Posted October 13, 2008 | 02:19 PM (EST) Does John McCain "pal around with terrorists?"

Certainly McCain's continuing "association" and relationship with the convicted Watergate burglar and domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy might suggest that is the case, if we are to apply the standards drawn by the McCain campaign.

In 1998, Liddy gave a fundraiser in his Scottsdale, Arizona home for McCain's senatorial re-election campaign -- the two posed for photographs together; and as recently as May, 2007, as a presidential candidate, McCain was a guest on Liddy's syndicated radio show. Inexplicably, McCain heaped praise on his host's values. During the segment, McCain said he was "proud" of Liddy, and praised Liddy's "adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great." From the program:

LIDDY: Your experience in the Hanoi Hilton is remarkable. I mean, I put in five years in a prison [for masterminding the Watergate burglary, and associated crimes], but it was here in the United States, and they didn't torture - the only torture that I had was being forced to listen to rap music from time to time.
McCAIN: Well, you know, I'm proud of you. I'm proud of your family. I'm proud to know your son, Tom, who's a great and wonderful guy. And 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.


Which of Liddy's "principles and philosophies" was McCain referring to? Liddy's advocacy of break-ins? Firebombings? Assassinations? Kidnappings? Taking target practice with figures nicknamed Bill and Hillary?

During the same period that Bill Ayers was a member of the Weather Underground, Gordon Liddy was making plans to firebomb a Washington think tank, assassinate a prominent journalist, undertake the Watergate burglary, break into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, and kidnap anti-war protesters at the 1972 Republican convention.

Re: Liddy's "continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great:" Did McCain mean to include Liddy's instructions to listeners of his radio show in 1994 (around the time Ayres and Obama were on a board together discussing education programs and other plots) on how to shoot Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms agents (aim for the head)?

If ATF agents attempt to curtail a citizen's gun ownership, Liddy counseled, "Well, 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."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-bernstein/ayers-and-the-mccain-g-go_b_134256.html

More at this site. More stones thrown when McCain lives in a glass house?

No comments here either HUH?

It just doesn't look like your going to get the attention your seeking here.

she got yours

I like her, that's why!

How sweet I think you are telling a bit of a fib here but I'll be gracious and say thank you.

I wasn't looking for attention. I was looking for points of view on it.

I don't dislike everyone I disagree with believe it or not!

Winx, for example, I disagree with here often, but she happens to be a very fine lady.

I believe most people are good, reguardless their political view. I just like to talk crap is all.

Take care.

Thomas

Okay, I will take the doubt out of the picture and say with a blush thank you

All that and likely more is true I am sure when it comes to Liddy.

He obviously made not just one but many decisions to act illegally,to commit crimes, to circumvent the law and to engage in conspiracies to commit and conceal the crimes.

Liddy is another rat bastard but one I have some degree of grudging respect for because he didn't look for an easy way out. Once caught he did his time. He didn't fall to his knees, attempt to justify his behavior (he has since) or ask for clemency. (He may have since)

Liddy is a unique sort of criminal bastard.

Is he as bad as Ayers...yeah maybe...

Still....

If all you right wing nut jobs are going to talk about domestic terrorism can you tell me why you aren't talking about Eric Rudolph or the other real domestic terrorists?

Let's just look at McCain's support of domestic terrorists.

Keep this in mind: excerpted from
Unequal Justice: Arabs in America and United States Antiterrorism Legislation, 69 Fordham L. Rev. 2825, 2853-2860 (May 2001)

Now I know you are all going to say what about 9/11? Let this info sink in please and realize how you are being played. Data is slow to be compiled from government sources.

FBI statistics indicate that most acts of domestic terrorism are not committed by Muslim or Arab groups. Indeed, from 1984 to 1998, 95 percent of the terrorist incidents in the United States were attributed to domestic groups. In the three years after the Oklahoma City bombing, 1996 to 1998, almost 70 percent of all potential terrorist events were attributed to domestic sources, and the figure climbs to 96 percent if we discount one series of intercepted letter bombs in 1997. More specifically, in 1993, for example, there were two bombings by an extreme right-wing group in Tacoma, Washington, and nine fire bombings by an animal rights group, the Animal Liberation Front, in Chicago, Illinois. In 1994, there were no incidents of terrorism at all. Indeed, when AEDPA was passed in 1996, the looming threat was extreme right-wing domestic groups, particularly militias.

From http://www.jedreport.com/2008/05/why-did-mccain.html

John McCain really wants to make being terrorist sympathizer a central plank of his campaign, it's about time he explained why he sided with pro-life extremists and opposed essential new legislation to protect women's reproductive health clinics across the nation from a wave of domestic terrorism.

In the early 1990s, patients, doctors, and staff at these clinics were the targets of physical intimidation, including bombings and murder. After the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal government could not use civil rights laws to go after the domestic terrorists, Congress passed legislation to give the Federal government the power to protect women, their doctors, and clinic staff.

The legislation, which was signed into law in 1994, was important because the campaign of violence against the women's health clinics crossed state lines -- and it worked. Violence fell dramatically after President Clinton signed it into law.

Extraordinarily, however, John McCain opposed the law, voting against it not once but twice, each time joining a small band of thirty extremist pro-life Senators.

Here's how the New York Times described the law:

Senate Passes Abortion-Clinic Crime Bill
By ADAM CLYMER

The Senate voted overwhelmingly today for a Federal law to prohibit bombings, arson and blockades at abortion clinics, and shootings and threats of violence against doctors and nurses who perform abortions..

The vote was 69 to 30. Twenty-eight senators who voted against Federal financing of abortions six weeks ago supported the measure, seeing it as a law-and-order matter rather than as an abortion issue.

So John McCain was one of a tiny minority of radical anti-choice Senators to oppose this new law, and he did so not just once, but twice.

If John McCain is going to raise questions about Barack Obama's acquaintances, no matter how flimsy they may be, isn't it fair to ask him why he sided with pro-life extremists in opposition to tough new anti-terrorism legislation?

Aside from being entirely relevant on a substantive level, forcing McCain to confront his record on domestic anti-choice terrorism will help better inform independent voters about his strident opposition to reproductive freedom.

McCain has developed a moderate image on reproductive freedom, largely because of his battles with the National Right to Life Committee. The thing that many people don't realize is that NRLC's dispute with McCain has nothing to do with his views on choice -- their dispute was over McCain-Feingold and campaign finance reform. Here's the conservative publication The Weekly Standard:

Arizona senator John McCain, currently a bit behind Rudy Giuliani as Republicans' favorite presidential choice for 2008, is far and away the most consistently anti-abortion of all the top contenders. During his 20 years in the Senate (plus four in the House), he has never failed to cast his vote in favor of whatever abortion restrictions are arguably permitted under Roe v. Wade: bans against partial-birth abortion, abortions on military bases, transporting minors across state lines to obtain abortions behind their parents' backs, and government funding for abortion both in the United States and abroad (all but the transporting-minors bill have become federal law). In addition, McCain has voted to confirm every "strict constructionist" judge (that is, disinclined to find, à la Roe, a right to abortion and related activities enshrined in the Constitution) appointed by the various Republican presidents who have served during his tenure, including Robert Bork for the Supreme Court. In February McCain declared that Roe v. Wade ought to be overturned, and he was one of 35 senators who signed an open letter to President Bush earlier this year pledging their support for any veto by Bush of efforts by the Democratic-controlled Congress to change federal law on abortion. Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America, the leading abortion-rights advocacy groups, detest McCain and consistently award him ratings of absolute zero on their scorecards.

Nonetheless, McCain has a major problem with the nation's largest and most influential anti-abortion advocacy organization, the National Right to Life Committee. And the source of that problem is . . . not abortion at all. It's the McCain-Feingold Act, that set of restrictions on political advertising during election seasons that McCain (along with a number of Democrats) started pushing in 1995 and succeeded in enacting into federal law in 2002.

I don't give a rats behind if you believe abortion is an immoral act. It is the law and those who act in contradiction to the law, who commit acts of domestic terrorism and who take lives in the pursuit of a political goal are terrorists.

So, let's talk about who pals around with and supports terrorists.

Wow. I just ran into this by accident. Thanks, Thomas. That's a very nice thing to say.

I think we both want what is best for our country but we have different ideas as how to go about it.