how is obama connected to 9/11?

I'm starting to hate McCain.

When is Obama going to bring up McCain's recent voting record on Veterans' issues?

Scire:

Don't worry. I'm about 80% sure we'll unearth some adultery sooner or later. Then it'll all be over (the facade of his character-based campaign).

This is a very lame response.

Obama's age at the time the crimes were committed is hardly relevant.  The background of Ayers and his wife, Bernadette Dohrn, were no secret in Chicago university circles or the neighborhoods where these political fundraisers took place in Ayers' home.

For that matter, the crimes of Ayers and Dohrn were no secret anywhere.  Including the front pages of the New York Times on 9/11/01 where Dohrn bragged about his crimes and expressed his regret that he and his conspirators hadn't "done more" than bomb the Capitol and the Pentagon.

If McCain or any other presidential candidate were known to have consorted with terrorists like Ayers and Dohrn, they too would come under scrutiny.  Given McCain's military background, far more scrutiny than Obama has so far gotten on this issue.

On what grounds is it reprehensible to bring this question up?

I love the logic flow here.  Your answers to Obama's friendship with terrorists are:

1.  McCain adultery somewhere

2.  McCain vote on veterans issues

Your collective sense of proportion and equivalence is startling.

Do you know what a terrorist is?  Do you know what a traitor is?  Do you understand the enormity of bombing the Capitol, the Pentagon, as well as the killing of policemen as Ayers/

dohrn's fellow Weathermen have been convicted of?

The obtuseness here is that of Moonies, and it is astounding.

P.S.  Nobody is accusing Obama of involvement in 9/11-- where did you come up with that one, scire?  The only connection is Ayers' coincidental appearance in the NYT on 9/11 with his reprehensible quotes.

Why is Obama's connection with two unrepentent terrorists not relevent?  Or off limits?  Had Ayers said, well, when I was young and foolish I did some things that, upon further reflection I should not have done, that would be the end of it.

But Ayers had been quoted as saying exactly the opposite:  that he is only sorry that he did not kill MORE innocent Americans.  I strain to understand how he differs from Osama Bin Laden in that sentiment.

As Channy notes, Ayers/Dohrn's background is/was well known.  The reason this is important is that his relationship with these people goes to the heart of his "judgment" narrative.  he has said, yes, I don't have experience, it's true, but I have good judgment.  His relations with Ayers calls into serious question that judgment.

Hereabouts, people are constantly bemoaning the fact that the Dems are not viewed as patriotic, not strong, etc.  Bill Ayers' connection with BHO is one reason why.

No doubt McCain has at least one acquaintance who has associates who did something bad. So obviously we should condemn McCain for his failure to denounce his acquaintance. No, wait, there really is no story. Likewise, there really is nothing to this story but a smear of guilt by association, and it is not even a close association. I'm ready to give money to 527s that will run ads that will slam McCain for his Keating Five misdeeds (guilt by actual guilt, not association), or for dumping injured wife#1 for the young, blonde heiress (again, guilt by guilt).

But mainly I really look forward to the day when we do not feel compelled to re-fight the quarrels of the 1960s. I'm 45, and I barely have any memories at all of anything that happened in the 1960s, just a birthday party or too, going to school, my first baseball game, and some trips to the beach. I really don't give a shit what Ayers said in the 1960s, or what his associates did. The guilty were punished, it's long since over and done with. We might as well re-fight the arguments over fluoridation as a communist plot (except that is actually happening locally).

I know you think we are a calculating cult of personality, Chan, but we actually don't consult each other before we post.  

Also, I would conjecture that most terrorists operate in very secretive manner.  Espousing concern for public infrastucture is easy to warm to (what Obama did) versus being an active part of a terror plot (which he did, nor could have known about).

dylanposer, nobody has accused Obama of being an active part of a terror plot.  

Jeff Frey, Obama's association with Ayers/Dohrn was not once or twice removed. Furthermore, there is no statute of limitations on murder.  

This is an issue, as butchie points out, of judgement.  And, it's an issue of moral character and decency.

Once more, Ayers & Dohrn are known former terrorists because to this day they not only admit to it, they brag about it.  They were never tried because evidence against them was improperly handled and thus not admissible.

Nobody of good judgement would seek the backing of admitted terrorists to launch their political career.  Especially if they harbored longterm interest in the presidency of the United States.

That the Ayers/Dohrn's can even get employment above minimum wage is because of the Leftist nature of American Universities.  Few corporations would employ them.  Maybe a Leftist law firm would.

That you can't even fathom that associating oneself closely with terrorists could or should be a problem for a potential president is mind-boggling.

Truly we are dealing with a "Whatever Generation".

Whatever. That some people blow little things way out of proportion is mind-boggling. Before you blow that out of proportion, "little things" refers to Obama's supposed link to Ayers, not to the Weathermen. As for the Weathermen, that is in the category of "old things", consigned to the past. They are history. Whatever Ayers says now (and do we know if he changed his tune, post-9/11? I honestly don't know), is there any evidence that he is actively plotting against the US? None that anyone has ever suggested.

Obama and Ayers were not golf buddies, they did not hang out together, did not work together except in serving on one board (which means coincidentally together). This is not a McCain-Lieberman sort of relationship.

Since there is no statute of limitations on murder, I would take the fact that Ayers was never indicted for murder, and as far as I know, has not been actively investigated for it for most of the last 40 years, to be a pretty good indication that he is not likely to be a murderer.

But clearly there is also no statute of limitations on guilt by association, as long as someone is willing to distort a relationship to magnify a connection and pretend that it means something.

"That the Ayers/Dohrn's can even get employment above minimum wage is because of the Leftist nature of American Universities.  Few corporations would employ them.  Maybe a Leftist law firm would."

Obviously your perception of Universities is different than the reality I observe, but I've been part of quite a few faculty job searches, and not once in my memory has a candidate's political views been discussed, or even been known. This is my experience from a department in the physical sciences. I can believe that it becomes an issue in departments on the Liberal Arts side of things, but I also think there are some fields where the word 'science" really must be removed from the name.

But, as it turns out, the majority of the people I know in science vote Democrat, and tend toward liberal views. Perhaps something to do with the far-right extremist views of today's Republican party, and the rabid anti-intellectualism that has infected it?

McCain's father in law and original political backer was a convicted felon.

So has McCain condemned his father-in-law for his crime? If not, it only shows his lack of judgement and character, associating with a felon and even living with the child of a felon. Such a person is obviously disqualified from serving as President of the US.

Seriously, what was he convicted of?

Ayers has most assuredly NOT changed his tune.  he still wishes that he had killed more Americans.  And, no, the relations between Obama/Ayers are not merely coincidental.  Ayers/Dohrn hosted fundraisers for Obama when he ran for all his offices.  That hardly suggests a mere passing acquaintence.

Look, I understand the longing to put the conflicts of the 60s behind us.  And if Ayers had been one bit repentent regarding his terrorist actions in the 60s, I'd think differently.  As I said, it goes to judgment.

And lacking any real non-academic accomplishments, Obama asks us to trust his judgment.

Jeff Frey, the vast majority of people you know in academia vote Democratic because academia was taken over in the 60s and 70s by Baby Boomer lefties.  In typical Left fashion, they squeezed out people who didn't agree with them culturally and politically.

Whether or not somebody's politics were overtly discussed in a tenure review-- and I believe you when you say they weren't-- academia is as intimate as the military and other such institutions and everyone knows the attitudes of their colleagues.  It is publish or perish, after all.

Meanwhile, politics is one thing.  Active involvement in terrorism is quite another.  And the Ayers/Dohrn terrorist activities are and have long been common knowledge.

I would ask you the old question put to Joe McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

But, for the Left, such questions are never relevant.  Unless put to the Right.

I would also add, in refutation of your position the politics holds no sway on employment decisions on campus:  The president of Harvard was pushed out of his job by the "Liberal Arts" faculty because he deigned to say something politically taboo-- even when he groveled in apology.

dylanposer writes, "...I know you think we are a calculating cult of personality, Chan, but we actually don't consult each other before we post."

Uh, yeah, I get that.  Which is why it is all the more amusing when several free thinkers post virtually the same train of thought.

re McCain's father-in-law's felony conviction, a google produced this (unverified):  "In 1948, Jim and Eugene Hensley were indicted for falsifying liquor records to conceal illegal distribution of whiskey against post-war rationing regulations. Both men were convicted in U.S.

District Court on federal charges of conspiracy and Jim Hensley was also convicted on seven counts of filing false liquor records.

While Eugene was sentenced to one year in federal prison, Jim received a six-month suspended sentence. "

While the above if true is hardly laudable, a 60 year old conviction for liquor law infractions is a far cry from what Ayers has admitted to.

Further, the man in question is the father of MCcain's wife.  McCain didn't seek out his political support or, to my knowledge, work closely with the man in any capacity.

More to the point, a liquor law infraction is hardly equivalent to treason, terrorism, and the bombing of the Pentagon and the Capitol and the killing of a policeman.  These latter crimes attempted to threaten the security of our country.

Your attempts to equate these two disparate kind of relationships are stretched beyond all coherence.

Chan, you really aren't listening. I realize that you have a comfortable and settled view of "academia", and probably won't pay attention to anything that contradicts it, but let's give it a try. For one thing, you seem to think that "academia" and "Department of Oppressed Minority Studies" are the same thing. You might also scroll up and note that I wrote in my post that I realized some liberal arts departements

I work in a Department of Geology and Geophysics, and in a research institute that is part of the university. I have had 3 face to face job interviews in my career, and I have been involved in several from the other side. In exactly zero of these cases were the political views of the job candidate known. That's 0%. Same for student admissions. I have been involved in several tenure and promotion committees. In exactly 0% of the cases we heard were the political views of the candidates mentioned, or even necessarily known (some we know, some we don't). I am confident that political views were a factor in NONE of the tenure or promotion decisions that I have been involved in. Again, that's 0%. (Although you might have to exempt intra-Department politics in the case of one of my colleagues).

You bet we look at their publication record and teaching effectiveness. It is publish or perish. But there is no "liberal" or "conservative" position on plate tectonics. Unless you count flat earth believers, young earth creationists or related pseudo-science frauds as "conservative". But that would be unfair.

The academic colleagues I am referring to are mostly geologists, geophysicists, glaciologists, atmospheric scientists, physicists, and support staff. Plus earth and space scientists I meet at conferences and workshops. And yes, I'd bet 65-75% Democrat if not more. And I'll also tell you that a much higher percentage are vocally and actively against the Republican party than held those same views in 2000, which I think it mainly the result of 8 years of Bush and the extremism of the Republican party.