Not the first time he’s tried to finesse the concept, although it may be the first time he’s done it in the pages of a paper whose own reporting contradicts him. Terrorists, it seems, kill people indiscriminately whereas the Weathermen never tried to kill anyone. Except cops. And soldiers.

Which, in fairness, is very discriminating indeed.





Question via Jules Crittenden: Why’d the NYT accept this piece when they know he’s lying? They were the ones who reported on 9/11 that he wished he’d set more bombs; they were the ones who reminded us a month before the election that the Weathermen did indeed have a body count. In fact, they were the ones who told us 30 years ago that the Underground had ties to Cuban officials, which would go a long way towards establishing those “political ends” to which Ayers refers. In case they weren’t already abundantly established.

Read the whole thing, though. My favorite part’s at the end, where he hints that bomb-setting radicals are really just another interest group to be listened to in the interest of diversity. Exit question: Do grandiose fantasies involving extermination camps qualify as “extreme vandalism” or is that more like “super extreme vandalism”?

Tags: terrorism