Salon has run an interview with Bill Ayers, the poster child of the McCain/Palin campaign – read it here. It was very much worth my time.
Ayers notes that he has become the symbol of the anti-war movement of the 1960’s, and Jeremiah Wright has become the civil rights movement. The right has reduced everything down to manageable size – something they are good at.
Here’s a passage on his violent activities:
I imagine two groups of Americans. One slightly off the tracks and despairing of how to end this war and penetrating the Pentagon and putting a small charge in a bathroom that disables an Air Force computer. An act of extreme vandalism, but hard to call, in my view, terrorism.
Meanwhile, another group of Americans — also despairing, also off the tracks — walks into a Vietnamese village and kills everyone there. Children, women, old men. They kill every living thing, even livestock, and burn the place to the ground.
And the question is, What is terrorism? And what is violence?
Indeed it was hard during the campaign to listen to McCain, knowing of the violence he had inflicted on Vietnamese people, and Palin, with her head full of silly putty, and not think that the American public had internalized one of the most violent and criminal chapters in our history, Vietnam, and trivialized it.
Piece of Mindful 
Both Wright and Ayers were off limits, according to McCain. Other than the sinking economy, probably the main reason he lost.
LikeLike
Ayers off limits? Did you even watch the campaign? Wright was 527’d. Do you think 527’s act on their own?
LikeLike
527’s don’t pick our president, playing passive subdues base turnout. I firmly believe that McCain, acting like he did in this clip, turned off enough Rep supporters to lose the election.
Sorry Mark, it’s Hannity and FOX. You can always wash your eyes out with bleach.
LikeLike
What, is this moral relativism? Terrorism does not need to include killing, it only has to produce terror.
Who is this guy kidding? By any dictionary his acts were both violent and terrorizing.
Listen, I was on his side in the ’70’s (the ignorance of youth) but let’s call a spade a spade. You’re free to call McCain the same thing, but that doesn’t relieve Ayers of either the act or the crime.
LikeLike
What’s with this moral equivalence. Go out on a limb here – tell me which act was worse.
LikeLike
There was no moral equivalence in my comment. I was against the war then and I still hold those beliefs. Sure, it’s worse to “kill every living thing.” I don’t have to go out on a limb with that.
But you’re an apologist for terrorism.
LikeLike
Ayers admits he was misguided – “despairing and off the tracks”. Pretty close to an admission of guilt.
Hey Swede – leave it to you to criticize McCain for being an honorable man. Had he done more of that, he might have won. People kept waiting for the real McCain – the guy from 2000.
LikeLike
The 2000 McCain just came out in a joint statement with Obama on how they were going to work together to solve all our upcomming ills. Did Kerry or Gore offer their support to Bush after losing?
That being said there is a bright side to all of this. Via Bill Whittle.
>>>On Tuesday, the Left – armed with the most attractive, eloquent, young, hip and charismatic candidate I have seen with my adult eyes, a candidate shielded by a media so overtly that it can never be such a shield again, who appeared after eight years of an historically unpopular President, in the midst of two undefended wars and at the time of the worst financial crisis since the Depression and whose praises were sung by every movie, television and musical icon without pause or challenge for 20 months… who ran against the oldest nominee in the country’s history, against a campaign rent with internal disarray and determined not to attack in the one area where attack could have succeeded, and who was out-spent no less than seven-to-one in a cycle where not a single debate question was unfavorable to his opponent – that historic victory, that perfect storm of opportunity…
Yielded a result of 53%<<<
LikeLike
Bernardine Rae Dohrn and Angela Yvonne Davis both made the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list in 1970. Post Offices couldn’t keep those two FBI posters on display. I had one of each! Did the Rolling Stones ever write a song about William Ayers? Hell no! Why?
LikeLike
Sympathy for the Devil! That’s all a defense of Dohrn and Ayers is. Actually, I don’t know to what Rolling Stone song Bob refers.
Yes, the Vietnam war was the wrong national policy. That does not mean that John McCain’s service, or any other Vietnam war veteran’s service was any less honorable. So “knowing the violence” he perpetuated, you decide to spit on his service to his country by comparing his service to that of terrorists.
LikeLike
Dead civilians are just as dead when killed by pilots flying expensive machinery as men with bombs strapped to their bellies. You make odd distinctions.
LikeLike
So, I guess that we don’t need soldiers to follow orders?
LikeLike
goof…I’m referring to “Sweet Black Angel.”
LikeLike
It’s all a matter of perspective, Dave. One man’s terrorist … they are all following orders.
Wasn’t there a trial that gave soldiers the right (duty) not to follow illegal orders?
LikeLike
Kissinger is a free man, no? Moral equivalence? When unmanned drones attack Montana wedding parties, we might get a glimmer. Until then the 70’s “bogeyman” will keep the distracted seething.
LikeLike
I don’t think that orders given McCain were illegal. My perspective is that if we ever want to have an effective defense soldier need to follow orders. So, for the sake of discussion, let’s assume that the U.S. government acted as a terrorist in Vietnam.
But I don’t think Ayers acted on orders. He was the terrorist in this case.
LikeLike
Yes yes yes … agreed. If we say it is a legal war, it is a legal war. McCain was just followink orders. However, it is illegal to target civilians, and civilians were targeted in Vietnam. But since we are a superpower, there is no way to enforce international agreements. We do as we please.
But dead is dead.
LikeLike