Tags for This Article:

McCain-John (3909) Terrorism (1080) Ayers (53)


Populum
Tag Cloud
Control Panel

Fine tune your search to access content

Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ;
Add to My Group
October 18, 2008 at 22:45:59

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Interesting 1   View Ratings | Rate It

Liddy the Plumber: Why Is John McCain Defending an Unrepentant Terrorist?

by John Wilson     Page 1 of 3 page(s)

www.opednews.com

 
Tell A Friend

John McCain defends the unrepentant terrorist named G. Gordon Liddy. So why isn't the media calling him on this dubious association?

It’s not Joe the Plumber that matters, it’s G. Gordon Liddy the "Plumber" of Watergate fame. David Letterman’s interview with McCain last night should prove to be absolutely devastating to the McCain campaign, if we don’t let the mainstream media ignore McCain’s relationship to Liddy while they obsess about Bill Ayers.

John McCain has defended Liddy, an ex-felon who was part of Watergate, one of the worst abuses of executive power in American history.

John McCain has knowingly attended a fundraiser at the home of Liddy, an unrepentent terrorist who plotted the assassination of a journalist and encouraged the murder of federal law enforcement agents. Yet John McCain just a year ago declared that he was "proud" of this man.

Here’s a summary of all the crimes of G. Gordon Liddy, the responses of John McCain, and the questions that need to be asked:

Last night on Letterman, here’s what McCain said.

DL: But did you not have a relationship with Gordon Liddy?
JM: I met him, you know, I mean...
DL: Didn’t you attend a fund raiser at his house?
JM: Gordon Liddy’s?

"I met him"? "I met him"? And when you’re asked about attending a fundraiser at his house, you don’t answer? You don’t admit that Liddy hosted a fundraiser for you in 1998? You just say, "Gordon Liddy’s?" as if you don’t know what Letterman’s talking about?

After the commercial break, McCain quickly tried to explain himself:

JM: I know Gordon Liddy. He paid his debt. He went to prison, he paid his debt, as people do. I’m not in any way embarrassed to know Gordon Liddy. And his son, who is also a good friend and supporter of mine.
DL: But you understand that the same case could be made of your relationship with him as being made with William Ayers.
JM: Everything about any relationship that I’ve had I will make completely open and give a complete accounting of. Senator Obama said that he was a guy who lived in the neighborhood. OK, it was more than that.

Note this: McCain said that Liddy’s son is "also a good friend and supporter of mine." That means McCain is saying that Liddy himself is friend of his. Contrast that with Obama, who has never called Ayers his friend (David Axelrod described them as "friendly," which is much different).

Liddy did go to prison for Watergate. Does McCain mean to say that it’s okay to pal around with criminals so long as they’ve served time in prison? (Ayers, by the way, did turn himself him; he was never convicted of a crime due to technicalities. Would McCain claim that it would be okay to hang out with Ayers if he had spent time in prison?)

But Liddy’s never served any time in prison for urging the murder of federal law enforcement officials, or for plotting the assassination of a newspaper columnist, or for encouraging the murder of possible burglars, or for illegally using firearms despite being an ex-felon. So by McCain’s logic, Liddy has never paid his debt for those actions.

McCain claims, "Senator Obama said that he was a guy who lived in the neighborhood. OK, it was more than that." It was. As Obama actually said: "This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." There’s nothing false about that. According to a McCain TV ad, "Obama's blind ambition. When convenient, he worked with terrorist Bill Ayers. When discovered, he lied. Obama. Blind ambition. Bad judgment." The Washington Post fact checker concluded, "The McCain campaign is distorting the Obama-Ayers relationship, and exaggerating their closeness. There is no evidence that Obama has ‘lied’ about his dealings with Ayers."

But you could make the same exact argument that when McCain said about Liddy, "I met him," it was definitely "more than that." If somebody hosts a fundraiser for you, do you honestly describe your relationship as "I met him"? McCain, unlike Obama, was lying about his relationship. McCain, unlike Obama, was actually defending an unrepentant terrorist.

In 2007, McCain went on Liddy’s radio show and told him:

 1  |  2  |  3

 

www.obamapolitics.com

John K. Wilson is the author of five books, including "Barack Obama: This Improbable Quest" (Paradigm Publishers, 2008), www.obamapolitics.com, and "Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies" (Paradigm Publishers, 2008). He is the founder of the Institute for College Freedom (www.collegefreedom.org, collegefreedom.blogspot.com).

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
6 comments

Hobby is tennis
Frank SilbermannHobby is tennis

bull

Neither simple murder or political assassination the same as terrorism.  Terrorism is the _indiscriminate_ targeting of noncombatants for the purpose of sowing fear.   Liddy neither did any of that, nor advocated it, nor even considered doing it.

Shooting armed federal agents in the head is (most likely) treason, not terrorism.  (I suppose one could make the case that Ayers was guilty only of capital treason, not terrorism, if his bombs were targeting soldiers and policemen.)  However, Liddy's advice was restricted to the hypothetical context in which the U.S. government was no longer the legitimate government -- a situation analogous to shooting at death-head SS men as they round up Jews for the gas chamber.

What troubles me about Obama's relationship with Ayers is not so much Ayer's violence but the his unapologetic support for a satanic political ideology.  Nazis and Marxist-Leninists ought to be considered beyond the pale.

by Frank Silbermann (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Sunday, October 19, 2008 at 3:09:23 PM
 


Jeff Rock is an economist of thirty-two years. He has spent his entire career in the building industry working in a capacity that allows him to witness daily the inner workings of the so-called 'free' market. Jeff studied at US and French universties earning his Economics degree in 1976. He is bi-lingual. He supports and promotes green building and tries to incorporate green principles in every project on which he is assigned. He has built high rises in the US and Africa. He is a committed...

to see more of bio, click on member name

jeff rockJeff Rock is an economist of thirty-two years. He has spent his entire career in the building industry working in a capacity that allows him to witness daily the inner workings of the so-called 'free' market. Jeff studied at US and French universties earning his Economics degree in 1976. He is bi-lingual. He supports and promotes green building and tries to incorporate green principles in every project on which he is assigned. He has built high rises in the US and Africa. He is a committed...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Splitting hairs

Gordon Liddy was a traitor because he undermined the most basic of democratic principles, the right to free and fair elections.  The definition of 'terrorist' is what is bull.  There have been many people who have hated America since its inception and vowed to damage us and some have succeeded to a greater or lesser extent.  The British head of MIA said that the WTC attack was an 'incident', not an act of war, and the Bush response a severe 'overreaction'.   The neocon definition of terrorist is a convenient method of institutionalizing a falsehood, i.e. that 'terror' is itself the enemy.  We have waged a war on an emotion.  By nature its vagueness permits this administration to broadly interpret just about anything they want into their foriegn and domestic policies under the guise we are at war.

by jeff rock (5 articles, 1 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 101 comments) on Sunday, October 19, 2008 at 3:55:48 PM
 

 

6 comments

 
Warning: mysql_fetch_array(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /home/opednews/public_html/populum/database.inc.php on line 48

Warning: mysql_fetch_array(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /home/opednews/public_html/populum/database.inc.php on line 48

Warning: mysql_fetch_array(): supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /home/opednews/public_html/populum/database.inc.php on line 48

Blog Ads

 

 

 

 

Most Popular Articles
in the Last 2 Days
(by Recommend Emails)

Breaking The Real "Last Taboo" - The Things No One Dares To Say by Frank Schaeffer

John S. Greenway by AJ Buttacavoli

Cancer Full Moon January 10-11 2009 by Cathy Lynn Pagano

Who is Black America's Moral Emissary to the World? by Glen Ford

Amnesty vs. AIPAC: Senate to Consider AIPAC Resolution Endorsing War in Gaza by Robert Naiman

Unlawful Assembly by David Swanson

Boot Bush on 19th by David Swanson

Will There Be a Recovery? by Paul Craig Roberts

More about sociopaths in American politics by Gene Messick

Orangutans Hate Changes in Their Cages by Stephen Pizzo

Go To Top 50 Most Popular

 

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2009