More lies: Ayers comment had no relationship to the 9/11 attacks

[keep_it_real]

<snip>

In her comments, Clinton created the clear impression that Ayers had either hailed the 9/11 attacks or used the 9/11 tragedy as a ghoulish opportunity to suggest that more bombings were desirable.

But none of that is true. The offensive comment that Clinton and Stephanopoulos referred to was from an interview about a memoir that Ayers published earlier in 2001. The comment was included in a New York Times article that appeared in the newspaper's Sept. 11, 2001, edition.

As Sen. Clinton and Stephanopoulos surely know, that edition went to press on Sept. 10, hours before the 9/11 attacks. In other words, the Ayers comment had no relationship to the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.alternet.org/election08/82703/

[yardwork]

1. Bob Dylan released a record on 9/11/2001 too - are they going to claim he was to blame?

This is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

The morans in the Bush White House let 9/11 happen through sheer incompetence or something even more sinister, and we're supposed to blame former Weather Underground for things they said in interviews that took place before 9/11?

For crying out loud.

[rucky]

3. Don't need a Weatherman to know which way the wind blows. n/t

[Igel]

2. She allowed people to infer it.

Only people that didn't listen closely did so. It's the same with * and Saddam vs. 9/11. You listen, you take it at face value, you have no problem and you come to no false conclusions. You listen with half an ear and don't examine what you hear, you come to a false conclusion.

It's unclear to me that either intended people to come to the wrong conclusion. Maybe so. They both are politicians.

AFAIK, it's rather silly to think that anything published in the print NYT on 9/11 could be a response to the attacks on 9/11, and I assumed she was referring to the print version. (The online version was pretty much snowed under all day.)