Look. Is Ayers on the Terrorist Watch List? Because If He Isn't, That Should Be the End of It.

[Solomon]

I don't know what they call it, but is Ayers on the terrorist list?

If he's not, then why is it an issue?

I'm starting to get sick of it.

[gateley]

1. No, but we probably all are. nt

[Solomon]

4. I"ll bet you're right.

:scared:

[treestar]

2. EXACTLY!

Where does the MSM get the nerve to keep reporting this slur?

[Brotherjohn]

3. Exactly. I just googled Ayers for more detail. It's arguable he was never even a terrorist.

Yes, he participated in bombings. But they were all against PROPERTY, and they were all preceded by communique's advising people to stay clear. There were no random attacks aimed at terrorizing or hurting people. They purposefully and successfully avoided ever injuring anyone (except 3 of their own who died when a bomb accidentally went off).

I write this NOT to defend the guy or imply that anything he did back then was acceptable... it was NOT. Bill Ayers was an extremist who resorted to violence. That is stupid. But it's about context, and getting the whole story. This was the 60's, people. Violent extremism was everywhere, on both sides of the political spectrum. Lest people forget, church bombings and assassinations committed by right-wing wackos actually KILLED many minorities and left-leaning politicians and activists. The National Guard was KILLING innocent anti-war demonstrators. This was an environment where many acted (sometimes violently) in ways which they viewed as self-defense.

Bill Ayers turned himself in to the authorities around 10 years later, and was never even convicted.

This guy was a 60's radical rabble-rouser. Every Democrat in the country older than 20 has some tenuous link to such a person. Big deal.

If Obama knew and associated with him in the 1960s (you know, when he was EIGHT YEARS OLD!), that might be something. This, however, is nothing.

[TexasObserver]

5. Good point. A million Americans on the list, and he's not one of them?!

[iceman66]

6. Not a good argument.

I'm sure Bushco would put him on the list to help McCain. Also, remember that this list is not a public record.

[Solomon]

7. What do you mean it's not a good argumen? If he's not on the list

then the whole thing is stupid, and if he is, who we gonna round up for being his friend, the republicans who funded the program?

Your argument is not a good argument.

[Uzybone]

8. I think its not a good argument because the watch list is bogus

CNNs Drew Griffin is also on the watch list. There are children that are on the watch list.

[iceman66]

9. Again.

The list is not public record and there is absolutely no oversight - meaning that they can put whoever they want on the list, for no reason at all.

Look at the situation in reverse - what if he IS on the list - does that mean what McCain is saying is right?