What's the difference between Ayers and a suicide bomber? On Oct 17, 1:44 am, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In defense of Bill Ayers > By David Walsh > 17 October 2008 > > Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain and his supporters > are continuing to pursue their smear campaign against former > Weatherman radical Bill Ayers, now a professor at the University of > Illinois at Chicago. > > In its desperation, the McCain campaign is attempting to link Ayers to > his Democratic opponent Barack Obama, claiming that the Illinois > senator has been “palling around with terrorists,” in the words of > Alaska governor Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee. > > In the final presidential debate Wednesday night, McCain returned to > the issue, declaring, “I don’t care about an old washed-up terrorist. > But as Senator [Hillary] Clinton said in her debates with you, we need > to know the full extent of that relationship.” He went on to claim > that Obama had “launched his political campaign in Mr. Ayers’ living > room” and that the Illinois senator “chooses to associate with a guy > who in 2001 said that he wished he had bombed more, and he had a long > association with him.” > > Ayers once hosted an event for Obama early in the latter’s political > career and they both served on the board of an anti-poverty group, the > Woods Fund. Ayers contributed $200 to an Obama campaign in 2001. > > Ayers, now an elementary education theorist and author of several > works on the subject, left his radicalism behind him years ago. Like > many of his generation, he slid back into liberal and community > politics. > > A private citizen, with no official position in the Democratic > campaign, the former Weatherman has become the victim of a ferocious > and cowardly assault, aimed at furthering McCain’s electoral > ambitions. Ayers is coming under attack from people who have the > enormous resources of the American state and media behind them. > > The effort is unlikely to move public opinion or put McCain in the > White House. However, given its source and the type of social element > the Republican Party is attempting to whip into a frenzy, it raises > the real danger of violence against Ayers and his family. The campaign > is utterly cynical and dishonorable. > > The attack on Bill Ayers needs to be placed in its political and > historical context. > > Born in 1944 in a Chicago suburb, the son of a prominent businessman > and philanthropist, Ayers was radicalized by the civil rights > struggles and the Vietnam War. > > In his memoir, Fugitive Days, he writes of his thinking in the late > 1960s: “Humanity itself, it seemed to me, was what was at stake. The > humanity of people in Vietnam and around the world, the humanity of > Black Americans, and, finally, my own humanity. You could not be a > moral person with the means to act, I thought, and stand still. The > crisis demanded a choice. To stand still was to choose indifference. > Indifference was the opposite of moral. If we didn’t speak out and act > up, we were traitors. To fail now was fatal, and so there was nothing > that could justify inaction. Nothing.” > > However mistaken his eventual political choices, Ayers’s was part of a > generational experience. His sense of horror over US crimes in > Vietnam, the destruction of a small nation, and his shame that this > savagery was being committed in the name of the American people were > sentiments shared by thousands and thousands of college and high > school students, and young people in general. > > The massive, lethal bombing raids, the use of napalm and other > barbaric weapons, the razing of countless villages, all justified in > the name of the fight for “democracy,” sickened vast numbers of > Americans, as did the unceasing lies and propaganda of the US > government, under both Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson and Republican > Richard Nixon. > > It is entirely to his credit that Ayers took up opposition to the war > in Vietnam. The best members of his generation did the same. > > It is useful to compare him to Sen. John McCain, his principal > accuser, both as a human type and in regard to the ‘violence’ in which > each engaged. > > McCain’s father and paternal grandfather both became four-star US Navy > admirals. In fact, McCain’s father was commander of all US forces in > the Vietnam theater from 1968 to 1972. > > The vast majority of those who served in the American military in > Southeast Asia were conscripts who had no choice in the matter. Most > didn’t want to be there and many came to hate the war and the army > officialdom. > > McCain, on the other hand, welcomed the opportunity to participate in > the Vietnam War, to drop bombs and kill human beings who had done him > and the US population no harm. He had no scruples about it. > > When he was shot down in October 1967, McCain was taking part in > Operation Rolling Thunder, an aerial bombardment campaign conducted > against North Vietnam from March 1965 until November 1968. His > specific target, which he failed to hit, was a power plant in the > center of Hanoi. > > On December 31, 1967, the US Defense Department reported that American > planes had dumped 864,000 tons of bombs on North Vietnam during the > operation, compared with 653,000 tons of bombs dropped in the entire > course of the Korean War and 503,000 tons in the Pacific theater > during World War II. > > Estimates of civilian deaths caused by US bombing in Operation Rolling > Thunder range from 52,000 to 182,000. The war eventually killed a > total of more than 3 million Vietnamese and wounded another 600,000. > > As a leading member of the Weatherman group, Ayers admits to having > set off several small bombs, which blew up a police memorial and > damaged public buildings. No one was killed or injured in those > actions. Ayers was never charged with, let alone convicted, of a > crime. > > His greatest sin, one might say, was holding very confused and > disoriented views. An examination of his political views is not the > subject of this article, but, in any event, they were not of a > criminal character. > > Influenced by anarchism and Maoism, cut off from the working class by > the reactionary AFL-CIO bureaucracy, Ayers never found his way to > genuinely Marxist and socialist politics. Instead, his youthful > radicalism led him to terrorist operations. This was, above all, an > expression of extreme frustration. He was no doubt a courageous and > idealistic individual. > > Not to his credit, he eventually found his way to ‘respectable’ > politics. There is an element of tragedy in the political evolution of > Ayers and a good number of others of that generation. > > On what moral scale shall we weigh McCain and Ayers? In however > confused a manner, the latter conducted a struggle on behalf of the > oppressed. The same can hardly be said of McCain. > > Another key element in the Ayers controversy is the reprehensible role > played by Obama himself. The problem is not that the Democratic > hopeful ‘consorts’ with terrorists, but that he is a craven > opportunist and careerist of the first order. > > To the extent that Ayers was a figure with a reputation and > connections within certain political circles in Illinois, as well as, > apparently, a fundraiser, Obama seized on that and made use of it. > When, as he entered the national political arena and the once- > advantageous relationship threatened to become a liability, Obama > turned his back on his erstwhile supporter and repudiated him, > declaring Wednesday night, for example, that Ayers had “engaged in > despicable acts with a radical domestic group. I have roundly > condemned those acts.” > > This is not merely a personal failing of Obama’s. In recent years, the > Democratic Party and the media have enthusiastically joined in the > effort to discredit opposition to the Vietnam War and legitimize this > imperialist atrocity. It is not simply a matter of defending old > wrongdoings, but preparing to justify new ones, all over the world. > > Thus, Obama never misses an opportunity to refer to McCain as an > “American hero,” when he could more properly be identified as an > “American war criminal.” > > There is an utter lack of principle at every level of the liberal > establishment. No one in the mainstream media, with the honorable > exception of Thomas Frank writing in the Wall Street Journal, has come > to Ayers’s defense. > > The New York Times has accommodated itself to the McCarthyite attack > on Ayers, describing him in one recent editorial as “a violent, 1960s > radical” and referring in another to “Mr. Obama’s ill-advised but > fleeting and long-past association with William Ayers, founder of the > Weather Underground and confessed bomber.” > > We catch in this affair a small glimpse of what is to come if Obama is > elected: craven cowardice in the face of right-wing provocations and > treachery toward his supporters on the left, if only of a liberal > character. > > One might add, as a postscript, there is such a thing as personal > honor, standing up for people who lent you support. Even during the > anticommunist witch-hunts of the Cold War, there were liberals who > defended Alger Hiss and others. One can only say of Obama’s behavior > in this episode: What swinishness! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
