At that time the mainstream was blowing it off as non-important but time has now passed by. It is more relevant, now than then , as the appointments and czars are put into office.

What IF it had been Timothy McVeigh is still a relevant question!

Come to think of it, sounds good….

The issue, Erik, are the people Obama associates with. Seeing as he got elected (thanks in large part to a media cover up), it’s a moot point.

But if/when it turns out that he governs rules as a hard-core lefty, we shouldn’t be surprised.

GP’s point is perfectly valid. If McCain had hung around with Timothy McVeigh, attended the Westboro Church and listened to harangues by Fred Phelps, the media would have (correctly) been obsessed with it.

If McVeigh could have gotten off on a technicality, where do you suppose he’d be teaching? Columbia? Harvard?

The other quote that is fascinating is, “It’s not terrorism because it doesn’t target people, to kill or injure.” Note that Ayers uses the present tense. He still considers this on ongoing revolution. He’s not at all repentent. He is a murderer, a coward and a liar.

The question is why, if Erik thinks it is so ineffective, that Erik doesn’t simply admit that Ayers was and remains an unrepentant domestic terrorist who planned attacks, planted bombs, was involved in the killing of Americans, and who, had a bomb not fortuitously misfired, was planning to kill hundreds of American servicemen and civilians — and that Barack Obama not only knew Ayers, but approved of Ayers’s philosophy and in fact worked closely with Ayers on several projects.

Unbelievable.

I think it’s unbelievable that conservatives are still recycling the same failed talking points.