed that didn't go off and had to be disposed of by bomb disposal experts. Like the one in the Oakland building in January 1975. Ever think about the lives of those experts or their families ... because sometimes bombs go off in the face of such experts? According to http://www.archive.org/stream/statedepartmentb00unit/statedepartmentb00unit_djvu.txt ,


it was the men who found a black attache case behind a panel near the ceiling. Using ropes, they dragged it to the street and tried to explode it with charges. In a second attempt, they set fire to the case and the protective covering. Three minutes later, as members of the unit crept forward to inspect the bomb, it exploded. No one was hurt, and there was no physical damage. Joe Popello, chief of the firearms unit office here, said the case had held 10 to 15 pounds of explosives and that the clock mechanism that was to detonate it at about 10 p.m. was still ticking.


Furthermore, given the timeline described in the above link, the only reason the police and bomb disposal people weren't in the Oakland building at the time the bomb should have gone off is that they made a decision not to enter the building for fear it might do so. What if a different decision had been made? The WUO had no basis to believe authorities wouldn't immediately send in police and bomb disposal experts. But I guess the WUO didn't consider such people "innocent" of America's crimes. Right?

And what about all the calls warning of bombs that turned up nothing. Those calls are clearly "terrorism" by any definition. Were any of them from WUO members? Did you note that the Washington Star-News article I cited above also indicates police received additional warnings that night ... warnings where no explosives were found. Given the timing, those might have been WUO callers just trying to spread further terror. Right? And what if as a result of calls that turn up nothing after mass evacuations (which happened several times back then), the authorities got complacent and decided not to evacuate one time? Whose fault is it then if someone dies when that particular threat turns out to be real? The authorities? Or those bombers who placed the bomb and issued the warning (and perhaps some of the false warnings)? I say it is the bombers who would bear responsibility for those deaths. Don't you agree?

Thus no one was killed in any of the WU bombings before or after the explosion that killed the 3 bombmakers.

Well as I've pointed out previously, authorities think Dohrn was involved in the San Francisco police station bombing that killed a policeman. And a former WUO member testified that Ayers admitted this.

And hopefully, you will also agree that the nail bomb that they were building in Greenwich Village (actually, it was bombS since they found 4 already completed nail bombs in the rubble) would have been set off without warning. Otherwise, what was the purpose in building nail bombs? Right?

Ayers does not know exactly what was planned for that bomb.

That's not a fact. That's just his current CLAIM.

He was one of the leaders of the organization at the time. They had already built 4 other nail bombs. And we are to believe he didn't know what was planned for the bombS? Sorry, but we aren't quite as gullible as you, it seems.

He speculates that his girlfriend set it off on purpose to save innocent lives, which I see as wishful thinking.

Or it is self-serving spin simply to protect HIMSELF. Do you honestly expect us to believe that the woman he was sleeping with didn't tell him about the bombs and their intended use? Do you honestly expect us to believe that the first time he heard about this massive plot was when he CLAIMS he got a phone call "in the desert"? :rolleyes:

I still do not see it as out of the realm of possibility that they planned to phone in a warning just as they did with their others.

Oh come on, gdnp! These were NAIL BOMBS. They were designed TO KILL PEOPLE. Why build them if you weren't planning to use them in that manner? :rolleyes:

Or these 3 members may have decided to move to more radical tactics.

Actually, it wasn't just three. There were AT LEAST 2 others (whose names we know) that were in the apartment at the time and survived. And there were possibly more since there were witnesses who said more than 2 people fled the scene after the explosion. Perhaps Ayers and Dohrn were among them? That's possible, right? And we've heard no claim ... not even from Ayers ... that such a split as you theorize occurred. So why introduce such a red herring? It's almost as desperate as Ayers' claim about Oughten.

And maybe the reason they changed to less radical tactics after this explosion is that they were now afraid of nail bombs. :D

I have heard no claim that Ayers supported changing the focus of WU bombings from property to people.

Then you haven't been paying attention. According to Larry Grathwohl, a former member of the WU who testified under oath before a Senate Subcommittee in 1974 (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/tribune-covers-for-obamas-terrorist-friends/ ), at one point


Ayers displayed a diagram of a bomb, with dynamite and a fuse. The plan was to bomb a police station but an objection was raised that it would also destroy a nearby restaurant. "We'll blow out the Red Barn restaurant," Grathwohl said. "Maybe even kill a few innocent customers - and most of them are black."

"We can't protect all the innocent people in the world," Ayers replied. "Some will get killed. Some of us will get killed. We have to accept that fact."


And regarding the police station bombing that killed a policeman and injured many others (because it was an anti-personnel device too), Grathwohl said Ayers


described the bomb that was used to the extent of saying what kind of shrapnel was used in it.

Ayers is quoted as saying, "but it's a shame when someone like Bernardine Dohrn has to make all the plans, make the bomb, and then place it herself. She should have to do only the planning."


Don't kid yourself, gdnp. Ayers was not above killing innocent people to further his political agenda. And I frankly don't think he's really changed in that regard since he has "no regrets".

[BeAChooser]

"The plan might have changed"? ... snip ... So you think an anti-personnel bomb (which is exactly what that device was) has any use other than indiscriminately killing as many people as possible? ... snip ... Not even Ayers goes so far to excuse this particular act Tricky. ... snip ... And yet, here you are so desperate to excuse the WU for this that you find an excuse Ayers hadn't even used. Unbelievable.

Yes, aren't the lengths to which some will go to defend Ayers and Obama truly astounding? That says a lot about them. :D

[applecorped]

Yes, aren't the lengths to which some will go to defend Ayers and Obama truly astounding? That says a lot about them. :D

Ayers is a criminal. Obama just made a very poor choice about whom to associate with.

[BeAChooser]

Could you give us examples of the racist, communist, and anti-American notions

We've been over this, gdnp. If you weren't paying attention the first time, or the second time ... or the third ... I see reason to repeat it all a forth.

I know Chicago is liberal, but I find it surprising they would give a Citizen of the year award in 1997 to a person with such a radical agenda.

Mayor Daley gave him that award because he'd brought another $50+ million dollars into the local economy and because it was just a couple years after Obama was introduced into politics at a meeting with Ayers (communist), Dohrn (communist), Palmer (communist) and Young (communist). Of course they had to improve Ayers image. If they didn't, it might spell trouble for Obama ... their new darling ... who Mayor Daley also had close ties with (Michelle even worked for him at one point). It's ironic, however, that they gave him that citizen of the year award for an education project that eventually wasted $100+ million dollars because it had no measurable impact on student performance ... it's goal. :D

[gdnp]

Are you sure? The Washington Post reported that the WU warned of the State Department blast just minutes before it occurred. Are a few minutes enough time to reliably clear an entire building? As Ayers pointed out, they were lucky the bombs didn't kill anyone. They very well could have. The warnings phoned beforehand would suggest that their intent was not to kill people. Did OBL phone warnings to the WTC before they crashed the planes there?

And what about the bombs the WU placed that didn't go off and had to be disposed of by bomb disposal experts. Like the one in the Oakland building in January 1975. Ever think about the lives of those experts or their families ... because sometimes bombs go off in the face of such experts? Yes, if the bombs had killed bomb disposal experts those who planted them would not only be guilty of terrorism but also of murder. Any more straw men?

And what about all the calls warning of bombs that turned up nothing. Those calls are clearly "terrorism" by any definition. Were any of them from WUO members? Did you note that the Washington Star-News article I cited above also indicates police received additional warnings that night ... warnings where no explosives were found. Given the timing, those might have been WUO callers just trying to spread further terror. Right? And what if as a result of calls that turn up nothing after mass evacuations (which happened several times back then), the authorities got complacent and decided not to evacuate one time? Whose fault is it then if someone dies when that particular threat turns out to be real? The authorities? Or those bombers who placed the bomb and issued the warning (and perhaps some of the false warnings)? I say it is the bombers who would bear responsibility for those deaths. Don't you agree?Yes: when terrorists cause deaths through their terroristic actions they are guilty of murder. Is someone disputing this?


Well as I've pointed out previously, authorities think Dohrn was involved in the San Francisco police station bombing that killed a policeman. And a former WUO member testified that Ayers admitted this.Ayers says they were not. It would appear that someone is lying. Since I have no personal knowledge of the trustworthyness of either Ayers or the witness, It would appear to be a case of "he said--she said" in the absence of any collaborating evidence. I would like to hear Ayers respond to those particular claims, however.

And hopefully, you will also agree that the nail bomb that they were building in Greenwich Village (actually, it was bombS since they found 4 already completed nail bombs in the rubble) would have been set off without warning. Otherwise, what was the purpose in building nail bombs? Right?
The purpose of setting off the bombs was to terrorize people. Did the WU believe they could terrorize people better with a nail bomb than with a conventional bomb? I don't know. Did they intend to injure people, but might they have backed off at the last minute? I don't know. Did one of the bombs go off while they were trying to disassemble it to remove the nails, having decided against intentionally targeting people? I don't know. Is any of my wild speculation more accurate than your wild speculation? I don't know. Neither do you.



That's not a fact. That's just his current CLAIM.

He was one of the leaders of the organization at the time. They had already built 4 other nail bombs. And we are to believe he didn't know what was planned for the bombS? Sorry, but we aren't quite as gullible as you, it seems. Perhaps because you (singular or plural, take your pick) have psychic abilities that I lack.

Or it is self-serving spin simply to protect HIMSELF. Do you honestly expect us to believe that the woman he was sleeping with didn't tell him about the bombs and their intended use?
Do you have evidence otherwise?
Do you honestly expect us to believe that the first time he heard about this massive plot was when he CLAIMS he got a phone call "in the desert"? Clearly, you will believe what you wish to believe, regardless of the paucity of evidence.

Oh come on, gdnp! These were NAIL BOMBS. They were designed TO KILL PEOPLE. Why build them if you weren't planning to use them in that manner? To terrorize. It is what terrorists do.

Actually, it wasn't just three. There were AT LEAST 2 others (whose names we know) that were in the apartment at the time and survived. And there were possibly more since there were witnesses who said more than 2 people fled the scene after the explosion. Perhaps Ayers and Dohrn were among them? That's possible, right? Or perhaps it was Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. I have just as much evidence.

And maybe the reason they changed to less radical tactics after this explosion is that they were now afraid of nail bombs. That would show their ability to learn from their mistakes. Having friends and lovers blown to bits puts a personal face on death that statistics cannot.

Then you haven't been paying attention. According to Larry Grathwohl, a former member of the WU who testified under oath before a Senate Subcommittee in 1974 (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/tribune-covers-for-obamas-terrorist-friends/ ), at one point
Well, if "paying attention" means having read everything that has been written about Ayers and the WU in the last 35 years, then mea culpa, I haven't been paying attention. I leave that to the conspiracy fanatics who seem to think Ayers has some great importance.

Don't kid yourself, gdnp. Ayers was not above killing innocent people to further his political agenda. And I frankly don't think he's really changed in that regard since he has "no regrets".
I think Ayers talked a better game than he acted. He may have told people to kill their fathers, but it does not appear that he had the guts to kill his own. So much rhetoric.

That being said, I am also not convinced he is reformed. I think he has decided that he can effect more positive social change working in the system than trying to bring it down. I didn't see him planting bombs to stop the Gulf War. Whether he would put back on his fatigues and start planting bombs again were situations to change, I don't really know.

[BeAChooser]

Ooh. You didn't actually bother to read that article. It doesn't say they met in 1987, at all, anywhere. It says they met in 1995.

You're right, my mistake. I was misled by this:

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2109106/replies?c=26 "In the fall of 1987, Obama working in his role of community organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) is introduced to unrepentent domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, while both of them are “working” the same side of the Chicago Teacher’s Union Strike of 1987. Ayers is quoted as saying, that he and Obama met 'at a luncheon meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper'."

and should have been more careful.

But do you honestly believe that Obama didn't meet Dohrn and Ayers before 1995? Or are these just more fairy tales by Obama, Ayers and his supporters? Like Obama's claim that he didn't know Ayers had a terrorist background until halfway through the Presidential campaign? Afterall, their wives worked at the same law firms well before this time. Obama met his wife in that law firm. They lived in the same neighborhood well before this time. They worked on the same school reform programs before this. They even simultaneously attended schools in NYC that were only blocks apart while sharing similar interests. Then Obama goes to work in NYC where again there is a tie-in with Ayers' wife. How much claimed coincidence must we accept before doubting this fairy tale? Isn't it asking a lot to believe that Ayers had nothing to do with picking Obama for the CAC co-chair, even though CAC was Ayers' baby? Isn't it asking a lot to believe that Ayers was just a "guy" in the "neighborhood" when Ayers and Obama worked as co-chairs on a 100+ million dollar effort for five years? How many lies and untruths are we to be forced to accept by you Obama/Ayers defenders, Cleon? :D

Here's what Ayers said about it on Wednesday:

Why are you so willing to accept the word of a communist terrorist who married another communist terrorist and raised the child of still another communist terrorist?

All spin aside, why did Ayers describe himself as an Obama "family friend" in the forward of his own book? I'm certain that "thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of people" wouldn't do that.

So...According to Ayers, no close working relationship.

Why are you so willing to accept the word of a communist terrorist who married another communist terrorist and raised the child of still another communist terrorist?

By "initiated and obtained the first $50 million in funding," what you really meant was, Ayers--along with two other people--wrote a grant proposal.

But that project was and is recognized as Ayers' baby. Did those other two get awards for it? Are their names synonymous with CAC? The fact is Ayers, not them, was the co-chair.

Quote:
In fact, according to several people involved, Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obama’s appointment. Instead, it was suggested by Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based group whose board Mr. Obama, a young lawyer, had joined the previous year. At a lunch with two other foundation heads, Patricia A. Graham of the Spencer Foundation and Adele Simmons of the MacArthur Foundation, Ms. Leff suggested that Mr. Obama would make a good board chairman, she said in an interview. Mr. Ayers was not present and had not suggested Mr. Obama, she said.


Ah yes, you are quoting a NY Times story written in October 2008 ... well after Obama was running for President when it was important to liberal media outlets like the NY Times that as much distance be put between Obama and Ayers as possible ... and we are supposed to just believe it. :rolleyes:

Ayers was not involved in the selection. At all.

Here's someone that doesn't agree:

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/07/ayersobama-update-my-final-exchange-with-the-new-york-times/


As I have explained to Global Labor readers, the New York Times interviewed me for their recent story on the Ayers/Obama relationship. After the story ran I blogged on the inadequacy of the story and received an email from the reporter, Scott Shane. An exchange of emails followed and below is the most recent exchange.

There is a critical smaller point and a larger one made here.*

First, the Times reporting on the story of Obama became Chairman of the Annenberg Challenge is consistent with what I found out: that Ayers appointed Obama. This is indicated by the fact that Ayers met with Obama after Obama was vetted by two foundation presidents advising Ayers, Deborah Leff and Patricia Graham. While the Times quotes some unnamed sources as saying that Ayers was not involved neither Graham nor Leff are quoted to that effect in the story.

Shane has insisted that Graham told him that Ayers was not involved and now says, for the first time, that Leff also said that. However, neither of them were quoted to that effect in the original story.*

In any case, that is irrelevant because whatever Leff and Graham may think happened 14 years ago cannot trump what actually took place as documented in written letters by Ayers and Brown University President Vartan Gregorian, the national Annenberg representative, demonstrate: that Ayers had the legal authority to appoint board members — not Graham or Leff and, thus, only with Ayers’ approval could Obama have become Chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

A larger point, of course, is that the Times seems to have used Shane to make sure that the story came out the way that it did. My email to Shane below explains.

... snip ...


More on this:

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/05/how-did-ayers-make-obama-chair-of-the-chicago-annenberg-challenge/

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/04/obamaayers-update-new-york-times-ignores-evidence-of-ayers-role-in-annenberg-board-selection/

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/02/obamaayers-update-letters-indicate-ayers-role-in-obama-appointment-to-chicago-annenberg-challenge-board/


More, once Obama was Chairman, the two were present at just six meetings together ... snip ... And from this, you've determined that Ayers and Obama had a close working relationship.

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/11/03/ayers-and-obama-in-regular-contact-says-source-close-to-obama-candidacy/


Ayers and Obama in regular contact says source close to Obama candidacy.


And seriously, Cleon, do you think that those 6 meetings were the ONLY contact Obama and Ayers had during that time? Really? :rolleyes:

[BeAChooser]

Obama just made a very poor choice about whom to associate with.

He seems to do that a lot. Rezko. Wright. Mike Klonsky. Jodie Evans. Makes one wonder if he's making the same poor choices now in his cabinet/staff selections ... picking all those folks with ties to Clinton's nefarious activities. :D

[Cleon]

But do you honestly believe that Obama didn't meet Dohrn and Ayers before 1995?

Do you have any evidence that they did?


Afterall, their wives worked at the same law firms well before this time.

Which might mean something to you, but in the real world, it means fairly little--and certainly doesn't establish any Obama/Ayers relationship.

Then Obama goes to work in NYC where again there is a tie-in with Ayers' wife.

This "tie-in" is another flimsy (at best) "connection."


How much claimed coincidence must we accept

"Claimed coincidence?" Please.

"Obama worked somewhere where someone else knew someone who knew Ayers."

That's not a "claimed coindience," it's just the result of living life without shutting himself off from the result of the world.

Isn't it asking a lot to believe that Ayers had nothing to do with picking Obama for the CAC co-chair,

Well, that's what the participants who did the actual selection said about it. If you think they're lying, take it up with them.

So far, the evidence says: Ayers wasn't involved.


Why are you so willing to accept the word of a communist terrorist who married another communist terrorist and raised the child of still another communist terrorist?

Well, that's certainly entertaining. You're perfectly willing to accept Ayers' word when it backs up your pre-conceived notions, but when Ayers says something that doesn't back you up, you come up with this "why are you so willing to accept his word" tripe.

You're not only dishonest, you're a hypocrite, too.

All spin aside, why did Ayers describe himself as an Obama "family friend" in the forward of his own book?

Why are you so willing to accept the word of a communist terrorist who married another communist terrorist and raised the child of still another communist terrorist?


But that project was and is recognized as Ayers' baby.

Passive voice noted. It's "recognized as Ayers' baby" by you.


Did those other two get awards for it? Are their names synonymous with CAC? The fact is Ayers, not them, was the co-chair.


E-vi-dence.

Ayers was merely one of numerous people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Annenberg_Challenge) involved in the effort. He wasn't even on the original Board of Directors.


Ah yes, you are quoting a NY Times story written in October 2008 ... well after Obama was running for President when it was important to liberal media outlets like the NY Times that as much distance be put between Obama and Ayers as possible ... and we are supposed to just believe it. :rolleyes:


And again, you were perfectly willing to "just believe" the very same article when you (mistakenly) thought it backed up your preconceived notions.

Again, blatant hypocrisy on your part.


Here's someone that doesn't agree:


Bully for them. Where's the evidence?


And seriously, Cleon, do you think that those 6 meetings were the ONLY contact Obama and Ayers had during that time? Really? :rolleyes:

Do you have any evidence that they did, beyond conjecture and four-degree connections that would get laughed out of a Kevin Bacon game?

Thought not.

:rolleyes: indeed.

[BeAChooser]

The warnings phoned beforehand would suggest that their intent was not to kill people.

Except for guards, police, bomb disposal experts, or folks so committed they were working late in the buildings? Since in at least in one instance they issued a warning that allowed no time to evacuate anyone before the bomb went off.

Yes, if the bombs had killed bomb disposal experts those who planted them would not only be guilty of terrorism but also of murder. Any more straw men?

Why was that question a strawman? What I presented shows that Ayers didn't care much about the lives of bomb disposal experts.

Yes: when terrorists cause deaths through their terroristic actions they are guilty of murder. Is someone disputing this?

So you'll agree that if Ayers is quoted correctly, then Dohrn (his wife) is a murderer?


Quote:
Well as I've pointed out previously, authorities think Dohrn was involved in the San Francisco police station bombing that killed a policeman. And a former WUO member testified that Ayers admitted this.

Ayers says they were not.

Ayers' self-interested denials aren't worth much. And Ayers didn't testify under oath as the person who quoted Ayers did. Now maybe democrats don't think testifying under oath means much (after Clinton) but I do. It puts one in legal jeopardy ... as Clinton found out.

Did the WU believe they could terrorize people better with a nail bomb than with a conventional bomb? I don't know. Did they intend to injure people, but might they have backed off at the last minute? I don't know. Did one of the bombs go off while they were trying to disassemble it to remove the nails, having decided against intentionally targeting people? I don't know.

Wow. You're willing to give them every possible benefit of the doubt, aren't you? That desperate? :rolleyes:

Quote:
Do you honestly expect us to believe that the woman he was sleeping with didn't tell him about the bombs and their intended use?

Do you have evidence otherwise?

See what I mean folks? EVERY benefit of the doubt. :rolleyes:

Clearly, you will believe what you wish to believe, regardless of the paucity of evidence.

And you will believe an Obama supporting communist terrorist with "no regrets" ... regardless of the evidence (and what common sense suggests). :D

And just remember folks ... people like gdnp are now going to be in charge of the WOT. Bringing terrorists to justice. In American courts of law. :rolleyes:


Quote:
Actually, it wasn't just three. There were AT LEAST 2 others (whose names we know) that were in the apartment at the time and survived. And there were possibly more since there were witnesses who said more than 2 people fled the scene after the explosion. Perhaps Ayers and Dohrn were among them? That's possible, right?

Or perhaps it was Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. I have just as much evidence.

No you don't. Because neither Santa or the Bunny actually exist. Ayers and Dohrn do. And neither Santa or Bunny were leaders in the WU organization. Ayers and Dohrn were. And neither Santa or Bunny was sleeping with the woman who was next to the bomb that detonated. But Ayers was. And neither Santa or Bunny are quoted talking about killing people for their cause. But both Ayers and Dohrn have been quoted in that regard.

And your equating Santa and the Bunny to Ayers and Dohrn does demonstrate the lengths to which you will go to excuse them (and thus keep them from harming Obama). :rolleyes:

Whether he would put back on his fatigues and start planting bombs again were situations to change, I don't really know.

Well apparently, neither does he since he apparently couldn't answer the question negatively when asked whether he'd rule out the use of violence in the future.

[Sefarst]

If destroying someone's property in order to effect political or social change amounts to terrorism, the the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist activity.

Trying to affect political change through intimidation and violence amounts to terrorism, IMO, when there are non-violent alternatives available. It would be harder for us to admire the Founding Father and the actions of those like the Sons of Liberty if the colonies had actually HAD parliamentary representation and thus a means to voice their concerns and try to affect change through non-violent means.

It's hard to argue that someone who blows up buildings in order to intimidate others is not a terrorist when they live in a democratic society that allows them to stage protests, petition their government, vote, or run for office themselves.

[ANTPogo]

No you don't. Because neither Santa or the Bunny actually exist. Ayers and Dohrn do. And neither Santa or Bunny were leaders in the WU organization. Ayers and Dohrn were. And neither Santa or Bunny was sleeping with the woman who was next to the bomb that detonated. But Ayers was. And neither Santa or Bunny are quoted talking about killing people for their cause. But both Ayers and Dohrn have been quoted in that regard.

Oh, sure, that's what Ayers says, but he's a communist terrorist who married another communist terrorist and raised the child of still another communist terrorist, so obviously when he claims he was the leader of the WU and his girlfriend blew herself up with a bomb and that he thought people should kill their fathers, he's not to be trusted and is lying about all that.

Why are you so willing to accept the word of a communist terrorist who married another communist terrorist and raised the child of still another communist terrorist?

[BeAChooser]

That's not a "claimed coindience," it's just the result of living life without shutting himself off from the result of the world.

I see. So only the people who chose to work at law firms who owners had ties to Ayers and where Dohrn worked didn't shut themselves off from the result of the world? :rolleyes:

Well, that's what the participants who did the actual selection said about it. If you think they're lying, take it up with them.

Let's see ... where have I heard that logic before. :rolleyes:

You're perfectly willing to accept Ayers' word when it backs up your pre-conceived notions

Because then his word clearly isn't self serving. He isn't trying to protect Obama or his reputation ... which is when he'd be most likely to lie. Because then his word is verified by other facts and thus not something he could just spin away if he wanted to. And he knows it. Because then was before Obama decided to run for President so Ayers had less reason to rewrite history. Because then he was proud of that history and even said so in magazine articles. Now it seems he's not so proud. Or at least he wants to make people like you believe that.

you come up with this "why are you so willing to accept his word" tripe.

You can call it tripe. I call it a window into YOUR agenda.

Quote:
All spin aside, why did Ayers describe himself as an Obama "family friend" in the forward of his own book?

Why are you so willing to accept the word of a communist terrorist who married another communist terrorist and raised the child of still another communist terrorist?

Asked and answered. Now you answer mine.

It's "recognized as Ayers' baby" by you.

No ... by virtually everyone, including the folks who gave Ayers that Citizen of the Year award.

Ayers was merely one of numerous people involved in the effort.

Then why did he get the award for it? Why aren't their names mentioned in the hundreds of articles on CAC but his is named?

And again, you were perfectly willing to "just believe" the very same article when you (mistakenly) thought it backed up your preconceived notions.

But as you pointed out, I wasn't because I didn't read it. :D

Again, blatant hypocrisy on your part.

ROTFLOL! Anyone who champions Obama and Ayers ... and accuses me of hypocrisy deserves a laugh.

Bully for them. Where's the evidence?

Well did you read those sources?


Quote:
And seriously, Cleon, do you think that those 6 meetings were the ONLY contact Obama and Ayers had during that time? Really?

Do you have any evidence that they did

Will you get Obama and Ayers to release their phone records from that time ... and their day calendars? :D

[Cleon]

I see. So only the people who chose to work at law firms who owners had ties to Ayers and where Dohrn worked didn't shut themselves off from the result of the world? :rolleyes:


So, you don't see. Big surprise there.


Because then his word clearly isn't self serving. He isn't trying to protect Obama or his reputation ... which is when he'd be most likely to lie.

Well, that's just silly. Ayers isn't running for office, his job isn't at risk, he's got no reason to lie one way or the other.

So the only logical conclusion as to why you believe him when it's convenient for you is hypocrisy.


Because then his word is verified by other facts

Nope.


You can call it tripe. I call it a window into YOUR agenda.


You know nothing about "my" agenda.


Then why did he get the award for it? Why aren't their names mentioned in the hundreds of articles on CAC but his is named?


...Because the Republicans didn't make any issue out of the other people on the CAC? I notice you didn't bother to read the Wikipedia link, as it listed a couple dozen of other people beyond Ayers and Obama.


But as you pointed out, I wasn't because I didn't read it. :D


As long as you're proud of your hypocrisy, whatever floats your boat.


ROTFLOL! Anyone who champions Obama and Ayers

"Champions?" You lie again.


... and accuses me of hypocrisy deserves a laugh.


Well, the evidence so far is that you are, in fact, a hypocrite.

You believe Ayers when it's convenient for you to do so, when it's inconvenient you demand to know why people will believe a "communist."

You're willing to believe a NY Times article when you think it backs you up, then when it doesn't, you'll demand to know why people will believe an article from a "liberal media" source like the NY Times.

You're a hypocrite. And a dishonest one, too.

I repeat: Case closed.

[Tricky]

Trying to affect political change through intimidation and violence amounts to terrorism, IMO, when there are non-violent alternatives available. It would be harder for us to admire the Founding Father and the actions of those like the Sons of Liberty if the colonies had actually HAD parliamentary representation and thus a means to voice their concerns and try to affect change through non-violent means.

It's hard to argue that someone who blows up buildings in order to intimidate others is not a terrorist when they live in a democratic society that allows them to stage protests, petition their government, vote, or run for office themselves.
As I say, my position is that destroying property is vandalism, whether you do it with a bomb or with a sledge hammer. Is it violent? Well, it is destructive. That's one kind of violence, like "a violent storm". Usually when we talk of "a violent criminal" though, we are speaking of one who harms people.

Very few storms are labeled "terrorist".

[Giz]

As I say, my position is that destroying property is vandalism, whether you do it with a bomb or with a sledge hammer. Is it violent? Well, it is destructive. That's one kind of violence, like "a violent storm". Usually when we talk of "a violent criminal" though, we are speaking of one who harms people.




But destroying something with a sledgehammer doesn't have the same risk of killing people who just happen to be in the vicinity as a bomb does. (Maybe that's why sledgehammers are legal and bombs are not?)

Also… in functioning democracies there is a way to protest against government actions:
1) Vote
2) Petition
3) Publicize the alternative viewpoint
Etc

What is not democratic, or an example of civic virtue, is to adopt an illegal violent campaign of intimidation or vigilanteism in order to force the democratically elected government to conform to your wishes.

Part of living in a democracy is accepting that sometimes "the other party" wins an election, and they may pursue economic and foreign policies you disagree with. That you disagree with them doesn't necessarily make the government illegitimate, or terrorists, or impeachable, or give you carte blanche to set off bombs at federal buildings, it means make a better case for your beliefs at the next election!

[Cleon]

(Maybe that's why sledgehammers are legal and bombs are not?)

Er...Call me naive if you like, but I think the reason has more to do with the fact that sledgehammers are a fairly useful tool for all sorts of non-terrorist activities. Like construction, railroad-tie-laying, and watermelon-smashing n' stuff.

The use of bombs is more, uh, specialized.

[gdnp]

Except for guards, police, bomb disposal experts, or folks so committed they were working late in the buildings? Since in at least in one instance they issued a warning that allowed no time to evacuate anyone before the bomb went off. If there intent was to kill people they were grossly incompetent, since they killed none if you believe them and one if you believe your source. I think the explanation most consistent with the known facts is that they did not intend to kill people.


Why was that question a strawman? What I presented shows that Ayers didn't care much about the lives of bomb disposal experts.
Their actions were reckless. There are quotes that suggest that Ayers was not particularly concerned with the lives of innocents. However, one could easily argue that calling in the warning with only a few minutes to spare was done so that the only potential response would be evacuation, as the bomb disposal team would not have time to arrive. It also puts a certain urgency on the evacuation, which adds to the terror factor.

So you'll agree that if Ayers is quoted correctly, then Dohrn (his wife) is a murderer?If Donrn placed the bomb that killed the policeman she is guilty of murder. Clear enough?

Ayers' self-interested denials aren't worth much. And Ayers didn't testify under oath as the person who quoted Ayers did.Were the accusations that Ayers accuser made self-serving? I don't know. He wasn't cross-examined, was he?

Now maybe democrats don't think testifying under oath means much (after Clinton) but I do. It puts one in legal jeopardy ... as Clinton found out.
Your continued desire to bring Clinton into every thread, however irrelevant, is again noted. Did he once run over your dog or something? Sleep with your girlfriend? Dis you mama? He's not president any more. Let it go.

Wow. You're willing to give them every possible benefit of the doubt, aren't you? That desperate? Excuse me, I've been stating all along that he was a terrorist. Is that what you call "benefit of the doubt?". Your only complaint is that I will refuse to accept your fairy tails about his connection to Obama.

And you will believe an Obama supporting communist terrorist with "no regrets" ... regardless of the evidence (and what common sense suggests). Earth to BAC: the fact that I do not buy your CT fantasies does not translate into Ayers support. I have repeatedly said he was a terrorist. I have said that if his wife planted a bomb that killed a policeman that she is a murderer. I must have said "I don't know" at least half a dozen times in my last post when discussing Ayers' motivation. Since his reemergence he has become a Distinguished Professor at a major university and won a Citizen of the Year award in Chicago. That would suggest that some people other than me think he is making a positive contribution to society.

And just remember folks ... people like gdnp are now going to be in charge of the WOT. Bringing terrorists to justice. In American courts of law. Clearly, you prefer trial by blog and trial by forum. Off with his head!

[Whiplash]

Yes, aren't the lengths to which some will go to defend Ayers and Obama truly astounding? That says a lot about them. :D

Every time I come back to read this thread, I find myself shaking my head slowly and marvelling at the same thing. How can these otherwise (very) intelligent people not see how they are doing this?

Ayers is a criminal. Obama just made a very poor choice about whom to associate with.

Absolutely, 100% agree. The guy is a piece of garbage. I suspect many on the left have sympathy because they share his view of the Vietnam War being wrong. That's all beside the point however, because people can go too far in supporting what they believe in. And people of good character and morals should be willing to say "I believe what he believes, but I cannot in good concience support this man, or any of his rationalizations of his behavior. It was wrong, period".

[BeAChooser]

Ayers isn't running for office, his job isn't at risk, he's got no reason to lie one way or the other.

There's no statute of limitation on murder, Cleon. Or even attempted murder in most states under these circumstances. For example, in California, if the murder attempt is willful, deliberate and premediated (as was the case in some of these), the maximum sentence is life ... and there is no statute of limitation on any offense carrying a life sentence.

And if he admitted any linkage to a murder or attempted murder, even if it wasn't prosecuted, he might very well lose his job at the University and at AERA. Due to a public outcry about something that would be hard to spin.

Plus, his "family friend" Obama's recent career move probably depended on there not being a clear link between Ayers and murder or attempted murder. Especially after he was no longer just some "guy" in the "neighborhood" but someone who had ties with Obama reaching back over a decade.

And adoption of Ayers' reparations oriented "social justice" education philosophy was very much tied to the Obama administration winning election, as well. In fact it probably still is tied to his not being linked to actual or planned murders since he's so much a figurehead for that education philosophy and because of his ties to Obama's education advisor during his campaign.

So Ayers and his wife had and still have plenty of reasons not to be linked to bombings that did or might have killed people. :D

You know nothing about "my" agenda.

If you say so. :rolleyes:

I notice you didn't bother to read the Wikipedia link, as it listed a couple dozen of other people beyond Ayers and Obama.

How do you know I didn't read it?

The stated objective of the challenge was fine ... to improve academic performance. So why should I have a problem with a Republican having provided funds? The problem came when Ayers turned it into something that supported racist, "social justice" and communist oriented efforts that in the end did NOT accomplish that goal ... even after a decade and well over a 100 million dollars in expenditures. I'd have to say that it looks like conservatives just got taken in AGAIN by a couple of slick talking liberals. Seems to happen a lot ... when conservatives try to be compassionate. And yes, there were other people involved ... but Ayers and Obama were the founding co-chairs. The buck stops there since it was they who controlled content and day to day operations. Unless you're now claiming they didn't ... in which case why did Obama boast so much about heading the effort early in the campaign? :D

"Champions?" You lie again.

Oh. Pardon me if I mistook your response on this thread as a defense of both. :)

I repeat: Case closed.

Then why are you still responding? Perhaps because, like Clinton, Ayers won't go away? He's a gift that just keeps on giving? :D

[BeAChooser]

If there intent was to kill people they were grossly incompetent

I don't think many murderers or attempted murderers have gotten off because of that, gdnp. :)

I think the explanation most consistent with the known facts is that they did not intend to kill people.

Yeah. Sure. That's why they were building nail bombs. That's why the bomb in the San Francisco police station contained U-shaped, barbed wire fence post staples. The bomber wanted to scratch the paint. :rolleyes:

Their actions were reckless.

Just reckless? :rolleyes:

However, one could easily argue that calling in the warning with only a few minutes to spare was done so that the only potential response would be evacuation, as the bomb disposal team would not have time to arrive.

Oh the excuses for what was clearly a bombing that could have killed people. :rolleyes:

If Donrn placed the bomb that killed the policeman she is guilty of murder. Clear enough?

So you'd agree she and Ayers would have reason not to be honest now about that if she did? Right?

Were the accusations that Ayers accuser made self-serving? I don't know. He wasn't cross-examined, was he?

That's right, gdnp. Unlike the WUO member who testified under oath before a Senate sub-committee, Ayers was not cross-examined. And while you may not see it, Ayers' statements about those days have tended to be quite self serving. For example in 2006 (after it was likely he heard Obama was going to run for President), he claimed on his website to have found a letter that he claimed he sent to the NYTimes in 2001 in response to an article that appeared in the NY Times at that time ... an article on an interview with him that quoted him saying "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." In that claimed letter he denied saying he had "no regrets for a love of explosives" (which the author of the article didn't actually put in quotes) but did not deny saying "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." Then in 2008, after this became a national issue in the Obama campaign, he published another statement on his website ... this one claiming that he didn't say those specific things. See how the facts have changed to suit his self-serving purposes?

Let it go.

Well maybe if Obama stops putting Clinton administration retreads into top staff and cabinet positions ... especially Hillary which rumor has it will be his Sec Of State ... I will. ;)

Excuse me, I've been stating all along that he was a terrorist. Is that what you call "benefit of the doubt?".

Admitting Ayers and Dohrn were terrorists doesn't appear to be something that's a problem for some Obama supporters now. Could it be that they don't think that charge can actually do Obama any harm any longer? But an admission that Ayers and Dohrn actually are murderers or attempted murderers may be different. Maybe that could still harm Obama's planned agenda. And you seem to be giving them the benefit of the doubt in that regard. :D

[Sefarst]

As I say, my position is that destroying property is vandalism, whether you do it with a bomb or with a sledge hammer. Is it violent? Well, it is destructive. That's one kind of violence, like "a violent storm". Usually when we talk of "a violent criminal" though, we are speaking of one who harms people.

Very few storms are labeled "terrorist".

I don't think any storms are labeled terrorist because no storm has the intention of inspiring fear and intimidation. Storms are mindless weather patterns and it's kind of ridiculous to try and compare them to human organizations that have goals and use conscious methods to pursue them.

The fact remains that Bill Ayers was a member of an organization that issued a "Declaration of War" against the United States, threw molotov cocktails at a judge's home (where they also spray-painted "Kill the Pigs" on the pavement), and several of its members were killed trying to make a nail bomb. A nail bomb seems, to me, to have as it's sole goal to kill people with shrapnel. They also bombed the Pentagon, the bomb being left in the women's bathroom where any person could have walked in. It's unclear how much Ayers knew about these attacks specifically, but what we do know is that he didn't leave the organization until several years after them.

The fact that Ayers claims he never intended to kill anyone could be true, but I don't think it makes him any less of a terrorist. A terrorist is a person who seeks to inspire fear and intimidation in other people through violence. You seem to be playing pretty loose with the idea of what constitutes violence. The fact remains, however, that Ayers' actions were, at best, criminally negligent (anyone could have walked into that bathroom and been killed or anyone could have walked past the police statues and been killed when the bomb went off) and he exhibited a disgusting disregard for the lives of other people. I think Ayers may justify it to himself by saying that no one got killed from anything he DIRECTLY did -- a fact that seems to me to be more a result of luck and less one of intention. I've attended several political lectures about various leftist terrorist organizations in which the Weather Underground was mentioned and I can't shake the idea that they didn't really care if Pentagon workers were killed -- they didn't TRY to kill any of them but they wouldn't have been too concerned if a few did happen to die, it appears to me (further, that they caused so much damage such as was done to any classified information recorded on tapes that were damaged from water endangered our national security as well).

I'd be willing to say that Ayers is a reformed terrorist or a former terrorist, but I'm not willing to call him a vandal instead of a terrorist.

[gdnp]

I'd be willing to say that Ayers is a reformed terrorist or a former terrorist, but I'm not willing to call him a vandal instead of a terrorist.
Given his refusal to repudiate his prior violent acts, I would prefer the expression "former terrorist" to "reformed terrorist". I'm not so sure that given the correct circumstances he might not become a "future terrorist" as well.

[WildCat]

I am not excusing them. I am saying no terrorist act was committed with this bomb. Yes, they were wrong to build it and should have been tried and punished (the ones left alive) for owning illegal weapons, but in order to be a terrorist, you have to commit a terrorist act, which in my mind means attacking non-combatants.

Why is that so hard for you to believe?

I see. So you don't think Ahmed Ressam (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/inside/cron.html) is a terrorist, correct? After all, his scheme, like the WU dance bombing scheme, was thwarted before it actually happened.

I guess your definition works, in Bizarro World...
Tricky? Is Ressam a terrorist?

[ANTPogo]

Admitting Ayers and Dohrn were terrorists doesn't appear to be something that's a problem for some Obama supporters now. Could it be that they don't think that charge can actually do Obama any harm any longer?

Heck, it could even be that we thought and freely acknowledged all this time that Ayers and Dohm were terrorists, and your and Whiplash's attempts to claim that anyone (rightly) contesting the rabid right's mischaracterization of Obama's relationship with Ayers is really a commie terrorist supporter is just a foolish ad-hominem.

[BeAChooser]

Heck, it could even be that we thought and freely acknowledged all this time that Ayers and Dohm were terrorists

Perhaps you should go back and read some of the past threads on Ayers.

For that matter, just read this one. The OP has this statement: " Is or was he a terrorist? No."

Tricky doesn't seem to think he's a terrorist, either.

And notice I used the word "some"?

:D

[Cleon]

There's no statute of limitation on murder, Cleon. Or even attempted murder in most states under these circumstances.

And seeing as how Obama's relationship with Ayers has nothing whatsoever to do with any allegations of murder or attempted murder, this point is completely meaningless. Much like the rest of your "six degrees to William Ayers" blathering.

[ANTPogo]

Perhaps you should go back and read some of the past threads on Ayers.

For that matter, just read this one. The OP has this statement: " Is or was he a terrorist? No."

Tricky doesn't seem to think he's a terrorist, either.

And notice I used the word "some"?

:D

Yes, your hypocritical pedantry is quite impressive.

[Tricky]

Tricky doesn't seem to think he's a terrorist, either.
Well ya know, I was alive when Ayers and his group were setting off their bombs. As I recall, there was a lot of outrage. There was a lot of anger. What there wasn't, was a lot of terror. I couldn't tell that many people felt like this was something that was going to alter the social or political landscape. They were regarded as "some crazy kids".

Neither have their activities survived the test of history. Until Clinton brought Ayers up, it is unlikely that anyone had thought of his sixties activism in many years. People had to be told who he was. Many reacted with something like, "Oh yeah. I remember that vaguely." Where was this outrage at Ayers that we are now seeing, during the last thirty years? Why hasn't he been an issue? Even with 9-11 being on everybody's lips, why did Ayers' name not get mentioned in the same breath? What were all these people who are suddenly outraged at Ayers doing for the last thirty years?

You know the answer. He wasn't important. He was old news. Only when Obama came to the forefront did that outrage begin to simmer anew. Would it be too much of a logical leap to suppose that this neo-outrage was because there was a politician to destroy? Would Americans really be so shallow? What in this thread could ever lead you to such a conclusion?

[gtc]

Where was this outrage at Ayers that we are now seeing, during the last thirty years?

That doesn't mean his actions weren't taken seriously. Remember, he was on the run for a good part of that time.

Also, your definition of terrorist is odd. A lack of outrage doesn't mean that he wasn't a terrorist. The IRA, the LTTE and various Islamist militant groups have freely raised funds and have recieved other forms of, more or less open, support from people in the US over the last three decade. And yet they were terrorists.

Why hasn't he been an issue? Even with 9-11 being on everybody's lips, why did Ayers' name not get mentioned in the same breath? What were all these people who are suddenly outraged at Ayers doing for the last thirty years?

Again, just because he hasn't been on the radar doesn't mean he is not a terrorist. This argument also amounts to a Tu Quoque - you shouldn't be classify him as a terrorist today because you weren't upset by him yesterday.

You know the answer. He wasn't important. He was old news. Only when Obama came to the forefront did that outrage begin to simmer anew. Would it be too much of a logical leap to suppose that this neo-outrage was because there was a politician to destroy? Would Americans really be so shallow? What in this thread could ever lead you to such a conclusion?

Whether or not some people are outraged about his actions only as a way to get at Obama does not mean that Ayers wasn't a terrorist. His actions are independent of people's outrage.

However, you are correct to an extent. It is only Obama's poor judgement in choosing to associate with people like Rev. Wright, Ayers and Khalidi that have brought these unsavoury characters back to public attention.

[DavidJames]

I think I figured out why McCain decided to base his campaign mostly on negative attacks on Obama, specifically his "associations" with these characters. Someone on his campaign staff must read this forum and mistakenly believed that the dull thinking, conspiracy oriented crowd seen here represented American voters.

[gdnp]

However, you are correct to an extent. It is only Obama's poor judgement in choosing to associate with people like Rev. Wright, Ayers and Khalidi that have brought these unsavoury characters back to public attention.

Yeah, I always run background checks on everyone before agreeing to serve on the board of directors of a charitable foundation. You can't be too careful.

[gtc]

Yeah, I always run background checks on everyone before agreeing to serve on the board of directors of a charitable foundation. You can't be too careful.

You don't think Obama ought to have known who Ayers was? It's not like he has kept his views or his past secret all this time.

[gdnp]

You don't think Obama ought to have known who Ayers was? It's not like he has kept his views or his past secret all this time.

Nor is it likely that he introduced himself "High, I'm Bill Ayers, former weather underground terrorist."

[tomwaits]

Well ya know, I was alive when Ayers and his group were setting off their bombs. As I recall, there was a lot of outrage. There was a lot of anger. What there wasn't, was a lot of terror. I couldn't tell that many people felt like this was something that was going to alter the social or political landscape. They were regarded as "some crazy kids".

Neither have their activities survived the test of history. Until Clinton brought Ayers up, it is unlikely that anyone had thought of his sixties activism in many years. People had to be told who he was. Many reacted with something like, "Oh yeah. I remember that vaguely." Where was this outrage at Ayers that we are now seeing, during the last thirty years? Why hasn't he been an issue? Even with 9-11 being on everybody's lips, why did Ayers' name not get mentioned in the same breath? What were all these people who are suddenly outraged at Ayers doing for the last thirty years?

You know the answer. He wasn't important. He was old news. Only when Obama came to the forefront did that outrage begin to simmer anew. Would it be too much of a logical leap to suppose that this neo-outrage was because there was a politician to destroy? Would Americans really be so shallow? What in this thread could ever lead you to such a conclusion?


I don't really follow you here. First, you decided to defend him by saying he was a smart guy. Now, you are trying to admonish critics of Ayers by saying "where was the outrage before??" The answer is simple: he wasn't in the news before. I can't control what the media talks about, or who Good Morning America decides to interview. I didn't start this thread.

Obama's supposed association with Ayers may have been a complete crock, but that doesn't make Ayers immune from criticism for his public statements. He doesn't seem remorseful at all of being in a terrorist organization, and I find that reprehensible. Nothing more to it.

[Wangler]

Wow,

Reading alot of these posts, it's really, really hard to believe that this thread is on a skeptics forum.

Go figure.

:confused:

[gtc]

Nor is it likely that he introduced himself "High, I'm Bill Ayers, former weather underground terrorist."

Novel. I'll give you that.

[Tricky]

I don't really follow you here. First, you decided to defend him by saying he was a smart guy. Now, you are trying to admonish critics of Ayers by saying "where was the outrage before??"
I don't follow you here. What does Ayers being smart or not have to do with the newness of the outrage? Ayers does appear to be fairly smart. Some here have claimed that he was so smart he wrote Obama's book for him.

The answer is simple: he wasn't in the news before. I can't control what the media talks about, or who Good Morning America decides to interview. I didn't start this thread.
That is correct he wasn't an issue until Clinton, then McCain made him an issue. There are some here suggesting that Obama should have taken issue with him and by not doing so, showed bad judgment, yet few if any here would have even recognized the name a year ago. Their outrage is clearly a product of the writings of some wonks in the campaign of Obama's opponents. That is the only reason he is an issue.

And this is not uncommon. You can probably think of quite a few things that wouldn't and shouldn't have been issues, but some group of politicians decided to make them issues, like in the (fictional) movie, Wag the Dog.

Obama's supposed association with Ayers may have been a complete crock, but that doesn't make Ayers immune from criticism for his public statements. He doesn't seem remorseful at all of being in a terrorist organization, and I find that reprehensible. Nothing more to it.
I've read his statements a different way, and not the tightly edited cherries you see picked here. He has clearly expressed remorse for the criminal way his protests took place. He has not abandoned the political stances which led him to take those criminal actions.

[Lonewulf]

Novel. I'll give you that.

Can you please explain when and how the subject would have had to come up?

[gdnp]

That is correct he wasn't an issue until Clinton, then McCain made him an issue. There are some here suggesting that Obama should have taken issue with him and by not doing so, showed bad judgment, yet few if any here would have even recognized the name a year ago. Their outrage is clearly a product of the writings of some wonks in the campaign of Obama's opponents. That is the only reason he is an issue.

What bothers me is that Obama's association with Ayers is taken as an example of Obama's poor judgment. Yet where were the protests when the University of Illinois hired him? Where were the protests at his book signings? Where were the protests when they made him a Distinguished Professor? Where were the protests when Annenberg gave him multimillion dollar grants? Where were the protests when Chicago named him Man of the Year?

At the time that Obama worked with him Ayers was a respected member of the establishment. It's akin to criticizing Jimmy Carter for working with former Nazi Kurt Waldheim...who just happened to be UN secretary general.

[Lonewulf]

What bothers me is that Obama's association with Ayers is taken as an example of Obama's poor judgment. Yet where were the protests when the University of Illinois hired him? Where were the protests at his book signings? Where were the protests when they made him a Distinguished Professor? Where were the protests when Annenberg gave him multimillion dollar grants? Where were the protests when Chicago named him Man of the Year?

At the time that Obama worked with him Ayers was a respected member of the establishment. It's akin to criticizing Jimmy Carter for working with former Nazi Kurt Waldheim...who just happened to be UN secretary general.

Werner Von Braun is another example. One of the most important figures in the NASA space industry, and he was a former Nazi. OMG!

To be fair, though, Braun had much less choice in his former party designation than Ayers did in his terrorist acts (and I would agree that Ayers did participate in terrorism, although he was no Osama...) You were generally persecuted if you didn't tow the Nazi line in Germany. Still, it seems perfectly possible for someone to rise above his or her past.

And you're right; where's the criticism of all of these organizations that had much more intimate dealings with Ayers -- far more than Obama ever had? This seems to point to an ungodly amount of bias right here.

[Tricky]

Werner Von Braun is another example. One of the most important figures in the NASA space industry, and he was a former Nazi. OMG!

To be fair, though, Braun had much less choice in his former party designation than Ayers did in his terrorist acts (and I would agree that Ayers did participate in terrorism, although he was no Osama...) You were generally persecuted if you didn't tow the Nazi line in Germany. Still, it seems perfectly possible for someone to rise above his or her past.
Interesting connection. Von Braun was principally a scientist. He wanted to study missiles. Yet he could not have been unaware that his studies were being used to send buzz-bombs into England, striking nearly randomly (they didn't have great guidance systems then) and definitely terrorizing non-combatants. Yet he has a place of honor in American history because of his work with the space program. He was a guy who did some terrorist things, reformed and did good things.

Anybody see a parallel?

[gdnp]

Interesting connection. Von Braun was principally a scientist. He wanted to study missiles. Yet he could not have been unaware that his studies were being used to send buzz-bombs into England, striking nearly randomly (they didn't have great guidance systems then) and definitely terrorizing non-combatants. Yet he has a place of honor in American history because of his work with the space program. He was a guy who did some terrorist things, reformed and did good things.

Anybody see a parallel?

Of course not. Von Braun never worked with Obama. Obama, being the messiah, only takes on the sins of those he works with. Well, or those that he has never met but who endorse him. Or those who have a relative who once worked for the same lawfirm as his wife. Or lived within a several block radius in a densely populated urban neighborhood. Those sins Obama is responsible for.

Since Von Braun fits none of those criteria, his example, although clearly similar to that of Willaim Ayers, is entirely irrelevant.

[WildCat]

Neither have their activities survived the test of history. Until Clinton brought Ayers up, it is unlikely that anyone had thought of his sixties activism in many years. People had to be told who he was. Many reacted with something like, "Oh yeah. I remember that vaguely." Where was this outrage at Ayers that we are now seeing, during the last thirty years? Why hasn't he been an issue? Even with 9-11 being on everybody's lips, why did Ayers' name not get mentioned in the same breath? What were all these people who are suddenly outraged at Ayers doing for the last thirty years?
Wow, so now you have to commit an act as bad as 9/11 to be a terrorist? Those goal posts must be somewhere halfway to the moon by now.

[WildCat]

He has clearly expressed remorse for the criminal way his protests took place. He has not abandoned the political stances which led him to take those criminal actions.
His remorse or lack of it seems to be something that is dependent on which way the wind is blowing. From a NY Times review of his 2001 book "Fugitive Days" (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402E0D6103BF933A0575AC0A9679C8B 63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2):
But his partial retelling reaches fraudulence when he writes, ''Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,'' then backs and fills, saying that he bombed it, not literally but metaphorically, as part of the Weathermen group in charge of the operation. He says that he needed to ''claim'' the explosion in order to write about it, and he adds later that he is not ashamed of any of the bombings and would not rule out planting another bomb someday; ''I can't imagine entirely dismissing the possibility.''
Amazing how his writings over the last 35 years is deemed irrelevant because of a damage control appearance on a talk show by those desperate to absolve him.

[Ausmerican]

I am confused. Terrorism is the use of fear to cause people to change the political and social fabric of the way they live is it not?

And then there are people here that seem to be suggesting that Obama should not have joined a school board because it contained a former teerorist. This board was a step, not a major one but a step none the less, on the path that eventually took Obama to the position of POTUS.

So are people here really saying that the mere presence of an old terrorist on this board should have been enough for Obama to change the political and social fabric of his life? Not join the board because of the perceived association?

Is this not the oft heard phrase "letting the terrorists win"? I would suggest that, if you are one who holds this view, it is YOU that supports the terrosrist in this case rather than the people who treat him as irrelevant to lifes progress.

I should point out that, despite the constant attempts by the likes of BAC, this perceived association did not prevent him from winning a sizable victory in his election as POTUS. So those saying that Obama should have been more careful in his judgement? Apparently not.

[Tricky]

Wow, so now you have to commit an act as bad as 9/11 to be a terrorist? Those goal posts must be somewhere halfway to the moon by now.
You certainly have to be actively engaging in terrorist activity. True, there are some designations that carry a lifetime label, like "murderer", but even murderers who have done their time usually get referred to as "ex-convicts" and such. No such "elder status" get's applied to Ayers. He's just as much a terrorist now as he was in the sixties. Maybe more.

But the point which you seem to have missed is that neither you nor anyone else here seemed to give a rat's patootie about Bill Ayers for thirty years. Now, all of a sudden, he is Satan's minion, a creature of pure evil who destroy's a politician's credibility by sharing a few moments of his company in a charity project. From whence came this wave of horror at the unrepentent sinner (No, not you US (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=170))? Could it be that somebody told you to be offended? Do you respond slaveringly to the Pavlovian bell of the political slime machines? I can't seem to see any other reason for this upwelling of historical outrage.

[WildCat]

You certainly have to be actively engaging in terrorist activity. True, there are some designations that carry a lifetime label, like "murderer", but even murderers who have done their time usually get referred to as "ex-convicts" and such. No such "elder status" get's applied to Ayers. He's just as much a terrorist now as he was in the sixties. Maybe more.
He's unrepentant, and has even said he wouldn't rule out future bombings. Why the hell should I forgive him?

But the point which you seem to have missed is that neither you nor anyone else here seemed to give a rat's patootie about Bill Ayers for thirty years. Now, all of a sudden, he is Satan's minion, a creature of pure evil who destroy's a politician's credibility by sharing a few moments of his company in a charity project. From whence came this wave of horror at the unrepentent sinner (No, not you US (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=170))? Could it be that somebody told you to be offended? Do you respond slaveringly to the Pavlovian bell of the political slime machines? I can't seem to see any other reason for this upwelling of historical outrage.
And no one gives a rat's patootie about Charles Manson until he comes up for parole.

Funny how that works, lay low and people forget about you. Get your name in the headlines again and suddenly people give a damn again. Ayers isn't special in that regard.

And please answer the question about Ahmed Ressam you've avoided twice now. By your standards, he is not a terrorist since he never actually killed anyone, correct?

[gtc]

Can you please explain when and how the subject would have had to come up?

Ayers makes no secret of his past and his actions are well known. Obama is a smart man who doesn't not appear to lack a knowledge of recent American history.

A claim that Obama could be ignorant about Ayers and remain so just doesn't make sense.

[gtc]

What bothers me is that Obama's association with Ayers is taken as an example of Obama's poor judgment. Yet where were the protests when the University of Illinois hired him? Where were the protests at his book signings? Where were the protests when they made him a Distinguished Professor? Where were the protests when Annenberg gave him multimillion dollar grants? Where were the protests when Chicago named him Man of the Year?

All of those people and organisations showed poor judgement too. Your suggestion is akin to a Tu Quoque argument. Also, how do you know that there weren't protests?

At the time that Obama worked with him Ayers was a respected member of the establishment. It's akin to criticizing Jimmy Carter for working with former Nazi Kurt Waldheim...who just happened to be UN secretary general.

No it is not. Firstly, there is a big difference between UN Sec. General and University Professor and there isn't much that Carter could do to avoid working with the UN. When Kurt Waldheim was elected President of Austria he was effectively banned from travelling to the US (and most Western nations). Secondly, there is no evidence that Kurt Waldheim was anything more than a junior army officer whereas Ayers was the principle person of his movement.

[gdnp]

Ayers makes no secret of his past and his actions are well known. Obama is a smart man who doesn't not appear to lack a knowledge of recent American history.

A claim that Obama could be ignorant about Ayers and remain so just doesn't make sense.

How well known were they back when Obama was working on the board with Ayers? Clearly not well enough known that the republicans on the board refused to serve. Clearly not well enough known that the Annenberg fund refused to give him money. Clearly not well enough known that there were mass protests when Chicago named Ayers Man of the Year.

ETA: Lots of prominent people, Republicans and Democrats, did not shun Ayers over the past 20 years. There are two possible interpretations. Either they should have but didn't know his past, in which case it is unfair to blame Obama, who was not a close friend, for not knowing his past, or you can claim that they knew but didn't care, in which case it is unfair to blame Obama for his peripheral association with Ayers when no one is criticizing the people who were much more intimately involved with him: the Annenberg fund, the city of Chicago, the University of Illininois, etc.

[gtc]

Werner Von Braun is another example. One of the most important figures in the NASA space industry, and he was a former Nazi. OMG!

A former Nazi who tried to stop the use of slave labour during War, was arrested by the Nazis for criticising the War and went over to the Americans at the earliest possible time.

To be fair, though, Braun had much less choice in his former party designation than Ayers did in his terrorist acts (and I would agree that Ayers did participate in terrorism, although he was no Osama...) You were generally persecuted if you didn't tow the Nazi line in Germany. Still, it seems perfectly possible for someone to rise above his or her past.

The difference is that Ayers has shown no remorse for his past.

And then there are people here that seem to be suggesting that Obama should not have joined a school board because it contained a former teerorist. This board was a step, not a major one but a step none the less, on the path that eventually took Obama to the position of POTUS.

So are people here really saying that the mere presence of an old terrorist on this board should have been enough for Obama to change the political and social fabric of his life? Not join the board because of the perceived association?

Are you really saying that Obama had no other choice but to associate with Rev. Wright, Ayers and Rashid Khalidi? That the only way that he could become President was to work and socialise with them?

Is this not the oft heard phrase "letting the terrorists win"? I would suggest that, if you are one who holds this view, it is YOU that supports the terrosrist in this case rather than the people who treat him as irrelevant to lifes progress.

I would suggest that this argument is BS.

I should point out that, despite the constant attempts by the likes of BAC, this perceived association did not prevent him from winning a sizable victory in his election as POTUS. So those saying that Obama should have been more careful in his judgement? Apparently not.

So? Doesn't mean that it wasn't wrong to associate with those people.

[WildCat]

Clearly not well enough known that there were mass protests when Chicago named Ayers Man of the Year.
He got the "Citizen of the Year" award for securing a $49.2 grant to the Chicago Public Schools which hasn't improved student performance one bit.

If no one protested it it's likely because no one even knew he was given such an award. A search of the Sun Times archives shows no news story mentioning it. I can't even find evidence this is an annual award given by the city.

[Ausmerican]

Are you really saying that Obama had no other choice but to associate with Rev. Wright, Ayers and Rashid Khalidi? That the only way that he could become President was to work and socialise with them?

Nope. I didn't say that. I am saying I don't know. The whole socialising thing is debatable with regards to Ayers for a start and the other two were not under discussion. But are you saying that Obama should not have joined that board? Are you saying that he should have put whatever good he thought he could do and whatever improvements he thought he could make to education aside, not to mention his own ambitions and aspirations, because of one member of that board?


So? Doesn't mean that it wasn't wrong to associate with those people.


How is it ever wrong to "associate" with anyone? People associate with people they don't agree with all the time, every day, in every country, for business, religious and personal reasons. Prosecutors associate with criminals every day. Every member of the senate associates with Robert Byrd and used to associate with Strom Thurmond, does that make them KKK members or segregationists? Several people I went to school with and even socialised with are in jail for robbing banks and others are heroin addicts. It means nothing. Whats that old saying? I will join with any man to do good and with none to do evil, or something like that. Bottom line is association does not mean acceptance or support of ones views.

[Uzzy]

Why not just say that Ayres did some terrible things in his youth, but reformed and is now a very helpful and respectable member of the Chicago Establishment, as well as being an acclaimed Professor.

Heck, Mandela established the Umkhonto we Sizwe in South Africa, but no one says that friends of Mandela associate with terrorists, do they? That's surely because the man has changed, no?

[gdnp]

He got the "Citizen of the Year" award for securing a $49.2 grant to the Chicago Public Schools which hasn't improved student performance one bit.
Noted.

Oh, and BTW. After winning a lawsuit about the state formula for school aid, NYC this year got an increase in their state aid of $644 million dollars. My guess is that NYC schools have more students than Chicago, but still that's 13 times what Ayers grant was. Add in Ayers matching funds and it comes to about $160 million. Oh, but how long was Ayers grant for? 7 years? Gee, that's $23 million a year. Let's correct for inflation. $23 million in 1980 is worth about $60 million today. Or about 10% of the increase in state aide the NYC schools got this year.

Can we expect, therefore, the Chicago public schools should have gotten 10% the increase in performance from the Annenberg Challenge money that NYC got out of it's increase in state aid? How much would you expect that to be?

Looked at another way, the Chicago public school budget in 2007 was 4.8 billion dollars. I can't find numbers for 1980, but if it rose with inflation it would have been about 1.9 billion in 1980. So the $23 million a year in Annenberg money (with matching contributions) would have come to about 1.2% of the school budget. Wow. I'm expecting big results from that.

If no one protested it it's likely because no one even knew he was given such an award. A search of the Sun Times archives shows no news story mentioning it. I can't even find evidence this is an annual award given by the city.The people giving the award presumably knew they were giving it. Might there have been a ceremony or dinner? I wouldn't think this would be the kind of thing that would be done without any notice. It kinda defeats the purpose.

[BeAChooser]

And seeing as how Obama's relationship with Ayers has nothing whatsoever to do with any allegations of murder or attempted murder

Oh. So now you are claiming that as long as Obama and Ayers were just working on teaching social justice, racist and communist notions in the schools, it doesn't matter if Obama might have known at the time that Ayers and his wife were earlier involved in bombings that killed people ... and unrepentent about it? :rolleyes:

[gdnp]

Oh. So now you are claiming that as long as Obama and Ayers were just working on teaching social justice, racist and communist notions in the schools, it doesn't matter if Obama might have known at the time that Ayers and his wife were earlier involved in bombings that killed people ... and unrepentent about it? :rolleyes:

I wonder if I was the only one who thought of BAC when Obama made this comment: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/29/obama-sharpens-tone-again_n_138915.html)

By the end of the week he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.

[Cleon]

Oh. So now you are claiming that ....

Thus confirming that you don't actually bother to read the words other people post. Thanks, this saves us all a lot of time.

[BeAChooser]

What there wasn't, was a lot of terror.

Tell that to the thousands of people the weatherman bombings caused to be evacuated from numerous large buildings back then.

They were regarded as "some crazy kids".

Sorry, but "crazy kids" didn't write "Prairie Fire". Crazy kids might moon or streak. Ayers and Dohrn declared war on the US and built bombs designed to kill people. And Ayers wasn't just some "guy" living in Obama's "neighborhood", either.

Until Clinton brought Ayers up, it is unlikely that anyone had thought of his sixties activism in many years.

Nonsense. He's been a topic all along. In August of 2001, Chicago Magazine (which surely Obama or his staff read) published an article on Ayers which talked about the bombings ... where he stood on an American Flag and in which he said he had "no regrets". Concurrently, the NY Times was doing an interview/article. It was published days after 9/11 ... and again he admitted he "set bombs" and said he "didn't do enough". Sorry, but Ayers was being discussed in 2001 and he was still being discussed in 2006, well before Clinton brought up Ayers. In fact, in 2006, Ayers felt it necessary to publish on his own website a letter he claimed he sent the NYTimes in 2001 to rebut the continuing attacks on him. And during the campaign, before Hillary mentioned Ayers, he was being mentioned in forums like this. Sorry, Tricky, but your historical revisionism isn't going to work here. There are too many sources to prove you are wrong.

People had to be told who he was.

Well if the Zogby poll of Obama voters after election day is any guide, most Obama voters would have to be told who Pelosi and Reed are too. And what Biden had done or said. And even which party controlled Congress leading up to the election. :D

He wasn't important.

If Ayers wasn't important back in 2001, that is only because he wasn't then a "family friend" of the current President ... like he is with Obama. Only because he hadn't shaped the education policy notions of Bush ... while he spent years using Obama to promote his education notions. Nor was he chummy with the education advisors of Bush ... whereas Obama's top education advisor during the campaign even coauthored books with Ayers. Again Tricky, your spin just doesn't cut it. Ayers is indeed important NOW ... even after the election.

[Ausmerican]

Oh. So now you are claiming that as long as Obama and Ayers were just working on teaching social justice, racist and communist notions in the schools, it doesn't matter if Obama might have known at the time that Ayers and his wife were earlier involved in bombings that killed people ... and unrepentent about it? :rolleyes:

Wow. Could you possibly reframe someone elses words any more dishonestly than that? And then you roll your eyes as if they aren't to be taken seriously? You are dishonest.

[BeAChooser]

That is correct he wasn't an issue until Clinton, then McCain made him an issue.

That is false. Clinton first mentioned Ayers in April of 2008. Yet, here's an article on the Huffington Post back in February of 2008 that talks about the "Ayers Problem":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-c-johnson/no-he-cant-because-yes_b_87036.html

It was enough of an issue that it was receiving "Fact Checker" attention back in February:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html

The fact that the mainstream media chose to ignore the Ayers issue or spin it away whenever it did mention Obama, is not because it wasn't an issue but because they didn't want it to BECOME an issue. And in that regard, McCain and Palin made a serious mistake taking Obama's association with Ayers, Reverend Wright, and Khalidi off the table during most, if not all, of the campaign. They and their association with Obama were in fact legitimate issues ... just as the communism of Obama's father, mother, two brothers, "childhood mentor, and many other associations was a legitimate issue. An issue that again the mainstream media, willing accomplices in the election of Obama, failed to explore. But that doesn't mean we can't explore them now. :D

[Lonewulf]

And in that regard, McCain and Palin made a serious mistake taking Obama's association with Ayers, Reverend Wright, and Khalidi off the table during most, if not all, of the campaign.Actually, it demonstrates that they actually had standards.

Unlike some people.

[Gurdur]

..... But that doesn't mean we can't explore them now. :D


Explore it as much as you like. I'm all in favour of you devoting huge amounts of time and attention to utterly pointless exercises in pathetic futility and irrelevance.
:)

BTW, it will be fun for the next 8 years. Cheers! :)

[BeAChooser]

And please answer the question about Ahmed Ressam you've avoided twice now.

Yeah, I noticed that. Must be a hard question to answer. ;)

[BeAChooser]

I wonder if I was the only one who thought of BAC when Obama made this comment:

Quote:
By the end of the week he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.


Thank you for mentioning that, gdnp. Because Obama seems to think the worst thing about being a communist is that they make children share their toys in kindergarten. :rolleyes:

[BeAChooser]

Thus confirming that you don't actually bother to read the words other people post.

Thus confirming you didn't actually understand the implications of what you wrote. :D

[Lonewulf]

Thank you for mentioning that, gdnp. Because Obama seems to think the worst thing about being a communist is that they make children share their toys in kindergarten. :rolleyes:

...

BeAChooser has to be a parody. No way someone could post this and believe it.

[Dr Adequate]

Ayers is indeed important NOW ... even after the election. No.

Hysteria has a sort of saturation point. I don't think there's a single person left who would be convinced by this sort of drivel and who has not already been driven out of their minds with hatred and rage at Obama. Certainly your chances of finding one on these forums are pretty slim.

Ayers is not "important NOW", because he can no longer make any nuts nuttier than they are already. Oh, and 'cos Obama won.

So I'm wondering why you bother.

[gdnp]

...just as the communism of Obama's father, mother, two brothers, "childhood mentor, and many other associations was a legitimate issue. An issue that again the mainstream media, willing accomplices in the election of Obama, failed to explore. But that doesn't mean we can't explore them now. :D

Yes. We can clearly see his communist tendencies coming out in his cabinet picks...I'm predicting Hugo Chavez for Energy secretary and Ahmadinejad for homeland security...

[Ausmerican]

No.

Hysteria has a sort of saturation point. I don't think there's a single person left who would be convinced by this sort of drivel and who has not already been driven out of their minds with hatred and rage at Obama. Certainly your chances of finding one on these forums are pretty slim.

Ayers is not "important NOW", because he can no longer make any nuts nuttier than they are already. Oh, and 'cos Obama won.

So I'm wondering why you bother.

Because only by obsessively dwelling on his derailed "train of logic" that "links" Obama and Ayers can he stop the voice in his head that is even now screaming at him: "Why aren't we talking about CLINTON!!!!!" :D

[Cleon]

Thus confirming you didn't actually understand the implications of what you wrote. :D

The word "implication" has a meaning.

That meaning is not "how BeAChooser will lie about your statement."

Two lies in a row from you, now. Care to make it a triple play?

[BeAChooser]

Care to make it a triple play?

Nah, let's just talk some more about Ayers and that NPR interview ... since you apparently don't want to talk about it. :)

What do others have to say?

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/11/19/domestic-terrorist-bill-ayers-on-nprs-fresh-air/


As in other recent interviews, he denied having a very close relationship with Barack Obama but at the same time he states that the residents in his neighborhood are very friendly, get together in each others’ homes and “laugh about the inflated rhetoric of the 60s”.


Are we therefore to believe that Barack and Michelle aren't very neighborly? Or was Ayers being honest when he stated in the forward of his recently re-released book that the Obama's are "family friends"? :D


Ayers denies that the Weather Underground was a terrorist organization but that it was a militant one.

So explain this to me: How is bombing the Capitol Building, the Pentagon, the NYC Police Headquarters and a judge’s home NOT terrorism? ... snip ... These actions, he states, were “Extreme acts of Vandalism”. Gosh, I must be naive. I thought vandalism was like painting graffiti on bridges or turning over outhouses, as kids in my younger days did. I wouldn’t have labeled setting bombs as vandalism.


Me either. But then I guess some Obama supporters do.

And say ... shall we discuss his tribute to Sirhan Sirhan? :)

[gdnp]

Are we therefore to believe that Barack and Michelle aren't very neighborly? Or was Ayers being honest when he stated in the forward of his recently re-released book that the Obama's are "family friends"? :D


Since we have no evidence except both men's denials of any close relationship, what else would you have us believe? Do you have statements from neighbors who attended these get-togethers placing Obama and Ayers together? Or are they all part of the big cover-up as well? :rolleyes:

[BeAChooser]

Since we have no evidence except both men's denials of any close relationship

So why did Ayers, in his re-released memoir "Fugitive Days" describe himself as a "family friend" of Obama? Ayers said he wrote that on July 4th of this year ... at the same time Obama's campaign was saying they weren't friends ... that he was just some "guy" in the "neighborhood". Apparently someone has been a little dishonest, if only to themselves. :)

And here's another curious fact, gdnp. On ABC Good Morning America, recently, Ayers said that he didn't even know Mr Obama when he hosted the event at his home where Obama began his political career. Let's see ... the exact date of that event isn't known but all accounts seem to suggest it was in the second half of 1995. So how could Obama have been named a chair in CAC in early (before March) 1995? You see ... it's also stated by various sources that Ayers met Obama before he was picked for that job. My my ... it's hard for liars to keep all the lies straight. :D

[gdnp]

So why did Ayers, in his re-released memoir "Fugitive Days" describe himself as a "family friend" of Obama? Ayers said he wrote that on July 4th of this year ... at the same time Obama's campaign was saying they weren't friends ... that he was just some "guy" in the "neighborhood". Apparently someone has been a little dishonest, if only to themselves. :)


There are all sorts of people in my neighborhood that I see occasionally. For example, there are the parents of my daughter's best friend who I bump into on back to school night, or at a softball game, or when one stops by to pick up their kid. I have never had them over for dinner, although I may have attended a party or two where they were also guests. I have never discussed politics with them. I see them quite frequently because our daughters spend a lot of time together. But we are in no way close.

If someone had asked me if I knew these people, I might describe them as family friends. People I have known on a superficial level for many years. Just as Ayers described his relationship with Obama: family friends. Not good friends. Not close friends. Family friends. It implies a certain distance that you seem to be having difficulty grasping.

[gtc]

Ayers is the gift that keeps on giving.

When people point out that they chose to work together, the excuse is that they weren't personally close.

Then when its pointed out that they chose to socialise together and Ayers describes Obama as a family friend examples of family friends who aren't close are raised which conveniently overlook the professional relationship.

This is what Ayers says:


“We had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fund-raiser at my house, where I’d made a small donation to his earliest political campaign,”



Hey, maybe Ayers has been a GOP plant all along. His bombing campaign was just a plot to discredit the liberal movement and he kept his deep cover alive to discredit future Illinois Democrat Presidents.

[Dr Adequate]

Ayers is the gift that keeps on giving. No. This is why you have to keep shuffling the same old half-truths in the hope that one day they'll look sinister.

P.S: It's over, Obama won.

[ANTPogo]

When people point out that they chose to work together, the excuse is that they weren't personally close.

Then when its pointed out that they chose to socialise together and Ayers describes Obama as a family friend examples of family friends who aren't close are raised which conveniently overlook the professional relationship.

And the answer is, again, "so what?"

I know a guy who used to be a coworker of mine. We worked together in the same small room in our office for several years, with our cubes right across from each other. We often ate lunch together, and talked politics quite a bit. He transferred to a different building in another section of town, but we're still friendly; I was most recently at his house for a Halloween party about a month ago.

How many of his political and personal opinions should be ascribed to me because of that? How many of mine to him?

[gtc]

And the answer is, again, "so what?"

I have said it again and again. It shows that Obama had poor judgement by choosing to associate with him, nothing more, nothing less.

I have no idea why this is so difficult for some Obama supporters on this board to accept. The amount of spinning that is occurring is incredible - trying to deny that Ayers was a terrorist who remains unrepentant and trying to deny that Obama chose to associate with him. The knots they are tying themselves in is incredible.

I know a guy who used to be a coworker of mine. We worked together in the same small room in our office for several years, with our cubes right across from each other. We often ate lunch together, and talked politics quite a bit. He transferred to a different building in another section of town, but we're still friendly; I was most recently at his house for a Halloween party about a month ago.

There is a difference between being mere co-workers and joining a board to work together. Your friend is also not an unrepentant former terrorist and he hasn't held a fund-raiser at your house.

How many of his political and personal opinions should be ascribed to me because of that? How many of mine to him?

None. I never said any should be.

[Tricky]

And the answer is, again, "so what?"

I know a guy who used to be a coworker of mine. We worked together in the same small room in our office for several years, with our cubes right across from each other. We often ate lunch together, and talked politics quite a bit. He transferred to a different building in another section of town, but we're still friendly; I was most recently at his house for a Halloween party about a month ago.

How many of his political and personal opinions should be ascribed to me because of that? How many of mine to him?
All of 'em. Assuming, of course, he's a terrorist and a commie. Those kind of beliefs are like cockleburrs. They stick to you when you aren't looking. You'll just be walking along and when you look down, BANG! You're covered with communism.

[gtc]

No. This is why you have to keep shuffling the same old half-truths in the hope that one day they'll look sinister.

If they are half truths then they must be half untruths. So where is your proof?

P.S: It's over, Obama won.

So? Winning two elections didn't render Bush immune to criticism from the left and the fact that he won an election is irrelevant.

Winning doesn't mean that Ayers wasn't a terrorist or that Obama didn't show poor judgement by choosing to associate with Ayers, Rev. Wright, Ayers and Rashid Khalidi.

Truth isn't determined by the ballot box.

[BeAChooser]

I know a guy who used to be a coworker of mine. We worked together in the same small room in our office for several years, with our cubes right across from each other. We often ate lunch together, and talked politics quite a bit. He transferred to a different building in another section of town, but we're still friendly; I was most recently at his house for a Halloween party about a month ago.

Is that guy a communist? Was he a leader of a terrorist organization that exploded more than a dozen bombs in various buildings after formally declaring war on the United States? Did he have a live-in girlfriend who at the time she was his girlfriend was busy building nail bombs to kill hundreds of people at a military dance? Did he marry another woman who was a bomb builder and who he knew to be a murderer of a policeman? Is he unrepentent about all those things? Would you still work with him if you knew all these things? Would you still see him socially if you knew all these things? :D

[gtc]

All of 'em. Assuming, of course, he's a terrorist and a commie. Those kind of beliefs are like cockleburrs. They stick to you when you aren't looking. You'll just be walking along and when you look down, BANG! You're covered with communism.

Crap.

Nothing I have said indicates that I believe this and I have never mentioned communism in this thread.

[ANTPogo]

I have said it again and again. It shows that Obama had poor judgement by choosing to associate with him, nothing more, nothing less.

Why does this indicate poor judgment? "I disagree with your views and your past actions, but you're a free man who was never convicted of anything, hasn't blown anything up in 40 years, is a professor at the major university I also lectured at, served on the same foundation board that other people entirely also selected me for, our kids go to the same school, and you live on my street. I guess going to occasional neighborhood cookouts with you is okay."

That's supposed to be a damning indictment of Obama's judgment?

[ANTPogo]

Crap.

Nothing I have said indicates that I believe this and I have never mentioned communism in this thread.

It seems he was just exercising his remarkable BAC-precognitive abilities.

[gtc]

It seems he was just exercising his remarkable BAC-precognitive abilities.

When you find me defending BAC's precognitive abilities, then you can conclude that Tricky's post was fair.

[gtc]

Why does this indicate poor judgment? "I disagree with your views and your past actions, but you're a free man who was never convicted of anything, hasn't blown anything up in 40 years, is a professor at the major university I also lectured at, served on the same foundation board that other people entirely also selected me for, our kids go to the same school, and you live on my street. I guess going to occasional neighborhood cookouts with you is okay."

That's supposed to be a damning indictment of Obama's judgment?

I wouldn't socialise with an unrepentant former terrorist. Nor would I associate with Rev. Wright or Rashid Khalidi. Obviously Obama and his supporters on this thread think differently.

Why this requires some of his supporters to spin Ayers' actions and Obama's relationship to him so severly is beyond me.

[ANTPogo]

I wouldn't socialise with an unrepentant former terrorist. Nor would I associate with Rev. Wright or Rashid Khalidi. Obviously Obama and his supporters on this thread think differently.

"I wouldn't do that" does not mean "poor judgment", you know. Solipsism is a poor basis for making political decisions.

Why this requires some of his supporters to spin Ayers' actions and Obama's relationship to him so severly is beyond me.

Some of it is odd spin, yes. But some if it is also correcting apparent errors.

If you're going to disagree with Obama, it behooves one to make sure it's based in facts, and not things that political enemies with a vested interest in portraying him in the worst light possible have reported.

[Tricky]

Crap.

Nothing I have said indicates that I believe this and I have never mentioned communism in this thread.

It's a steenkin' joke, gtc, a bit of satire aimed at those who would accuse Obama of having been influenced by Ayers because they occupied the same geographic location occasionally. If you don't fit that description, you're off the hook.

[Ausmerican]

When you find me defending BAC's precognitive abilities, then you can conclude that Tricky's post was fair.

Trickys post was fair. Nowhere in his post is he adressing it to you.

And ANTpogo was saying that Tricky was the one being a precog about BAC not that BAC was a precog or that you were defending him.

But if you look at the post by BAC right above your response to Tricky starting with "Crap." you will see that Tricky did a pretty good job of predicting BACs response.

[ANTPogo]

Trickys post was fair. Nowhere in his post is he adressing it to you.

And ANTpogo was saying that Tricky was the one being a precog about BAC not that BAC was a precog or that you were defending him.

Pretty much, yeah.

But if you look at the post by BAC right above your response to Tricky starting with "Crap." you will see that Tricky did a pretty good job of predicting BACs response.

I found it quite amusing.

[Ausmerican]

I found it quite amusing.

Amusing yes. But also kinda sad that it so hard to tell parody from serious post sometimes.

[Tricky]

Frankly, I can't see what all the hoopla is about "associating with unsavory characters". Doing so doesn't make you unsavory. Indeed, you are likely to learn something about them that may help you in the future to deal with their unsavory sides.

Like ANTpogo, I live near, work with, and am related to a number of people who have aspects of their morality I find distateful. Yet I would not hesitate to call them "friend" simply because of this. I associate such behavior with snobs and cliques, who, while I wouldn't refuse to do projects with them, I do not adopt their behavior.

Besides, not just Obama but McCain have both associated with a group far more unsavory than Ayers. They are a bunch of self-serving egomaniacs, working on potentially harmful projects all the time. These are people for whom no trick is too low and truth is a nearly unknown commodity.

I refer, of course, to Congress.

[BeAChooser]

Frankly, I can't see what all the hoopla is about "associating with unsavory characters".

:rolleyes:

[Lonewulf]

:rolleyes:

Unable to make a post with content?

[tomwaits]

I'm sorry, but recently it seems that every time there is a thread in Politics that gets lively, BAC comes in and completely ruins it.

[Sefarst]

Frankly, I can't see what all the hoopla is about "associating with unsavory characters". Doing so doesn't make you unsavory. Indeed, you are likely to learn something about them that may help you in the future to deal with their unsavory sides.

In the case of Obama, I think the association with Ayers is entirely benign, even though I do consider Ayers to be a former terrorist (and I disagree vehemently with your idea of what constitutes terrorism). Obama is clean on the matter, as far as I'm concerned, but, in general, I think associating with unsavory characters CAN make you unsavory to the public. If you were to tell me that a large number of your friends are KKK members and Neo-Nazis and that you spend a lot of time reading anti-semitic books and only condemned those actions when you had a camera in your face, I would start to regard you as unsavory.

Like ANTpogo, I live near, work with, and am related to a number of people who have aspects of their morality I find distateful. Yet I would not hesitate to call them "friend" simply because of this. I associate such behavior with snobs and cliques, who, while I wouldn't refuse to do projects with them, I do not adopt their behavior.

The whole idea revolves around believing that who a person chooses to spend their time with says something about that person. What it says is always open to interpretation. Maybe you spend so much time with KKK members because you are trying to show them the error of their ways or maybe you secretly sympathize with their racism but just can't publically declare yourself such.

Anyway, everyone would be well-served not to jump to conclusions about a person just because they have an aquaintance that is guilty of some reprehensible actions, but I do think it's okay to start getting suspicious if that person counts among their close friends and aquaintances a parade of resprehensible individuals.

[Suddenly]

Besides, not just Obama but McCain have both associated with a group far more unsavory than Ayers. They are a bunch of self-serving egomaniacs, working on potentially harmful projects all the time. These are people for whom no trick is too low and truth is a nearly unknown commodity.

I refer, of course, to Congress.

I'm still somewhat amazed that Charles Keating wasn't an issue. If we are going to talk about a failure of judgment in picking friends, McCain was a far closer friend to a man whose criminal acts caused far more damage than Ayers. McCain was officially criticized for his poor judgment as to these actions.

Gee... poor judgment as to an episode in history involving financial leaders acting in a way that caused a economic downturn and a massive government bailout?

Yet it doesn't come up... but being on the board of directors with a guy who blew up empty buildings forty years ago and since then has become a respected member of the community is big news....

Irony.

[Ziggurat]

I'm still somewhat amazed that Charles Keating wasn't an issue. If we are going to talk about a failure of judgment in picking friends, McCain was a far closer friend to a man whose criminal acts caused far more damage than Ayers. McCain was officially criticized for his poor judgment as to these actions.

Gee... poor judgment as to an episode in history involving financial leaders acting in a way that caused a economic downturn and a massive government bailout?

Yet it doesn't come up... but being on the board of directors with a guy who blew up empty buildings forty years ago and since then has become a respected member of the community is big news....

Irony.

Well, McCain is not an unknown quantity. Like him or hate him, his record is long enough, and he's been in the public eye enough, that people can figure out their opinions of him pretty damned independently from that episode. In contrast, Obama was essentially an unknown. He's got precious little public record, and not much in the way of accomplishments. So the relative importance of his associations is much larger. That may not be fair, but that's the way it is, and for good reason. So I'm not sure why you consider it ironic.

[gtc]

Yet it doesn't come up... but being on the board of directors with a guy who blew up empty buildings forty years ago and since then has become a respected member of the community is big news....

Irony.

McCain displaying poor judgement in who he associated with doesn't excuse Obama but nice attempt to minimise Ayers actions.

[gtc]

Well, McCain is not an unknown quantity. Like him or hate him, his record is long enough, and he's been in the public eye enough, that people can figure out their opinions of him pretty damned independently from that episode. In contrast, Obama was essentially an unknown. He's got precious little public record, and not much in the way of accomplishments. So the relative importance of his associations is much larger. That may not be fair, but that's the way it is, and for good reason. So I'm not sure why you consider it ironic.

What is it about Obama that means that so many of his supporters are prepared to embrace any number of logical fallacies and even redefine terrorism to defend him? Why is it so important that Obama not be criticised?

[MaGZ]

If a Klansman in the sixties go off on a technicality in a church bombing, what would people like Ayers and his comrades on this forum have to say about this injustice?

[MaGZ]

I disagree. Terrorism, in my mind, involves targeting non-combatants for attack. Damaging property is vandalism, even if your vandalism has a political point. While it is true the bombs might have injured innocent people, that was certainly not their target.

Ayers believed that the US attacks in Vietnam, where bombs and napalm were dropped on women and children who happened to be near where combatants might have been located, was terrorism. That is certainly an debatable point. If the argument is that "soldiers can't be terrorists", it is a very weak one. I am deeply ashamed of the way the government of the country I love, fought that war.

Are you ashamed of the way this country fought WW II?

[Tricky]

Are you ashamed of the way this country fought WW II?
Not the way they fought, no, not for the most part, although Dresden was disgraceful. But they should have joined earlier, and I'm ashamed of them for that. England was our greatest ally in WWI only twenty years earlier, and we stood by and nearly let the Nazi's overrun them. Are you proud of that?

[Tricky]

If a Klansman in the sixties go off on a technicality in a church bombing, what would people like Ayers and his comrades on this forum have to say about this injustice?
It would depend. Did the Klansman only bomb empty churches? Did he send out warnings that a bomb was going to be set off?

[Dr Adequate]

Between 1970 and 1974, the Weatherman took credit for 12 bombings (others are suspected), including one at the United States Capitol and another at the Pentagon. And you don't call that terrorism?

Bernadine Dohrn was apparently involved in a bombing that killed a police officer and injured many others. And you don't call that terrorism?

And what about the nail bomb plot? You do remember that, don't you? Recall that Ayers' girlfriend at the time (Diane Oughton) died (along with 2 other WUO members) when a nail bomb she was building in a Greenwich Village apartment blew up? In the rubble they found several other already finished nail bombs and enough additional sticks of dynamite for several more. I suppose you don't think using those nail bombs as was intended ... i.e., to kill hundreds of people at a military dance ... would have been an act of terrorism? I suppose you accept Ayers self-serving speculation that Oughton blew the bomb up deliberately to keep it from being used for the purpose it was intended? I suppose you believe Ayers when he claims he wasn't there and didn't know about the plot? I suppose you believe Dohrn was unaware of that plot too?

And what about the bombing of the police station? Remember that one? According the AIM (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/tribune-covers-for-obamas-terrorist-friends/ ) Larry Grathwohl, a former member of the Weatherman Underground testified under oath before a Senate Subcommittee in 1974 that Ayers told him that Dorhn had to plan, develop and carry out the bombing. Here are some quotes from Cliff Kincaid's article:







Sorry, but that's more than just "misguided". That's terrorism.



FALSE. I'm not going to let you get away with this untruth. Despite continued denials from Obama supporters, there is plenty to suggest Obama and William Ayers had a long and substantial connection. They were not just "neighbors" as first claimed by Obama. They didn't first meet at the gathering in Ayers' home which kicked off Obama's political career as also was claimed by Obama's campaign organization later on. We know the following about their relationship ... despite attempts to hide it.

First, for well over a decade they have both lived in the same neighborhood in Chicago and have both been active in the school reform movement. Back in the late 80s, Obama was the Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP) while William Ayers organized the Alliance for Better Chicago Schools (ABCS) group ... of which DCP was a member. During that effort, they met (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/us/politics/04ayers.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1223352000&en=97a61d8ecb16e341&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin ) ... in 1987 in Chicago at a luncheon meeting about school reform. They didn't first meet in 1995 as was claimed.

In 1987 Michelle Robinson (Obama's eventual wife) was hired as a summer associate by the law firm of Sidley and Austin in Chicago. From 1988 to 1991, she worked as an associate at the firm. Well guess what? Sidley and Austin's managing partner was a well known personal friend of Ayers' father, Thomas Ayers. Bernadette Dohrn (William Ayer's wife) worked at this firm as well ... as a para-legal. Presumably, they would have met since the firm wasn't *that* big. In 1989, while Barack was attending Harvard, Michelle first met Barack when she was assigned to mentor him when he was a summer associate at Sidley and Austin.

In 1991, Michelle quit the law firm to work for Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. Mayor Daley recently said he knew Ayers and also said that Obama and Ayers were "friends". Why couldn't they be friends? They've lived in the same neighborhood the entire time they've been in Chicago (decades). They share the same politics (social justice). Their wives worked at the same law firm. They hung out with the same people (i.e., radicals). They worked on numerous related projects. And if you don't believe this train of logic ... believe Ayers. In the forward of his recently republished book (conveniently released days after November 4th), Ayer's states he was a "family friend". "family friend" ... which implies a substantial connection.

After graduating from Harvard, Barack went to work for the law firm of Davis, Miner and Barnhill from 1992 to 1995. What a coincidence ... Judson Miner just happened to be a personal friend and law school classmate of Dohrn, where they were both involved in anti-war activities. And you don't think there was a connection? :rolleyes:

In 1995, Obama was picked to chair the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC). Tell us ... is it reasonable to think that Ayers had nothing to do with this selection (as claimed by Obama supporters) given that it was Ayers who initiated and obtained the first $50 million in funding for this project? Of course it's not reasonable. Of course Ayers had a say in the matter.

During this project, Obama collaborated closely with Ayers. They had to have worked closely together. They were co-chairs over a 5 year period. Obama helped raise another $60 million and, eventually, the two wasted over 100 million dollars on this left-leaning education reform experiment. Is it at all reasonable to think that co-chairs during a 5 year long, 100 million dollar effort would hardly know one another? Of course not. Of course they knew one another. Is it reasonable to believe that during that time they would not socialize? Of course not. Of course they socialized. You'd have to be gullible to believe they didn't.

And this activity led to other shared projects. Like Obama reviewing a book on education written by Ayers, giving it a glowing recommendation. Obama appeared with Ayers on numerous academic panels, including one organized by Michelle Obama to discuss Ayers' book. Yes, even Michelle had an interest and familiarity with Ayers. After all, he was a "family friend" ... by Ayers' own admission.

When Obama became involved in politics, guess who was there? Ayers, of course. As noted earlier, Obama started his journey into politics at a gathering in the home of none other than Ayers and Dohrn. Obama was identified as a "friend" of Ayers by Dr Quentin Young who attended that gathering. Obama got an "official endorsement" from Ayers, maybe not for President of the United States, but several times in his earlier campaigns for political office. Does Ayers endorse people he doesn't know or trust? Of course not. And keep in mind that Obama's campaign claimed he did not get endorsements from Ayers. Another lie.

Obama also got endorsements from radical organizations, such as Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS), which have direct links (via it's members) to the 60's radical group, SDS, and it's terrorist offshoot, the Weather Underground ... and hence to William Ayers. Obama allowed a long time communist friend of Ayers (from back in the days of SDS, Ayers' school reform effort and now MDS), named Mike Klonsky, to run a blog on the official Obama campaign website. Promoting "social justice". It was only shut down when this association was exposed by a conservative blogger. Then the Obama campaign made a concerted effort to eliminate all traces of Klonsky from their site. But not before that association was noted and recorded.

Obama chose as his education advisor, during his recent campaign, a woman (Gloria Ladson-Billings) who was president of the American Education Research Association (AERA) when she proposed a "reparations" approach to education that Ayers endorsed (and may have helped invent). Ayers is now the Vice President-elect of AERA, an organization that pushes the "social justice" agenda of Obama. Ladson-Billings coauthored two books with William Ayers. Are we to believe she also has no significant connection with either Ayers ... or Obama? :rolleyes:

Obama and Ayers served together on the board of directors of the Woods Fund in the late 90's and early 2000's. If one believed the Obama campaign and his supporters, one might think this was their only contact. But now you can see it wasn't. While Obama and Ayers served on the Woods Fund together, Ayers posed standing on an American flag for an article in Chicago Magazine titled "No Regrets" (http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/index.php?cp=1&si=0#artanc ). Are we to believe Obama doesn't subscribe to that magazine? That he didn't know about this? Do you really expect us to believe such nonsense? Because we don't. We think you are gullible.

Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod claimed while on CNN that Obama didn't even know about Ayers' radical past until recently. And then Obama communications Chief Robert Gibbs confirmed that. http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/10/video_obama_didnt_know_about_a.html Do rank and file democrats still really buy this lie? Are you so gullible to think that Obama, with all the connections I noted above, and all his supposed intelligence, didn't know about Ayers past until the middle of the Presidential campaign? Especially when this "I didn't really know him" claim is the same claim made about Wright and Tony Rezko when their pasts came to light? We might buy that excuse once ... but did you really expect us to believe it over and over and over? If Obama really is this clueless about those closest to him, perhaps you folks have made a serious mistake putting him into office. I guess time will tell but I sure hope we don't all pay the price.

David Horowitz interviewed Ayers back in the early 90's According to Horowitz (http://www.islet.org/horowitz/20010914.htm ), "I interviewed Ayers ten years ago, in a kindergarten classroom in uptown Manhattan where he was employed to shape the minds of inner city children. Dressed in bib overalls with golden curls rolling below his ears, Ayers reviewed his activities as a terrorist for my tape recorder. When he was done, he broke into a broad, Jack Horner grin and summed up his experience: "Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. America is a great country." Yet Obama was clueless about this? Ayers' is just a "family friend" ... one who it is admitted now emailed and phoned Obama to share ideas? I guess the subject of Ayers and Dohrn's past never came up once during all that time. Right? :rolleyes:



Vandalism? Yeah sure. Looks to me more like intent to kill, or countenancing of intent to kill. Looks to me like Ayers and Dohrn only escaped prosecution because of government misconduct in collecting evidence against them.

As Ayers said, "Guilty As Hell". I don't believe Ayers was in the dark about the nail bombs. Not if he was a leader in the organization and sleeping with one of the bomb builders. You go ahead and believe Ayers if you like. But that will just confirm your gullibility, in my opinion.



Guess that depends on what you call good work. Promoting communism, anti-American hatred and ineffective education programs doesn't qualify in my book. But maybe it does in yours. :) It seems that someone besides you liked this post, since MaGZ has nominated it.

I shall not speculate on whether this better illustrates the proverb that great minds think alike, or the saying that fools never differ.

[BeAChooser]

I'm sorry, but recently it seems that every time there is a thread in Politics that gets lively, BAC comes in and completely ruins it.

How? By pointing out some facts that liberals don't want to hear or discuss? :D

[Tricky]

How? By pointing out some facts that liberals don't want to hear or discuss? :D
No, by making wild, wordy rants that people have to scroll past if they want to get to any real discussion.:D