William Ayers on NPR

[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 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?

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.

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, 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"?

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?

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.

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.

 

[applecorped]

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

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.

 

[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?

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.

Ayers was not involved in the selection. At all.

Here's someone that doesn't agree:

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/20...te-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/20...ama-chair-of-the-chicago-annenberg-challenge/

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/20...e-of-ayers-role-in-annenberg-board-selection/

http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/20...intment-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/20...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?

 

[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.

 

[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 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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

 

[A'isha]

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?

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.

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.

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?

 

[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?

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.

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.

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.

You know nothing about "my" agenda.

If you say so.

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?

"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?