It couldn't have been easy for Bill Ayers to keep quiet while the McCain campaign tarred him as the Obama's best friend, the terrorist. Unfortunately, the silence was too good to last. On Saturday's New York Times op-ed page, he announced that "it's finally time to tell my true story." Like his memoir, Fugitive Days , "The Real Bill Ayers" is a sentimentalized, self-justifying whitewash of his role in the weirdo violent fringe of the 1960s-70s antiwar left.

"I never killed or injured anyone, "Ayers writes. "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." Right. Those people belonged to Weatherman, as did Ayers himself and Bernardine Dohrn, now his wife. Weatherman, Weather Underground, completely different! And never mind either that that "accidental explosion" was caused by the making of a nail bomb intended for a dance at Fort Dix.

Ayers writes that Weather Underground bombings were "symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people, were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam War." That no one was killed or injured was a monumental stroke of luck-- an unrelated bombing at the University of Wisconsin unintentionally killed a researcher and seriously injured four people. But if the point was to symbolize outrage, why not just spraypaint graffiti on government buildings or pour blood on military documents?

Spectacular violence, and creating fear of it, was the point. Along with beating people up and ridiculous escapades like running naked through white-working-class high schools shouting "Jailbreak!" It was what the Weatherpeople were all about.

"Peaceful protests had failed to stop the war," Ayers writes. " So we issued a screaming response. But it was not terrorism; we were not engaged in a campaign to kill and injure people indiscriminately, spreading fear and suffering for political ends." I'm not so sure that terrorism necessarily involves intentional attacks on people, but okay, let's say Ayers wasn't a terrorist. How about thuggish? Vainglorious? Egomaniacal? Staggeringly irresponsible? And illogical, don't forget illogical: as Hilzoy points out, the idea that because "peaceful protest" hadn't ended the war, bombs would is missing a couple of links. It's like a doctor saying, Well, chemo didn't cure your brain tumor, so I'll have to amputate your leg. It's not as if there was nothing else to try, after all. While Ayers and Dohrn were conveying their outrage, other people were doing the kind of organizing work that the Weather Underground despised as wimpy. Today Ayers blends himself into that broader movement, the "we-- the broad we" that "wrote letters, marched, talked to young men at inductions centers" etc., but at the time, Weatherpeople had nothing but contempt for the rest of the antiwar left. Writing letters? Off the pig! you might as well... become a community organizer!

I realize this is ancient history. As a friend who doesn't see why I am raking this all up argues, it's not as if today's left is bristling with macho streetfighters. It's hard to imagine anyone now applauding the Manson murders, as Dohrn notoriously did in l969, or dedicating a manifesto to, among others, Sirhan Sirhan. But just because it's ancient history doesn't mean you get to rewrite it to make yourself look good, just another idealistic young person upset about the war and racism. We were all upset about the war and racism. I knew people in the Progressive Labor Party who were so upset they joined the army to radicalize the troops. A freshman in my dorm was so upset she quit college, joined the October League, and went to organize in an auto-parts factory, where last I heard maybe a decade ago, she was still at work. Of the many thousands of people involved in the movement one way or another, only a handful thought the thing to do was to form a tiny sect and blow things up in the service of a ludicrous fantasy : ie, creating a white-youth fighting force that would join up with black nationalists, end the war and overthrow capitalism. Oh, and anyone who didn't see why that was the right,necessary and indeed only possible course of action was a sellout and a coward.

I wish Ayers would make a real apology for the harm he did to the antiwar movement and the left. Not another "regrets, I've had a few," "we were all young once," "don't forget there was a war on" exercise in self-promotion, but one that showed he actually gets it. I'd like him to say he's sorry for his part in the destruction of Students for a Democratic Society. He's sorry he helped Nixon make the antiwar movement look like the enemy of ordinary people. He's sorry for his more-radical-than-thou posturing, and the climate of apocalyptic nuttiness he helped fuel to disastrous results, of which the fatal Brinks robbery, committed by erstwhile comrades who became even crazier than Ayers' crew, was only the most notorious.

True, the damage wrought by the Weatherpeople is trivial compared with the war itself and has arguably been more thoroughly denounced. After all, John McCain most likely killed civilians while bombing Vietnam, and he got to run for president as a war hero. Henry Kissinger is fawned upon wherever he goes. I'd be happy to forget all about the Weatherpeople, many of whom have done good things with their lives since. But if we're going to talk about them-- and Ayers can't leave it alone-- let's tell the truth. Of all the sectarian groups from that era , Weather, in all its permutations, was the least effective and the most destructive to the movement. It was all about the romance of itself. And it still is.

Comments (119)

1. What a sweetheart of a guy. And he cried with joy when the North Vietnamese honored him for his efforts.

   And still there are many who actually praise this jerk.

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/08/2008 @ 3:52pm

2. The Weathermen -- such a convenient bunch of bananas -- were a tiny, indeed infinitesimal group of neurotics, representative of absolutely no one but themselves.

   But they have long been useful to precisely the sort whom they thought they were opposing.

   In a word, schmucks.

   It's said that the best provocateurs are those who have not a clue that they're provocateurs.

   Like The Weathermen were.

   Posted by sloper at 12/08/2008 @ 4:13pm

3. It ought to be pretty obvious that war protests that are clearly violent are self-defeating.

   Period.

   That being said, it is equally moronic and paradoxical that the first post here is from Reverend Clusterbomb --i.e. "LV Liberty"-- who shows absolutely n0 shame or remorse when it comes to violence perpetrated by the American war machine.

   Human madness is ubiquitous and contagious, and it strikes in virtually limitless forms.

   "The fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves".

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/08/2008 @ 4:24pm

4. Human madness is ubiquitous and contagious, and it strikes in virtually limitless forms.

   "The fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves".

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/08/2008 @ 4:24pm

   That's right; I show no remorse over helping our troops have a better chance of staying alive in combat. If you think that's wrong, then obviously you would prefer to see US military people die in greater numbers.

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/08/2008 @ 4:35pm

5. Not having been born yet. The relevance of this to me, is tied directly to the attacks from the McCain camp that because Obama knew this guy that he was guilty of being a terrorist sympathizer.

   For what I have been able to glean Ayers was an idiot vandal. But to call him a terrorist because he made a few bombs is insulting to terrorists. Not that I care if you insult them. Its just that what Ayers did is not even comprable to real terrorism. It seems to me that his ego is too large to ever offer up an apology for his actions, but I have to look at what else he has done with his life, 1997 Chicago citizen of the year, funding education oportunities, professor, etc. How bad of a person can he really be? He did some stupid Sh** when he was young, stupider than what most of us did, and should have spent some time in jail. But the insinuations that he is a terrorist and that Obama should be held to account for knowing him is insulting to thinking people. If an apology is needed, it should be from McCain/Palin and buddies for making such ridiculous comparisons and inuendos. They should apologize to Obama and his supporters.

   Posted by Extraneous at 12/08/2008 @ 4:42pm

6. That "argument" is called a non sequitur, Larry.

   But nice try, dude. You missed your target, though, kinda like all those bombs we dropped in Vietnam, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, and everywhere that we "get involved".

   "Collateral damage" is another term for "lying like a sack of shit".

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/08/2008 @ 4:47pm

7. <i>For what I have been able to glean Ayers was an idiot vandal. But to call him a terrorist because he made a few bombs is insulting to terrorists. Not that I care if you insult them. Its just that what Ayers did is not even comprable to real terrorism. It seems to me that his ego is too large to ever offer up an apology for his actions, but I have to look at what else he has done with his life, 1997 Chicago citizen of the year, funding education oportunities, professor, etc. How bad of a person can he really be? He did some stupid Sh** when he was young, stupider than what most of us did, and should have spent some time in jail. But the insinuations that he is a terrorist and that Obama should be held to account for knowing him is insulting to thinking people. Posted by Extraneous at 12/08/2008 @ 4:42pm</i>

   "Just did some stupid things"? Really? Generally, I understand "he just did some stupid things" to mean that you decided to go to class drunk a lot, or went drag-racing or something, and maybe you did it a little more than most. Making bombs isn't just a "man, he was so silly when he was young" type of thing. Though it feels weird to definitively agree with Katha Pollitt on something, yes, his actions constituted terrorism. Would they be terrorism of the same magnitude as al Qaeda? No, though it is worth noting that their stated objective (regardless of whether they could achieve it) was to overthrow the US government specifically and capitalism in generally via violent means, and they DID attempt to kill people in at least some of their bombs, contrary to Ayers' assertion. McCain should apologize for the linking of Ayers to Obama (which Rove himself said was specious), but saying Ayers was a terrorist requires no apology from anyone but Ayers himself.

   Posted by Thrawn at 12/08/2008 @ 4:55pm

8. I know we're veering slightly off the original topic of Katha's post, but I think it's well worth posting the interview with Winslow Wheeler (editor of "America's Defense Meltdown --Pentagon Reform for President Obama and the New Congress,") by Andrew Cockburn that appeared at Counterpunch last week.

   Excerpt:

   AC: You say in your preface that "the vast majority, perhaps even all, of Congress, the general officer corps of the armed forces, top management of American defense manufacturers, prominent members of Washington's think tank community and nationally recognized ‘defense journalists' will hate this book." Why is that?

   WW: The conventional wisdom amongst the elite in Washington is that they have done a pretty good job of taking care of our national defense, that things may be a little expensive but we have the best armed forces in the world, perhaps even in history, and we do the best for our troops by giving them the world's most sophisticated equipment which is, of course, the most effective. We have, so the elite asserts, demonstrated our ability by knocking off Saddam Hussein's forces twice and are in general a model to the rest of the world on how to build equipment and provide for forces.

   That's all crap. None of it is true. None of it stands up to scrutiny.....

   End quote

   For the complete and devastating indictment:

   tinyurl.com/5t4aof

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/08/2008 @ 5:04pm

9. but saying Ayers was a terrorist requires no apology from anyone but Ayers himself.

   Posted by Thrawn @ 4:55pm

   The term, "terrorist", has been going off of the rails for quite some time now.

   This paintbrush is so sloppy it is best viewed as a dull instrument often found in the hands of second rate bumblers.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/08/2008 @ 5:10pm

10. Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/08/2008 @ 5:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    This latest $150 million test - which was supposed to show that our ABM system could defeat ballistic missile decoys by distinguishing between the decoy and the ballistic missile. Putin and Medvedev likely laughing.

    Dummy target hit in missile defense test Pentagon declares it a success, though decoy 'countermeasures' fail to deploy in the encounter over the Pacific Ocean.

    By Julian E. Barnes Los Angeles Times December 6, 2008

    'Reporting from Washington -- The Defense Department conducted a successful test of its missile defense system Friday, taking out a dummy target with an interceptor strike over the Pacific Ocean, an exercise officials hope will build support for the controversial initiative within the incoming Obama administration.

    Military officials said the test showed for the first time that various radars and defense systems could be used together.

    However, the success of the test was tempered by the failure of the dummy target to deploy planned "countermeasures" -- devices designed to try to throw off the interceptor. As a result, officials could not tell whether the system can distinguish between a warhead and decoys that probably would accompany an actual attack.

    Nonetheless, some Pentagon officials hope the test, the last of the Bush administration, will impede attempts by the incoming administration to scale back the missile defense system.

    During the campaign, President-elect Barack Obama and his advisors identified missile defense as an area where spending could be trimmed. But some officials in the Pentagon oppose funding cuts that would slow development of a system that they say has begun to prove itself as effective protection....'

    Posted by OneVote at 12/08/2008 @ 5:24pm

11. <i>Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/08/2008 @ 5:10pm</i>

    OK, so let's define the term in at least one meaningful and cognizable way:

    <i>the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature</i>

    So two questions are relevant:

    1) Is this definition meaningful? Yes, in at least two ways. One, it separates out terrorism from other forms of violence (though I would concede that other forms of violence often have great potential to degenerate into terrorism). Two, it reaches the moral indignation that we tend to associate with the word, in large part because of the sustained targeting of civilians.

    2) Does the definition apply to young Ayers. Unmistakably. Him and his organization actively threatened violence against innocent civilians, and their goals were unambiguously political in nature.

    Let's say you don't buy any of that, though, and still think terrorism is too vague or manipulable to be meaningful. Even then, the full strength of Ms. Pollit's criticism still applies. He still built bombs, and when he didn't kill people it wasn't for lack of trying. That's still a lot more than just "youthful indiscretion," and even if you believe that everything he's done since then has made up for it (though "making up" for something would seem to require apology/regret), that doesn't change the fact that he did what he did, and it was reprehensible. When he tries to claim otherwise, he is distorting history.

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/08/2008 @ 5:27pm

12. I'm not defending Ayers, Thrawn.

    And the problem with the word "terrorist" is that it has been so "manipulated" in the popular imagination that the use of the term should probably be followed with at least a brief definition.

    Or we could simply discard it, perhaps, for something less shrill.

    Just a suggestion.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/08/2008 @ 5:35pm

13. Though it feels weird to definitively agree with Katha Pollitt on something, yes, his actions constituted terrorism.

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/08/2008 @ 4:55pm

    I can't believe you would compare ayers little pipe bombs to blowing up planes full of people. How many people innocent people died or were killed because of what Ayers did?

    If you are gonna quote me then quote me, don't misquote me. I said stupid sh** that should of landed him in jail. Don't pretend like I am downplaying it by misquoting me, or is your reading comprehension that bad? But only in a very exagerated sense of the word is what Ayers did terrorism. What Ayers is guilty of is more akin to vandalism/arsonist then terrorist. I am not downplaying what he did or stating that it was not big deal it just was not terrorism. In the same skien as the activities of George Washington Hayduke.

    Posted by Extraneous at 12/08/2008 @ 5:42pm

14. Posted by One Vote.

    Thanks for that update. "Missile defense" has long ago been exposed as a fraudulent concept even in theory since the costs of an effective system --if that can ever be attained-- will naturally skyrocket as cheap countermeasures are employed to side-step it.

    Sounds like a Pentagon wet dream to me --no wonder it hasn't been killed yet.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/08/2008 @ 5:42pm

15. <i>I'm not defending Ayers, Thrawn.

    And the problem with the word "terrorist" is that it has been so "manipulated" in the popular imagination that the use of the term should probably be followed with at least a brief definition.

    Or we could simply discard it, perhaps, for something less shrill.

    Just a suggestion.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/08/2008 @ 5:35pm </i>

    I didn't think you were, though in complete honesty, I thought you were moving too quickly to excuse (at least to some degree) his prior actions. I agree with you that automatically judging someone based on their past is wrong, but I do think that when you're looking at acts it's important to call a spade a spade.

    As for the criticism of "terrorism," I think that's entirely fair; it has enormous capacity for political manipulation. I wonder, though, whether that (plus the "shrillness" problem) might not also apply to any morally-charged term, and though there are some who would remove moral labels from international discourse altogether, I think that would be a solution far worse than the problem.

    The real issue seems to be, as you say, the definition of the term. I think the term can at least somewhat be defined, and I tried to do so in my previous post. That notwithstanding, if its PUBLIC meaning remains insidiously amorphous even though it might be theoretically definable, I think that's a legitimate basis for using a different term. There's certainly a fair question, though, as to what that substitute term would be.

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/08/2008 @ 5:45pm

16. Hi Katha,

    I've really enjoyed your writing over the years. If you could look up your friend who joined the October League and went to work in a factory, and write a story about her, that would be truly fascinating. Unlike Mr. Ayers, I bet she has some real wisdom and more than a few good stories to pass along. Thanks again for your column, which is one of the things that keeps me coming back to The Nation.

    Sincerely,

    Jason Rhodes

    Posted by jasonrhodes at 12/08/2008 @ 5:52pm

17. "There's certainly a fair question, though, as to what that substitute term would be."

    ~Thrawn @ 5:45pm

    I see a naming contest coming soon here at The Nation.

    :D

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/08/2008 @ 5:58pm

18. Not terrorists?

    "In 1970 the group issued a "Declaration of a State of War" against the United States government, using for the first time its new name, the "Weather Underground Organization" (WUO), adopting fake identities, and pursuing covert activities only. These initially included preparations for a bombing of a U.S. military non-commissioned officers' dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey in what Brian Flanagan said had been intended to be "the most horrific hit the United States government had ever suffered on its territory".

    On February 21, 1970, gasoline-filled molotov cocktails were thrown at the home of New York State Supreme Court Justice Murtagh, who was presiding over the trial of the so-called "Panther 21," members of the Black Panther Party over a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. One bottle full of gasoline had broken against the front steps, and flames scorched the overhanging wooden frame until its contents burnt out. In addition windows were broken, and another molotov cocktail caused paint charring on a car. The same night, molotov cocktails were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn. The son of Justice Murtagh claims that the Weatherman were responsible for the attempted arson, based on a letter promising more bombings sent by Bernadine Dohrn to the Associated Press in late November, 1970, although that letter is generally assumed to refer to an October bombing of a Queens courthouse. While nobody ever claimed responsibility, or was caught or tried, for the arson attempt, a number of historians state that the arson was enacted by the Weathermen but was considered a failure.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/08/2008 @ 6:00pm

19. <i>Posted by Extraneous at 12/08/2008 @ 5:42pm </i>

    First of all, I think at one point I conflated your position and bkool's, so I apologize for that.

    Second, I confess that I may have misstated your position, but it was fairly ambiguous. "Stupid things that should land you in jail" (note, not prison, jail) include a lot of crazy things (like, well, actual vandalism) that aren't building bombs and trying every now and then to kill people with them.

    Pollitt responds to the "vandalism" point rather nicely. Many of the times people weren't killed, it was because he was lucky, not because he tried to avoid killing people. Also, a "vandal" doesn't declare and actively try to perpetuate a systematic war against the US government and the capitalist system. To be quite honest, I really DO think that you're trivializing what Ayers and the Weatherman organization did and tried to do. They DID often try to kill civilians, and at least sometimes succeeded (plus, failure to kill because of incompetence doesn't remove moral blameworthiness).

    Finally, "terrorism" doesn't necessarily have to be a pure magnitude question. You can't say "well, this really big act constitutes terrorism, and you can't say that this much SMALLER act is terrorism because that would equate them." If X kills Y, that's murder, and it's not less so just because a government's system killing of dissidents is also murder. Is X's murder really as horrific as a government's systematic murders? No. Is it still murder? Yes.

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/08/2008 @ 6:02pm

20. Sounds like a Pentagon wet dream to me --no wonder it hasn't been killed yet.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/08/2008 @ 5:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Might be successful against 1960's technology used by Iran and North Korea..lol...the "test dummy"

    'Missile defense evasion capabilities

    Topol-M ICBMAccording to Russia the missile is designed to be immune to any current or planned U.S. missile defence system.[23] It is claimed to be capable of making evasive maneuvers to avoid a kill by terminal phase interceptors, and carries targeting countermeasures and decoys. It is shielded against radiation, EMP, nuclear explosions at distances over 500 meters, and is designed to survive a hit from any laser technology.[24]

    One of the Topol-M's most notable features is its short engine burn time following take-off, intended to minimize satellite detection of launches and thereby complicate both early warning and interception by missile defense systems during boost phase. The missile also has a relatively flat ballistic trajectory, complicating defense acquisition and interception.[25]

    According to The Washington Times, Russia has conducted a successful test of the evasive payload delivery system. [26] The missile was launched on November 1, 2005 from the Kapustin Yar facility. The warhead changed course after separating from the launcher, making it difficult to predict a re-entry trajectory.

    [edit] Equipment of Topol-M with MIRV On 15 December 2006 Moscow reported that the Topol-M soon would be re-equipped with multiple re-entry vehicles. The recently tested RS-24 was confirmed by Yuri Solomonov to be this "MIRVed" Topol-M. The message that Topol-M would soon appear in MIRV modification was repeated in December 2007.[27]'

    Source: Wikipedia

    Posted by OneVote at 12/08/2008 @ 6:07pm

21. "....Is it still murder? Yes."

    ~Thrawn @ 6:02pm

    True. And true for capital punishment as well, I might add.

    But murder has a better footing in the legal world as well as in the "memes-sphere" of public consciousness.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/08/2008 @ 6:10pm

22. Posted by OneVote @ 6:07pm

    Another good one, OV.

    Hmmmm......

    I wonder why no one in Congress has been grand standing on C-Span on this issue?

    I'm stumped.

    ;-)

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/08/2008 @ 6:17pm

23. Posted by Thrawn at 12/08/2008 @ 6:02pm

    Your right, I do think what the weathemen did is trivial in comparision to what real terrorists have done. When I said jail, that to me is a generic term for behind bars, prison, abu grahib or guantanamo, etc. I think what they did was stupid, stupid encompases a multitude of actions, from going to class drunk to invading Iraq. I agree that magnitude is not as important as intent, but I have not seen anything to suggest that their intent was to kill civilians. In my research the weathermen did not try and kill civilians, instead they went out of their way to try and insure civilians were not harmed. The only people I know that were killed were a couple of their own. What civilians were killed? Maybe my limited research has not uncovered everything, police killed demonstrators, during riots, but riots are not terrorist acts.

    If I thought they were trying to kill people with their acts (arson, bombs, riots)I would not downplay their activities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)

    Posted by Extraneous at 12/08/2008 @ 6:26pm

24. Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/08/2008 @ 6:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Really perplexing isn't it....lol.....

    Posted by OneVote at 12/08/2008 @ 6:32pm

25. Katha Pollitt is all riled up about Bill Ayers, who incidentally APOLOGIZED PROFUSELY for what he did back in the 60s, unlike - ahem - a certain Hillary R Clinton who to this day has never expressed a remorseful word about her Iraq war vote.

    HRC is complicit in the deaths of upwards of 1,000,000 Iraqis.

    Where was Pollitt's column slamming HRC for political expediency and indecency? Where was all that pent-up hostility then?

    Oh, I forgot. She uses two different sets of standards when it comes to judging men and women.

    Posted by bbionmoyers at 12/08/2008 @ 6:54pm

26. Ayers should be made to pay for the damages his bombs did to the buildings, people and psyche of those he stressed out...

    cash should work fine, with interest...

    and maybe a little time spent as a cell mate with O J..so they can comisurate(sp) as to how they were fucked over....and innocent.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/08/2008 @ 7:00pm

27. <i>Posted by bbionmoyers at 12/08/2008 @ 6:54</i>

    Where was that apology, precisely?

    <<Terry Gross: A lot of people have called you an unrepentant terrorist. I think a lot people want to hear you make a full fledged apology for some of your actions with the Weather Underground, such as bombing the Pentagon. So I want you, now that we have heard a lot of your story, to give us your answer to that.

    Bill Ayers: Well you know my answer is that the kind of culture of apology doesn' t appeal to me. If I had something specific to think about apologizing for I might. But it's kind of a blanket statement that what we did was so extreme and so wrong that I ought to just say it was crazy.>>

    Now, you might say that what he meant to convey was "I can't APOLOGIZE, but I will say that what we did was crazy," but I don't even think that's what he's saying. It certainly wasn't anything approaching a "profuse apology," so if you could indicate where that happened, that would be excellent. He repeatedly insisted that, even though he worked with the organization that initiated bombing efforts against the State Department and the Pentagon, that he never targeted civilians.

    Also, there's the whole Murtagh thing...that's kind of important.

    Finally...DID Clinton just vote for expediency? I think that begs the question as to precisely what she knew; if there were no WMD, and she didn't KNOW there were no WMD...she voted correctly from what she knew.

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/08/2008 @ 7:03pm

28. <i>Posted by YourJomamma at 12/08/2008 @ 7:00pm </i>

    If you're talking civil action (which is my hunch based on the money thing and emotional distress), I BELIEVE (but am under no authority of any kind to definitively state) that the statues of limitations have probably gone by a long time ago.

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/08/2008 @ 7:06pm

29. Ayers' apology: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/opinion/06ayers.html

    Bill Ayers:"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."

    Posted by bbionmoyers at 12/08/2008 @ 7:07pm

30. "Finally...DID Clinton just vote for expediency? I think that begs the question as to precisely what she knew; if there were no WMD, and she didn't KNOW there were no WMD...she voted correctly from what she knew."

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/08/2008 @ 7:03pm

    Anybody who has studied a little history and who has half a brain knew back in 03 that Bush and Cheney were full of crap. If I and others were skeptical of Bush admn claims, then HRC should've been too.

    She voted for the war for one simple reason. She did not want to be on the wrong side of history should this latest Gulf War go as quickly and as well as the first Gulf War went. She had presidential aspirations and was not about to jeopardize them by appearing like a dove.

    As I said before, that vote along with others led to one million Iraqi dead. No comment on this from Pollitt.

    Posted by bbionmoyers at 12/08/2008 @ 7:12pm

31. Do you remember Kent State? Do you remember the decimation of the Black Panthers through murder and imprisonment? Do you remember The FBI taking pictures of people at demonstrations, tapping their phones, ruining their lives? Do you remember the police at the Democratic Convention in 1968? Do you remember the violence and murder perpetrated against American people by the armed forces, FBI, CIA and criminal justice system?? I, myself was hit by a billy club at a peaceful demonstration in Harvard Square in Cambridge, MA. So, this disdain for the purported "violence" of Ayres and the Weather Underground seems a little silly to me. It was war. Right here. Against blacks, "hippies" and the left, and the American government was not afraid to use violence against its own people, Protestors against an immoral War, one in which young men were forced to participate or go to jail or into exile. I don't see Ayres as a hero or a devil, just someone who got caught up in it. He doesn't need to apologize: Nixon, Hoover and the Kent State killers never did.

    Posted by jonnirae at 12/08/2008 @ 7:36pm

32. Oh, I forgot. She uses two different sets of standards when it comes to judging men and women.

    Posted by bbionmoyers at 12/08/2008 @ 6:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Don't forget that Clinton is apparently filling positions from Madeline Albright's former staff......Albright was the one who felt that Iraq sanctions were worth it despite starving Iraqi children and destroying the Iraq economy.

    'She (Albright)was also criticized for defending the sanctions of Iraq under Saddam Hussein in a 1996 interview with Lesley Stahl on CBS's 60 Minutes. When asked by Stahl with regards to effect of sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" Albright replied: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."[10]' Source: Wikipedia

    Posted by OneVote at 12/08/2008 @ 7:41pm

33. Finally...DID Clinton just vote for expediency? I think that begs the question as to precisely what she knew; if there were no WMD, and she didn't KNOW there were no WMD...she voted correctly from what she knew.

    Posted by Thrawn at 12/08/2008 @ 7:03pm

    That is a total cop out and you know it.

    Plenty of people without the access and information Hillary had available to her were opposed to the Iraq war. The whole "we didn't have all the information" excuse is so old and dirty.

    If you've missed it, the Bush admin. makes the same excuses even though they were the ones that knowingly trumped up and fabricated misinformation on the road to war.

    No excuses allowed. These are not children.

    Well...not TECHNICALLY.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 12/08/2008 @ 8:07pm

34. Also, Bill Ayers is obviously a piece of crap.

    Just because he was bad at being a terrorist, doesn't make him less of one.

    HOWEVER, it's amazingly funny to see the guys on here who have no problem with carpet bombing and collateral damage decry this small potatoes assclown...

    Posted by TexasFlood at 12/08/2008 @ 8:15pm

35. Oh wait, encouraging the death of foreigners is just another way of supporting the troops...

    I forgot!

    Posted by TexasFlood at 12/08/2008 @ 8:23pm

36. Posted by jonnirae at 12/08/2008 @ 7:36pm

    reading your post makes me wish I could have been there to make sure you got your "justice". but I was busy serving my country so that punks like you could show your hatred.

    You guys make me puke.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/08/2008 @ 8:29pm

37. What is it about Katha Pollitt's writing that bugs the fuck out of me? Let's deconstruct this particular piece to see if we can find out:

    1. The New York Times piece is an effort to respond to the caricature Ayers was turned into by the right wing media machine. Pollitt takes the point of this op-ed piece, reworks it and ultimately, argues that the right-wing characterization is somehow accurate.

    2. Instead of making some kind of argument for her argument that there is some truth to these claims, she decides to use emotion laden words like "weirdo" as a flabby substitute for substantive points.

    3. Pollitt talks about the possiblity of the bomb at Fort Dix - but fails to tell us that the standard approach of the Weathermen was to notify people beforehand so no one got hurt. Care to name other so-called "terrorists" that do that?

    4. "But if the point was to symbolize outrage, why not just spraypaint graffiti on government buildings or pour blood on military documents?" Perhaps the point was to get people's attention? Care to explain how these are more effective than marching in the streets or even different? They aren't.

    5. Terrible analogies. If we want to use brain tumors - which I have difficulty imagining why we would - it would be more like someone with a GBM getting involved in dangerous surgical or drug treatments trials because nothing else has worked. It is an act of desperation.

    Ayers needs to be looked at in context. There was a belief when the Weathermen were founded that we were on the verge of a worldwide revolution. Now, people are taking that out of context and arguing that Ayers was like Al Qaeda, the Unabomber, or McVeigh. But strangely, unlike these others, he hasn't been killed or put in a supermax prison. Why is that?

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/08/2008 @ 8:46pm

38. You guys make me puke.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/08/2008 @ 8:29pm | warn this person

    Liv - is that what you were doing? Protecting our rights and free speech back at home? You enlisted, others were drafted and forced to go. You should be a little more charitable with those who didn't buy into the crap that Vietnam had something to do with our "freedoms" back home. You and I both know it didn't. Perhaps you are angry because you were deceived? You are smart enough to figure out that your anger here is displaced. Your anger should be focused on those who lied to you and used you. Check out some veteran's groups that will help you deal with this. Life is too short to carry around this hatred and anger.

    Posted by OneVote at 12/08/2008 @ 8:58pm

39. I think it is the last part that irritates me most. Ayers doesn't owe anyone an apology. You may not like what he did. You may not approve of the use of violence. You may want to talk about them in gender neutral terms like "Weatherpeople" and other such bullshit because you have some agenda - just as they did.

    I don't like some of your ideas - particularly the one's where you sit in judgment of the mistakes of others and they should somehow apologize to you like you've never made a stupid mistake in your life. You want to know what killed the left? Attitudes like this one. But, I don't want an apology; I just want you to stop fucking doing it.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/08/2008 @ 9:04pm

40. If the Weather Underground were an extreme feminist outfit, and Bill Ayers were a woman who bombed a club full of men or wrote the "SCUM Manifesto," Pollitt would've written a column long ago defending Ayers' actions.

    Posted by bbionmoyers at 12/08/2008 @ 9:13pm

41. Posted by jonnirae at 12/08/2008 @ 7:36pm

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/08/2008 @ 8:46pm

    Nothing to add. Good points.

    Posted by bbionmoyers at 12/08/2008 @ 9:15pm

42. "That's right; I show no remorse over helping our troops have a better chance of staying alive in combat. If you think that's wrong, then obviously you would prefer to see US military people die in greater numbers." Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/08/2008 @ 4:35pm

    So I assume you are constantly out protesting us being in Iraq as the best way to keep troops alive is to get them out of there. If not, then it is you who clearly want to see them die in greater numbers.

    By the way, I am glad I make you puke. You make my dad weep: he fought Nazis so their ilk would no longer exist. Their most extreme crime was war of aggression, something for which you were sent to Vietnam, and which you support in Iraq.

    Posted by onthehelm at 12/08/2008 @ 9:32pm

43. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/08/2008 @ 4:35pm

    I'm curious, LVL. Besides the children and other people killed and injured by cluster bomblets years later, surely some U.S. soldiers have been killed by them as well?

    A quick Google search brings up, Jesus Suarez del Solar and a reference to a USA Today article that suggests that eight U.S. soldiers were killed by bomblets.

    While I can acknowledge that cluster munitions may have useful characteristics as a weapon, do you think the benefit - the saving of soldiers lives, leaves the issue that some die from them too as simply an unfortunate side effect?

    I'm just curious how you parse this problem.

    http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/28/5480

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/08/2008 @ 9:51pm

44. but I was busy serving my country so that punks like you could show your hatred

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/08/2008 @ 8:29pm

    Some of us were busy serving and dying for our country right here at home while punks like you were killing innocent civilians in a civil war..

    Posted by chaoszen at 12/08/2008 @ 11:19pm

45. I hope the purpose of Bill Ayers telling his side of the story is to get ready to bring suit against everyone for slander/libel, invasion of privacy.

    Give me a break, this was over 40 years ago. He was not running for public office. People need to get out of the past. There's no more Ronald Reagan, he policies that worked back then no longer apply.

    If it were for what happened in the 60s and 70s, this country would probably be like China or Iran.

    If the rightwing nuts have their way, women would be treated like women in Afghanistan.

    It's time to leave the past behind. Bill Ayers was never charged. He is now a productive citizen of society, unlike some paroled convicts that continue to go back to prison for more serious crimes, like your child molesters - if anything you need to keep your eye on Mark Foley. Yes, he wasn't charged, but just last month he gets on television saying the underage boys he was soliciting were "technically not minors." First, off, the boys were 16 & 17. Secondly, it was unwarranted sexual harassment.

    You guys are treating Bill Ayers as if he is Timothy McVeigh, or involvement Waco Texas - state of your current beloved prez.

    Posted by Annjell at 12/09/2008 @ 12:14am

46. By the way, lest you forget, Reagan didn't believe in Unions striking for better wages or working conditions.

    Rightwing nuts need to stop this character assassination - it's not like their sh** don't stink.

    Posted by Annjell at 12/09/2008 @ 12:22am

47. Ayers should be made to pay for the damages his bombs did to the buildings, people and psyche of those he stressed out...

    cash should work fine, with interest...

    and maybe a little time spent as a cell mate with O J..so they can comisurate(sp) as to how they were fucked over....and innocent.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 12/08/2008 @ 7:00pm

    Yeah, Maasch, and maybe the same standard should apply to all of you who supported the mass murder in Iraq. There are 1.2 million dead, and a society destroyed by the likes of you who fully supported your Dear Leader Bush in his attempts to become a global emperor. Cash and your possessions would work well here. But then, you're innocent too, right, John?

    Posted by jmusolino at 12/09/2008 @ 12:32am

48. My brother died in Vietnam. He died during the time Nixon instituted his "secret plan to end the war," that he referenced to win the presidency in 1968 - one of the 25,000 young men who died during Nixon's term in office. I would like to know what my brother died for? Did his death and the destruction of my family enhance the freedoms we enjoy in the United States? Did our mother's tears and subsequent death from a broken heart at age 44 enhance our freedoms? Did the Weather Underground do anything that might have caused harm to our soldiers in Vietnam?

    My brother and all the young men who died in Vietnam did so for nothing beyond the foolishness of our leaders. And even if we'd won the war and that brutal and corrupt government in South Vietnam had been victorious, those nearly 60,000 American dead and hundreds of thousands wounded and crippled would have done nothing to advance our freedoms.

    Now my son is in the Army and will most likely be sent to Iraq. And for what? For freedom? Nothing could be further from the truth. Iraq was first and foremost a vehicle for a mediocre man to prove his worth by fighting a war that never should have been fought. And when it's all over, Iraq will still be just as brutal and anti Israel as it always was, because that's who those people are. And soon enough, they'll hate us just as much as they did before we launched our stupid invasion. And regarding the notion that we're bringing democracy to the Middle East - the most charitable thing anyone will be able to say is, "oh, well... We tried."

    Posted by Dolmance at 12/09/2008 @ 12:33am

49. I don't understand why you've wasted so much wind on Bill Ayres. He's like me: inconsequential in world and national affairs.

    He made his decisions, took his chances, in the heady days of 1968/69. So did I.

    What's ahead of us is what's important. We have many, many domestic and foreign problems to sort out, now. Rethrashing the 1960s misses the point by a huge degree.

    Try and keep your eyes on the ball.

    Not about Bill Ayres, not about me (who rejected the Weather Underground). It's all about now and our future. That's plenty. keep your eyes on the ball, on the prize.

    Lee Edmundson Mendocino California Veteran, Chicago 1968

    Posted by nephilim at 12/09/2008 @ 01:40am

50. I just don't think you can call what he said lying.

    Do I agree with his methods? No

    Do I agree with most of the second half of this editorial? Yes

    But pulling out a few trivial discrepancies and calling him a liar is ridiculous.

    This is also very poorly written. It sounds more like a rant than an editorial written by somebody with intelligence. Now I have no doubt that Ms Pollitt IS someone of intelligence, but maybe she should have slept on it for a couple of days before writing a fuming article against somebody who was trying to clear his name. Justified or not, Bill Ayers' actions WERE grossly exaggerated by the McCain campaign.

    Many of us want an apology, but we are not going to get it by attacking Mr. Ayers for writing an editorial that was, for the most part, true. Just like the Weather Underground was not going to get an end to the Vietnam War, or racism for that matter, by bombing the Pentagon.

    Let's have a debate on whether violence begets violence, because clearly the group that disagrees is not begetting the group that agrees by inciting a shouting match.

    Posted by RebelKev at 12/09/2008 @ 02:54am

51. Billy Ayers and Obama use the same playbook, Alinsky.

    Posted by tanarg at 12/09/2008 @ 04:19am

52. Thanks for this clear perspective. Not having researched things myself, I was about to be taken in by Mr. Ayers. What you say rings true. Perhaps the most lasting damage done by Ayers & Co. was to the progressive movement itself.

    Posted by dhave at 12/09/2008 @ 05:24am

53. To fit the definition of terrorism shouldn't people be, well, terrorized? I lived through the sixties and seventies and never met anyone on the right or the left who was the least bit preoccupied by the Weathermen, nor do I recall anyone referring to them as terrorists. Violent extremists, maybe. And no, I am not in the least excusing what they did, I just don't think it rises (or sinks) to the level of terrorism.

    Posted by Flybynite at 12/09/2008 @ 07:12am

54. What a bunch of hooey. I cannot believe anybody is still spending time talking/writing about this, least of all those that share values with Army of God adherents, those that called for the violent overthrow of a former ally.

    Ayers owes all of you exactly nothing.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2008 @ 08:05am

55. Ayers wishes he could be a terrorist, but he didn't then and still doesn't have the brains to be an effective one. He is just a spoiled, angry little boy and remains so. Ayers and his Weathermen and all their variants were miserable failures who accomplished nothing.

    The fact of the matter is his sicko group's most effective attack was in killing themselves while making bombs to attack Fort Dix. Ayers is a failure in most everything. Somehow, he has made a lot of money in academia for just "trying".

    Posted by Weyld1 at 12/09/2008 @ 09:31am

56. Dude's a loser

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/09/2008 @ 09:49am

57. The bomb that blew up the townhouse in the Village was intended to blow up an NCO dance at Fort Dix. Bil Ayers was one bad wiring job from being Timothy McVeigh.

    Posted by deadball1 at 12/09/2008 @ 09:57am

58. Who the hell cares about Bill Ayers? Katha Pollitt is smoking crack if she things she can pin the death of the left on this guy. It's been a collective failure of nerve for over 30 years that has led to this point. There is no anti-war movement, and it has nothing to do with Bill Ayers. The people who were in the streets in 1968 now drive a Lexus and drink starbucks and pooh-pooh the war-criminals of the GOP while elevating the once-and-future war criminals of the Democratic party. People who do nothing buy "write letters." People like... Katha Pollitt. The US will stop slaughtering innocents when we are repaid in kind. And only then. Non-violence doesn't work anymore.

    Posted by rtwendt at 12/09/2008 @ 10:04am

59. http:// www.africanamericans.com/ BirminghamBombing.htm

    'BIRMINGHAM, Alabama (CNN) 1 May, 2001 -- Almost 40 years after the crime, the man accused of one of the most celebrated crimes of the civil rights era was convicted of all four counts of first-degree murder Tuesday and sentenced to life in prison.

    A jury of eight whites and four blacks deliberated for two hours before convicting Thomas Blanton, 62, of plotting the 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church that killed four black girls who were preparing for a church youth service.

    ...

    On one tape, Blanton was heard telling Burns that he would not be caught "when I bomb my next church." On another made in his kitchen, he is heard talking with his wife about a meeting where "we planned the bomb." "That is a confession out of this man's mouth," said Jones, pointing to Blanton. The defense argued that the tape made in Blanton's kitchen meant nothing because prosecutors failed to play 26 minutes of previous conversation. "You can't judge a conversation in a vacuum," Robbins said.

    Robbins dismissed Blanton's conversations with Burns as just "two rednecks driving around, drinking, running their mouths."...'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/09/2008 @ 10:14am

60. Posted by deadball1 at 12/09/2008 @ 09:57am

    Oklahoma City killed 168 people and injured more than 800 through using a truck bomb that had about the explosive power of a little more than 2250 kg of TNT.

    The Weathermen had 57 sticks of dynamite in the Greenwich house, which is roughly about 26 kg of TNT. The only people they ever killed was themselves.

    Clearly, there's a difference in degree, and unless you believe in "thought crime", there is a huge difference in what they actually did.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/09/2008 @ 10:50am

61. Posted by rtwendt at 12/09/2008 @ 10:04am

    The first part of your post has truth to it. You went wrong here:

    "The US will stop slaughtering innocents when we are repaid in kind. And only then. Non-violence doesn't work anymore."

    If 9/11 has taught us anything, it has taught us that, in the vast majority of circumstances, violence begets more violence.

    There may be occasions where violence is appropriate. For example, if an airplane hijacker shows up with a box cutter and tries to take over an airplane, that guy is going to see an on rush of passengers that see their best chance at living is killing him - and they would probably be right.

    But I think you make a mistake if you think violence against the state is effective. The most effective weapon agains state violence is non-cooperation. If even 1/10 of the U.S. population refused to pay taxes and were willing to go to jail because of U.S. war policies, they would change - immediately. That's a fact - as much of a fact that it will never happen.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/09/2008 @ 11:01am

62. Ayers is a failure in most everything. Somehow, he has made a lot of money in academia for just "trying".

    Posted by Weyld1 at 12/09/2008 @ 09:31a

    Most of all he was a failure for the right wing attack machine. People are tired of fighting the 60's again. Except for those that have no positive agenda to sell, like Sarah Palin.

    Posted by crabwalk at 12/09/2008 @ 11:18am

63. Growing up in Colorado, fireworks were legal and guns were plentiful. We shot targets, hunted, and reloaded our own shells. Thus, gunpowder was readily available and proved too much of a temptation to a lad of 14. I made a pipe-bomb, took it to a field, and detonated it. I had no political agenda, no statement to make, nobody was injured (luckily) and other than a small hole in the ground, no property was damaged.

    Anyone could use this incident to lable me a "bomb-building terrorist" in an attempt to smear my name. It is even more of a stretch to use Ayers to smear Obama's name.

    When Ayers was named person of the year by the city of Chicago, his past went unremarked. Most of the nation had never even heard of Bill Ayers and his past was a total non-issue until the Republican smear machine desperately tried to link the black man with the funny muslim-sounding name to an inept leftist ex-bombmaker.

    As with the bogus citizenship issue, the sore-losers on the right have latched onto this issue, if not to overturn the election results, to at least somehow claim vindication and smugly proclaim that they were right about Obama all along.

    Posted by Balrog at 12/09/2008 @ 11:21am

64. If Bill Ayers had wanted this sort of attention, I would be in agreement with the author of the column. But he was thrust on the stage unwillingly by a right wing machine that will resurrect old demons to win just about anything. As a society, the United States gives folks a second chance to those who pay their debt to society.

    Professor Ayers has done just that, he served time for what he did. Then he came out and became a respected public citizen through hard work, determination and the proper application of his intellectual gifts. That is the textbook definition of rehabilitation.

    He owes us absolutely nothing. His apology comes in the form of serving his term and then being a responsible citizen, which he has done. This is much to his credit.

    I need nothing more from him, much less an "apology" for something he has already paid the price for.

    JC

    Posted by jwcisneros at 12/09/2008 @ 11:38am

65. "Terrorism is war waged by the poor. War is terrorism waged by the rich." - attributed to Peter Ustinov There is no difference between war and terrorism, except scale. Yet we observe in most people an abhorrence of terrorism and cheerleading for or at least a grudging acceptance of war. Is it because the human mind can't comprehend the devastation of 100,000 to 600,000 people killed, 4,000,000 turned into refugees, billions of dollars worth of property destroyed, but we can empathize with one hotel set on fire and less than two hundred dead? Do we have an innate respect for the power of money? Do we really love "shock and awe" and the military might it puts on display? Were Bill Ayers and his associates so reprehensible while Johnson, Nixon, Kennedy et al were morally justified?

    Posted by pmhanna at 12/09/2008 @ 12:08pm

66. The first part of your post has truth to it. You went wrong here:

    "The US will stop slaughtering innocents when we are repaid in kind. And only then. Non-violence doesn't work anymore."

    If 9/11 has taught us anything, it has taught us that, in the vast majority of circumstances, violence begets more violence.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/09/2008 @ 11:01am

    And obviously we've all learned from that little lesson.

    Do you realize a huge chunk of this country still thinks we're supposed to be at war? Doesn't really matter who, as long as they're Arab. That the so-called anti-war candidate, who is still pro-war in afghanistan, won by ONLY six points?

    We as a nation have learned nothing from 9/11, and our actions only reinforce that notion.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 12/09/2008 @ 1:28pm

67. Looking back at that period, I don't think anyone confused the Weathermen, with the non-violent majority in the Peace movement.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/09/2008 @ 1:42pm

68. Looking back at that period, I don't think anyone confused the Weathermen, with the non-violent majority in the Peace movement.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/09/2008 @ 1:42pm

69. Looking back at that period, I don't think anyone confused the Weathermen, with the non-violent majority in the Peace movement.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/09/2008 @ 1:42pm

70. Perhaps you are angry because you were deceived? You are smart enough to figure out that your anger here is displaced. Your anger should be focused on those who lied to you and used you. Check out some veteran's groups that will help you deal with this. Life is too short to carry around this hatred and anger.

    Posted by OneVote at 12/08/2008 @ 8:58pm

    I don't feel deceived at all. History has proven that we were right to fight the spread of communism. History has also proven the shame the anti-war left and the cowards in Congress should bear for causing the deaths of millions of Vietnamese after we pulled out. The genocide, torture, and the millions imprisoned in "re-education" camps are a stain that the left glibly ignores. For them, it's about their victory in causing a US military defeat to be snatched from the jaws of victory.

    I don't carry hatred and anger. You people are not worth that. Just disgust.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 1:54pm

71. Let's put it this way: If the Ayers/Dohrn combo were not working for Cointelpro, that was a match made in heaven that never came about.

    Basically, their impunity and subsequent "mainstream success" (an imaginary one, actually) are one of the most convincing examples of class power and privilege, but most of all of the fact that America is the most advanced society of spectacle on the face of the earth.

    Posted by WWW at 12/09/2008 @ 2:40pm

72. If you set off bombs in public places, no matter what the cause or reason, you are a terrorist.

    If you're too dumb or too naive not to know you should shun people like Bill Ayers, you shouldn't be President.

    Posted by Clankazoid at 12/09/2008 @ 3:20pm

73. History has also proven the shame the anti-war left and the cowards in Congress should bear for causing the deaths of millions of Vietnamese after we pulled out. The genocide, torture, and the millions imprisoned in "re-education" camps are a stain that the left glibly ignores. For them, it's about their victory in causing a US military defeat to be snatched from the jaws of victory.

    I don't carry hatred and anger. You people are not worth that. Just disgust.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 1:54pm | warn this person

    Your guy McCain pushed for normalization of relations with Vietnam. Strange behavior for the righteous. He also was the leading advocate for closing the books on our MIAs and POWs. If you truly believed in what you preach, I would think that McCain would disgust you as well. Why isn't McCain one of "you people" for you?

    Posted by OneVote at 12/09/2008 @ 3:30pm

74. I don't feel deceived at all. History has proven that we were right to fight the spread of communism. History has also proven the shame the anti-war left and the cowards in Congress should bear for causing the deaths of millions of Vietnamese after we pulled out. The genocide, torture, and the millions imprisoned in "re-education" camps are a stain that the left glibly ignores. For them, it's about their victory in causing a US military defeat to be snatched from the jaws of victory.

    I don't carry hatred and anger. You people are not worth that. Just disgust.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 1:54pm

    Lies, and the lying liars...

    To borrow a few lines from that MN clown.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 12/09/2008 @ 3:43pm

75. Posted by TexasFlood at 12/09/2008 @ 1:28pm

    I didn't say the lesson was learned by most people, but the lesson was definitely taught. Unfortunately, some people take these lessons and learn its opposite in order to reenforce their own prejudices. See LVL's 12/09/2008 @ 1:54pm post for an ilustration.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 1:54pm

    By what criteria were we close to "victory" in Vietnam? How exactly is the U.S. Congress morally culpable for what happened in Vietnam after? Does the same apply to Rwanda? The Congo? Other various and sundry locations?

    Care to explore the culpablity the U.S. Congress has for supporting Saddam in Iraq? Or the many other dictators we have supported over the decades?

    Or do you only apply this standard where convenient and where U.S. forces have been deployed?

    Posted by Clankazoid at 12/09/2008 @ 3:20pm

    "If you set off bombs in public places, no matter what the cause or reason, you are a terrorist."

    By that definition, the U.S. government is a terrorist organization. Or did you mean only public places...in the United States?

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/09/2008 @ 3:43pm

76. Posted by OneVote at 12/09/2008 @ 3:30pm

    I think McCain does disgust LVL. But if he is forced to choose between McCain and Obama...well, principle has nothing to do with it.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/09/2008 @ 3:45pm

77. My hat's off to Katha Pollitt

    and to The Nation

    for this truthful and honest piece.

    Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 12/09/2008 @ 3:49pm

78. Crabwalk - God bless you for defending a failure who wanted to attack the very insititutions that allow a deluded narcisist like him the freedom to be as confused as he was/is/and will always be.

    To you, Ayers may not be relevant and I may agree, but you have to admit, Ayers didn't really have a very positive agenda either.

    Posted by Weyld1 at 12/09/2008 @ 4:25pm

79. Crabwalk - God bless you for defending a failure who wanted to attack the very insititutions that allow a deluded narcisist like him the freedom to be as confused as he was/is/and will always be.

    To you, Ayers may not be relevant and I may agree, but you have to admit, Ayers didn't really have a very positive agenda either.

    Posted by Weyld1 at 12/09/2008 @ 4:25pm

80. Weatherpeople? Where did that come from?

    Weathermen, yes, but I don't recall Weatherpeople. The writer is trying to rewrite history, too.

    Posted by blooker at 12/09/2008 @ 4:28pm

81. Revisionism is such an easy trap. It is nearly impossible to reconstruct the zeitgeist that was emerging during "The Vietnam Era" . I find the name calling and dismissive tenor of Ms. Pollitt's piece a sniping snarky potshot at something she understands little within the context of when The Weather Underground was occurring as an anti-war entity. Mr. Ayer's comments reflect a time through the tempered voice of one who has mellowed from the dire young activist he once was. I find it hard to believe that the bombings undertaken by The Weather Underground were designed to harm people. Is it not an oxymoron for a peace loving organization made up of students working to end violence between humans actually in the business of killing anyone? I laud Ayer's and Dorhn for their courage to do what they did. Yes there were flaws. It is certain mistakes were made; but these were polarizing times of change in our American society, and few were there who had power and voice to shake-up the lethargic and ignorant status quo so prevalent in our country. Perhaps a column about the current stultified and nearly ignored anti-war movement could be better use of your pen, rather than snarky half-baked revisionism of a time you portray innacurately to begin with.

    Posted by burdenistic at 12/09/2008 @ 5:20pm

82. Posted by burdenistic at 12/09/2008 @ 5:20pm

    And yet, that's exactly what they did do.

    Most people don't build bombs unless they plan to blow something up with them.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 12/09/2008 @ 5:37pm

83. You make accusations that have no basis in truth other than things you have been told...a nail bomb for Fort Dix? LOL Not likely nor do you have any proof of it.

    People such as yourself have never made any headway with this story for one reason. The middle class and people from the age of 40 to 60? Lived those times and we remember the anger, the marches, the violent reactions of normal people who were so sick of the War and the fact that our own government was making a profit from it! WE were all angry and millions cheered on the people such as Ayers who NEVER killed anyone. Yes, 3 people who were a part of a group did wind up blowing up their selves but that is a chance & choice THEY made. Innocent people were NEVER harmed and you cannot now come in a rewrite history...for one reason. It's the same reason McCain lost the election. People don't believe you and you have no facts to back up your blattering...so wipe the spittle off your chin and try to write something that might give you some credibility because as a Republican who felt they had to vote Democratic in this election? I am sick to death of people like you and the sickness you spread that only hurt our party.

    Posted by DeannaGrissom at 12/09/2008 @ 5:45pm

84. For all those who commented, but weren't at least in their late teens when the mad bombers wreaked fear & destruction, please substitute your name for Donny's in now famous quotes from The Big Lebowski:

    Walter Sobchak: You have no frame of reference, Donny. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know--

    Walter Sobchak: Forget it, Donny, you're out of your element!

    As KP points out, it was only a simple twist of fate that members of the Weather Underground died instead of young officers, their wives, or girl friends at a dance for noncommissioned officers at Fort Dix. The Weather Underground intended to maim, disfigure, cripple, and kill them. But the bomb inadvertently detonated in perpetrators' home, killing three of them instead.

    Posted by Mitty at 12/09/2008 @ 6:00pm

85. I think McCain does disgust LVL. But if he is forced to choose between McCain and Obama...well, principle has nothing to do with it.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/09/2008 @ 3:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I "think" I know what you mean. Now this is what disgusts me about "those people." Thank goodness Liv is in the "minority"....lol............

    Posted by OneVote at 12/09/2008 @ 6:12pm

86. I haven't read fugitive days but I am familiar with Bill's scholarship. He has published scores of books and articles about the plight of marginalized youth, the criminal justice system, and education. His tone is always measured, his facts checked, and his words filled with insight and hope. This is how Bill Ayer's has spent the last twenty-five years, as a dedicated teacher, scholar, and activist.

    Katha makes some fair points about the headstrong and irresponsible Bill Ayers of the late 60s and early 70s. (as a side note...Dorhn actually wrote a manifesto to Sirhan Sirhan? oh man...it was a crazy time wasn't it)

    It strikes me as disohonest however to completely overlook the meaningful contributions Bill Ayer's has made since leaving the Weatherman and emerging from hiding. We are all better off for Bill Ayer's dedication to those who are most marginalized within our culture...

    Posted by jajuna at 12/09/2008 @ 6:30pm

87. I fought Bill Ayers's and the Weather people's ultraleftism are hard as anyone, back then, when it counted most.

    I'm not disagreeing with any points here. I could probably add to them.

    But I decided some time ago to set that burden down, to make peace, as best as I could, with those I had shared fierce factional warfare from opposing sides. I did my best to sum up my own role, and my own view of things. In doing so, I saw that there would never be just one way of recounting that history.

    I also saw that it was history. People had moved on, and reconstructed themselves and their life projects, sometimes more than once. They were now engaged in new battles, and claiming some new advances. I decided to focus on what was new in moving forward.

    I first met Ayers before the Weather madness, when he was organizing experimental schools for children in Ann Arbor, deeply involved with theories of education and pedagogy.

    Today he has come full circle, but now on a higher level. His work in the small schools movement, in restructuring inner city high schools across the country, in training a new generation of teachers to see the strong points in every child, not just liabilities--all this make him and his work a national treasure. He's not the only one doing this, but if you ask the best of them, they'll include him in their ranks.

    We need to make the most of Bill Ayers and his work today, not tear it down.

    Besides, some perspective is needed. Henry Kissinger, who has the blood of millions on his hands, is still free, untried for his crimes. If you want to settle accounts, start there, and work your way down. You'll be busy a long time before putting members of the long defunct WUO in the dock.

    Carl Davidson SDS National Leader, 1966-1968

    Posted by CarlD717 at 12/09/2008 @ 8:37pm

88. What's so distressing is that Ayers could have done a great service by using his soapbox to focus attention on the right-wing's bogus "guilt-by-association" slimes. He mentioned McCarthyism on his way to his half-arsed rationalizations of his own behavior decades ago--but in the end showed himself to be just another self-obsessed boomer.

    Posted by takemyveepplease at 12/09/2008 @ 9:03pm

89. President elect Obama is promising to continue the war in Afghanistan and kill many, many more people. He is willing to take this war across sovereign borders. He has never served in the U.S. Armed Forces or any other security organ. Is Obama a chickenhawk? Can we assert that we have an authentic chickenhawk warmonger about to occupy the White House? Who amongst you will sue for conspiracy and war crime indictments?

    How can the anti-war Peace Movement live with this betrayal of their own convictions? How can the People respect those who would so quickly trash their most cherished values? The Movement has no credibility anymore. Obama has chosen a war-hawk for SoS, a war-planner for SecDef, and a war-fighter for his closest security advisor. This will mean there will be more war.

    Posted by Prospector at 12/09/2008 @ 9:54pm

90. In America, the Vietnam war goes on and on.

    Anyone who remained merely ‘liberal', as in this nowhere woman's dasein world as the Heidegger cop-outs were learning to call it then (young female chickens are called ‘pullets' down south; katha always brings that back, somehow), wasn't a true American, then. Nor now.

    They wouldn't stand up for their country when it was subverted, against those who subverted it, as Bill Ayers did. Nor would they now.

    They were nothing but useful tools for the smiley face psychokillers who came back as College repube neocons no one ever told THEM anything. Now look at them sniping like moronic maggots while avoiding the issues. (The role of Jews and Catholics promoting the Clean Break - '96; Surge -05 policy and the fine Black Boy from Chicago for U.S. President; so Rahmbo Emanuel for appointment)

    Stokeley Carmichael's view that the only viable position for women in the movement is prone still pretty much holds. I'm sure Palin boosters agree. She won the u'betcha lulz war on sunglass gogglers without battin' a smirk. KVH is OK but she could use a little help in the crotch kick dept. What a smiley piece of snake brain maggotry this article is. If it was printed in hardcopy I would burn it. Then piss on the coals. She has absolutely no right to criticize this man, Bill Ayers, for anything whatsoever and what "he owes us" (people like her) is what that Latino boy in Brooklyn is accusing one of NYCity's finest of administering.

    Suggested title for Hayden's next. The Pussification of America.

    If only Nietzsche hadn't gone crazy after writing The Anti-Christ.

    LOL

    Posted by jones at 12/09/2008 @ 9:55pm

91. ...Surge - '06

    Posted by jones at 12/09/2008 @ 10:01pm

92. Carl Davidson SDS National Leader, 1966-1968

    Posted by CarlD717 at 12/09/2008 @ 8:37pm

    Just curious Carl; any changes?

    "Davidson is an American Marxist who serves as a national steering committee member of United for Peace and Justice, a field organizer for the Solidarity Economy Network, and co-chair of Chicagoans Against War & Injustice. The latter organization has formed alliances with such groups as the League of Women Voters, Rainbow/PUSH, Citizen Action, People for the American Way, the Progressive Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Aiming ultimately to transform the United States into a socialist nation, Davidson advocates the mobilization of "new grassroots majorities required for progressive, systemic change."

    In 1960s, Davidson was a national secretary of SDS and a key leader of the anti-Vietnam War campaign. With Tom Hayden, Davidson helped launch, in 1969, the "Venceremos Brigades," which according to Discover the Networks "

    ...covertly transported hundreds of young Americans to Cuba to help harvest sugar cane and interact with Havana's communist revolutionary leadership. (The Brigades were organized by Fidel Castro's Cuban intelligence agency, which trained "brigadistas" in guerrilla warfare techniques, including the use of arms and explosives.)

    After the SDS broke up Davidson became involved in Maoist politics until 1992 when he became a leader of the newly formed Committees of Correspondence (CoC), a Marxist-Leninist coalition of former Maoists, Trotskyists, and former Communist Party USA (CPUSA) members. The organization has since changed its name to the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS). Davidson remains a prominent figure in CCDS.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 10:29pm

93. I don't feel deceived at all. History has proven that we were right to fight the spread of communism. History has also proven the shame the anti-war left and the cowards in Congress should bear for causing the deaths of millions of Vietnamese after we pulled out. The genocide, torture, and the millions imprisoned in "re-education" camps are a stain that the left glibly ignores. For them, it's about their victory in causing a US military defeat to be snatched from the jaws of victory.

    I don't carry hatred and anger. You people are not worth that. Just disgust.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 1:54pm

    You're pretty delusional, Larry, since you were, in fact, deceived. Fight the spread of communism? It was a civil war, and it is the US government, especially Nixon and Johnson who bear responsibility for the destabilization of the region, leading to the murders of millions.

    And, Larry, you carry nothing but hatred and anger - it spews out of virtually everything you post. Really, try reading some of your bullshit sometimes - what the hell, the rest of us have to.

    Posted by jmusolino at 12/10/2008 @ 12:54am

94. Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/09/2008 @ 10:29pm

    Uh, Larry...what's your point? Do you actually have a point with that post? Did he ever suggest using nukes, as you have, Larry? Do you really want to get into a discussion about character or terrorism sympathies, Larry? You of all people? Because, Larry, your posts show you to be someone who loves death, at least the deaths of others. So again, did that idiotic post actually have anything resembling a rational point? I didn't think so!

    Posted by jmusolino at 12/10/2008 @ 12:58am

95. Only you and the self righteous Hilzoy assuming intentions and motivations and a wingtard biased interpretation of the facts. For many of us who lived through that era, deeply involved and being forced to go fight, it's become tiresome to explain again to those who never got it...but suffice it to say that the Boy Scouts of America did more damage and engaged in more CIA, FBI, Local Police sponsored terrorist vandalism than a hundred weathermen.

    Oh, the indignation...but let's join the republican conservative meme of pointing out Ayers who, like Obama and all the rest of the dirty hippie liberal progressives who are just like him only just not "quite" as radical because they too dare to stand against America's military industrial complex, never killed anyone, using the LSD drug induced rhetoric of the day to respond to those yelling "America...love it or leave it" or "My country right or wrong" and those non terrorist killings of ,,,"Four dead in Ohio" or the Black Panthers machine gunned to death in their beds while sleeping in Chicago by bragging law enforcement...but hey, you're right it was Bill Ayers we should demonize..."HE" owes us an apology...or is it your slanted hit piece on a decent citizen for 40 yr/old headlines that owes the apology. If corporate fascism comes to this country you cannot be trusted.

    Posted by bjobotts at 12/10/2008 @ 02:13am

96. One man's "terrorist" is another man's "Freedom fighter". 'Nuff said.

    Posted by Greytdog at 12/10/2008 @ 07:25am

97. "As a friend who doesn't see why I am raking this all up argues, it's not as if today's left is bristling with macho streetfighters."

    You sure about that? I've personally witnessed assclowns from Vassar and Bard colleges talk about the "revolution" they're going to bring, in very violent terms. Angry, dreadlocked white kids who rail against "the corporate mafia" which, by the way, their parents occupy the highest positions of, which is how they can afford to send their kids to schools that cost $45,000 a year. They love to talk about how the U.S. oppresses "the brown people" and make veiled threats about killing members of government while they sip their lattes and read anarchist websites over their wifi connections.

    Of course, you don't need to be near a college community to see these fools. You'd have to rock Bose noise-canceling headphones and have your head in a paper bag not to notice these idiots at pretty much any anti-war protest in the past seven years.

    One of the reasons the right is able to so easily discredit the anti-war movement is because the left tolerates this stupidity. And then you have the professors at colleges like Bard who encourage that behavior.

    But when it comes down to it, these kids are less likely to end up like Ayrs and more likely to take their rightful positions as the overlords of the corporations they railed against in their college years, because after all, their love of money is stronger than their hate of the U.S. government. What a disgusting bunch of hypocrites.

    Posted by Planetary at 12/10/2008 @ 07:35am

98. The day Henry Kissinger issues his apology for extending the war and the thousands of deaths his ideology caused both American and Vietnamese should be the day we should look at Bill Ayers and what apology he needs to make..

    Posted by Palomalo at 12/10/2008 @ 07:43am

99. "If corporate fascism comes to this country you cannot be trusted."

    Posted by bjobotts at 12/10/2008 @ 02:13am

    Too late.

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/10/2008 @ 09:03am

100. Fine. Now let's hear 3 million plus apologies from the United States government for all the Vietnamese they killed and maimed, not to mention Napalm, Agent Orange and cluster bombs galore that they rained on their heads, as well as the people of Laos, Cambodia, Thailand-their countrsides still littered with said cluster bombs in the millions. Apologies for the U.S. led forces in Central America that shot people in the back of the head because they wanted to put a little more food on the table for the families. How about Iraq? More contemporary and still ongoing. When you add up the body count, the U.S.A. is still way ahead of William Ayers. No two ways about it.

     Posted by boing007 at 12/10/2008 @ 3:00pm

101. Generally I agree with my favorite Nation columnist. But not on this.

     The reasoning behind Ms. Politt's anger is revealed when she says that she had friends in Progressive Labor. There were many SDSers who were pissed-off at PL's tactics to take over SDS than just the "Action Faction," as the recent graphic novel involving Harvey Pekar attests. Fer Ms. Pollitt to assert that the Weather Underground broke-up SDS is to totally overlook, and perhaps cover-up, PL's role.

     Ms. Pollitt fails to mention the murders of people such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy and Fred Hampton. She also fails to acknowledge that the actions of the Weather Underground diverted some attention paid to the Black Panthers by the FBI. Indeed, she fails to acknowledge that not only were there other leftist individuals and groups, such as the Panthers and the Young Lords, engaged in confrontational rebellion, she overlooks the fact that there were white, right-wing vigilante groups, such as the Minutemen, who engaged in violent activity against leftist groups. Rick Perlstein's "Nixonland" gives a listing, if Ms. Pollitt is interested in increasing her understanding of what drove some people to violent, destructive acts.

     About the townhouse: in her memoir, "Flying Close to the Sun," Cathy Wilkerson, who survived the blast, makes it clear that the group in the house was acting independantly, and not under orders. In his memoir, "Fugative Days," Mr. Ayers states that there was a meeting in the northwest after the Manhattan townhouse explosion in which the directive had changed: no longer would the Weather Underground be composed of groups acting individually, from then on all actions would be directed from the top. These facts are missing from her missive, perhaps intentionally

     Posted by dshandy at 12/10/2008 @ 5:52pm

102. I love seeing all of these traitor lefties who are coming out of the woodwork now to pine for the good old days when they could stage their communist inspired support of our enemies.

     It just shows that despite all the protests I get here to the contrary, there is still a sizable contingent of people dedicated to the destruction of the US. Dshandy, boing007, bjobotts, and deannagrissom, are fine examples of the kind of miscreants that are still enjoying the benefits gleaned from the millions of us who have served so that they can enjoy freedom.

     Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/10/2008 @ 7:24pm

103. Menachem Begin was a terrorist and later became Prime Minister of Israel. Moshe Dayan, another terrorist, became his Minister of Defense.

     Posted by boing007 at 12/10/2008 @ 7:39pm

104. I love seeing all of these traitor lefties who are coming out of the woodwork now to pine for the good old days when they could stage their communist inspired support of our enemies.

     It just shows that despite all the protests I get here to the contrary, there is still a sizable contingent of people dedicated to the destruction of the US. Dshandy, boing007, bjobotts, and deannagrissom, are fine examples of the kind of miscreants that are still enjoying the benefits gleaned from the millions of us who have served so that they can enjoy freedom.

     What sort of freedom were you preserving in the U.S.A. by fighting in Vietnam? Beats me. Did any Vietnamese people attack American soil? No. The Gulf Tonkin incident was a fake. We went to war on a false pretext, just like we did in Iraq. You seem not to care about how many people are killed, maimed or displaced whenever the U.S. military invades another country. Who cares? You obviously do not. You really should be ashamed of yourself. There is counselling available for inveterate imperialist warmongers like yourself. Don't hesitate to give it a try.

     Posted by boing007 at 12/10/2008 @ 7:52pm

105. I trust that Mr. LVLiberty1 doesn't support the use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium bombs in Iraq. If he does, then he is a closet terrorist. The worse kind.

     Posted by boing007 at 12/10/2008 @ 7:59pm

106. I love seeing all of these traitor lefties who are coming out of the woodwork now to pine for the good old days when they could stage their communist inspired support of our enemies.

     I never read Marx, carried pictures of Chairman Mao and I never chanted Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh. Sorry to disappoint your cherished theory.

     I will tell you one more time. During the war in El Salvador people were rounded up and summarily executed. I saw a documentary where Contras took a young man-a field worker most likely-to a bombed out house, made him lie face down on the floor and shot him in the back of the head. Who cares? He was just some Salvadorean peasant that was getting in the way of Washington's efforts to control Central America. Maybe you should get a copy. Your dear President Ronnie Reagan was responsible for that atrocity and many others in Guatemala and Honduras in the early 80s. May he burn in hell for eternity. Who knows, maybe you will join him one day. Give him my regards.

     Posted by boing007 at 12/10/2008 @ 8:24pm

107. Posted by boing007 at 12/10/2008 @ 8:24pm

     Perhaps your first task should be to learn history instead of just the far left myths you believe.

     Ever been outside of the US?

     Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/10/2008 @ 11:20pm

108. Let's not forget his wife who laughed and said that Sharon Tate and her yet unborned baby deserved what they got at the hands of the Manson people.

     Bernadene Dohrn also happens to be good friends with Michelle Obama.

     Posted by WillKane at 12/11/2008 @ 3:35pm

109. People who support political movements come in a spectrum of temperaments, from meek to wild. The center and heart of the movement talks a lot, networks and takes measured action.

     The opposition also has a spectrum of temperament. What gets their attention, what brings them around? If the intellectuals talk to the intellectuals, do the hot-blooded respond to the hot-blooded?

     As an intellectual, I agree with everything Pollit said about violence being bad for the movement. When I see Ayers and Dohrn, they seem like rich, bright kids who really tried to live their populist ideals, went back to their money and did some good. There is also something faintly criminal or ruined about them.

     When I heard about the Weathermen as a child, they sounded exciting and admirable. Ayers and Dohrn are bright idealists who have been through a lot. I don't feel qualified to judge them.

     Posted by PBucking at 12/11/2008 @ 5:03pm

110. The Weatherpeople called me a running dog. I spent much of the 60s staffing national coalition efforts : MOBE anti-war activities, Nixon's InHOGuration, the 1968 Democratic Party Protests, the Conspiracy 8 Defense and more. Then I returned to my working class roots and followed my father's path to the factory for close to 30 years. I retired as a UAW/GM Local union president of a locomotive factory outside Chicago, and joined SEIU's staff for 13 years.

     During the 60s I thought Weather people were off the deep end. I also thought they were largely irrelevant.

     The attacks on Ayers by the right wing had a fascist smell to me. As an old red diaper baby, I remember the McCarthy period. It was dangerous to associate with radicals, but even more dangerous to be one. So I like that Ayers is not fully apologetic or repentant. Didn't we think we were dangerous radicals? Really the right wing could attack most of us, no matter our line or affiliation.

     Although there is a delicious habit we lefties have, including me, to defend our old positions and fight old battles, there is a time to give that up, close ranks and be warm to a ll the good guys. Bill is not every 60s radicals choice for our representative face, but that is what he became. We should not allow Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh to make palling around with him anything but what it is, interesting and fun. Bill and Bernardine still spend every ounce of their boundless energy on trying to make this a better world.

     Katha, if you cut Bill some slack, I'll befriend two Trots.

     Carole Travis

     Posted by travisce at 12/12/2008 @ 12:20am

111. Katha, I believe this is the first time I have ever agreed with you. Ayers and his wife were terrorists. If I am not mistaken, one retired FBI agent believes Dohrn planted the bomb that killed a San Francisco police officer. Ayers is a liar and instead of being on the faculty of any major university he should be and eventually will be a largely forgotten man.

     Posted by tomonthebay at 12/12/2008 @ 11:20pm

112. Bill Ayers claims he was just another part of the anti-war movement and never killed anyone. Phooey. I am a former member of the Students for a Democratic Society, the largest student movement in US history and a radical yet today. The terrorist Weatherman sect destroyed SDS when, in 1969, they sought to replace a movement of people organizing for equality and peace with Ayers' authoritarian mis-leadership and bombs. Before the biggest outpouring of student activism in the last century, the Weathermen demolished the SDS mailing list, leaving the movement with no center. They killed themselves and SDS. Weatherman was the "action-faction,"celebrating irrationalism, drugs, and exploitative sex, pandering to the varying nationalisms of the day. They opposed the radical, "going to the root," of social problems. They held most people in the world in contempt. They were in every sense of the word, terrorists. And, like so many terrorists, they caused the police to reign down on the real movement for change while they, oddly, got off nearly unscathed while the media portrayed them as "radicals," as most of the media gleefully does today. The Weathermen, today, like to portray themselves as the only alternative within the anti-war movement, or as just another part of it. Wrong. They were a minority within SDS (I was at the 1969 split meeting where they walked out of SDS, with about 1/3 of the delegates) and they deliberately attacked everyone in the movement who was not them--often with violence. Then, Ayers was a self-promoting liberal with explosives and hubris. Today, Ayer is a foundation-funded liberal: see Mayor Richard Dailey's endorsement. His Small Schools movement is little more than a small-time scam that, in fact, attacks education workers and fails to serve students.

     Posted by rgibson at 12/13/2008 @ 01:38am

113. THANK YOU, Katha Pollitt. I had precisely your reaction to the Ayers Op-ed piece, and you backed up the reaction by recalling many useful details. The man PLAINLY is unable to acknowledge reponsibility for having done some terrible things. No one so far in this list of comments has mentioned that the highly probable explanation for his never having spent a day in prison is that he had a very very rich daddy. He strikes me as a spoiled brat who will never apologize properly for the wrongs he has done. On the other hand he has plainly turned into a decent adult who accomplishes a lot of good. Why can't the bloggers accept BOTH sides of this picture together? lesl

     Posted by lesl at 12/13/2008 @ 09:03am

114. I think Pollitt's piece is fairly accurate, especially when she mentions in the final paragraph that the real farces is that people like Henry Kissinger and others guilty of implementing murderous bombings in which innocent people were killed is washed away and they are made respectable, without any accountability.

     But isn't that the problem with the whole Ayers contraversy. On a personal level, Ayers was a dangerous fool who did real harm. I agree that he wasn't really a terrorist, just a thug with delusions of grandeur, a narcissist to be sure.

     On the other hand, I don't think his apologies are meaningless. It seems clear that he really does regret his actions. He does cling to a rationalization, or more just a plea for understanding of his frustrations at the time that led him to make stupid and dangerous decisions. But honestly, how much can we really expect a person like this to cop to, and how much do we need him to? He's such a minor figure, and his actions, while getting some headlines, did very little real damage, and very little real "terror" was spread through the country. I was alive then, and I don't recall anyone being afraid of these guys. That wasn't even the rationale, if there was one that made any sense.

     The bigger issue is the context in which this whole debate over Ayers' past is being made, which is that anyone who has been associated with Ayers, and even Ayers himself, is somehow beyond the Pale, and has to go through some kind of ritual confession to make themselves clean. And yet, we have Kissinger roaming through the highest halls of power, never having come clean in the least for his crimes, and no one raises any objections to this. If Ayers' regrets and confessions seem inadequate, then what of Kissinger, or even McCain?

     Posted by conradg at 12/13/2008 @ 4:15pm

115. I think Pollitt's piece is fairly accurate, especially when she mentions in the final paragraph that the real farces is that people like Henry Kissinger and others guilty of implementing murderous bombings in which innocent people were killed is washed away and they are made respectable, without any accountability.

     But isn't that the problem with the whole Ayers contraversy. On a personal level, Ayers was a dangerous fool who did real harm. I agree that he wasn't really a terrorist, just a thug with delusions of grandeur, a narcissist to be sure.

     On the other hand, I don't think his apologies are meaningless. It seems clear that he really does regret his actions. He does cling to a rationalization, or more just a plea for understanding of his frustrations at the time that led him to make stupid and dangerous decisions. But honestly, how much can we really expect a person like this to cop to, and how much do we need him to? He's such a minor figure, and his actions, while getting some headlines, did very little real damage, and very little real "terror" was spread through the country. I was alive then, and I don't recall anyone being afraid of these guys. That wasn't even the rationale, if there was one that made any sense.

     The bigger issue is the context in which this whole debate over Ayers' past is being made, which is that anyone who has been associated with Ayers, and even Ayers himself, is somehow beyond the Pale, and has to go through some kind of ritual confession to make themselves clean. And yet, we have Kissinger roaming through the highest halls of power, never having come clean in the least for his crimes, and no one raises any objections to this. If Ayers' regrets and confessions seem inadequate, then what of Kissinger, or even McCain?

     Posted by conradg at 12/13/2008 @ 4:17pm

116. Well...Pollitt is certainly correct in her understanding of the nature of Ayers/Dohrn/ Weather--"It was all about the romance of itself"--and it's nice to know she gets it, I guess.

     I'm not so sure that their worst crime was to discredit the "anti-war" movement, however. If in fact that had been the net result of their actions, and IF their effectiveness in gleaning support for the U.S.'s attempt to foil Communism's specifically stated aim of enslavement--and by that time, only the willfully blind could fail to see the real-world results of the Communist enterprise--if that effectiveness were the criterion to use in judging them, then they'd be great guys! But, of course, that is NOT the criterion to use, for their terroristic methods are unacceptable no matter the Cause; and they are NOT "great guys," they're just one more gang of psychopathic little boys and girls trying to pretend they're important by playing grownup games with grownup toys--"games" that resulted in the torture, enslavement, death of millions of Southeast Asians at the hands of the enemy we fought.

     Neither Mr. Ayers nor Ms. Pollitt can possibly lay any credible claim to genuinely caring about the damage done to the people of Southeast Asia. Not when the results of their handiwork are so plain in the historical record.

     Posted by nightowl at 12/13/2008 @ 8:19pm

117. I agree with Katha Pollitt criticism of Bill Ayers's continuing efforts at rewriting Weatherman's history. When Ayers falsifies Weatherman's history in the sixties he leaves the door open to the charge that he is falsifying his relationship to Obama -- the part of his story he tells truthfully. This may not seem terribly important at the moment -- McCain's gambit was unsuccessful in winning the election -- but for the longer term the hatred McCain and Palin stirred up has not gone away and threatens to metastasize as the economic pressure on working class white Americans increases. Bill's false account of Weatherman history is and will be used against the possibility of peace and racial justice, today and in the future, just as Weatherman's practice redounded against those same struggles back in the day.

     I hope Nation readers will check out my recent book, "A Hard Rain Fell: SDS and Why it Failed," in order to help discover a more realistic history of Weatherman and of SDS and its other factions. We must root our defense against the next wave of reaction not only in articulating the world we'd like to see, but also in humbly acknowledging our past failings and the basis in ourselves for those failings.

     Posted by dbarber50 at 12/14/2008 @ 10:02am

118. Ayers was a terrorist, but he comes out as small time because his efforts weren't as successful as Timothy McVeigh's. McVeigh and Ayers both share characteristics of classical terrorists in believing their bombings were justified. At least McVeigh had the guts to stand by his beliefs instead of backpedalling like Ayers.

     Posted by jsens at 12/14/2008 @ 11:45am

119. The problem with the Weather Underground was the same as the problem with Bush--too insular. When you hide away from opinions other than your own and those who agree with you, all you do is reinforce your errors in perception. When you never hear any challenge to your views, you become more and more certain of you correctness. Others who are not like you begin to seem more and more alien and they become easier and easier to demonize. Secrecy, isolation and lack of sunshine; they're the enemies. The actions spawned from those dark places are mere symptoms.

     Posted by tomwood at 12/14/2008 @ 9:42pm