Archive for ‘Bill Ayers’

May 13, 2009

Dear Associated Press: Let’s talk about political celebrities and their ghost writers

Y’know, it was nice of you guys to assign Hilel Italie to write that story suggesting Sarah Palin doesn’t have the brains to write her own book.

Shall we discuss the editorial process behind, say, Bill Clinton’s My Life or Hillary Clinton’s Living History? Between them, the Clintons employed enough ghosts to staff the day shift at Disney World’s “Haunted Mansion” ride.

Having been a Washington, D.C., journalist since 1997, I can assure you that we “talk shop” often enough so that every writer inside the Beltway knows who’s ghosting whom. No need to name names, but suffice it to say that once somebody has served in the Cabinet or been elected Senator, any book published under his name can be assumed to be, at best, a team effort in which the named author was the quarterback. (Or sometimes, as one hears in regard to the Clintons, the meddlesome team owner who insists on second-guessing the editorial quarterback.)

However, since the Associated Press has taken this sudden and keen interest in the subject of potential future presidents and their ghostwriters, perhaps you could be bothered to run down a disturbing theory that has troubled me for several months.

After I founded Authors Against Obama, a reader called to my attention Jack Cashill’s theory that Dreams of My Father was ghost-written. Cashill offered abundant circumstantial evidence to support his theory, and perhaps the mighty AP could assign Hilel Italie to investigate this.

Or, as seems likely, perhaps not.

(Cross-posted at Hot Air Green Room.)

UPDATE: Allahpundit loves me! And Chris Matthews still hates Sarah Palin:

January 26, 2009

Bill Ayers: John McCain is a terrorist

As Kathy Shaidle said, I’m not making this up:

The question terrorism and the question right and wrong. After all, [John McCain] killed people actually from the air, innocent people. So would you be challenging him on that? Or is the fact that he did it under the rubric of legality, does that make it OK?

Guess who else is a terrorist?

Henry Kissinger is responsible for the death of millions. I’m responsible for the death of no one. Does that distinction not seem to matter? In other words, why am I held up as an example of something beyond the pale. Whereas Kissinger, hey it was normal. He was the secretary of state … Yeah, he was the secretary of state overseeing an illegal, immoral, genocidal attack on civilians. That is terrorism, pure and simple.

Just so we’re clear on the moral categories, right?

Also discussion at Hot Air Headlines.

December 7, 2008

Bill Ayers and ‘tactical idiocy’

Having done my own thorough fisking of Bill Ayers’ dishonest self-justification, I tip my hat to Hilzoy:

They say they did it to end the war in Vietnam. But how, exactly, that was supposed to happen is a total mystery. It’s the Underpants Gnome theory of political activism:
Phase 1: Set a bunch of bombs.
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: The war ends!
That level of tactical idiocy is one thing when you’re collecting underpants. It’s quite another when you’re setting bombs.

I dare say that’s one of the most eloquent and concise summaries of the ’60s radical trip I’ve ever read. And it’s worth noting that, while Ayers postures for history by framing his terrorism in terms of opposition to the war, (a) Nixon began withdrawing U.S. troops from Vietnam before Ayers and his comrades started setting off bombs, and (b) Ayers and his comrades weren’t merely trying to end the war, they were self-styled communist revolutionaries whose aim was to bring about a Marxist-Leninist regime in America.

December 6, 2008

Bill Ayers, terrorist, still unrepentant

The New York Times grants Bill Ayers 845 words on its op-ed page to defend himself. In the 11th paragraph, he twice uses the word “regrets,” but if you think he’s going to apologize or repent, think again:

I have regrets, of course — including mistakes of excess and failures of imagination, posturing and posing, inflated and heated rhetoric, blind sectarianism and a lot else. No one can reach my age with their eyes even partly open and not have hundreds of regrets. The responsibility for the risks we posed to others in some of our most extreme actions in those underground years never leaves my thoughts for long.
The antiwar movement in all its commitment, all its sacrifice and determination, could not stop the violence unleashed against Vietnam. And therein lies cause for real regret.

“Unleashed” by whom? Not the Marxist-Leninist regime in Hanoi, which Ayers actively supported. He never tried to stop that violence. The guys who tried to stop the Marxist-Leninist violence were the U.S. military — the “pigs” Ayers tried to kill.

The Weather Underground’s bombings were, according to Ayers, “symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism.” An officer’s dance at Fort Dix, N.J., was one of those “monuments,” and when the bomb planned for that event accidentally detonated, it was powerful enough to kill three people and destroy the building in which it was being built. Ah, but here’s the Big Lie by which Ayers attempts to evade responsibility for that:

In 1970, I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village.

A damned lie. The radical Weatherman faction of SDS emerged in the wake of protests at the 1968 Democratic convention, staged its first “extreme vandalism” during the October 1969 “Days of Rage” in Chicago, and declared its dedication to terrorist “revolutionary” action at a December 1969 “war council” in Flint, Michigan. Their express intent was to be an American version of the Viet Cong. To try to claim that the organization was not created until after the March 1970 Greenwich Village townhouse explosion is dishonest revisionism.

The New York Times has disgraced itself by publishing this Big Lie, which is as false as anything Jayson Blair ever wrote.

More comment at Newsbusters, Jammie Wearing Fool, Don Surber, Cold Fury and Nice Deb.

UPDATE: Eric Posner at the Volokh Conspiracy:

Under current law, Ayers was a terrorist. This definition is not idiosyncratic; similar definitions can be found in the laws of foreign countries and in international treaties. Ayers seems to think he ought to be excused for violence because his motives were good, but that is the excuse that terrorists always offer — that their political goals justify their use of violence — and naturally the legal definition could not permit such a defense without subverting itself, or turning every terrorism trial into a debate about whether the political ends of the defendants are “good” or “bad” from a moral or political perspective.

Terrorism is about means, not ends. There were many opponents of U.S. involvement in Vietnam who did not resort to bombings as a means to express their opposition.

UPDATE II: Jules Crittenden observes: “In running Ayers’ lengthy self-absolution, the New York Times charitably overlooks its own reporting on the subject” — a 1970 Weather Underground bombing in San Francisco killed one policeman and severely injured another.

UPDATE III: Allahpundit: “Terrorists, it seems, kill people indiscriminately whereas the Weathermen never tried to kill anyone. Except cops. And soldiers.”

UPDATE IV: Ace is pretty cheesed, too.

UPDATE V: Speaking of Ace, a friend reminds me of an AOSHQ post by Dave in Texas, linking a 1977 New York Times article about Ayers’ and his colleagues’ ties to Cuban intelligence:

Cuban espionage agents operating in the United States and Canada supplied limited aid to the Weather Underground, a militant antiwar organization, in the late 1960’s and 1970’s, according to a top-secret report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation . . . .
After the Weathermen went “underground” in 1970 and many of them were being sought by the F.B.I. on criminal charges, Cuban intelligence officers were in touch with them from both the New York mission and the Cuban Embassy in Canada.
Cuban officials helped several Weather Underground adherents who feared arrest in the United States to travel to Prague, Czechoslovakia, and then to reenter the United Slates surreptitiously.

The Weathermen were willing agents of Marxist regimes hostile to the United States. Ayers is not only a terrorist, but a traitor. If it hadn’t been for Jack Ruby, I suppose we’d now be reading New York Times op-eds by 69-year-old Lee Harvey Oswald: “I have regrets, of course . . .”

November 14, 2008

Bill Ayers, victim

The “neocon media machine” imposed its narrative on him! How dare they call the unrepentant terrorist bomber an unrepentant terrorist bomber! And how dare they accuse Barack Obama’s friend and supoorter of being Barack Obama’s friend and supporter!

Related thoughts from Jules Crittenden, who is (a) an employee of the Boston Herald, and (b) distantly related to David Frum, and therefore (c) a card-carrying member of the neocon media machine.

October 23, 2008

Undercover agent on Ayers

“Eliminating 25 million people . . . and they were dead serious“:

People have forgotten the 1981 Nyack armored car robbery involving some of Ayers’ proteges, including Kathy Boudin, whose son was raised by Ayers and Dorhn after she was convicted for her role in a crime that took the lives of two policemen. People have forgotten that the 1970 townhouse explosion that killed three of Ayers’ followers was caused by a bomb that was planned for a dance at Fort Dix, N.J.

Ayers planned a bloody revolution. Real people were killed by his followers, and many others would have died had they succeeded in their plans for a Marxist revolution. But nobody knows, and nobody cares, and thousands of college professors take his side, and all the most powerful institutions of the media ignore the fact that Ayers has blood on his hands.

UPDATE: Oh, yeah, and did I mention that Bill Ayers is a communist? He has never repudiated his status as a revolutionary.

UPDATE II: Michelle Malkin has more.

October 23, 2008

Academics support Ayers

Three thousand commie professors:

More than 3,000 educators nationwide, including six Brown University professors, have signed a statement supporting William Ayers — the man Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain called a “washed-up terrorist” at the third presidential debate. . . .
In response to the McCain campaign’s focus on Ayers’ radical acts of the 1960s and 1970s, “Friends and supporters of Bill Ayers” are circulating a statement online to vouch for the professor he has become.

Check and see if your kid’s professor is on the list. Meanwhile, Comrade Ayers and Comrade Dohrn have a new book coming out:

Arguing that white supremacy has been the dominant political system in the United States since its earliest days — and that it is still very much with us — the discussion points to unexamined bigotry in the criminal justice system, election processes, war policy, and education. The book draws upon the authors’ own confrontations with authorities during the Vietnam era, reasserts their belief that racism and war are interwoven issues, and offers personal stories about their lives today as parents, teachers, and reformers.

Shut up, you racist honkies — but keep signing those tuition checks so they can teach your kids to hate you!

October 19, 2008

‘Just a guy in my neighborhood’

Bill Ayers? Oh, you must mean the guy whose book Barack Obama favorably reviewed in 1997. The guy whom he joined in a University of Chicago panel discussion organized by Michelle Obama. The guy with whom he shared an office for three years.

Don’t you dare imply that they actually knew each other, you racist.

UPDATE: See-Dubya actually shows us pages from Ayers’ book, which is ostensibly about the juvenile justice system, but seems to contain a lot of self-absorbed writerly crap about Ayers’ neighborhood:

Once a summer colony, Hyde Park today is dominated by the University of Chicago. . . .
To my right the lake, a shimmering sea of blues and greens . . . .

WTF? Is this a policy book about juvenile justice or a travel magazine feature? How do liberal writers get away with this kind of bait-and-switch? Do the publishers simply not care that the manuscript is padded out with personal stuff that has nothing to do with the subject of the book?

Stepping outside into the cool October night, I pondered these questions. There aren’t any streetlights near my home on the heavily wooded western slope of South Mountain, so the stars stand out brightly in the midnight sky. The silver orb of a full moon hung low near the eastern horizon, half visible through the remaining leaves on the towering hickory and oak trees. Brilliant orange and yellow in the daylight, the leaves are just shadows in the moonlight now. I stepped up from the basement door into the backyard and lit a Marlboro — and just then heard the crashing sound of a startled deer scampering into the surrounding woods.

See? Writing that kind of fancy descriptive stuff is the easiest thing in the world. Writing about one’s own personal life requires no research, no footnotes, and it has no business in a book that’s supposed to be about public policy. Ayers was defrauding his readers, and his publisher let him get away with it, just like Barack Obama’s publisher, who paid him to write a policy-oriented book about race relations and instead got a memoir — a freaking memoir!

UPDATE II: The Bill Ayers Method of padding out a public policy book with what amounts to personal journal entries is something I might have to adapt for my book on the 2008 election:

When I got up from the computer and went to the kitchen to refill my glass of iced tea, one of our cats was next to the door, waiting for me to let him out. I opened the door and the gray shadow slipped quickly out into the night. As I walked back toward my office, I passed the den where my sons Jefferson and Emerson were sleeping on the sofa, bathed in the blue glow of the TV. They’d fallen asleep watching a movie, and now were dozing together under the blanket, with our mutt Samson asleep on the floor close by.

Alas, I’m not a famous terrorist-turned-professor or a half-Kenyan Harvard Law student, so no one will pay me to write banal crap like that.

October 13, 2008

RNC Ayers video

October 11, 2008

¡La educación es revolución!

Andy McCarthy cites Bill Ayers’ 2006 speech:

President Hugo Chavez, … invited guests, comrades. I’m honored and humbled to be here with you this morning. I bring greetings and support from your brothers and sisters throughout Northamerica [sic]! Welcome to the World Education Forum. Amamos la revolucion Bolivariana!
As students and teachers begin to see themselves as linked to one another, as tied to history and capable of collective action, the fundamental message of teaching shifts slightly, and becomes broader, more generous: we must change ourselves as we come together to change the world. Teaching invites transformations, it urges revolutions small and large. La educacion es revolucion!

Radical? How dare you say such a thing!