Fire in the Night: The Weathermen tried to kill my family

Little-Acorn

New member
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0430jm.html

Fire in the Night
The Weathermen tried to kill my family.

by John M. Murtaugh
30 April 2008

During the April 16 debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, moderator George Stephanopoulos brought up “a gentleman named William Ayers,” who “was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol, and other buildings. He’s never apologized for that.” Stephanopoulos then asked Obama to explain his relationship with Ayers. Obama’s answer: “The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.” Obama was indeed only eight in early 1970. I was only nine then, the year Ayers’s Weathermen tried to murder me.

In February 1970, my father, a New York State Supreme Court justice, was presiding over the trial of the so-called “Panther 21,” members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores. Early on the morning of February 21, as my family slept, three gasoline-filled firebombs exploded at our home on the northern tip of Manhattan, two at the front door and the third tucked neatly under the gas tank of the family car. (Today, of course, we’d call that a car bomb.) A neighbor heard the first two blasts and, with the remains of a snowman I had built a few days earlier, managed to douse the flames beneath the car. That was an act whose courage I fully appreciated only as an adult, an act that doubtless saved multiple lives that night.

I still recall, as though it were a dream, thinking that someone was lifting and dropping my bed as the explosions jolted me awake, and I remember my mother’s pulling me from the tangle of sheets and running to the kitchen where my father stood. Through the large windows overlooking the yard, all we could see was the bright glow of flames below. We didn’t leave our burning house for fear of who might be waiting outside. The same night, bombs were thrown at a police car in Manhattan and two military recruiting stations in Brooklyn. Sunlight, the next morning, revealed three sentences of blood-red graffiti on our sidewalk: FREE THE PANTHER 21; THE VIET CONG HAVE WON; KILL THE PIGS.

For the next 18 months, I went to school in an unmarked police car. My mother, a schoolteacher, had plainclothes detectives waiting in the faculty lounge all day. My brother saved a few bucks because he didn’t have to rent a limo for the senior prom: the NYPD did the driving. We all made the best of the odd new life that had been thrust upon us, but for years, the sound of a fire truck’s siren made my stomach knot and my heart race. In many ways, the enormity of the attempt to kill my entire family didn’t fully hit me until years later, when, a father myself, I was tucking my own nine-year-old John Murtagh into bed.

Though no one was ever caught or tried for the attempt on my family’s life, there was never any doubt who was behind it. Only a few weeks after the attack, the New York contingent of the Weathermen blew themselves up making more bombs in a Greenwich Village townhouse. The same cell had bombed my house, writes Ron Jacobs in The Way the Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground. And in late November that year, a letter to the Associated Press signed by Bernardine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife, promised more bombings.

As the association between Obama and Ayers came to light, it would have helped the senator a little if his friend had at least shown some remorse. But listen to Ayers interviewed in the New York Times on September 11, 2001, of all days: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Translation: “We meant to kill that judge and his family, not just damage the porch.” When asked by the Times if he would do it all again, Ayers responded: “I don’t want to discount the possibility.”

Though never a supporter of Obama, I admired him for a time for his ability to engage our imaginations, and especially for his ability to inspire the young once again to embrace the political system. Yet his myopia in the last few months has cast a new light on his “politics of change.” Nobody should hold the junior senator from Illinois responsible for his friends’ and supporters’ violent terrorist acts. But it is fair to hold him responsible for a startling lack of judgment in his choice of mentors, associates, and friends, and for showing a callous disregard for the lives they damaged and the hatred they have demonstrated for this country. It is fair, too, to ask what those choices say about Obama’s own beliefs, his philosophy, and the direction he would take our nation.

At the conclusion of his 2001 Times interview, Ayers said of his upbringing and subsequent radicalization: “I was a child of privilege and I woke up to a world on fire.”

Funny thing, Bill: one night, so did I.

-------------------------------

John M. Murtagh is a practicing attorney, an adjunct professor of public policy at the Fordham University College of Liberal Studies, and a member of the city council in Yonkers, New York, where he resides with his wife and two sons.
 
Yeah we woulod have hurricanes and such all the time.
Global warming would be come a national policy, etc.
 
Phew; I'm so glad the Weathermen aren't running for President.

Do you like the weathergirls though? Remember that song “It’s Raining Men”? I used to dance to it sometimes. But now, I prefer danceable rock. Usually. Sometimes I can go retro. It depends.
 
Let's start with this: "The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense ... "

I don't know a lot of people who had much say in which adults they might be exposed to when they were 8 years old, or even if they knew anything about those individuals' activities apart from their face-to-face meetings.

Talk about :bdh:
 
Let's start with this: "The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense ... "

I don't know a lot of people who had much say in which adults they might be exposed to when they were 8 years old, or even if they knew anything about those individuals' activities apart from their face-to-face meetings.

Talk about :bdh:

Yeah, it’s way beyond absurd, but that’s where these guys live.
 
What is Obama's current relationship to Ayers? While a casual acquaintance with someone as despicable as that asshole could be ignored (politicians get to know a LOT of people, good and bad, in their careers) a close relationship where Ayers could potentially have some influence is not something to be as easily dismissed.

"You are known by the company you keep" is not a dead phrase. The type of relationship between Obama and Ayers is important. The Wright fiasco was of a different nature, as people will often put up with things from their religious leaders that they would not put up with from casual or close friends. And when Wright really stepped over the line, Obama reacted.

It troubles me that Obama did not really answer the question asked. It is apparent the type of person Ayers is, and what he believes in. If their relationship is restricted to being acquainted with each other, why did he not say so? If the relationship is more, discounting Ayers' actions of 40 years ago as irrelevant to the present does not work for me. If someone wants to associate with scum like Ayers and retain my respect, they'd better be doing it to bring Ayers to Christ. (or some similar altruistic purpose)
 
What is Obama's current relationship to Ayers? While a casual acquaintance with someone as despicable as that asshole could be ignored (politicians get to know a LOT of people, good and bad, in their careers) a close relationship where Ayers could potentially have some influence is not something to be as easily dismissed.

"You are known by the company you keep" is not a dead phrase. The type of relationship between Obama and Ayers is important. The Wright fiasco was of a different nature, as people will often put up with things from their religious leaders that they would not put up with from casual or close friends. And when Wright really stepped over the line, Obama reacted.

It troubles me that Obama did not really answer the question asked. It is apparent the type of person Ayers is, and what he believes in. If their relationship is restricted to being acquainted with each other, why did he not say so? If the relationship is more, discounting Ayers' actions of 40 years ago as irrelevant to the present does not work for me. If someone wants to associate with scum like Ayers and retain my respect, they'd better be doing it to bring Ayers to Christ. (or some similar altruistic purpose)

Obama has been pretty clear on it; he's a guy in the neighborhood, an acquaintance & someone who as on the same board as him for a charity. That's it.

More faux outrage & distraction from you & yours. After the past 7 years, and one failure after another, I have determined that this is what your side is best at.

Also, "It's Raining Men" is a true classic. Good observation there, Darla...
 
Obama has been pretty clear on it; he's a guy in the neighborhood, an acquaintance & someone who as on the same board as him for a charity. That's it.

More faux outrage & distraction from you & yours. After the past 7 years, and one failure after another, I have determined that this is what your side is best at.

Also, "It's Raining Men" is a true classic. Good observation there, Darla...
Actually mine was a genuine question from lack of knowledge, not a challenge. I did not know what Obama's relationship with Ayers is. You say it has been defined, and that definition falls under casual acquaintance.

As I stated, politicians get to know all types in their careers. A casual nodding acquaintance does not bother me at all. I do still wonder why Obama didn't answer the question put to him.

It would have been far more effective if he'd said something like:
"My relationship with Ayers is no more than a nodding acquaintance because we live close together and work with the same charity. A politician gets to know all kinds of people in their career, including types like Ayers. It doesn't mean we share a pitcher of beer and discuss politics."
 
Actually mine was a genuine question from lack of knowledge, not a challenge. I did not know what Obama's relationship with Ayers is. You say it has been defined, and that definition falls under casual acquaintance.

As I stated, politicians get to know all types in their careers. A casual nodding acquaintance does not bother me at all. I do still wonder why Obama didn't answer the question put to him.

It would have been far more effective if he'd said something like:
"My relationship with Ayers is no more than a nodding acquaintance because we live close together and work with the same charity. A politician gets to know all kinds of people in their career, including types like Ayers. It doesn't mean we share a pitcher of beer and discuss politics."


You said "it troubles me that Obama did not answer the question asked." He did, and has, several times, as I outlined. The answer was as clear as day to me. I know many conservatives would like to script exactly what they want to hear on Wright & Ayers from Obama; funny thing is, that script keeps changing, as we have seen on Wright. Obama answered his way - not your way, or Karl Rove's way, or Bill O'Reilly's way. It will just have to do.
 
You said "it troubles me that Obama did not answer the question asked." He did, and has, several times, as I outlined. The answer was as clear as day to me. I know many conservatives would like to script exactly what they want to hear on Wright & Ayers from Obama; funny thing is, that script keeps changing, as we have seen on Wright. Obama answered his way - not your way, or Karl Rove's way, or Bill O'Reilly's way. It will just have to do.

Some of her interview with O’reilly was leaked, and she was slamming him on Wright, along with O’Reilly. So they are going to try and get the nomination on that.
 
Some of her interview with O’reilly was leaked, and she was slamming him on Wright, along with O’Reilly. So they are going to try and get the nomination on that.

It's great to see Hillary teaming up with O'Reilly, McCain, that crazy editor who she thought lead the vast r/w conspiracy & anyone else who will join her to tear down the eventual Dem nominee. She's all about party, that one....
 
It's great to see Hillary teaming up with O'Reilly, McCain, that crazy editor who she thought lead the vast r/w conspiracy & anyone else who will join her to tear down the eventual Dem nominee. She's all about party, that one....
You do know that O'Reilly defends him with as much exuberance as you do, right?

You have made assumptions about him that are dead wrong.
 
You do know that O'Reilly defends him with as much exuberance as you do, right?

You have made assumptions about him that are dead wrong.

Damo not in the transcript of this interview that has been released on HuffPo he doesn’t. It is right on the front page, I am too lazy to link it. www.huffingtonpost.com and then you just have to click on O'reily's face. Or, her face.
 
You said "it troubles me that Obama did not answer the question asked." He did, and has, several times, as I outlined. The answer was as clear as day to me. I know many conservatives would like to script exactly what they want to hear on Wright & Ayers from Obama; funny thing is, that script keeps changing, as we have seen on Wright. Obama answered his way - not your way, or Karl Rove's way, or Bill O'Reilly's way. It will just have to do.
“The notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn’t make much sense, George.” does not answer the question. It is defensive and vague at best. Did he say more that is not included in the post?

If not, what that answer says to me is it does not matter what his relationship with Ayers is. Which is correct when talking about every day average people. But not when talking about politicians. Character is important, and who people willingly associate with (and why) says a lot about their character.

Maybe Obama was tired of answering the that question when Stephanopoulos put it to him. I don't know. I did not see that interview or any other where where Obama has defined his relationship with Ayers. Apparently you have, because you were able to define it for me. And I thank you for that.

I don't want to put words in Obama's mouth by any means. Which is why I said "something like". What I would like from ALL candidates are honest and straight forward and informative answers that actually answer the question asked. Side stepping questions like what was posted drives me up the wall.
 
Damo not in the transcript of this interview that has been released on HuffPo he doesn’t. It is right on the front page, I am too lazy to link it. www.huffingtonpost.com and then you just have to click on O'reily's face. Or, her face.
It's not there. Her face had a story about the idiotic plan for a gas tax holiday, and his face wasn't there.

I also read all the headlines looking for his name, or even "Hillary Interview".
 
It's not there. Her face had a story about the idiotic plan for a gas tax holiday, and his face wasn't there.

I also read all the headlines looking for his name, or even "Hillary Interview".

I thought you were just being a guy (where are my keys? where are my glasses?), but you're right, looks like it's down. Hmm.
 
Yeah, it’s way beyond absurd, but that’s where these guys live.

The moderators of the televised debate? They asked the question, remember?
Isn't little stephanopoulos a dear friend of Clinton? I think hillary had something to do with the questions that got used at that debate.
 
Back
Top