I think the kind of tactics Mr. Ayers advocated during his radical "Weather Underground" period are reprehensible, whether they are being championed by right-wingers or left-wingers. If he really wanted to be an effective voice in ending the Vietnam debacle, he would have done well to follow the example of Norman Morrison, whose actions had a profound effect on Robert McNamara. A dozen Norman Morrisons would have stopped the war a lot faster than a thousand William Ayerses, IMHO.
It's all a moot point, it seems to me, how many degrees of separation there are between Mr. Ayers and Patrolman Schroeder's killers. Mr. Ayers was not running for a political office. The American people have spoken. They have decided that they are more comfortable with a President who had a relationship with a former terrorist than with a President who spent five years with Communists directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of GI's.
Who knows what influence they may have had on him!
What I found interesting, is that Weather Underground consciously worked to differentiate themselves from SDS, SLA, Black Panthers, etc, by specifically destroying property only, even giving advance warning to the target specifically so no one would be injured.
Which leads to the question, is that actually "terror"-ism?
[incidentally, it was directly effective in one instance... the bombing in one case set off a sprinkler system that destroyed certain plans at the Pentagon, so that a (Pentagon) bombing campaign had to be delayed a couple weeks... whether you think that good or bad, it may have saved lives.]
