Hannity failed to challenge suggestion that Obama has not "condemn[ed] the actions" of Ayers
SUMMARY: On Hannity's America, discussing what host Sean Hannity said was Sen. Barack Obama's "friendly relationship" with Weather Underground member William Ayers, retired New York City Police detective Paul Ragonese, who survived a 1970 bombing attack by the Weather Underground, stated, "I can't understand why somebody who wants to be president of the United States, I'll be perfectly honest with you, would want to associate or not condemn the actions of people in the past." Hannity did not note that, in fact, Obama has condemned Ayers' "detestable acts."
On the April 27 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America, host Sean Hannity interviewed retired New York City Police detective Paul Ragonese, who survived a bombing attack in 1970 by the radical group Weather Underground. Hannity stated that "this has now become front and center in this election campaign" and said to Ragonese that Sen. Barack Obama "has a friendly relationship" with former Weather Underground member William Ayers, later adding, "Don't you think this should be a major issue in the campaign?" Ragonese replied, "I can't understand why somebody who wants to be president of the United States, I'll be perfectly honest with you, would want to associate or not condemn the actions of people in the past." Hannity did not note in response that Obama has in fact condemned Ayers' actions as "detestable," but, rather, responded, "Are you as surprised as I am that people are actually surprised that people like me are even raising this question? This is a terrorist."
Obama stated during the April 16 Democratic presidential debate, "[T]he notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense." The Associated Press reported on April 20 that "Obama said last week his relationship with Ayers went no further than sitting on a Chicago charity board together, as the Illinois senator rebuffed attacks on his patriotism and condemned Weather Underground as 'detestable.' " Further, on the April 27 edition of Fox News Sunday, Obama said, "Mr. Ayers is a 60-plus-year-old individual who lives in my neighborhood, who did something that I deplore 40 years ago when I was six or seven years old. By the time I met him, he was a professor of education at the University of Illinois." Obama added: "We served on a board together that had Republicans, bankers, lawyers, focused on education. He worked for Mayor Daley. Mayor Daley, the same Mayor Daley, by the way, who, when he was a state's attorney, prosecuted Mr. Ayers' wife for those activities."
From the April 27 edition of Fox News' Hannity's America:
HANNITY: And welcome back to Hannity's America. In the late '60s and early '70s, William Ayers and the Weather Underground were responsible for several attacks of terrorism against the United States. On June 9th, 1970, the New York City Police headquarters was the target of one of those brutal attacks. Tonight, in a Hannity's America exclusive, we are joined by a former police officer who was injured in that attack.
And joining us now, retired New York City Police detective Paul Ragonese, with us. Paul, good to see you, my friend.
RAGONESE: Good to be here, Sean.
HANNITY: Thank you for being with us. Now, you served 18 years on the job as a police officer.
RAGONESE: Yes.
HANNITY: I want you to take us back to June 9th, 1970, New York City Police headquarters.
RAGONESE: Yeah, it was 38 years ago. I was a 20-year-old police trainee. I was working in the Communications Division in which I was answering 911 phone calls. That's what was my job.
HANNITY: Right.
RAGONESE: So at about 7 o'clock that evening, it was my lunch break. So I went outside and went down a couple of floors or a floor to use the payphone to call my fiancée, who is now my wife of 36 years. I don't remember anything else.
She actually heard the boom. I never heard it. I remember waking up about 30 feet away on a staircase, and just dust and debris and silence. I didn't hear anything. And then -- I swear I thought I was dead. I saw in this mist and this dust this huge figure coming towards me with silver hair. And he reached in and it turned out to be a sergeant, Sergeant McDonald. And he reached in and he grabbed me by the shirt, pulled me out of -- off the stairs. I was still holding the receiver with the wire. And he said to me --- he said, "Are you OK?" And I nod. And he said, "Well, you can put the phone down now."
HANNITY: This is New York City Police headquarters. This is the heart and soul of America's bravest. At least seven people were injured when this bomb went off here. Now, The New York Times and the AP said on June 10th, the next day, that they had received letters from the Weathermen, this Democ -- this group with William Ayers being a part of --
RAGONESE: Yes.
HANNITY: -- you know, taking credit for this.
RAGONESE: I think he actually -- well, somebody did -- place the threatening call prior to the detonation. I think about 15, 20 minutes because they had a system down there where they put these -- lights started to blinking when they had something serious. So I believe they had a threatening phone call prior to the detonation.
HANNITY: Right. Well, this has now become front and center in this election campaign as we saw in the last debate. And that is that Barack Obama, Senator Obama, has a friendly relationship with William Ayers. Now, we know a few things -- that as a rite of passage, when he was getting into politics, he went to Ayers' house and he met with Ayers. We know that he's given speeches with Ayers.
We know that Ayers, of all days, on September 11th, 2001, The New York Times quoted him as saying, "I don't regret setting bombs. I wish we did more." What does this mean to you? And then they're friendly and they gave speeches -- even after he said that he was unrepentant.
RAGONESE: I want to remove from the political arena, but just New York City cops, OK, can -- and I know some that have -- if you associate with a known criminal or other people that associated with known criminals, you can be dismissed. And I know people that have been dismissed because they grew up with some guys when they were younger. And they went on the other side of the fence, these guys. And the cops still hung around with them and they were dismissed.
And so I believe that if that's a standard for New York City cops, that we can't associate with known criminals, that should be the minimal standard, I believe, for the president of the United States.
HANNITY: Very well said. But when Barack Obama is saying, when asked about the relationship - they've sat on a board together, they've given speeches together. In 2001, he said, "I don't regret setting these bombs." Ayers said, "I wish we did more." And Barack Obama says he is friendly with him today. What does that mean to you?
RAGONESE: Well, anybody and not just Mr. Obama, but anybody who says that, you know, to them and to the general public and onto the press, these bombings are incidents, historical events, news stories.
I have seen, like other cops, the devastation. In 1982, we had three New York City cops get blown up by the FALN at 1 Police Plaza. Two of them are really dear friends of mine in the bomb squad.
HANNITY: Wow.
RAGONESE: These people have to live with the mutilation, the serious injuries, the death that happens.
HANNITY: Right.
RAGONESE: It's not a news story. It's not a political tool to be used. Anybody -- once again, I will speak in generalities. I don't understand. I personally cannot understand --
HANNITY: I don't understand it either.
RAGONESE: -- how anybody could say or associate with anybody that you know or suspect could damage people - honest, hard-working people.
HANNITY: But wait. He admits to it. He admits to bombing New York City Police headquarters. He admits to bombing the Pentagon. He admits to bombing the Capitol Building. He says he didn't do enough. He says he is unrepentant and Barack -- wait a minute. And Barack Obama is friendly. Don't you think this should be a major issue in the campaign? I mean, you lived through this bombing.
RAGONESE: Well, like I say -- I mean, my standard with cops is they are held to a higher standard. I can't understand why somebody who wants to be president of the United States, I'll be perfectly honest with you, would want to associate or not condemn the actions of people in the past.
HANNITY: Are you as surprised as I am that people are actually surprised that people like me are even raising this question? This is a terrorist.
RAGONESE: Well, in those days they called them radicals, disgruntled youth, OK?
HANNITY: Is terrorist more accurate?
RAGONESE: Well, yeah. Absolutely. The acts they committed, the Weather Underground, were acts of terror.
HANNITY: Well, listen. Paul, thank you for putting a face on terror and really bringing this home. I appreciate you coming forward. Thank you.
RAGONESE: My pleasure.
HANNITY: You are a great American. You are a great hero. Thank you for being with us.
RAGONESE: You're a great American. Thank you.
HANNITY: Thank you, buddy.
While I whole heartedly agree that this is pure FOX Noise mis-information.....AGAIN! there is only one problem that I have with the premise of the thread's headline name that MMFA chose.....
By pointing out that Hannity didn't challenge or even attempt to bring up this blatant hypocrisy is giving Hannity to much credit.....
By saying this.... you are presumming that Hannity is an actual journalist or that he has any credibility what so ever to have the ability in the first place to even know to do it at all.
He's a mouth piece.... not a reporter...... Yes MMFA....keep exposing these idiots for their misinformation but stop writing your headlines as if these assclowns are anything but!
YOU know he's not a journalist - I know he's not a journalist - but there are far too many dim-witted people out there who figure since he works for Fox News, then what he sais is "news". And that ain't the case.
Sean Hannity is a serial, pepetual, pathological liar. And he needs to be called out on each and every lie he tells. Only them will his credibility be destroyed once and for all and he'll be forced to fade into the obscurity he so richly deserves.
And Sean? I know that either you or someone in your organization monitors MMFA, so this is a special message just for you.
Bite me.
More guilt by association nonsense from Hannity. If they are that scared to run against Obama, so instead they must run against Obama/Wright/Ayers/"everyone in Obama's entire life that he has ever known or brushed up against that has said something stupid", then they should just say so instead of trying to be so cute about it.
Is this the standard by which we are to be voting for our elected leaders now? Because this is a giant whopping can of worms.
tommy
Hannity's style is why I think the cable networks are pretty well maxed out. They either pander Hannity style to a narrow band of supporters or they fill the air with tripe that is only designed to promote controversy...not further any debate.
Using the Hannity logic...he would proclaim that David Brock is not a liberal. How could he be with all those old conservative friends and past statements.
Why is it only the guys in the Brown Shirts or white sheets who can be called "Great Americans"?
When is McCain going to distance himself from St. Hannity's hateful preaching?
Never. They'll end up roommates in hell....
I wonder how many American newscasters or politicians who would condemn unreservedly the actions of Weather Underground contribute or contributed to NorAid?
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
It's all a matter of perspective. During the American Revolution, the people we now call "patriots" were considered traitors by the British.
You miss the point...
...again.
This is just typical Hannity.
If Obama ever joins Ayers on a bomb setting spree is when we should be concerned.
I really have to laugh at this so called controversy. I have a feeling that if one combed through any politicians past relationships, friendly or casual, you'd find all sorts of links to one or two or three unsavory characters. It doesn't mean they are in cahoots or share each others values.
Shouldn't the media start digging into everyone Hillary or McCain ever had even a passing relationship with if they are going to question the character of everyone Obama ever said hello to?
You're right J, and typical cable news race for ratings too. Wright generates ratings, apparently, as mouth watering viewers anxiously await Wright's every word now. It is ridiculous. Covering his speeches as if he were some important political figure who makes policy, or some foreign dignitary on some US of A speaking tour or something. I refuse to watch any of it.
Hannity & co. seem pretty determined to keep bringing up non-stories and continue their inaccurate "reporting" on Obama. Is it just me, or do they seem scared to you?
While this is one possible interpretation, it could also mean "cordial" or "polite". In other words, Obama behaves like an adult when in the presence of Ayers. You know, the way statesmen behave when in the presence of someone with whom they may disagree, but need have to work with toward a common goal? What a concept!
Last time I checked, Ayers is a free man, and has not been convicted of anything. There's no scandal here.
Another manufactured controversy from the dipsh*ts in the media.
For me, I don't care if it was friendly, cordial, polite, or even if they dressed in drag together at some point........what Ayers did or said is not what Obama did or said, unless there is some explicit news conference where they both get together and go point by point on what they agree on, it is irrelevant to me.
Obama has explained it enough, once should be enough. But enough is enough.
Nerzog,
Ayers has said he's as guilty as sin but free as a bird.
The only reason Ayers and Dohrn are not in jail is because of illegal wiretaps. Not because they are not guilty of the crimes to which they have admitted.
The only reason Ayers and Dohrn are not in jail is because of illegal wiretaps.
And you know that because...
Does your ass ever get a rash from the friction caused by you pulling so much stuff out of it?
Consider this, what if Obama's kickoff campaign were held at Timothy McVeigh's house and Obama served on a board that McVeigh chaired?
What would you think about Obama's relationships?
I hit post too soon.
DB,
The Weathermen did kill in robbery shoot out. They also tried to kill innocent victims by setting of a bomb at an army dance in Ft. Dix NJ. The bomb was filled with nails and designed to killl and maim. Luckily the bomb exploded prematurely in a townhouse, killing three weathermen.
According to Accuracy in Media:
The FBI was desperate to apprehend Ayers and his comrades because they were operating with foreign support and direction and the dozens of bombings they carried out between 1969 and 1975 did an estimated $100 million in damage. A policeman had been killed in San Francisco by a bomb planted by the Weather Underground at a police station. Seven others were injured. Eight were injured in the Weather Underground bombing of the New York City police department. Fifty-nine policemen were injured in a riot the Weather Underground promoted in Chicago.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/with-obama-its-the-communism-stupid/Nobody has claimed these bombings
6 March 1970 – 34 sticks of dynamite are discovered in the 13th Police District of Detroit, Michigan. During February and early March, 1970, members of the WUO, led by Bill Ayers, are reported to be in Detroit, for the purpose of bombing a police facility.[citation needed
6 March 1970 – WUO members Theodore Gold, Diana Oughton, and Terry Robbins are killed in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, when a nailbomb they were constructing detonates. The bomb was intended to be planted at a non-commissioned officer's dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey
14 October 1970 - The Harvard Center for International Affairs is bombed. WUO claims this is to protest the war in Vietnam. [NYT, 10/14/70, p. 30]
- October 20, 1981 - Brinks robbery in which Kathy Boudin and several members of the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army stole over $1 million from a Brinks armored car at the Nanuet Mall, near Nyack, New York on October 20, 1981. The robbers were stopped by police later that day and engaged them in a shootout, killing two police officers and one Brinks guard as well as wounding several others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_%28organization%29#Chronology_of_eventsWhom did Ayres kill?
A long cut-and-paste by AA, and he doesn't come close to offering an answer to this simple 4-word question.
Solon,
If that is so, please explain who those weathermen were planning on bombing when three of them were killed by their own bomb?
How about an empty building, as has already been stated multiple times her.
Come on... at least try and keep up here.
Mescal,
Your facts are off. They have admitted they were planning on bombing a dance at a military base with the intent of killing and maiming.
Solon,
If that is so, please explain who those weathermen were planning on bombing when three of them were killed by their own bomb?
Think, AA -THINK. If William Ayres had been planning to kill someone with that bomb, he would have been killed when that bomb went off. (That bomb was intended to be seet off at Fort Dix, but it never got there.)
Not every member of the Weathermen were involved with each incident. In fact, as the group got more and more violent, William Ayres and his wife were forced out by the more violent members.
(As an aside, I was in Greenwich Village on a field trip with my high school Humanities class the day that brownstone exploded. I remember being in Washington Square Park and seeing teh fire engines race by, and watching it on the news that evening.0
wz,
Interesting perspective.
Ayers fiancee was killed when the bomb went off. To say he was not involved is to purposefully ignore the fact that he was an active co-conspirator of the weathermen bombings.
I just noticed the claim a Policeman was killed by a Weatherman bomb. That by a rightwing screechmonkey site. That is contradited by every source I have read.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2003/10/19/return_of_the_weathermen/
Though the Weathermen's organization had killed no one but themselves,
That bank robbery took place in 1981 The Weathermen basically ceased to exist after the Vietnam war ended for us in the mid seventies
Here is what factcheck.org had to say about Ayers:
"In fact, nobody died as a result of bombings in which Ayers said he participated as part of the Weather Underground, at the New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, in a men's lavatory in the Capitol building in 1971 and in a women's restroom in the Pentagon in 1972. The deaths to which Clinton referred were of three Weather Underground members who died when their own "bomb factory" exploded in a Greenwich Village townhouse on March 6, 1970. Ayers was not present. Also, two police officers were murdered in connection with the robbery of a Brinks armored car by Weather Underground members in 1981. That was about a year after Ayers had turned himself in and after all charges against him had been dropped.
...
"Obama visited Ayer's home in 1995 at the invitation of an Illinois state senator, according to a Feb. 22 story in Politico.com. But Politico concluded, "There’s no evidence their relationship is more than the casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation." And while we by no means defend or condone bombings of any kind, Clinton strained the facts to make Ayers' 1970s activities sound homicidal.
Source: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/taking_liberties_in_philadelphia.html
Open,
Of course Ayers wasn't present when the bomb went off. He would have also died. His fiencee was there and did die.
These were not innocent pranksters. Ayers wife was on the FBI's 10 most wanted list.
Nobody called Ayers an "innocent prankster", but let's simply stop with the exaggerations and stick to the facts. Agreed?
Do you think Hannity, Boortz and all are providing an accurate portrayal of Ayers in leaving out important mitigating information? Today I heard Boortz compare Ayers to Hitler. Seriously.
Even more importantly, do you think Hannity, Boortz and all can support their portrayal of Ayers as some sort of "buddy" of Obama's in light of what is known about their "relationship"? Factcheck.org and the original article in Politico doesn't seem to think so and neither do I.
Open,
I agree, the drivel coming from right wing radio is more disgusting presently (if possible) than any other time. They are scared of Obama so they must cling to something. they have convinced themselves that either the Ayers or Wright issue will bring down Obama. Keeping this stuff on the forefront also allows them to avoid discussing the issues and focus on tabloid crap which brings ratings. Any person who gets their news from right wing radio is surely convinced that Wright is destroying Obama and he now has no chance. How boring it must be to sit around and agree with each other all day like these guys and their audiences do. Has anyone ever noticed that the female callers to Hannity's show all sound the exact same? It's either the same woman calling or their is something genetically similiar in right wing women. Either way, the "Sean we love you, you're a great american" statement is way overdone. The man and his followers disgust me.
Do you have any proof or can you offer a link showing that Hannity has ever acted like a man?
Do you have any proof or can you offer a link showing that Hannity has ever acted like a man?
Sean hannity acts like one all the time. But the sniveling coward is no man at all. Like in "A Christmas Story", he's the schoolyard bully who will eventually get beaten up by a Ralphie who has had enough.
Ar you this dense on purpose?
Nobody here is defending Ayers. Not. One. Person.
What they have been doing is trying to get you to realize the truth in what happened, and what he was involved in. Nobody here is defending Ayers. Pointing out the lies in what the right wing world has been putting out there is one thing and it's completely different from defending what Ayers did. Again, nobody here is currently doing that.
Reading comprehension, you might want to try it out sometime.
"I find it rather ironic that you defend a terrorist and discount his subversive bombings and attempts to overthrow the government by the use of terrorist bombings... but that a radio talk show host disgusts you."
AA,
That is one of the most interesting statements I have ever seen you give. That being said I find your false indictment of me disgusting as well. I have never defended Ayers. I challenge you directly to give one example of where I have done that. I find his actions deplorable. But, unlike you, I am willing to understand that just because Obama attended a fund raiser at the man's house in 1995 at the invitation of a third party and his casual realtionship of serving on a community board together does in no way give direct linkage to the similiarity of ideology. You want such a similiarity to be true. I have no clue why you cling to the sensationalism of a casual relationship as proof that Obama secretly wants to be a terrorist like his "mentor" Ayers. That type of tabloid "high school he said she said" thinking disgusts me as well. But, I will tell you what really disgusts me about Hannity more than the fact that like you, he clings to conjecture in a hope that it will destroy a man's character. I absolutely find CHICKENHAWKS disgusting. Hannity's fake patriotism and incredible action of questioning others patriotism when he would never and has never put himself in danger for his country is disgusting. If you don't like that...well tough. Just please stop assigning false accusations to me in an effort to bolster your own views. Hannity does that daily to those he disagrees with, I would like to think you are better than that. Am I right in that thought?
Worrier,
I conceed the point. I have no evidence to back that up. I am therefore guilty of passing judgement based on personal observations and conjecture. At least now I know how those who continually want it to be true that Ayers and Obama are secret terrorist buddies feel.
Nobody knows that bomb "would have killed" anyone. Are you able to hop between parallel universes to tell us all what would happen?
Were the other bombs anti-personel as well? Presuming they were, would they have killed many at Fort Dix as well? Why didn't they?
Nobody knows that bomb "would have killed" anyone.
OpenMind, do you find it strange that while (as far as I know)all of the WU bombings were aimed toward property damage,and efforts were made to warn people to avoid injury, the one that accidentally went off was going to be used to kill people?
I've seen different stories over the years, some claiming confessions to this purpose, but I've been Googling, and haven't been able to find any credible account or explanation of this coincidence.. Just seems fishy to me.
I feel the same way. I suppose many years of my life being wasted believing in right-wing fairytales has taught me to only believe what I can verify -- especially when that info is politically expedient to one group or another.
Even assuming the intent of the group was to injure or kill civilians, it is entirely possible that the accident changed the attitude of the group before they ever hurt innocent civilians. Is that necessarily more damning of them? Maybe not -- as long as we are speculating here.
The truth is we don't know much about this, but it seems Hannity, Boortz and their ilk are more than ready to turn utter speculation into absolute fact.
From that same article:
Early in 1970, a group of Weathermen inadvertently blew up three of their members along with a townhouse on Eleventh Street in New York's Greenwich Village. The group was trying to build an anti-personnel bomb, in order to give Americans a taste of the kind of cruel weaponry their government was using in Vietnam.
Now the object of a national manhunt, and rechristened the Weather Underground, the fugitives -- several dozen militants in a handful of American cities -- established guerilla "focos," secret cells in which members learned how to build bigger and better bombs, to be detonated in acts of "strategic sabotage." Besides issuing a stream of turgid communiques denouncing racism and sexism and proclaiming sympathy for fellow revolutionaries such as Ho Chi Minh, the group succeeded in bombing several symbolic targets, including the Pentagon and the Capitol building. Though the group issued warnings to evacuate their targets, inevitably some bystanders were injured. Against all odds, the most notorious Weathermen -- Bernadine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, Mark Rudd, Kathy Boudin -- all managed to elude the FBI.
Everything you are saying about Ayers is beside the main point. You have focussed so hard on Ayers being equal to Hitler or OBL that you have missed the conclusion of Politico's original article which is:
"There’s no evidence their relationship is more than the casual friendship of two men who occupy overlapping Chicago political circles and who served together on the board of a Chicago foundation."
Until you can find evidence to refute the above statement from Politico, the rest of your argument is absolutely pointless.
Until you can find evidence to refute the above statement from Politico, the rest of your argument is absolutely pointless.
Being pointless is one thing AA does well. If you ignore the point on his head....
Define casual friendship?
Both Ayers and Obama served on the same foundation board. They appeared on the same talks organized by Obama's wife. Obama started his Illinois Senate Campaign in Ayers and Dorhn's house!
It's not like they were two ships passing in the night. How many casual friends kick off political campaigns in your house?
It is implicit in their relationship that Obama had no problems with Ayers, Dohrn, and their radical terrorist past. It is also evident that these two unrepentant radicals looked at Obama as a political kindred spirit.
After all, would you host John McCain in your house for a political event? Why would these two anti-American radicals host Obama if they didn't feel he would champion their views?
I guess it is easy to see no connection when you discount all the evidence that proves the connection.
"It's not like they were two ships passing in the night. How many casual friends kick off political campaigns in your house?"--aa
As it says in the Politico article above, Obama was invited to Ayer's house by someone that was not Ayers - more precisely an Illinois State Senator. If Ayers and Obama were such great pals and all, why didn't Ayers invite Obama himself?
You guys are desperate.
Define casual friendship?
Why? Have you never had one? You know what it means. Stop being a trool.
It is dissembling on your part. Who cares who invited him. (Who did anyway? We know Obama knew Ayers from his previous associations with him. The person who invited Obama is irrelevant.
You can't dismiss their association being on the same board of the Woods Foundation. You can't dismiss the fact that they spoke together at the behest of Obama's wife. You can't dismiss the fact that Obama agreed to start his campaign in Ayer's House. If you want to call it a casual friendship go ahead.
Gosh let me think a bit.. How many other public officials do I know who started their political careers off in the home of famous unrepentant terrorists and didn't know? Personally I give Obama more credit than that.
The simple matter is he didn't see it as a problem to be associated with someone like Ayers then. Why is he trying to distance himself now?
Consider this, what if Obama's kickoff campaign were held at Timothy McVeigh's house and Obama served on a board that McVeigh chaired?
What would you think about Obama's relationships?
NOTHING!
Consider this, what if Obama kicked off his campaign on Halloween?
Do you think Obama has a relationship with Satan?
NOTHING!!!!! NO!!!!!!!!!!!
AA, this "guilt by association" tag is not only a stretch but it's really stupid. When Obama bombs a building or spouts racists comments you will have a point otherwise stop with the "guilt by association" crap, it may come back to bite YOU in the butt!!
The man in the White House RIGHT NOW has far more nefarious friends and relatives.
Where were AA's what-ifs and guilt-by-association nonsense in 2000 AND 2004?
Pearlene,
I don't believe you. Ayers went underground in 1970, after his girlfriend, Diana Oughton, and two other people were killed when bombs they were making exploded in a Greenwich Village town house. Hardly an innocent man.
In his book Mr. Ayers describes the Weathermen descending into a ''whirlpool of violence.''
They bombed the Pentagon.
They bombed police stations.
His wife, Bernadine Dorhn said this after the Manson killings:Dig It. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach! Wild!
She suggested they use three fingers to represent the fork as their salute.
Between 1970 and 1974 the Weathermen took responsibility for 12 bombings. There probably are more. Some bombs at that time killed people but the perpetrators remain unknown.Dorn was on the FBI's 10 most wanted list.
Dorn and Ayers were traitors, criminals, terrorists, not simply war protestors. You overlook the fact that they declared war on the United States. Their group attempted to kill innocent people and destroy our government so that foreigners could overthrow the government. They should be in jail for life terms. But because they are on the left, you guys defend them.
Had anyone on the right associated with known terrorists either recently or in their youth, you would have strung them up by their thumbs.
To give Obama a pass on this is not going to happen. He willingly and knowingly associated with these criminals. He started his campaign for the Illinois Senate in their house! He served on the board of a foundation with Ayers. He spoke with Ayers in talks.
Ayers is unrepentant. Obama tries to shake it off. You are judged by the company you keep. In this case, Obama is rightfully judged for his association with these criminals. Do you want as my President someone who knowingly associated with these terrorists?
"Hardly an innocent man."--AA
Well, duh? He was convicted and went to jail. You are arguing a Strawman. I haven't seen anyone claim that he was "innocent". What has been said is that Hannity, Boortz and now you are blatantly exaggerating about this guy first of all and more importantly, exaggerating the extent anyone knows this guy even shows up on Obama's radar.
Pearlene is right. You are just smearing him with guilt by association.
What I suspect is that the right is really much more afraid of the prospect of battling Obama in the general election and are trying to interfere in the Democrat's primary with this utter nonsense.
Democrats are pretty stupid if they let Republicans choose their candidate like they did in 2004. Will they ever learn?
I have not exagerated the Ayers/Dorhn - Obama connection. I have simply stated what everyone knows. You are attempting to minimize it. Flailing away at me does not change the facts.
Please point to the quote where I said Obama and Ayers were "buddies or pals".
(You can't. It doesn't exist. I never said that.)
ps. As an aside, I'd call that a straw man. Wouldn't you?
I was paraphrasing the general wingnut stance - although both Hannity and Boortz have used those exact words - so I can see why it might be confusing to you. When I quote you alone, I will use quotes. You were a little more careful than to use those precise words, but if you didn't wish to leave that impression, you chose your words poorly.
Hahaha.. I love it! Thanks for the laugh.
So now it's my fault you intentionally and falsely quoted me?
A simple apology would have sufficed.
No hard feelings. Your post is priceless. :-)
I think you are having a little difficulty with the word "quote" there, skippy.
Besides, I find it more than a bit ironic that you of all people would demand an apology for a paraphrase when you have deliberately, repeatedly and unapologetically mischaracterized the postings of many posters here over the last couple of days.
No hard feelings here either, AA.
I have not exagerated the Ayers/Dorhn - Obama connection.
You have done precisely that, and now you are lying about it.
You do get your debating "style" from Hannity, don't you?
AA,
It's a stretch to condemn Obama based on a visit to Ayers house at the invitation of another person in 1995 along with serving on a board together. I thinkyou and I can both agree that in a court of law the evidence you bring to the table would not be enough to convict Obama of anything other than a casual relationship.
I think you really want to believe that these two have a secret "best friend" relationship because even though you can't prove it you continually insinuate as much and than rationalize the lack of evidence with the idea that Obam is just like Ayers because he "associated" with the man. Do you not see the folly in that line of thinking? I have read plenty of your posts and quite frankly I feel you do quite well most of the time holding your own while putting forth decent arguments from a conservative standpoint. Your reaching here and you have fallen victim to the tabloid, high school, he said she said, type of sensationalism which you conservatives rail against when it happens in Hollywood. Are you really that afraid to debate the policy differences between your party and Obama? Or would you rather continue to engage in and be a part of this crapola which pervades our society? How will we ever get anything done to move this country forward if we continually subscribe to these, tabloid guilt by association, labels we put on people to destroy them, simply because we differ in political thought? I fear for this nation if we are ever attacked again, the finger pointing at each other will far outnumber the handshakes. The attempted character assasination while ignoring the real problems in this nation by your party is deplorable. I should hope you would choose to stick to the issues and move past the "drama" and "gossip" which is dominating the choosing of our next leader. Are you not better than that?
achrisp,
I think you are underestimating the connection between Obama and Ayers. It is obvious they knew each other more than a simple passing acquaintance. They worked together on the same board, they spoke together at workshops organized by Obama's wife. They lived in the same neighborhood. Obama knew of Ayers and Dorhn's terrorist background. However in the radical left it didn't matter. The fact that Ayers and Dohrn kicked off Obama's political career says a lot.
I'm not saying that Obama is a terrorist like Ayers. I'm saying he didn't see anything wrong with Ayers past and felt comfortable enough around him to associate himself with him on a more than casual basis.
Also Dohrn and Ayers thought liked Obama and his positions enough to kick off his political career. A moderate, center of the road politician does not court and associate radical leftist terrorists.
I disagree that I'm engaging in tabloid sensationalism. I think Obama's past and current associations tell us a lot about the guy. After all, we don't have much of a track record to see how he votes. Those votes we do see show him to be the most liberal in the Senate. I for one think he is far more to the left than he lets on.
I have serious questions about Obama's judgement concerning his associations. He seems to have more than passing associations with people on the far left. I think it says more about him than his inspiring speeches. The topic today is about Ayers and Dohrn. I think too many here do not know about these two and give this association a pass because they don't know much about the weathermen and how Dohrn and Ayers are still the unrepentant radicals they were 37 years ago.
Past and current associations are helpful in determining the mindset of our candidates. It is a problem with the Democratic Party because they have moved so far to the left that A person like Obama, who has not been vetted, shows up on the scene. The more we know about his associations the clearer it shows us how far to the left he actually is. We both agree that politicians will say almost anything to get elected. So we need to get beyond their sophistry. If you want to support and vote for Obama after knowing his association with terrorists like Ayers and Dorhn, go ahead.
You are numb.
They have a passing relationship, nothing more. Sure, they were "friendly", as in, they probably knew and or met each other.
You're trying to dredge up some fantasy where they have their little far left wing radical meetings, and they have a secret code word to get into said meeting, and things like that, but guess what?
There's nothing there. Nothing at all.
Keep reaching, someday you might make something out of a guilt by association. As I've stated before on here. Do you know anyone that has broken the law? Received a speeding ticket? Got a DUI while out driving? Well then, you must also be a criminal because people you know are.
See how that works? It doesn't, and that's the point.
Mags,
C'mon. A passing relationship? Thanks for the laugh.
I can see it now... Obama is jogging by Ayers house one afternoon and decides to run for the State Senate. Seeing an open door, he walks in and finds some supporters who look up and decide to give him money and support his candidacy. (We both know that is silly.) We all know they knew each other before and actually worked on the same board and held talks together and went to the same party for a Palestinian sympathize.
Khalidi and his wife held a fundraiser for Obama in 2000 when he ran for the House; when Khalidi left Chicago for a chair at Columbia University in 2003, the Obamas and Ayers went to his going-away party.http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=308541
Khalidi serves on the faculty at Columbia University and is the person who invited Iranian President Ahmedinejad to speak there.
ERUSALEM – The board of a nonprofit organization on which Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director alongside Ayers granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens.
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/4821The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group...
...Obama served on the Wood's Fund board alongside William C. Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for bombing the U.S. Capitol in 1971.
You can try to minimize the relationships, but Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist and Khalidi is a Palestinian sympathizer. I've posted enough times showing the relationship between the two goes deeper than a 'casual' relationship.
It's the same to me as if Obama's kick off meeting was held in Timothy McVeigh's house. Just because there is no proof that Ayers killed anyone does not absolve him of his terrorist activities. To think otherwise, imho, is to whitewash his past for the sake of political expediency. Obama says she supports Israel but had fundraiser by a person who wants to see Israel destroyed.
You can try to minimize the associations but I don't think it will work.
Guilt by association. Yeah, I get it.
You can compile any insignificant acquantances into some circumstantial BS. If I was gullible enough to believe your imaginations at face value, I would just as easily have to believe that our own government flew 757's into the WTC and the Pentagon.
"I've posted enough times showing the relationship between the two goes deeper than a 'casual' relationship." -- AA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Was it Himler or Goebels who said the a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth? Wingnut logic.
"I'm not saying that Obama is a terrorist like Ayers. I'm saying he didn't see anything wrong with Ayers past and felt comfortable enough around him to associate himself with him on a more than casual basis."--AA
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You can argue any point when you are mindreading. Just cheap.
Open,
I'll admit I'm setting forth a hypothesis. However would you start your campaign for public office at the home of someone you had issues with regarding their terrorist past? To argue that point, if true, says something even more damaging about Obama.
More mindreading and presumption. Why do you assume Obama even knew much about the guy? From what I read, Obama was just being introduced to some of the local community activists by the outgoing State Senator.
This was Obama's first run for office that I know of. I think it is pretty unfair to ascribe knowledge of every activist's personal history onto him - especially without any evidence to support that contention. Like I have stated before - mindreading is a pretty easy way to argue.
I think you are underestimating the connection between Obama and Ayers
You don't have any clue at all what a relationship they had, if any. You are engaging in pure speculation with claims extracted directly from your nether regions.
You should have stopped posting after the first two words. After a lie as egregious as that, nothing you can say has any truth value at all.
"[You] think", indeed.
AA:
If any foundation were so misguided as to appoint you to their board, you would quickly learn that the relationship you have with the other board members (who may number in the dozens) is probably less significant and less friendly than the relationship you have with your mailman or your dental hygienist. To serve on a board together implies NO degree of close friendship.
Do you know how many are on that Board? Ayers was Chairman at the time. Do you know how Obama came to serve on the board?
You can't dismiss that relationship since we know that Ayers spoke with Obama. The first link was a conference held at the University of Chicago in 1997. Organized by Michelle Obama, it featured State Senator Obama and Bill Ayers discussing juveniles as “super predators.”
The second link was a University of Illinois-Chicago conference in 2002. There Obama and Ayers spoke on a panel called “Intellectuals in a Time of Crisis.”
You have to be purposefully disregard the combined evidence to say they hardly knew each other.
Again. Mere supposition taken as fact. You have no evidence that Obama knew and more importantly condoned Ayers' politics from the information you provided.
For all we know, Ayers was just a neighborhood activist to Obama. I don't know what you were doing forty years ago and we have had countless discussions. Why would you expect so much more from Obama based on far fewer cited occasions?
AA,
I beg to differ. It is you who is over estimating the relationship between the two. Perhaps you can show where Obama actively sought out Ayers endorsement or support. It's not as if Obama called Ayers and asked that he throw a fundraiser so we can share radical ideas. You so want to believe that is what happenned here, but you have no evidence to show this. So, you continually put forth conjecture as proof that Obama shares radical ideas with Ayers. I don't know if you have ever served on a community board or not, if you have, then you obviously know that serving on a board with several other members does in no way link you to each persons ideology on matters which don't pertain to board business. Perhaps you can show that Obama actively sought membership on ths board because Ayers was on it? In the mid 80's I served on a board for revitalization on a particular Indian Reservation. I was friendly with most of the members. One in particular was arrested for hitting his kid and in the past had a history of alcoholism and spousal abuse. Certainly he wasn't the best of guys but he could pull strings and get things done by way of construction permits. All of us interacted with him for the good of the business conducted by the board. We talked, interacted, and were friendly. It was a casual realtionship. I'm wondering, does that make me a proponent of alcoholism and abuse? Please let me know, since my wife and children would be very interested in my secret agreement with his actions as would I for that matter.
Achrisp,
With Ayers, we're not talking about a man who has had a few brushes with the law. We're talking about a terrorist, who bombed police stations, office buildings, and the Pentagon. The only reason he is not in jail is the bumbling of the FBI. If you begin your political career in the house of a man who does all that, (and says he wishes he had done more,) and you are running for President, it certainly is relevant.
Would you vote for Obama if he started his career at the house of Charles Manson? Ayer's wife thought their killing of Sharon Tate was cool.
Would you vote for Obama if he started his career at the house of Timothy McVeigh? After all McVeigh was also a terrorist bomber. Are you giving Ayers a pass simply because we don't know if he killed anyone with his bombs?
Go right ahead if you want. Just don't expect me or lots of people like me to believe Obama is against the things Ayers is for. Dont expect me to believe Obama is against the things Khalidi is for. Don't expect me to believe that Obama is against the things Wright is for. If you hang out with extremists, and you have support of extremists, and you don't strongly condemn extremists... don't expect me to believe you won't look kindly on extremists when you are President.
"If you begin your political career in the house of a man who does all that, (and says he wishes he had done more,) and you are running for President, it certainly is relevant."--AA
Except that Obama didn't just go there to meet Ayers. Several other community political activists were there. Obama was merely being introduced to the group by the supposedly outgoing State Senator. There is no evidence of anything more than that despite AA's meager efforts to assign some sort of apparently imagined incidious motives.
Wow. Comparing Ayers to McVeigh and Manson is more than a stretch. There you go exaggerating again! Considering the British though George Washington was a terrorist, why don't you compare Ayers to him? If that is your sole criterion, it is just as reasonable.
It didn't, and he hasn't.
What's your point?
What if AnotherAmerican was a gay terrorist.
What if George W. Bush raped children.
What if. What if. What if.
What.
Is.
Your.
Point?
I was surprised MM didn't comment on Dick Morris's "patriotic" attack on Rev. Wright's "anti-American" sermon, the so called "Chickens-Come-Home-to-Roost" speech. Morris, pointing out how much aid the U.S. has spread like manna upon the famished and diseased world, including that to countries like Africa, exclaimed at one point, "We cured AIDS."
Gee, Dick, that is going to come as one hell of a surprise to an awful lot of HIV-infected people. Yeah, I know, Wright blamed the spread of HIV on the government. Kind of like Rosie O'Donnell claiming that 9/11 was a U.S.-Israeli (or U.S.-Saudi) plot, right? Must mean, at most, that Wright and O'Donnell have at least one thing in common: they're paranoid. We had a saying in the 'Sixties: Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean no one's out to get you.
But, you ought to know about that, Dick. I am kind of surprised you haven't been keeping up with HIV. If you had, you'd know that the various HIV drugs now marketed are tantamount to methadone for junkies. They keep you alive -- sorta. You don't supposed Big Pharma had some role in spreading HIV do you? Is it possible the right wing's hangup about needle programs is a kind of mini-conspiracy of its own do you?
I mean, if anyone should know about HIV and AIDS, Dick, surely it's you. That's because your career went on the skids when you were caught with a ho not your wife and the hooker said you'd asked her if she'd get you a boy for a three-way.
JM, I caught that, Dicky's announcement of the AIDS cure. I think that was the same segment where the little goblin insisted if his pastor said the things Rev. Wright did, he would have "laid him out!"
Easy, Tiger .imaginary Kicking- ass on a hypothetical clergyman isn't going to impress the hookers.
Sheer Insannity is a far RIGHT WING mouthpiece. He will do anything, say anything,true or not, to advance and defend his FAR RIGHT WING cause. He is NEVER OBJECTIVE,FAIR OR BALANCED. The sooner all Americans realize this the better.
I find it curious that the media and "white America" find the feelings of "black America" so different from theirs. There may have been a multitude of laws passed regarding the issues of race, segregation and discrimination, but if you believe these things are not rampant in America today you need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Look at the inner cities of the US and the schools therein. Look at the lack of work in most inner cities. Look at the pathetic social structure in this country. And don't give lip service. Really look at the situation in cities large and small, all across the country.
Most upper and upper middle class white American's are living in some fantasy world where, behind the gated entrances to their subdivisions everything is rosy. Meanwhile, inner city kids, mostly black and latino, contend with miserable living conditions, inadequate schools, few job opportunities, disinterested politicians, uneven police protection and a general state of existence that closely resembles a 2nd or 3rd world situation.
Oh sure, there are token blacks everywhere now. In the Fortune 500 companies, on TV. Maybe even one or two living behind that same gated drive into the subdivision. It makes it seem so much better than, say 40+ years ago. It's superficial. It's as though the white society has really become some version of Leave It To Beaver or Father Knows Best. A facade of equality when it isn't.
If you think the minority communities don't see what is going on you are misinformed. They see the uneven and contradictory situation for what it is. Smoke and mirrors - well, to be closer to the truth - a hypocritical pack of lies. They play the game. They have to. What other choice do they have? A crappy job with minimal opportunity for advancement is better than no job. A marginal school is better than no school A bad diet is better than no food at all. But, just because you have to do what you must to get along, doesn't mean you have to like it.
In your church, where white people never come, you can express how you really feel. You can look for sympathy and comfort from your friends and acquaintances that know how you feel because they are in the same situation.
And, just for the record, I am a white guy. A honkey. A cracker. But, I've had the good fortune to know and work with some really wonderful people who are black and latino and asian. I have been the minority and have had to overcome preconceived notions and beliefs. I can't say I've walked in their shoes, but I can say that the things they say are true and until white America accepts this truth things won't change.
AA, Hannity hangs out with a convicted felon who aided two terrorist groups in violation of US law. Who is he to criticize anyone?
And, as an American patriot, like Mr. Hannity, I assume you were telling us in 2000 and 2004 that the coke abusing drunk past of George was "old news." Now, a dinner held 12 years ago is relevant, but who provided the President of the United States with drugs in 1988 is off-base. How he avoided service in the Vietnam War is off-base. How he went AWOL is old news. But, you champion the cause celeb of Hannity, whose best friend and mentor is a convicted felon and terrorist enabler. Fortunately, for Nicaraguans, unfortunately for Iraqis, Iranians, and our hostages, North proved what a great winger he is, by being a failure at helping terrorists. The only way wingnuts are competent is skewing the media and enriching themselves. Everything else? They are just terrible at.
Hannity and North misuse funds given to them for "freedom concerts" for their own enrichment.
Yet, you will take up his cudgel of guilty Democrat by association?
That takes guts, my man.
PS Could you tell Cliff Kincaid he licks Karl Rove's testes for a living? I mean, I wouldn't go near AIM, but, since you will, you could drop off the message?