RSS 2.0 Follow Us!
 

Related Posts

Bill Ayers: Unrepentant Nut

John on January 26, 2009 at 9:38 am

The guy really is a nut:

Freep.com: But there are some things that are right and wrong?

Ayers: Sure, killing people is wrong. We agree that the Vietnam War was wrong and that killing 2,000 innocent people a month for 10 years was wrong.

Freep.com: And you’ve denounced terrorism?

Ayers: Consistently. “Fugitive Days” (his 2001 memoir) is an extended denunciation of terrorism.

Freep.com: I’m still puzzled by the unrepetent terrorist label.

Ayers: What does that mean? Who thinks these things up? What does that possibily mean?

Freep.com: They’re plain English words. I think we both understand them.

Ayers: Well I’m not a religious person so repentent is a little bit hard for me.

Freep.com: So make it unapologetic.

Ayers: I’m apologetic about many many things. But what is it that somebody wants me to apologize for. Burning my draft card? That was destroying government property. Should I apologize for that? Well, I’m not going to.

Freep.com: What about plotting bombings?

Ayers: Well I never said that I did that. But I was part of an organization that claimed credit for some of those things. And the things that we claimed credit for were the destruction of property at a moment when 2,000 people a month were being murdered. We may have crossed lines, we certainly did cross lines of legality, of propriety, maybe even of common sense. Maybe we weren’t effective.

Freep.com: How about of right and wrong?

Ayers: No, I don’t think we were wrong. But there could be some situations in which you could kind of map this out and think about the rightness and wrongness of it. For example, if you had the opportunity to interview John McCain, would this be at the front of the interview?

Freep.com: Would what be?

Ayers: The question terrorism and the question right and wrong. After all, he killed people actually from the air, innocent people. So would you be challenging him on that? Or is the fact that he did it under the rubric of legality, does that make it OK?

Freep.com: Is there no distinction in your mind between an act of war against a declared enemy and an act of terrorism?

Ayers: You have to start with a definition of terrorism. Let’s go back in American history. So take the question of slavery. Is it legitimate for people to free the slaves? It was illegal. It was destruction of property. Was it OK? By today’s standards, of course it was OK. But had you thought it was OK in 1840 you would have been against the law, against your church, against your Bible, against your parents, against your friends. So think this through a little bit.

Listen to this weasel. Freeing slaves was against the Bible? I realize there were people in the south who believed that, but what about all the Christians who founded and maintained the abolitionist movement? It’s not quite that black and white, Bill.

And we know from people who were in the room with this guy that he was content to see a significant portion of America sent to reeducation camps or to simply die at the hands of his revolution. Somehow he doesn’t remember any of that.

Bill Ayers reminds me of that Margaret Cho line about Bush…He’s not Hitler, he could have been if he applied himself.

Post to Twitter

Category: Politics |

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.