The Weather Underground declared war on “Amerikkka” in 1969, and that war includes a mangling of the truth that continues to this day.
Ayers, in his ongoing efforts to rehabilitate his reputation has written an oped entitled, The Real Bill Ayers in the NYTs:
Unable to challenge the content of Barack Obama’s campaign, (how do you challenge “hope and change”?) his opponents invented a narrative about a young politician who emerged from nowhere, a man of charm, intelligence and skill, but with an exotic background and a strange name. The refrain was a question: “What do we really know about this man?”
Secondary characters in the narrative included an African-American preacher with a fiery style, a Palestinian scholar and an “unrepentant domestic terrorist.” Linking the candidate with these supposedly shadowy characters, and ferreting out every imagined secret tie and dark affiliation, became big news.
Dude. We didn’t “invent” any of that stuff. Now that he’s been elected, I sure wish to heck that we did.
I was cast in the “unrepentant terrorist” role; I felt at times like the enemy projected onto a large screen in the “Two Minutes Hate” scene from George Orwell’s “1984,” when the faithful gathered in a frenzy of fear and loathing.
Well, apart from some informed people on the internet, nobody seems to know much of anything about you. (See John Zeigler for more about that). Really, to use a George Orwell 1984 analogy to describe the frenzy of “the one’s” opponents takes some amazing chutzpa.
Here’s where Ayers predictably goes off the rails entirely:
Now that the election is over, I want to say as plainly as I can that the character invented to serve this drama wasn’t me, not even close. Here are the facts:
I never killed or injured anyone. I did join the civil rights movement in the mid-1960s, and later resisted the draft and was arrested in nonviolent demonstrations.
The Ayers led Weatherman’s very first public demonstration was in October 1969, the “Days of Rage” protest in Chicago
“Days of Rage” sought to create enough chaos to shock the American public out of its alleged complacency vis a vis the Vietnam War.
The opening “Days of Rage” salvo, designed to glorify the anarchist movement, was the October 8 demolition of a statue dedicated to the memory of eight policemen who had been killed in the Haymarket Labor Riot of 1886. Thereafter, some 300 people — both members and supporters of the Weatherman agenda — ravaged Chicago’s business district, smashing windows and destroying automobiles. Six people were shot and seventy were arrested. The violence continued, though on a smaller scale, for each of the next two nights. As Sixties historian Todd Gitlin observed, however, no popular uprising was sparked by these events, much to the group’s dismay. Notable “Days of Rage” leaders included Bill Ayers, now a Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, and Mark William Rudd, currently a mathematics professor at a New Mexico community college.
That’s but one example of a demonstration he was involved with, the liar.
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.
Another lie. I’ll let Robert Stacy McCain explain:
The radical Weatherman faction of SDS emerged in the wake of protests at the 1968 Democratic convention, staged its first “extreme vandalism” during the October 1969 “Days of Rage” in Chicago, and declared its dedication to terrorist “revolutionary” action at a December 1969 “war council” in Flint, Michigan. Their express intent was to be an American version of the Viet Cong. To try to claim that the organization was not created until after the March 1970 Greenwich Village townhouse explosion is dishonest revisionism.
I find it interesting that Ayers felt it necessary to distance himself from the “accidental explosion” that killed three of his comrades, including former lover Diane Oughton. Does he still feel shame for how he treated her? Is that the reason for the revision? I don’t know. But Bill Ayers is lying…we do know that.
The Weather Underground went on to take responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices — the ones at the Pentagon and the United States Capitol were the most notorious — as an illegal and unpopular war consumed the nation.
The Weather Underground crossed lines of legality, of propriety and perhaps even of common sense. Our effectiveness can be — and still is being — debated. We did carry out 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.
symbolic acts of extreme vandalism? What is that, exactly? Pantomiming the vandalism? No, it’s something a bit more, as R.S. McCain notes:
An officer’s dance at Fort Dix, N.J., was one of those “monuments,” and when the bomb planned for that event accidentally detonated, it was powerful enough to kill three people and destroy the building in which it was being built.
But Ayers insists on revising the history of what he did:
Peaceful protests had failed to stop the war. 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.
Freddie Freddosso, who did extensive research on Ayers for his book, The Case Against Barack Obama, wrote this piece about Ayers for NRO, back in August.
… Larry Grathwohl, an FBI mole within the Weathermen, connected Ayers to the planning — and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, to the execution— of a police station bombing in San Francisco in February 1970 that killed one officer and injured two others.
Grathwohl testified that Ayers had discussed the deadly incident after the fact. The revelation came as Ayers was talking about the organizational difficulties in running a terrorist cell:
[H]e cited as one of the real problems that someone like Bernardine Dohrn had to plan, develop, and carry out the bombing of the police station in San Francisco, and he specifically named her as the person that committed that act. . . . He said that the bomb was placed on the window ledge and he described the kind of bomb that was used to the extent of saying what kind of shrapnel was used in it. . . . [I]f he wasn’t there to see it, somebody who was there told him about it, because he stated it very emphatically.
Grathwohl also testified about an unsuccessful Weatherman bombing in Detroit, which he said Ayers had planned to be executed when the maximum number of people would be present:
The only time that I was ever instructed or we were ever instructed to place a bomb in a building at a time when there would be people in it was during the planning of the bombing at the Detroit Police Officers’ Association building and the 13th precinct in Detroit, Mich., at which time Bill said that we should plan our bombing to coincide with the time when there would be the most people in those buildings.
So he did have deadly intentions, actually. But even if all he did was place “small bombs in empty buildings” to stop an “illegal and unpopular war” as he says:
Eric Posner at the Volokh Conspiracy
Under current law, Ayers was a terrorist. This definition is not idiosyncratic; similar definitions can be found in the laws of foreign countries and in international treaties. Ayers seems to think he ought to be excused for violence because his motives were good, but that is the excuse that terrorists always offer — that their political goals justify their use of violence — and naturally the legal definition could not permit such a defense without subverting itself, or turning every terrorism trial into a debate about whether the political ends of the defendants are “good” or “bad” from a moral or political perspective.
So he fails miserably at his attempt to convince us he was just young idealist doing his darnedest to stop an illegal war; not a terrorist.
Also, conspicuously missing in his attempt to introduce us to “the real Bill Ayers”, is all of his work with Cuba. I would think the American people would be fascinated to hear all about that.
Instead, we get the faux “Fight The Smears” version of Bill Ayers.
Don’t fall for it.
Allahpundit asks some excellent questions:
Why’d the NYT accept this piece when they know he’s lying? They were the ones who reported on 9/11 that he wished he’d set more bombs; they were the ones who reminded us a month before the election that the Weathermen did indeed have a body count. In fact, they were the ones who told us 30 years ago that the Underground had ties to Cuban officials, which would go a long way towards establishing those “political ends” to which Ayers refers. In case they weren’t already abundantly established.
Read the whole thing, though. My favorite part’s at the end, where he hints that bomb-setting radicals are really just another interest group to be listened to in the interest of diversity. Exit question: Do grandiose fantasies involving extermination camps qualify as “extreme vandalism” or is that more like “super extreme vandalism”?
Maybe that was part of their “screaming response”?
This point made at Ace’s really burns my ass:
Remember… As gm points out, the NYT allowing Ayers to recycle his spin from Good Morning America and lie about his complicity in murder is the same NYT that rejected an Op-Ed from John McCain as being not quite original enough and failing to address the points made by his critic (in that case, Barack Obama, whose earlier-published essay was apparently not constrained by the requirements of freshness or direct answer to his critics’ points).
If only John McCain had bombed an American base. He’d have gotten a NYT editorial — and presumably a NYT endorsement, too.