Blogs

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:

I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family....It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great.

By contrast, Obama has never said that he’s "proud" of Bill Ayers

What are Liddy’s crimes? Let’s go through the details. G. Gordon Liddy is a lunatic who grew up admiring Hitler. But what really matters are his crimes. Watergate alone should be a good enough reason for any presidential candidate to avoid any association with the man whose criminal activities helped to bring down Richard Nixon.

However, Liddy’s plotting of crimes went far beyond the Watergate break-in.

At the Committee to Re-Elect the President,

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.

Liddy has revealed that he was prepared to murder someone "if necessary" during the Ellsberg break-in. He also said that he "plotted with a  'gangland figure' to murder Howard Hunt to prevent him from cooperating with investigators."

Does John McCain support murdering people? How about kidnapping protesters? Firebombing liberal think tanks? Why is McCain defending this man?

Liddy also plotted the assassination of a journalist:
"In 1980, Liddy published an autobiography, titled Will, which sold more than a million copies and was made into a television movie. In it he states that he once made plans with Hunt to kill journalist Jack Anderson, based on a literal interpretation of a Nixon White House statement  we need to get rid of this Anderson guy."
"
Liddy has never expressed regret for this. In fact, in 2004, Liddy explicitly embraced the idea of murdering columnists: "If they were traitors as Jack Anderson was, directly helping the enemy, then yes."

So, does John McCain support the murder of journalists?

Liddy also openly violates gun laws. As an ex-felon, he’s banned from owning guns. In 1990, I heard him speak at the University of Illinois and brag about how his wife owned a large collection of guns which she conveniently keeps under his side of the bed. Later in the 1990s, "he mentioned labeling targets ‘Bill’ and ‘Hillary’ when he practiced shooting." Does McCain think that ex-felons like Liddy should have guns? Does he approve of Liddy naming his shooting targets after the President and First Lady?

And then there’s this well-known terrorism advocated by G. Gordon Liddy on his radio show:

August 26, 1994: "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....They've got a big target on there, ATF. Don't shoot at that, because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots.... Kill the sons of bitches."

September 15, 1994: "If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head."

Here’s how Liddy later explained himself: "The law is that if somebody is shooting at you, using deadly force, the mere fact that they are a law enforcement officer, if they are in the wrong, does not mean you are obliged to allow yourself to be killed so your kinfolk can have a wrongful death action. You are legally entitled to defend yourself and I was speaking of exactly those kind of situations. If you're going to do that, you should know that they're wearing body armor so you should use a head shot. Now all I'm doing is stating the law, but all the nuances in there got left out when the story got repeated."

Of course, that’s not true (you’re not legally entitled to kill law enforcement officers, even if they are in the wrong). But it’s also not what Liddy said. Remember: "if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms." Liddy was talking about ATF agents "bearing arms," not shooting at people. He was talking about ATF agents trying to "disarm" people, not kill them.

In 1998, Liddy hosted a fundraiser for McCain, and has given his campaigns $5,000, including $1,000 to McCain’s current presidential campaign.

By contrast, Ayers never hosted a fundraiser for Obama (it was a meet-and-greet in 1995), and at the time Obama didn’t know about Ayers’ past. Ayers gave Obama a small donation in 2000, but nothing recently.

John McCain not only knew about Liddy’s criminal past, he knew about Liddy’s 1994 comments urging listeners to shoot law enforcement agents in the head when he attended that 1998 fundraiser at Liddy’s home.

How do we know that McCain knew about Liddy’s comments? Because it was mentioned in a Washington Post story on May 18, 1995 which noted that Liddy had been "disinvited from a recent GOP fund-raiser because of his embarrassing exhortations to shoot pesky federal law enforcement officers." That same article discussed McCain joking around at an event with Liddy about his psychotic propensity to burn himself.

Is it really possible that McCain was unaware of the controversy about Liddy? Is it really possible that McCain didn’t hear anything about the national outrage over Liddy’s remarks? Is it really possible that McCain never heard about his own party banning Liddy from a fundraiser? Is it really possible that McCain didn’t read the Washington Post story mentioning his own name that directly addresses Liddy’s remarks? No, it’s not possible. And if McCain conveniently forgot that his buddy urged the murder of federal agents, what does that say about his judgment?

Let’s be clear-cut about this:

If you urge people to shoot federal agents in the head, you are encouraging terrorism.

If you plot the firebombing of a liberal organization, you are plotting terrorism.

If you plan the assassination of a journalist and thirty years later still embrace the idea, you are an unrepentant terrorist.

Do you disagree, John McCain?

You say, "Everything about any relationship that I’ve had I will make completely open and give a complete accounting of." So let’s hear it: do you think this is terrorism? And why are you "proud" of this unrepentant terrorist?

McCain claims, "I think not only a repudiation but an apology for ever having anything to do with an unrepentant terrorist is due the American people." We’re waiting for our apology, Senator McCain.

Crossposted at DailyKos.

In February 1988, the Washington Post reported that McCain personally (and "recently") gave the Contras $400.

No one can doubt that acts of terror were committed by the Contras. Human Rights Watch concluded in 1989, "the contras were major and systematic violators of the most basic standards of the laws of armed conflict, including by launching indiscriminate attacks on civilians, selectively murdering non-combatants, and mistreating prisoners." Human Rights Watch also criticized acts of terror by the Sandinista government, but called the Contras "a force that has shown itself incapable of operating without consistently committing gross abuses in violation of the laws of war."

Here are some eyewitness reports of the terrorism committed by the Contras:

They took out their knives and stuck them under his fingernails. After they took his fingernails off, then they broke his elbows. Afterwards they gouged out his eyes. Then they took their bayonets and made all sorts of slices in his skin all around his chest, arms, and legs. They then took his hair off and the skin of his scalp. When they saw there was nothing left to do with him, they threw gasoline on him and burned him. The next day they started the same thing with a 13 year old girl. They did more or less the same, but they did other things to her too. First, she was utilized, raped by all the officers. They stripped her and threw her in a small room, they went in one by one. Afterwards they took her out tied and blindfolded. Then they began the same mutilating, pulling her fingernails out and cutting off her fingers, breaking her arms, gouging out her eyes and all they did to the other fellow. They cut her legs and stuck an iron rod into her womb.

Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken and their testicles cut off and their eyes poked out. They were then killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit.

A congressional committee confirmed at the time that the Contras "raped, tortured and killed unarmed civilians, including children" and that "groups of civilians, including pregnant women and children were burned, dismembered, blinded and beheaded."

Harold Pinter recalled the testimony of Father John Metcalf:

I am in charge of a parish in the north of Nicaragua. My parishioners built a school, a health centre, a cultural centre. We have lived in peace. A few months ago a Contra force attacked the parish. They destroyed everything: the school, the health centre, the cultural centre. They raped nurses and teachers, slaughtered doctors, in the most brutal manner. They behaved like savages. Please demand that the US government withdraw its support from this shocking terrorist activity.

And no one can doubt that McCain knew about these acts of terror when he was publicly funding them. On February 10, 1987, the New York Times noted that a 170-page report by Americas Watch determined about the Contras, "They still engage in selective but systematic killing of persons they perceive as representing the Government, in indiscriminate attacks against civilians or in disregard for their safety, and in outrages against the personal dignity of prisoners. The contras also engage in widespread kidnapping of civilians, apparently for purposes of recruitment as well as intimidation." The report noted, "The escalating brutality of contra practices leads Americas Watch to conclude that disregard for the rights of civilians has become a de facto policy of the contra forces."

McCain also must have known that the Contras were engaged in drug smuggling while he was handing them money. On August 5, 1987, the CIA Central American Task Force chief testified before the Iran-Contra Committee about the Contra drug trafficking: "It is not a couple of people. It is a lot of people."(pdf, p. 38)

In addition to his personal support for the Contras, McCain has a supporter who is far more of a terrorist supporter than Bill Ayers. His name is Oliver North. Ayers was never convicted for any crime, and there's no evidence he ever killed anyone. North, by contrast, was convicted (he got away with it because his testimony to Congress provided him with immunity).

There can be no doubt about North's connection to terrorism. Under the direction of North, the US covertly sold $48 million in battlefield missiles and other weapons to Iran, even though Iran was classified by the US government as a sponsor of international terrorism. North then illegally used some of this money to help finance the Contras.

So what is the McCain campaign’s position toward this terrorist supporter? Have they denounced his views? No, McCain’s own campaign website promotes the endorsement of him by North. McCain also supported North's 1994 campaign for the US Senate in Virginia.

The Washington Post blog did ask the McCain campaign, "Is McCain pleased to receive North's endorsement, given the fact that the failed GOP senatorial candidate was convicted in 1989 of shredding documents, accepting an illegal gratuity and aiding and abetting in the obstruction of Congress?" The McCain campaign declined to criticize North or remove their link to his endorsement: "We'll let the comments in the release stand," wrote spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker in an e-mail.

Obviously, McCain has no regrets about supporting the Contras. McCain named Otto Reich as his adviser on Latin American issues, even though Reich was involved in the Iran-Contra scandal. In the mid-1980s, Reich ran the U.S. Office of Public Diplomacy and illegally coordinated with the CIA to run a "White Propaganda" campaign planting bogus op-eds written by his speechwriters in newspapers. In 1987, the Republican Comptroller-General formally found that Reich had broken the law. As ambassador to Venezuela, Reich arranged the release and asylum of Cuban-American terrorist Orlando Bosch, who had planted a bomb on a Cuban airliner in 1976, killing all 73 people on board.

McCain's connections to G. Gordon Liddy are even closer and more disturbing. Liddy, of course, is famous as an ex-felon convicted for his role as a mastermind in the Watergate break-ins and cover-up. Less well known is the fact that Liddy proposed to kidnap anti-war activists in 1972 and even plotted the murder of a newspaper columnist deemed unfriendly.

If his criminal activity that helped bring down a president weren't bad enough, Liddy actually advocated terrorist acts, too. In 1994, Liddy advised listeners to his radio show to kill federal law enforcement agents: "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."

Despite this public advocacy of terrorism, McCain appeared at Liddy's home for a fundraiser Liddy organized for him in 1998. Liddy has given McCain $5,000 during his various campaigns, including $1,000 in 2007. McCain has never refused the money. Less than a year ago, McCain appeared on Liddy's radio show (where Liddy greeted him as an "old friend") and McCain told Liddy, "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family. It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

No one imagines that John McCain's connections to terrorism should automatically disqualify him from the presidency or should even be a major factor in the election, when questions about the economy, health care, and foreign wars loom much more prominently.

But John McCain's character does matter. And unlike the attacks on Obama and Ayers, McCain's terrorist connections have an important policy dimension. No one imagines that Obama is going to implement a policy of covert symbolic bombings in America as Ayers did, and Obama has strongly condemned what Ayers did decades ago.

However, McCain has never condemned the Contras or Oliver North or G. Gordon Liddy, and that raises many policy questions. Would McCain ever allow a Watergate-style criminal ring in his White House? Would he ever sell weapons to a regime engaged in supporting terrorism? Would he illegally engage in covert propaganda aimed at Amricans? Would he ever try to secretly fund a guerrilla force committing acts of terror? Unlike the guilt-by-association smears against Obama, McCain's friendship with terrorists is more than just a character issue. McCain needs to answer these questions about critical errors of judgment committed by past Republican administrations, since his terrorist associations suggest that he might endorse these terrible mistakes and be prone to repeat them.

The questions about Obama and Ayers have been asked and answered and analyzed in depth many times before. But John McCain still hasn't answered any questions about his terrorist connections. And the media have almost entirely ignored all of McCain's friends who are "unrepentant terrorists."

Crossposted at DailyKos.

Yet a campaign of misinformation has greatly exaggerated Obama's alleged inexperience. Fred Thompson's Sept. 2 speech to the Republican National Convention proclaimed that Obama is "most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President." The next night, Rudy Giuliani repeated the accusation about Obama: "He is the least experienced candidate for president of the United States in at least the last 100 years." Giuliani and Thompson seem to be conveniently forgetting that George W. Bush in 2000 had served only six years as governor, far fewer years of experience as an elected public official than Obama's 12 years of experience (eight as state senator, four as US senator). Nor did they seem to care that McCain's Vice Presidential pick, Sarah Palin, has only two years of experience as governor of Alaska.

Obama's experience in state and national politics also exceeds that of Ronald Reagan (eight years as governor), Jimmy Carter (four years in state senate, four years as governor), Dwight Eisenhower (no political experience), and Harry Truman (10 years as US senator, one year as vice president). In fact, Obama's total political experience exceeds Thompson's eight lackluster years as a senator or Giuliani's two terms as mayor of New York City, which they felt made them qualified to be president.

I did a quick study of presidential experience (see the results here) and discovered that out of 42 presidents, only 20 had more experience as an elected public official than Obama does now. Only 22 presidents had more experience than Obama as an elected official in Washington, D.C. In terms of his experience, Obama would be a typical president. Yet you won't find anyone in the media reporting on the fact that Obama has more foreign policy experience than four out of the last five presidents.

However, even if Obama were inexperienced, that would be no reason to vote against him. History shows us that an experienced politician usually makes for a lousy president. In fact, the most consistent variable to predict a failed presidency is experience.

The Wall Street Journal and the right-wing Federalist Society in 2005 surveyed an "ideologically balanced" group of 130 prominent professors to rank the best and worst presidents. Out of the top 10 presidents, ranked as great and near great, only three had more experience as an elected political official (or more experience in Congress) than Obama does now. Out of the five worst presidents ranked as failures, all of them had more experience than Obama.

Of course, not every inexperienced president is a good one. George W. Bush is definitive proof of that. However, experience may also be part of the explanation for Bush's failures. Bush was so inexperienced, particularly on foreign affairs, that he turned to Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to make key decisions. Cheney and Rumsfeld are among the most experienced figures ever to hold their positions, and like the failed presidents of great experience before them, they came up with some of the most disastrous policies in recent memory.

Obama, who has far more experience on foreign affairs than Bush thanks to four years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and visits to 17 countries, is unlikely to be captive to the views of his running mate Joe Biden.

Why does experience harm presidential judgment? One reason is that experienced public officials tends to be set in their ways, and unwilling to challenge the status quo of which they are a part. Politicians with less experience are not tied to the political establishment and are more willing to implement change, which is an essential component of presidential greatness.

That certainly describes the 2008 election. Obama's depth and breadth of experience, both as an elected official and as a citizen committed to public service, far exceeds the norm for a president. It's time to stop talking about experience, and start talking about the issues that matter to the voters.

Crossposted at DailyKos and OpedNews.

According a New York Times report which named two sources, in 1995 Palin was on the city council of Wasilla and objected to the book "Daddy’s Roommate" being allowed in the town library. Laura Chase, who was Palin’s campaign manager in her 1996 run for mayor, suggested that Palin read the book. Chase says, "Sarah said she didn’t need to read that stuff. It was disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn’t even read it." Yet even after the New York Times revealed this fact, Palin continues to lie about it: "I certainly never advocated banning books. This was a ridiculous, false claim."

Once she was mayor, Palin expressed extraordinary interest in book censorship, speaking about it three times to the town librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, and asking what she would do if Palin wanted her to remove books.

The local newspaper, the Frontiersman, reportedin 1996, "Emmons said Palin asked her on Oct. 28 if she would object to censorship, even if people were circling the library in protest about a book." Emmons noted at the time, "She asked me if I would object to censorship, and I replied 'Yup'." Later that year, Palin again asked Emmons about book censorship.

Palin now claims she was asking a "rhetorical question": "When I became mayor in our town, it was the issue of: what if a parent came into our local public library and asked for a book to be taken off the shelf, what's the policy?" But back in 1996, Emmons explicitly contradicted that possibility: "This is different than a normal book-selection procedure or a book-challenge policy. She was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library."

A few months after her questions about book banning, Palin tried to fire Emmons. But Palin had to reverse course after a public outcry in support of Emmons. We will never know if Palin tried to fire a librarian who refused to censor books, or if Palin was simply firing a town employee who had not supported her campaign, and Palin has been kept from inquiring journalists who might ask her about this. Either answer should disturb anyone who thinks librarians are professionals who should not be subject to the whims of petty politicians.

Contrary to one false email circulating around the internet, Palin apparently never tried to ban any specific books as mayor. Perhaps the public's reaction to her effort to fire the town librarian prevented her from putting any further pressure to censor books. However, as former New York City mayor Ed Koch observed, "Any time someone goes to the library and says, 'I want to ban books,' and the librarian says 'no,' and she threatens to fire them -- that's scary."

Palin didn't learn much from the reaction to her attempts to fire the town librarian about respecting the professionals who educate the public. In a 2006 questionnaire from the Eagle Forum during her race for governor, Palin was asked: "Will you support the right of parents to opt out their children from curricula, books, classes, or surveys, which parents consider privacy-invading or offensive to their religion or conscience?"

Palin replied, "Yes. Parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught."

This response should frighten every teacher in the country, and every parent concerned about a quality education. Allowing parents to ban their children from reading certain books, or even from attending entire classes and subjects, is worrisome. Imagine if every creationist parent was allowed to ban the teaching of the facts of evolution to their children in science classes, as Palin urges. What would this mean? Would parents be able to ban their children from required sciences classes? Would parents be able to have teachers fired who dared to mention word "evolution" without first sending their children out of the classroom? What about parents who demand that history teachers never allow any criticism of America or Christianity in class? The result of Palin’s approach would be teachers afraid to allow anything controversial to be said in class. Yet Palin’s radical stand for total parent control over the content of public schooling has received zero attention.

During a 2006 gubernatorial debate, Palin was asked about teaching creationism or evolution, and she replied, "I am a proponent of teaching both." This kind of relativism, which asserts an equivalence between accurate science and religious myth, is contrary to the concept of a quality education.

Alaska's voluntary educational standards for science classes even in grades 3-5 expect that "students develop an understanding of how science explains changes in life forms over time, including genetics, heredity, the process of natural selection, and biological evolution  and that  the student demonstrates an understanding of the theories regarding the origin and evolution of the universe." But the Republican Party of Alaska's platform declares: "We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory."

As someone who might hold the highest office in the land, Palin needs to answer questions about her record of opposition to First Amendment freedoms. During the Bush Administration, the Union of Concerned Scientists found "a well established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees." A survey of 3,400 federal scientists found that 1,100 expressed fear of retaliation if they blow the whistle on politicized research. If Palin was willing to attack the freedom of ideas and the professional roles of librarians and teachers throughout her political career, how can we believe that she would restore  intellectual integrity to our government if she becomes president?

This year, Banned Books Week serves as a reminder that politicians like Sarah Palin still believe that censorship is popular. The American people today must follow the example of Wasilla residents who defended their town librarian from Palin a decade ago. We need to stand up and remind our public officials that protecting the First Amendment is one of their highest duties.

Crossposted at DailyKos.