|
||
William Ayers and John McCain
Every time I think of William Ayers, I also think of John McCain, because they are of the same era, and they both believed in the efficacy of violence. According to an article in Friday's New York Times, McCain once said of Ayers, "How can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people?" He had to use that "could have or did" because no one knows if bombs Ayers built actually killed anyone -- let's say that the odds are against it. Likewise, no one knows whether the bombs John McCain dropped on North Vietnam ever killed anyone. According to McCain's biography, "With the outbreak of the Vietnam War, McCain volunteered for combat duty and began flying carrier-based attack planes on low-altitude bombing runs against the North Vietnamese. ...On October 26, 1967, during his 23rd air mission, McCain´s plane was shot down during a bombing run over the North Vietnamese capital of Hanoi." Let's say, given those twenty-three bombing runs, the odds are for McCain having killed some innocents. How can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people, John?
But, of course, John McCain's defense is that he was performing his patriotic duty, and that's what William Ayers would have said, too. I remember the Vietnam War. It was not a war of self-defense that the U.S. had to wage or had to win. It was a war of aggression, a waste of resources, lives, manpower, global good will, and national spirit. And, many would say, it was a war crime. Those who were against it viewed their protests as essential patriotism, a way of correcting terrible choices and profound injustices.
According to the New York Times article, William Ayers' case was thrown out of court because of "illegal wiretaps and prosecutorial misconduct", exactly the sort of activities that will get cases brought against the Guantanamo detainees by the Bush Administration thrown out of court. Deja vu all over again.
In the meantime, what about the case against John McCain? The next time he goes abroad, might some enterprising human rights activist step up to him and put him under a citizens' arrest for war crimes and get him hauled off to the The Hague?
I don't think Barack Obama would like that. As snarky and contemptuous as McCain acts toward Obama, I think President Obama would defend McCain. In fact, I think he would feel about him as he does about Ayers -- he's an old man, and the wars he once fought are over and done with. Time to get past fighting old battles. Sometimes I agree with him. But then McCain brings up Williams Ayers again, and I can't help thinking of those bombing runs, and those dead innocents.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
First, your article demonstrates the utter inanity of your logic- equating men and women in uniform to a domestic terrorist aka Bill Ayers, who chose not to use the political process, but to build and use explosives with his cohorts to achieve his aims (his failure to successfully pull off this act does not lessen this a bit). This is simply not the same- any soldier who would commit a act contrary to Geneva Convention or Hague rules would be prosecuted (as they should be) and, if found guilty, punished. Contrary to your inherent prejudices, this works, as I had regularly briefed my infantry soldiers on the requirements and importance of adhering to the Geneva Convention . This, as you know, does not guarantee against violations but, In short,that there are significant safeguards in place to protect against this. You may have had a disagreement on the war, but this does not equate Sen. McCain 's acts as remotely criminal in any way.
As one who did serve (and graduated from a federal service academy as well) and graduated from a top tier law school, your rhetoric (ie that young people were " duped" into serving, etc.) is not new to me -it was constantly brought up by professors and still from 60's era people where I work today. I had hoped that we wouold move beyond the stilting and empty rhetoric that you write-unfortunately it seems that I was wrong.
If you have not seen it, this video outlines McCain's volatile temper and is the best counter attack against the racist Ayers smear.
It's up to us to email, post and re-post it as much as possible...
Obama can't come out with this so we have to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAyK-enrF1g
I was in the Marine Corps, and it was spelled out explicitly: Do Not Make Propaganda Films for the enemy. McCain did this. I respect and sympathize with anyone who served as a POW but from the view of the USMC as I was taught, McCain committed treason. President? Not on your life.
Jane, I cannot claim to be a fan of yours. In fact, I don't believe that I've ever read anything that you've ever written; but I am certainly not impressed. Your powers of reason leave much to be desired. Your simple failure to acknowledge the difference between a United States military officer, who is a direct representative of the President of the United States, and a domestic terrorist bent on the violent overthrow or suborning of the government of the United States, is either a failure to recognize social norms due to some form of cognitive insufficiency or a purposeful attempt to adjust reality.
I will assume that it is the latter. The weakness of your defense of Obama's relationship with Ayers, and the feebleness of your attempt to turn it around on a military officer engaged in the business of his country do your powers of reason no service.
There is a huge difference, madam; your point of view not withstanding.
William Ayers is not, in fact, repentant. As a matter of fact, on 11SEP01, he was quoted in the NY Times as saying,''I don't regret setting bombs,'' he goes on, "...we didn't do enough." That sounds regretful, but not regretful of having potentially killed others not in a war sanctioned by his government but in illegal actions against his government. No, it is regret at not having destroyed more, at not having killed more.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63
Would have complained if some German had started planting bombs to stop Hitler?
When I was in elementary and high school I remember the news programs with our boys being brought off the planes in boxes, 50,000 of them. I remember boys worrying about getting drafted into a war they thought was a crime. William Ayers was a product of those times. As detestable as his acts were he was trying to stop the killing of innocents in a way he thought would truly effect a change. McCain was doing the same thing in Vietnam.. Dr Ayers is now a respected professor of education. Obama was on a educational reform committee with him. Dr. Ayers had a meet the candidate with Obama at his home many years ago. Lots of people do this. All this means is that Obama cares about others and willing to take constructive action. It is more than appalling the way it has been used by the McCain camp! Despicable!
In November of 2006, William Ayers gave a speech in Caracas, Venezueala. It was about education reform. Ayers praised Hugo Chavez, saying;
"...profound educational reforms underway here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution, ... major asset in both the Venezuelan and the international struggle—I look forward to seeing how he and all of you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education..."
Do you find this acceptable? Really?
Dr. Ayers is an unconvicted criminal who is completely unrepentant and still seeks revolution; except now he is playing from within. Obama has had close associations with this man. I think having been to man's house and having managed millions of dollars with him is a close association.
It is the duty of the McCain camp to point this out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution
Every time I think of the Viet Nam War, I think of Democrats. JFK, LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. I also think of democrats when I consider their decision to turn their backs on US allies in Viet Nam by their denial of promised funding to protect South Viet Nam, which resulted directly in the murder of millions in the killing fields of Cambodia and South Viet Nam, courtesy of US democrats and their friend Pol Pot. This precedent allowed Jimmy Carter to repeat this cowardice by repeating the same liberal mistake in Iran, resulting in Khomeini regaining power. This resulted in Islamic oppression of Millions of women. Ms. Smiley should be outfitted for a burqua. Comparing a warrior with a terrorist only makes sense in the mind of a child or the mentally deficient.
Ms. Smiley, and to those who ascribe to concepts of this article, who do you think provides you with the freedoms that you enjoy? It is obvious from your article that you either have never considered the question, or you have come to the wrong conclusion. The simple answer is the Soldier. The Soldier regardless of rank or branch of service is the one who stands in the way of those who would take your freedoms, not the college professor, or the writer, or the artist, or the politician, and certainly not a terrorist. The difference between the Soldier and the terrorist is in how and whom they serve. As a Soldier I swore an oath to "uphold and defend The Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." I served in accordance with the laws of our nation, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and Laws of Land Warfare in accordance with The Hague and Geneva Conventions. Terrorists do not abide by the law. They believe they are above the law, as demonstrated by their actions. Your inability to distinguish between the actions of a Soldier and the actions of a terrorist, as shown in your article, is beyond idealistic naiveté. It means to justify violent terrorism as a viable alternative to international law. Your inability to distinguish between warfare and terrorism only serves to provide proof of the moral failure of our education system.
Your basic misunderstanding is typical.
The military does nor PROVIDE any one with any freedoms.
The job of the military is to DEFEND those freedoms.
In no way were our freedoms threatened by Vietnam, or Iraq, for that matter.
If the military mind understood its role, it would hacve arrested the tyrants in the White House years ago. That is where the threats to our freedom are, and we have already suffered the loss of major freedoms. while the military wastes its blood and treasure on hopeless imperial adventures.
By definition the military provides for the freedom of the nation. Provide – to make available, afford. While in The Declaration of Independence the founding fathers proffer the “unalienable rights” of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” those rights were only made available by those who stood in the gun line, and withstood the force of the English Army. We continue to be afforded those freedoms by those who protect and defend The Constitution of the United States from those who would subject us to their governance. Those who wish to pervert the principles of The Constitution are not difficult to identify for those who live in the real world. As far as the military understanding its role, you apparently are not familiar with the American concept of Posse Comitatus (1878), which prevents the United States Military from attempting to rectify problems internal to our nation. Like the founding fathers, America’s military leaders believe a democratic republic should transform power from one administration to another without the application of military force. Of course, things would be much more uniform if we let the military run things, but you should be careful of what you ask for. Uniformity and freedom don’t usually run in the same crowd. It appears that your lack of intellectual depth is only surpassed by your ignorance of American political science.
Hell, why not throw Charles Manson in there while you're at it. He was from the same time period and involved in violence against innocents, too. And he truly believed in his cause. They're all the same, right?
Are you kidding!!!!!
How dare you make this comparison!
Is this how some people think?
Comparing a young officer in the United States Military performing his duty to to a freaking terrorist?
How long would this great country last under the leadership of people who think like this?
Not long.
The United States has long been a strong nation who's citizens have enjoyed security and peace due to strong and natural defenses.
A country less fortunate could never produce people that think like this.
It is one thing to excersize your freedom of speech and entirely something else building bombs to set off in protest.
Old Billy Ayers and his pals were not heros. They were not misguided youths. They were cold blooded murderers.
Dear jane smiley,
when they come for you, men like John McCain stepping up and defending you and yours will suddenly be a welcome sight. You will then know the difference.
What did they teach you in school? Where does this crap come from? Are we that screwed up that people that would otherwise seem normal can reason like this?
God help us.
Obama is a fraud. A socialist of the power grabbing egomaniacal class. An American Hugo Chavez.
He has done NOTHING but run for office.
When "they" ( any they) do it they are terrorists, child killers, commies, anti-christs, tyrants.
When "We" (the always righteous) do it, it is for god, freedom, liberty, truth and justice.
The USA is just so special, too bad it was turned into a banana republic by fanatics, fearmongers, and hypocrites.
my suggestion is too get out then if you dont like it. Im sure we can find plenty of people to "politely"escort you out.
Jane, usually I agree with you, but in this case I must take exception. I don't think you can equate McCain's actions during the Vietnam War with those of Bill Ayers. I was a vehement protester against the war in Vietnam, and I remember the horror I felt about those explosives going off in NYC. I felt violent /deadly protest detracted from our credibility. I would, however, like to know more about the Alaska Independence Party. Certainly the Palins have done their share of "palling around" with those folks.. I recently read that one of their members was murdered while picking up plastic explosives. Since I doubt hunting moose or other fish and game with explosives is legal, I have to wonder what he was planning to to use them for. One of their leaders, a guy named Vogler, sounds like one of those extreme right-wingers who form "militias" and hide out in the backwoods. I think it is valid to ask Ms. Palin them and demand an answer. We have Barack's re: Ayers. Then there is the matter of her witch hunting former pastor praying over her... If we had to get an answer re: Rev. Wright, it's only fair we get answers about all the pastors who have supported McCain/ Palin. Wright : an angry Black man whose attitudes hark back to the height of the civil rights movement. The other guys seem to go back several centuries at least. Scary!
I'm not saying I know or agree with the extent of militaristic tactics of William Ayers. This was a difficult time in America when our government was not representing the people but instead executing the will of an industry that profits from war. There is still much to debate on what was fact and what was deceit. I don't condone violence but it is easy to forget those throughout history that did use violence to raise awareness. Sam Adams, Sitting Bull are just two that come to mind. My point is this; many americans have been violent in their youth as they look for ways to express their protest to those who refuse to listen. As we get older we mellow and find more effective ways to do good. The William Ayers that Barack Obama worked with is not the same radical he was in the 60's. To make assert that Obama associates with terrorists is a disservice to the process. It would seem that Mr Ayers has found a non violent way to fight for his ideals and now supports the anti war candidate in 2008. I fail to see the scandal in that.
bereasonableo, you have it pegged correctly. In the old days, Ayers probably would have said that people like him had been "co-opted" into the system, but he since has learned to wotk within the system, under law. Very American, I would say!
From your insane equation I must draw the conclusion you cannot discern the difference between peace and war.
From a blog of a leftist law professor, with tons of critical material on Ayersand Obama. Obama/Ayers Update: NY Times Responds Again to Global Labor
I received a second email tonight from the New York Times reporter Scott Shane regarding his story on the Obama- Ayers connection. My response comes first and then his email. http://globallabor.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamaayers-update-ny-times-responds.html
Can we expect to see denunciations of George McGovern and Howard Zinn, both fighter pilots in WWII who dropped many bombs on innocent Germans?
Norman Lear did too.
Holocaust yeah you are right they were innocent. It was probably a US fabrication right?
Great analogy.
Please nikz, don't tell me you fell for this disgraceful, pathetic excuse for a partisan attack.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
