[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Guys like you are heartbreaking man.
It’s not anger or even disgust, it’s pity.
People who will gladly trade away their freedom and manhood so big brother can hold their hand.
I don’t how you look yourself in the mirror.[/quote]
When you don’t believe in the concept of personal responsibility, it’s easy to look in the mirror with an ear to ear grin.
The NYT’s “Whitewash” of the Bill Ayers-Obama Connection
A 2,100-word front-page inoculation by the New York Times, purporting to investigate the relationship between '60s domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and Barack Obama: “But the two men do not appear to have been close.”
Posted by: Clay Waters
10/6/2008 1:02:36 PM
Investigation or inoculation?
John McCain has said he’ll be taking a tougher line against Barack Obama and his associates, and reporter Scott Shane’s front-page piece Saturday on the “sporadic” ties between Obama and William Ayers, a founder of the 1960s domestic terrorist group Weather Underground, serves as a 2,100-word inoculation, a long investigative piece that does little in the way of actual investigating, providing the appearance of due diligence while exonerating Obama.
The two men knew each other years in Chicago politics, most notably when Obama served as chief executive of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school project co-founded by Ayers, while Ayers served on the board. Ayers and his wife, fellow Weather Underground member Bernardine Dohrn, hosted a gathering for their Hyde Park neighbor Barack Obama. It was Obama’s “coming-out” party for politics.
Ayers has never repented from his domestic terrorism, which included a bomb attack on the Pentagon (a Weather Underground member planted a bomb in a Pentagon restroom). In a Times profile that coincidentally appeared the morning of September 11, 2001, Ayers said, “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” In his memoir, “Fugitive Days,” he wrote: ''Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon."
On Saturday, the Times attempted to disarm this potentially harmful connection under the guise of investigating it in Shane’s off-lead story, “Obama and '60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths.”
Shane appeared more interested in downplaying the “sporadic” relationship between Obama and Ayers (just read the headline, which made the relationship seem random) than actually digging into it for details. (The initial online headline was even more bluntly pro-Obama: “Obama Had Met Ayers, but the Two Are Not Close.”) Here’s an excerpt:
At a tumultuous meeting of anti-Vietnam War militants at the Chicago Coliseum in 1969, Bill Ayers helped found the radical Weathermen, launching a campaign of bombings that would target the Pentagon and United States Capitol.
Twenty-six years later, at a lunchtime meeting about school reform in a Chicago skyscraper, Barack Obama met Mr. Ayers, by then an education professor. Their paths have crossed sporadically since then, at a coffee Mr. Ayers hosted for Mr. Obama�??s first run for office, on the schools project and a charitable board, and in casual encounters as Hyde Park neighbors.
Their relationship has become a touchstone for opponents of Mr. Obama, the Democratic senator, in his bid for the presidency. Video clips on YouTube, including a new advertisement that was broadcast on Friday, juxtapose Mr. Obama�??s face with the young Mr. Ayers or grainy shots of the bombings.
In a televised interview last spring, Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama�??s Republican rival, asked, �??How can you countenance someone who was engaged in bombings that could have or did kill innocent people?�??
More recently, conservative critics who accuse Mr. Obama of a stealth radical agenda have asserted that he has misleadingly minimized his relationship with Mr. Ayers, whom the candidate has dismissed as �??a guy who lives in my neighborhood�?? and �??somebody who worked on education issues in Chicago that I know.�??
A review of records of the schools project and interviews with a dozen people who know both men, suggest that Mr. Obama, 47, has played down his contacts with Mr. Ayers, 63. But the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called �??somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.�??
Someone should tell Chicago Mayor Richard Daley that the “two men do not appear to have been close.” Daley attempted to dismiss the link between Obama and Ayers but instead strengthened it by saying: “They’re friends. So what?”
Reaction from the right-leaning blogosphere has been piercing; “whitewash” is a popular word. Color blogger Tom Maguire, for one, very unimpressed. He summarized things neatly, saying Shane
…presents an elegant apologia for Obama’s mysterious relationship with unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers. Mr. Shane presents the bare bones of many of the allegations made by critics, thereby allowing the Times to defend this piece as fair and two-sided. However, little or no evidence is presented to support the allegations while the Obama denials and current explanations are presented uncritically. The net effect will probably be to convince many people that the Times pushed hard but simply could not find a story here.
Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online, who has pushed harder than anyone for the full facts about the Obama-Ayers connection (with resistance from the Chicago political machine and the Obama camp, and indifference on the part of the mainstream media), called Shane’s story a “whitewash” and added
The piece serves as a platform for the Obama campaign and Obama�??s friends and allies. Obama�??s spokesman and supporters�?? names are named and their versions of events are presented in detail, with quotes. Yet the article makes no serious attempt to present the views of Obama critics who have worked to uncover the true nature of the relationship. That makes this piece irresponsible journalism, and an obvious effort by the former paper of record to protect Obama from the coming McCain onslaught.
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air looked at the facts and wondered how Shane could really call the Obama-Ayers relationship “sporadic”:
How can Scott Shane write with a straight face that �??[t]heir paths have crossed sporadically since then�??? Obama worked as CEO of the project that Ayers helped found, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, for several years. Ayers served on the board at the same time. In an overlapping period, both men served for a few years on the Woods Fund, which notably granted $75,000 to Yasser Arafat�??s associate, Rashid Khalidi, during that time.
Their paths didn�??t cross �??sporadically.�?? They worked on two projects together, political projects, for almost a decade in Chicago. That�??s hardly �??sporadic�??; that�??s a well-established working relationship, and certainly much more substantial than Obama�??s description of Ayers as just another familiar face in the neighborhood.
This isn’t the first time the Times has downplayed the Obama-Ayers connection. In August, reporter Jim Rutenberg penned three stories attacking an anti-Obama ad from an independent group that questioned the relationship between Obama and Ayers.
Hey irish, there is so much crap wrong with that associated press article it isnt even worth the time to dissect it all.
Besides that, talking about obama’s character is not grasping at whatever to save the “sinking ship”. Its the fact that the liberal media hasn’t properly covered any of the negatives about obama, leaving that duty in the hands of the republicans. Its obvious that the American people havent gotten the true story on obama, or this wouldnt even be a race. The pubs shouldnt have to do this, its the media’s job, but we see how that has gone so far.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I’ve been reading a lot about it- there’s no evidence that he’s “rolling” with any crew of terrorists. It’s just a guy he knew- very different than McCain and his Keating Five.[/quote]
You should get out more, and maybe try reading a different source because you’re way behind.
McCain was cleared of ANY wrong doing in the Keating5. Only those who wish to suppress the truth about McCain would even bring up K5. Not very respectable.
Besides all of the “meetings” people know about obama/ayers that liberals casually dismiss as barely even association, there are much more important things about their relationship. Obama was the man that ayers gave oversight to something around $40million that was raised by ayers for “education” which obama spent on funding radical student organizations and the likes of ACORN (talk about a misappropriation of funds). Seems like they did more than pass by each other on the street doesnt it? BTW there is a recent photo of ayers standing on a crumpled American flag, so I dont care if obama was only 8 when the bombings occured, ayers is still a radical to this day.
Not Inspiring Confidence
JENNIFER RUBIN - 10.05.2008 - 9:40 PM
Karl Rove is as stumped as many less experienced gurus as to what the McCain camp is doing these days. On the decision to announce a pullout in Michigan, he confesses:
On the McCain camp announcing a “We’re really going after Obama now” tactic:
All of this does reflect a lack of discipline and an compulsion to assure the base that they really are “doing something.” These errors and miscues come at a time in which the need for a precise, well-executed and high stakes strategy is needed to rescue the McCain campaign. To say that these moves unnerve and disappoint Republican insiders would be an understatement.
That said, neither of these slips or the ill-fated dash to Washington I think is the source of McCain’s difficulties. We are in the middle of an economic meltdown on the Republican President’s watch and McCain has been unable or unwilling to explain why voters should look to him to solve the crisis. That is not to say that McCain is doing worse than any other candidate might in this situation. Indeed it is remarkable that the race is as close as it is. But it is going to take some external set of events, a brilliant campaign execution and a whole lot of luck (or a substantial error on Barack Obama’s part) for McCain to turn this around.
Fir anyone who is young and confused about the term Weatherman. They were an offshoot of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) which was formed by among others Tom Hayden (yes, Senator Tom Hayden). Tom Hayden was also married to Jane Fonda (Hanoi Jane). Tom grew up and got a life and became a Senator.
So Tom being a Senator at the same time as McCain, makes John McCain of working and fraternizing with a terrorist. The term weatherman comes from a line from a Bob Dylan song “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”. McCain was a hell of a lot older than 8 when he was working and palling around with ex-terrorist Senator Tom Hayden.
[quote]RoadWarrior wrote:
Fir anyone who is young and confused about the term Weatherman. They were an offshoot of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) which was formed by among others Tom Hayden (yes, Senator Tom Hayden). Tom Hayden was also married to Jane Fonda (Hanoi Jane). Tom grew up and got a life and became a Senator.
So Tom being a Senator at the same time as McCain, makes John McCain of working and fraternizing with a terrorist. The term weatherman comes from a line from a Bob Dylan song “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”. McCain was a hell of a lot older than 8 when he was working and palling around with ex-terrorist Senator Tom Hayden.[/quote]
Uh, what?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
RoadWarrior wrote:
Fir anyone who is young and confused about the term Weatherman. They were an offshoot of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) which was formed by among others Tom Hayden (yes, Senator Tom Hayden). Tom Hayden was also married to Jane Fonda (Hanoi Jane). Tom grew up and got a life and became a Senator.
So Tom being a Senator at the same time as McCain, makes John McCain of working and fraternizing with a terrorist. The term weatherman comes from a line from a Bob Dylan song “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”. McCain was a hell of a lot older than 8 when he was working and palling around with ex-terrorist Senator Tom Hayden.
Uh, what?[/quote]
Tom Hayden:
SDS (Students for a Democratic Society):
Weatherman:
[quote]RoadWarrior wrote:
Fir anyone who is young and confused about the term Weatherman. They were an offshoot of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) which was formed by among others Tom Hayden (yes, Senator Tom Hayden). Tom Hayden was also married to Jane Fonda (Hanoi Jane). Tom grew up and got a life and became a Senator.
So Tom being a Senator at the same time as McCain, makes John McCain of working and fraternizing with a terrorist. The term weatherman comes from a line from a Bob Dylan song “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”. McCain was a hell of a lot older than 8 when he was working and palling around with ex-terrorist Senator Tom Hayden.[/quote]
The weathermen split off SDS and is not the same organisation. Tom Hayden was nonviolent.
Obama was a lot older than 8 years old when the weathermen did the Brinks robbery in the eighties in which two policemen and a security guard were killed. It was because of the Brinks robbery that Ayers adopted his third child after her parents went to jail for that crime.
Another point is labeling the weathermen a sixties radical group is misleading. They were founded in sixty nine but they were committing crimes all through the seventies and into the eighties. But it is a good example of how the press is trying to minimize this and make it sound like this all happened decades before Barry met Ayers which just isn’t so.
Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadette Dohrn were part of the original 60s/70s group and not the later one. They were both hiding throughout the 80s. Tom Hayden visited the Viet Cong during the Viet Nam (Jane Fonda was photographed looking through the eyepiece of an anti-aircraft gun and would be forever known as Hanoi Jane). He was also a member of the Chicago 7, they were charged with inciting riots during the 1968 Democratic Convention and disrupting the convention. So technically (especially under Bush standards) would be considered a domestic terrorist.
Any “real” connection between Ayers has already been disproven except for use by the McCain campaign. People are adamant that McCain was exonerated for the Keating 5 and more than happy to accept that and deny that it was political favors (mostly Republican pressure) and his “war hero” status at the time that got him off, so he must be totally innocent and the 100k that he got from Keating was on the level and all those vacation trips with Keating to his weekend paradise were totally innocent. But then the McCain campaign is always telling the truth, Obama is a Muslim right.
Sadly, McCain has totally flip-flopped and totally deserted the issues to fling Rovian bullshit instead confronting the crisis and issues instead. But then again, you probably believe that the Republican Party is trying to stop the Palin investigation because she is totally innocent and the final ruling will show that. And now that he is behind, the FBI (also part of the Bush Adminsitration) is issuing “terrorist” warnings in his behalf. And, don’t give me that Obama kool-aid crap, I am voting for Nader. They are both total losers and equal shit.
As a side note, Obama was in Ohio (?) and was introduced by former public servant John Glenn - famous for (1) being a former astronaut, and (2) being one of the individuals named in the Keating Five investigation.
Might the mainstream press note this notable note should Obama make an issue of the “Keating Five” (which Obama is on record as saying is irrelevant and a non-issue)?
Unfortunately, McCain has to do some of this dirty work - because the press fell asleep at the switch. The press went on a tear to disqualify Palin - wasn’t that nice if you are a member of the Democrat party - but could never be bothered to do the same with Obama. Imagine if the same journalistic tenacity aimed at Palin had been aimed at Obama.
Since it wasn’t, we have the weakest and most vague candidate 30 days out from an election we have ever seen, and he should be nowhere near it. If the election of 2008 means anything, it is that the “free press” should be ashamed of itself, and of all the failing institutions we complain about in American society, the “free press” should be bumped to the near the front of the list.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Obama has never given a direct answer when questioned about being a Muslim. Instead he gives the diversionary answer of “I’ve been a member of pastor Wright’s chrch for twenty years”. Which is not the same as saying “I am not now nor have I ever been muslim”.
[/quote]
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/3/baracksfaith
First sentence.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As a side note, Obama was in Ohio (?) and was introduced by former public servant John Glenn - famous for (1) being a former astronaut, and (2) being one of the individuals named in the Keating Five investigation.
Might the mainstream press note this notable note should Obama make an issue of the “Keating Five” (which Obama is on record as saying is irrelevant and a non-issue)?
Unfortunately, McCain has to do some of this dirty work - because the press fell asleep at the switch. The press went on a tear to disqualify Palin - wasn’t that nice if you are a member of the Democrat party - but could never be bothered to do the same with Obama. Imagine if the same journalistic tenacity aimed at Palin had been aimed at Obama.
Since it wasn’t, we have the weakest and most vague candidate 30 days out from an election we have ever seen, and he should be nowhere near it. If the election of 2008 means anything, it is that the “free press” should be ashamed of itself, and of all the failing institutions we complain about in American society, the “free press” should be bumped to the near the front of the list.[/quote]
If McCain were ahead in the polls and totally tearing up Obama, you would be congratulating the press on their fine judgment and participation. Sounds like sour grapes. The bottom line is McCain wants to fight with lies and exaggerations instead of confronting the issues. Is this how he is going to handle criticism from Pakistan or Syria? That darn old arab is lying about me as he waves his arms at the UN? Keating is a debate point I think, the truth is Obamas strongest point. McCain “I wasn’t guilty, I was admomished for bad judgement”. Obama “So you admit using bad judgement in the last finanacial crisis”. We will see though how Obama handles it when McCain calls him a liar on stage tonight. Will he blow it or brush it off. This should be interesting “The Erattic Old Man” versus “The Inept Clown”.
[quote]ninearms wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Obama has never given a direct answer when questioned about being a Muslim. Instead he gives the diversionary answer of “I’ve been a member of pastor Wright’s chrch for twenty years”. Which is not the same as saying “I am not now nor have I ever been muslim”.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/3/baracksfaith
First sentence.[/quote]
“I’ve been a memeber of pastor Wright’s church for twenty years”.
I’m sure we all feel better about his faith now. Mainstream America, no doubt, embraces liberation theology and wants to join in on a chorus of “God Dam America”.
[quote]hedo wrote:
ninearms wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Obama has never given a direct answer when questioned about being a Muslim. Instead he gives the diversionary answer of “I’ve been a member of pastor Wright’s chrch for twenty years”. Which is not the same as saying “I am not now nor have I ever been muslim”.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/3/baracksfaith
First sentence.
“I’ve been a memeber of pastor Wright’s church for twenty years”.
I’m sure we all feel better about his faith now. Mainstream America, no doubt, embraces liberation theology and wants to join in on a chorus of “God Dam America”.
[/quote]
He belongs to a Black CHRISTIAN church, NOT Muslim. Attack Obama for belonging to a radical Black church, but stop looking like fools lying about him being a Muslim and then referencing Reverend Wright who is obviously not Muslim. Attacking Pastor Wright will only work against McCain. He will be taken as another White man attacking the Black church and their leaders. He is generating his own race card. Next he can attack Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton and alienate the handful of Black people that may vote for him. McCain needs the Black and Hispanic votes to win, not just the White people he speaks to.
It boggles my mind that anybody who claims to love this country could do anything but cringe in terror at the thought of BO in the Whitehouse.
There is nothing anybody could tell me about Mccain that would make me want an America hating Marxist as the alternative.
[quote]RoadWarrior wrote:
hedo wrote:
ninearms wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Obama has never given a direct answer when questioned about being a Muslim. Instead he gives the diversionary answer of “I’ve been a member of pastor Wright’s chrch for twenty years”. Which is not the same as saying “I am not now nor have I ever been muslim”.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/3/baracksfaith
First sentence.
“I’ve been a memeber of pastor Wright’s church for twenty years”.
I’m sure we all feel better about his faith now. Mainstream America, no doubt, embraces liberation theology and wants to join in on a chorus of “God Dam America”.
He belongs to a Black CHRISTIAN church, NOT Muslim. Attack Obama for belonging to a radical Black church, but stop looking like fools lying about him being a Muslim and then referencing Reverend Wright who is obviously not Muslim. Attacking Pastor Wright will only work against McCain.
He will be taken as another White man attacking the Black church and their leaders. He is generating his own race card. Next he can attack Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton and alienate the handful of Black people that may vote for him.
McCain needs the Black and Hispanic votes to win, not just the White people he speaks to.[/quote]
What thought are you trying to express?
Why do you think I implied Wright is a Muslim? You do know that “God Dam America” is one of Wright’s best known quotes and it was broadcast endlessly when Obama when competing against Hillary in the primary. Not so much now that he is the Democratic nominee and the messiah of the left.
I mocked Obama for being a member of a radical church that has a passing resemblance to christianity (except for the love one another part of course). I didn’t attack him for being Muslim in this post.
He may very well have been born and raised a Muslim but it does not seem to be the faith he currently embraces from what I can tell.
I don’t think liberation theology is a conforting brand of religion for most voters. Do you?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It boggles my mind that anybody who claims to love this country could do anything but cringe in terror at the thought of BO in the Whitehouse.[/quote]
It boggles my mind that after the absolute atrocious failures of the last 8 years under Bush, that anyone would vote for him again…, er, I mean McCain.
lol
[quote]Mental Dwarf wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
It boggles my mind that anybody who claims to love this country could do anything but cringe in terror at the thought of BO in the Whitehouse.
It boggles my mind that after the absolute atrocious failures of the last 8 years under Bush, that anyone would vote for him again…, er, I mean McCain.
lol[/quote]
gee…that was original.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It boggles my mind that anybody who claims to love this country could do anything but cringe in terror at the thought of BO in the Whitehouse.
[/quote]
80? The guy’s 72.