Video: John Murtaugh on Weather Underground attempt on his life
posted at 9:31 am on May 3, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Greta van Susteren interviewed John Murtaugh on Fox last night to discuss the 1970 attack on his family by the Weather Underground. Murtaugh wrote an op-ed piece last week reminding people that William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn didn’t just target military assets with their domestic terrorism. Murtaugh’s father, a judge presiding over the trial of 21 Black Panthers accused of a conspiracy to commit their own acts of terror, became the WU’s target as a strategy to force the state to release the defendants:
Murtaugh himself makes the point that Eric Rudolph rightly rots in prison for his bombing attacks on abortion clinics and the Atlanta Olympics. Ayers and Dohrn, on the other hand, have entered the highest circles of Chicago political elite, Ayers has tenure at a state university, and both have entree to a man running for President, who would command the forces that Ayers and Dohrn bombed. (Dohrn also has a track record as an accessory to armed robbery and murder of police officers.) Needless to say, this does not please or amuse Murtaugh in the slightest, and neither should it please or amuse the rest of us.
Watch both clips. Van Susteren does a good job, I think, in remaining objective in her questioning of Murtaugh. She asks some probing questions and makes Murtaugh work a little, especially in the second part, but in the end it makes for a stronger case. It brings out the Annenberg Challenge and other connections, which have escaped the notice of the mainstream media until now.
Just in case anyone wonders, like Van Susteren does, whether Ayers and Dohrn have mellowed, revisit this post and the speeches both gave last November. Dohrn still wants an “overthrow” of capitalism, and Ayers still thinks that Red China is on the right track while railing against the “unimaginable authoritarianism” of the US over the last 40 years. And Barack Obama considers this “mainstream”.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
BLT and the Black Panthers are integral
Black Panthers and Weathermen are integral
Weathermen and BLT church are integral to Obama’s career
Obama’ views >= BLT, Panthers, Weathermen
Beto Ochoa on May 3, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Further to my post on page 1, we have to ask, not only how much does Obambi share the extreme radical ideology of the these groups, but if he shares it, to what extent is he simply pretending to hold ‘middle-of-the-road’ views?
In other words, is he the Manchurian candidate of the radical left?
Anyone with a smoking gun, speak up!
MrLynn on May 3, 2008 at 7:39 PM
Plain and simple O’Bama is a racist on par with David Duke. He never personally burned a cross but he consorted with those who did. O’Bama never personally set bombs but he consorted with those who did.
Don Carne on May 3, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Yep, what Barry finds normal we don’t.
This piece called “the Ghosts of Bill Ayers” was written in 2006 before the Messiah’s brief ascendancy, but does not help Barry one bit.
It shows that a couple of Lefist U of Colorado professors had more judgment than Barry and dumped Bill Ayers from a 2006 conference because they knew that in a Google world they could not associate with him any longer because of his violent past, although they still admired him so very much.
This link within the story where Ayers responds to the Professors is a must read. How could Barry not have seen who this man was and what he stands for? (Not to mention the real star of the show, Bernadine Dohrn.)
Buy Danish on May 3, 2008 at 7:47 PM
Let me put it this way…
Do you think Ayers-Dohrn, Wright and Farrakhan would have promoted Obama’s career if he held views counter to theirs?
Would the most rabid of the rabid promote a dog they did not feel was sufficiently infected and had their best interests as priority #1.
Beto Ochoa on May 3, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Wow. This has nothing to do with Obama, but here’s a shocking tale of someone’s personal experience with the evil manipulator, Bill Ayers, also written in 2006.
Remembering a Sixties Terrorist.
- Content warning -
Buy Danish on May 3, 2008 at 8:16 PM
Buy Danish’s link repaired
Beto Ochoa on May 3, 2008 at 8:20 PM
Crud. Second try
Beto Ochoa on May 3, 2008 at 8:23 PM
Thanks - I forgot to get rid of the extra http…
Arggh.
Buy Danish on May 3, 2008 at 8:26 PM
Judgement to lead….ah-huh….suuuure.
SouthernGent on May 3, 2008 at 8:32 PM
Read the link…this thing becomes more sickening by the minute.
surrounded on May 3, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Ayers apparently has developed a litmus test for people he thinks may be bigots. Interesting that the rape victim was Jewish and he can’t remember her. Is that a progressive thing?
a capella on May 3, 2008 at 8:48 PM
I remember that article by Donna Ron. One note: the townhouse which exploded was in NYC’s Greenwich Village on 11th Street (on the downtown side), not on 10th Street.
ForNow on May 3, 2008 at 8:56 PM
I don’t know Ayers or his wife. I would choose not to know Ayers or his wife. Barack can’t say the same. It’s kind of like he owes his soul to company store.
bloggless on May 3, 2008 at 8:59 PM
That
Is
Scary.
Someone, please, tell me where the hell I can send my daughters for a good college education, devoid of marxist brain-washing. Please??
shibumiglass on May 3, 2008 at 9:06 PM
I wonder if Obama ever saw Forrest Gump. If he’d paid attention to the plot line about the despicable, phony, counter culture radicals and Jenny’s violent boyfriend he could have saved himself a lot of trouble.
Buy Danish on May 3, 2008 at 9:30 PM
Buy Danish on May 3, 2008 at 9:30 PM
Just to easy….stupid is as Obama does ;-)
dmann on May 3, 2008 at 9:49 PM
Here you go.
Buy Danish on May 3, 2008 at 9:59 PM
I thought it was a very good post, yes. And I also think that it would be worthwhile to connect the dots between all these individuals, if they can be connected.
Notice, Tom, that just like BuyDanish’s post indicated, I didn’t automatically conclude that they can be connected. You seem to have some trouble drawing a distinction on that point.
By the way: You may not, but I view Ayers as a radical today. Though his methods may have changed, I think he is just as dangerous as he ever was - and unfortunately, it’s not that uncommon to encounter liberals who share his radical viewpoints. It wouldn’t surprise me if Obama sympathized with at least some of what he believes, given that - like I said before - a fair share of Obama’s base hates America every bit as much as Ayers still apparently does.
capitalist piglet on May 3, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Excellent question, and the answer is of course not.
funky chicken on May 3, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Just in case your scratching your head over my 9:59, I see that I screwed up the link somehow.Conservative colleges.
Buy Danish on May 3, 2008 at 10:47 PM
Were there any justice, both Ayers and his hag would have been dangling from the end of a rope within a year of the attacks.
SuperCool on May 4, 2008 at 12:21 AM
Obama is a radical leftist who is trying not to make any sudden movements so that he can “fool” all us white people… It ain’t working!
sabbott on May 4, 2008 at 7:14 AM
… in service to the idea that Ayers had become a part of mainstream Chicago politics. The employment of that quotation is purposive behavior, after all, not an accident.
Ayers appears completely unrepentant. I don’t frankly give a damn how many good works he’s piled up since the Days of Rage, he’s still got murderous intent in his soul, as I think the NYT interview from 2001 clearly showed.
I’ve said this before, but here goes again — knowing that Obama’s first interaction with Ayers wasn’t to poke a finger in his ribcage and denounce his violent past means that Obama failed a basic test of character.
Coming up in Chicago politics, had Obama said, “You mean to represent Hyde Park I have to kiss this savage nitwit’s ring? No thanks, I’ll move to Ukrainian Village and take my chances” — that would show me something.
DrSteve on May 4, 2008 at 7:40 AM
Obama can not disassociate himself from the far left from which he and his misses support.
I am very familiar with these groups and can state they mean US harm.
The far left that Obama represents is more dangerous than the Vietcong or al Quida because our society has been castrated by the PC crowd so being normal is considered to be defective.
The sooner the mesmerized snap out of their hypnosis the better. To continue down this path is to “change” the lock on the door and give the keys to our enemy.
MSGTAS on May 4, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Tom Shipley and Nonfactor seem to have left the building.
a capella on May 4, 2008 at 11:43 AM
a capella,
I don’t sit in front of my computer all day…
But, really, I’m done with this thread because no one has challenged my main point… that the main point of this thread is misleading and dishonest.
And I’ve basically made all the points I can in regard to this thread. You can go back and read my past posts if you want to know what I think.
Tom_Shipley on May 4, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Ah, but Buy Danish and several others made the point that Obama’s past Weatherman connections explain why his web site claims Ayers is mainstream,..because those values are not radical in his world. Did you read her links? Do you disagree that Obama’s connections with them is more than just of a casual nature?
a capella on May 4, 2008 at 12:43 PM
Looks like Tom has declared victory and retreated.
a capella on May 4, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Shipley, we’ve provided the text that the Obama campaign used to describe Ayers as “mainstream.” We’ve provided the evidence that Ayers is not even remotely mainstream (unless you count marxist academics who advocate violent overthrow of the government as “mainstream” in Chicago politics).
The math says you’re a liar. And that’s how I’ll always remember you.
Merovign on May 4, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Merovign:
I mentioned how the Obama site uses the word mainstream BEFORE anyone else did. They cite a Las Vegas newspaper and AP stories that said Ayers had become part of mainstream Chicago politics… and, in fact he did — especially in light of his radical actions in the past… he even worked as an aide for Mayor Daily.
What Ed did was take the “mainstream” quote, and makes it seem like Obama said radical comments made by Ayers and Nohrn were “mainstream.”
There’s a difference in saying (or more accurately, quoting someone else as saying) that someone has become part of “mainstream” politics, and believing specific statements made by that person are “mainstream.”
What Ed did was misleading and dishonest.
Tom_Shipley on May 4, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Oh, and I somehow think that no matter what I say, you’ll think I’m a liar.
Tom_Shipley on May 4, 2008 at 3:01 PM
He did not quote Obama saying A/D’s most radical views are mainstream, he linked to Obama’s defense of A/D on Obama’s own website. Here’s how the the text is organized:
Obama’s POSITION/DEFENSE
[Citations Obama is presenting as supporting evidence]
Clearly, Obama’s position, as of today, May 4 2008, is that Ayers and Dohrn are respectable fixtures in the mainstream in Chicago.
Respectable figures? Wow, the mainstream in Chicago must be something to behold.
As I have demonstrated, Ed did not do that. He linked to Obama adopting, for his own position and defense, the Las Vegas Review Journal’s characterization of them as respectable fixtures in the mainstream in Chicago.
Ed is pointing out “the rest of the story” - what America needs to know about the proud and loudly unrepentant domestic terrorists that Obama defends, lipstick-on-pig style, on his website.
RushBaby on May 4, 2008 at 4:49 PM
Yes he does:
Just in case anyone wonders, like Van Susteren does, whether Ayers and Dohrn have mellowed, revisit this post and the speeches both gave last November. Dohrn still wants an “overthrow” of capitalism, and Ayers still thinks that Red China is on the right track while railing against the “unimaginable authoritarianism” of the US over the last 40 years. And Barack Obama considers this “mainstream”.
He cites two of their most radical positions and says Obama thinks those positions are “mainstream.”
That is misleading.
Tom_Shipley on May 4, 2008 at 7:21 PM
I want to play a little game now. Here’s my best impression of the right-wing blogosphere giving McCain the same treatment they’ve given Obama.
Ahem…
McCain’s “spiritual advisor” says US foreign policy will bring about “punishment” in the form of terrorist attacks.
Pastor John Hagee, a man John McCain called a “spiritual advisor” has said the God will punish the United States for supporting a two-state solution to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict by bringing terrorist attacks to our shores.
God will unleash terrorists on America for supporting a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine.
I want those of you in the State Department and in government in Washington to hear this: If America does not stop pressuring Israel to give up land, I believe that God will bring this nation into judgement, because I believe what [the Bible] says. And if God brings this nation into judgement He will very likely release the terrorists that you’ve already let get here through the ridiculous immigration policy you refuse to stop and this nation is going to go through a bloodbath that you will have permitted because of what you have done.
McCain SOUGHT Hagee’s support and advice in this election. Does McCain share the pastor’s thoughts that if we would deserve to be attacked by terrorist based on foreign policy decisions?
It’s also worth noting Hagee once suggesting nuking the US state department…
“Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom [Where US Dept. of State is located] to shake things up.”
Question is, if this man is an advisor to McCain, someone whose endorsement he sought and is “proud” to have, does McCain share these same views of our country?
Does John McCain hate America enough to want to nuke his own country? Do we want someone as president who courts advice from a person who does?
Tom_Shipley on May 4, 2008 at 8:17 PM
Well that equivocation settles it then n’est-ce pas?
Beto Ochoa on May 4, 2008 at 8:52 PM
Tom, is everything you write a lie, or just most things?
Jaibones on May 4, 2008 at 9:26 PM
True.
Jaibones on May 4, 2008 at 9:30 PM
Here. (Sorry for the multiple comments, but I’m catching up).
Jaibones on May 4, 2008 at 9:32 PM
What facts do you have at our disposal to buttress your claim that John Hagee is McCain’s “spiritual advisor”?
This?
Buy Danish on May 4, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Maybe David Corn is Tom_Shipleys’ source!
McCain’s Spiritual Guide: Destroy Islam.
I can’t find a single thing in this Mother Jones article that backs up the oft-repeated assertion that Hagee (or Ron Parsley) is McCain’s “spiritual advisor” or “spiritual guide”.
McCain could say (as could I) that Pope Benedict is a “great spiritual leader” but that in no way implies that Pope Benedict is our “spiritual advisor”.
Buy Danish on May 4, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Very interesting juxtaposition Mr. Shipley…Hagee v. Wright.
Where’s the anguish and consternation on the right…?
J_Gocht on May 4, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Buy Danish,
I kinda’ get the idea he was trying to make a point that he was just makin’ shtuff up about McCain to show Ed that Two Can Play At That Game
I don’t think Mr Shipley is emotionally mature and any further arguing with him is counter-productive.
He does not believe that Senator Obama’s intimate involvment with and career promotion, from internship to present, by those who are arguably the most radical America haters extant equates to the senator’s sharing their values.
Nor does he believe that these associations taint the senator in any way.
This concept of Mr Obama as a righteous crusader for good is naive and is underscored by the misguided hope that someone will come and save us from the evil republicans. The ability to see Mr Obama for what he really is, is an emotional bridge he cannot bring himself to cross because in his mind it is akin to despair and destruction.
Beto Ochoa on May 4, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Mr. Shipley…
With respect to Reverend Hagee’s despicable “pulpit rants”…
My thought would be; keep our ammo dry till about October 15 and then unleash the “hounds of hell” with respect to St. Mc’s close association and appreciation of Reverend Hagee’s outrageous ministrations and sermons.
J_Gocht on May 4, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Of course. Sadly, Tom’s attempt to hijack the thread away from Obama and towards McCain certainly reinforces your hypothesis. He cannot bear to deal with what we are learning about Obama, so denies that Obama is responsible for material used on his own web site to defend Ayers. It must be doubly hard for him as he watches public perceptions of Obama generate higher negatives each day. So, he lashes out at both Ed and McCain. It is a sad thing to watch.
a capella on May 5, 2008 at 12:10 AM
Tom_Shipley,
Word to the wise. If you are going to scrape the bottom of the intellectual barrel and make a tu quoque argument, it would help if you had something resembling an actual parallel. McCain is not a 20 year member of Hagee’s congregation. Nowhere close. Obama was a member of Wright’s congregation for 2 godawful decades. This is not about politely accepting endorsements from wacko pastors you barely know. This is about participation in, membership in, hanging out with, donation to, and actively forwarding the agenda of these wacko organizations. A subtle distinction that may be lost on you, but think about it for a while and you may get it.
More importantly, you are off topic. The topic is the Weather Underground and people who built actual bombs to kill actual people including kids. They didn’t just mouth off about it, they built and used actual bombs. I notice you have nothing to say about that. Wright isn’t even mentioned in the original post.
shazbat on May 5, 2008 at 12:28 AM
Gosh, I’m not really certain polls really count that much…when we’re six months out from the election…?
My thought is; …Hill in Indiana and Obama in North Carolina. So what’s new?
Mr. Shipley is; as per usual…right on 95% of the time…!
J_Gocht on May 5, 2008 at 12:29 AM
“Tu quoque is only a fallacy when one uses it so as to divert attention from the issue at hand, or to avoid or fail to respond to an argument.
Let’s review Reverend Haggee’s dossier…!
Shall we…?
J_Gocht on May 5, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Since you can’t even spell his name correctly, good luck with that!
I agree with everything you said, and I realize that Tom Shipley is playing a game, but Shipley is just one of many who are promoting the canard that Hagee is McCain’s “spiritual advisor” and therefore it is important that this particular talking point be challenged.
Buy Danish on May 5, 2008 at 8:19 AM
My thought would be; keep our ammo dry till about October 15 and then unleash the “hounds of hell” with respect to St. Mc’s close association and appreciation of Reverend Hagee’s outrageous ministrations and sermons.
I would rather not. It’s legitimate to ask McCain questions about him — which has been done. And maybe even ask him to decline the endorsement. After all, Obama declined the unsolicited endorsement of Louis Farrakan. Had he not, YOU KNOW the right would have ran with that.
But, I really don’t want to see people hammering this issue because IT’S NOT THAT BIG A DEAL.
I agree with everything you said, and I realize that Tom Shipley is playing a game
Ed’s playing a game too. Taking the “mainstream” quote out of the context that it was in on the Web site and placing it next to Obama when claiming he believes Ayers and Dohrn’s most controversial remarks are “mainstream” is most certainly a game.
Ask Ed straight up if he believes Obama thinks those remarks represent mainstream politics in Chicago or the U.S. Ask Ed if he thinks Obama shares those same beliefs.
In fact, Ed, if you read this, I’d like to hear your answer.
Politics has become a game — how do we paint the worst picture possible of our opponent? In advertising, copywriters will often ask “what can we say?” Which is basically the same as asking “how far can we stretch the truth without getting sued.” That’s essentially what goes on in a lot of blogs, except for the worry of litigation.
Yes, character counts. But people aren’t looking at Obama’s character or HIS works or HIS words. They are solely attacking the people around him and attack Obama for THEIR actions and THEIR words. As Obama said on Meet the Press yesterday, yes it’s fair to look at Wright, as long as you look at his relationship with him IN CONTEXT of everything Obama has done.
I remember when Obama first started gaining momentum, and everyone was saying how hard it would be to attack this guy. Everyone loved him. Well, obviously many people have been hard at work concocting many plans.
Truth doesn’t matter. Smear does.
Tom_Shipley on May 5, 2008 at 8:50 AM
Really? We are looking at his character - that’s the point!
As for not using his words, that is indisputably false. We cite his own words from Audacity of Hope, and Dreams from my Father, not to mention his own words about Jeremiah Wright, which shift from week to week, and his own words which lamely try to justify his relationship with Ayers & Dohrn.
As for taking things “out of context”, the phrase “America’s chickens are coming home to roost” made headlines when Malcolm X, a heroic figure of both Rev. Wright and Obama, used it in response to JFK’s assassination. There is no way that phrase can be taken out of context; it is a phrase which holds America responsible for the evil acts of others. Period.
Buy Danish on May 5, 2008 at 9:38 AM
Buy Danish,
Obama DIDN’T SAY 9/11 was America’s chicken’s coming home to roost… WRIGHT DID.
And again, you try your “guilt by association” by trying to tie those words to Obama by saying Malcolm X is a hero of his.
Proves my point exactly.
By the way, Malcolm X was truly one of the great Americans of the time. His autobiography should be read by every high schooler in America, in my opinion.
Tom_Shipley on May 5, 2008 at 9:49 AM
And Buy Danish,
If a presidential candidate being associated with someone who believes America deserves to be attacked by terrorism causes so much hand-wringing on your part, why don’t call on McCain to reject Hagee’s endorsement?
Tom_Shipley on May 5, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Say, Tom, check out the lead story here http://michellemalkin.com/
Ayers is stomping on the flag in 2001, which is the same time period in which he and Obama were both directors on the Woods Project. This is the same Ayers who is defended as being mainstream on Obama’s web site.
a capella on May 5, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Just one of the many idiotic opinions by which we judge you to be a fool, Tom. Keep digging, though, it’s kind of fun to piss on you while you’re down in that muddy hole.
Jaibones on May 5, 2008 at 11:08 AM
The videos are F’ed
pabarge on May 5, 2008 at 2:47 PM
I think you’re confusing Hagee with Pat Robertson.
Buy Danish on May 5, 2008 at 7:02 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]