Baggage + Bombs & the FALN = Vetting Hillary

Okay. She decided to go there.  

She decided to pile on to the Bill Ayers smear. The guilt by association, new kitchen sink strategy against Senator Obama, artfully suggesting (to the supers) that he would be hit with these purportedly terrible things in the general.  So she wants us to believe she's doing him a favor - vetting him now.

I suggest we all take a look at what would be waiting for Senator Clinton, related not only to the Weather Underground, but to the FALN, Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional, if she should overturn Obama's nomination via the super delegates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1SovbQR0 jE

Just to be transparent - I have supported the struggle for Puerto Rican Independence for many years.  I, along with thousands of Puerto Ricans and other supporters worked for the pardons of Lolita Lebron, and other Puerto Rican Nationalists; the longest held political prisoners in the US.

They were pardoned by Jimmy Carter in 1979.  I applauded it.

But I also remember when Senator Clinton was making her carpetbagger move to NY.  She needed the Puerto Rican vote.  There was a "miraculous" pardon of FALN members, who had not asked to be pardoned.  (BTW - this will not play very well in Puerto Rico, for a host of reasons, too complicated to discuss here)  

I have no interest in smearing Senator Clinton.  But I also don't believe that we should  all just roll over and play dead as she plays the Rove game, and act as if she is fully vetted and ready to win.

Obama's tenuous connection to a man who is currently a professor, active in Chicago politics, and friends with Mayor Daley is certainly in no way a reflection on Senator Obama.  The Clinton's deliberate and calculated freeing of FALN members to garner votes will be used against her.

The right has far more evidence to throw at her head and it won't be a kitchen sink, it will be an entire outhouse.

So the supers better think long and hard about this one.  If the campaign makes it to Puerto Rico, I promise you, this will be a major talking point.



Display:


Re: Baggage + Bombs & t (none / 0)

President Clinton pardoned them.

not Hillary.  Unless Hillary was president in 2000, I am not sure what your point is about.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:42:51 AM EST

Re: Baggage + Bombs & t (2.00 / 2)

it is the same point that a lot of these guys make.  Tiring reminding them that women are whole people, not their husband's rib, isn't it?


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:44:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs & t (2.00 / 1)

yes, it is tiring.  I mean, do people even know how these pardons work?  

I doubt Bill was thinking - ohhhh, Hillary's gonna need PR in 2008 because it is a close primary.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:48:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs & t (none / 0)

Senator Clinton was trying to get elected in New York when this happened.  The Puerto Rican community here on the mainland is very activist about Puerto Rican independence.  Most are Democrats.  The pressure for the pardons came from Democratic elected officials.  In return, they backed her candidacy.  


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:04:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs & t (none / 0)

Since you know that Hillary was trying to get elected in New York when this happened, you probably also know the following:

[Bill] Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico. ... Hillary Clinton, then campaigning for her first term in the Senate, initially supported the commutation, but later withdrew her support when the prisoners had refused to renounce violence more than three weeks after clemency was offered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinto n_pardons_controversy

I don't see how you are going to pin this one of Hillary, considering that she spoke out against it at the time.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:37:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs (none / 0)

That's the first time I've ever heard that she "spoke out against it at the time".  Link?


by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:40:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs (2.00 / 1)

I already gave you a link, but since you are lazy, I'll give you another:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1 999/09/05/senate.2000/hillary.puerto.ric o/

Here's the first part of the article:

First lady opposes presidential clemency for Puerto Rican Nationalists
From CNN White House Correspondent Chris Black

September 5, 1999
Web posted at: 11:34 a.m. EDT (1534 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Sept. 5) -- First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton opposes her husband's offer of clemency to a group of Puerto Rican nationalists saying they took too long to renounce violence.

Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton's U.S. Senate exploratory committee, said Mrs. Clinton felt that the prisoners had waited too long to accept the condition for the commutation of their prison sentences -- the renunciation of any future violent activity.

....


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:53:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What about statehood? (2.00 / 1)

How do they feel about becoming the 51st state?

Given its population, I think that makes more sense in the long run. The economy is mature enough now to handle a transition to MINIMUM WAGE LAWS..

get my drift?

If they become independent, then they become just another pretty Third World nation with big economic problems..


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.
by architek on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:58:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about statehood? (2.00 / 1)

Not particularly good I think.  The "51st state" referendums are repeatedly defeated whenever they're on the ballot.


by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:06:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about statehood? (none / 0)

The reason statehood is repeatedly rejected is complicated. The Republican Party in PR is pro-statehood.  The Republican Party in PR is controlled by anti-Castro Cubans who live in PR, not Puerto Ricans.

The provisions of statehood would strip Puerto Rico of Spanish being the official language.

Though there is strong sentiment for Independence, for many years Independentistas were targeted by FBI attacks and repressed.  Thousands of arrests took place.

Other's feel that because 1/3 of PR's live on the mainland, and the movement back and forth is fluid, that it is better to keep the status quo - retain US citizenship - but keep a certain level of autonomy.

The one point that is irksome - is that though primaries are held there - no island Puerto Rican can vote in the general.  


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:17:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about statehood? (2.00 / 1)

I'd love to pick your brain about PR politics if I had the chance.

My father and I were wondering about the upcoming primary and Puerto Rico and he didn't think Obama would do well there because his natural constituency there would most likely be independistas.

But we don't really know what we're talking about.


by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:23:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about statehood? (none / 0)

How Obama will do there is still unclear.

He is not well known on the island.  Senator Clinton has an advantage - in that contrary to the US, sexism will not play a role.  Puerto Ricans have a long history of female elected leadership, contrary to the way "machismo" is always attributed to Latinos.

"Race" will be less of an issue, since by Puerto Rican standards he is not black, he is mulatto.

The fact that he is "island born" is a plus - and many Puerto Ricans have family in Hawaii, where PR's migrated to work in the pineapple fields.

The Clintons are far better known there.  That is a plus.  

The pardons were denounced in Puerto Rico by the rightists, and many of the middle of the road Democrats.  Simply because Puerto Rico has had years of bombings and turmoil caused by the left underground.  On the other hand anti-US military occupation has been a major sentiment on the island - which has about 14-15 military bases.

The fluidity of movement back and forth wil also be a factor.  Many mainland PR's are solidly for Obama - and of course they have family on the island.  

The Governor threw his support to Obama - but the governor is himself in hot water.  

At this point - the answer is "Quien Sabes?" (who knows?)

I will be doing closer observation if this primary process drags on.  I speak to folks on the island weekly.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:48:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about statehood? (2.00 / 1)

I don't feel competent to weigh in on this debate, but I do think that the following link presents a good brief overview of the pros and cons of Puerto Rican statehood versus commonwealth status or independence.

http://www.essortment.com/all/puertorica nsta_rdla.htm

Ultimately, it should be up to the Puerto Rican people.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:26:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about statehood? (none / 0)

I had to smile a bit at that link.  A few of the points were valid, but the Miss Universe one is a bit silly.  But thanks for posting it anyway.  Interesting to see how other people view a complex situation.  

Both Sentors Obama and Clinton have issued statements saying that it should be left up to Puerto Ricnas to decide.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:36:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about statehood? (2.00 / 1)

I already stated that I wasn't competent to offer an opinion on the issue. I did think that the economic arguments against statehood in the short article were fairly compelling, and I can see why statehood gets voted down repeatedly. But I don't think we should completely dismiss the cultural arguments against statehood, even where they seem as silly to us as participation in the Miss Universe Pageant.

I should know more about Puerto Rican politics since I have an in-law whom I love and respect dearly, who is from Puerto Rico and is one of the foremost scholars on Puerto Rican history. I'm going on vacation in two weeks, so I bringing her latest book with me, and I going to read it, darn it!


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:56:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about statehood? (2.00 / 1)

Great Inky!

Let me know the title - if I don't have it I will get it.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:20:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about statehood? (none / 0)

It's a few years old and it's an updated and expanded edition of an earlier book. Also she (and her husband) edited rather than wrote this particular treatise. But it is very highly regarded in PR studies, so you may even have it. It's called The Puerto Ricans: A Documentary History.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:41:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about statehood? (2.00 / 1)

The Wagenheim's book?  Yup.  Have it, and my students use it.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:51:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What about statehood? (2.00 / 1)

I thank you on Kal's and Olga's behalf!


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:16:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs & t (1.00 / 3)

hahah she claims we are getting a two for one deal, she fantasies the 90's with all this prosperity and peace talk, but she wants us to conveniently forget the disgusting things the Clintons have done while in office.

/You can't have it both ways Hillary.


She and McCain are very close - Bill Clinton
by clintonmccain on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:49:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs & t (none / 0)

Not only that, but these charges are about links - who people knows.  In this case whether it was Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton is irrelevant; it's the associations of the candidates are under scrutiny.

So it's okay to examine everyone associated with Barack Obama but not Hillary Clinton?  Nice double-standard.


by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:56:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs & t (none / 0)

Examine away, but you've got nothing here. Hillary spoke out against the commutations at the time. See my comment above.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:40:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs (none / 0)

You showed me a link about the FALN but not about the two Weather Underground members.

And nobody's examining anything, her associations are all out in the open for everyone to see.


by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:07:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Guilt by association (none / 0)

Will she denounce and reject Bill Clinton for pardoning not only FALN terrorists but also Weather Underground terrorists? If you are playing the guilt by association game how can you be married to, much less associated with someone who is freeing terrorists?

If you are going to justify the absurd guilt by association nonsense coming from Hillary against Obama be prepared to face the same slime from Republicans.


by hankg on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:06:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs & t (2.00 / 1)

I see your point but I don't think it's a sexist thing.  I think the point is more along the "guilt by association" line.

Obviously, Hillary is more strongly associated with Bill than Obama is with Ayers, no?


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:39:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs & t (none / 0)

Letters were sent and appeals were made to Senator Clinton -first - not Bill.

Ask Congressman Jose Rivera. He sent them.

Ask Dylcia Pagan, one of the people pardoned.  She has spoken about it.  I am happy Dylcia was released. I grew up with her and worked for her freedom after she spent 20 years.

But don't be naive.  This will be a major issue.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:47:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs & t (none / 0)

Senator Clinton wasn't A SENATOR back in 2000.  She was running, but was still a first lady.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:48:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs & t (1.00 / 1)

She is running as co-president.  She wants credit for her years in the White House.

She was approached for these pardons.  Not Bill.

Check your history.  You are obviously not from NY, and not Puerto Rican or you would know all of this.  

When you begin to throw mud - you are left with dirty hands.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:01:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs & t (none / 0)

I thought the pardons's were ok in your book.  Which is it - ok or dirty hands?

and she may have been approached for these pardons, but only the President (not the first lady) can sign them.  So, it was Bill Clinton and his final decision that did the pardons.  Not Hillary


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:04:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs & t (none / 0)

she wants credit for what SHE did during the 90s! not a co-prez she's running herself.


by swissffun on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:15:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs (none / 0)

Okay.  If you say so.  So why did she use her influence to get Bill to pardon the FALN?

She lobbied for them.  Why?  She had no background as a Puerto Rican activist?  

They didn't pardon Leonard Peltier - who deserved a pardon.  Why?  Because the Native American voting block doesn't exsist.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:18:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs & t (2.00 / 1)

UM it counts becuase she's using her time in the white house as FIRST LADY as part of her 35 years of experience.


"I am standing with Barack Obama to say, `Yes, we can!'" Hillary Clinton 6/7/08
by feliks on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:18:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

did they start her political career (2.00 / 1)

did she go to their homes while they raised money for her and introduced her to their friends?

In addition ....ppppssssssssssst.. she is not Bill.


For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!
by TeresaInPa on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:43:05 AM EST

Re: did they start her political career (none / 0)

Bill Ayers was never convicted.  Bill Ayers and his wife turned themselves in. Bill Ayers is now a respected person in Chicago.  

Redemption?  Change over time? I have no idea how old anyone is here - but I'd love to hear from anyone who burned draft cards.

And, the WU didn't kill anyone.  They were, at that time committed to acts of sabotage. Several members were killed, by their own actions in the townhouse.

An article in the NY Times came out - by accident on 9/11.  His remarks had nothing to do with 9/11.

This is being distorted.  If we are going to accept "McCarthy" mode - are you now or have you ever known a leftist, radical, black nationalist, vegetarian, person who burned a draft card, person ever arrested for demonstrating...?
We have sunk as low as the Republicans.

Senator Obama was 8 years old when the WU was active.

I knew many of the people who did go underground, and many who did not.  

So what.  

But to pile on to right wing attacks - which Senator Clinton did do, was not okay in my book.

Y'all believe what you want.  But if this goes to Puerto Rico it will be one of the only things talked about.  

Just don't forget I mentioned it.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:59:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did they start her political career (none / 0)

''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''

from his own book.  


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:05:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did they start her political career (none / 0)


Read his entire statement.  Better yet - read his blog.

He regretted that they didn't do enough to stop the war in Vietnam.

Sorry - you are just repeating Repug talking points.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:12:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did they start her political career (none / 0)

oh, so the NYT's is now a republican talking point?  


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:17:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did they start her political career (none / 0)

he was already 8 then? well he's been touting his great experience in indonesia whan he was just 6, so he must have been really aware by 8.


by swissffun on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:16:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did they start her political career (none / 0)

Sigh.  Better do better than that.  Did you watch the video?

Do you understand anything about Puerto Rican politics?

Do you have any idea how explosive this will be?

Discuss the issue on the table here.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:21:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did they start her political career (2.00 / 1)

The reason this won't go beyond the most wacko websites and blogs is that people like Mayor Daley have come forward and said they also work with Ayers. Then all Ayers has to do if it gets messy is to come forward and let himself be known.

Here is what Wikipedia has about him:  Ayers is currently a Distinguished Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education. His interests include teaching for social justice, urban educational reform, narrative and interpretive research, children in trouble with the law, and related issues.[1]


He has edited and written many books and articles on education theory, policy and practice, and has appeared on many panels and symposia. He was tapped by Mayor Richard M. Daley to shape Chicago's now nationally-renowned school reform program.[2]


His degrees include a B.A. from the University of Michigan in American Studies (1968), an M.Ed from Bank Street College in Early Childhood Education, an M.Ed from Teachers College, Columbia University in Early Childhood Education (1987) and an Ed.D from Columbia University in Curriculum and Instruction (1987).[1]

by Becky G on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:21:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did they start her political career (none / 0)

and Ayers still doesn't regret planting bombs and killing people

this is from the New York Times, which is not a republican talking point.

violence begets violence.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:33:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did they start her political career (none / 0)

And we all know the NY Times is the Bible, right?


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:45:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did they start her political career (none / 0)

it is a direct quote from Ayers.  


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:47:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did they start her political career (2.00 / 1)

He never killed anyone.


by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:58:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did they start her political career (2.00 / 1)

then why does she include Bill's white house terms as part of her 35 years of experience?


"I am standing with Barack Obama to say, `Yes, we can!'" Hillary Clinton 6/7/08
by feliks on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:45:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did they start her political career (none / 0)

She gained a lot of experience in those eight years as the most active First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt. But that certainly doesn't mean she deserves either the credit or the blame for what happened in Bill Clinton's administration, except for where she was directly involved, such as the failed attempt at health care reform.

Why is this so hard for Obama supporters to understand?


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:46:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did they start her political career (none / 0)

It's quite easy for Obama supporters to understand, and then watch as Senator Clinton tries to campaign by co-opting the Good Parts of Bill's presidency while ignoring the speed bumps......Having been first lady I'm sure she's very experienced at throwing "state dinners".....(except i'm sure she didn'tbake the cookies)


"I am standing with Barack Obama to say, `Yes, we can!'" Hillary Clinton 6/7/08
by feliks on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:51:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did they start her political career (none / 0)

Having been first lady I'm sure she's very experienced at throwing "state dinners".....(except i'm sure she didn'tbake the cookies)

Oh, that's not sexist at all. Coomments like yours convince me that this country does need a female president (and I say this as someone who hates ID politics and had Hillary at the bottom of my list when this campaign season began).


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:00:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did they start her political career (none / 0)

Maybe because the whole Ayers thing is all about associations.  Why is it okay to link Barack Obama to a guy who he sat on the board of a charity with, but Hillary Clinton's associations are supposed to be off limits?


by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:51:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did they start her political career (none / 0)

They're not off limits, but as I pointed out above, Hillary opposed the pardons at the time. This information is widely available on the internets and everything.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:05:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did they start her political career (none / 0)

She did not oppose them when she presented them to her husband.  She reversed her statements after the fact. After she had gotten brownie points from PR's.

Let's see how loudly she "denounces and rejects them" in Puerto Rico as we head toward the primary there.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:20:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did they start her political career (none / 0)

As I pointed out above, Bill Clinton offered clemency, with the stipulation that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico. While Hillary originally supported her husband's decision, she withdrew her support when the prisoners had refused to renounce violence more than three weeks after clemency was offered.

If you have any evidence to refute the official history that I have presented, please let me know about it.


Fortune strums a mournful tune for those whose campaigns peak too soon. --Bored of the Rings
by Inky on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:32:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Clinton / Hannity rules (2.00 / 1)

But according to the Clinton Hannity rules of guilt by association Hillary must now reject and denounce Bill Clinton for freeing not only FALN terrorists but WU terrorists who where actually involved in not only setting bombs but murdering 2 cops and a security guard. How can you associate with someone who has freed terrorists?

So when does Hillary go on O'Reilly to announce she is divorcing Bill because he is soft on terror?


by hankg on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:15:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did they start her political career (none / 0)

She did not oppose them until there was a great deal of controversy about them. You need to research this some more. I have links at my diary "Furzeball" today for a CNN article and a WSJ article. I first encountered the story in the archives of Hillary's own forum. I write here under a pseudonym because my group didn't want to touch any of this.  They support Obama but want to take the high road.  I've known for months and I am working on media watchdogging.  Ya know she opened the door.  As well, one of the FALN's who was released said he was not sorry either.  


by emmavoberry on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:12:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what did you expect? (2.00 / 1)

desperate times come for desperate measures.


She and McCain are very close - Bill Clinton
by clintonmccain on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:46:44 AM EST

Re: what did you expect? (none / 0)

are you agreeing with the tactics of the WU?


by swissffun on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:17:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what did you expect? (none / 0)

Am not here to discuss my politics - am not running for office.

Stick to the vetting of Senator Clinton - and why she is raising issues she should have either renounced or kept her mouth shut about.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:22:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs &am (none / 0)

A lot of people were against the Vietnam War, but they didn't kill Americans over it.

WU were domestic terrorists, just like McVeigh.  Don't romanticize them.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:19:12 AM EST

Re: Baggage + Bombs &am (none / 0)

Who did the WU kill may I ask?

Compare that to the FALN - which is what this thread is about.
If you need help - read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuerzas_Arm adas_de_Liberaci%C3%B3n_Nacional_%28Puer to_Rico%29


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:25:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs &am (none / 0)

so, bombs were just another way to say I love you?

WU planted bombs to kill people


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:34:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs &am (none / 0)

So why did Bill Clinton pardon two of their members?


by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:59:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs &am (none / 0)

yes, I am aware of FALN

and Clinton  offered clemency to sixteen of the convicted militants under the condition that they renounce any kind of violent manifestation
(wiki)

they renounced their deeds.  Ayers has yet to do so.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:35:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs &am (none / 0)

Wrong.

They have not renounced.  

Check your facts.  

You obviously know nothing about them.

Should I post some recent interviews?


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:46:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs &am (none / 0)

at the time that BC pardoned them, they had renounced.  If they have gone back on their statements, what do you want to do here?


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:47:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs &am (none / 0)

also, from your link

None of the sixteen were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person, and all of the sixteen had served nineteen years or longer in prison, which was a longer sentence than such crimes typically received, according to the White House. [12] Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the Cardinal of New York, and the Archbishop of Puerto Rico.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:49:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs (none / 0)

December 11, 1974     Angel Poggi, a police officer, lost an eye and was permanently disabled by one of FALN's bombs at 336 East 110th Street in East Harlem.    

January 24, 1975     FALN, through their Communique No. 3 claimed responsibility for the bombing of the Fraunces Tavern, killing four people and injuring more than 50. No one was ever prosecuted for the bombing.


by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:00:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs (none / 0)

again, either wiki is incorrect or you are misleading.

are those 2 part of the 16 that were pardoned, in which wiki states those 16 were never convicted of injuring anyone?


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:04:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs (none / 0)

Why does that matter to you all of a sudden?  William Ayers was never convicted of anything, and the Weather Underground never killed anyone.

Why the double-standard?


by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:08:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Baggage + Bombs (2.00 / 1)

I don't care.  Ayers isn't a big deal to me.  But I do feel that people shouldn't make him out to be an upstanding citizen, when in fact he has never repented his acts in the WU.

If he would, then that would be different.  I believe in giving people a second chance, but they have to denounce their acts


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:14:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Deliberately missing the point? (2.00 / 1)

The author's point is, in my opinion, totally valid and pretty straightforward. While it doesn't make a lot of sense to tie Clinton to the FALN, if she is the general election candidate it will happen. It is at least as valid a concern as the hyperventilating over Ayers.

Everyone here knows that to be a good attack ad truth is irrelevant; it just has to look bad. This can be made to look bad with no effort at all.


"Mom, baseball, apple pie, and a unified Democratic juggernaut."
by Purplepeople on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:52:57 AM EST

Re: Deliberately missing the point? (2.00 / 1)

And people who are hiding behind the fig leaf that it was Bill Clinton are the same ones that are so willing to play six degrees of separation with Barack Obama.  Do you think the Republicans are going to have such delicate sensibilities?

Ask Hillary what she thinks of her husband's pardons of the Weather Underground members.  Will she repudiate them?  How about the FALN pardson?  Will she meet with the widows?  


by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:03:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Reject & Denounce (none / 0)

Wait a minute - I thought Obama supporters rejected the use of GOP news sources and GOP smear tactics.  So I must be confused - because it looked like you just posted a youtube video that conflates a bad debate performance with footage of 09-11, and suggests that Bill Clinton was responsible for that.

As you are a believer in  new politics, hope, and unity, I'm positive that my eyes must be playing tricks on me.  As you are concerned about downticket races and the general election, I'm absolutely certain that you would not mean to destroy the legacy of the one man who was able to win us back the White House in recent decades and who, just about every one of us thought, did a pretty damned good job by most standards.

Now, how about some real facts?

Fact: "None of the 16 were convicted of bombings or any crime which injured another person"

Fact: "All of the 16 had served 19 years or longer in prison, which was a longer sentence than such crimes [the ones that they had actually committed] typically received"

Big Fact: "Clinton offered clemency, on condition that the prisoners renounce violence, at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, President Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico."

Hang on.  President Clinton was asked by 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, the archbishop of Puerto Rico, AND a Former President to do this?  But that can't be true - the fair and balanced piece of journalism you linked said it was all about some secret letter and a conspiracy to rig the NY Senate race.  After all, you know how those upstate New Yorkers are.  If you're from out of state, you'd better be prepared to pardon a few terrorists, or they'll never see you as one of their own.

Well, that's what the youtubegod said, right?  Right?

You know what?  Shame on you, NeciVelez.  You know better than this.  You know Bill Clinton didn't cause 09-11 to happen.  You say, out of one mouth, you support President Carter's pardons, and then out of the other mouth you condemn President Clinton for his?

I ask you to find your integrity, and issue some corrections to this malformed diary.  I believe you're better than this.  And I hope that you'll not compromise your principles for the sake of one politician's ambition, ever again.

Thank you.


by bobbank on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:20:22 AM EST

Re: Reject & Denounce (2.00 / 1)

It's not about us, it's about what the GOP will do.  I could care less about either the pardons of the 2 Weather Underground member or the 16 members of the FALN, but what do you think the 527s will do with them?


by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:23:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reject & Denounce (none / 0)

again, you are tying in President Clinton's actions.  Not Hillary's.  

Unless you have proof that Hillary signed those pardons, it is a moot point.


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:24:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reject & Denounce (2.00 / 1)

If they can tie Barack Obama to people that he knows, they can certainly tie Hillary Clinton to her husband.  This isn't exactly a casual acquantance, and this is a man who will have enormous personal access if he's president.


by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:37:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reject & Denounce (none / 0)

I would agree except Hillary Clinton DOESN'T know them and neither does BC.

he signed pardon papers


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:08:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reject & Denounce (2.00 / 1)

Signing pardon papers > sitting on a charitable board with a former member.


by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:21:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reject & Denounce (none / 0)

did Hillary sign the pardon papers?

no.

again, I don't care about the Ayers so-called connection to Obama - it is nothing to me.

however, I do get po'd when people try to romanticize Ayers.  


by colebiancardi on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:39:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reject (2.00 / 1)

I've only caught one person romanticizing WU people and it was a Clinton supporter on this site.


by Mostly on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:23:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reject & Denounce (none / 0)

I repeat.  HRC keeps repeating that BHO has not been vetted.  She is the person who added on to the sham "evidence".

don't "shame on me".

Shame on HRC for not denouncing the politics of "guilt by association". If she wants to make an argument to the supers about who is vetted, and who isn't - and what will come up in the general election if Barack Obama is the nominee then she needs to examine her own closet first.

What would have been a better tactic for her would have been to state that Rovian tactics are unacceptable, that swift-boating and guilt by association will not work against Democrats..etc. etc.

She did not do this.  She will, if she is nominated (which is unlikely but you never know), now be wide open to far more serious "guilts by association" than Barack Obama.

The FALN Clinton connection has already been brought up by the Wall Street Journal, and though it didn't get much play then - it was a sidebar remark - in the general it will be one of the major Faux news points.  

I read a slew of diaries here that piled onto the "oh my...Barack and the terrorists theme".  

Not one person here mentioned the FALN.  Probably because there are very few NY Ricans posting here.
And if there are, few are my age- 60, so they don't remember the Frances Tavern bombings.

Interestingly - most of the PR left in NY DENOUNCED the bombings as ultra-leftist.

Which was why many leftists and activists were startled when Clinton granted clemency.

If you want to deal with handing out shame points - let's set the record straight.

shame on the Clinton campaign for attempting to paint Barack Obama as somehow soft on "terrorists".

shame on the Clinton campaign for bringing this up - with only a few days to go before the PA primary.

shame on the Clinton campaign for doing Repug work.

If you think that the uncommitted supers are going to applaud this assist to Republican's - think again.

Doubtful they are as blissfully unaware of the damage she is sowing as many of you seem to be.

Thankfully, there are  people like Mayor Daley who have dismissed the WU non-event.  

Former FALN members made their positions perfectly clear:


"These are the graying vestiges of 1960s and '70s Puerto Rican revolutionary
 activity, people who barely lived here but fought to forge an independent island
 nation. Six weeks after President Clinton granted 11 imprisoned radicals
 clemency in exchange for pledges of non-violence, three told The Herald in their
 first in-depth interviews that they regret nothing and remain committed to Puerto
 Rican independence. "

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/puer torico/heroes.htm

See the transcripts of house hearings:
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/gro /hgo60935.000/hgo60935_0.htm

Today we are going to focus on the President's decision to offer clemency to members of a Puerto Rican terrorist group, the FALN. Our system is based on checks and balances. The Congress can pass legislation, but the President can veto it. The President is the Commander in Chief, but only Congress can declare war. But there is one area where the President's power is absolute: the power to grant clemency.
    There is nothing the Congress can do about it. There is nothing the courts can do about it. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states, ''He shall have the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States except in cases of impeachment.''
    Can we have some order, please.
    This is an important responsibility. It is a power that the President has to exercise with a great deal of caution. Before the FALN terrorists, President Clinton had received more than 3,000 petitions for clemency and he had only granted 3 of them. Then on August 11th, the President offered clemency to 16 members of the FALN, a terrorist group seeking independence for Puerto Rico. Almost a month later, 14 of the 16 people accepted the President's offer and were released from prison.
    This whole issue has ignited a firestorm of controversy. The FALN was involved in 130 bombings, 5 people were killed, 84 were injured. What we want to know is why did the President make this decision? What is the public benefit? Who advised him on this issue? Was the FBI consulted? The Bureau of Prisons? That is why we are holding this hearing today.

First, we are going to examine what the FALN is. One of the arguments for granting clemency is that these 16 people were not directly involved in any acts of violence. Well, I want to briefly review what they were convicted of.
    Most of these people were convicted of things like seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to obstruct interstate commerce. Let's take a look at exactly what that means. Eight of these people were arrested together in Chicago. They were caught in a stolen van carrying illegal weapons. They were parked near the home of a wealthy businessman named Henry Crown. It is believed they were going to kidnap him. The only thing that stopped them was their arrest.
    They were convicted in Federal court. As they were sentenced they shouted threats to the judge. Here is what they said according to the court transcript: ''You are lucky we cannot take you right now. Our people will continue to use righteous violence. Revolutionary justice can be fierce, mark my words. We are going to fight, revolutionary justice will take care of you and everybody else.'' That is what they said to the judge. Now these are the people who were just granted clemency.
    Three other FALN members were planning to break one of their leaders out of Leavenworth Prison. They had two safe houses in Chicago where they had thousands of rounds of ammunition, blasting caps, detonating cord, dynamite and numerous weapons.
    They had a schematic diagram of the prison hidden under the floorboards in the kitchen of the house. The only thing that stopped them was their arrest. The FBI has a videotape of two of these people in one of their safe houses actually making a bomb. And I think we ought to show that to everyone who is in attendance here today. These are two of the members making a bomb. This is an official FBI tape.
    [Videotape.]
    Mr. BURTON. Who are these people? These are the people who were just granted clemency. Four of the people who were granted clemency were arrested for their involvement in the armed robbery of an armored car in Connecticut. They are part of a splinter group called in Spanish the machete wielders. This group has claimed responsibility for the murder of a San Juan police officer, ambushing a Navy bus and killing two sailors and shooting a United States Army officer in Fort Buchanan in Puerto Rico. These are the people the President offered clemency to and released from prison.


Anthropologists for human diversity; opposing McCain perversity
by NeciVelez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:06:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.