Obama’s Comrades

Discussion in 'Politics' started by wayne, Aug 28, 2008.

  1. wayne
    Offline

    wayne Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    161
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +9
    The Corner on National Review Online

    Wednesday, August 27, 2008



    Bill Ayers: Unrepentant LYING Terrorist [Andy McCarthy]


    In that Fox interview that Rich linked to, Ayers preposterously claimed that he and his fellow Weather Underground terrorists did not really intend to harm any people — the fact that no one was killed in their 20 or so bombings was, he said, "by design"; they only wanted to cause property damage:

    Between October 1969 and September 1973, the Weather Underground claimed credit for some twenty bombings across the country, in which no one was harmed — save the three cell members who perished in a Greenwich Village townhouse in March 1970, when one of their creations detonated prematurely. Ayers claimed the fact that no other individuals were killed as a result of the Weathermen’s actions was “by design.”
    In his autobiography, Fugitive Days: A Memoir, Ayers recalled, he posed the question: “How far are you willing to take that step into what I consider the abyss of violence? And we really never did, except for that moment in the townhouse.… I actually think destroying property in the face of that kind of catastrophe is so — restrained. And I don’t see it as a big deal.

    Right.

    First of all, "that moment in the townhouse" he's talking about happened in 1970. Three of his confederates, including his then girlfriend Diana Oughton, were accidentally killed when the explosive they were building to Ayers specifications (Ayers was a bomb designer) went off during construction. As noted in Ayers' Discover the Networks profile, the explosive had been a nail bomb. Back when Ayers was being more honest about his intentions, he admitted that the purpose of that bomb had been to murder United States soldiers:
    That bomb had been intended for detonation at a dance that was to be attended by army soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Hundreds of lives could have been lost had the plan been successfully executed. Ayers attested that the bomb would have done serious damage, "tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people too."

    In fact, Ayers was a founder of the Weatherman terror group and he defined its purpose as carrying out murder. Again, from Discover the Networks:

    Characterizing Weatherman as "an American Red Army," Ayers summed up the organization's ideology as follows: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents."

    Now he wants you to think they just wanted to break a few dishes. But in his book Fugitive Days, in which he boasts that he "participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972," he says of the day that he bombed the Pentagon: "Everything was absolutely ideal. ... The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them."

    And he wasn't singular. As I noted back in April in this article about Obama's motley collection of radical friends, at the Weatherman “War Council” meeting in 1969, Ayers' fellow terrorist and now-wife, Bernadine Dohrn, famously gushed over the barbaric Manson Family murders of the pregnant actress Sharon Tate, coffee heiress Abigail Folger, and three others: “Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!” And as Jonah recalled yesterday, "In appreciation, her Weather Underground cell made a threefingered 'fork' gesture its official salute." They weren't talking about scratching up the wall-paper.

    A Weatherman affiliate group which called itself "the Family" colluded with the Black Liberation Army in the 1981 Brinks robbery in which two police officers and an armed guard were murdered. (Obama would like people to believe all this terrorist activity ended in 1969 when he was eight years old. In fact, it continued well into the eighties.) Afterwards, like Ayers and Dohrn, their friend and fellow terrorist Susan Rosenberg became a fugitive.

    On November 29, 1984, Rosenberg and a co-conspirator, Timothy Blunk, were finally apprehended in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. At the time, they were actively planning an unspeakable bombing campaign that would have put at risk the lives of countless innocent people. They also possessed twelve assorted guns (including an Uzi 9 mm. semi-automatic rifle and an Ithaca twelve-gauge shotgun with its barrel sawed off), nearly 200 sticks of dynamite, more than 100 sticks of DuPont Trovex (a high explosive), a wide array of blasting agents and caps, batteries, and switches for explosive devices. Arrayed in disguises and offering multiple false identities to arresting officers, the pair also maintained hundreds of false identification documents, including FBI and DEA badges.
    When she was sentenced to 58 years' imprisonment in 1985, the only remorse Rosenberg expressed was over the fact that she and Blunk had allowed themselves to be captured rather than fighting it out with the police. Bernadine Dohrn was jailed for contempt when she refused to testify against Rosenberg. Not to worry, though. On his last day in office, the last Democrat president, Bill Clinton, pardoned Rosenberg — commuting her 58-year sentence to time-served.

    These savages wanted to kill massively. That they killed only a few people owes to our luck and their incompetence, not design. They and the Democrat politicians who now befriend and serve them can rationalize that all they want. But those are the facts.


    08/27 08:46 AM
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2008
  2. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    I have to question this. I'm no fan of Ayers, but I'd venture to guess there's a lot of Ayers rhetoric being used here as proof he was trying to kill people when in fact, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who could carry out 20 bombings and not kill anyone unless it was by design that no one be killed. I can't even imagine the odds that one could accidentally do that.

    Not excusing Ayers for being a criminal, nor excusing Obama for associating with him. Just saying I'm not buying this particular piece of propaganda.
     
  3. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    The odds are astronomical that if someone choose to plant twenty bombs with the intention of killing people they'd miss the mark twenty times, that's for damned sure!
     
  4. wayne
    Offline

    wayne Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    161
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +9
    A Weatherman affiliate group which called itself "the Family" colluded with the Black Liberation Army in the 1981 Brinks robbery in which two police officers and an armed guard were murdered. (Obama would like people to believe all this terrorist activity ended in 1969 when he was eight years old. In fact, it continued well into the eighties.) Afterwards, like Ayers and Dohrn, their friend and fellow terrorist Susan Rosenberg became a fugitive.

    Susan Rosenberg was pardoned by Bill Clinton. Obama is just another Bill Clinton. What they were trying to do was much worse than murder. They were trying to spark a communist revolution in this country and to help the Soviets win the cold war.
     
  5. Chris
    Offline

    Chris Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    23,154
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +2,089
    A nonissue.

    But Republicans like to have a boogieman to attack.

    Meanwhile the Republicans have mortgaged America to the Chinese, allowed the housing industry to collapse, left America dependent on foreign oil, destroyed our standing in the world, and left 47 million Americans without healthcare.

    But tell us more about some guy who lived in Obama's neighborhood years ago who has no bearing whatsoever on the fate of America....
     
  6. Gem
    Offline

    Gem BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,080
    Thanks Received:
    782
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +782
    Kirk Wrote:
    I'm interested in this opinion. To begin, I have to say, I think its extremely disingenuous of you to imply that the Republicans are the only party who bring up a candidates associations - it is a patently false assertion, the Dems do it as well, they just haven't been able to dig up anyone as interesting as the Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers. :lol:

    But I do think that you could have a point with Bill Ayers being a nonissue. Much like I feel that Hagee was a nonissue for the McCain campaign. McCain should not be held responsible for the words of every person who endorses him. While he learned the political lesson of making sure you know some one before you state how happy you are to have their endorsement the hard way and ended up looking foolish, it was, as you say, a nonissue.

    I'm not sure I see, however, how Ayers is a complete nonissue and would be interested to read your take on it.

    As I see it - Obama has been involved with Ayers in numerous ways. Most importantly in my view, are Obama's allowing Ayers to throw him a campaign fundraiser brunch at Ayers' home and Obama's own statements that he and Ayers were/are "friendly."

    I understand that Ayers' questionable actions occurred many years ago, but his questionable statements continue. As a politician, wouldn't Obama have distanced himself from someone who made such statements? I am left wondering if Obama remained "friendly" with Ayers for the money, or because they shared views politically, or if Obama was simply naive about how the relationship might be viewed by his opponents.

    Obama, as he himself stated tonight, is not a typical candidate. He does not come with a list of committees he has sat on during his time in politics. He does not have a list of bills he sponsored. He does not have numerous examples of times that he "reached across the aisle" to work with Republicans.

    That isn't to say that he doesn't have many strengths which make him a strong candidate - I'm simply stating that he doesn't have a resume that is loaded with the usual types of qualifications. And, especially early in the campaign, he didn't give us much to go on...except that he was young, black, and able to deliver a speech about hope and change without getting too specific.

    Because of that, people have had to look at other areas to learn more about him. And one of those areas have been the people Obama has chosen to associate with.

    Why is that wrong? Why should I not look at the people whose opinions a man or woman values in order to determine something about them? Would you think less of someone if you found out that they ardently support George W. Bush? Of course you would because you think that anyone who could support someone that (fill in your negative adjective of choice) has to be somewhat questionable themselves.

    I think that is what people who bring up Ayers, Wright, Rezcko, etc. are concerned about. What does it say about Obama if these are the types of people whose company he keeps.

    So now that I have explained why I feel it is an issue, I'm interested in hearing why you think it isn't.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,634
    Thanks Received:
    4,475
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,001
    No one was killed in the bombings but he did blind and maim some police officers in San fran with a pipe bomb designed to be an anti personnel weapon. That is intent to kill.

    it sounds like you want to give this guy a pass because no one got killed in the bombings. So if i take it one step further, Osama would be an OK guy as long as no one was killed on 9/11.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2008
  8. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770

    You of course can support this statement as fact insofar as the collusion is concerned?

    You aren't addressing my comment, but you ARE :dig:

    A dozen people were trying to spark a communist revolution and help the Soviets win the Cold War? And doing so by blowing stuff up and allegedly participating in an armored car robbery?

    Let's trim of some fat here, huh?

    I think it was poor judgement on Obama's part to associate himself with Ayers. I also consider it kind of crappy it's gotten the brush over by the left, as just about any question about Obama has.

    As you pointed out, Clinton pardoned Rosenberg. That's liberal way. Carter gave amnesty to every deserter from the Vietnam War.

    However, let's don't overplay the relationship between Ayers and Obama. Ayers was at the time as essential to Obama's kickstarting his political career as tossing Wright under the bus was keeping his Presidential aspirations alive.

    In other words, he uses people to get where he wants to go. He's a politician. You expect something better, or what?
     
  9. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    We should be so lucky as to have an Obaman administration that had the luck and skill of the Clinton administration.

    So I sincerely hope you are right about that, Wayne.
     
  10. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,550
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    Because it's silly. I worked for a man who was SDS in the '60's and who lost his draft derferment because of his anti-war activism. He was one of the greatest people I have ever known in my life.... and none of his "youthful indiscretions" had any bearing on who he was as a 60 year old man.... except that he was one of the kindest, most egalitarian people I've ever known.
     

Share This Page