Obama And Ayers: Why The Excuses?

the atlantic ^ | 10/9/2008 | the atlantic blogger

[Henderson]

This is from a BHO supporter which makes sense.

[Henderson]

I'm a liberal and a decided Obama voter. But Democrats' excuses for Obama with respect to Ayers are extremely annoying to me. I haven't seen in the press a clear explanation of why Obama attended an event at Ayers' home, or whether or not he knew about Ayers activities. But, if Obama didn't know that Ayers' was a terrorist, who is today largely unremorseful, then let him clearly tell us. If Obama knew Ayers was an unremorseful terrorist, then let him explain to us why he felt it was okay for him to call on Ayers at his home.

I draw the line at violence. If Ayers were a retired Palestinian terrorist, or anti-Indian Sikh terrorist, or Irish terrorist, or a former brutal murderous Nicaraguan contra rebel, my opinion would not change. Core values about life and death should not be flexible in the face of partisan challenges. Everything I'm reading now from fellow liberals is mere excuses. Until Obama adequately replies, John McCain has every right to attack him on these grounds.

[F15Eagle]

I'm a liberal and a decided Obama voter.

I politely suggest you rethink you choice. He has repeatedly lied about this. And Jeremiah Wright, etc.

[Trailerpark Badass]

If McCain were in any way associated, past or present or no matter how briefly, with an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber, the left wouldn’t tolerate his candidacy for anything.

[dirtboy]

Welcome to FR.

If Obama knew Ayers was an unremorseful terrorist,

Well, you have to believe that Obama was a political associate of Ayers for several years and was unaware he was a former Weather Underground terrorist.

You also have to believe that Obama sat in the pews at Trinity United and never heard Revered Wright say a discouraging word.

You also have to believe he had no association with ACORN. Or that he really didn't have Frank Raines as an advisor, and the Wash Post was wrong about that.

Sooner or later, it just simply isn't believable. But that Obama's story, and he's sticking to it, and his supporters could care less.

[weegee]

“I haven’t seen in the press a clear explanation of why Obama attended an event at Ayers’ home, or whether or not he knew about Ayers activities.”

You can’t HANDLE the truth.

If you aren’t going to listen to conservatives when they say that the media has been in the tank for Obama and if you aren’t going to listen to the Clintons when they say that the media is in the tank for Obama and you aren’t going to listen to the network ANCHORS when they say they have a thrill up their legs when they think about Obama being president, then you aren’t going to get a clearer answer as to why the media won’t discuss this.

And even if the media DID dicuss this, ‘you’ couldn’t handle the truth about his Marxist bent and antiAmerican sentiments.

[ravingnutter]

Yes, he should be honest because there was definitely a relationship and this is one of the best pieces of evidence for that:

Michelle Obama organized a University of Chicago panel about Bill Ayers's crime book in November 1997, just as the battle over the juvenile justice bill was heating up. That panel featured appearances by some of the key figures discussed in Ayers's book, along with Obama himself, who was identified in the press release as "working to block proposed legislation that would throw more juvenile offenders into the adult system." In effect, then, this public event was a joint Obama-Ayers effort to sink the juvenile justice bill-Obama's decision to plug Ayers's book in the Chicago Tribune the following month was part of the same political effort.

Weekly Standard

So...Obama's denial doesn't cut it. Here is a screen shot from the University Website:

[Dallas59]

Obama knew all about Ayers and his terrorist past and Ayers present disgust for the US. Obama frankly and openly stated, "He's just a guy that lives in my neighborhood".

This sneaky liar wants to be president?

[Two Kids' Dad]

Hey everybody, please be advised that Henderson’s comments are a quote taken directly from the article and may not reflect his/her views. Proceed with caution before flaming him/her.

Thanks.

[Continental Soldier]

The question you should be asking is, is Obama a patriot? Is he devoted to the survival and supremacy of the USA? Will he protect our country in the face of terrorist attacks? Will he take the battle to the enemy? Will he spend what is necessary to advance America’s military and keep it the best and most feared in the world?

[Excellence]

This is Sulivan’s answer, and I have not the slightest idea who John Yoo is:

Ayers and Yoo
The far right is obsessed with the question of Bill Ayers, much more obsessed than with the war in Iraq or Afghanistan or the Palin farce or the financial meltdown. Their obsession is unseemly but it is not, alas, without any basis in truth. I find Bill Ayers’ refusal to disown his use of political violence in the 1960s to be repulsive. If I were forced to meet him, I would not shake his hand. Obama’s fault, however, is not being a terrorist sympathizer, as Palin absurdly declares to mob cheers. Obama’s fault is in being a go-along-to-get-along Hyde Park liberal. You can see why he made the decision not to wreck polite liberal society in Chicago by calling out these former thugs. But I do not admire him for it. It’s a corner he cut. He deserves to be criticized for it - if not in the fascistic way Hannity does it.

But the question of association raises broader questions.

I don’t think I could serve on a board with Ayers in good conscience. But neither could I serve on a board or participate in an organization that employs a war criminal. John Yoo is such a war criminal, a man who gave oral consent to war crimes and then provided phony legal cover for torturing suspects. He is responsible for policies that have led to the death-by-torture of well over a dozen individuals that we know of, and the brutal torture of countless more. Without Yoo’s green light, and willingness to make a mockery of the rule of law by signing off on torture, these people would be alive or susceptible to real and reliable non-coercive interrogation. If Obama deserves some censure for consorting with Ayers, why is there no censure in Washington or Berkeley for consorting with a war criminal?

Why is Ayers anathema and Yoo not?