Anyone know what it's like get yourself wrapped up in a debate with someone you know isn't going to listen? Well I got myself wrapped up in such a situation. On a message board no less. An ideologue on the right had offered up some justifications on Gordon Liddy when I raised it responding to a post on Ayers. And I got myself all wrapped up expending time and energy to write it up a response that will ultimately be a waste because I know the guy isn't going to change his positions for anything. So I post it here to try and maximize the value of the time already spent. Enjoy.
The "justify it to fit my political dogma" game can be played with Ayers too. I'll just offer some context. The Weather Underground's bombs were never intended to kill people. The only people the Weather Underground ever killed were themselves in bomb building accidents. Ayers was cleared because the government was engaged in an illegal domestic espionage program against the group. He re-established himself enough to be accepted into the Chicago community including many Republicans whose names you should know by now unless you are sticking you're head in the sand to avoid clearing Obama on this (like just about everyone still clinging to the issue).
Ayers did not make the "no regrets" comment ON 9/11/2001, like McCain and the spin puppets keep saying, to make it sound to everyone like he said it while watching the smoldering ruins. It is a deliberate attempt to muddy the context and mislead. The words were printed on 9/11 in the New York Times, meaning they were in print when the first plane hit. In other words, it was a terrible coincidence. The proper context of the comments were pre 9/11. He wrote this letter to the New York Times on 9/15/2001.
Is his position wrong? Of course, at least to the extent of using bombs or violence of any kind, whether they were intended to kill or not. But it is willfully ignorant to ignore that the acts were not intended to kill, just as it is to bring the actions into post 9/11 context, knowing just how much that day changed the public perception on terrorism.
Bill Ayers was a guy whose moral opposition to the war was so intense it drove him to do stupid, reckless, and immoral things. But he is not a demon and he is certainly no worse than Gordon Liddy. Both of those men had reestablished themselves in society. All kinds of people from different political persuasions and political influence accepted them back in. Frankly Gordon Liddy's connections to McCain are only relevant in regards to the insipid hypocrisy it exposes with regards to the Ayers attacks. That would be true without the fact that both McCain and Palin have other dubious connections that dwarf the significance of this Ayers thing even further. If you care to, google search "U.S. Council for World Freedom", "Shelley Shannon", "Alaskan Independence Party".
This attempt by the McCain campaign and their spin puppets to slap the label "terrorist" on Obama (you are lying to yourself if you don't believe that's exactly what they are trying to do)... it's not just absurd. It's dangerous. Who knows how many people out there think America is being taken over by a foreign, un-American, entity. How many morons out there are thinking Obama is some kind of sleeper cell agent?
All this incendiary rhetoric is going to do is make certain types of people on the right think they have a strong moral obligation to oppose an Obama presidency by any means necessary. You know, kind of like Bill Ayers in the 60's. Only more bloodthirsty and too stupid to get a job as a professor.
EDIT: I should say I agree Liddy is worse than Ayers. But sometimes you just pick your battles.