Barack Obama was employed for 8 years by a man named William Ayers, who just happens to be a radical terrorist who blew up buildings in the 60s or 70s (I've read a lot of stuff, I don't remember the dates) and got off due to a technicality. Ayers confessed, to the authorities, to doing this. He also, in his 2001 memoir, said he does not regret setting bombs, only wishes they had done more. (This man is now a 'well-respected' professor, by the way...love that liberal education. Let's have him influencing our best and brightest).
Obama has repeatedly played this association down, saying things to the tune of why should I be responsible for bombs placed by this guy when I was 8 years old? (that's a paraphrase, not a direct quote). No, Mr. Obama, you didn't plant bombs when you were 8, but you sure as heck knew who Ayers was, and had your big career launch party at his house, and accepted a paid position on a foundation he chaired, and let him help grease your wheels with the corrupt Chicago political machine.
"It is of vital importance to clarify Barack’s relationship with Ayers. This is not a casual relationship. It is not a recent relationship. And, as reported in an earlier piece on this blog, Ayers has not changed his tune of political radicalism. I don’t challenge his right to believe such things, but Ayers certainly does not reflect the views of most Americans, both Democrats and Republicans. Why is Barack lying about this relationship? That is the question voters deserve to have asked and answered." (from the noquarterusa link)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74486 http://townhall.com/columnists/GuyBenson/2008/04/24/debunking_obamas_ayers_fact_sheet http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/26/why-is-obama-hiding-the-truth-about-william-ayers-follow-the-money/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
First, a couple of factual errors:
1.) Ayers statements that he "should have done more" did not come from his autobiography, they came from a newspaper interview. Even further, they taken woefully out of context. That statement referred to his belief that Americans should have done more to end destructive American policy in Viet Nam. Ayers sent a letter to the newspaper later accusing them of deliberate distortion. Although Ayers refuses to classify his actions as terrorism, since he did not target innocent lives, the way the newspaper in particular, and the way right wing pundits (such as those you cite) characterize his statements regarding his youthful involvement in a radical organization is disingenuous (to put it politely).
2.) Ayers did not escape prosecution merely on a "technicality." Although there were prosecutorial abuses in his case in the 70's, Ayers also convinced his wife to let them turn themselves in for other activities in 1980. If that isn't a sign of remorse or social responsibility, I'm not sure what is. After the charges were dropped, Ayers has spent the time sense as an educator and advocate for educational reform.
If we can't be forgiven the mistakes of youth after every sign of reform, then I'm in trouble. In twenty years, I hope I'm not characterized by some of the things I did as a teenager and young adult.
As a respected professor, yes, Ayers was instrumental in helping Obama make the connections necessary to succeed in local politics. COnsidering Ayers at the time had been a respectable citizen for nearly twenty years, I don't see that as anything to be ashamed about.
For a less biased account of Ayers life and career, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers
-S-
Not to be a nag, but wikipedia is 1. No less biased than the papers, and 2. A completely non-credible source of information. Anyone that feels like it can post anything on any wikipedia document, true or false. I have in fact had teachers exploit that fact for research assignments in which she told them not to look at wikipedia, but they did anyway. She of course had posted false information in that particular document, and 70% of the class went there.
Yeah, I used that trick when I was a high-school teacher too. Wikipedia is still more credible than blatantly biased right-wing (or left wing) pundits. At least they have a flagging system to flag biased articles and a mechanism for correction. Between the two, I'd trust Wikipedia more.
Post a Comment