Obama/Ayers Timeline

Pallin’ around:


After Chicago’s schools are called “worst in America” by Education Secretary Bill Bennett,  a city-wide push for public school reform is called.

A number of different civic-minded coalitions emerged to promote their reform agendas. Barack Obama’s Developing Communities project allied with the ABCs Coalition, a group apparently coordinated by (your patience is about to be rewarded) former Weatherman Bill Ayers [No Quarter link].  Other groups in the ABCs coalition were Chicago United and the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club, both of which are linked to businessman and philanthropist Thomas Ayers, Bill Ayers father.

1988 and 1989:

Michelle Robinson (the future Michelle Obama) in 1988 and Barack Obama in 1989 serve  at prominent Chicago law firm, Sidley Austin, where Ayer’s wife Bernardine Dohrn also works.

A little pertinent background on Dohrn:

At a 1969 “War Council” in Flint, Michigan, Dohrn gave her most memorable and notorious speech to her followers. Holding her fingers in what became the Weatherman “fork salute,” she said of the bloody murders recently committed by the Manson Family in which the pregnant actress Sharon Tate and a Folgers Coffee heiress and several other inhabitants of a Benedict Canyon mansion were brutally stabbed to death: “Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!”  The “War Council” ended with a formal declaration of war against “AmeriKKKa,” always spelled with three K’s to signify the United States’ allegedly ineradicable white racism.

Huh. “AmeriKKKa”. Remind you of anyone?


Obama serves on the board of The Woods Fund, which funneled money to far left causes. Ayers served on the Woods board for three years of Obama’s tenure and remained on the board after Obama departed. From 2000-2002, when Obama and Ayers served together, the board met twelve times.

… Obama served along side Ayers as a board member on an organization happy to pass out funds to radical left wing and anti-Israel groups. Moreover, the monies doled out through the Woods Fund to these groups, including Ayers own Annenberg Challenge, helped cement Obama’s political relationships and bond with key players in Chicago. None of this matches his current self-portrait of a politically moderate reformer. But like so much of Obama, that was then and this is now.

January 1995:

Between 1995 and 1999, Obama led the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was founded by Ayers, and remained on the board until 2001.

“One unsettled question is how Mr. Obama, a former community organizer fresh out of law school, could vault to the top of a new foundation?” Kurtz writes. “In response to my questions, the Obama campaign issued a statement saying that Mr. Ayers had nothing to do with Obama’s ‘recruitment’ to the board. The statement says Deborah Leff and Patricia Albjerg Graham (presidents of other foundations) recruited him. Yet the archives show that, along with Ms. Leff and Ms. Graham, Mr. Ayers was one of a working group of five who assembled the initial board in 1994. Mr. Ayers founded CAC and was its guiding spirit. No one would have been appointed the CAC chairman without his approval.”

The CAC’s agenda flowed from Ayers’s educational philosophy, says Kurtz, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism.

“CAC translated Mr. Ayers’s radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with ‘external partners,’ which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).”


Ayers held a “Meet the candidate” event for Obama in his home, at some point in 1995.

Nov. 6, 1997:

Obama and Ayers served on a panel of four discussing juvenile justice.

December 1997:

In 1997, Obama Reviewed Ayers’ Book, A Kind And Just Parent: The Children Of Juvenile Court, In The Chicago Tribune, Calling It “A Searing And Timely Account Of The Juvenile Court System.” (Chicago Tribune, 12/21/97)

April 2001:

Ayers contributed $200 to Obama’s re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate.

April 19-20, 2002:

Obama and Ayers appear on  panel of six at Intellectuals, Who Needs Them? conference. Bernadine Dohrn also spoke at conference.

And, oh yeah:

“Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school,” he (Axlerod) said. “They’re certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together.”

This is what the left calls a “tenuous at best” relationship.


This is what conservatives think about all this, in case you still don’t get it:

Democrats and their friends in the press are moose-hunting angry this morning over Sarah Palin’s recent comment that Senator Obama “pals around with terrorists” which she made in reference to his being pals with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. The big line of defense we hear against this charge is “guilt by association”. Their argument is absolutely true, if the charge is terrorism. You can’t call Obama guilty of terrorism merely for associating with terrorists.

Of course, it’s a straw man position. He isn’t being accused of any guilt which ought to be Ayers’ burden. He’s being accused of precisely what he is guilty of: associating with terrorists. That’s not guilty by association. It’s guilty OF association … association with information, I might add, because there’s no way he didn’t know about Ayers. Even if he didn’t know about the terrorism, a loudmouth radical like Ayers doesn’t keep his loudmouth radicalism under wraps. It was on account of his leftism that he and Obama made such frequent and successful allies.

What’s more, it is not an isolated argument from the right. The question is more than one of Ayers. The question is, rather, why are so many of Obama’s friends such low-lifes, and why doesn’t anyone care?

Read on for a partial list of more unsavory friends of Obama.

86 thoughts on “Obama/Ayers Timeline

  1. Bottom line was – Senate Ethics Committee needed a Republican for Keating 5, lest it be seen as a pure Democrat scandal.


  2. Pingback: Obama and Ayers - a 20 Year Timeline | WingRight

  3. Good work on the timeline.

    One of the biggest smoking guns is that Obama has made discussion of this period in his life verboten for the MSM. You would think that most politicians would make a big deal out of the fact that they were the chairman of the board (and also president) of a major education reform foundation. Obama’s determination to tamp this down even before the current Palin/NYT upwelling is very signficant.


  4. Pingback: Want to play guilt by association? - Page 2 - MacNN Forums

  5. Conveniently forgotten (spun?) by the Dims is Mac was completely exonerated from any wrong-doing during the investigation. His name was kept in play by the Dims specifically because he was the only Rep connected in any way to the investigation, and only peripherally.

    Mac and Sarah should flip this red herring right back in their dirty faces. “Excuse me … what party was it who were implicated in the Keating scandal again? Oh – the DEMOCRATS?”


  6. Far be it from me to defend Astroturf Axelrod, but how could Obama’s and Ayers’ kids go to school together? Aren’t Ayers kids adults? His statement is a little weird. I know they all attended the same school, but I’m certain they didn’t go at the same time.

    Also, don’t forget Richard Daley saying, “They’re friends. So what?” with regard to those two.



  7. Great video – I hope it’s okay that I posted it. We have a regular commenter at HRP that defends Obama – just yesterday he equated Keating with Ayers. Thanks for the great ammo.


  8. Yeah, I think Axelrod was wrong about their kids going to school together. It’s weird that he would say that, but these guys are kneejerk bullshitters.


  9. Ayers has never changed. He was born of privilege. His reformed schools began in college. He was also a rapist.

    “Ayers told me I couldn’t go until I slept with his roommate and his brother. He said that I had no choice but to do as he said if I wanted to get out of there. He claimed that I wouldn’t sleep with his married roommate because he was black — that I was a bigot. There was no term “date rape” yet in our political vocabulary.”



  10. Excellent work on the timeline. You should add in the pieces that have recently come to light about Obama’s “New Party” (a creature of the Democratic Socialist Party and other leftist political partie) membership circa 1994-1997. But more than this, there is something not being sufficiently focused on with regard to Obama’s connection with Ayers. That is this: think of the loss of credibility our nation will have in a war on terror, when its chief executive has ties to, indeed launched his political career in the home of, a confessed and unrepentant domestic terrorist. The American people need to reflect soberly on the moral effect such an association will have on the legitimacy of our war against terrorism. If people don’t think that every terrorist state and organization in the world won’t make hay with that, they are on crack. It doesn’t even matter if Obama agrees or condemns Ayers’ actions. The association is sufficient for the terrorists to exploit. Period. No one seems to be addressing the “why does it matter” aspect (beyond simply bad judgment). I’ve been doing my best to keep up with most of the articles on this subject through RCP, but I don’t think anyone has really driven this home. I really think this is the angle that needs to become a drum beat, and just hammered home until election day. It’s not guilt by association, it’s irreparable damage to our nation’s moral credibility in time of war against terrorist states and organizations.


  11. “moral credibility”? are you serious?! that was thrown out the window the moment we invaded Iraq. oh right it was “not” a sovereign nation.

    credibility? let’s look at McCain’s credibility.

    pounded drums to invade Iraq, which was no threat to us, remember that thing called a no fly zone?

    now he wants to bomb a sovereign nation! yes Iran is a sovereign nation. yet when it comes to Pakistan, it completely reprehensible that obama would strike into pakistan if al queda was in sight and pakistan would not or could not bomb them!

    are you people serious?

    war on terror, give me a break!


  12. remember that thing called a no fly zone?

    Um…yeah…it was put in place by coalition forces after the Gulf War to protect humanitarian operations in northern Iraq and Shiite Muslims in the south.

    Saddam decided to start violating the no fly zone by shooting at allied planes in 1998 which lead to air strikes by the British and Americans against Iraqi military targets over the next few years.

    What is your point?

    As for bombing Iran….um both candidates have said military force is not off the table to prevent Iran from getting nukes. Have you not been paying attention? Or do you figure (like the rest of us) that Obama is just talking tough in order to get elected.

    As for Pakistan, an ally in the war on terror, McCain has tried to explain to the neophyte, Obama, that sometimes you do what you have to do, but you don’t loudly broadcast it ahead of time. This is not rocket science, ya know?


  13. now he wants to bomb a sovereign nation! yes Iran is a sovereign nation. yet when it comes to Pakistan, it completely reprehensible that obama would strike into pakistan if al queda was in sight and pakistan would not or could not bomb them!

    Sorry to break it to you, but “Kumbaya” is not going to save you. However, since we stand ready to do what needs to be done, you can rest assured that others might fight, bleed, and die to protect your right be dangerously naive.


  14. Pingback: Bill Ayers IED Maker And Obama Mentor « Mcnorman’s Weblog

  15. Nice Deb
    I’ve not been able to find anything thus far showing any Ayers/Dohrn connection to the New Party. But this link http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/loudon-how-socialist-was-obamas-new-party/ does show how tied in with the DSA and other leftist organizations the New Party was. Interestingly, this articel does contain the following:

    “In August 2006 several former Weather Underground terrorists, including Ayers and Dohrn, joined leaders of DSA, CPUSA and CoC to form a new organisation — Movement for a Democratic Society (MDS).” . . .

    Early this year MDS board members Davidson, Ehrenreich and Fletcher joined with former Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) leader Tom Hayden and DSA linked actor/activist Danny Glover to form a satellite organisation, Progressives for Obama (P4O). . . . The P4O website carries a long list of endorsers, many of whom are from DSA, CoC, SDS or the Weathermen.” [however Ayers and Dohrn are not listed].

    My guess is that the New Party would have been far too conventional an organization for Ayers/Dohrn. Nevertheless it is clear that the NP had overwhelming socialist ties, and that Obama was indeed a member. Is he a socialist? I tend to doubt it. He is however clearly comfortable with socialists and he is a shameless opportunist who will blow with whatever winds will propel him to greater heights.

    Hans, when I get some more time, I’ll be responding to your critique. Yes, I am serious about moral credibility.


  16. Yes, on further digging I am convinced he is too. I have been researching his possible islamic connections, and frankly they are as troubling as the Ayers linkage. And some of the islamic links overlap with Ayers. This thing just gets more bizarre by the minute. Here’s what I found so far:

    While a student at Occidental and Columbia, Obama’s main coterie of friends appears to have been Pakistani muslims, mostly from Karachi. See, http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=F1C46FDE-3048-5C12-00ED1702A906DC5F. This in and of itself is not overly troubling, except to the extent that the Obama campaign has put a virtual blackout on Obama’s Columbia and Harvard years. He took a trip to Pakistan in 1981 (acknowledged by the Obama campaign), at a time when it was on the banned travel list by the U.S. State Department due to martial law and the huge influx of Afghan mujahadeen operating from Pakistan in resistance to the Soviet occupation. A strange time to visit to say the least. How far Obama’s networking penetrated into muslim circles is unclear, but information is beginning to surface that indicates his linkage into islamic powerbrokers is substantial. A prominent African-American attorney, Percy Sutton former counsel to Malcolm X) disclosed in a March 2008 television interview in August that he first heard of Barack Obama through Dr. Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al-Mansour. See, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EcC0QAd0Ug. See also http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/khalid_al_mansour/2008/09/04/127844.html ; http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/08/obamas-benefact.html Al-Mansour was securing funding for Obama to go to Harvard Law School. Al-Mansour is a former Black Panther and seriously virulent muslim (check out videos of his speeches on You Tube). Al-Mansour has close ties with and is a U.S. adviser to Prince Al-Walid bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, the Saudi prince who tried to give NYC $10 million dollars but Giulani refused it because Alwaleed claimed 9/11 was the result of U.S. policies. Was Obama’s Harvard law degree bankrolled in part (or completely) with Saudi money? See http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/obama_sutton_saudi/2008/09/03/127490.html It cannot be ascertained because the Obama campaign won’t release any of Obama’s Harvard records. The Obama campaign claims that Obama paid for his law degree through “student loans” but form whom? Again, no records are being released. Why? Moreover, the Obama’s election disclosures from 2000 on do not indicate any student loan liability, even though Michelle Obama claims they paid them off in 2006 with funds from Barack’s book sales. See, http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/obama_harvard_/2008/09/23/133199.html

    Obama also has ties to Rashid Khalidi, a former PLO communications manager and virulent anti-Israel activist. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/the_obamakhalidi_connection.html

    Does this make Obama a muslim? No, but he clearly has links to some very unsavory characters in the muslim community. Probably the most likely common thread link is the connection between militant Black Nationalist themed worldviews of the kind fomented by “former” Obama minister Rev. Jeremiah (“G#d D@mn America”)Wright, Louis Farrakhan (with whom Wright is exceedingly friendly), and Dr. Al-Mansour. And of course, don’t forget that Al-Mansour was a mentor to the Black Panthers in his pre-islamic days, and that the Black Panthers had heavy links with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn from their SDS/RYM days before the Weather Underground. Obama’s friends and mentors read like a “Who’s Who” of sixties era radicalism.


  17. Obama is no more guilty of being associated with terrorists than Todd Palin is of being associated with secessionists. Both terrorism and separatism are treasonous acts. When Obama crossed paths with Ayers in the late 1980s and mid 1990s, the Internet was not a word, and it was very difficult to discover the pasts of detestable people like Ayers, who likely had faded into obscurity by that time. It’s quite possible that Obama wasn’t aware of his background. The constitution provides that he’s innocent until proven guilty. If he’s proven guilty, I’ll vote against him.


  18. Over all of the years that Obama lived in Ayers’ neighborhood, and worked with him on various projects, you honestly don’t think he knew anything about his past?

    Shane. Investigate further, please.

    Ayers, Obama, and Reverend Wright were fellow travelers, with the same worldview.


    Obama worked with Ayers on education reform throughout the nineties, (funneling grant money to radical far left organizations). They weren’t so interested in educating children, as in indoctrinating them and their parents.

    Look at some of the people on these lists, who not only endorse Obama, but have also been associated with him in various capacities:



    A man’s friends tell you a lot about the man. And most of Obama’s friends are baaaaad news.


  19. Pingback: Obama on Ayers: “I thought he was rehabilitated” « The Foxhole

  20. Shane, nobody is saying Obama himself is a terrorist. The issue is whether his worldview, and presumably therefore his policy approach at leat to some extent, is comfortable with the likes of Davis, Ayers, Dohrn, and Al-Mansour. As for the latter, Al-Mansour’s diatribes are not too far from Wright’s, where he spent 20 years drinking in the hate filled sermons. As for the internet not being around, that is hardly an excuse. People talk and gossip. Anyone with as notorious a background as Ayers/Dohrn would have been known eventually, at the very least in a year or two. Moreover, Dohrn and Michell (Robinson) Obama worked at Sidley and Austin at the same time. Does that mean they were chums? No. But big law firms have major “water-cooler” gossip circles (I know I used to work at one). It is simply inconceivable that someone as infamous as Dohrn would not have been an open secret to everyone at the firm. The Obamas are hiding the extent of their association with Ayers/Dohrn and the extent they knew about their past treasonous activity.


  21. Largely cirumstantial, nothing in concrete. That is how I describe the information I see above. Much can be inferred about the author’s intent, that is, trying to prove a close association between Obama and a former political activist. However, I see noe concrete evidence that ties Obama to any shady doings.

    So Ayers helped out his campaign. So what? If I were an up-and-coming politician, and someone offered me campaign help when I needed it, I’d probably take it too. I don’t believe that should automatically tie me to my helper’s political agenda. Those that assume such ties for Obama are not only wrong, they are basing the ties on a very small amount of information, and in general, putting pieces together that don’t fit.

    I don’t like Obama. Personally, I don’t want to see him in office any more than I do McCain. But I call it like it is, and all I see here is a political witch hunt. I expected more out of educated Americans…


  22. Also, am I the only one who see a problem with calling Ayers a “terrorist”? In the 21st century, terrorists kill innocent people, instill fear in a population, and make their mark. Ayers killed no one, caused minimal damage, and made no mark on society. How can he be labeled with the same term as Osama bin Laden and his cohorts?

    I call him an “extreme activist”. Factually true, and much less slanderous.


  23. Also, am I the only one who see a problem with calling Ayers a “terrorist”? In the 21st century, terrorists kill innocent people, instill fear in a population, and make their mark. Ayers killed no one, caused minimal damage, and made no mark on society. How can he be labeled with the same term as Osama bin Laden and his cohorts?

    I call him an “extreme activist”. Factually true, and much less slanderous.

    How disingenuous you are.

    The Weather Underground wanted to kill people, did so, and just because Bombing Billy failed to get any deaths directly attributed to his activities does not excuse him from being referred to by the proper appellation.

    If you’re going to be an apologist for him, then I’m afraid that your credibility should be questioned as well.

    For your edification:

    a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

    You will not go unchallenged here by employing the tactic of changing the definition of a thing to make it acceptable.


  24. Well, you can use ad hominem attacks all you want on my second post, as it was more of an after thought anyway. But just because I’m not condemning Ayers does not mean I am an apologist. The world is not black and white, and false dilemmas are usually errant. Plus, I like to play the devil’s advocate, no matter how I feel about the subject.


  25. Largely cirumstantial, nothing in concrete.

    This is merely a timeline. There are plenty of posts on my site, and all over the right wing blogosphere that can give you more specifics on their relationship. Dig a little deeper. Start with Stanley Kurtz’s work. If you’re merely playing devil’s advocate, and aren’t inclined to like Obama anyway, I’m not going to go through the trouble of providing links.


  26. Pingback: Obama Lied Shamelessly About Ayers, ACORN, and BAIPA « Nice Deb

  27. Well, you can use ad hominem attacks all you want on my second post, as it was more of an after thought anyway. But just because I’m not condemning Ayers does not mean I am an apologist.



    a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution; “an apologist for capital punishment”

    Your Words:

    Ayers killed no one, caused minimal damage, and made no mark on society. How can he be labeled with the same term as Osama bin Laden and his cohorts?

    I call him an “extreme activist”. Factually true, and much less slanderous.

    Your account of his exploits as a means to soften who he is isn’t being an apologist? OOOOKAY then.

    ad hominem


    attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.

    I suppose you might have taken it as an attack on your character. I viewed it as blowing the whistle and throwing the bullshit flag. If we are reasonable minds, then we can differ on our interpretation based on the foregoing.


  28. For the record, I considered “your credibility should be questioned” as ad hominem.

    I guess no definition is safe from JS’s revisionism.

    JS, there’s a common language. Use it.


  29. Obviously this blog allows circumstantial evidence and spun articles and uses them as the basis for their arguments. I have been met with these tactics with every post I have made. This is something a rational person can not be a part of.


  30. So Ayers and his wife behaved badly in the 60’s. I know a lotta people who behaved badly in the 60’s and are now contributing members of society. Christianity is supposed to be about redemption and second chance. All the things Ayers has done since to contribute to society would make as association wtih him something that one would be proud to put on thier resume. He is and has been for decades, a person who is dedicating his life to helping others, in particular, to helping children. Shame on all of you for trying to make this a bad thing, for damning Ayers and his wife and trying to use that unjust damnation to tarnish Obama.


  31. Hey pal. Ayers never repented. He said he didn’t do enough. He went from being a violent radical to being a stealth one, diverting his radicalism to a slow march through our institutions.

    And he’s not the only radical, or communist association of Obama’s by a long shot. Look into Reverend Wright, Mike Klonsky, Carl Davidson, ACORN, Rhashid Khalidi, to name a few. A man’s friends tell you a lot about the man, don’t you think?

    Shame on you for being so willfully blind.


  32. All the things Ayers has done since to contribute to society would make as association wtih him something that one would be proud to put on thier resume.

    Like going on TV with his wife in 1998 and telling Connie Chung that they wished they had done more when running around the country sticking it to “the Man” with their bombs? Or his interview to the New York Times in which he admitted to regretting not having done enough in his explosive youth? Or giving money to ‘educational’ organizations that indoctrinated youth with subversive views and accomplished next to nothing in delivering any measurable effect on the education of the children they programmed? Bombing Billy Ayers NEVER expressed regret about the things that he had done, nor did he repent his actions as a terrorist. Redemption and forgiveness are funny things. They actually require things like regret, repentance, and apology. Without entering these gateways, the rest cannot occur. You seem to have a strong opinion, so are you a true believer or just a misinformed fool?


  33. Pingback: MN Rep Michele Bachmann Pilloried By Left For Speaking The Truth « Nice Deb

  34. Pingback: The Irascible Chef » It just doesn’t matter!

  35. Pingback: Video: Weather Underground Planned Re-education Camps, Genocide « Nice Deb

  36. Pingback: Wild!: Red Star William Ayers Calls Pigs To Protect Him From Fox News « Nice Deb

  37. Pingback: Obama Friend Ayers Call’s Cops On FOX News | Democrat=Socialist

  38. yeah, no shit there was a no fly zone, and it was the best thing in the world for training our fighter pilots under real world situations. never was one US or English plane shot done, yet they were able to strike live targets. What was the cost of the no fly zone to contain Saddam? Now compare that to the cost of Iraq. wow, you guys are just brilliant, obviously must be “religious scholars” not mathematicians!

    Pakistan houses al queda and allows them free reign and their own area of the country. the US paid to back the DICTATOR Musarif, just as it did to Saddam. the area Musarif basically gave to al queda is outside his control, so how is it a sovereign country or in the controls of our alley as McCain claims?

    Iran is sovereign and in the complete control of Iran, so why is McCain ok with bombing that sovereign nation and not the uncontrolled regions of Pakistan? Yeah right b/c the guy has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

    oh and also, before you try to wear the blood, sweat and sacrifices made by the troops who are doing as they are told by their commander in chief, whether he is right or wrong, show me your service record first instead of just running your mouth and claiming with nothing to back it that those troops, not you, are ensuring my right to be “dangerously naive”.


  39. The no fly zones didn’t “contain Iraq”. They were set up to protect the Kurds and Shiites.

    The war with Iraq was about more than protecting the Kurds and Shiites .

    Iran is sovereign and in the complete control of Iran, so why is McCain ok with bombing that sovereign nation and not the uncontrolled regions of Pakistan? Yeah right b/c the guy has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

    Orrrrrr…maybe because Iran is not an American ally in the war on terror, and Pakistan is?

    McCain understands the situation in Pakistan, as does anybody who has been paying attention. His point is, you don’t go recklessly broadcasting your intentions in this volatile part of the world.


  40. Please, spare me the BS talking points.

    No Fly Zone to protect the Kurds & the Shites? Are you joking me?!

    The Turks hate the Kurds, the Turks are our strongest allies that are an Islamic based country. Did you forget already that part of the botched invasion of Iraq happened b/c the Turks said, “oh no you will not use our airspace to attack Iraq”? Or have you forgotten also that there is no Kurdistan now, b/c the Turks would break off friendly relationships with the US if the Kurds received their own country.

    The northern no fly zone was to keep Saddam’s presence in the north of Iraq to a minimum. What is in the north? Right it is the oil fields, hence why the Kurds are fighting with the idea of a centralized gov’t for Iraq. So you must have overlooked that major factor in your “dangerous naivete”.

    And the southern no fly was to protect the shites? Again get your facts straight. It was for the same reason, to protect the southern oil fields and Kuwait. You must have forgotten Bush I told the Shites to rise up and overthrow Saddam and we would have their backs. They rose up, Bush turned his back, and Saddam slaughtered the Shites, cut the water off & drained their “swamps”. Again the no fly zone was to contain Saddam and we did it cheaply, with no loss of american planes or american lives.

    And hate to burst your bubble of stupidity, but Warizistan (sp?) is in the middle of Pakistan, and has become sovereign from the country b/c the Pakistaniis cannot control it. If the Pakistaniis cannot control it and IT HARBORS al Queda you are saying we should not be able to attack al Queda because of what reason again?!

    Oh right, you were probably they same partisan fu**s that were in an outrage that Clinton sent tomahawks into Afghanistan in attempts to get bin Laden, claiming he was “wagging the dog”. Patriot my ass! You could give a rat’s ass about the security of this country and its people.

    You care more about corporate welfare and profits than you do about the safety of this country. And let me remind you why you cried about Clinton going after bin Laden, it was the oil pipeline they were trying to build across Afghistan with the cooperation with the Taliban, and any attacks on them would have upset those negotiations.

    Why is it again, Karzi is the president of Afghanistan? It couldn’t have anything to do with him being an oil executive now could it? Nor should we forget the changing of the name of Chevron’s “Condoleezza Rice” oil tanker.

    Just continue on with your War of Deception, continue looting the US Treasury, but knock off the Patriotic bullshit as it has nothing to do with it at all.


  41. You spare me the the b.s. talking points. I remember the history, so stop trying to rewrite it. The no fly zones were put in place after the uprisings were brutally squelched by Saddam.

    You blame Bush senior for the slaughter in Iraq after the Gulf war. He had bad advise.

    Who was the Chairman of the Joint chief who “didn’t wish to see American armies bogged down in a civil war in Iraq”?

    Think. Hmmmmmmmm?

    Oh! I know, the guy who just endorsed YOUR b.s. candidate for President?

    Secretary Baker’s realpolitik was seconded by Chairman of the Joint Chief, Gen. Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. Neither wished to see American armies bogged down in a civil war in Iraq — especially when an ascendant theocratic Iran might capitalize on a weakened Iraq and an overextended United States. In the words of Scowcroft “Geopolitics” would demand an immediate cease-fire. For his part, Powell scoffed at the idea of going to Baghdad to help the anti-Saddam revolutionaries, “as if lots of little Jeffersonian democrats would have popped up to run for office.” President Bush agreed with the advice to stop, but he voiced a sort of anxiety nonetheless, “We don’t want to screw this up with a sloppy, muddled ending.”

    Diplomats, both here and abroad, reminded the Americans that their United Nations’ coalition mandate ended with the liberation of Kuwait. Anything further might raise the ire of Europeans who had not signed onto removing Saddam, from whom the French had obtained lucrative oil concessions, and the Germans substantial contracts for everything from machine tools to reinforced bunkers. For their part, Arab countries let it be known that they would not support a Western offensive operation against another Arab state — especially to support dissident and supposedly pro-Iranian Iraqi Shiites over Sunni Baathists. And with over 500 oil wells still flaming in Kuwait, and Saddam’s spills polluting the shoreline of the Gulf, Western nations had no desire to start another war in Iraq before the detritus of the last one was cleaned up.

    Initially domestic opinion had been sharply divided over going into Iraq. The United States Senate had authorized the war by a mere five votes. So the Bush administration had legitimate worries that a popular victory might turn into a disastrous American occupation in a violent post bellum Iraq — and thus turn the public against the war in the months before a tough re-election bid. Why throw away a popular and relatively cost-free victory by an uncertain occupation?

    Idealists countered in vain about the terms of armistice. Undersecretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, remonstrated that it was wrong to let Iraqi dissidents be butchered just miles away from victorious American troops, as if our soldiers were “idly watching a mugging”. Others pointed out that as long as the calculus of aggression remained in Iraq — circulating petrodollars, sophisticated weapons purchases, and a megalomaniac dictator — there would never be peace.

    But what is undisputed is that few on February 28, 1991 — or even during the subsequent 12-year on-off again cold war with Saddam — realized that this hasty decision not to finish the war by going to Baghdad years later would figure prominently in the raging controversy over the second Iraqi war.

    I clearly remember what conservatives thought at the time of the U.S. not finishing the job in Iraq. It was a mistake, but it was also a complicated situation.

    You think your man would do better? He wouldn’t have even supported liberating Kuwait to begin with.

    Waziristan, (which you can’t even spell) is not “in the middle” of Pakistan, and it’s not entirely independent, either. Now I KNOW you’re yanking my chain.

    North and South Waziristan border Afghanistan. South Waziristan isn’t under “direct administration” of the Pakistani government, but is not considered an independent state, either.

    On June 4th the National Security Council of Pakistan met to decide the fate of Waziristan and take up a number of political and administrative decisions to control “Talibanization” of the area. The meeting was chaired by President Pervez Musharraf and it was attended by the Chief Ministers and Governors of all 4 provinces. They discussed the deteriorating law and order situation and the threat posed to state security.

    The government decided to take a number of actions to stop the “Talibanization” and crush the armed militancy in the Tribal regions and the NWFP.

    The NSC of Pakistan has decided the following actions will be taken to achieve the goals:

    * Deployment of unmanned reconnaissance planes
    * Strengthening law-enforcement agencies with advanced equipment
    * Deployment of more troops to the region
    * Operations against militants on fast-track basis
    * Focused operations against militant commanders
    * Action against madrasahs preaching militancy
    * Appointment of regional coordinators
    * Fresh Recruitments of police officers in NWFP

    The ministry of interior has played a large part in the information gathering for the operations against militants and their institutions. The Ministry of Interior has prepared a list of militant commanders operating in the region and they have also prepared a list of seminaries for monitoring.

    The Government is also trying to strengthen the law enforcement in the area by providing the NWFP Police with weapons, bullet-proof jackets and night-vision devices. The paramilitary Frontier Corps will be provided with artillery and APC’s. The state agencies are also working on studying ways to block FM frequencies of illegal FM radio channels. [14]


    Get your facts straight.

    Incidentally, I’m not one the one who said you were “dangerously naive” I would just say that you’re an asshole.


  42. Yeah, your first quote is basically the Powell Doctrine, and your current idiot President was too stupid to learn from the “wisdom” of his father and listening to his advisers carefully, and from that of history, with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan being a key influence of the downfall of their economy and governmental system.

    The reality is, the no fly zone worked, contained Saddam and made him a non threat to the US. It did this very cheaply when compared to other containment policies the US has ever held. It achieved its goals for a mere fraction of the blood and treasure this 6 year botched vendetta between world leaders has done. Oh yeah, where’s all that cheap oil we were going to get? Right, the Chinese were the first to sign a contract with Iraq’s oil miniseries.

    And saying Warizistan “is in the middle of the country” is the same as saying New Jersey is in the middle of the USA. If New Jersey was harboring a terrorist organization that was plotting and carrying out attacks on England, and the US could not control it, told the world it was not able to control it, and had basically ceded control of NJ to that terrorist organization, then Great Britain would have the same justification for attacking within the “borders” of the US to defend their own people as that laid out by Barack Obama.

    Where are the results in Pakistan that you laid out from their great contribution to controlling the Taliban and al queda? Right there are none! Where’s OBL? Oh right he doesn’t matter any more, because he is within the borders of “our allie” who we installed into power, give financial support to and IS A FUCKING DICTATOR! Wow, now that is “Democracy on the March” now isn’t it?!

    Oh let’s not forget our huge concern about Iraq was Saddam, a dictator that was once our allie of choice in the Middle East, who “supposedly” was a mushroom cloud away from getting Nukes. Nope he didn’t have any, nor was close to getting them. Now, John McCain wants to “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” because they are seeking Nukes and have a nut job of a leader who is only a figurehead and does not hold control of the country.

    Hmmmm, where am I going here? Oh right, Pakistan has a dictator in power, cannot control regions within its own borders, harbors those that ARE responsible for 9-11, cannot protect the life of an opposition party leader running for national election, and oh right has fucking Nukes and for decades has been on a triggers hair of using them against India!

    So let stop the bullshit of “who is our friend” and call the kettle black when it is black. Pakistan our friend? Are you fucking kidding me?! When US troops were pursuing OBL, Pakistan said you cannot come into our country to get him. What a friend!

    When al queda attacked the US on 9-11, Iran offered to help us take the Taliban out of Afghanistan, as the Taliban committed autrocities against Iranians within Afghanistan and were a REAL threat to their country, unlike Iraq’s made up threat to the USA. What did George “the Idiot” Bush say? No! And to add insult to injury, labeled them “The Axis of Evil”. Are you fucking kidding me?!

    Republican wars have nothing to do with ensuring the safety of the American people, but they have everything to do with redistributing the wealth from the people to the very rich, all under a veil of faux “Patriotism”. And that is what I mean by your patriotic bullshit.


  43. oh nice cherry picking of the wikipedia article on Warizistan, which completely ignored the entire first 3 sections, that stated exactly as I stated, to post their proposed plan of action to regain control of the area.

    Well it’s been four months, is it back in Pakistanii control yet? Is the Taliban kicked out and destroyed? The answer to both is NO!

    Has the US continued to give financial aide to Pakistan for dealing with this problem? Has the last couple months been the deadliest for US troops in Afghanistan because of attacks launched from within Pakistan’s “borders”? The answer to both is YES!

    So let me get this straight, Pakistan cannot control its own country & people, its government is headed by a military dictator, American troops are dying because they are being attacked by terrorists receiving safe haven within Pakistan, they harbor the masterminds of the greatest attack on US soil ever, and they are our fucking allie? What planet do you live on?!


  44. Can’t believe Hans is insisting that we invade Pakistan. Another liberal bloodthirsty warmonger. Well, if he’s going to insist, I guess we’ll just have to go along with it. I was hoping negotiation and behind-the-scenes support might work, but Hans’ black-and-white evaluation has set me straight. Bomb ’em all.

    On a serious note, I’m still waiting for Petraeus’s assessment of the Afghanistan/Pakistan situation. I don’t know if he can pull off another Iraq, but I’m hopeful.


  45. Pingback: Bill Ayers has a new book coming out! - Page 5 - Debate Politics Forums

  46. Pingback: Bill Ayers has a new book coming out! - Page 6 - Debate Politics Forums

  47. Pingback: Bill Ayers has a new book coming out! - Page 7 - Debate Politics Forums

  48. Pingback: Yes, Obama IS A Marxist « Nice Deb

  49. Pingback: McCain Employing GOP Operative Accused Of Voter Registration Fraud - Page 2 - Debate Politics Forums

  50. Can’t believe Hans is insisting that we invade Pakistan. Another liberal bloodthirsty warmonger.

    huh, did you catch the news today?

    what was it that happened today? oh yeah, right, we send some missiles into “sovereign” Pakistan, killed some innocents & a few bad guys.

    so does that make George Bush another liberal bloodthirsty warmonger?

    or is he trying to wag the dog and make it look like he actually gives a shit about the safety of the people in this country just before he leaves office?

    just checking…


  51. Hans. You’re not very good at detecting sarcasm, are you? Or nuance?

    Nobody here has said we shouldn’t fire the occasional missile into Pakistan when our intelligence points us to high value targets. That is what we’ve been doing all along.

    But, you don’t broadcast to the world that we’re going to invade.


  52. Damn, Deb, you are hip deep in crazy trolls. I have to stop by more often.

    >>moral credibility”? are you serious?! that was thrown out the window the moment we invaded Iraq.



  53. “clever”? what is that being able to make up bullshit like yourself and claiming it to be absolute truth?

    when you can’t defend your position, you would rather attack the messenger personally than be able to defend your position.

    that is excellent 3rd & 4th grade mentality. obviously you live in a small town, where small brain thinking lives on for a lifetime.

    “strawmen” defenses to your position. hell, this is what this entire blog is all about. attributing other people’s actions to barack obama.

    again, attacking someone personally when not able to defend one’s position with fact.

    I also scanned over this sham of a topic, and absolutely love how nicedeb defends all her argument with her own posts as if those are fact, and people should just believe her b/c she is omnipotent.

    readers here would be wise to remember George Bush’s omnipotence going into the invasion of Iraq, and what we really know about how wrong he was, oh wait, I meant how much he lied about the reasons we went it. what were his motivations, and what are nicedebs?


  54. >>what is that being able to make up bullshit like yourself and claiming it to be absolute truth?

    >>I meant how much he lied about the reasons we went it.

    Maybe you should spend a little time researching the word irony.


  55. nah, why should I when it is public record what I say, not talking points propaganda?

    oh yeah and as to nicedeb’s

    Nobody here has said we shouldn’t fire the occasional missile into Pakistan when our intelligence points us to high value targets. That is what we’ve been doing all along.

    in the 90s when that was being done in Afghanistan in attempts to get OBL, it was called “Wag the Dog” and all the warmonger conservatives had their panties up in a bunches, b/c all they gave a shit about was blowjobs in the whitehouse and not about the safety of the American people. what a bunch of fu**ing hypocrites you all are.


  56. >>nah, why should I when it is public record what I say, not talking points propaganda?

    So if it’s public record you won’t have any problem pointing out actual news articles, as opposed to the opinions of the idiots at DU or Kos, right? Cause if you have proof that Bush lied this country into war that would be treason and he should not only be impeached but thrown in prison. Dope.

    Do you have any idea what public record means?

    Clinton arguably did more to harm the defense of this country and encourage radicalism against us than any President in US history.

    You aren’t even a high quality troll. Your just a blathering idiot.


  57. when you can’t defend your position, you would rather attack the messenger personally

    Naw. It’s just more fun to mock you. When we want to discuss these issues seriously, we try to find competent participants. We’ll give you a ring if we get really desperate.

    obviously you live in a small town, where small brain thinking lives on for a lifetime.

    What an elitist. These foreign folk are certainly prejudiced, aren’t they?

    people should just believe her b/c she is omnipotent.

    Heh. Even small town denizens know the word you meant to use there. At least you got the “omni” part right.

    wise to remember George Bush’s omnipotence

    Oh, there it is again!
    Small town dwellers: 2
    Hans: 0

    I meant how much he lied about the reasons we went it

    Extra-special idiocy, served piping hot. I have found, without exception, that those who call Bush a liar have not done their homework, and that they themselves have a very loose association with the truth.

    But I still like Hans’s plan to invade Pakistan.


  58. Pingback: Is Obama’s “fairness doctrine” to redistribute wealth in line with the constitution | Politics Today

  59. Pingback: Not That It Matters Anymore, But There WAS A Second Source For That 2008 Obama/Ayers Babysitting Story « Nice Deb

  60. Pingback: Obama Pal, Bill Ayers: ‘Revolution’ Needed To Stop ‘White Supremacy’ « Nice Deb

  61. Pingback: Obama Pal, Bill Ayers: ‘Revolution’ Needed To Stop ‘White Supremacy’ | FavStocks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s