He answered: Only Bin Laden poses a national security risk to the US. I suppose this is true. After all, Lenin is dead, and Ayers is a loser (I think, see below), but I am not particularly worried about bin Laden either, cowering in his hut or cave or spider hole.
I think the correct answer is: not much.
Consider their life stories. Each of the three was a spoiled rich kid who got tired of spending his daddy's money and struggling in an oedipal effort to out-do, or at least gain the respect of, daddy. Failing in that quest, each turned to revolution, an attempt to denigrate and eliminate daddy's society. Lenin, of course, was successful for a time, and what a price the people of Russia and their neighbors paid. Bin Laden? Last time I checked, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia still exists. And Ayers?
What of Bill Ayers, the cowardly murderer and destroyer of public and private property?
His girlfriend died in a bomb-making accident, his wife did jail time, but he escaped without punishment because of a technicality, and now enjoys life and fame as a member of the Chicago intelligentsia. What would his daddy, the energy tsar, think of him now? Is Barack Obama, brainwashed when he was a political neophyte, his Manchurian candidate, programmed to bring about revolution from within the system? Or is Ayers just a burnt-out hippie, trying to cover his guilt and shame with his liberalism, his posturing, and his professorial robes?
Posts
1 comment:
I think you'll have better luck tying the good Senator from Illinois to someone whose plight worries Democrats even more...John Kerry.
Post a Comment