Skip to main content

View Diary: Guilt by Association (11 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Reckless and extreme vandalism? I think not. (0+ / 0-)

    The guy advocated the violent overthrow of the government and planted what are also called IED's.  Tying Ayers and Obama rogether is wrong and a dirty move. But Ayers can't be classified as anything but dangerous and a criminal.  If not for the Greenwich Village explosion lives would have been lost in future bombings.  Only laws that he was trying to destroy kept him out of prison for a very long time.  I wish Obama never even met him.  

    I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat. Will Rogers

    by thestructureguy on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:24:39 PM PDT

    •  Weathermen (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      They were fools, but their goal was to blow up property, not to harm people. Could people have gotten hurt accidently? Yes, as some of their own members were. That's why they were fools. But let's call it what it is: destroying property is vandalism, not terrorism.

      At the time, I saw them as foolish, vengeful, spoiled brats throwing a tantrum. I think the war ended in spite of their foolishness. They did not help the cause. The huge, peaceful demonstrations were the most effective methods.

      Just my opinion, of course.

      Greg Shenaut

      •  The Greenwich Village bomb was for a (0+ / 0-)

        dance on a military base and was packed with nails. Their tactics weren't working and they were escalating the violence.  Ayres is quoted as saying as late as 2001 "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." To label the acts as vandalism is like calling an escalation a surge.  It depends on your view point.  

        I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat. Will Rogers

        by thestructureguy on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 10:51:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ayers quote was total distortion(link) (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I did enjoy the diary about Schwarzenegger and reminder about Waldheim. Remember how Schwarzenegger said he admired Hitler (S. wanted to be able to enthrall crowds like that, too).

          Somebody on dailykos earlier ....found a campaign donor to McCain...someone who sits on the same Chicago board with Ayers and Obama.

          Much of the controversy about Ayers during the decade since the year 2000 stems from an interview he gave to The New York Times on the occasion of the memoir's publication.[19] The reporter quoted him as saying "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough", and, when asked if he would "do it all again" as saying "I don't want to discount the possibility."[14] Ayers has not denied the quotes, but he protested the interviewer's characterizations in a Letter to the Editor published September 15, 2001: "This is not a question of being misunderstood or 'taken out of context', but of deliberate distortion."[20]

          In the ensuing years, Ayers has repeatedly avowed that when he said he had "no regrets" and that "we didn't do enough" he was speaking only in reference to his efforts to stop the United States from waging the Vietnam War, efforts which he has described as ". . . inadequate [as] the war dragged on for a decade."[21] Ayers has maintained that the two statements were not intended to imply a wish they had set more bombs.[21][22]

          The interviewer also quoted some of Ayers' own criticism of Weatherman in the foreword to the memoir, whereby Ayers reacts to having watched Emile de Antonio's 1976 documentary film about Weatherman, Underground: "[Ayers] was 'embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty that we and we alone knew the way. The rigidity and the narcissism.' "[14] "We weren't terrorists," Ayers told an interviewer for the Chicago Tribune in 2001. "The reason we weren't terrorists is because we did not commit random acts of terror against people. Terrorism was what was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam by the United States."[2] In a letter to the editor in the Chicago Tribune, Ayers wrote, "I condemn all forms of terrorism — individual, group and official". He also condemned the September 11 terrorist attacks in that letter. "Today we are witnessing crimes against humanity on our own shores on an unthinkable scale, and I fear that we may soon see more innocent people in other parts of the world dying in response."[23]

          Views on his past expressed since 2001
          Ayers was asked in a January 2004 interview, "How do you feel about what you did? Would you do it again under similar circumstances?" He replied:[24] "I've thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it's impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? ... I don't think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable." On September 9, 2008, journalist Jake Tapper reported on the comic strip in Bill Ayers's blog explaining the soundbite: "The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being.... When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough shit."' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'"

          Media Reform Action Link

          by LNK on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 12:14:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ayers did back peddle on the quote and we (0+ / 0-)

            have to take him at his word when he said he didn't regret setting off bombs he was taken out of context or it was distorted. Ayers had the unfortunate timing of his book being reviewed on the morning of 9/11 and with the events of that day he took a lot of heat for that quote.   He and his wife did have a split with the WUO on philosophy after the Greenwich Village explosion. Prior to the explosion the WUO believed that purposelessly taking innocent human life was necessary to shock America into action.  The split within WUO resulted in Ayers wanting to continue bombing but without the purpose of killing people. But he stilled believed in bombing.  Though never stated, if a bomb had killed anyone I believe he would have regretted it but still accepted it as unfortunate but necessary. Otherwise he wouldn't have bombed a buildings to begin with since it's impossible to be sure no one was present.  In that regard he and us were lucky.  My whole problem with Ayers is his failure to admit he was a terrorist. His intent is irrelevant, people were terrified of the WUO back then and that was the purpose of the bombing. In the 2004 he still doesn't think the WUO didn't do anything horrendous.  I'm sure he believes that but I believe he and others did do horrendous things.  Many of his later statements are self serving and have been criticized others and former members of the WUO.  Was Ayers a terrorist? I believe his actions show he was.  

            I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat. Will Rogers

            by thestructureguy on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:16:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Terrorist? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Of course, in a way, it's silly to talk about who is a terrorist. Talk about a loosely defined word.

              But as I remember that era (I was in college and graduate school during the Weathermen period), people didn't really act terrorized. Mostly, as I remember it, they were pissed off. Terror was Kent State, for example, or (and I know this is trite) what we were doing in Vietnam. Napalm, for example, tends to terrorize people.

              Greg Shenaut

              •  I agree. One person's terrorist is another (0+ / 0-)

                person's freedom fighter.  I was only 14 and lived in a small town in the Midwest so I didn't feel threatened.  But I'm sure the targets of both governmental action (Kent State, protesting students ie.) and people that frequented targeted buildings (office workers) were pretty scared.  Some claim the WUO destroyed the left's cause by resorting to violence.  Were they wrong? Most say they were.  Were they criminals?  Yes.  Were they terrorists? They lost, so they get the label.  Is it ancient history and plays no part in Obama's campaign? Absolutely!.

                I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat. Will Rogers

                by thestructureguy on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 08:18:04 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site