Friday, October 17, 2008

John McCain "Pals Around" With Terrorists

Most intelligent Americans think that the McCain/Palin suggestion that Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists" (in reference to several professional contacts with William Ayers) is simply put, a bunch of horse hockey. The story has been investigated thoroughly by major, reputable investigative journalists and there is simply nothing there. Ayers does not advise Obama. Ayers is not going to have a role in his administration. He is, at the very most, simply someone that Obama knows from Chicago.

Using the McCain campaign's twisted "guilt by association" tactic though, let's talk about G. Gordon Liddy. Those of you that are my college students may not know who he is. He was one of the Watergate conspirators, in fact, the only one that was "unrepentant." He was a true believer in Nixon and what Nixon was doing in the White House. He was the chief operative of the "White House Plumbers" group organized out of the Nixon White House to do domestic and political "dirty tricks" on political opponents. Ultimately, this is where the Watergate break-in came from.

But let's look at bit closer at G. Gordon Liddy. He spent 4 1/2 years in prison for his role in the break-in. He is a convicted felon. Furthermore, he admits in his own autobiography that he once planned to assassinate liberal columnist Jack Anderson with his Watergate co-conspirator E. Howard Hunt. On his radio talk show during the seige on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco in 1993, he made this statement to the Branch Davidians, "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches." And, perhaps worst of all, he once conspired to fire-bomb the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. where the classified documents leaked by Daniel Ellsberg were being stored.

Yes, you heard it right. G. Gordon Liddy was convicted felon, Watergate conspirator, who plotted to kill another American and plotted to fire bomb a Washington, D. C. building. And, he advocated the use of violent force against the American government at the Waco Branch Davidian seige. There are other things about him as well. He is not a nice person to say the least!

And now the clincher. In 1998 G. Gordon Liddy hosted a fundraiser in his own home for the re-election campaign for ???? You got it! John McCain!!! (here's the source: Kamen, Al (March 9, 1998), "A Host With Conviction", The Washington Post: A17) And, over the years, he has referred to McCain as his "old friend" and has contributed thousands of dollars to McCain's campaigns, including at least $1000 in 2008.

So, if Barack Obama "pals around with terrorists" for his supposed association with a man who is a "domestic terrorist," what makes John McCain's association with G. Gordon Liddy any different?

(For a good source that pulls these facts together, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy#cite_note-5)

14 Comments:

Blogger jr said...

I didn't look at the wiki link, so this may be there, but if memory serves correctly, he actually never spoke a word in court. Nothing. I'd imagine he probably could have gotten a lighter sentence if he'd thrown Nixon under the bus. But that's off the top of my head...I can't remember the details.


Anyway, interesting comparative history involved there with Liddy and Colson with Nixon. They went radically different directions with their lives after prison. Anyway, saying Liddy was a firebrand is a gross understatement.

If I were a McCain supporter and/or donor, I'd probably be trying to defend McCain somehow (or be wringing my hands about how to defend him), but to go tit for tat, I'd say Liddy/Ayers is a push. (To be honest, Ayers was not the weakest link in the history of Obama's associations, but the GOP missed the opportunity to take advantage of those questions before the economy tanked.)

Maybe the New York Times or MSNBC can find some terrorists that Joe the Plumber was palling around with. We need to be sure he's vetted too.

11:45 PM

 
Blogger Chad Reed said...

let's also not forget his pal G. W. Bush, one of the greatest terrorists our fine country has ever known...

10:01 AM

 
Blogger jr said...

I think calling Bush a terrorist is a stretch and completely unfounded (unless you're predisposed to dislike him in the first place, in which case one might even believe he's the antichrist or some other nonsense). And the comparison between Liddy and Ayers works because they both conspired against American institutions.

10:21 AM

 
Blogger Chad Reed said...

Well going with a standard definition of terrorism as "the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims," I don't think its a stretch at all to consider him a terrorist. We are fighting the "war on terrorism" by invading other countries without their permission and killing thousands of innocent people...for our president's political aims.

But don't listen to me since I am in that 75%+ of Americans who don't approve of his presidency. Ask ANYONE from another country what they think of Bush. Ask a South African why they protest our Navy ships from docking on their shore, and why there is an Obama sticker in every store window. Ask any Canadian who they want to see elected south of the border and why. Ask anyone from another country what they think of Bush (and if he's a terrorist or not), and if they think that fundamental change in our approach to foreign policy is necessary.

10:54 AM

 
Blogger jr said...

I'll go with your definition. By that definition, Truman and Johnson are as big of terrorists as Bush.

If a pollster were to ask me if I approved or disapproved of Bush right now, I'd have to go with "disapprove," especially in relation to his second term. However, I'm not particularly interested in what South Africans think or the opinions of Canadians or what Western Europe wants. They weren't attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. As far as I know, with the exception of parts of Western Europe, aren't on the radar as high importance targets of terrorism. And if they want to have a vote for president then they should move here and become citizens.

We can't act in the best interests of the world until we act in our own best interest (see family systems stuff if you've taken that class). The bungling of CIA information and then Bush's handling of the war don't make him a terrorist anymore than Johnson was a terrorist for getting us into Vietnam or Truman into Korea.

It points to likely incompetence on Bush's part regarding foreign policy, most likely because of his lack of experience in that area (which sounds familiar).

11:14 AM

 
Blogger Chad Reed said...

Sure, but we've got a terrorist in the office now, and I know the issue in Iraq is complicated, but I'm not particularly interested in electing someone who will drag out the work he started. I trust Biden's experience with foreign relations over McCain's experience as a POW. If hurt and vengeance from 9/11 is still an issue that matters to people, why would they be more interested in having our troops stationed in Iraq than going after Bin Laden/Al Quaeda? (Don't answer that). Bush's interests haven't been our people's best interests.

And whether you are interested in what other countries think or not, don't you think it speaks volumes to know that the rest of the world cares about our politics as much or more than their own and that they hate our present leader with general consensus (and thus the Republican party and America right now)? Global perspective matters to me, and I feel that a McBush presidency could end up in a loss of allies.

11:38 AM

 
Blogger jr said...

Biden--voted against the first Gulf War (we see how that turned out); voted for the current war (and that's turned out splendidly); and, if memory serves correctly, he voted against the surge in Iraq that has begun to turn what was heading to be a quagmire into a situation where we're pulling out of places like Fallujah and turning more and more control over to Iraqis (which is that the Democrats wanted in the first place, right?) Biden may know a lot, but his application of that knowledge has obviously been incredibly suspect.

I would suspect that global interest in our election has a lot to do with the economic crisis as well as other factors, not just the war. We are the only superpower left. Those who hate us will want to watch in hopes that we make a wrong move here or a wrong decision there so they can find any weakness in us and take advantage. Our allies watch closely because as we go, so they go. Unfortunately, the rest of the world is often like that pushy mother that wants to know when you're getting married or loudmouthed uncle that wants to know when you're get a "real job" or that mooching brother-in-law that's always asking for money or a favor (especially the latter).

Anyway, if you're hellbent on using the term "terrorist" in connection with Bush, you going to have to either a) include Truman and Johnson in that list for invading countries that hadn't attacked us (both of which posed imminent threats considerably less than Iraq or Afghanistan), certainly FDR for the interment camps that Japanese Americans were forced into (in relation to our Patriot Act) and arguably Clinton for our involvement in the Balkans (although I don't know that the case is quite as strong there), or b) acknowledge that you're applying a double standard applying the moniker to Bush b/c he's a Republican and not to the others because they're Democrats. Ideology is fine until it begins to overrun the bounds of logic, which is where Islam extremists cease being Muslims and become extremists.

12:47 AM

 
Blogger Chad Reed said...

I don't think that I have to talk about Truman or Johnson at all in this conversation because they are dead, they don't pal around with Obama, and their presidency has no influence whatsoever on what Obama will do. That can't be said of McCain and Bush.

Also, I'm not buying the argument that if we have a more peaceful and respected leader in office that it is going to make us weaker and more vulnerable.

Who knows... Colin Powell sure didn't seem to think fundamental change would be a bad idea this morning on Meet The Press. While he said both Obama and McCain are qualified to be commander in chief, he said Obama is better suited to handle the nation’s economic problems as well as help improve its standing in the world.

The entire Meet The Press transcript can be read here:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/10/colin_powell_endorses_barack_o_1.html

5:01 PM

 
Blogger jr said...

I think you missed my point about Truman and Johnson. Either that or you avoided the issue altogether...either way, never mind on that one.

I never argued that "a more peaceful and respected leader in office" would make us "make us weaker and more vulnerable".

I don't mind disagreeing and discourse, but at least focus more on the words on the screen and less on assumptions about what I (or others as the case may be) think when we write.

In any case, Powell's words don't (or shouldn't) mean much regarding the economy, but Newt Gingrich was right when be basically said Powell's endorsement takes questions about Obama's experience off the table.

5:49 PM

 
Blogger Chad Reed said...

Regarding Truman and Johnson, I get it and I agree with what you said. I just don't their links to terrorism are relevant to the original topic of Dr. Jonas's post and/or the upcoming election. That's just history that works in Republican's favor in the grand tally of time.

Whether you meant it or not, I think your quote, "Those who hate us... and take advantage." implies the common Republican mentality that I mentioned earlier, but know that I respect your intellect and the great amount of political insight you possess due to your time invested in balanced research way too much to ever feel that you have any surface-level opinions like the average American voter.

10:52 PM

 
Blogger jr said...

It's cool...the only reason I say it is because, on another blog, a guy completely went off the deep end. He actually addressed his comment to me (and a previous post I'd made) and then went off on a tangent that made chicken scratches in dirt seem more intelligible. On the other hand, I did the same thing (only not nearly as egregious as that guy) on still a different blog I'd commented on.

Anyway, I don't think Truman and Johnson are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things, but you're right that they have little if anything to do with the current election. At the end of their terms, they stood in a similar position as Bush will stand in January...beyond that, only history will tell.

I see what you're saying. I'm not sure how you got that out of that quote, but I see what you're saying. I was speaking more to the fact that this election (and American news in general) is being followed closely across the world. I think there are many factors, but I was just summing them up. Allies will be sizing up where we stand no matter who wins, and our enemies will be doing the same...neither candidate can avoid that and either one will have to deal with threats in his own way.

Besides, you know I rarely imply "common Republican mentality." ;-) (Unless it just happens to coincide with a more libertarian position.)

11:35 PM

 
Blogger foxofbama said...

Two things
What are you fellows thinking about the UMC minister STeagald from Stanley North Carolina and his blog posted at ethicsdaily.com
Dr. Jonas:
What is the chance you and Charles Kimball and the Princeton proff Kathryn McCain could follow up on Snyder Memorial BC to see how this community of faith processed this election.
I think it would be fascinating study with specific reference to Bill Friday's 87 assertion to Cecil Sherman and Snyder's standing with CBF, not to mention the curious resignation of former pastor Marc Olson.
Great place to explore the differences of church staff, former pastor and their political calculus in this presidential election in light of
Race
Class
Military community.
Recent visit of Boykin and his associations with Bobby Welch
as well as Marc Olson's take on his former church in the aspect of their political dispositions and how they continue to do church with reference to Steagald's charge today at ethicsdaily.com

6:33 PM

 
Blogger foxofbama said...

Typo
Kathryn Lofton, not McCain.
Her take on the religion of John McCain--no typo this time--can easily be googled up at Religiion Dispatches.

6:34 PM

 
Blogger foxofbama said...

Dr. Jonas:
I think you will like the current issue of www.nybooks.com and the folks who have weighed in there on this election.
The legacy of George Truett as it played out in the church state writings of Hugo Black is under some revision and interpretation at baptistlife.com.
Hope you and Curtis Freeman will take a look.
Sfox

5:00 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home