The Ghosts

Stanley Fish says it's confession time:

"I too have eaten dinner at Bill Ayers’s house (more than once), and have served with him on a committee, and he was one of those who recruited my wife and me at a reception when we were considering positions at the University of Illinois, Chicago. Moreover, I have had Bill and his wife Bernardine Dohrn to my apartment, was a guest lecturer in a course he taught and joined in a (successful) effort to persuade him to stay at UIC and say no to an offer from Harvard. Of course, I’m not running for anything, but I do write for The New York Times and, who knows, this association with former fugitive members of the Weathermen might be enough in the eyes of some to get me canned.

This well-captures the absurdity of the idea that Barack Obama is some kind of terrorist for having had a passing association with Bill Ayers. It seems that everyone who's anyone in Illinois political and intellectual circles has had some passing association with Ayers. This, however, doesn't do much to explain why Ayers has managed to acquire this kind of banal-yet-prominent position on the scene. One can easily imagine an alternate universe in which this not-really-repentant ex-terrorist is basically shunned -- bombmaking being a kind of shun-worthy activity.

But then again lots of folks with much more blood on their hands from that same period -- Henry Kissinger and his subordinates -- are even more respectable figures, key members of the national establishment. Donald Rumsfeld has an appointment at Stanford! Lord knows how many aspiring lawyers will learn their trade from John Yoo at Berkeley. If I had my druthers, we'd shun 'em all, but I think that's not in the cards.

Comments

And yet the devil monster attempts to capitalize on it. Die, die, die, Hillary die.

Did I mention I hope Hillary dies? Painfully?

Posted by hillaryisthedevil | April 29, 2008 1:51 PM

"But then again lots of folks with much more blood on their hands from that same period -- Henry Kissinger and his subordinates -- are even more respectable figures, key members of the national establishment. Donald Rumsfeld has an appointment at Stanford! Lord knows how many aspiring lawyers will learn their trade from John Yoo at Berkeley. If I had my druthers, we'd shun 'em all, but I think that's not in the cards."

Your infatuation with Obama just drove you off the deep-end with this paragraph. Do you seriously believe the moral equivalences you've made here are accurate (e.g., a constitutional law scholar = a guy who blew up his own countrymen with home-made bombs to impress a hippie girl he liked)?

Posted by Fred | April 29, 2008 1:56 PM

Fred totally beat me to it. The moral equivalence you draw here between domestic terrorists and government officials is staggeringly dumb.

Posted by right | April 29, 2008 1:58 PM

Fred, right: What part of "more blood on their hands" do you not get?

Posted by Emartin | April 29, 2008 2:01 PM

Hoover, not Stanford proper.

Posted by treetop | April 29, 2008 2:02 PM

God, living in the same nation with moral monsters like Fred and "right" is truly disgusting. But it's important to note that Matthew (correctly) does not draw moral equivalence. He (correctly) notes that Rumsfeld, Kissinger, and Yoo (all of whom are war criminals who should be tried, convicted, and hanged by the neck until dead) are guilty of far, far greater crimes than Ayers.

Posted by LarryM | April 29, 2008 2:04 PM

How many deaths did Ayers' actions cause? I thought it was actually zero. How about Rummy? Well, we have 4,000+ U.S. troops and probably over 100,000 Iraqis.

Lying your ass off and using U.S. soldiers in a move that is radical and deadly doesn't become instantly respectable because you did it under the auspices of the U.S. gov't.

BTW, Fred, wasn't Saddam Hussein a "government official"?

Posted by LFC | April 29, 2008 2:06 PM

Yes, I think it's fair for MY to compare Yoo to Ayers. In only the most generous sense of the phrase is Yoo a "constitutional law scholar." Yoo, in fact, is an enabler of war crimes and torture who ought to be compared to Wilhelm Frick or Hans Frank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Frick and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Frank).

Posted by Reader | April 29, 2008 2:06 PM

Fred, right - absolutely. Kissinger is responsible for incomparably more death & suffering than Ayers. Moreover, Kissinger fought to maintain US hegemony in Southeast Asia, while Ayers fought to liberate Vietnam from foreign occupation. There can be no moral equivalence. Matt ought to be ashamed for making the parallel.

Posted by Kalkin | April 29, 2008 2:07 PM

Last week and this coming week the BBC World Service has a programme titled the May Lai Tapes. It's horrifying to hear the actual voices of the perpetrators out of the past. Have these ever been broadcast in the U.S.? Anyone know? You can listen on your computer.

Posted by Quentin | April 29, 2008 2:07 PM

I think its clear that you have to measure government officials and citizens by different moral standards, since the actions of the former have far-reaching effects. However, that should put the emphasis on them to act more prudently and with greater regard for human life. At what point do you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior from government officials?

That's a difficult question, isn't it?

Posted by Joel | April 29, 2008 2:07 PM

The moral equivalence you draw here between domestic terrorists and government officials is staggeringly dumb.

Exactly correct. For instance, everyone knows William Ayes is a million times worse than Joseph Stalin. Stalin was a government official, which by definition means that everything he did was a-okay.

Posted by grh | April 29, 2008 2:09 PM

The people Matt mentions are indeed guilty of far greater crimes than Ayers. However, we need to keep in mind that there is a much greater consensus among the public that Ayers committed crimes in the first place.

A more apt comparison would be if there are any Republicans who, many years ago, participated in or contributed to bombing of abortion clinics or something like that.

Posted by Jim W | April 29, 2008 2:10 PM

Ayers at least was motivated by a good cause, unlike Kissinger who was striving to impose U.S. capitalism and imperialism on the people of Vietnam and Latin America, at the cost of several million deaths. I don't support Ayers' actions but there's a difference between setting bombs (which killed no one) in a good cause and killing millions of Vietnamese in an evil one.

Posted by Hector | April 29, 2008 2:10 PM

Like MY said, they all suck. Yoo enabled torture, but Fred is both an admitted bigot and a fan of torture and thus the moral equivalent to a turd, so who cares what he thinks?

Posted by Reality Man | April 29, 2008 2:10 PM

The question is, if I were appointed to a board of a charity or community zoning board, and sitting across from me at a board meeting was Henry Kissinger, what would I do? I'd probably do my job, and as long as Kissinger didn't advocate bombing raids against the neighboring charity or town, I'd probably be ok with it.

I do take it kind of personally, because those of us with real jobs work with or know people who may have had criminal records or may have participated in unsavory things in the 60s. Are you calling ME a terrorist sympathizer because I've crossed paths with these people in my professional and community comings-and-goings? I find that fairly insulting, and I find it angering that someone would attack me in such a way purely at the behest of angry fringe sociopaths of Sean Hannity and other right-wing extremists.

Basically, Fred is taking orders and carrying them out, and he'd make the same accusasations against our mothers, our friends, and us. It's genunely dangerous because by convincing people that normal people are actually terrorist sympathizers, we run the risk of people like Fred deciding to "take matters into their own hands."

Posted by Tyro | April 29, 2008 2:13 PM

Reality Man,

By likening Fred to a turd, you do a disservice to turds everywhere. And you let Fred off way, way, too easily.

Posted by LarryM | April 29, 2008 2:15 PM

Fred quotes and writes: ""But then again lots of folks with much more blood on their hands from that same period -- Henry Kissinger and his subordinates -- are even more respectable figures, key members of the national establishment. Donald Rumsfeld has an appointment at Stanford! Lord knows how many aspiring lawyers will learn their trade from John Yoo at Berkeley. If I had my druthers, we'd shun 'em all, but I think that's not in the cards."

Your infatuation with Obama just drove you off the deep-end with this paragraph. Do you seriously believe the moral equivalences you've made here are accurate (e.g., a constitutional law scholar = a guy who blew up his own countrymen with home-made bombs to impress a hippie girl he liked)? "

Holy shit, Batman! Fred, you're one of the damdest bastards on the planet. If Dumbya Bush started executing Gitmo prisoners live on TV you'd probably watch every last killing while jerking off.

John Yoo would have been able to justify the Bataan Death March, and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld would have been right at home at the Wansee Conference. You'd have no problem shaking hands with any of the motherfuckers.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 29, 2008 2:15 PM

I guess the big difference is that Ayers didn't "have God on his side" like George and his merry band of war criminals do. I also must have missed the article describing how Ayers was responsible for torturing people.

I disagree with the message and methods of the Weather Underground, but to try to defend people from this administration as more moral simply because they work for the gov't is really off the deep end. Fred must have blinders the size of drive-in movie screens. Either that or he believes that every GOP politician is automatically issued a "Doesn't Apply to Me" card when they get into office.

Posted by LFC | April 29, 2008 2:16 PM

Fred, right: What part of "more blood on their hands" do you not get?

Harry Truman sure had a lot of blood on his hands, should we shun him too? How about Eisenhower? Abraham Lincoln? George Washington?

Stalin was a government official, which by definition means that everything he did was a-okay.

Refer to my comment about being "staggeringly dumb".

Posted by right | April 29, 2008 2:17 PM

Well, it looks like there was more than just a "passing association with Ayers".

Latin trivia! What's the name for the LogicalFallacy in MattY's second paragraph?

Posted by TLB | April 29, 2008 2:18 PM

This well-captures the absurdity of the idea that Barack Obama is some kind of terrorist for having had a passing association with Bill Ayers.

What would the Democratic party do if a Republican presidential candidate had similar associations with a guy who used to bomb abortion clinics (at night, not when doctors/nurses/patients were there, to "avoid harming people," etc...) and was fairly unrepentant about it?

Just be silent about it and say "hey, you can't blame [insert name here] for the actions of [insert name here]. besides, [insert name here] was only 8 years old when [insert name here] was the leader of an organization that led a bombing campaign."

Just saying, the piling on would be similar and any comparison of the abortion clinic bomber to, say, Robert McNamara, on the part of a Republican would be scoffed at by Dems.

Posted by SoCalJustice | April 29, 2008 2:18 PM

Listen, the mistake you guys make is treating Fred like he is a human being, which clearly he is not. He is the kind of sick evil creature whose painful death would provoke a massive celebration among all who know him.

Posted by LarryM | April 29, 2008 2:19 PM

I don't know about this comparison - it seems to say a little too much. Have the policies and actions put forth by Kissinger/Rumsfeld et al caused more deaths and suffering than Ayers? This much is frankly not up for debate. However, the reason Ayers is considered so much worse is because his crimes are of terrorism on the US, and are getting coverage from a post-9/11 media. (I am denoting this mindset as endemic to the media here, not to comment on whether or not it permeates society as a whole, but rather to note its still-present effect on news priorities.) In a strictly moral sense, I'm inclined to agree. However, the relative pressure here is because one camp has been acting with the imprimatur of the US government.

Posted by Jon O. | April 29, 2008 2:19 PM

See, as long as you are a "government official" who doesn't threaten "his own countrymen" and doesn't do the killing with his own bare hands - you can do pretty much whatever you want.

Posted by novakant | April 29, 2008 2:22 PM

Killers like Kissinger and Rumsfeld are respectable in Washington therefore they are moral men.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 29, 2008 2:22 PM

If the United States gets the justice that it deserves, our fate will make the fate of Carthage seem mild by comparison.

Posted by hilaryisthedevil | April 29, 2008 2:23 PM

You guys need to leave the echo chamber and get some fresh air to clear your heads. But while you're here, let me ask you a couple of questions to help you clarify your thinking:

1) Does Matt have more blood on his hands than the Weatherman because he initially supported the invasion of Iraq?

2) What other Secretaries of State have blood on their hands in your books -- all the ones who were in office during wars? Or only the ones that were in office during wars you would have supported? Does Madeleine Albright belong in the same circle of Hell as Kissinger for the Serb civilians who died on her watch? How about FDR's Secretary of State, Edward Stettinius, Jr.? Was he worse than William Ayers because Dresden happened on his watch?

Posted by Fred | April 29, 2008 2:24 PM

I guess the big difference is that Ayers didn't "have God on his side" like George and his merry band of war criminals do. I also must have missed the article describing how Ayers was responsible for torturing people.

No, the difference is Ayers was a criminal vigilante part of a group who declared war against the US and set bombs off across the country, while the others were representatives of the US government trying to defend the country from whack-jobs of a similar ilk to Ayers.

I don't support everything that Rumsfeld, Yoo, or Kissinger has done, but there is such a thing as rule of law.

Posted by right | April 29, 2008 2:25 PM

Quentin writes: "Last week and this coming week the BBC World Service has a programme titled the May Lai Tapes. It's horrifying to hear the actual voices of the perpetrators out of the past. Have these ever been broadcast in the U.S.? Anyone know? You can listen on your computer."

While most conservatives have forgotten My Lai ever happened, Fred hasn't. Fred was THERE, man, and he'll never forget the sheer joy of killing Cong babies. Some of those babies were almost old enough to walk, dude! Fred still doesn't understand why he didn't get the Medal of Honor for his work that day.

And lest you think he just killed babies, he'd also like you to know that he also blew the skull off of a 72 year old blind woman, and he still has nightmares about the fact that some of the villagers lived.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 29, 2008 2:25 PM

SoCalJustice, it would depend on the circumstances: if McCain and an unconvicted member Earth First! served on the same zoning board, I'd have a hard time getting outraged. McCain served alongside Larry Craig in congress, and I don't think that McCain should take flak for being an "anonymous bathroom sex sympathizer." Certainly I wouldn't make such ridiculous accusations merely at the behest of a few talk-show bullies trying to drum up an invented controversy.

It seems pretty clear that Fred is being manipulated into a form of faux-outrage over Obama's association with one of his neighbors while helping to run a community charity or appearing on the same academic panel. I find that personally offensive because there is the possibility that Fred, at the behest of such instruction from demagogues, may make accusations of being a terrorist sympathizer against ANYONE, and those witch hunts could end up leading to violance against people who did nothing wrong. Who knows how many of us worked in the same department with people who might have had radical pasts? Does that leave us vulnerable to demagogic, dishonest attacks and insults from the likes of Fred? If so, we need to be worried.

Posted by Tyro | April 29, 2008 2:27 PM

Once I ate at a dinner seated next to Ayers and he seemed like a normal guy, was pretty quiet and wore a jean jacket.

It was really bad timing that his memoir came out around 9/11, I remember laughing at the time about his horrible luck. His wife seemed ultra serious and was easy to imagine her younger self as a Joan of Arc-type crusader. I met their son too and he seemed like a good guy.

Posted by Peter K. | April 29, 2008 2:29 PM

"Just saying, the piling on would be similar and any comparison of the abortion clinic bomber to, say, Robert McNamara, on the part of a Republican would be scoffed at by Dems."

You may be right. However, not being a Dem would allow me to respond with "both, and!" Fuck McNamara, too.

Posted by Kalkin | April 29, 2008 2:32 PM

Tyro,

I wrote:

What would the Democratic party do if a Republican presidential candidate had similar associations with a guy who used to bomb abortion clinics....

No need to go off into Larry Craig-land or speculate about an unconvicted ELF guy.

I don't care what Fred thinks.

I voted for Obama and am hope to get the chance to again.

I'm just not sure a "who's worse? Ayers or Kissinger?" defense is at all relevant or useful. I think it's counterproductive, honestly. But reasonable minds can differ, I suppose.

Posted by SoCalJustice | April 29, 2008 2:33 PM

The question is whether Obama did anything wrong because at some point, he and Ayers, who lived in the same neighborhood, ended up on the same board/panel as part of their duties within the same neighborhood. The answer is, of course, no. A more serious issue here is if your mother is going to get attacked as a terrorist sympathizer at the behest of talk-radio demagogues because one of her fellow members of the Junior League had a radical past. In that sense, Fred is, in fact, expressing aq willingness to attack us and our families and call someone a terrorist sympathizer for no reason other than the fact that Sean Hannity told him to. Fred is showing that he will call ANYONE a terrorist sympathizer simply because he is instructed to. That is a bit worrisome. Fred is effectively threatening us.

Posted by Tyro | April 29, 2008 2:33 PM

Yoo, in fact, is an enabler of war crimes and torture who ought to be compared to Wilhelm Frick or Hans Frank

I was going to say Julius Streicher, which is also an imperfect parallel, but the idea is right. A person who supplies, upon request, ideological and/or legal justification for the commission of crimes to those in authority -- well, there's precedent for the American government treating such a person as a war criminal.

Oh, and look everyone, "right" is trying to change the meaning of the expression 'to have blood on one's hands'!

Posted by Ryan | April 29, 2008 2:34 PM

SoCalJustice: if McCain served on a zoning board with Henry Kissinger, I cannot imagine myself calling McCain a war-crimes sympathizer on that basis.

Posted by Tyro | April 29, 2008 2:35 PM

Re right's comment "I don't support everything that Rumsfeld, Yoo, or Kissinger has done, but there is such a thing as rule of law."
-------------
I cracked up when I read this.

Then I realized that Right did not even realize the contradiction within his statement and collapsed into helpless laughter again.

Posted by Don Williams | April 29, 2008 2:37 PM

However, not being a Dem would allow me to respond with...

Fair enough, but the vast majority of the people trying to get Obama elected are Democrats.

Posted by SoCalJustice | April 29, 2008 2:37 PM

ML&J,

How hard would it be for you to learn a basic HTML tag? This "So-and-so quotes and writes" formatting of yours gets so tedious that I just skip your posts now.

LarryM,

"He is the kind of sick evil creature whose painful death would provoke a massive celebration among all who know him."

Why are so many of you lefties so prone to these puerile sadist fantasies? Are you all permanently scarred from getting picked on in high school or something? I hope you guys can eventually find an outlet for your issues. But in the meantime, if it helps to vent your rage on blogs, better that than you taking it out on your hectoring wife.

Posted by Fred | April 29, 2008 2:37 PM

Let's play this game:

Peter King (R-NY), long-time IRA symp and Noraid supporter, travelled to Northern Ireland with Hillary Clinton, became a McCain backer after Pope Rudy I dropped out.

Of course, Peter King has never been treated for what he is -- a long-time pal of bombers and sectarian murderers, as opposed to some kind of expert on domestic security -- because no American pol wants to piss off his constituency of 6th-generation Oirish-Americans.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 29, 2008 2:38 PM

This, however, doesn't do much to explain why Ayers has managed to acquire this kind of banal-yet-prominent position on the scene.

Probably because he's the son of the former CEO of Con Edison. Ayers was just going through a phase, as the WASPS like to say.

Posted by vanya | April 29, 2008 2:40 PM

Tyro,

Not sure why you keep moving the goalposts, but whatever.

Here's a yes/no question for you:

If McCain served on a board with a former, unrepentant abortion clinic bomber, would the Democratic party make an issue of it?

Yes or No?

Posted by SoCalJustice | April 29, 2008 2:40 PM

Peter K., given the chance, Fred would have no hestitation in calling you a terrorist sympathizer with connections to domestic terrorism, if Sean Hannity told him to.

See Fred, here's the problem: you might think you're a big man for raising this "issue" about Obama that you were instructed to raise on the basis of orders from right-wing demagogues, but what you're actually doing is accusing Peter K. of being a terrorist sympathizer, and that is COMPLETELY unacceptable and I cannot tolerate that sort of behavior. You're engaging in terror-baiting at the behest of rightist demagogues and lashing out at people who don't deserve it.

It's a sign that Fred will terrorist bait us, our friends, our neighbors, and our relatives, and that cannot be tolerated.

Posted by Tyro | April 29, 2008 2:41 PM

Oh, dear god, there's no moral equivalence between Henry Kissinger and Bill Ayers.

In his wildest dreams Bill Ayers could never have murdered even a fraction of what Kissinger and his fellow war hawks did throughout Southeast Asia (just to mention one area), and anyone who thinks that somehow what Bill Ayers did was more wrong than Kissinger's helping destroy 3 nations and hand power to the Khmer Rouge guerrillas is clearly not able to think rationally.

Posted by El Cid | April 29, 2008 2:42 PM

By the way, when Fred wrote - "Do you seriously believe the moral equivalences you've made here are accurate (e.g., a constitutional law scholar = a guy who blew up his own countrymen with home-made bombs to impress a hippie girl he liked)?" - he was just being Fred, which is to say he was being a lying fuck. Three Weathermen were killed by their own bomb - other than that, no "countrymen" were killed by the group. And certainly Fred doesn't give a damn about those three deaths, any more than he cares about dead Iraqis.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 29, 2008 2:42 PM

right says "I don't support everything that Rumsfeld, Yoo, or Kissinger has done, but there is such a thing as rule of law."

Wow. My irony meter just shattered.

Posted by vanya | April 29, 2008 2:43 PM

"No, the difference is Ayers was a criminal vigilante part of a group who declared war against the US and set bombs off across the country, while the others were representatives of the US government trying to defend the country from whack-jobs of a similar ilk to Ayers.

I don't support everything that Rumsfeld, Yoo, or Kissinger has done, but there is such a thing as rule of law.

Posted by right | April 29, 2008 2:25 PM"

The Weather Underground wanted to kill Americans, but they were too incompetent to do so and just killed three of their own members. Kissinger, meanwhile, probably killed more people than any American (after all, the tonnage of bombs we dropped on Vietnam and Cambodia was more than what we dropped during all of WWII) in history. He killed hundreds of thousands of Cambodians after helping to overthrow a popular prince in favor of an incompetent military dictator. The coup, combined with the economic and social damage caused by the bombing, were among the biggest reasons the Khmer Rouge were able to seize power. The net effects of Kissinger's actions in Cambodia was the ascension of the absolute worst communist state in history and the resultant auto-genocide. Cambodians weren't doing anything to us and they had no capability of preventing the Ho Chi Minh trail from cutting into their country (long after the Vietnam War served any concrete strategic end for the US and just became a pissing match in which no one wanted to take responsibility for defeat), yet Kissinger killed hundreds of thousands of them and is indirectly responsible for at least 1.5 million more deaths in Cambodia at Pol Pot's hands.

Posted by Reality Man | April 29, 2008 2:47 PM

1) Does Matt have more blood on his hands than the Weatherman because he initially supported the invasion of Iraq?

No. He didn't order it and was in no official position to forward it.

2) What other Secretaries of State have blood on their hands in your books

Any that lied to get us into a war, supported a "preemptive" war against somebody who did not attack us and was not about to attack us, and those who lied to the American people in order to continue a war. Extra points for those who authorized and/or carried out unlawful orders to torture people.

I don't support everything that Rumsfeld, Yoo, or Kissinger has done, but there is such a thing as rule of law.

Yes, and war crimes are part of that.

Posted by LFC | April 29, 2008 2:48 PM

Fred writes: "How hard would it be for you to learn a basic HTML tag? This "So-and-so quotes and writes" formatting of yours gets so tedious that I just skip your posts now."

Evidently you don't, or you wouldn't have responded, chuckles.

No vile revelation about Fred would surprise me. If he turned out to have the cannibalized bodies of 37 pre-teen boys in his basement I'd just say, "Well, it's Fred. I wonder where he put the rest of his victims."

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 29, 2008 2:50 PM

Clearly, Abraham Lincoln was the worst person in the history of the United States - 600,000 deaths! Far more than Kissinger, Rumsfeld, and Yoo combined. Lincoln should be shunned - and in fact I shun the $5 bill because it's got a picture of the warmonger Lincoln right there on the face of the bill.

Anybody who supports Lincoln is a warmonger and should be shunned.

Posted by Al | April 29, 2008 2:50 PM

the piling on would be similar and any comparison of the abortion clinic bomber to, say, Robert McNamara, on the part of a Republican would be scoffed at by Dems.

I'm not so sure about that. Robert McNamara does not have many defenders among Dems these days, nor does LBJ (on foreign policy anyway). And anyway what Republican today would imply the Vietnam War was criminal? It's hard to imagine.

Posted by Ryan | April 29, 2008 2:53 PM

What would the Democratic party do if a Republican presidential candidate had similar associations with a guy who used to bomb abortion clinics (at night, not when doctors/nurses/patients were there, to "avoid harming people," etc...)

The clinic bombers shoot to kill. And McVeigh targeted children with his truck bomb.

So, no, your analogy doesn't hold.

Posted by anonymous | April 29, 2008 2:54 PM

Re Matthew's comment " One can easily imagine an alternate universe in which this not-really-repentant ex-terrorist is basically shunned -- bombmaking being a kind of shun-worthy activity"
---------------

Well, you DEFINITELY want to shun INCOMPETENT bomb-makers. Did any of you guys ever read that crock of shit --"The Anarchist's Cookbook" ?

Incompetent bombmakers who like pot make the most hardened terrorists pale. After a while, those explosions in Greenwich Village made it clear that the Weather was pretty much of a self-correcting problem.

A guy I know --who's pretty liberal -- infiltrated the Weather when he was a young guy in the Army. Evidently, his biggest problem was shaking off the FBI and local police. After one op, in which he was warned by his control that a police raid on the safe house was imminent, he and his control drove to an Army base so the local county mounties would be halted by the armed sentries at the gate.

Evidently, the US government called out everyone but the Polish Cavalry on that group.

The thing that intrigued me was his occasional references to conversations with a certain Congressman. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Well, the custodes can't be told, now can they?
heh heh heh

Posted by Don Williams | April 29, 2008 2:54 PM

Tyro,

The "right-wing demagogues" from whom I take my orders have signaled (via hunger pangs) that it's time for me to get some lunch. So I'm going to step out. Have fun playing with your straw men while I'm gone.

If I may leave you with a prediction: Someday, when Matt is an august op/ed columnist at the NY Times or the WaPo, this particular post of his will float up out of the memory hole. Then he will embarrassedly half-apologize/attempt to rationalize why he wrote it. Hopefully that column will be more thought-out than this post was.

Posted by Fred | April 29, 2008 2:56 PM

SoCalJustice, wtf? I answered both questions. I felt that using the example of an abortion bomber was unfair because, I believe, Ayers was not convicted of anything, and McCain is (ostensibly) pro-life. I'm trying to look at an example that would be unfair. But if McCain served on the zoning board with someone who might have been associated with clinic-bombers, it would be stupid of me to claim that this showed that McCain was a terrorist sympathizer.

Also, McCain has never held a job or had a life outside of his military or political duties, so there's no example I can use. But a similar case would be if the board of directors of the Texas Rangers that Bush partially owned were involved with the PLO: It would be stupid for me to call bush a terrorist sympathizer, and I'd be implicitly attacking the other owners and players of the texas rangers by saying something like that,.

Posted by Tyro | April 29, 2008 2:56 PM

Re Al's comment "Lincoln should be shunned - and in fact I shun the $5 bill because it's got a picture of the warmonger Lincoln right there on the face of the bill.

Anybody who supports Lincoln is a warmonger and should be shunned."
-------------
Make that argument in the South and a lot of blue-collar Republicans will buy you a drink.

Posted by Don Williams | April 29, 2008 2:58 PM

Hey look, Al's doing it to! Trying to pretend 'to have blood on one's hands' means something other than it actually means to non-retarded people.

Hint: The *number* of deaths is not the issue.

Posted by Ryan | April 29, 2008 3:01 PM

The clinic bombers shoot to kill.

Every one in the history of abortion bombers? I have no idea, but that's why I made a hypothetical talking about "similar" circumstances.

The weathermen underground planned to bomb a military dance. that's was the bomb that turned into a "self-correcting" work accident. Does that not count as shooting to kill?

And McVeigh targeted children with his truck bomb.

What does that have to do with anything?

So, no, your analogy doesn't hold.

Sure it does. You just changed the circumstances and were unaware the weathermen underground had planned on killing people before they ended up killing three of themselves.

And Ryan writes:

I'm not so sure about that. Robert McNamara does not have many defenders among Dems these days, nor does LBJ (on foreign policy anyway). And anyway what Republican today would imply the Vietnam War was criminal? It's hard to imagine.

They don't have to imply it was criminal, they could just state outright what Matt did, that McNamara (or Cohen, if you want to change the timeframe to something more modern/not tied to vietnam) presided over (or was responsible for) infinitely more civilian deaths than [insert name of abortion clinic bomber who killed no one], so what's the big deal?

Posted by SoCalJustice | April 29, 2008 3:03 PM

Re Fred's comment "Someday, when Matt is an august op/ed columnist at the NY Times or the WaPo, this particular post of his will float up out of the memory hole. Then he will embarrassedly half-apologize/attempt to rationalize why he wrote it."
-------------
Yeah, but he will never live down his association with us commenters.

That will haunt him forever.

Especially when we go before the National Press Club and explain what we REALLY meant.

Posted by Don Williams | April 29, 2008 3:04 PM

Tyro,

SoCalJustice, wtf? I answered both questions. I felt that using the example of an abortion bomber was unfair because, I believe, Ayers was not convicted of anything

Where did I say the former abortion clinic bomber had to be convicted of anything?

I'm not defending McCain, I'm not voting for McCain, I'm not supporting McCain. I'm voting for and supporting Obama.

I'm just saying I don't find Matt's particular defense here all that relevant or helpful, and that Democrats would make the same attacks on Republicans were the situation reversed.

I guess I'm in the minority on that line of thinking, which is fine.

Posted by SoCalJustice | April 29, 2008 3:08 PM

SoCalJuicer writes: "You just changed the circumstances and were unaware the weathermen underground had planned on killing people before they ended up killing three of themselves."

Hmm - a group that scrupulously avoided killing all of a sudden decides to kill and the so-called would-be killers blow themselves up - and I suppose you think you have a credible source for this claim?

Let's see it. And if the source is named "Horowitz" go fuck yourself.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 29, 2008 3:09 PM

This Ayers guy killed a lot of bathrooms. For a big scary terrorist, he sure was good at not getting caught. In public buildings, with dynamite and stuff. Even military buildings. Not that having 'left wing crazies' running around almost doing damage wouldn't be beneficial to someone.

Posted by An Outhouse | April 29, 2008 3:10 PM

and I suppose you think you have a credible source for this claim?

Um, yes, Moe. The members of the group themselves.

http://www.democracynow.org/2003/8/21/ex_weather_underground_member_kathy_boudin

Start reading at:

AMY GOODMAN: This is an excerpt from “The Weather Underground” and some of the documentary footage of the time.

Read that and then google who Mark Rudd is and ask yourself if you think he's lying.

Posted by SoCalJustice | April 29, 2008 3:15 PM

SCJ replies: "Um, yes, Moe. The members of the group themselves.

http://www.democracynow.org/2003/8/21/ex_weather_underground_member_kathy_boudin

Start reading at:

AMY GOODMAN: This is an excerpt from “The Weather Underground” and some of the documentary footage of the time.

Read that and then google who Mark Rudd is and ask yourself if you think he's lying."

I know who Rudd is - I still don't know who the source for the claim is. Where did he get his information? He wasn't part of the group that was planning the bombing, and I don't see Kathy Boudin admitting any such thing. Is it an FBI theory?

If this was the actual plan I'm glad they blew themselves up. It doesn't change the fact that the Weathermen never killed anyone but themselves, though.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 29, 2008 3:26 PM

And here I thought all of these comments were going to be reflections of people's amusement that Stanley Fish holds himself up as the paradigm of moderate respectability. Certainly if Fish has met with Ayers then everyone has.

I like Fish, but I thought much of his cache was that he interacts with everybody.

Posted by Lon | April 29, 2008 3:38 PM

ML&J,

Watch that segment of the documentary and decide for yourself about Rudd and what he said. It's really the last few minutes of this 10 minute segment, but the entire section is fascinating:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAEruNACFh0&feature=related

Posted by SoCalJustice | April 29, 2008 3:41 PM

They don't have to imply it was criminal, they could just state outright what Matt did

Ah, but Matt *did* imply it was criminal, by saying they 'have blood on their hands' (which implies not just responsibility for a quantity of deaths, but responsibility for a quantity of *unjust* deaths). So if you're trying to imagine an equivalent statement from a Republican defending an abortion bomber by comparing him to Robert McNamara, you'd have to imagine that Republican believing that the Vietnam War was an unjust war, and that, I maintain, is difficult to imagine.

I get what you're trying to say, though, and I think I basically agree to a point. This guy Ayers was an actual terrorist who actually meant to kill people, and we shouldn't make excuses for his past actions. But it's not clear to me how this should affect our view of Obama, unless their association is tighter than I understand it to be.

Posted by Ryan | April 29, 2008 3:48 PM

But it's not clear to me how this should affect our view of Obama, unless their association is tighter than I understand it to be.

It doesn't affect my view of Obama at all. I'm trying to look at both the situation, and the attacks that followed (as well as a hypothetical, reverse situation), as campaign issues.

If the situation was reversed, I would hope that people would attack McCain for it.

I hope he gets hit on Hagee. I hope he gets hit on the Keating 5 scandal - why isn't that a bigger issue? I hope there are worse associations that people dig up.

Hillary's done enough damage to Obama. I still think he will win the nomination. But turn about is now fair play, and people need to start doing a number on McCain, and unfortunately, hitting him on policy probably won't be sufficient because of these late-in-the-game body blows - having nothing to do with policy - that keep landing on Obama via Hillary.

Posted by SoCalJustice | April 29, 2008 4:15 PM

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley released a statement about Ayers.

"I don’t condone what he did 40 years ago but I remember that period well. It was a difficult time, but those days are long over. I believe we have too many challenges in Chicago and our country to keep re-fighting 40 year old battles."

It was really a cheap tactic for the Clinton campaign to go after Obama on this. Sleazy, Tony Harding style politics.

Posted by Peter K. | April 29, 2008 4:19 PM

Matt, you are truly obtuse. First off, Ayers not only does not regret his actions - he wishes he had "done more" (his words).

Obama doesn't have a "passing association" with him - he launched his political career in his house.

Ayers is evil, period. People who associate with him are countenancing evil. There's a limit to the number of times Obama can say "I had no idea" and have it work.

Rezko, Ayers, Wright. There's a pattern there for anyone who can summon a pair of neurons and have them fire. Sadly, Matt, that seems to be just beyond your grasp.

Posted by James Robertson | April 29, 2008 4:19 PM

One could, of course, wonder if Ayers and Dohrn do, indeed, have Vietnamese, Cambodian, Lao, and American soldiers' blood on their hands because their idiotic actions enabled Nixon to tarnish a mass anti-war movement as "un-American" and "violent" and win a couple of elections.

And keep that meat-grinder going.

And if Reverend Wright's words do the something of the same...take down Obama, give it to John McCain???

Why in the hell would anybody want to associate with him ten or twenty years from now, absent an expression of regret?

Posted by wobbly | April 29, 2008 4:27 PM

One could, of course, wonder if Ayers and Dohrn do, indeed, have Vietnamese, Cambodian, Lao, and American soldiers' blood on their hands because their idiotic actions enabled Nixon to tarnish a mass anti-war movement as "un-American" and "violent" and win a couple of elections.

And keep that meat-grinder going.

And if Reverend Wright's words do the something of the same...take down Obama, give it to John McCain???

Why in the hell would anybody want to associate with him ten or twenty years from now, absent an expression of regret?

Posted by wobbly | April 29, 2008 4:30 PM

James Robertson, did you the British and their Tory sympathisers considered the American colonial revolutionaries terrorists?

Were you aware that the Nazis considered the French resistance terrorists?

Posted by Peter K. | April 29, 2008 4:30 PM

The way in which Hillary Clinton has tried to make hay out of the Ayers/WU connection is just one of many reasons that I will not vote for her should worse come to worse. The Clintons are fully aware of what Vietnam did and meant to this country and to SE Asia as well. So well aware, in fact, that Bill turned himself inside out to avoid the draft. They are shameless shape shifters.

Posted by charlotte | April 29, 2008 4:38 PM

One could, of course, wonder if Ayers and Dohrn do, indeed, have Vietnamese, Cambodian, Lao, and American soldiers' blood on their hands because their idiotic actions enabled Nixon to tarnish a mass anti-war movement as "un-American" and "violent" and win a couple of elections.

As a matter of fact, quite a few people at the time, perhaps most interestingly on the active anti-war left, apparently not only thought this, and not only said or wrote it, but speculated that such spoiled idiot brats as these Weather Underground nitwits might have been yet another one of the agents provocateurs operations of various U.S. national & local secret police operations so as to tarnish the anti-war effort.

Posted by El Cid | April 29, 2008 4:45 PM

SCJ replies: "Watch that segment of the documentary and decide for yourself about Rudd and what he said. It's really the last few minutes of this 10 minute segment, but the entire section is fascinating:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAEruNACFh0&feature=related"

It still doesn't answer the question of how Rudd knew what their intentions were.

It does point out that this was a "small autonomous group" within the movement, and there's still no reason to label Ayers as a murderer, as Fred did. Ayers had nothing to do with this plot or with any murders. He has a much greater claim to being a moral human being than Fred ever will.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 29, 2008 4:48 PM

Peter K.,

It's useless trying to discuss morality with someone like James Robertson. He probably thinks the Vietnam War was a good idea.

I think that Ayers' tactics were, in that time and place, wrong and misguided. Chicago in 1968 was not Cordoba in 1968, or Montevideo, or Belfast. But at least Ayers did what we did in a good cause. The cause that Nixon, Kissinger and the rest of them served in Southeast Asia was nothing but evil.

Posted by Hector | April 29, 2008 4:48 PM

ML&J

It still doesn't answer the question of how Rudd knew what their intentions were.

Rudd, Ayers and Brian Flanagan all seem to agree on what Terry Robbins' (and the others in the flat) intentions were.

Maybe they were all wrong. I don't see their incentive to lie, except perhaps to whitewash his plans - which apparently they saw no reason to at this point in history.

Posted by SoCalJustice | April 29, 2008 5:03 PM

The Weather Underground wanted to kill Americans, but they were too incompetent to do so and just killed three of their own members.

Untrue, when Ayers was part of the operation they went to elaborate lengths to make sure places were empty when they went about their bombing. I don't think that makes one bit of sense, they issued bloodthirsty warnings that they were going to "Bring the war home" and then bombed empty buildings. It was juvenille and dangerous but they weren't trying to kill anyone when he was involved.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 29, 2008 5:10 PM

This could have led to an interesting discussion of the differences in responsibilities and rights between government and private citizen. When is a state-sponsored execution justifiable homicide? (Is it ever?) How should guilt for wartime deaths be apportioned between the heads of state, their advisors and lieutenants, the soldiers in combat, and/or the general public itself? Is attempting to kill civilians in your own country worse than attempting to kill civilians in another country? Is killing dispassionately from a distance morally superior, inferior or equivalent to planting the bomb or pulling the trigger yourself?

Not that I expected an interesting discussion to arise in here, but, y'know, it could have. Stranger things have happened.

Posted by Cyrus | April 29, 2008 5:19 PM

The beef with Kissinger was not that he was a proponent of the Vietnam war. The problem was that he cogentlty advocated for the use of massive bombing of civilians as a negotiating tactic when we had already decided to leave. Immorality on that scale should cause decent people to shun him at the very least.

Posted by Njorl | April 29, 2008 5:27 PM

SCJ quotes and replies: "It still doesn't answer the question of how Rudd knew what their intentions were.

Rudd, Ayers and Brian Flanagan all seem to agree on what Terry Robbins' (and the others in the flat) intentions were.

Maybe they were all wrong. I don't see their incentive to lie, except perhaps to whitewash his plans - which apparently they saw no reason to at this point in history. "

I'm not saying they're lying. I'm saying I don't know the source of the information - how they know what the group was planning. I'd like to know.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 29, 2008 5:52 PM

ML&J:

Here's one of Mark Rudd's accounts of what happened, on his website:

http://www.markrudd.com/historical-writing/the-kids-are-all-right/

We dispersed some of the few hundred remaining Weathermen into clandestine and semi-clandestine collectives to begin the preparations for “going under.” Some began amassing weapons and explosives and learning to use them; others rented “safe houses” and acquired phony ID and cars. On the morning of March 6, 1970, three of my comrades were building pipe bombs packed with dynamite and nails, destined for a dance of non-commissioned officers and their dates at Fort Dix, N.J., that night. Still trying to “bring the war home,” their bombs were crude mirrors of the anti-personnel weapons the U.S. was raining down on Indochina. Inexperienced and freaked-out, somebody must have crossed two wires leading to the detonator. The townhouse on W. 11th St. in Manhattan exploded from within, collapsing in fire. Parts of the bodies of my friends, Ted Gold, 23, Diana Oughton, 28, and Terry Robbins, 21, were found in the rubble. This was my own initiation into the world of sacrifice, and of unending mourning.

Maybe he'll respond to your questions.

Posted by SoCalJustice | April 29, 2008 5:58 PM

Re Njorl's comment "The beef with Kissinger was not that he was a proponent of the Vietnam war. The problem was that he cogentlty advocated for the use of massive bombing of civilians "
-------
I thought he also supported mass bombing WITH civilians. I.e, That he supported the Argentina military junta's actions -- including the kidnapping of citizens, their torture, and then giving them a one way trip out over the Atlantic Ocean.

Posted by Don Williams | April 29, 2008 6:00 PM

It's shows why Hillary has lost my vote for good. I cannot vote for someone who thinks there was nothing wrong with Bush and Cheney style of government.

So far Obama has been very honorable - and that counts for more anything on list.

Posted by me-again | April 29, 2008 6:29 PM

James Robertson writes: "Ayers is evil, period. People who associate with him are countenancing evil. There's a limit to the number of times Obama can say "I had no idea" and have it work."

So Ayers, who was involved with the bombing of empty buildings while protesting the pointless murder of millions, is evil - while James Robertson, who leads cheers for torture and murder, is what?

Robertson must be from the Bizarro World. I can just see his obituary now - "In lieu of flowers, please strangle a puppy."

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 29, 2008 7:24 PM

NOT-REALLY-REPENTANT? This thread is infused with the suggestion or belief that Ayers claimed he would do it again, but didn't he categorically deny making that statement? Its my understanding that Ayers claimed immediately after the interview at which this statement is attributed to him that he was quoted completely out of context and that his statements regarding not doing enough were about bringing about the end of the Vietnam war and not about the violence and tactics of the Weather Underground.

If he denied the statement at the time, is there some other basis for claiming he is unrepentant?

Posted by BobPM | April 29, 2008 7:33 PM

Am I the only reader here who thinks that one should not use photographs of murdered people for rhetorical purposes? These people are not metaphorical ghosts. They were real people whose lives were snuffed out. Images of their bodies should not be deployed to score debating points.

Posted by Bloix | April 29, 2008 9:30 PM

Bloix says: "Am I the only reader here who thinks that one should not use photographs of murdered people for rhetorical purposes? These people are not metaphorical ghosts. They were real people whose lives were snuffed out. Images of their bodies should not be deployed to score debating points."

Yes, let's hide the ugly reality of war from view so the warmongering assholes of the world can pretend it's a sanitary process.

Sheesh. Grow the fuck up.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 29, 2008 9:59 PM

Sheesh. Grow the fuck up.

You know I actually thought people wouldn't have the balls to talk about the monster that is Ayers who killed exactly nobody underneath a picture of the My Lai massacre but it doesn't even make a dent.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 29, 2008 10:07 PM

Ed Marshall writes: "I actually thought people wouldn't have the balls to talk about the monster that is Ayers who killed exactly nobody underneath a picture of the My Lai massacre but it doesn't even make a dent."

Nope. The My Lai massacre was a grotesque war crime and no one ever paid a price for it. Rusty Calley did a little house arrest stint during which he was let out to shop and go to the movies, and that was that.

One of the Army officers assigned to handle the cover-up later went on to assist in making more atrocities possible. His name is Colin Powell.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 29, 2008 10:47 PM

But then again lots of folks with much more blood on their hands from that same period -- Henry Kissinger and his subordinates -- are even more respectable figures, key members of the national establishment. Donald Rumsfeld has an appointment at Stanford! Lord knows how many aspiring lawyers

Your infatuation with Obama just drove you off the deep-end with this paragraph. Do you seriously believe the moral equivalences you've made here are accurate (e.g., a constitutional law scholar = a guy who blew up his own countrymen with home-made bombs to impress a hippie girl he liked)?

Posted by Fred | April

Fred, do you know anything about who and why the US, GB and the PRC passed peasons via Sianock to the Khmer Rouge? Anything? Or do you think that genocide is a minor event? Get a grip, Fred.

I grew up in the US Foreign Service in SEAsia in that period. I'm not so fond of Holbroke; my Dad who workede with Holbroke is, but I think Holbroke should with lots of other folks be taken forcebily to the Hauge. I recall a place called Nuremburg. Compare to Holbroke, Kissinger...well hardly bares serious scurtiny.

Posted by djeri | April 29, 2008 10:52 PM

But then again lots of folks with much more blood on their hands from that same period -- Henry Kissinger and his subordinates -- are even more respectable figures, key members of the national establishment. Donald Rumsfeld has an appointment at Stanford! Lord knows how many aspiring lawyers

Your infatuation with Obama just drove you off the deep-end with this paragraph. Do you seriously believe the moral equivalences you've made here are accurate (e.g., a constitutional law scholar = a guy who blew up his own countrymen with home-made bombs to impress a hippie girl he liked)?

Posted by Fred | April

Fred, do you know anything about who and why the US, GB and the PRC passed peasons via Sianock to the Khmer Rouge? Anything? Or do you think that genocide is a minor event? Get a grip, Fred.

I grew up in the US Foreign Service in SEAsia in that period. I'm not so fond of Holbroke; my Dad who workede with Holbroke is, but I think Holbroke should with lots of other folks be taken forcebily to the Hauge. I recall a place called Nuremburg. Compare to Holbroke, Kissinger...well hardly bares serious scurtiny.

Posted by djeri | April 29, 2008 10:52 PM

I grew up in SE Asia, a foreign service brat. Do any of you who are talking about Ayers know anything about who and why the US, GB and the PRC suppiled weapons via Sianouck to the Khmer Rouge.?

Get a grip. Or don't you know about genocide, stacks of hundreds of thousands of skulls.

Compared to Ayers, whatever he did, all the folks involved in sending arms, even indirectly, to the Khmer Rouge (Kissinger and the lowlies like Holbrooke--he's a Clinton connection of long standing) just need to be reminded of Nuremberg, or better yet sent to the Hague. Given what he's done since, the only one I have sympathy for is Carter.

Posted by djeri | April 29, 2008 11:02 PM

How many deaths did Ayers' actions cause? I thought it was actually zero.

Actually, I believe that he was at least indirectly involved in the death of Diana Oughton.

Posted by J Bean | April 30, 2008 12:17 AM

J Bean says: "I believe that he was at least indirectly involved in the death of Diana Oughton."

This is like saying that Jackie Kennedy was "indirectly involved" in the death of JFK. I'd say your comment was directly idiotic.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 30, 2008 12:28 AM

Peter King *used to* defend terrorism against the UK - He says he changed his mind after 9-11. But it's fair game to note what he used to advocate.

King is somewhat of blowhard/demagogue - He thought Cheney was justified in exposing Plame etc .
You know the type. King's a Hothead - a bit of poseuer too.

Posted by Comment | April 30, 2008 2:13 AM

Can anyone tell me exactly what that photo is? It's very disturbing. Who are those people and how and why did they die?

Posted by Tim | April 30, 2008 4:15 AM

Fucktard Menachem Begin was a terrorist in the 1940's not terribly different from Osama bin Laden. So were most of the Zionists in Palestine in the 1940's.

He got a Nobel Peace Prize. If the British had caught him, he'd have hung. They probably still think he should have been hung.

And they're right.

The Weathermen were a joke shop terrorist group. Their primary method was blowing up statues and other crap while trying to make sure nobody got hurt. This was stupid tactics at best since nobody gives a damn about buildings and statues. You only get noticed when you start seriously killing people. The only people the Weathermen killed were themselves. To make a big deal about that is just stupid.

Meanwhile, we killed another several couple score Iraqi civilians in Baghdad today, by bombing civilian neighborhoods. The reaction from the US military? "Oh, well, the enemy hides behind civilians - so we have to kill all the civilians to get to them. So they're evil and we're good."

What's wrong with this picture?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 30, 2008 4:20 AM

OK, I figured out the answer to my own question (April 30, 2008 4:15 AM) about what that photo is.

It appears to be a photo of the My Lai massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai

Posted by Tim | April 30, 2008 4:36 AM

"I don’t condone what he did 40 years ago but I remember that period well. It was a difficult time, but those days are long over. I believe we have too many challenges in Chicago and our country to keep re-fighting 40 year old battles."

Oh, Mayor Daley, you are so naive. Our present and future challenges -- health care, global warming, economic disparity, a sound energy policy -- pale, PALE in comparison with the importance of arguing about who did what four decades ago.

Here's a little tidbit about Obama's success: Whatever his personal history and political positions, he has one advantage over McCain and Clinton: HE'S NOT A BABY BOOMER. You have no idea how attractive that is to those of us who have watched the aforementioned challenges grow and fester, while witnessing an entire generation spend nearly 20 years of political power engaging in a circle-jerk debate about their Lost Youth.

Here's a newsflash, guys: Vietnam is not an issue, it is history. And we can't afford another 20 years of inaction waiting for you to figure that out.

Posted by zacksback | April 30, 2008 9:17 AM

Bill Ayers is explained in the post as an "not-really-repentant ex-terrorist". Very accurate. But there is a picture of what I'm assuming are dead Vietnamese civilians from the My Lai massacre. This is explained as follows, "But then again lots of folks with much more blood on their hands from that same period -- Henry Kissinger and his subordinates -- are even more respectable figures, key members of the national establishment." First off, Kissinger was at most a consultant to the State Department when the My Lai Massacre occurred in 1968, which was during the LBJ administration, and wasn't part of an administration until Nixon became President the next year. Second, the man responsible for the massacre, Lt. Calley, was tried, convicted, and imprisoned for it. Ayers got off on a technicality, never served a day in prison for his crimes, and has never apologized for them. To equate Kissinger (who wasn't even in the government at the time of My Lai) with Ayers is false. Equating Calley with Ayers is more appropriate, except that Calley has since been punished by the state for his crimes, while Ayers the Communist terrorist was never punished.

Posted by SteveIL | April 30, 2008 11:45 AM

William Calley served _three and a half years_ under _house arrest_ for murdering 110 Vietnamese men, women and children. Kissinger is a sordid fascist who inspired the deaths of millions of Vietnamese in the name of capitalist imperialism. William Ayers never killed anyone and he was, at the very least, striving for a good cause which was to create a society in which there would be no Calleys, Kissingers or Nixons. To equate the two is typical of the moral idiocy of the U.S. ruling oligarchy.

Posted by Hector | April 30, 2008 12:59 PM

SteveIL is fucked in the head: "Second, the man responsible for the massacre, Lt. Calley, was tried, convicted, and imprisoned for it. Ayers got off on a technicality, never served a day in prison for his crimes, and has never apologized for them. To equate Kissinger (who wasn't even in the government at the time of My Lai) with Ayers is false. Equating Calley with Ayers is more appropriate, except that Calley has since been punished by the state for his crimes, while Ayers the Communist terrorist was never punished."

Kissinger isn't reviled for any connection to My Lai, but for his subsequent role in the destruction of Cambodia, among other crimes. Calley was only one of many men responsible for the My Lai atrocities, and he got off with a slap on the wrist beause the Nixon administration wanted the story to go away.

Ayers never killed anyone - but then the SteveILs of the world didn't value Vietnamese lives back then anymore than they value Iraqi lives now, so that's why he's able to make this sort of bullshit moral equivalency argument. By the way, the "technicality" Ayers got off on was prosecutorial misconduct - in other words, the government was lying and falsifying evidence, just as Dumbya's goons are doing today in all of the show "terrorism" trials they can't seem to win.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 30, 2008 1:40 PM

For further discussion, this is how America "punished" William Calley:

"Nixon sensed which way the wind was blowing and within a few days, Calley was quietly transferred from the tough military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to house arrest in a comfortable apartment at Fort Benning, Georgia, where was able to drink alcohol and entertain his girlfriend.

He served three years there before being paroled in 1974 with a tacit presidential pardon.

Free to resume his life at 31, Calley ditched the girl who had loyally stood by him during his years in custody, and married Penny Vick, the daughter of a wealthy jeweller in Columbus, Georgia.

Their wedding was the society event of the year. They were serenaded by the local sheriff, a baritone, and guests included the Mayor of Columbus and the judge who granted his liberty.

The newlyweds moved into a smart, detached bungalow, and Calley qualified as a master gemmologist. When his father-in-law retired, he took over the reins of the lucrative family business - a position beyond his dreams before he served in Vietnam.

By all accounts, Calley was accepted without question as a pillar of the community. Always smartly attired, he managed the jewellers until two years ago, when - after a series of heated rows about the way the store should be run - he left his wife.

He now lives 90 miles away in Atlanta, where the Daily Mail found him sharing a smart midtown apartment with their 27-year-old son, a brilliant PhD computer student also called William Laws Calley.

His path has not always run smoothly, however. For a time he ran a nice little sideline as a speaker on the college lecture circuit - sickeningly charging a fee to give sanitised talks about My Lai. But he was forced to give up when he was heckled by the students.

According to one neighbour - a former policewoman who remarked that Calley "doesn't look big enough to snap a twig in half" - during his middle years he also developed a drink problem.

Perhaps he turned to the bottle to blot out his memories, though his close friend Al Fleming, an award-winning local TV newsman, says he is now at ease with himself.

"William did have nightmares for a while, but not now," Fleming told the Mail. "I'm sure he didn't like doing what he did, but he shows no sense of remorse at all. He's not like a lot of Vietnam veterans; suicidal and sick. He's just an ordinary guy."

An ordinary guy? Visiting My Lai last week, we spoke to people who remember the day William Calley came to their village, and regard him rather differently. A dignified woman of 82, wearing a traditional black trouser suit, Mrs Hai Thi Quy's wrinkled face contorted with pain as she recalled how her family were forced into the ditch, where her mother and two children, aged six and 16, were murdered beside her.

"They just started shooting people and pushing them into the canal," she said. "People were screaming, but the American soldiers said nothing, and their faces were so hard. They even shot a pregnant woman.

"They just killed and killed. The bullets came down like rain. One man grabbed my mother's hair and pushed her face down into the water and shot her."

Mrs Quy was shot in the back, but recovered in a U.S. military clinic after being rescued by the helicopter hero, Hugh Thompson.

Understandably, she still feels angry - yet, like all the survivors we interviewed, she showed an uplifting spirit of forgiveness. The director of the My Lai Museum, Mr Pham Thanh Cong - who lost his mother and three siblings but escaped with bullet wounds - even extended an olive branch to Calley.

"If the government will allow it, I invite him here, not to scold him or reprimand him, but to try and understand why he ordered the killing," Mr Cong said. "If he comes here, he and I could become friends. We could confide and talk to each other. We really want him to come back and see the truth."

From a man who has suffered so much, it was a remarkable gesture. Sadly, however, William Calley - who has never demonstrated the slightest desire to make his peace with the Vietnamese people - was not even willing to discuss it this week. Unless, of course, he received a fat fee.

"Meet me in the lobby of the nearest bank at opening time tomorrow, and give me a certified cheque for $25,000, then I'll talk to you for precisely one hour," he drawled nauseatingly.

When we showed up at the appointed hour, armed not with a cheque but a list of pertinent questions, Calley scuttled away from the line of fire. It was an option the man who led the My Lai Massacre never afforded to his innocent victims. "

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 30, 2008 3:03 PM

Moe,

What a piece of scum is William Calley.

Posted by Hector | April 30, 2008 4:37 PM

Hector writes: "What a piece of scum is William Calley."

Of course. But I guess I posted that to show how a significant segment of American society - represented here by the Freds and the Robertsons and the chris fords and so forth - sees little wrong in what Calley did. This is why he was not only not punished - in the long run, he was rewarded with a place in society better than a man of his limited skills and intelligence could have expected. "(T)he society event of the year!" My Lai was the best thing that ever happened to Calley, because Repiglicans have always been among us, and they look after their own.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | April 30, 2008 4:56 PM

There is a difference between former public officials you disagree with, however strongly, and a terrorists who years later cannot admit that he was wrong. I understand you hate Rumsfeld and think he's a war criminal or whatever, but not everyone does. In fact, I suspect that most who disagree with him would not go that far.
I wonder what would your reaction be if McCain had launched a campaign from the home of and maintained "friendly ties" with a member of a group who bombed abortion clinics?

Posted by Duane | May 1, 2008 2:03 PM