• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Letterman brings up Liddy with McCain

chipmunk stew

Philosopher
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
7,448
From an advance preview of tonight's show:
Mr. Letterman also asked if Ms. Palin had said that Senator Barack Obama “pals around with terrorists.” Mr. McCain started to say he didn’t know, then said “Yes. And he did.”
Then Mr. Letterman raised Mr. McCain’s relationship with G. Gordon Liddy. “I’ve met him,” Mr. McCain said. After a segment break, he followed up: “I know Gordon Liddy. He paid his debt, he went to prison, he paid his debt.”
Will Liddy get as much attention from the media as Ayers?
 
So if Ayers went to jail, this wouldn't be an issue?

That's a silly dodge.

:jaw-dropp


If Ayers had gone to jail, and actually had asked for forgivness publically (or at least not publically stated the opposite), this actually would be a non issue.
 
If Ayers had gone to jail, and actually had asked for forgivness publically (or at least not publically stated the opposite), this actually would be a non issue.

Has Liddy repudiated his views or actions in any way?

Didn't think so.
 
:jaw-dropp


If Ayers had gone to jail, and actually had asked for forgivness publically (or at least not publically stated the opposite), this actually would be a non issue.

You are so full of crap. While I think it's possible to mount a significant defense in favor of Ayers' motives, Liddy is the type of person who revels in being a nasty, nasty thug.
 
You are so full of crap. While I think it's possible to mount a significant defense in favor of Ayers' motives, Liddy is the type of person who revels in being a nasty, nasty thug.


So Left Wing Terrorist are more noble then Right Wing Terrorist?

Nice going, guy.
 
So Left Wing Terrorist are more noble then Right Wing Terrorist?

Nice going, guy.

I'm not sure I would not even classify Liddy as a terrorist. Bracketing out false left-right distinctions, I do not think it's remotely controversial to observe that some forms of terrorism are more noble than others. Or do you not make a distinction between bombing empty federal buildings to frustrate an immoral (one that claimed the lives of millions of Vietnamese) versus bombing a federal building in retaliation for Waco? If we're talking about burglaries, then I think it's obviously true the Camden 28 acted more nobly than Nixon's "plumbers." This is not to suggest you're even interested in, let alone capable of, actually thinking through these matters. Instead you want to patrol debate as usual. I think it was yesterday I had my Dudalb eye-rolling moment when you rebuked someone for "crossing the line."

Since we are talking about personal associations, I said Ayers seems like a more well-meaning than person than Liddy. From the latter's Wikipedia page:

At CRP, Liddy concocted several plots, some far-fetched, intended to embarrass the Democratic opposition. These included firebombing the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. (where classified documents leaked by Daniel Ellsberg were being stored), kidnapping anti-war protest organizers and transporting them to Mexico during the Republican National Convention (which at the time was planned for San Diego), and luring mid-level Democratic campaign officials to a house boat in Baltimore where they would be secretly photographed in compromising positions with call girls. Most of Liddy's ideas were rejected, but a few were given the go ahead by Nixon Administration officials, including the break-in at Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. Ellsberg had leaked the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times.[4] At some point, Liddy was instructed to break into the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate Hotel.

It also mentions guest appearances:
Liddy remained in the public eye with two guest appearances on the 1984-89 television series Miami Vice, playing the role of "Capt. Real Estate," a character loosely based on himself.

I vaguely recall catching this episode in a re-run a couple years ago. Liddy plays this demented soldier frothing over Nicaraguan ears looped on a cord. Like I said, he revels in being a nasty person.

We live in a demented world with ****ed up values, one where a brouhaha is made over a tenuous association with Bill Ayers while politicians BRAG about receiving foreign policy advice from Nobel Peace Prize winner Henry Kissinger.
 
:jaw-dropp


If Ayers had gone to jail, and actually had asked for forgivness publically (or at least not publically stated the opposite), this actually would be a non issue.

Maybe a better criticism of the Ayers/Liddy comparison is that Liddy did not commit a violent act. Ayers did. So even if Liddy hasn't apologized, he didn't blow anything up to apologize for and Ayers did.

This is not to say that in anyway the Ayers nonsense is remotely relevant to the issue of whether Obama will be a good president but it does seem like the Ayers/Liddy comparison isn't perfect.

And as an aside Ayers has essentially apologized. Not surprisingly people have worked and reworked his words into what fits their agenda and exactly what the situation with respect to how Ayers feels about what he did is difficult to know for sure. And of course it goes without saying whether Ayers is remorseful or not is not remotely relevant to whether Obama will be a good president.

THe Ayers thing, of course, is a made up issue for political purposes. The people that are pushing it don't have the slightest interest in what actually happened. They are just looking for anything that can be used as a means to damage Obama's image. That this is the best that they could come up with is strong evidence that Obama must be pretty clean or the dirt on him is really hard to find.

ETA:
If we're going down this guilt by association path does Sarah Palin's relationship with her husband count? Was he a member of the Alaskan Independence Party? Was that party founded by a guy who said:
The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home
 
Last edited:
This is not to say that in anyway the Ayers nonsense is remotely relevant to the issue of whether Obama will be a good president but it does seem like the Ayers/Liddy comparison isn't perfect.
I couldn't have said it better.

Ayers is a non-issue but it's use cynically for political purposes. I don't like it.
 
...

We live in a demented world with ****ed up values, one where a brouhaha is made over a tenuous association with Bill Ayers while politicians BRAG about receiving foreign policy advice from Nobel Peace Prize winner Henry Kissinger.

Are you referring to the Henry Kissinger that admitted that he and Nixon prolonged the Vietnamese war for political purposes?
 
Are you referring to the Henry Kissinger that admitted that he and Nixon prolonged the Vietnamese war for political purposes?
I don't think we've come to terms fully with Vietnam. JFK bears some responsibility. It would have been Truman's legacy if he hadn't gotten sick of the chanting, "hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today".

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

We gotta stop believing that evil resides in a party and if we could only elect people from the right party.
 
I don't think we've come to terms fully with Vietnam. JFK bears some responsibility. It would have been Truman's legacy if he hadn't gotten sick of the chanting, "hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today".

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

We gotta stop believing that evil resides in a party and if we could only elect people from the right party.

My post referred to what I believe his Kissinger's admission that he and Nixon decided to not end the war in 1972 because they felt that the ending it then on the terms available would not be politically popular and it might cost them the election. I am fairly sure that something like that came out a year or so ago but I couldn't find it right away.

I did find this from a book by Christopher Hitchens on Kissinger:

Here is the secret in plain words. In the fall of 1968, Richard Nixon and some of his emissaries and underlings set out to sabotage the Paris peace negotiations on Vietnam. The means they chose were simple: they privately assured the South Vietnamese military rulers that an incoming Republican regime would offer them a better deal than would a Democratic one. In this way, they undercut both the talks themselves and the electoral strategy of Vice President Hubert Humphrey. The tactic "worked," in that the South Vietnamese junta withdrew from the talks on the eve of the election, thereby destroying the peace initiative on which the Democrats had based their campaign. In another way, it did not "work," because four years later the Nixon Administration tried to conclude the war on the same terms that had been on offer in Paris. The reason for the dead silence that still surrounds the question is that in those intervening years some 20,000 Americans and an uncalculated number of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians lost their lives. Lost them, that is to say, even more pointlessly than had those slain up to that point. The impact of those four years on Indochinese society, and on American democracy, is beyond computation. The chief beneficiary of the covert action, and of the subsequent slaughter, was Henry Kissinger.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/CaseAgainst1_Hitchens.html

I agree it is hard to sort out the right and wrong of the Vietnam war. People that write about it often have deeply ingrained biases, but Kissinger doesn't seem to look that good no matter who is doing the looking.
 
Last edited:
My post referred to what I believe his Kissinger's admission that he and Nixon decided to not end the war in 1972 because they felt that the ending it their on the terms available would not be politically popular and it might cost them the election. I am fairly sure that something like that came out a year or so ago but I couldn't find it right away.

I did find this from a book by Christopher Hitchens on Kissinger:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Kissinger/CaseAgainst1_Hitchens.html

I agree it is hard to sort out the right and wrong of the Vietnam war. People that write about it often have deeply ingrained biases, but Kissinger doesn't seem to look that good no matter who is doing the looking.
My point is a bit of a Tu Quoque as it relates specifically to your point and I apologize about that. Many of the actions of Nixon and Kissinger are inexcusable. I grew up with folks saying that Nixon didn't do anything that others didn't do, he just got caught. That's BS and yet here I am seemingly doing the same thing. That wasn't my intention, consciously at least. It does bother me however that Vietnam has become an icon of Republican sins.

I've read and heard much of what Hitchens has said of Kissinger and I'm inclined to agree. I had planed on purchasing the book.

ETA: Wasn't the point of the point of the Pentagon Papers is that they revealed that the administration knew that war was a bust but Nixon didn't want to be the first president in American history to lose a war?

Good movie BTW.
 
Last edited:
BS. Ayers would be an issue now even if he had served 30 years in slam. And the reason he would be an issue is that the Repubs DESPERATELY need a "Gotcha" to use as a wedge between Obama and older voters who still remember those days.

As a result, McCain has to LIE to make the connection between Obama and Ayers strong enough to look significant.

Like when he said that Obama's political career happened in Ayers' Living Room, when the truth of the matter is that it happened in the home of a Rabbi. (Magz, you stay out of this one.) McCain was telling the American People a bald-faced lie right there and he KNEW that.

No, sitting on a board of a foundation is not "paling around" at all. How many of you here have sat on boards? I have. Hell, I didn't even LIKE most of the people on that board, but was there to do a job. You don't have a lot of choice on who else is on that board, because it is not a social circle. In other words, this whole allegation is a lie.

Its like saying that you once worked as a carpenter on a building where John Gacy was the plumber, and therefor you socialize with perverted killers.
 
BS. Ayers would be an issue now even if he had served 30 years in slam. And the reason he would be an issue is that the Repubs DESPERATELY need a "Gotcha" to use as a wedge between Obama and older voters who still remember those days.

As a result, McCain has to LIE to make the connection between Obama and Ayers strong enough to look significant.

Like when he said that Obama's political career happened in Ayers' Living Room, when the truth of the matter is that it happened in the home of a Rabbi. (Magz, you stay out of this one.) McCain was telling the American People a bald-faced lie right there and he KNEW that.

No, sitting on a board of a foundation is not "paling around" at all. How many of you here have sat on boards? I have. Hell, I didn't even LIKE most of the people on that board, but was there to do a job. You don't have a lot of choice on who else is on that board, because it is not a social circle. In other words, this whole allegation is a lie.

Its like saying that you once worked as a carpenter on a building where John Gacy was the plumber, and therefor you socialize with perverted killers.
I agree. I said it was a legitimate political point and it really isn't. There's nothing there.

The Liddy analogy is still weak however.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom