Bill Ayers: Obama Should be Tried for War Crimes

Former domestic terrorist and liberal educator Bill Ayers may think Obama is a charming and likable but he still thinks he should be tried for war crimes over his drone program and his military campaigns in Afghanistan and other places.

In a continuing video series called the RCP Morning Commute, where well-known Chicagoans and folks in the news take a “morning commute” drive with the Charlie Stone and Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics, Bill Ayers made his assessment of the Obama presidency. And he wasn’t wholly complimentary.

When asked to grade the President’s term in office, the infamous educator proclaimed Obama’s presidency a failure. “I’d give him a failing grade,” Ayers said.

Ayers went on to say he feels that Obama is a “moderate” and that he campaigned that way so no one should be surprised by the President’s actions in office.

The radical educator also noted that he personally likes Barack Obama. “He’s a curious person,” Ayers said. “One of the things I like about him is he’s a curious person. He wants to know things.”

But even with all this happy talk about how much he likes Obama on a personal level, Bill Ayers still thinks he should be brought up on charges of war crimes.

RCP’s Charlie Stone asked Ayers about Obama’s usage of drones. “You hold Johnson with disdain, you hold Bush, Nixon with disdain but isn’t Barack Obama, as the sole authority for drone use, engaged in terrorist activity?”

Ayers agreed wholeheartedly. Obama is a terrorist.

“Absolutely,” Ayers said. He then said we should protest Obama’s actions saying, “…the response is to oppose it. To stand up in opposition.”

“Do you think Barack Obama should be put on trial for war crimes,” Stone asked.

“Absolutely,” Ayers replied. “Every president in this century should be put on trial. Every one of them, for war crimes.”

Presumably Ayers meant in the modern era as opposed to “this century” as this century is only 13 years old, but the message is clear. Every president, at least those in his own life time, are “war criminals” as far as Bill Ayers is concerned.

He concluded saying, “Every one of them goes into office, an office dripping with blood, and adds to it. And, yes, I think that these are war crimes, I think they’re acts of terror.”

National Review Hammers the 'Gang of Eight' Immigration Team
IRS To Hire 'Diversity and Inclusion Specialist' At $123,758 Salary
  • jim_m

    Somewhat ironic coming from a guy who believes that his error was not planting more bombs to murder more innocent people. Like most leftists, Ayers would never want to be held to the same standard that he holds the rest of the world.

    • Brucehenry

      Ayers never murdered anyone. Was never charged with murder or manslaughter. And you’re misquoting him. Shocker.

      • jim_m

        Yes, Ayers denies that he meant that he should have planted more bombs when he told and NYT reporter that, “I don’t regret setting bombs” and “I feel we didn’t do enough”, and, when asked if he would “do it all again,” as saying “I don’t want to discount the possibility.”

        Of course he only denied wanting to plant more bombs when the whole thing blew up in his face (so to speak). Everyone knew what he meant when he said it.

        He’s a terrorist and it does not surprise me in the least that you defend terrorists. You are a defender of all of them lately.

        As for Ayers not blowing anyone up – he was involved with the SDS and the Weather Underground. They conducted the Haymarket bombing, were associated with the Park Precinct Police Bombing which did kill one officer and blinded another, and 3 of his associates died while building a bomb in Greenwich Village. People dieing while building a bomb you are involved with them building is called murder. His best friend and his girlfriend died. He was involved. That makes him at least an accessory to the crime they were planning. Planning to commit a crime is conspiracy, also a crime. If someone dies in the commission of a crime that is murder.

        Ayers is a murderer and a terrorist and would do it again and you will excuse his actions no matter what. You will excuse the fascist acts of the left no matter how many people die because you expect to benefit from those actions. You are as guilty as Ayers.

      • LiberalNightmare

        By bruces logic, the underwear bomber is also innocent.

      • retired military

        Al Capone was never convicted of murder either.

        Also if you play Bill Clinton and Parse Jim’s statement he never stated Ayers was convicted or charged with murder or manslaughter.

        he stated and I quote
        “from a guy who believes that his error was not planting more bombs to murder more innocent people”

      • Rdmurphy42

        What has happened to you? Is there anything or anyone that you won’t defend as long as they spout some left wing pabulum?

        • Brucehenry

          It’s not defending Ayers to point out that Jim has misquoted him. He has. And it’s not defending Ayers to point out that Ayers didn’t murder anyone. He didn’t. His bombs only damaged property.

          Prosecutors never alleged he was involved in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, as Jim claims, nor that he conspired with the Weathermen who blew themselves up. He was hundreds of miles away when it happened.

          As for his being in Weather Underground making him guilty of the Haymarket bombing, that’s just silly. It’s like saying that everyone in the Ohio National Guard in 1970 is responsible for the deaths at Kent State. Jim has an inaccurate idea of what a “conspiracy” is, and also what an “accessory” is.

          • jim_m

            I did not misquote. I even followed up with the context of his quotes for you (and the context of his denial), but you conveniently ignore that so you can defend a terrorist who claims he should have killed more people.

            It does not matter how far you are away when your co conspirator blows himself up when you were part of the plan to make the bomb. You are still guilty.

            And you, Bruce are an apologist for terrorists and a defender of those who want to destroy our nation.

            [edit] As for Ayers not being responsible for the actions of the Weather Underground I find you to be more than a little two faced when you and Chico are arguing that Bush is a war criminal for what his admin did yet the leadership of the Weather Underground apparently is guiltless for what their organization did. Ayers lead the Weather Underground. He is responsible for its actions. Hypocrite is too kind a word for you.

          • Brucehenry

            Ayers never said “I wish we had planted more bombs” nor expressed any wish that more people had died as a result of his actions. You claimed he had. That’s a misquote. A lie, actually, and typical for you, because you are a liar. A “bullshit claim,” as it were. Shall I link to the last time you made a “bullshit claim” about what someone said in this comment section? It was just a few days ago….

            Weather Underground was not a hierarchical organization, as the Bush administration was. Ayers was one of the founders and leaders, that is true, but was not involved in every action by every member. If he had been involved in the townhouse explosion, why wasn’t he charged or named as an unindicted co-conspirator?

            But I didn’t say Bush was a war criminal. I did up-vote Chico’s comment as a clever point. It was.

            Mark Rudd doesn’t blame Ayers for the townhouse explosion:

  • LiberalNightmare

    Dont you just hate it when a war criminal begins his political career in your living room?

    • Hell yes, Ayers AND BHO- HOW CRIMINAL CAN YOU GET!

  • Commander_Chico

    “Waging aggressive war” is a war crime the allies hung Germans and Japanese for after WW II. Invading Iraq certainly was “waging aggressive war.” Was bombing Libya waging “aggressive war?”

    • LiberalNightmare

      Whereas bombing the new york police dept headquarters, the us capitol building, and the pentagon is barely aggressive at all.

      • Commander_Chico

        Yeah, Iraq and Libya had nothing to do with any of those. If there was a state sponsor of 9/11, it was Saudi Arabia.

        • jim_m

          I thought you were already on record saying that it was Bush’s fault because he knew about it beforehand.

          • Commander_Chico

            Bush was warned. He did nothing. Just part of his incompetence.

          • retired military

            There were like 60 investigations going on just prior to 911.
            Keep drinking the kool aid there chico.

          • jim_m


          • Being warned that “Al Quaeda would like to attack the US” is certainly sufficient to stop a plot by 20 people to hijack jets, right?

            Despite the fact there were no names, no flight numbers, no details of any planned attacks actually in the report – just a vague “They’d like to attack” warning.

            And if they’d been arrested PRE-attack, there would have been screaming and shouting about suspension of civil liberties, no proof they were actually going to try something, racism/Islamophobia and so on.

          • Commander_Chico

            The briefing included the idea of using hijacked aircraft as missiles.

            Shit, if the FAA issued warnings and recommended keeping cockpit doors locked, 9/11 could have been a failure.

          • No, it wouldn’t have.

            A single mention of a threat isn’t enough to issue FAA advisories and changed established practices. (And I’m pretty dubious of your claim, in all honesty, since I don’t recall hearing of it before. That Al Q was looking to attack the US? Yes. Looking to hijack planes? Yes, kinda iffy though. Use as missiles? No.)

            Or at least, it wasn’t THEN. Now? Hell, circulate a rumor that bombers are packing their rectums with C-4, and we’ll be probed like crazy.

            And consider the bog-standard “You WILL do it this way” practice at the time – you give the hijacker what they want. You take them where they want to go. You cooperate with the malignant sons of bitches, set 7500 in your transponder, and keep ground apprised of your situation. When you get on the ground, you let authorities deal with the situation.

            Everyone lives with a good story to tell afterward, plane doesn’t get hurt, and life goes on.

            And that particular practice had WORKED for decades with a minimal loss of life and aircraft, because hijackers were politically motivated – and didn’t want to lose their own lives.

            Change one aspect of a ‘working’ paradigm, and it falls apart.

          • Commander_Chico

            Well, of course I am for truth. How about declassifying and releasing the parts of the 9/11 report dealing with Saudi activities? That might help the truth come out.

            But what I’d really like to know is the truth about the anthrax attacks in October 2001. That seems to coincide with a certain official narrative being pushed at the time.

            But Bush probably wasn’t a conspirator; he was just a fuck-up. Cheney and Rumsfeld, I’m not so sure with regard to the anthrax.

          • Rdmurphy42

            Of course, Chico. Keep on riding that crazy train.

          • Commander_Chico

            Meanwhile, the investigation into TWA 800 is being reopened.

            I always thought it was a MANPAD fired by someone hostile. That official explanation was weak,

          • That it was.

            Jet fuel is fairly flammable – it has to be – but the idea that ‘fuel vapors in an almost empty tank’ exploded? There’s a rather narrow ‘boom’ range on the concentration of such – too rich and it won’t explode, too lean and it’ll go out. The designers tend to go conservative on tank design, and figure it’s always going to be explosive, and work to make sure there’s no sources of ignition in the tank.

            And it makes me wonder why would they be going on an overseas flight with a centerline tank empty in the first place…

            Something didn’t smell right there. It’ll be interesting to see if anything comes of it.

          • Commander_Chico

            I just wonder why there would be a cover-up. Protecting the commercial airline industry is enough of a reason, I guess.

            It might have been one of our own Stinger missiles come back from Afghanistan, too.

          • (Re-edited for clarity…)

            Maybe they weren’t protecting the airline industry so much as protecting an idea – that we weren’t touchable by terror.

            Hmm. That brings up an idea. There was never any group that claimed the action, if there was one…

            Let’s see. This is sheer hypothesizing, so don’t take any of it as what I think the ‘truth’ is. Might make a good thriller, though.

            This happened in ’96. Clinton administration. After the Fall of the USSR.,,, after the ‘Peace Dividend’ was in effect, leading to a reduction in our forces…

            What if some pissed-off Soviet official decided to enact some revenge starting in ’89? Nothing traceable to the Motherland, of course, so it’d have to be small, but noticeable. Suitcase nukes were right out, and the first WTC bombing showed even a truck bomb wouldn’t do all that much. But if they could take down AF-1… well, maybe the USSR fell – but Bush could fall too. That would be… satisfying. A great symbolic victory.

            Smuggle in a SA-18 – and cross the border through Canada. (If tons of drugs can get through, then a crate with a couple of missiles shouldn’t be much of a problem.) May have been a team, or this could have been a single guy – but maybe there was an accident of some sort. Anyhow, something went wrong. Probably something relatively minor, like a bad drunk driving infraction – which lead to a year (maybe two) in a county jail.

            Bush was no longer President – so what to do? Give up and go back? Or stay for a while and look for a target of opportunity?

            What the hell. Stay around, and see what comes up.

            Forward to early ’96. Ex-USSR guy has adapted to the US, and is even kind of getting to like it – but he goes to the doctor and finds out he’s got cancer or some other fatal disease. 6 months, tops. And that reminds him of unfinished business.

            (Remember – this is just fiction. Maybe this would even make a decent book, if I had the skills of Dale Brown or Tom Clancy.)

            So what visible symbol of America could be attacked? He missed his chance to get AF-1 – though I guess he could have just hung around the end of Andrews AFB’s runway – but maybe with Bush gone there wasn’t the urgency to get it.

            So – find a random 747 heading out to sea. It’d be easier to attack one over land, but it’d be easier to see what happened and recover the wreckage. Attack over sea it is.

            But why choose July 17th? Would there be any significance to that date? Maybe.

   -nothing really notable .

            Apollo 18 and Soyuz 19 docked in 1975.

            Disneyland opened in 1955.

            An IRA bomb exploded in the Tower of London in ’74.

            Potsdam conference starts in 1945. Maybe that’s it – lingering resentment over the Potsdam conference and the USSR’s role in post WW2 Europe?

            In 1944 two ammunition ships exploded near Port Chicago.

            Hard to figure that one, may need to fall back and replot. Maybe an IRA terrorist got hold of a Stinger or equivalent, and there was an Anti-IRA coordinator on board Flight 800?

            Anyhow, assume the date had some significance. The shooter gets a small boat, goes out on water under flight path. He’s pretty sick at this point, on some fairly good drugs, and he’s kinda fuzzy. (You know, the old “Don’t operate heavy machinery and fire dangerous munitions” warning on the pill bottle.) Figures it’s time, pulls out the SA-18, activates it, follows the plane as it comes closer, and closer, angling the launcher higher and higher… and then fires the missile with about a 75 degree elevation.

            And the backblast promptly knocks a big-ass hole in the bottom of the boat. The missile launcher is abandoned, the boat also, as the shooter tries to swim to shore… and he doesn’t make it.

            No body. No launcher. Plane is destroyed, but no groups are claiming the action. It’s a real mystery.

            So with no overt claim – then it must have been accidental, right? So the NTSB/FAA get the word – this wasn’t a terrorist act. Figure out something plausible.

            And they do – at least, something plausible enough to last almost 20 years…

            I’ve got nothing at all suggesting that’s how it happened, as I said – but it fits the facts as we know them at this time… and it was kinda fun to figure out characterization and motivation, because we already know how the story ends – so to speak.

          • Commander_Chico

            Do you remember Pierre Salinger blaming the Navy for a misfired missile on TWA 800? Now that was ridiculous.

            Apart from the fact that the Navy does not do training exercises in that area, it’s not as if you could ever keep the 350 – 400 crewmembers on a DDG or CG quiet about firing a missile within 100 miles of a downed 747.

            But now I wonder if Salinger had a mission to present crazy disinformation in order to help a cover-up.

          • Asking 350 sailors to keep quiet on something… lol. Yeah, that’s gonna happen.

          • Commander_Chico

            That only happens in the movies, hundreds of people silent about lies.

            Like people who think the moon landings were fake.

            Of course, you can keep lies quiet but not very long if you’re telling more than a score of people.

            Snowden is proof of the difficulty of keeping a cover story unmarked.

          • retired military


            Average 5% unemployment during 8 years of his presidency.

            Deficits averaging about $500b or less over a total of 8 years.

            10 million or more so people working than now.

            About half the people on disability and food stamps during his Presidency than now.

            I just wish that Obama would fuck up more like Bush did. We would be a whole lot better off as a country.

            There is some truth for you Chuckles.

          • Jwb10001

            Hey Obama was warned about the Boston bombers same thing on a smaller scale.

        • LiberalNightmare

          Actually, Iraq and Libya have nothing to do with Bill Ayers.

          Forgive me for noticing that you changed the subject.

    • jim_m

      The difference between the Germans and the Japanese was that they waged war against their neighbors without the consent of the League of Nations, whereas the US received the endorsement of the United Nations for its war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      I guess that is the sort of nuance that is lost on the fascist left.

      • Commander_Chico

        Wrong again, Jim, but by raising the issue you prove my point.

        There was no approval of the war on Iraq in the UN. The only Security Council resolutions on Iraq in effect in March 2003 were for sanctions and a no-fly zone.

        The “Coalition of the Willing” was outside of the UN system.

        This lawyer breaks it down for you:

        • jim_m

          Security Council resolution 678 authorized member states to use “all necessary means” to “restore international peace and security in the area.” and that resolution has never been rescinded.

          Resolutions 678, 660 and 1441 all support the invasion, multiple members of the Security Council at the time agreed with this approach. No vote was ever taken by the Security Council condemning US action in Iraq or punishing the US for its actions there. (I say taken and not passed because we all know that no such measure could ever pass over a US veto)

          • Commander_Chico

            There was peace after the 1991 armistice. Anyways, Bush is a war criminal because he approved torture.

          • jim_m

            More precise Chico: Bush is a war criminal, because Shut up!

          • Commander_Chico

            Your legal argument that the 1990 SC resolution authorized the invasion of Iraq in 2003 is too ridiculous to address.

            Shit, why not attack Germany again?

          • jim_m

            That argument seems to have worked for the Security Council. Or are you now going to claim to be a member of that as well as the Joint Chiefs?

          • Commander_Chico

            How did it work for the SC? At least three permanent members – Russia, China, and France – opposed the invasion. That’s why Bush never tried for a vote – it would have been vetoed.

          • Rdmurphy42

            SO you are basing whether something is good policy or not on the opinions of Russia, China and France?

          • jim_m

            If it’s favored by our enemies like China and Russia then it is favored by Chico.

          • jim_m

            And the other two permanent members were for it as well as at least one of the temporary members at the time (Spain). Funny how if they were so against it they didn’t force the UK or US to veto a resolution to prevent war.

            Is there any enemy of the US that you haven’t sided with in the last 30-40 years? (and please, Israel is not an enemy of the US)

          • Jwb10001

            OK then Obama is a war criminal for murdering an American citizen with a drone, when will you call for his arrest?

          • Commander_Chico

            All of these guys – Bush, Obama – should be tried, they are destroying the Constitution.

          • Jwb10001

            There’s 1 tool available to an individual citizen and that’s your vote and what did you do with your vote? You threw it away and helped enable Obama get reelected. I have zero use for your over blown paranoid BS. You talk in extremes of war crimes and conspiracy but when it came time to help effect a change you sat on the fence and voted “present” just like your hero Obama.

          • Commander_Chico

            Romney endorsed torture and was a complete police-state tool.

            Why do you have to choose between Hitler and Stalin?

          • Jwb10001

            That’s exactly what I find most objectionable about you, Romney is a “complete police-state tool” seriously? How much more overblown can you get? You say this at a time when we discover that Obama is capturing phone and email data on US citizens, Obama is punishing his political foes using the IRS, Obama is thumping his chest over Syria and Iran? You are a complete lost cause. You have a shinning real life example of an over reaching government and you call Romney a police state tool.

          • retired military

            And chuckles is an idiot.

          • You insult idiots everywhere…

        • Rdmurphy42

          UN approval is a joke. The UN is a terrorist and dictators club. They put Syria and Iran on the disarmament committees … and you think they have any legitimacy whatsoever to confer?

          • Commander_Chico

            That was Jim-m’s argument, that UN approval would make it not a war crime to attack a country not attacking you.

        • retired military


          THe resolution specifically stated that BUsh could do just about anything that he saw fit.

          Instead of looking at what some CNN liberal talking head says lets take a look at the ACTUAL RESOLUTION PASSED BY CONGRESS.


          (a) Authorization.–The President is authorized to use the Armed
          Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
          appropriate in order to–
          (1) defend the national security of the United States
          against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
          (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
          resolutions regarding Iraq.

          In other words Congres gave Bush a blank check and he cashed it.

          As for asking permission from the rest of the world

          There is no requirement in international law that the United States (or any nation) seek permission to initiate any war of self-defense.[44] “The United States government has argued, wholly apart from Resolution 1441, that it has a right of pre-emptive self-defense to protect itself from terrorism fomented by Iraq.[45] Although this position has been intensively criticized, without any legal finding for support, claims for legality or illegality are merely debates. To prove illegality it would first be necessary to prove that the US did not meet the conditions of necessity and proportionality and that the right of pre-emptive defense did not apply.[46]
          Stop sucking the dicks of the BUsh haters Chuckles.
          You are entitled to facts just not the made up bullshit that you spew.

          • Jwb10001

            How dare you show Chico the actual resolution that conflicts with his paranoid rantings about Bush. Between the UN resolution and the congressional approvals I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a more lawless disregard…..

    • jim_m

      Aggressive war is defined as a war that is not justified as self defense and is usually for territorial gain or the subjugation of other people. The Iraq war Was neither for territorial gain, nor was it to subjugate another people. It was arguably a war of self defense since Iraq had failed to accede to the demands of the UN to demonstrate that it was not a threat to its neighbors and it had demonstrated that it was a sponsor of terrorism and was a threat to everyone.

      You compare Bush to Hitler and the comparison is false and deeply dishonest. But then we expect that from you.

  • GarandFan

    I’m surprised that the guy who admits to being ‘guilty as sin’ would even want to expound on this topic.

  • Well, it’s not a sign of the Apocalypse… but it’s a sign that Obama’s no linger considered ‘Useful’.

  • Tried for war crimes is a bit extreme. Maybe we should just have him donate his Nobel Peace Prize to the Salvation Army?

  • Takes one to know one. Such ‘loyalty’ among partners in crime, figures!!!!