Will ~ G. Gordon Liddy ~ 2/04 Export

Will
~ by G. Gordon Liddy ~

“I'm often asked if I have ever reflected upon my life to date and, if so, what, if anything, it has taught me. The answer is that I most certainly have and what I have learned would require another book. But that is not the object of the exercise here. Suffice it to say for the moment that life is a series of hands dealt us by God, the Devil, and ourselves. God plays it straight and invites us to do the same. The Devil deals marked cards, cheats, and invites us to play it his way. The game is called ’Choices’ and you must play. The game is over when God says it is and you die. He decides whether you win or lose.” - G. Gordon Liddy

Discussion Schedule

Feb. 1-7: Chapters I - X
Feb. 8-14: Chapters XI - XVI
Feb. 15-21: Chapters XVII - XX
Feb. 22-29: Chapters XXI - End of book

Questions of the Day

24. What, in your opinion, was Liddy's motivation to write this book? Was it merely money or was more involved?

25. Did you enjoy reading this book? Would you recommend it to others?

LINKS
The Liddyletter || An interview with Richard Poe, author of the Seven Myths of Gun Control || Liddy in Israel || Petition to the President for a Pardon

Discussion Leader: ELLA

B&N Bookstore | Books Main Page | Suggest a Book for Discussion
We sometimes excerpt quotes from discussions to display on pages on SeniorNet's site or in print documents.
If you do NOT wish your words quoted, please email books@seniornet.org

WHETHER OR NOT YOU ADMIRE OR HATE G. GORDON LIDDY, YOU WON'T FORGET HIM! I NEVER HAVE SINCE READING THIS BOOK, HE'S A FASCINATING CHARACTER.

Intelligent and keen, he has worn many hats in his lifetime including being a prosecutor and defense lawyer admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States; an Army artillery officer, the youngest Bureau Supervisor in the FBI and the author of three best-sellers. Currently, he has a radio talk show and, according to the Wall Street Journal, is one of the most sought after speakers.

Of course, we all know of his time spent in a maximum security prison.

Do join us in this book and let us judge together if this man has integrity or is just a fast talker.

Hi Everyone,

This is a great book. It is hard to know whether Liddy is a hero or a villian, but he is definitely INTERESTING!!!! I also think this is so much more interesting to read now than when it first came out because so much more is known about what was going on behind the scenes in the Nixon White House.

I sure hope other people will be interested in this book too. Best, Ann

WONDERFUL, ANN, GOOD TO SEE YOU IN OUR BOOK DISCUSSIONS!

We talked about this book when we met in Washington, D.C. and neither of us have forgotten it - there is something about this fellow that one cannot forget!

I hope others will join us in attempting to discover what that "something" is; whether we do or not it'll be fun!

JOIN IN!

Why Ann Wrixon!! Welcome!! Welcome as "yourself" to our Books!! hahaha So glad to see you here, after all you've done for us in the past, it seems a perfect omen on this first day of 2004 to see you among us again! We hope you'll cement yourself here permanently, as the plaque on my Mother in Law's wall reads, "sit deep and come often, you're one of the folks!"

Welcome!

ginny

Hey, Ann

Good to see you here and hope you will join us for other discussions as well. We have a plethora of choices in B&L. So, come on down!!

Welcome Ann, Long time No see. Good to have You here.

Welcome in our circle of B&L friends and discussions !

I'd love to join you in this book. I read it many years ago and remember Liddy as a complex and controversial kind of guy. I look forward to reading WILL again in this discussion.

Welcome, Ann Wrixon...what fun to read this book together!

Harriet

Hello, Ann Wrixon!

Welcome, welcome! Yes, this is a tricky subject, isn't it? Like you said, love him or hate his guts, Liddy is still one of the most interesting characters of our times. This should be a good read.

Lorrie

What a wonderful response to our newest participant in the BOOKS & LITERATURE SECTION OF SENIORNET!

You see, Ann, how very welcome you are to all of us - we love readers, new readers, young readers, working readers!! We come in all sizes, shapes and ages and we have books in common!

A BIG THANK YOU TO GINNY, ANN, GINGER, TRAUDE, LORRIE and a special BIG THANK YOU AND WELCOME TO HARRIET - WHO WILL BE JOINING US IN THIS DISCUSSION.

Reading a book twice always gives new insights to a person's character and you find reasons why a person becomes one that is unforgettable. At least, I am finding many facets of Liddy's personality that I had either forgotten, or overlooked.

This book is well worth a second read to discover hidden facts and meanings!

Hope others join us as well!

A week ago, when it was posted, this seemed like a strange selection for a book discussion. As interesting as it all was thirty years ago, it seemed enough to take the word of knowledgable writers about Watergate, as, for example, Theodore H White, that Gordon Liddy was 'pugnacious, violent, erratic, a nut', 'flamboyant', 'a difficult neigbor', a 'hothead', a thoroughly dangerous man', etc. Who would care to read a 'Life' of such a character?

Would you believe a someone at first taken with, and then on better acquaintance, disenchanted with Mahatma Gandhi and his peaceful methods. And then catching a guy like Gordon Liddy on the rebound, armed to the teeth and ready to do battle. I got a hold of the book. Now it has taken a hold of me and I can't put it down.

Jonathan

WELCOME JONATHAN!

We are somewhat alike, although you write more poetically than myself who just rambles on. We both had the same opinion about Gandhi so I'm happy that you will be joining us in February.

Have you the book? Or is it a Library book? I do hope you will have it in hand when we start discussing it, but perhaps your memory is better than my own and you can remember incidents better.

This Liddy is one strange fellow and I think, possibly, Gandhi, a strange fellow himself, may have had a couple of things in common with him. They were both ambitious, small men, and both fathers. Liddy talks a lot about his children, has pictures of them in the book, but Gandhi rarely mentioned his children as if they were an afterthought. Actually, did he mention them at all?

Oh, well, JONATHAN, we are so happy to have you in our midst and we'll move this discussion up to COMING EVENTS now as we have our quorum.

THIS IS GOING TO BE GREAT FUN and controversial, just as is Liddy!!! I'm looking forward to it.

Ella

How very interesting that you should point out a few things that Liddy and Gandhi had in common. That's a tantalizing suggestion, and I believe you're on to something with that suggestive comparison. Let me add to what you have said that both were lawyers; but, more importantly, both were determined men of action. Both took the law into their own hands to serve their imaginary ends.

Strange, that in the make-up of both was the need to overcome fear. But then a sudden divergence. Liddy's final, ultimate hurdle on that score was to overcome the fear of God. While Gandhi's greatest desire was to see God face to face!!!

Imagine having a memo land on one's desk, informing one that the President would like some advice on what to do about J Edgar Hoover!!! Advice from someone who had seen HIM face to face.

This book definitely puts the fun back into reading. All these exclamation marks in the margin...I really must go out and acqire my own copy...clandestinely, if necessary...see you all in February...if I can pull it off.

Aren't we being daring, comparing Gandhi and Liddy, and those two examples you gave were remarkable and, of course, true. Yes, both lawyers, I hadn't thought of that, both highly intelligent, and successful after a few years of searching for their brass ring; one rejecting God and the other attempting to find him.

Did Gandhi ever feel he had found God after all his suffering?

That is something else the two had in common - suffering, both men doing it deliberately.

I've bought books online - good used ones (they look new to me) at www.powells.com. Try there to get a copy relatively cheap. I just bought from there a biography of "Max Perkins, Editor of Genius," by A. Scott Berg, who won a National Book Award for it the year it came out. He's a good biographer.

First, Thank you everyone for the very VERY warm welcome. I can hardly believe it, but I am deeply appreciative.I can hardly believe I get to be part of this wonderful community. As much as I loved my job at SeniorNet it is way more fun to be a member and be able to participate in the book clubs.

And the discussion between Jonathan and Ella about Liddy and Gandhi. I am SO fascinated. Please tell me more about becoming disillusioned with Gandhi. I am a lifelong pacifist so needless to say I have always tended to idolize him. But there have also always been aspects of his life that have really bothered me, such as his obsession with "sleeping" with young women as a way to test his celibacy--also always wondered how his wife felt about this vow. Just seemed strange for a married man to take such a vow.

I hope I am not going off on some wild tangent here, but the topic of Gandhi and Liddy is so fascinating and I seem to have missed the earlier discussion about Gandhi so I would love to hear about the change or heart regarding him.

HELLO ANN We're so happy to have you here! Jonathan and I were both in the discussion of Gandhi's autobiography which we discssed in November (I think it was); a fascinating look in the heart of Gandhi and we followed that with FREEDOM AT MIDNIGHT which book explored in depth the period of the independence of India.

I cannot speak for Jonathan - he does that so very well himself - but I was being lighthearted in suggesting the two men were similar; their dissimilarities far outweigh the former. Gandhi will always remain a figure of historical importance to the world - the leader of passive resistance which has been demonstrated so many times in our country's most recent history.

I have an idea if I put his name in a search engine, either in my library, or on the Internet I would find so many books and articles about the man that it would take lifetimes to learn all one would like to, of course, about his influence in the world.

However, I was "disenchanted" to use Jonathan's apt expression, by his own words, his fixation with his bodily funtions, his very strange ideas about diets, medicinal cures, his scorn of modern medicine, and his diaper-like garment (there's a better word for it but I can never remember it). He must have known he would stand out in a crowd dressed or undressed, however you look it; and I think he wanted or craved this attention. He even went to Great Britain dressed in this garment which, of course, attracted the media and the public; he called it humility, I call it "showing off."

And all his years of starving himself in an attempt to bring about the independence of India was for naught; it mattered little in the actuality of the act. Great Britain, after WWII, was shattered economically and could no longer afford the governance of India and hastened to put an end to it - too quick in many an opinion. It all ended in terrible bloodshed as India was partitioned according to religious sects. It broke the heart of Gandhi who wanted peace above all.

Of course, there are few who agree with me in my assessment of Gandhi, but that is the fun of book discussions! We are all varied in our viewpoints and we have the freedom here to express ourselves without undue criticism. Wonderful!

As for Liddy, his values, his motives, they are expressed in his book and I think we will find a great diversity of opinion! Won't it be fun!

Thanks for your post, Ann! Looking forward to the discussion.

We couldn't be more timely! Here we have a book about dirty tricks in the Nixon Administration; the ones who got caught, those that didn't, and a very frank and honest admission of guilt on the part of G. Gordon Liddy.

It's "DIRTY TRICKS" time again and the ball keeps rolling on and on..... Last night I saw my first negative ad against Bush - Online Democratic site. Our newspapers and TV are rife with accusations. And it will continue until the election of our next president.

This is nothing new, it has been going on since we became a democracy - we are not proposing to turn this into a political discussion in any way, but the fact remains that our author was engaged in politics in a big way, was ordered by the president's staff to perform the dirty tricks, paid for by the president's staff, and the book reads like an exciting novel; even though it is all true.

No one party will ever again adopt the name of "The Committee to Re-elect the President," but they are engaged in the same practices.

I have the paperback edition of the book and plan to participate. Hopefully we can confine the discussions to the 1974 - 75 political event and keep 2004 politics out of it.

The book was cheap enough, just $6.99 per the B&N sales price less $0.70 Reader's Choice discount. See you Feb 1st.

THAT'S GREAT, HAROLD!! LOOKING FORWARD TO OUR DISCUSSION!

Yes, we will keep politics out of this - that was my fault for making that comment, should not have done it!

I cannot make up my mind about Liddy, he confuses me as he did when I first read the book in the '80's. He wrote an updated 1996 Epilogue in this book - is it in your book, Harold?

Yes Ella the 1996 Postscript is in my edition of the book. I too find Liddy a difficult character to understand. On the one hand he disgusts me, but on the other I have to admit there is something about him that I admire too.

The radio political talk show hosts, be they right or left wing, generally turn me off (or rather I turn them off). Russ Limbaugh in particular is a good example. Yet I remember the Liddy show in the late 80's early 90's as one I could tolerate. In particular I remember listening to him in my car returning home from Seguin when the news broke about the Somali downed helicopter and its dead marines. I thought he handled that story very well and that show sticks prominently in my memory to this day.

Well, it is not time to pursue this thread further now. Like I said in my earlier message, I’ll see you on the opening date, Feb 1st.

I've never listened to his radio show, Harold, but do not like political talk shows either - especially Rush Limbaugh - OH, HEAVENS!

We'll have a lot to discuss here! Your statement - "On the one hand he disgusts me, but on the other I have to admit there is something about him that I admire too."

Yes, Yes, that is exactly my feelings about the fellow, I certainly would like to meet his wife who has been very faithful and loving toward him and his children also!! He's so proud of them and well he should be!

I think the Ghost of Gandhi is going to get you all, Gandhi and Liddy in the same breath, indeed, diapers, honestly, Ella!

hahaha

I see that the Most Admired Woman in America made a slight faux pas the other day by saying that Mahatma Gandhi ran a gas station somewhere in San Diego or something ...er...not too bright....poor guy.

I came IN here to say, Jonathan, you had asked about the translation of arma virumque cano and Pamela has yet another take on it, in the way George Bernard Shaw used it, in the Latin Book Club if you'd like to see it, does that definition fit more in the context that G Gordon Liddy might have meant? Does it add to or detract from the way in which he used it?

Looks like a powerful discussion from the remarks, so far!

ginny

Thanks, Ginny, for those remarks and I went to the Latin Club (I like that title also) to read what Jonathan was inquiring about - the translations were very interesting.

I'm not sure just where in the book Liddy quotes Virgil - we'll just have to wait until we begin to discuss the book and then Jonathan can explain what Liddy meant - just off the cuff, so to speak, he certainly believed in arms, the use of arms, and seemed to glory in confrontations when he thought it necessary; he never shirked an occasion to fight.

We're not going to mention the "singing" part, hahahhahahaaa - particularly "Die Fahne hock" until we can describe the circumstances surrounding it.

but I just can't help liking the guy. If for no other reason than that he fathered five such healthy, handsome children. Who wouldn't be immensely proud of such beautiful offspring. There's a great photograph of them in the 1997 edition of WILL. Along with a number of other flattering pics, including one of a smart-looking young Gordon Liddy in military uniform, at the age of 22.

And just when the reader of the book finally concludes that there is nothing left about Liddy in the story of himself that will surprise him, the reader learns that Liddy wrote an article for HARPERS magazine in 1974, which included some thoughts on the raising of children!

Given that his autobiography is one long cautionary tale, it follows that he should have a lot of interesting things to say on the subject. To look at them I can't help feeling that Ray, Tom, Jim, Grace and Sandy must be very proud of dear old Dad. And delighted to pose, so as to be part of the book.

And I just love the robust humor in this strange tale. I can just hear his former colleagues and associates, fellow-agents and co-conspiritors guffawing, over the way he tells it.

Does anyone here have old back issues of HARPERS in their attic?

Ginny...Liddy gave the phrase a meaning that George Bernard Shaw would never have dreamed of. Nor would he have played lacrosse. Liddy might have. I grew up playing that game. I can still feel the whacks we gave one another.

Jonathan

STICKS!! hahahaha (Wasn't that what we cried for foul or was that field hockey? I have long forgotten and altered the Latin Club post because it looked a bit....intemperate. hahahaah or something) maybe even Liddyish. hahaaha

What position did you play? Let me guess? Center Forward!

GOALLLLL!

Dangerous game, similar in danger to the one Liddy played, very dangerous, Lacrosse.

ginny

Oh my gosh - I played field hockey, too! So long ago. Junior Varsity only for me. Might have had something to do with the fact that the only goal I remember making was on the other team's side. You think? Sticks! Yes, sticks! Had totally forgotten about that - let's see, wasn't it ground-sticks, ground-sticks.....

Excuse the diversion - couldn't resist.

I read Will so many years ago and no longer have the book but will try to get a copy from the library when I finish a few others I'm working on.

Before we moved up here I used to catch Liddy on the radio fairly often. Like the others, he could make me so darned angry - just wanted to reach into the radio and punch his lights out and yet, yet, something quite appealing about him. And no denying his knowledge and intellect. The very few times I've seen him on TV or in a photo it comes as such a shock - he just doesn't match my image of him at all.

(another slight diversion but we used to listen to Garrison Keilor on the radio for quite some time before we actually saw him. Whew! What a shock THAT was. Now, of course, I wouldn't have him any other way)

I've never seen a picture of Mrs. Liddy (how I wonder about HER!) or any of their children.

JONATHAN just can’t help liking the guy!!!!

HAROLD states there is something about him that is likeable, DIANE agrees, GINNY believes he was dangerous! WOW! Thanks for all your comments, I love ‘em, and……..

A BIG WELCOME TO DIANE! There are many pictures of Liddy's family in the book, all very handsome; you will see his lovely wife there, (they were married in 1957) and those remarkable children, many of whom put themselves through college as the family was so poor during and after Liddy's prison term that his wonderful wife was teaching school to keep them all together. Amazing woman.

This is going to be such fun to attempt to figure out just what characteristics this fellow had that are admirable. Often when you mention his name to someone a frown, a glare or a look of disapproval appears, but perhaps that is because they have not read the book? Just heard the media reports possibly? Or his radio show?

I hope Harriet and Ann will check in with a brief report soon and we’ll have a pre-discussion score of all opinions before we get into what made Liddy tick, and the why, who, where and how it all fits into the big picture.

Thanks to all for your comments, February lst will be here before you know it!

There's no denying Liddy's intellect and knowledge, though I seem to recall disagreeing with the interpretations he came up with. Like many of you, I read WILL years ago. I never did hear much of Liddy's radio show so that doesn't affect my thinking. It'll be interesting to see if I still agree with my own opinions of several years ago.

My book just arrived in the mail and I'm about to get started on it . It's the edition with some new info in it that Liddy was unwilling to write about originally. I don't remember finding Liddy likeable when I read the book so long ago...he was so intense and I thought he upheld his principles to the point of fanaticism...anyway that was my general impression from the book a few years back. It's hard to like a fanatic?

I'm very open to reading with fresh eyes. There's something about an SN book discussion that always opens new lines of thought, particularly when the rest of you express opinions I may not have thought of. It's also fun to investigate any inner changes in my own point of view over a period of time.

Diane, I wonder about Mrs. Liddy also, a relationship that I didn't focus on during my first reading. I wonder if she felt that her welfare often ran second to her husband's personal principles?

Lots of things to talk about and consider together.

Harriet

HELLO HARRIET! Is the new information in your book the POSTSCRIPT to the book written in 1996? I mistakenly called it the Epilogue before; I need to be corrected by all of you at times - we're in this together and no one is infallible.

Liddy had the best education and was very intelligent, but I get the feeling he never matched his father in any way and felt his disapproval all his life; but we'll talk about that when we get there.

You mentioned that it's fun to investigate changes of your feelings over time - they do change, or else we have more time to think carefully about each aspect of the man and I expect to be enriched by our disparate views

Thanks, Harriet, for your remarks, see you here on the lst.

I've sent out several emails and several have come back!!! JONATHAN, do you have a new email address - if so, will you let us know? HARRIET, your emails are bouncing also. Keep us advised!

Sorry, Ella. I wasn't successful in posting my e-mail address. I'll try again.

By the way, I'm well into The Devil In The White City. I picked it off the Fast Read, short-loan-period shelf at the library. Now I just have to finish it, but I should be thru it by the time we put G Gordon Liddy on the stand.

Jonathan

I still have the same email address, Ella. I received your reminder about our impending discussion of WILL a few hours ago. I don't know why any other emails to me should have bounced? I checked my address on your incoming email and everything looked fine. You definitely have my correct address.

Looking forward, Ella. I read to page 96 and I'm eager to talk to you all.

Jonathan, I've heard good things about DEVIL. Enjoy!

Harriet

Thanks, Jonathan, I have the new email address, but as you already are aware of our impending discussion schedule, I'll not send you another copy of the email. Incidentally, I have that book "DEVIL IN THE WHITE CITY" and I enjoyed it. Do you think it would make a good discussion? The period history, the architects, etc? A few other people in general discussions have mentioned reading it.

Harriet, don't know why your email came back - at least one time that I know of. I kept making all kinds of errors in that process; multiple addresses are a pain at times to this neophyte of technicalities on the Internet.

We're going to have fun here with our subject, thanks for looking in.

Wait a minute! JONATHAN, does your email address end in "ca?" That's unusual. I went to correct your email in my address file and noticed the ending of it. Perhaps it is right? I have it now as "joneastmanca@yahoo.ca." Let me know.

The 'Devil' had to returned before I was through with him. The loan periods on these 'Fast Reads' are just not long enough for such an interesting book. I considered paying an overdue fine, but decided that wouldn't be fair to others waiting to read it. Perhaps some other slow reader like me waiting for its return so that he can finish what he started.

I just recently used that as an excuse when I returned a friend's book after forty years. I got to hear that his wife passed the word along to others, hoping, no doubt, that it would get back to me, that my long lost friend, who has spent years installing hydro facilities in India before retiring, was still hoping to see his book again. And that was understandable. The book had been a gift from his sister who had not long before passed away. The book was Magnificent Obsession, by ? Douglas. Does anyone remember that bestseller?

I'm hoping I'll be able to convince others that Gordon Liddy is a likeable guy. Perhaps not so thoroughly likeable as to make one want to embrace all of his principles, but likeable nevertheless. Of all the Watergate characters he seems to have been the most principled. Despite his fevered imagination which got the better of him at times. I think he should be given a pardon. When the right president comes along. There are pardons and there are pardons.

I do believe it will be fun just trying to decide which of Liddy's hands was dealt by God, which by the Devil, and which, if any, by himself.

I'm not a slow reader at all. It's this winter storm which keeps me from doing as much reading as I would like to. Just in this short time that I have taken to catch up with the posts, enough snow has fallen to keep me shovelling for an hour.

Here's a little item. Watergate was such a happening, it had me saving newspaper clippings which are again seeing the light of day. Just a tiny filler on the front page on May 2, 1973:

'Martha Mitchell To Testify...Martha Mitchell, wife of former attorney-general John Mitchell, has been subpoened to give sworn testimony tomorrow about what she knows about the Watergate case.'

Everybody else was pleading ignorance!!

Jonathan

JONATHAN – was that the DEVIL IN THE WHITE CITY book? I bought the book and that’s why I got it finished??? Hahahahahaaa But I can’t read as fast as I used to (nothing to do with snow) and I keep excusing that by saying it’s the cataracts that are due to come off this spring – and hope that is the true reason.

Of course I remember Magnificent Obsession by Lloyd Douglas, we all talked about it at the time it came out and I don’t remember if we ever acted on its premise or not, would have been nice if we did!

Isn’t this going to be fun, Jonathan, all of us with varying views on Liddy; actually I hope one or two of us will argue that he is the “devil” himself and should never be pardoned – have you read some of those remarks in the link in the heading about the petition for presidential pardon? Then maybe the rest of us will defend him and we’ll have a prosecution and a defense going; just as in the courtroom. Democracy in action – what we can agree on is his loyalty to the president and one wonders if a staff member in the White House should be - or should he leak everything - should he resign? He had options – BUT we are ahead of ourselves here.

SNOW! DON’T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT. I’ve had enough for the winter now.

Life is choices, though, as Liddy says in the quote in the heading. I’m surprised he mentioned God are you?

Just received an email from Ann Wrixon who is looking forward to this discussion as much as the rest of us are!

Well, nothing of any substance to say but just wanted to add that I remember the MOVIE, Magnificent Obsession, and what I mostly remember is the wonderful music. I used to know what it was from but can't remember now.

Regarding Liddy, we used to catch him on the radio quite a bit before we moved here - that is, until he made us so angry that we turned him off! But he did have so much worthwhile to say. I did get a little tired of his "stacked and packed" calendar and things of that ilk. I really don't think I'm a prude but my goodness, the man sounded like an adolescent.

I also seem to remember sensing that he had some considerable spiritual grounding but don't remember details.

By the way, we don't have any snow here (only had a few light dustings a few months ago) and the temperature has been hanging mostly around 40 but it is raining and gloomy, oh so gloomy, and I'm ready for spring, too!

DIANE - I'll take gloomy over the 7-8" of snow we have, plus ice underneath - am feeling a bit housebound!!! I want spring or at least, decent weather. Aren't heavy coats, glove, scarves a pain or do you have cold weather where you live?

I've never heard Liddy on radio, but I understand what you mean! What an angelic woman his wife must be!

Yes, he did have "spiritual grounding" - I like that phrase! We'll be talking about that when we get to that part of the book.

Actually, Ella, when Mrs. Liddy was referred to it was more as if she was kind of a tough broad. But very, very pretty. Every time she was mentioned I was more and more curious - both to see her and watch her in action. I hope there are pictures in the book. When I first read the book, a long time ago, it was before I had heard him on the radio and didn't have nearly the curiosity I do now.

We don't need heavy, HEAVY coats and gloves here. Just heavier coats than we wear the rest of the year. Of course, during the occasional snows and colder weather I sometimes wish I DID have something heavier but it would be necessary so seldow and we've made a huge effort to downsize. Easier to stay inside by the fire! But, I confess - I have never been able to get rid of the raccoon coat I wore through my school days in Vermont.

The better one gets to know Gordon Liddy, the more endearing he becomes. I'm basing that conclusion on what I have learned about him only with reference to his autobiography and news reports about his role in the Watergate affair. The later Liddy is completely unknown to me. For lack of serious interest in him I suppose...until now.

Diane,there are pictures of Mrs Liddy, or Fran, as she is called, in the book. But the pictures are different, depending on which edition one has. The 1980 edition has a fine photo of Fran and Gordon coming down the aisle at their wedding. What a handsome couple. And it is the story of their romance, told in Liddy's very inimitable way, which makes him likeable. Courting, wooing and proposing, Liddy is very original and imaginative in that department. Best of all I like those very enigmatic things Fran has to say about her husband. Which he seems to enjoy quoting.

But Liddy being Liddy, guns are more evident than anything else in the pictures. That may be, however, because guns would catch my eye sooner than wedding gowns. Fran was terribly important to him, but guns seem to have played just as great a role in his life. I don't want to anticipate at this point, but I can't help suggesting that it was more of a psychological role in his life, than anything else.

Ella, you're right. One can't discuss Liddy without considering how strongly he felt about loyalty. That is always considered such an admirable and even courageous character trait, is it not? Even more admirable seems to be the fact that he never became embittered, even when he must have heard what they were saying about him in the Oval Office.

I don't know what to make of those Stacked and Packed things. Some kind of emotional aberration I suppose.

Jonathan

So far, I found Liddy endearing only for the earliest part of his childhood. After that, his basic personality began to take shape for better or worse. This man doesn't have very many tender "teddy bear" aspects to his personality.

That doesn't mean that I believe he lacks admirable qualities...I think there's a difference between being lovable and being admirable. Also, even if Liddy does have some admirable qualities, I'll be interested in the opinions of others about whether his personality isn't driven by some unusual goals and some even more unusual means of reaching those goals.

If ever there was a man who provided an opportunity for us to test the theoretical premise that "the end justifies the means" for both positive and negative goals, Liddy might be that person?

I think we'll have fun talking about this book. Many of us read it a long time ago and I tend to agree that it stuck in my memory more than many other books, although I'm not quite sure why?

It's especially pleasant talking about books today. We're waiting for someone to shovel a new snowfall from our driveway and books cum computer is such a pleasant way of passing the indoor time.

Harriet

Mrs. Liddy a “broad,” Diane? Hmmmmmm Well, I didn’t get that impression, but we’ll make observations when we get to our discussion and, Jonathan, I don’t remember any comments Liddy’s wife made! Of course, we’ll all be reviewing the book when we start it Sunday – in my book, which is the same date as your own (1980) there is just a picture of the two of them on their wedding day – a snapshort, sort of, but not walking down the aisle.

And while we are speaking of his wife – a safe subject for now, right? –Harriet, you don’t think him lovable - not even to his wife or family? Gee, they seem a typical happy and loving family in this book, but admirable qualities, yes he had those – do you all have the book with the Preface in it? He quotes from an article by Stewart Alsop ( didn’t he have a noted brother who also wrote for ____?______Saturday Evening Post was it?). Anyway -

”Curiously enough, in another time, G. Gordon Liddy would have been regarded as among the bravest and the best…..In wartime, G. Gordon Liddy would have been festooned with decorations rather than slapped in jail. As so often in wartime, his stubborn silence did no good.”

Liddy disagrees with the latter statement and further states that that this is a book of both public issues and personal convictions. - ”I became what I wanted to be.” he states in the Preface.

WELL! ANYONE BELIEVE THAT QUOTE?

A RACCOON COAT, DIANE!!!! I would have sworn those went out with the ‘20’s when the men used to parade around in them. Hahahahaaaaa But I bet your coat is very stylish, lovely and warm – have you ever been attacked by any radical for killing raccoons? They carry rabies, you know, and we have live-trapped a few and taken them to our neighbor who doesn’t mind killing them!

I was hoping no one would notice his home page with the “packed and stacked” calendar! In WWII it was Betty Grable calendars, tempus fugits!

Later, Ella

Well, Ella, perhaps the word "broad" was not the best one I could have chosen for Liddy's wife. I do remember from several years of listening to him on the radio she was always referred to as MRS. Liddy - never a first name. But then he would go ahead and mention something, darned if I can come up with an example, but mention something describing how, well, tough she was, and mention perhaps something he had done that was out of line and sure didn't want Mrs. Liddy to find out or..... I think none of this came through in the book that I can remember. I'll have to see if I can find him on the radio up here. Kinda miss the fella, anyway.

Re: the raccoon coat - it was passed on to me from my aunt who had worn it in her college days. Believe me, in those Vermont winters it was strictly a matter of not freezing to death! I've never worn it since, or even been tempted to, but I sure would spread it out on my bed in the event of a cold snap together with power outage! In the meantime, it just does on taking up more than its share of space in whichever closet it winds up in!

Just a few words more on Liddy's radio personality - he really could get quite offensive with his boasting of his male "conquests". They were mainly the times I just didn't want to hear any more. I even remember occasional callers asking if Mrs. Liddy didn't mind his escapades and I think he replied that she knew the way he was and accepted him for what he was. Gee, I hope I'm not misremembering this! But his political commentary was great - even if I didn't agree with him, which I often didn't, but you had to admire his mind.

Two things in particular used to set him off - the name of John Dean and also the Washington Post. Oh, also "correctional" officers - boy, you could see the red right through the radio!

My book is at the library and should be able to pick it up tomorrow.

Oh...I just found Liddy's personal website and I now understand the "packed and stacked" references by Jonathan and Ella.

I wonder why the pin-up calendar of sparsely clad, gun-toting ladies is included on Liddy's website? Is the calendar a commercial venture to raise income for Liddy? Or is it a friendly gesture devoted to the interests of the hairy-chested, he-men who Liddy feels might be likely to read his home page? Is Liddy merely showing deference to the macho leanings of some of his admirers? The pin-up calendar is an interesting inclusion in a website that is otherwise filled with serious commentary on current issues.

I do have a few thoughts about Liddy's marriage, Ella, at least up to page 96, but maybe I should save them for after Feb 1? They relate to the way I see his personality at this particular stage of reading his book?

By the way, Ella, my first weekly reading of WILL to page 96 ends in the MIDDLE of a chapter. Is it the end of a chapter in other editions? My book does include both the preface and epilogue that you asked about earlier.

Oh good, Diane, I'm so glad your book is arriving. Did I interpret you correctly in your post #46...when you mentioned "male conquests," were you inferring that Liddy talked about liaisons with other women on his radio show, in public...where his wife could hear him boasting, if she chose to listen to his broadcasts? Perhaps I misunderstood? I've never heard his broadcasts myself...don't even know if they're carried in my area.

Harriet

Ella Could you show chapter numbers included in each of the four weekly schedule parts. My paperback edition includes 30 chapters plus the Postscript in 506 pages. Presumably the chapter division is the same as your edition but from the page numbers give in the heading schedule, I can not be sure which chapters are included in each of the four discussion periods. If you give the chapter numbers in each part I should be able to better follow the schedule.

Yes, Ella - Liddy's "conquests" and public boastings were the main thing that turned me off from listening to him. Well, sometimes his politics, too, but that was different. Has anyone else here listened to his radio shows? But, aside from that he is a fascinating and brilliant man. I am looking forward to re-reading his book from the hindsight of all these years.

Oh yes, thanks for that suggestion, Harold. I'm having the same problem, Ella.

Diane, Liddy and I have different notions about marriage. Still, I'm so impressed that you made a distinction between the man's political and intellectual life and his personal one.

I agree with that distinction. I guess that's what makes Gordon Liddy such a complicated and controversial figure? I'll be surprised if we don't all have quite a few opinions about all this.

Harriet

It's already obvious that there will be no end of things to talk about once we begin to discuss this tale of treachery.

I must apologize, Ella, for hinting at some conflicts in the book before we have even begun. As for example Liddy passing along some of the things his wife is supposed to have said. I can't remember myself at the moment where in the book I read them. It seems to me it was in one instance something about one could become inured to hanging with time, and another time something about her husband still being the best of a bad lot. Or something like that. But no more from me before the curtain goes up.

Jonathan

OH, I CERTAINLY WILL CORRECT THE “SCHEDULE OF DISCUSSIONS” IN THE HEADING TO DISPLAY CHAPTERS INSTEAD OF PAGES – THANKS FOR MENTIONING THAT, HARRIET AND HAROLD!

You must both have paperbacks? Do you have the pictures in those books?

Someone that is reading our discussion (not participating) made a comment to me that we are a “bright, articulate, cordial, opinionated” group – what a grand compliment to all of you!! A GOOD BEGINNING!

The “stacked and packed” page that has the calendar of “sparsely-clad gun-toting ladies” (hahaha, Harriet) is distasteful to me – to you, too? When I first thought of discussing Liddy’s book I went to links and found that one – but it was at Christmas time and he was advertising that as a gift to the soldiers overseas! Hence, my remark of WWII pinup calendars! Now he just appears to be selling it – he must be making money from it wouldn’t you say? Why else? We know from the start the man is an eccentric and we can expect anything – and usually will get it!!

It's what made this man - this book - so unforgettable!

But then there are the “CALENDAR GIRLS” – hahahhaaaaaa Which is very mild compared to Liddy’s calendar, and it was for a good cause and tastefully done.

Yes, let’s save our remarks on the marriage, Harriet, and other comments until we begin our discussion, if that is all right with all of you! However, we can talk in general terms – any of you have anything to say about the preface??????????????

About that statement he made – “I BECAME WHAT I WANTED TO BE?” Apparently he believes it, how many of us would/could say the same thing.

Later, Ella

The chapters are now in the heading, thanks for the "heads-up" folks.

Did I frighten all of you away by stating you are a "bright, articulate, cordial, opinionated” group?" I can't begin to tell what that means to a Discussion Leader to have people who are not afraid to voice an opinion contrary to others. It's called "conversation" and we can talk just as if we were around a table expressing our diverse views.

I thank you so much for feeling comfortable in doing that and for being here! It's going to be such a good group! I know Harold is out of town for a few days, but he will return next week, and......

our discussion begins Sunday!!! The day after tomorrow - if you are retired, at times you have to look at the daily newspaper to find out what day of the week it is - HAHAAAAAAHA Or click on your computer!

Anyway, I was skimming a few back issues of TIME today and found an essay titled "WHY WE WANT TO MEET THE MISSUS" (pertaining to the wife of a president) and as we mentioned LIddy's wife a couple of times, I think I'll just quote a line or two and perhaps it might be useful??

"...we need to know about a politician's spouse....in order to understand the candidate's character. Let's face it: whom a person chooses to spend his or her life with, what kind of relationship they seem to have, what their children are like-these are all matters .......that voters should try to understand before placing him or her in history's glare."

Of course, if you are a bachelor, you are in deep trouble here! They say a bachelor is a man who isn't fit to be tied!! Hahahahahaaaa

As we begin Sunday to discuss the book, we might keep this quote in mind and try to ferret out whatever we can about Liddy's wife.

later, ella

It's the weekends I miss most of all. I remember them, however dimly, as a pleasant break in the relentless march of time. THEY shake their heads when we can't tell them what day of the week it is. How can we explain to them that it's enough and sufficient to know that today is today, and that's all that really matters...sort of sub aeternitatis, as they say in Latin. There's a dandy little book offered in a link in the other discussion: Latin for all Occasions, that would probably give me the proper expression for the senior point of view, with regard to time. I must get it.

I almost cracked up over a notice tacked up in the elevator at the retirement home where I was visiting some friends recently: 'Sunday School will be held on Thursday this week.' Little does the world know what punches we seniors have to roll with!!

No, Ella, we don't frighten that easily. In fact those are very encouraging words. Surely there cannot be another such a book that offers so much scope for opinions...or compelling comments. Without ever feeling confident that we're getting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and having to rely on our intuitive knowledge of human motivation, especially when the water is full of sharks, not to mention our compulsive need to distinguish between right and wrong, and between means and ends, as has already been mentioned, and remembering that we have an unusually eccentric person on our hands, but that's just on the surface...I think all the elements of a sentence must be in there somewhere...more likely the impression of incoherent opinion...but all in good time.

How many more days until Sunday?

Jonathan

Bless you, Jonathan!

This week was the first time I had to look at the daily paper to find what day it was. And it was my husband's 79th Birthday but darned if I could remember if it was Wednesday or Thursday. But, you know what - no harm done!

HEAR YE! HEAR HE! HEAR YE! THIS COURT IS NOW IN SESSION

WILL THE PROSECUTION, DEFENSE ATTORNEYS AND OUR PANEL OF JUDGES PLEASE APPEAR BEFORE THIS COURT TODAY

HAHAHAAAAAAAAA

No introductions are necessary here - we all know each other now (well, Ann has yet to put in an appearance, shall we name her Chief Justice in her absence? Haha) so we may begin immediately –

As you will see there is a box in the heading now titled QUESTIONS OF THE DAY. So every day I am going to put up 2-3 questions pertaining to the text that may be thought-provoking?

(Applause is due to MARJORIE, one of our talented technicians who do the headings and just now put in the box for questions!)

You may, of course, ignore them, answer them, ask your own – answer your own (I’m guilty of that!) or just post away with your thoughts as to this first section.

Anything that may or may not bring light upon Mr. G. Gordon Liddy. Do we have a psychologist in our group here? We could use one throughout this book, do you agree? Does he resemble anyone you know?

Anxious to hear all of your thoughts!

P.S. Loved that last post, Jonathan, beautiful thoughts - poetic! Your husband's birthday, Diane and no harm done???

Goodness, but the conversation sparkles! I loved everyone's comments and laughed out loud...such fun.

I love your new questions, Ella, but the ones you asked a few days ago are still dancing around in my head so I'll try to take a shot at those first.

Liddy announced in the preface: “I BECAME WHAT I WANTED TO BE?”

So how does Liddy perceive himself? Seems to me that, from earliest childhood, he wanted to transform himself into a "perfect man"...or whatever his personal concept of who the perfect man should be. What can we extrapolate about Liddy's concept of a "perfect man" from the first section of the book? Words like courage, resistance to pain, fearless, determined, aggressive come into my mind.

All of those descriptions have admirable connotations...but I still feel uncomfortable with the shape of the man developing in the first part of the book, and I've been trying to figure out WHY? I don't have it all straight in my head at this point.

Somehow, as I read, phrases like "superman" float in and out of my head. I'm uncomfortable when Liddy talks about "gene pools." Makes me think of Hitler's Germany and extremist regimes? Is it just me or did any of you come up with similar associations? I know that Liddy has American values, but he's an extremist guy? Sometimes I wonder if he isn't a German "ubermensch" wrapped up in an American flag?

In recent posts, we were talking about the relationship of Liddy and his wife Fran? On page 57, Liddy goes a-wooing. He writes of his affection for an "intelligent and beautiful" girl with a delicate, small-boned frame. Here is why he did NOT propose marriage to her. Liddy wrote:

...but I wanted more mathematical ability in the gene pool from which my children would spring. I also wanted size--height and heavy bone structure so that my children would be physically as well as intellectually powerful.

Somewhere, I felt sure, I would find a highly intelligent, tall, fair, powerfully built Teuton whose mind worked like...a scientific computer. I had worked long, hard, pain filled years to transform myself; to make a reality of MY genetic potential. Now I believed I had earned the right to seek my mate from among the finest genetic material available."

Enter Fran. There's a lovely old melody that keeps drifting through my mind when I read Liddy's previous passages...the refrain of the song's lyrics are "Isn't it romantic?" I wonder if the very young Fran knew the reason for Liddy's flattering attentions and instant attraction to her during their courtship? Well, I suppose Liddy WAS being romantic according to HIS personality?

I'm also troubled when I read Liddy's job description for his future children. He wanted "height and heavy bone structure." Wasn't Liddy determined, even before marriage, to be the father of SONS that he could raise up as taller, stronger, intellectually improved versions of himself? I would be uncomfortable if I were Liddy's daughter, but the standards for being Liddy's son might be even more difficult?

By the way, was Liddy conceding that it might actually be POSSIBLE to improve on his own standards of masculinity in his children?

Am I being too harsh? How do the rest of you feel?

Harriet

good morning fellow Benchers

Harriet, your post shows great deliberation. The many interesting points you make are going to go on running through my head as we get into our subject. In response to some of them I'll suggest that the real Liddy is hiding behind these strange declarations of his. He has suffered greatly along the way. Far from being too harsh, you're getting to the heart of things, and showing that Liddy is not going to put anything over on you.

Ella, congratulations. You have played a brilliant opening gambit in this book discussion, by declaring it a judicial procedure, complete with echoing Hear Ye's!, and that imperious-looking little gavel. What could be fairer to the man who authored the book...as well as his own misfortune, although he hardly considers it a misfortune when he says:

I became what I wanted to be.

So I can't help agreeing that the book should be looked at as a legal brief rather than a book. He makes a case out of it. But what a strange case it is. Is Liddy the accuser or the defendent. In his opening statement, the so-called Preface, taking a cue from Stewart Alsop, Liddy declares:

I do owe a debt to history.

Heavens to betsy, I would say on behalf of the court, counting on the rest of you to sustain my objection, cease and desist, Mr Liddy, no more history please. History already owes so much more to you, witness the vast array of books that have recorded all that followed from your little caper. Surely Liddy must rank as one of the greatest catalysts in History.

If on the other hand he wishes to prove that he has earned his place in history, and that's no mean achievment, or that he was the plaything of the gods, or claim that the devil made him do it, as his words in the statement in the header suggest, then, judging by the sentiments expressed in the pre-discussion posts, I feel certain that this bench of distinguished jurists will give him a sympathetic and wise and, if warranted, merciful hearing. His strange and wonderful anecdotes deserve no less.

I concur wholeheartedly in the nomination of Ann as our Chief Justice. I also want to congratulate her on the earlier, warm welcome she received from so many friends. Did a connection made between Liddy and Gandhi seem farfetched, if interesting, to you? The Mahatma will go on deserving humanity's respect.

And sufing Liddy-related links I came across this curious viewpoint:

'Think what you will of him, this is one interesting yogi.'

Did he become what he wanted to be? Not by a long shot. IMO.

Jonathan

I am definitely here, and reading along. I keep forgetting that I should post even if just to agree with someone otherwise you will not know I am engaged. I spent so much time lurking when I was on staff at SeniorNet that I forget I need to post.

Anyway, Harriet says it all for me. Liddy's obsession with the gene pool gives me the creeps big time. It sounds so Nazi. I keep wondering if his Nanny wasn't a bigger influence than he implies, and that his parents weren't more remote than he portrays.

His father did remove the Nanny once he realized how pro-Nazi she was, but clearly she had a huge impact on Liddy before she left. I just can't imagine a parent not noticing what was going on long before his parents did.

As for his wife Fran. I kept wondering how she felt reading this book. His focus on choosing a wife for her gene pool made my skin crawl. It also must have put ridiculous pressure on his kids. and I cringed for his daughters when he stated his concern that after two daughters he was worried he didn't have a son.

I am also completely fascinated by his reaction to his Catholic upbringing. I was brought up in a similar vein, and had the same reaction. I lived in constant fear and felt shame about my fear. I thought there was something very wrong with me because I was so fearful. Now I think that fear was the right reaction to such a hostile school and home environment.

Like Liddy I was determined to overcome my fear, but I took a very different tack. I was determined to stop violence (no surprise I became a pacifist), and to build a life that fostered love and harmony rather than fear and violence. For example, unlike Liddy, I have a complete aversion to firearms. I also picked a husband because of his kind and gentle nature rather than his gene pool.

I did have one thing in common with Liddy. I absolutely believed that the only way to overcome my fears was to face them. And like Liddy I often put myself in life threatening situations in order to "prove" I could do it. I must admit that unlike Liddy portrayed this did not always work. Sometimes I was even more fearful, but when it did work it was like magic--the fear was gone forever. But now that I am much older (though probably no wiser) I can see that this was not a good coping mechanism (I could have been killed).

This is really fascinating. I had forgotten the section of the book about his childhood, and certainly did not remember that I had anything in common with him.

Ann

Not at all, HARRIET, great comments! Liddy’s attempts at perfectionism in himself, his wife and children would make a interesting subject for psychiatrists and, yes, it does remind us of Hitler’s ideas of an Aryan nation.

Do you think the young Liddy, a sickly child, was powerfully influenced by the German maid (and German playmates) who told tales of a country who was strong and proud after being weak and defeated? Hitler’s speech on the radio “sent an electric current through my body and…..the hair on the back of my neck rose and I realized suddenly that I had stopped breathing. Hitler had delivered the maid’s country from fear, etc.

He should have grown out of these ideas as he learned of the evils of Hitler, but science tells us that early childhood influences can be powerful and long lasting.

THE PROSECUTION WINS ONE ROUND! (hahahaha)

Oh, we are all posting together!!! What fun!

Must read Ann's post (WELCOME, SO NICE TO HAVE YOU HERE) and Jonathan's and then get back later.

Thank you all so much!

"History already owes so much more to you, witness the vast array of books that have recorded all that followed from your little caper. Surely Liddy must rank as one of the greatest catalysts in History." - Jonathan

Boy, you got that right!! We were beseiged for years with the media of all types and still it goes on.... I just heard a remark from an author recently that said Watergate began the "ethics era" of democracy. No one in political life is safe.

In your remarks, Jonathan, you seem to be inquiring into Liddy's motivation for writing this book. This is something we should be asking ourselves all the way through our discussion. Thanks for those comments.

"As for his wife Fran. I kept wondering how she felt reading this book." Oh, exactly, my feelings, Ann!

But you understood his fear from a Catholic education? Do you think the church has changed for the better? Shall we give the defense for Liddy a point here? Hahahaa

And another plus for the defense comes from Ann in this statement "I did have one thing in common with Liddy. I absolutely believed that the only way to overcome my fears was to face them. And like Liddy I often put myself in life threatening situations in order to "prove" I could do it." Another point in Liddy's defense.

You should write a book, Ann???????????????

Oh, this is just fantastic, fabulous and fun! I love discussions such as these, you are all so honest in your appraisals and, fortunately, Liddy doesn't know we are around - or would he appreciate our remarks?

Jonathan,

I love your post. It is so rich, funny and IMHO accurate. I wanted to expand on your comment, "Did he become what he wanted to be? Not by a long shot. IMO."

I agree. While I was reading I kept thinking. This is so sad. So much potential wasted. I know that sounds judgmental so let me modify it a bit. I do think Liddy believes his is a success, but his standards are too narrow in my opinion. He could have been an extraordinary individual if he had the ability to see the gray areas and to see things from other people's perspectives. But he only saw things from his point of view and if you agreed with him you were right and if not you were wrong.

I also wanted to comment on Ella's point about if Liddy's sickness as a child influenced him. I believe it was very important. Interestingly, I was also very ill as a child. In fact, I missed 4th grade entirely because my illness left me unable to walk (btw: I am not being evasive about the illness. It is called Corea, but is almost unknown in the developed world). And like Liddy I became an athlete to overcome my sickness and to get more physically powerful. I think much of his concern about genes may stem from this experience. He was relatively small person (only about 150 lbs. when full grown) and I think he may have connected this with getting sick and he thought if he married a physically powerful woman his children would not face this same problem.

My illness certainly had a powerful effect on me, but as a girl I don't think I had a lot of societal expectation that I be strong so I don't think it traumatized me the way it did Liddy.

Ella, I wish I could comment on the Catholic Church today. I left the church at 17 (I will talk at more length about this when Liddy talks on this subject in a couple of chapters). When our daughter was born my husband (also raised Catholic) and I decided to join a small Lutheran Church which uses the Catholic Church rituals, but has a decidedly different take on some controversial topics and does not use fear at all.

I also think that unlike Liddy I not only learned fear from my Catholic education I also learned compassion and that it was important to work for social justice. Many of the nuns who taught me were also involved in anti-poverty work in the community and often took us along to help in this work which I loved and really really appreciate as it opened my eyes to another world.

This is fun. Ann

Why does Liddy say the things he does? I appreciate the concerns you others are showing about the directionss in which he seems to be heading at times. Some of the things he says about himself are downright disturbing, so I share the misgivings already expressed.

Inevitably, as Harriet puts it, one's puzzlement ends in a big questioning WHY?. He knows darn well the impression he is making on the reader. Is he being devious? Presumbably it's all meant to help the reader get some understanding for the course his life took. As he puts it in the preface:

'I do want you to know, as much as a book can convey it, the man I am.'

And his book is definitely a 'confessional' of sorts, is it not? A very unusual one, it seems to me.

Harriet, the extrapolations you make, to find those admirable qualities in him, are so well chosen. I would like to add 'ambition' to them, and a great eagerness to excel. In fact I wonder if it wasn't his ambition which done him in eventually.

All those notions in a young man's head when he goes out to choose a mate, well, I have no doubt that Gordon Liddy felt he was going about it in a very responsible way.

Jonathan

Harriet, I agree with your comment in message #57 noting GGL set out purposely to genetically engineer his children for heavier bone structure and greater physical strength than he himself possessed. He was well aware of his physical limitations that he was largely able to overcome. I don’t really believe though that he ever thought any great mental improvement was necessary. In other words I feel he was from an early age well aware of his high IQ, and did not really think much improvement effort there was necessary. I agree this is not the sort of thing most contemporary males were concern with when choosing a mate.

Regarding the influence on GGL of the German Maid and the early exposure to Nazi propaganda I suspect this might well be the source of his later use of genetic considerations in choosing a wife. Yet in fairness to Liddy I do not see any lingering of Nazi racial sentiments in the adult Liddy. In particular I recall no obvious anti Semitic showings in his later life. His father seems to have firmly ended the contact by firing the maid.

I don’t think GGL is telling us every thing about his early life, education and up bringing. In particular he rarely if ever mentions girls during his high school and even college years. Based on his interest in athletics and competitive nature, I can’t believe girls were not a factor. Yet he only tells us about Fran and I think one previous possible candidate being considered.

In reading the book on GGL’s early life I found my self-comparing his up bringing with the life of Ben Bradlee. We did the Braadlee biography 3 years ago. Bradlee was roughly 10 years older than GGL born in New England to aristocratic parents. His family was rich and influential but not filthy rich. He too came endowed with a high IQ He was what the late President of the University of Chicago, Robert Maynard Hutchins classed as a “Silver Spooner.” His admission to Harvard was a foregone conclusion.

GGl too was born into a rich family. So far as having cash Income was concern, the Liddy family was probably better off than the Bradlees. Liddy’s Father’s law practice was no little firm, It was growing rapidly and by the time GGL was in high school and college the family quite likely had far more available cash than the Bradlees. Yet they lacked the aristocratic status of the Bradlees. They were only members of the “new rich.” Hence GGL as a boy played on the New Jersey docks and ate a rat opportunities denied to Bradlee, but lacking "silver spooner" credentials GGL settled for Fordham rather than Harvard.

WELCOME HAROLD, what profound statements we have about Liddy here - I hardly know what to say!

Returning to Jonathan's earlier statement, I am wondering if Liddy is defending himself in this book, but am not sure against whom or what; perhaps we will come to some conclusion as we progress.

Why did he write the book? For whom? Jonathan says it is a confessional book, do you all agree?

Harold mentioned his lack of girlfriends, Ann mentioned earlier the lack of parenting - have you noticed there is very little mention of a mother here? Father - yes, mother - no.

We all agree on a few points - he's very intelligent, ambitious, but is he well-liked? Did he feel inferior because of his physical structure, or as Harold suggested because he was of the nouveau riche? Did you notice how often he brought to the readers' attention the knighthoods his father won? Does that tell us anything?

Too many questions here and I have no answers, but they do make for fascinating speculations!

The new questions are in the heading. Thank you all so much for your posts, they are indeed a pleasure to read and give me infinite thoughts - I'll be awake all night! Hahahahaaa

The pages referred to in the new questions in the heading are in Chapters II and III respectively. Later, ella

At first glance it seems surprising at how much Liddy reveals about himself. On the other hand, he seems very secretive to me, telling the reader very little. As for example his family life. We learn very little, actually, about parents, wife and children. He seems, on the whole, to be respectful, devoted, dutiful and loving as a family man. He had his differences with his father, but nothing beyond the normal, it seems to me. It was his ambition to do better than his father.

What can one make of his talk of genetic engineering? If it's done at the expense of racial or ethnic tolerance it becomes pretty abhorrent. I can't imagine Liddy being a proponent of that sort of thing. He seemed to be aiming solely at a realistic chance of going for better, physically, mentally and emotionally in his procreative activity. And judging by the photographs from the family album, he was amazingly successful.

He writes quite well about childhood influences. But who seems to have had the greater influence, for example, the German maid, or Uncle Raymond? I think the latter. After all,

'Uncle Ray had been there when John Dillenger was slain in Chicago.'

Liddy seems to have wanted to be a tough guy. But, really, he never killed anything other than a few chickens and, later, a mouse. One has to laugh with him at times. This guy is a master of irony.

Ella, you're right. If one gives one's speculations a free rein with the given data, it does become really fascinating.

As for 'roasting a rat', I'm not sure I can believe that. And the emotions over a dying squirrel bothered him. He's not tough at all. How many chickens had to die at his hands before he was satisfied that he could do it without any feeling? Preparing himself to go to war, as he puts it.

Harriet, maybe he was a Teddy Bear, after all.

Jonathan

Ella, it seemed to me that Liddy's mother was a much stronger catalyst in his early childhood personality development than the German family maid, Teresa, or perhaps even his father.

In chapter I, GGL describes how his mother affected his thinking. At the same time, he is also careful to absolve her of any blame. Maybe this is even true...surely she didn't intend to produce some of the attitudes in her son that were so damaging to his self image? Perhaps she merely meant to be encouraging? What do the rest of you think? From Liddy's own words about his seven or eight-year-old self:

"Total absorption in whatever I read had the blessed effect of freeing me, for the time I was reading, from the gnawing worm of fear---and from the self-loathing my fear produced."

Goodness! Where did this child learn self loathing?!! Liddy goes on to explain.

"Frequently ill, I was nursed patiently by my mother, who used the occasions to teach me family history and various tales of personal courage and accomplishment against odds. To keep from boring me by repetition, she would make up stories of high valor, usually about American Indians and their warrior's ability to resist the most horrible tortures without the slightest indication of discomfort."

She also admiringly told him his own family history... about his grandfather who, in 1902, gamely finished a football game, playing at quarterback with a painfully injured eye, and of his uncle Ray, an FBI hero.

"My mother never made invidious comparisons when she told me these family stories. But I did. Forebears like that, and I was bursting my sickly lungs running away from vacuums, dogs, and other boys! So this is my heritage: all around me, strength and bravery; within me, weakness and fear."

Isn't it remarkable to imagine the possibly unintentional influence a mother can have on the bright, imaginative child Liddy must have been? Perhaps his mother merely wanted to reassure her son that he, like the rest of the family, would turn into a fine, courageous man when he grew up...that these fears and illnesses would pass with time? Or maybe she DID intentionally push the shame-factor button? Nobody will ever know, will they? Ann, I certainly agree with you that his childhood illnesses had a strong impact on him. Also that there was a terrible waste of potential in Liddy, although he himself probably would not agree.

In any event, I feel that Liddy translated these stories with his child's mind, despite his brightness. Did he feel that his seven-year-old self had to match the standards of courage of his ADULT relatives or of mythological American Indian heroes in his mother's stories? Now, how can a seven-year-old hope to compete with extravagant, adult deeds of courage? Do any of you feel that this might be one of the explanations for why Liddy began to originate unusual ways to achieve these goals of courage?

Sometimes I wonder if he ever did outgrow his seven-year-old standards? In his manhood, was he still trying to SURPASS these excessively high, self-imposed childhood standards of courage? Most of us do modify our childhood ambitions to conform with our adult understanding of reality? Liddy, however, maintains an unrelenting standard of personal courage?

Oh yes, Jonathan...thank you for the mention of ambition in Liddy's traits. How right you are! Also, I agree with you that Liddy had the makings of a gentle personality in his childhood self. How much of that gentleness survived into his adulthood will be interesting to see as the book progresses.

Harold, thank goodness, Liddy grew up to express American ideals about other religious and ethnic groups. Thank you for pointing that out.

Such remarkable posts in this discussion

Harriet

There is no doubt in my mind as Jonathan has pointed out Uncle Ray certainly greatly influenced GGL. The fact that Uncle Ray was present when Dillenger was shot may well have been a source of GGL’s fascination with guns and firearms. Dillenger’s death in which Uncle Ray was a FBI participant came in July 1934 when GGL was barely 4 years old. Probably it had little or no initial impression on so young a child, but the legend grew over subsequent years from stories told to him by the family.

Though as I said in yesterday’s post I do not see where any of the base aspect of Nazism remained in the adult GGL, he does appear to think in the precise analytical/scientific manner often noted in the German character. In any case early on in his life GGL developed a real fascination for firearms a devotion that led him as a young boy to fabricate his own homemade gun. In college ROTC he lamented the absence of a fighting infantry unit that forced him to settle for an artillery unit that graduated him a 2nd lieutenant.

While other contemporaries were leaving no stones unturned that might keep them from assignment in Viet Nam, GGL was trying every thing to get in the war. He was unsuccessful only because of serious life threatening illness that kept him stateside. The account of his service at an anti-aircraft battery in New York City seemed almost comic. At his discharge I thought when he choose to go to Law School that he had passed on another challenging career opportunity. Perhaps if he had played the cards right he might have got the opportunity to do an NBC sit-com pilot. Something between “Sergeant Bilko” and “M*A*S*H. If he had chosen this path, he could have preempted the later Seinfeld concept- a show about nothing.

Just to jump in here before everyone moves on, as I read about GGL and his several and big fears (rats, lightning storms, the dirigibles coming by, etc.) I wondered where the heck the adults in his life were not to be noticing and reassuring this frightened little tyke. I do think the stories of his ancestors and the presence of his father contributed to his feelings of being unworthy, or somehow less than was expected of him.

I really MUST find out if GGL is still on the radio and if I can hear him here. Re-reading his book and mentally playing it with what I remember of his broadcasts is intriguing. I remember getting a kick out of his, when the narration called for it, he always referred to the number "nine" as "niner" - and you could hear something in his voice of what, great pride? nostalgia? - not sure but I guess niner would be a military version of nine. And one other thing, from time to time he would say a word or phrase in German and, boy oh boy, from my little knowledge his accent sounded great! And again, you could really tell how he enjoyed doing that little bit in German. Memories, perhaps, of his one-time nanny?

Jonathan rightly questions Liddy’s honesty - this young boy moved through childhood in a secretive, self-centered, lonely and extraordinarily manner and, furthermore, it is very difficult for me to believe in that roasted and digested rat! Honestly! Was he attempting to sell his book with his outrageous stories possibly? Who can say nay?

No one has mentioned to date his conflicts with his father - in these first chapters he definitely felt his father’s disapproval over his lack of ability in sports; I’m not sure what this does to a young boy but it must have had influence over him in some negative fashion. That contract with his father over playing a game of baseball is excessive behavior for a father, or it seemed to me.

Did you notice this little sentence: "I still have that contract."

An aside for a moment (and also alluding to Ann’s comments about the Catholic religion and fear and guilt) I heard an excellent lecture by Tom Wolfe on C-Span Sunday wherein he mentioned the “Fifth Freedom” which he named as the freedom FROM RELIGION. The lack of religion and the fear and guilt that religion has previously instituted in our psyches has thrown our society into a morass of sin – witness the world of corporate dishonesty lately; sex and drugs in the media and with our young people, (even a president); decay in marriage and the home, etc. Interesting – any thoughts?

Good question, Harriet - ”Sometimes I wonder if he ever did outgrow his seven-year-old standards?” And a great observation about young Liddy’s imagination controlling his mind - thanks for reminding me about his mother’s patient care.

Ann, we never completely heard the story of your childhood illness – that rare disease, where did you contact it? How did you recover from it, I would like to know more about it. It is understandable how you related to Liddy’s obsession with getting stronger, more athletic – I believe he mentioned as a role model Teddy Roosevelt who also overcame childhood physical weaknesses.

Harold, I thought perhaps you might have a clue as to the statement made in Question No. 5 in the heading as you have shelves full of WWII books. Did we really acquiesce in the killing in the United States of those the British thought necessary to eliminate? I was struck by that statement - we all know FDR wanted the country to join with England much sooner than we did, but I didn’t we were cooperating to that extent!!!

I have several questions about Liddy’s attitude toward war to put in the heading tomorrow and we can talk later about his experiences.

DIANE, indeed, I’ve wondered, as must others, where his parents were, why they were not comforting this child, but perhaps Liddy did not confess his fears to his parents? Could that be? He disliked having this weakness in himself and perhaps he thought his parents would think less of him if he confided his thoughts – his violent dreams even?

And he speaks German occasionally on the radio? Hmmmmmm He’s obviously never forgotten the early memories with the German maid and learned the language from her well enough to understand the German station they listened to. Thanks for your comments.

Ann, a working mother, no doubt is very busy, but we hope she can find the time to continue posting with us. As Clint Eastwood has said (a bit too many times) you all MAKE MY DAY! HAHAHAA Thanks so much for your remarks!

I’ll put up more questions in the heading tomorrow morning.

5. Is the following news to you? “Franklin Roosevelt, neither the first nor the last President of the United States to break the law as a justifiable means to an end he perceived to be good, ordered J. Edgar Hoover, in the spring of 1940 to join with British intelligence in a secret war against Germany. Well before Pearl Harbor there were active efforts to destroy German naval craft, and an acquiescence in the killing in the United States of those the British thought necessary to eliminate, including at least one United States citizen.” (p. 23)

Ella regarding question 5, as you said FDR after the early summer of 1940 recognized the danger to the U.S. inherent in a British collapse began both open and covert aid. Regarding the covert aid I know U.S Intelligence agencies, then the FBI and the military Intelligence Agencies, worked with British counterparts. Also there was increasing Naval support. I remember in 1941 some months before Pearl Harbor a U.S. destroyer was actually torpedoed and sunk by a German Submarine in the North Atlantic. Apparently it was involved in protecting a convoy to England. Regarding the nature of the intelligence support, I don’t recall ever hearing much details and I certainly never heard the collaboration described in the terms given here. Yet I don’t doubt that it may be largely true.

Thanks, Harold, for answering my question but we don't have the truth at all about our willingness to aid Great Britain to the extent of "killing" people in our country that was thought necessary - we can speculate that these might be German spies? Do you think being in the FBI Liddy has some inside information we do not know?

What do you think of the moral decay in our country due to (in Wolfe's mind at least) our religious lapse? We are coming to that place in our book where Liddy discusses his views on Catholism and perhaps we should wait until then, but this lecture was so interesting and my memory so short I had to bring it into our discussion now as Ann mentioned her early fear of sin as did Liddy.

NEW QUESTIONS ARE UP! I have one not exactly pertaining to those questions but someone here might know the answer to this. I need an explanation for this statement:

"Because of a "gentleman's agreement" among the armed forces, I was not told that I could elect to receive a regular commission in any service I chose. Had I been told, I would have taken a regular commission in the Marine Corps and made it my career."

Why would he not have known a simple thing such as that? I would have known that and I know very little about the services. Had Liddy gone to the Marines, gosh! we would have the man in the right place at the right time!

But surely Ella, it would not have got half as interesting as it later did. And, in all likelihood we would never have gotten to read this unusual 'life'.

I'm finding the questions very useful in discovering interesting aspects of the book, and generally, as good thought provokers. A good example, from earlier ones, was the one which drew attention to the baseball contract, drawn up and signed at the age of nine. Any number of conclusions can be drawn from it. What could be more natural than a father teaching his son the basics of his own profession, to show his son the way. In this case, law. The fine, neat signatures indicate how seriously it was taken. The 'witnesses'. What a nice way to show that the whole family 'played' together, when mother and sister add their signatures. All in all, Gordon Liddy seems to have enjoyed a very happy, normal childhood, despite, or along with, his heroic struggles in overcoming his well-described fears, the self-loathing...while, it must have appeared to him, the rest of the world seemed so satisfied with itself, indifferent to danger, insensitive to stress, not gnashing its teeth over imagined shortcomings, not dreaming dreams of violence out of bitter frustration.

The roasting and eating of the rat is ambiguous. Whether it actually reveals a serious psychological problem, or simply something of the Liddy penchant to shock.

More exciting, and just as shocking for me, are the curious things he brings together, clashing contrasts and startling connections. As, for example, comparing Roosevelt and Hitler, with both of them breaking the law, or displaying such a difference in offering solutions to societal fears. Does Liddy want the reader to be more understanding later, when his crime comes to light? Himmler and Hoover face each other. Jesuits have some kind of relationship to the Nazi SS. Strange.

What a genuine relief when Liddy uses the literary technique in the most charming way, when his betrothed is made to seem as bewitching as the Lorelei, of which the German maid must have told him.

But, as we all know, this going to an extreme, to shock, is as nothing, once Mr Liddy goes to Washington, to expose the wicked duplicities and political immoralities of ambitious men...at great personal cost and sacrifice...

I'm called away. Great Guns!! to use a Liddy obsession. What a great discussion. The posts all hit home.

Jonathan

JONATHAN – how intriguing that we have different views on the baseball contract!!!! I JUST LOVE A DISCUSSION such as this.

You believe it was a loving gesture on the part of his father and mother and sisters; while I believe his father was exerting pressure on the son.

What do the rest of you believe about that baseball contract? Isn’t it amazing that two people can read the same paragraphs in a book and come away with two different opinions!

And, Jonathan, do bring the Canadian views on these subjects as we discuss government policies – FBI, etc. Incidentally, Joshua Chamberlain of the 20th of Maine (Civil War book we discussed in general nonfiction) was anxious to go to war even though he had 2 young children, and was 33 years old; however he was bored with teaching and was afraid of missing action in his lifetime!)

Lorelei – a German legend again. The German maid in his early childhood left a mark on his soul I do believe.

WHERE IS EVERYONE? I'M FEELING LONELY HERE AND MISSING YOUR COMMENTS!

Regarding the baseball contract I viewed it as a typical tool many parents might use to impress a child with the improtance of committment and responsibility, particularly if the parent happened to be an attorney. I note that in this case the father even managed to bring in a daughter, GGL's sister, as witness thus making his point with both kids. Also by articles 4 & 5 the parent even managed to commit the child party of the first part to going to bed early and eating what was served to him. A masterful move on the father's part.

To be asked about a Canadian viewpoint of American politics is a real challenge. Specifically, I take it, a Canadian viewpoint of something like the Watergate affair.

First of all, I think it would be true to say that Canadians, generally, were mesmerized by what was going on over at the neighbors. Then I remember an ex-Prime Minister reassuring us that something like Watergate could never happen here. That somehow seemed obvious to all of us, and was good reason for some self-congratulation. Except for the fact that spring comes a little earlier south of the border, and the roads are a little better...that still leaves a few areas in which life in Canada is superior to life in USA. Can't you already see our first impulse in these matters? Comparisons. Which wouldn't even occur to you, eh?

On the other hand the best part for Canadians is to travel to the USA, getting away from it all, and still feeling right at home. For the life of me I can't understand Liddy when he proposes that people who don't see things the way he does, should be given a one-way ticket to Canada. The fact is that many US expatriates have found happiness up here.

Perhaps it's our efforts at gun-control which make Canada seem, to Liddy, like a suitable place for exile. Which puts me in mind of the probable reason why Canada did not go along with the US in the search for weapons in Iraq. A few years ago a government program was set up to locate and register all dangerous weapons in the country. The cost...a million or two at the most. The results have been very meager, but at an enormous cost, well over a billion. We know the guns are out there...but try finding them. The difference between our two countries may be that we try doing it with hopeless, ineffective bureaucratic paperwork, while your people try doing it right in the field.

Then of course there's political hardball versus softball up here. While we're on the subject of sports, I could see a difference in viewpoints there. I got home Sunday night just in time to see the last four minutes of the Superbowl. I got up Monday morning feeling pretty good about having seen the best part of the game. But not according to the Monday morning quarterbacks I listened to on the US channels!!! That seems to have come at the end of halftime.

Why couldn't Watergate happen up here in Canada? Now the question just won't go away. Is it our parliamentary system? It was certainly fascinating to watch the way it developed, a great display of all three independent branches of your government in a unique exercise of constitutional democracy, putting all the checks and balances to work.

The role of newspapering in all this can't be over or underestimated. Once those two eager newshounds got on to it, it took on a life of its own.

As for doing a black-bag job on the opposition offices, looking for information, I think Canadians would be inclined to take the advice of, what was his name? Tony U, something? The former New York policeman, who told the Senate Committee that if he had been asked to get the info, he would have sent a postcard asking for it. At the other end they were only too eager to send out all the info he would ever need. More, later, as I think about it...

Jonathan

I love this, and am sorry I was not posting for a couple of days. My new job got the better of me, and I had to work a couple of long days.

Anyway, this discussion is fascinating, no less so now that I know Jonathan is Canadian. What a great perspective. I loved your post about the Canadian viewpoint of Watergate and the U.S. (and the Super Bowl highlights

).

And Harriet's posts are just so thoughtful and on target IMHO. And I think Ella is brilliant at summarizing all the threads in the discussion and asking provocative questions. What a great group. Thank you all for being here.

But I must comment on the rat roasting story by Liddy. Maybe I am too trusting, but it never dawned on me that it wasn't true. It seemed to fit his character completely. In fact, it seemed far less dangerous than tying himself to the top of a tree during a lightning storm to get over that fear. I doubt you could die from eating a rat, but you could definitely die if hit by lightning.

I do agree with every one here that Liddy definitely did not grow up to be a Nazi in any way. He clearly had very traditional American patriotic views. I guess picking a mate for their genes just gives me the creeps, but I must agree that judging by the photos of his family he succeeded in producing very good-looking children.

I also agree that I find it hard to believe that Liddy did not know he could have signed up for the Marines if he chose to. In fact, I am very suspicious of all his claims that he wanted to go to war. I am not so sure. He sure did enough things to annoy his superiors in the military. If he really wanted to go to war wouldn't he try to be a model soldier and then request a reassignment? I suspect his superiors thought he couldn't be trusted and were not going to put him in situation where people's lives were at stake.

On the other hand Liddy had a knack for doing things that annoyed people in positions of power so maybe he did want to go to war and just lacked the people skills to cultivate the right people. He doesn' t seem to get how annoying he is.

I just thought about one more thing. I wonder if Liddy's insistence on wanting to go to war was because of Watergate and especially Daniel Ellsberg. I just finished Ellsberg's autobiography and a biography written by someone not sympathetic to Ellsberg, but both books confirm that Ellsberg wanted to go to war and he made it happen. Ellsberg is a Vietnam combat veteran who did multiple tours in Vietnam.

As we all know Ellsberg is at the center of the events leading up to Watergate. I wonder if Liddy is trying to make his case for why he should have more credibility than Ellsberg who was a war veteran, but who became an anti-war activist while working in the Nixon White House and for Rand and eventually leaked the Pentagon Papers.

Anyway I don't want to leap ahead, but Liddy's weird insistence that he wanted to go to war doesn't really ring true for me.

Ella, Jonathan, Ann, and all; I believe there are built in structural factors in the parliamentary system, that make Watergate type abuses of power less likely than in the U.S. system. I think this stems from the fact that executive and legislative functions are combined in the same people in the cabinet and Parliament whose cabinet members have executive responsibility while retaining their status as members of parliament. I think in this position they are more subject too observation, and the scrutiny of the rank and file MP’s both from the majority party and opposition parties. This results from continuall observation and questions of the rank and file members of all parties. Every so often I really enjoy the Sunday Night C-Span re-broadcast of the Tony Blair Q&A from London.

In the U.S. there is a complete separation of the Executive and Legislative functions. The framers of the U.S. Constitution modeled the role of the president in the image of the English King democratizing the position by substituting the heredity succession for election for a 4- year term but allowing him many of the powers of the King. The very independent congress and the President each has supreme authority in their field, and though the Congress has the right to oversee and check the decisions of the executive, this is an after the fact occurrence and as in 1971 the abuse was only discovered and debated months after the offense occurred

I suspect that had GGL in fact have made it to Viet Nam, if he returned, might have emerged quite differently from the present model. Lord!, I can even picture him as an 8th Demo in the current primaries offering his great talents and experience to the nation.

Another AWOL reporting in after some extremely busy days.

Ann, my husband served in the Air Force during the Korean War. On his base he says that there were always a contingent of guys who would have been glad to see combat. It sounds absolutely crazy to me, but maybe there's something in the psyche of some very young aggressive males that makes them want an ultimate test of courage? Believe me, it isn't an emotion that I could share!

Not so surprisingly, most of the young men who volunteered for combat tended to be single and unmarried while those with family responsibilities preferred stateside duty.

My husband always felt that there had been some sort of bureaucratic snafu on his base when a large group of married men received orders to go to Korea, and he and a group of other single men were reassigned to military bases surrounding Los Alamos, New Mexico, to protect its still on-going nuclear research facilities through radar and aerial defenses. He always wondered if some clerk got the two stacks of paper-work duty rosters confused.

Not so funny for the unlucky married guys, huh? Of course even without any clerical foul-ups, Liddy also had a knack for arousing anger in his superiors, as others have pointed out.

Jonathan and Ann, I also tended to accept Liddy's rat-roasting story as true. Except, he says he roasted the rat for an hour in the gravel near the garage of his house. No one in the family looked outside or interrupted him when he built a fire so close to his house? Didn't the cooking create an odor? It's as if there was no one in the world but himself while he cooked that rat? Surely there was his mother, or a maid in the house, and possibly others entering or leaving? Is it likely that he could have accomplished such a malodorous, bloody task without discovery?

I only started thinking of those items after you questioned the incident, Jonathan. The problem is, if I begin thinking that Liddy is not telling the truth, it casts a blur on all future incidents in the book also? That's a troubling thought to me.

Harold, if Liddy had survived Viet Nam, would he have come home a hero, festooned in medals? If there were no Watergate, can you imagine him as a presidential candidate? Oh heavens, can any of us visualize Liddy dealing with diplomatic problems on a world-wide scale? He isn't so fond of moderation or tact, is he? Do any of you think his "stacked and packed" interests would have classified him in the ranks of democrats like JFK and Clinton sexually, if not ideologically? hahaha.

Ella, thank you for all of your wonderful questions and enthusiasm. You have a talent for keeping the discussion on track and encouraging all of us. You're just the best!.

Harriet

Harold, that is just an excellent comparison of our two systems of government.

Ella, that's another of your good questions. Who can tell? He was dogged by bad luck. Misfortune hurled him into the fiery crucible of history. Of course it also gave him an incentive , along with the material, to write. Whether we believe him or not...

On second thought, thanks to Ann, perhaps it would be worthwhile to take a second look at the relative risks, and corresponding degrees of courage shown, in throwing defiance at an angry heaven from the treetop, or being careless about ingesting something harmful while feasting on roasted rat. Liddy certainly did nothing by half measures.

No one seems more eager than he to go into action, to be where the fighting is fiercest. And no one puts more effort into preparing for it than he. What a nice touch that is, in the first paragraph of chapter six, on the eve of his probable departure for overseas, for Korea, very satisfied that he did not 'spill his guts' during training exercises...hinting already to a similiar trial and triumph in the future...the touching picture, I meant to point out, of a 'worried mother and confident father'.

Ann, you do us a favor by pointing out the crucial role played by Daniel Ellsberg in Liddy's fate. So much of what Liddy relates about himself in the early part of the book is best seen in the light of later events. One just has to keep in mind how frantic some people were about the leakage of secret documents. Seen in that light, all the 'preparing' on Liddy's part, in the military, at Law School, at the FBI, must have made him seem like an exceptionally good guy to have around.

Jonathan

GOOD EVENING EVERYONE! How nice to have so many posts to read, and such varied opinions! Thanks to you all, YOU are the best, I’m just here to post questions and now and then give my viewpoint, which is not the majority opinion I can see. The endless praise that Liddy gives to his father seemed to be overkill; as if he were convincing himself that his father and he had the best relationship possible. Maybe I am reading too much into it all; still a few sentences such as “The one thing my father had not done was to make Law Review………when I made Law Review I felt another weight had been lifted from my back.” What does this signify?

Jonathan, you can always produce a smile – our neighbors to the North were mesmerized by Watergate??? Hahahaaaaa Comparisons? Well, I’ve been to Canada several times – just fell in love with Quebec and they politely spoke English to me, although we’ve heard down here for years that they so love their French that they will speak no other tongue! Love Montreal too! And Toronto, well, it’s becoming too American for it’s own good! Take it back, it’s being ruined! Hahahaha

But we all getting ahead of ourselves in the book, we cannot get to Watergate yet! We might just skip it altogether when we get there – who does not know every detail of that sorry affair!!!

And Jonathan, your assessment, plus Harold’s, gives the rest of us a great analysis of the differences between our governments. Thanks to you both.

Ann, you believed the rat story? While Harriet has suspicions – ISN’T IT FUN TO TALK AMONG OURSELVES AND DISAGREE, but - Ann has suspicions of his desire to go to war! Liddy doesn’t instill confidence in any of us, does he?

Golly, Harriet, what a story about your husband and the Korean War, so we know firsthand that there are those mercenaries – maybe that’s too harsh - men who want the excitement of war.

I've always felt that men must from time to time try out their new weapons in a real war to see if they work! That's terrible, I know, but being my age and having seen a few wars they seem inevitable.

HAVE YOU NOTICED WE ALL HAVE SUSPICIONS THAT THE AUTHOR IS NOT TELLING THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? HAHAHAHAHA

Shall we, can we, indict him for perjury at this point? But he has us, we cannot prove him false.

Believe it or not, in Ohio tonight with the temperature at about 25 and rising to 41 overnight we are going to have thunderstorms! In the middle of February! Crazy weather, so I must hurry through this post – I do want to put new questions up. They will be the last ones for this section of the book.

Looking forward to reading such wonderful posts again tomorrow! Thanks again for posting!

During the summer of 1940 when I was 13 years old my family took a vacation trip to Washington, DC. In particular I remember an afternoon tour at the FBI Washington headquarters.

A young man in his late 20’s conducted the tour. I don’t remember him actually identifying himself as an agent but I certainly supposed he was a real G-man. He took us through a sort of museum room. I remember he told stories illustrated by pictures and actual guns and other items related to the capture or death of several noted 1930’s mobsters. I was much impressed by the machine gun in a glass case. Our guide said a certain gang had somehow mounted it concealed under the hood of an automobile so it would fire into targets ahead. He dodged my question asking how it avoided firing into the auto radiator.

The guide did not forget to mention J, Edgar Hoover and how under his direction the FBI had become the best modern scientific law enforcement agency in the world. The guide emphasized how well educated and trained the agents were. He said they must be lawyers or in some instances accountants. I remember no mention of the exceptions described in our book. He made much to do about the use of fingerprints and the immense file of prints of criminals and the general public maintained by the agency. He emphasized the view that no citizen should object to having his prints on file since they might be used for identity purposes in the event of an unfortunate accident. I think perhaps he suggested that our prints could be added to the file that day, but I have no recollection of anyone taking him up on the opportunity. They had to wait another 5 years for mine, which I am sure the Navy provided them.

Even though I was much impressed with the tour, I can’t say that I was ever even a little bit attracted to the ideal of a career in the agency. By the 1960’s I sometimes wondered how Hoover stayed in office so long since there was always a clean sweep of other agencies with each new administration. For longevity the old guy’s 48-year service record is rarely equaled or exceeded. It took an unexpected heart condition to trigger his reluctant resignation on May 2 1972 as he slept in his bed at his Washington home. Click Here for a short biographical sketch of J. Edgar Hoover with links to other interesting Hoover sites.

Thanks, Harold, I have a biography of J. Edgar Hoover, he is unforgettable, at least to our generation. Isn't it true that the relatively new FBI building in Washington bears his name?

Oh, golly, I found such amusing incidents in these latter chapters about the FBI – who knew Hoover hated Eleanor Roosevelt? And his training was unbelievable –

”Suppose…an agent requests bank records of a subject …where a subpoena can’t be obtained and the bank refuses. What should he do? (Answer) One acts as a con man, one uses one’s initative and resourcefulness to get those records. Of course, it goes without saying that in doing so one exercises good judgment at all times so as never to embarrass the Bureau.”

Is it any wonder Liddy didn’t bother acting within the law when he organized the Watergate fiasco?

Here he is in this chapter making all kinds of excuses, which Jonathan alluded to before: Hoover was to America what Hitler was to Germany!

When an agent moves he is to check on his neighbors by running names through various databases and before dating someone – check them out thoroughly too.???????????

Did you know that the birthplace of the KKK was in Indianapolis – and how about our man “DIGGER” on assignment and later our man became “SUDDEN.” It’s all rather hilarious, almost like a novel or a Clint Eastwood movie.

These incidents could, most probably, be proven or unproven so I must assume they happened as he describes – still it makes for a very thrilling book, doesn’t it?

What amused you or didn’t in these chapters?

Can I help it, Ella? There is so much to smile about in this book. That's the way Liddy seems to want it. Despite his dire situation, with his career in ruins, it's not hard to see him breaking out in smiles, perhaps even laughing, as the memories come back to him while writing.

Is it a coincidence that WILL and HOPE DIES LAST are on the board at the same time? Cries of pain and anguish in one discussion, an optimistic determination to get on with his life in the other. Not to put it all behind him, that's impossible. His past is now his future.

Liddy provides plenty of humor...on the surface, at least. Hovering in the background are the ghosts. Ella's reference to a problematical father/son relationship is certainly one of them. It confirms a vague impression of mine, one that would make of Liddy a kind of American Kafka. Not necessarily because of the similar vein of humor in Kafka's writing, but because of Kafka's strange feelings about HIS father. As one can see in that revealing letter to his father. A very loose translation of a sentence or two are enough to recognize something we've become familiar with in Liddy's story:

'Dear Father: You asked me once why I say that I am afraid of you. As usual, I didn't know how to answer you. Partly because of the fear itself, that I have of you. And partly because this fear has too many aspects for me to be coherent in speaking of it.'

Kafka then goes on for another thirty-eight pages, laying it all out in his inimitable way. An amazing document! I'm not sure if his father ever got it. Kafka, I think, gave it to his mother to pass along. Liddy could probably go on for just as long if he were willing to talk about it.

But getting back to the things that make me smile in Liddy's tale. It's not surprising to hear that he is popular as a speaker on the lecture circuit. He obviously loves to tell a story...he's a raconteur, one would almost like to say. Harold has already pointed out the comic in Liddy's account of his military duty with the AA battery at Coney Island.

Courtship has him buying a silver rosary for Fran, which is paid for with his blood!!! A marriage proposal which flounders on the Hoboken Ferry, succeeds brilliantly on a second try in the holy precincts of ST Patricks Cathedral on Fifth Avenue. What a holy scene!

Life as an FBI agent provides an endless succession of humorous, even outrageous incidents. All over the USA. Intensive Care at an Indianapolis hospital inconveniences our FBI agent by keeping a dead man alive! Flushing out a fugitive from justice in Casper, Wyoming, leads to some hilarity at the local 'historical landmark' whorehouse.

But what could be funnier than the denouement to all Liddy's efforts to become the fastest and surest gun on the force? A shootout with a skunk! On a mountainside in Colorado. Correction. A standoff. Each, skunk and G-man, respecting the ability of the other, with the skunk lowering his tail, as the G-man lowers his magnum!

Of course all that, and much more, is just comic relief in a very serious story. I doubt if things have changed very much at the FBI, except for what a refined technology has brought with it. Somewhere in the house is a bullet-riddled human silhouette which an Agent gave to my twelve-year old son after the shooting demonstration was over at the Academy in Washington, years ago. My God! It may have been Liddy. It was the guy who put all his shots in the K5 zone. No. It can't be. Liddy would have been starting on this book about that time.

I believe, even years later, it was a favorite story at the Academy that Liddy had had his future wife cleared by every intelligence agency in the country. I think it was only Liddy's crazy sense of humor. I'm not surprised that he was promoted so rapidly in the Bureau. He worked too hard at it, for his talent and dedication to be overlooked. This guy was going places.

When I saw this book suggested for discussion, naturally I thought Watergate. But I see now that this is Liddy's story. And I've come to realize why it sold so well. It's unique.

Jonathan

Exactly, Jonathan! The book! The book is what Ann and I remembered - the personality, the outrageous stories he tells; it is a book - a man - neither one of us could forget after all these years. It was not Watergate, no - it was one man's life like no other life we had ever read about.

"an optimistic determination to get on with his life

Now you've hit on it, Jonathan - something we CAN ADMIRE IN THE MAN. He got up after serving a prison term, being disgraced as a criminal, and went on to write of his escapades, probably made money out of it - as I remember it was a bestseller at the time - and is now making loads of money on the lecture circuit and on radio.

And I smiled at your comparison between HOPE DIES LAST - another book being discussed at the same time here on our boards. Liddy's book should, of course, be the more serious of the two but for some strange reason it isn't?????? We can smile at it. I doubt that was his objective - I don't know.

Interesting that we are reading about one branch of our intelligence agencies while another one - the CIA - is under fire, so much so that its director, Tenet, had to appear on national TV to defend it. And the president has appointed a board to investigate its findings on 9/11 which has embroiled America into one big national and international - what can I call it? Can't think of a proper word - not "scandal" - it's just a mess!!!

And I read this morning that the findings of this investigatory board are not due until 2005 after the election!!! Hmmmmmmmm

Quickly this morning as I have no time, I clicked on a number of links to the FBI and saw this one which has Hoover in a prominent position in the upper right hand corner of the picture. Apparently, even after all the books, articles and reports about the man he is still honored for organizing an efficient and notable. agency

THE FBI

Ella and Jonathan, I love the humor in the book also. OK, I concede, there is a charm and humor about Liddy that is soo engaging. He's a raconteur who can charm when he wants to, and he can relate a wickedly funny anecdote. Jonathan, YOUR writing could charm the stars out of the sky!

BUT...

Underneath all that surface likeability, isn't there a deadly serious man, in love with power and authority, unscrupulous in his aggressive drive to excel, compete, and outdo his father, his Uncle Ray, and maybe the world in general? As a child, he admired power as a general concept, starting with "successful, powerful men" as epitomized by his father. He was also beguiled by both FDR and Adolph Hitler, both of whom shared the common element of power. Now please, I'm NOT saying he agreed with Hitler's philosophies, but I do think that Liddy came to appreciate the influence a charismatic demagogue could wield on others when he listened to Hitler's radio broadcasts with the maid, Teresa.

I think Liddy worked at his charisma as an adult. I don't believe he ever assumed that dedication to his job alone could advance him as far as he wanted to go. He worked at cultivating men who could expedite his upward rise. How else could he have enjoyed such a swift rise within the FBI? Most of all, he seemed to feel a tremendous affinity for the possessors of real power such as "the director" of the FBI.

One of the photos in the middle of my edition of WILL shows a snapshot of Liddy shaking hands with J. Edgar Hoover. The usually irreverent, witty Liddy has his shoulders squared and thrown back, eyes focussed in a manly. serious way directly on his boss...no humor here when meeting with Hoover.

Yet Liddy had already experienced the comic contradictions of some of Hoover's FBI rules. He was familiar with Hoover's fanaticism concerning the sanctity of the FBI's publicity image and probably knew some of the FBI's dirty laundry.

By the way, Harold, I smiled at your story of your childhood FBI tour. I just bet that young FBI guide avoided your perceptive question about the mounted machine gun. Maybe he hadn't run into many children who listened and visualized situations as creatively as you?

Anyway, Liddy had a rapier wit and enjoyed his capability of capitalizing on the vulnerabilities of others. Would he, as he had done to so many other past supervisors, point out some of the FBI inequities he saw to J. Edgar Hoover?

All that we can see in the photo and hear in the pages of our book is admiration for his powerful boss, warts and all. I get the feeling that power excuses a lot of flaws in Liddy's world? Doesn't Liddy's love affair with power suggest a dangerous component in his personality when it combines with his competitive and charismatic nature?

Liddy's future was leading him to another flawed but powerful and influential figure in Washington politics?

Harriet

Really I have nothing to add to Harriet's post. It says everything I intended to say though much more eloquently than I could. I love Harold and Jonathan's descriptions of visits to the FBI. Believe it or not Hoover was around so long that he was still in power during all of my childhood and I loved to hear stories about the legendary FBI.

My interpretation of GGL’s opinion of his boss, J. Eagar Hoover, during his FBI years was that he respected him, but his respect stopped short of the adoration that Hoover himself was promoting and expecting from his personnel and the public. During this time period in the late 50’s and early 60’s Hoover had been chief of the FBI for over 30 years. His early years were exceptionally creative during which he literally created the FBI as the definitive example of a modern police agency.

Yet 30 plus years is a long time for one person to remain a creative and effective leader and Hoover was no exception. Instead of promoting new creative innovations Hoover’s efforts were more directed to the promotion of his own image. My interpretation of Liddy’s picture of Hoover at that time is that he and perhaps others were beginning to sense this weakness in the agency’s command structure. Remember in the U.S. Military command level officers face mandatory retirement after just 2 years in grade, and Hoover had been in grade for over 30 years. Ten years later as a member of the White House staff GGL would write a memo recommending replacing Hoover, but we will discuss this next week

Exactly, Harold, that memo, with its recommendations, and a lot more besides, is Liddy's big chance...the book is building up to that.

Harriet, thanks for the compliment. But what I really want to say is that beautiful post of yours would also seem to be anticipating something about what Liddy might be aiming at. You have certainly supplied plenty in the way of motivation analysis. Splendid sleuthing. And splendid profiling of a strange man. Which Ann also noted.

Ella, can't you just see them doing a slow burn at the CIA, where it may seem that they are being made the scapegoats? On the other hand, Liddy tells the reader that the CIA could not come up with a decent profile of Ellsberg, hence the 'need' for the break in, or surreptitios entry, to use Liddy's name for it, at E's psychiatrist's office. But that too, lays ahead. I have found myself wondering if one of us could profile Frances Liddy, given the 36 references to her in the index. It has come up in earlier posts. Naturally one is curious. Off hand it seems to me that her husband gives her just the right amount of 'exposure' in the book. All flattering and caring, in a restrained fashion.

Jonathan

WOW! SUCH GRAND POSTS – and so much in all of them to contemplate!

Does it occur to all of you that we could spend more time on this section reading between the lines as we have been doing? WE've had such fun doing so, but, no, we must get on with the book and I will be putting up new questions today.

But to summarize the Prosecution and the Defense to date, I’ll give it a try and I’ll need your help!!! Please add to this what I’m leaving out.

We have agreed that Liddy is intelligent, ambitious, amusing, charming, steadfast in his loyalty to his family. What else?

OUR EXCELLENT PROSECUTOR, Harriet, believes we should add “unscrupulous” to the list of personality traits? What do you think? Should we add devious, or peculiar, possibly?

My thought in reading over his years in the FBI was that Liddy, rather than being in awe of Hoover was poking gentle fun at the man? Certainly when he wrote this book Hoover was dead and he could have embroidered the story, or his relationship to Hoover, in any way he so desired.

I can’t interpret the incidents when he was at the FBI clearly enough to come to a decision. Can some of you give it a try?

But we should keep Harriet’s remark – “power excuses a lot of flaws in Liddy’s world” –in mind as we continue.”

SUCH SPLENDED OPINIONS ALL OF YOU HAVE GIVEN AND MADE OF THIS DISCUSSION ONE TO BE VERY PROUD OF CONSIDERING OUR SUBJECT AND THE AGE OF THE BOOK! THANKS TO YOU ALL SO VERY MUCH.

One last thought before putting up today’s questions. Are you surprised at the memory of Liddy – surprised that he can remember an incident when he was two years old? Born in 1930, he would be 74 today but he would have been about 48 when he wrote this book, are my figures correct?

At any rate, I quote from a book review of the “SEVEN SINS OF MEMORY” by Daniel Schacter – “Most people consider their memories to be a dusty library of moments and episodes. When one wants to remember something, an inner librarian answers the call. Sometimes a memory record is handed over swiftly; at other times a lot of rummaging is required.(An excerpt from The Seven Sins of Memory, by Daniel L. Schacter)

His memory was dusted frequently; more so than my house, no doubt!!

Please remember that the questions in the heading are just teasers; just ones that I culled from the text as I was reading, and not ones that an instructor or professor would consider worthwhile. I am not, nor have ever been, a teacher and would not want to be considered in that role; merely a reader and a lover of books. I'm strictly a volunteer discussion leader to keep us all on the same page, so to speak.

If I seem to be apologizing, I am! hahahahaaa

One more post today - Yes, Jonathan, I do think a profile of Frances from the Index should be tackled, shouldn't be very difficult to do and I will try when I have a bit more time. Any of you can add to it at any time, of course!!! Hahaha

Ella, they are good questions. Tough questions. They certainly do tease one into thought. I would like to comment on them but first:

Is Liddy unscrupulous? More to the point, WAS Liddy unscrupulous? First, I think he would find it painful to hear that question asked about him. Not on moral grounds, but for existential reasons. Not the philosopher's kind, but the real here and now ones. We should remember how surprised he was, perhaps even troubled, when he heard his Uncle Raymond talked about as someone in the past, after his uncle's retirement from the Force.

And so, if Mr Liddy is reading this, I would not want him to feel that he is being talked about in that way. Asking it in the present tense, seems, somehow, even unkinder. And even untrue, in my opinion.

But he gives us so many reasons to be suspicious about his intentions. Harriet is being very kind and generous in her estimation of his character. I think he wants us to believe that he WAS unscrupulous. That he had to be unscrupulous. To win whatever war he was fighting. In his environment it must have seemed, for all practical purposes, an occupational hazard, to survive as well as to get ahead. In his police work, in his military viewpoints, in the political wars...and, as he puts it in one of the links above: '(America) is no ashram.'

Still, by nature I don't think he was unscrupulous, despite the talk. One almost hates to think it about him, much less even to say it, but perhaps he was too naive and, basically, too good for that. A 'good' Liddy? That, somehow, doesn't suit the image one would like to have of him either. That would be almost disappointing. How about thinking of him as a bad good guy? Or should it be good bad guy?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch so to speak, Liddy is having a very ordinary problem about the course that his life should take. And, more importantly, how to provide for his growing family. Enter spiritual wrestling, as well as frustrated ambition. After five years he quits the FBI to go on to something else. Can we believe his reasons? That it was mainly a monetary thing? Or, more likely, as he puts it in a very signicant statement:

'Should I remain in the FBI, the MOST I could aspire to was to become an Assistant to the Director, the number-three spot...' p98

So it seems ambition drives him. But, if Harriet is right in her assessment of his character (post 94) which has him 'in love with power and authority', finding his role models in Roosevelt and Hitler, as well as J Edgar Hoover, how much scope for his boundless ambition could he hope to find in his father's law firm?

At thirty-two some of us are still (one has to think of Fran being an exception) setting out on the search to satisfy ambition. But all too soon fate overtakes us, and having barely begun, Liddy finds himself 'in the midst of life', not unlike Dante, whose Inferno was discussed here recently, whose only way forward is through Hell. This is getting a bit melodramatic. I'd better take a break...

Jonathan

You are being very kind today, JONATHAN – a bit ambiguous, possibly but kind to our Mr. Liddy. You are correct in questioning the “tenses” and he might agree that he had been unscrupulous in the past, maybe, not today? – but we are getting into the future of the book?

I loved your pharase – “his past is his future,” and here we can use the present tense I believe, he seems to still be actively involved, is this correct? I don’t know. I’m getting confused here…….

One feels sad for him in Chapter XI, yes I do! He loses his faith in God:

”My agnosticism is a poor substitute for the faith I no longer have to give my children.”

A faith that had previously given him sustenance and courage.

I wonder how he feels about the Catholic faith today or God? Or how Fran feels or his children? Were they raised Catholic?

HEAR YE! HEAR HE! HEAR YE! THIS COURT IS NOW IN SESSION

THIS COURT HAS NOT BEEN ADJOURNED AND ALL MEMBERS OF THE PANEL OF JUDGES ARE EXPECTED TO APPEAR SHORTLY!!!!

Courtrooms are to be respected! Hahahaaaaaaa

I would love to have all opinions on the QUESTIONS OF THE DAY, please!!!

Personally, I think the American people are more skeptical or cynical of all agencies of government than they were 30 years do you agree? Perhaps that is healthy?

It all started with the Vietnam War and Nixon and I see little signs of improvement. What will it take to regain our respect for our government in all its forms?

I love your adorable gavel, Ella! I'm appearing gladly at the behest of this court.

I've been having a problem figuring out WHO Liddy is in our new section of the book. I guess that's why I haven't been giving any new opinions so quickly.

I've re-read our new week's pages several times. Once I get through the tangle of names...from "heavy hitters" like Ehrlichman or Mitchell to lesser luminaries like Bud Krogh, I can see that Liddy tells us a lot about about WHAT jobs he did and WHO he worked with as he climbs his way from Eugene Rossides office to the Committee to Reelect the President.

I just can't figure out the WHYS. There's a few cause and effect factors missing here?

Seems to me Liddy omits a lot. His first boss, Rossides, wanted Liddy gone...with a purple passion. I can't tell why, except that Liddy says that "Rossides gets uncomfortable around people who are right too often when they disagree with him."

Doesn't Liddy only act on something when he's SURE that he's right? So, that must mean that he felt HE was right whenever he disagreed with his boss, Rossides? Was he really?

Maybe he's painting a picture of himself as a man who will NEVER accept being an underling in the complex network of Washington politics...a dangerous man to cross? He backs up his assertiveness by making it clear that he is "not without friends" in Washington and is willing to do things that no one else will undertake? He has such a fierce love for undertaking a challenge...?

Is that why he was having trouble finding a permanent berth? Was Liddy a team player, or did he STEP on people? Does his much vaunted loyalty come into play only with someone who agrees with HIM?

I believe the FBI once had a much more awe-inspiring image than it does today. However here's a personal reaction that surprised me about myself. I recently ran into a childhood friend of my son. This boy, as a 9 year old, had many meals with us, even came on a vacation with us as a traveling companion for my son. I knew him in an affectionate childhood context. He later moved away and we all lost contact.

He recognized ME...I would never have known him as the adult he now is. He greeted me with a lot of affection and we traded updates. Turns out he now works for the FBI. Do you know, I was VERY impressed? Theoretically, I know the FBI has passed its day, but in real life I was awed.

If my reaction is any indication, I guess the FBI still carries considerable clout?

Ella, I too wondered why we needed a Homeland Security agency, but as I read about the rivalries and internal politics between the FBI and CIA in this book, I wonder if President George Bush created Homeland Security as a agency that was loyal primarily to HIM, and filled it with HIS appointees, so he didn't have to cope with the internal conflicts of the two older agencies?

Harriet

I see Liddy as coming on the Washington scene well endowed with mental capability and social charms. His ambitions seem to have been directed toward gaining prestige and power rather than money and wealth. Had the latter been his goal, he would have put up with working with his father in the prestigious family law firm. GGL differed from the army of similar D.C. characters since power to him meant physical action leading him to the FBI and later to service as a local Assistant District Attorney and finally to undercover investigations of an extra-legal character.

I found the details of the Police raid on Timothy Leary’s place in which GGL participated as an Assistant D.A. most interesting. As the story unfolded of Liddy’s on-site questioning of Leary, I kept thinking that something was being left out. While he had warned them that anything they said would be held against them, he said nothing about their right to have an attorney present. This would have been a necessary part of the warnings required under the Miranda v. Arizona decision that I thought pre-dated the raid. I was wrong on that as the Miranda decision came later, just in time to save Timothy Leary and the other defendants arrested in the raid from prison.

Wonderful posts, Harriet and Harold and thank you. YOU HEARD THE GAVEL DID YOU? hahahaaa

I have no time at the moment to make many comments, we are going out of town to celebrate my husband's 79th birthday - I'm impressed at our ages, both of us - when you are younger and working you give little thought to this age but here we are late in our 70's and running around as best we can, enjoying fine dining tonight! At the very place we spent our first night after we were married.

But quickly my opinion is the same as Harriet's when she said -"Seems to me Liddy omits a lot."

Yes, Yes!!!

And you are still awed by an FBI agent, Harriet! As well you might, aren't they the finest our nation can recruit supposedly? What did the young man tell you of his work? Of course, he couldn't go into much detail, but anything?

Harold's comment about Liddy's ambitions not laying in the field of wealth, but rather in prestige and power, was right on!! How far in politics did he imagine he could go? With his father's connections perhaps? His own charm and education?

We begin to wonder what Liddy might have been in another era or on the staff of a different president?

Must run, more later, ella

Ella, I too was struck by the mood of sadness and regret which lay behind those words. For a moment one almost feels that there is another Liddy we haven't met. Even sadder, if that's possible, is the sense of loss over the comforting rituals of the church. And what a striking metaphor, with such a sudden flash of poetry:

'those rituals...like the scent of burning leaves in the autumn, they, too, have been banned and are gone with the wind.'

That's unforgettable!

I'll take a pass on question 15, given the controversial opinions on policing and intelligence in the US. My opinion would be out of place. As a boy, along with my chums, in our cops and robbers games, we followed the exemplary methods of J Edgar Hoover and his Agents, despite having the best police force in the world ourselves. In the small community in which I grew up policing was done by the national police. That meant speeding tickets were issued by them. Nothing to admire about that.That wasn't our idea of getting one's man.

Question 16 raises a lot of good issues. For us boys the legendary French Foreign Legion was second only to the FBI, as a source of inspiration for game playing. So it's interesting to read what Liddy has to say about them. It turns out that it's only one component of the Legion that he admires. All those German Waffen SS types who sought a place to hide at war's end. It was only once they were removed, as Liddy has it, that things deteriorated rapidly for the French in Indochina. There was more to it than that. I believe it was Eisenhower's refusal to extend military aid that convinced the French it was time to get out of their colony. I wonder if it is that memory that has left a strain between the US and France. I wonder if the FBI was ever as efficient or ruthless as La Surete, the French police. Those guys at Scotland Yard are pretty thorough, too.

Question 17. If Liddy chose 'all-out war' for Vietnam, why didn't he go over there and fight. I doubt if there are any vets of that war who felt that it was 'limited' as far as fighting went. To give it one's all, as many did, seems something more than limited. In one of the links Liddy deplores the three-mile high bombing of military objects. He liked it better, he says, when those fighters and bombers went in at tree-top level and caught some of the debris that they had caused. Brave guy, this.

We get to hear a number of interesting things about police raids and legal procedures in the Leary incident, but Liddy must have put that in for its entertainment value. But it brings back memories of a time when Leary came along, with such good credentials, and promised us so much for so little effort. Not that I was taken in. What he was promising seemed so much a part of the sky, that it made me wonder if money could really get me more than I was already getting, for example, by laying on my back and gazing intently at the passing clouds. I'll take Liddy's burning leaves any day over Leary's burning grass.

I also believe that Liddy was being truthful when he talks about a vivid memory at the age of two. Just hearing about it makes it memorable. That little tyke, playing in his closed-in backyard, having his sky shut out by that monstrous zepellin...that must have been awesome.

Jonathan

How romantic, Ella! A dinner that holds memories of your wedding and the days afterward is a wonderful thing to enjoy so many years later.

May you both have many happpy birthdays and anniversaries together for many years to come.

Harriet

”For a moment one almost feels that there is another Liddy we haven't met..

Don’t you all believe that also? Here is a man that shows little sentimentality except now and then the love for his wife, his very good wife, and family, but there’s more to the man that he cannot write about – most men cannot utter sentiments, much less expose them to the world in a book.

If you were to meet him – what would be your first comment? Would you like to? I would or, at least, be in the same room with a few other people perhaps; but I would like to know his views on the current problems of this country and the world – a world getting smaller and closer all the time.

At the same time, when I read of him using cigarettes, matches and candles to burn his flesh to increase his willpower, I shudder a bit! Anyone know the technique he says is recognized in the East?

HARRIET, I’ve been thinking over what you posted on the probability of the Homeland Security being Bush’s baby, his own men, hmmmmmmmmm. Could be, then, that it is true today that employees of the FBI and the CIA (except for the top guns, of course, which are subject to partisan appointments) are civil servants and cannot be removed from their jobs at the whim of a politician. Interesting!

Then, too, another viewpoint might be that the FBI’s role is stateside security, and the CIA is international; whereas the new Homeland Security can roam anywhere in the country or the world to root out possible terrorism? Someday we’ll know, it will all be in books about the Bush administration!

What a thoughtful post, Jonathan, and thank you so much for your thoughts about the French, German and even Scotland Yard security forces! Gosh, we’ve all heard about them, but I don’t know the details – that would take another book, wouldn’t it?

At the time of the Vietnam War, 1969, Liddy was the father of five children, his wife was holding down the fort at home and working on her Masters Degree in the hope of making more money for all of them and Liddy is running around trying to decide what his future will be or as he put it – “controlling the loose cannon called Gordon Liddy.”

”I had met Mr. Nixon when he spoke in….and had been impressed by what he said, his skill in saying it, and his personal warmth.”

I’ve read that those who knew him, had met him personally felt the same, but the public, only seeing the man on TV and reading about it, NEVER FELT HIS WARMTH, at least I didn’t. Were you taken in by that “cloth coat speech” he gave during the election I believe it was?

Liddy’s entrance into Washington society was not exactly what he had hoped for – running into muggers, getting knocked unconscious, losing his security pass – CAN YOU SEE WHY HE IS A POPULAR SPEAKER? The tales he tells! The loaded guns he keeps and carries!

Ohio now has a “conceal/carry gun bill” – anyone can own, carry a gun as long as it is concealed. A recent article says that only Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska and Wisconsin do NOT have a conceal/carry law. The NRA is ecstatic, others frightened!

JONATHAN – what is the law in Canada or where you live about possessing weapons? Do the police carry them?

More questions will be in the heading tonight! THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR OBSERVATIONS AND INTEREST!!!

It may be that Liddy is not telling us very much that we don't already know about the events in which he was involved during Watergate. No doubt he could tell us more. Nevertheless, I think he does very well, in an honest way, in describing the track that took him to Washington, what he found there, and the quick way in which he got to know the political ropes.

His new duties as well as the passage of time soon made him realize that things had changed at the FBI. Most importantly, was the new prospect that the No 1 position would soon be open. No 3 had not appealed to him when he left the Bureau, but No 1? I suspect that he would quite naturally see himself occupying the Director's chair. With his background and experience he was a credible candidate. And now he is moving among the people who will be making the moves and decisions, when it comes to choosing a successor to Hoover.

However, as Liddy has already explained several times, wanting something and getting it, where politics are concerned, are two different things. One is helped or hindered by all those others who are seeking to expand their own turfs, paying off iou's, or collecting them, etc. Some feel 'threatened from above AND below'. Liddy himself was thought of by some as a loose cannon. But what about those sinister 'torpedoes' in every office. It's something like this that comes through for me in this section of the book. Will Liddy navigate successfuly, even survive, in these dangerous waters?

He has to be believed, IMO, when he gives the usual good reasons for going to Washington, to serve his country. To save it from those of his fellow citizens whom any law-and-order man would find offensive. Well, he does get carried away at times with a 'zeal which was greater than good judgment', as Nixon was to say later.

Can you imagine the scene, when Liddy lights his cigar, contemptuously, with the candle held by the protester? Gotcha!

But soon enough there are others out to get him. Setting traps.

I think writing the Memo on what to do about Hoover was one of them. Liddy saw it as an opportunity, not only to inform The Chief, but also to put himself in the best possible light as the next Director. It's all there between the lines. Memos can be such good stepping stones. But first he has to help get The Chief reelected.

The things he says about Hoover and the sad state of the Bureau! The author of the Memo has a good grasp of things! But didn't Liddy ever stop to remember that the Memo would make the rounds? Eventually landing on the desk of J Edgar Hoover? One had better bilieve it. The Hoover bio that I consulted makes good use of the Memo, suggesting that Hoover DID, in fact, see it.

Game over for Gordon Liddy. I believe it was Magruder who suggested that one of those at the Watergate break-in was a double agent, making it certain that Liddy would be caught.

Jonathan

I found this reference to GGL's feelings about child raising on p. 134. He is discussing his and Fran's desire for six children.

"I was aware also that children can be lost to sickness, accident, or war and six would raise substantially the probability that at least some offspring would survive. Just as important, I recognized that a child can lose itself through failure of the will to achieve and that having six would make it easier to accept and write off such a living death as well."

Do any of you have any reaction to these sentiments? It caught my attention strongly and I wondered about the rest of you? Agree? Disagree?

Ella, what an interesting question you pose about Liddy's perception of internal and external war in 1960's America. Don't we have some increasingly troubling parallels in our time also?

Didn't President Johnson justify the Vietnamese war with the theory, later proved incorrect, that all of Southeast Asia would surely fall into Communism if the USA didn't fight the ideology in Vietnam? I think he termed this theory the "domino" effect? Liddy despised those Americans who disagreed or actively protested the Vietnam war. He considered them unpatriotic and disloyal.

"I was fed up with the double standard of the left. I had learned long ago the maxims of Cicero that "laws are inoperative in war" and that "the good of the people is the chief law."

In other words, anything goes when national security is at stake?

Today, our country is under terrorist attack and again civil liberties are being curtailed by the Patriot Act and activist protest is being termed unpatriotic by the political right. I have read that President George Bush has ordered the establishment of FREE SPEECH ZONES when he travels and gives speeches. The Secret Service, as one of its advance duties, now herds peaceful citizens carrying placards of dissent into those areas, located approximately half a mile from where the president is speaking. Consequently, the president, the press covering the president's speech on TV, and the TV viewing public do NOT see anything but enthusiastic public endorsement of the president.

Have we arrived in Orwell's 1984? Scary? Would Liddy currently approve?

Harriet

Jonathan, what a fascinating post on that memo and Liddy's possible reasons for writing it. Hmmmm...something to think about!

Thanks for that interesting input.

Harriet

First, Harriet, I agree with you (as I always see to it seems) regarding Liddy's desire for 6 children. It gave me the creeps that he would even think of giving up on child no matter how much they did not live up to his expectations of "greatness."

Also, I meant to write much earlier that you completely convinced that some men are really into war, like Liddy (your husband's experience there was very convincing especially how it broke down between single and married men). I read somewhere that terrorist organizations who gain a political foothold and want to end their ongoing war will often make concerted efforts to marry off their young warriors and encourage them to have children to keep them from wanting the thrill of battle.

But onto the current topic as outlined by Jonathan. I think Liddy was completely clueless in writing that memo. All I could think when I was reading is "Is he insane? Is he trying to end his career?" Of course, it would get back to Hoover. I think that Liddy has a very severe blindspot (or social disability) about how his actions (no matter how "right" they seem to him) angered people and make it impossible for him to reach his goals because these powerful people would put up immoveable roadblocks. I would never let someone with his lack of judgment run the FBI.

I came upon this interesting tidbit on the internet while researching something completely unrelated. It is a paragraph printed in what seems to be a Catholic magazine called "My Daily Visitor."

Heidi Hess Saxton meditates on "Pride" in the Mar/Apr 2003 issue and writes:

Pride

"G. Gordon Liddy was one of the men convicted in the Watergate affair that forced President Nixon to resign in 1973. After his release from prison in 1977, Liddy wrote an autobiography appropriately titled "Will." Since childhood, Liddy had had tremendous willpower.

In the 1960s, Liddy abandoned his Catholic faith. Then, 20 years later, he underwent a religious conversion. It came about as a result of attending Scripture-study meetings with his former FBI colleagues. Commenting on the experience, Liddy says that he resolved to spend the rest of his life seeking and doing God's will rather than his own. He wrote: "The hardest thing I have to do now, each day, is to decide what is God's will rather than what is my will."

Prayer: My God, help me to defeat pride by always seeking Your will, which is life and happiness."

Many of us had commented on how keenly Liddy had felt the loss of his religious faith and how much this loss would impact his children's lives. Apparently Liddy rethought his views in later years?

Except it makes me smile when I visualize the usually overconfident Liddy trying to puzzle out the boundary line between HIS will and GOD'S will? In terms of his personality he has certainly set himself a difficult job, hasn't he?

Harriet

Hello Ann! Thanks for your post - you thought he would make a terrible FBI director? I think just the opposite, he would make that organization hum and be one of the most organized and efficient in the government.

Thanks Harriet for the latest news on Liddy and his Catholic conversion; while I'm glad he has found his faith again I smiled at your comment about his difficulty in knowing the difference! Hahahaha

I never thought of Liddy vying for the No. l spot in the FBI, JONATHAN; but, of course, he would have loved it. There must have been many in the Bureau who were after the same thing and Liddy possibly went to Washington to go after the job! Hmmmm That would be true to his character, I agree, and due to all the dirty tricks being played then and now, his memo could very well have been leaked to Hoover. How livid he must have been to have read that! Thanks for that observation!

It was a year or two ago when I read THE BUREAU by Ronald Kessler, a former Washington Post and NYTImes investigative reporter, published in 2002, but in looking in the index there is only one mention of GGL and that was in reference to the "plumbers." It was a good book and I would recommend it as a history of the Bureau; furthermore it brings us up to date on 9/11, the FBI's activities and bin Laden.

One quote near the end of the book:

"Of the bureau's ten directors, three-William J. Burns, J.Edgar Hoover and William S. Sessions-abused their position. A fourth, Louis J. Freeh, almost destroyed the bureau through colossal mismanagement…As with presidents, FBI directors wield tremendous power and are constantly courted, and this can lead to a sense of entitlement."

Power corrupts.

HARRIET, I was a little appalled when I read that sentence in the book - what a strange man Liddy is to think of the future in such a dark way; to think of children dying before they are born or not achieving. He's a bit too pragmatic for my taste!

What did Fran think of that when she read the book or did she know his thoughts earlier? How we would all like to know - I do hesitate to say this but my opinion of Fran changes a bit over time or through the book. How could she stand by and let her husband tell the school authorities (the same school where she taught!) that his children would not submit to the policies of the school; furthermore he preferred the German approach to bullies, and it sounded to me as if he was teaching his children to pound the kids to earth if trouble broke out. The German approach again - he can't escape his admiration for them which came early in life from Teresa.

Did Fran ever oppose his ideas? Did he listen? Is she a wimp? Does the husband rule in this household? Would you want to cross him?

IN OTHER WORDS, ANYTHING GOES WHEN NATIONAL SECURITY IS AT STAKE - Harriet

Frightening isn't it! Seems to be that way at present - I had not heard of the FREE SPEECH ZONES, THANKS FOR CALLING THAT TO OUR ATTENTION! Why haven't the press been on to these free speech zones, I haven't read one thing about it and you would think the Democrats would be yelling and screaming, particularly the potential nominees.

later, ella

Ella, I had never heard of "free speech zones" either until recently. I read about the practice from a poster in Robby's HOPE DIES LAST discussion. Her name is Ursa Major and she should get credit for mentioning the issue. Another poster suggested typing the words "free speech zone" into any computer search engine like Google or Yahoo to get much more comprehensive information. One gentleman named Brett Bursey has already been arrested and prosecuted for refusing to obey the Secret Service when they demanded he lower his dissenting sign that said "No War For Oil" and refused to proceed to the designated free speech zone.

There has been a rather limited amount of publicity about this issue, and you bring up an excellent point. Why haven't we heard more about this on TV? Are the TV journalists who travel with the President fearful of being denied access to him if they campaign against his favorite policies? It seems to be the newspapers that are leading the limited publicity on this matter rather than the TV anchors. As you pointed out, where are our democratic candidates?

Also, I find myself worrying about demagoguery when repressive practices are endowed with star-spangled American names that suggest the exact opposite of the policy's intent. I wonder who thought of calling the locale where peaceful dissenters are segregated a "free speech zone." Isn't that bizarre?

I agree that there are questionable elements in Gordon and Fran Liddy's marriage as described in the pages of this book. Jonathan suggested looking up references to Fran's name in the index. Great idea! Thanks, Jonathan.

Please note that I haven't read past Part 2 of our assigned pages. I skimmed quickly and came up with quite a few instances where GGL praised Fran for her willingness to endure places and situations even though they were not to her personal preference. Fran always seems to have cooperated with furthering her husband's career. I don't see Liddy reacting in a similar way when he debated with the school system that employed his wife over his children's self-defense tactics.

Personally I feel that Liddy and his wife shared a great mutual goal. Fran always tried to do whatever was best for Liddy, and Liddy also invariably did whatever was best for Liddy. They seemed to be in perfect agreement in this respect?

I think someone mentioned, at the beginning of this discussion, that Liddy often spoke casually about his extra-curricular romances on his radio show. If this turns out to be accurate, I feel it's certainly a demeaning way to treat his wife...both the unfaithfulness AND his public exposure of it. He certainly didn't seem to be sensitive about causing Fran public pain?

I agree with Ann and Ella that his notions of fatherhood were also somewhat unforgiving. You know, Liddy had one daughter, Grace, an artist who apparently DIDN'T engage in the family game of leadership, risk, and public accomplishment. She followed her creative interests instead. Now isn't THAT an act of heroism for a Liddy family daughter?

Harriet

I have met one of Hoover successors as FBI Chief. This was Judge William S. Sessions who served as FBI Director from November 1987 through July 1993. Judge Sessions had been a Federal District Judge in the Western district of Texas and presided over the trial of 4 defendants charged with the assassination of another Federal District Judge, Jon Wood. The trigger man was a Las Vegas professional gambler hired for the killing, Charles Harrellson, the father of the prominent actor. I was on the jury panel. Since it was a high profile trial there was a large panel of about 500 prospective Jurors. I spent 5 days in the court during which the jury was selected.

I was quite impressed by the way Judge Sessions handled the procedure. He interviewed me twice in open Court with questions concerning my qualifications to serve as a juror. Also I had another brief meeting with him in his chambers during which I convinced him to allow me to leave the Court one afternoon to attend a funeral. In any case, I was not surprised that I was not selected for the jury finally seated.

Click Here for a brief biography of Judge Sessions and links to bios of all of the people who have served as Director of the FBI. I think the Sessions experience illustrates the difference between Hoover’s long term and his successors who seem to turn-over rather rapidly. I understand the President appoints the director for a definite term of years. In other words he is not immediately replaced at the coming of a new President. Yet a new President can reappoint or not at the expiration of the term. In Hoovers case he served under some (quick count) 9 presidents. Sessions had been appointed by President Bush (I) in 1987. Immediately after Clinton became President in Jan 1993, there was friction between the two that soon resulted in Sessions resignation less that a year later in Nov 1993.

I did a Google Search on the string Francis Liddy thinking I might hit on something specific on Mrs Liddy. Though I found nothing specific on Mrs Liddy here is an interesting hit telling something of recent family doings. Click Here

Also, I find myself worrying about demagoguery when repressive practices are endowed with star-spangled American names that suggest the exact opposite of the policy's intent. I wonder who thought of calling the locale where peaceful dissenters are segregated a "free speech zone." Isn't that bizarre?

Harriet it has long been the rule that the first amendment does not grant an Individual the right to stand up in a crowded theater and yell, ”FIRE.” Demagoguery in political campaigns sometimes takes the form of an opposition group trying to disrupt an opponent’s political rally by the staging of a loud aggressive counter rally in close proximity to the other. Such action would effectively deny free speech to the aggrieved party. No, it is not bizarre as geographic segregation of the two opposing elements is necessary to prevent physical violence and to assure each element its own 1st amendment rights to free speech.

Harold, Ella, Harriet and Jonathan,

I must admit you are all so much more fairminded than I am. I am finding Liddy increasingly disturbing. He seems so completely self absorbed, and expects his family to support whatever he thinks will help him (not all of them).

Many years ago I heard Liddy on the radio and he casually remarked about romances. In fact, so casually that I did a double take as I remembered he was married. I was in college at the time and none of my friends were married so casual affairs were not shocking to me or them, but all of us in the room kind of stared at each other in shock, and cringed, and someone said something like, "doesn't this bother his wife? He is married, right?"

I think I am just stuck on the things that bother me. I also thought he was extremely quick witted, but sometimes cruelly so on his radio show.

Anyway I am looking forward to being more open minded as we continue in the book.

Harold, I loved your story about Judge Sessions. How remarkable that you actually met an FBI director when the FBI plays such a central role in this story.

The emergence of the licensed to kill secret agent operating extra-legal as a part of the “Free World’s defense against the Evil Empire seems to have emerged in full bloom in the early 1960’s. I think it was 1962 when the first feature film rendition of the Ian Flemming's James Bond character emerged. “From Russia With Love” in 1963 and “Gold Finger” in 1964, quickly followed. Since then new titles have been released first at annual intervals, later less often, but continuing until the present day with more planned for the future. People throughout the world truly love the character and have no doubt spent billions of dollars for these films thereby giving an apparent “de facto” approval to the extra-legal mode of operations..

GGl in his post FBI years must most certainly have seen these films. Particularly during the early post-FBI years many of his projects seem to cast him as a James Bond type character. Even as early as 1963’s as an Assistant D.A during the Timothy Leary raid, we see him as an active participant. Later from a peculiar position on the Richard Nixon White House staff, he planned and personally commanded the execution of the entry of the Dr Lewis Fielding (Einsberg’ psychologist) Los Angles Office, becoming as directly involved as possible under higher orders that he was not to personally to enter. This was followed later when as a member of the White House Staff, he planned and directed the 1972 “Dirty Tricks” operation.

I note that GGL in planning his extra-legal operations faced one difficult problem that James Bond never seemed to meet. This was the budget problem- the problem of paying for the operation. I thought it most interesting that GGL’s well thought out plans for the 1971-72 “Dirty Tricks” operation saw the initial budget request of $1,000.000 rejected as much to high. A follow up toned down budget request of $500,000 was likewise refused, necessitating a further stripping of expensive features, reducing the finances available for the operation to a meager $250,000. It was on this limited budget that the 1972 “Dirty Tricks” war was waged. This included the Watergate entry that failed when the CIA trained Cubans were arrested ultimately bringing down GGL and the other White House Staff participants, and the President of the United States. In contrast despite severe British financial austerity they always seemed to have all the finances needed to keep James Bond going.

HAROLD, your account of the trial of Harrelson by Judge Sessions is written up in the FBI book I previously noted; furthermore the book states that, as Judge, Sessions was known for his fairness, toughness and attention to decorum. However, as the Director of the FBI, appointed by Reagan, he did a very poor job – one can get the idea from reading this account that he was becoming senile, interrupting exchanges with agents by singing at the top of his voice, downgrading the agents, displaying no interest in investigations, allowing his wife, Alice, to help him run the office (in fact, he often described her as Co-Director); etc.

Do you know how Mueller is doing? Certainly, it is time - way past time - to have a good guy at the top of the FBI.

HARRIET – there you have it! Harold made a good case for the necessity of the free speech zones and the assassinations of Jack Kennedy and his brother further emphasize the point of security in a mob of people. The Secret Service, no doubt, overemphasizes crowd control but rather that, than the alternative.

ANN - it is true, then, that Liddy has had extra-marital affairs? Or was he just kidding? If it is true how can he then talk about his wife so lovingly in this book!!! She’s still with him and his children haven’t forsaken him or, at least, we don’t know about it and, as we don’t have a clue as to the truth of what actually goes on in his marriage or his family, we shall, like you, keep an open mind if possible.

SELF-ABSORBED you say! Exactly the right word! As mentioned before the man never mentions a friend, or a close relative, and very little about his parents.

That web site, Harold, has been there since before Christmas and he has not changed it one bit, still saying he has gone to Arizona at the behest of his wife who he always obeys! HA!

In regards to GGL believing he is James Bond, (great analogy, Harold) the evidence is in the book, over and over, as he describes his illegal activities and getting away with them, particularly in the Fielding operation. What a story; actually I have a postit note on those pages on which I scribbled “is this for real or a movie?”

Finally, in Chapter XVI we have this admission (a bit late in the book)”

”Dean was asking me for a decision, but I wasn’t prepared to give him one without knowing something else…….(it was) plain that we weren’t in a campaign in ’72. It would be war. The need for what Dean was proposing was obvious, and I certainly had no reluctance to go to war. BUT IT WOULD BE AN INDECLARED WAR AND WHAT I WOULD BE DOING WAS CLEARLY ILLEGAL I had no intention of failing any more than I would intend to be killed in a shooting war, but the risk was there and in the event of failure, I would have to be prepared to accept the consequences”

James Bond, alias GGL, failed this time and went to prison for it. Is it an excuse that the orders for such operations were coming direct from the White House? Is it loyalty to a president? Did he ever stop to ask himself any questions of morality or values?

I'll have new questions in the heading tomorrow! THANKS, AGAIN, FOR SUCH ASTUTE OBSERVATIONS! I LOVE THEM SO KEEP THEM COMING!

Harold, I've been thinking about your post #118. I agree that no one has the right "stand up in a crowded theater and yell, ”FIRE.” However I don't see that simile as an equivalent to the Free Speech Zone situation.

I imagine that sometimes, those who protect the president, must initially have a difficult time determining the difference between individuals who represent peaceful protest and those demonstrators who plan to rally and disrupt.

However Bush's Free Speech Zone policy consistently and uniformly picks out and removes ONLY those with signs that indicate disapproval of the president. Only Bush dissenters are segregated even when the situation is totally peaceful, and other individuals with placards approving of the president are allowed to remain in the crowd. To me, that seems like an attempt to smother free speech and manipulate what the TV cameras see.

Have you had a chance to read the link in my post #111? Or to type "free speech zone" into your search engine? If you have and still feel the same as in your post #118, then let's agree to respectfully disagree on this particular subject.

One area where I CAN agree with you enthusiastically is your James Bond simile for Liddy's "dirty tricks." hahaha. What an interesting perspective that places on Liddy's actions and personality. And what a droll observation on James Bonds' lavish life style as opposed to Liddy's!

Harriet

It comes as a surprise, to read, in Harriet's post 114, that GGL underwent a conversion in the 1880's, and I am having a difficult time trying to imagine a converted Liddy. The same difficulties as Harriet seems to be having. For a man making such an issue of personal will as Liddy does, to the point of rejecting any offspring lacking it, for such a man to admit, by his conversion, that his own will has turned out to be a mirage, a cause of his present predicament, that bespeaks an upheaval within, the immediate cause of which must have been the breaking of that cardinal rule in his chosen profession: don't get caught! Is it any wonder if it left him morally unhinged?

He has told us of the glorious feeling of freedom when he declared himself free of God. Not, however, without some misgivings about his new-found agnosticism. And some nostalgia about those wonderful, no longer observed church rites. I have to admit that I felt a bit sceptical about Liddy's claim to have rid himself of outworn beliefs. It seemed to me that his argument with God was mostly about family planning. It involved conjugal satisfaction. And that cleaning his guns was a more frequently practiced rite than his attendance at mass and the taking of holy communion.

But at the same time he was admitting to a religious side to his nature. It was there, and it remained there. So, it shouldn't be surprising after all that he found his way back to God. Once inclined to see a divinity in things, there's little chance of ever divesting oneself entirely of the belief. Divesting himself of one God ends only with the beginning of a search for a new and better one. It wouldn't even surprise me to hear that Liddy may even at one time considered the priesthood.

Right from the start I've been suspicious about GGL's ideas of 'will'. There had to be more to it than raising the his pain threshhold. At times it has seemed to me that his emphasis on a personal will came at the expense of humanitarian feelings and commonsense. I have to admit to having serious problems with his unfeeling notions of family engineering. With no understanding, for example, of the life and immeasurable contributions made by the weak, shy, perhaps withdrawn child. Is Liddy playing at being God? Deciding who should live and who should live.

I can't always see the charm in Liddy's makeup. But then he has never claimed it for himself. It sticks in my mind. His account to the reader, that his sister pleaded with him to leave their father's law firm. Having him around seemed to be killing Dad.

God does in fact work in mysterious ways. Almost, one could say, with a holy variation on the surreptitious entry that Liddy seemed so keen on. Just look at what God did with Chuck Colson. And Jeb Magruder is still a Presbyterian minister, I believe. Some good did come out of Watergate.

Jonathan

HELLO JONATHAN! So glad you came on board as I needed a smile today and your posts always give me just that. A converted Liddy - let me ask, had he converted back to Catholicism before Watergate would it have made a difference? Or do you think Liddy's activities were justified?

Yes, Colson and Magruder found religion also late in life, didn't they? Colson was preaching at a church near me and it was advertised liberally. No, no, I didn't go!

I do agree that once being exposed to religion of any kind, it is not so easy to put it aside.

Thanks so much for your post!

And, HARRIET, we have quite a subject here under debate. I did a search on the Internet as you suggested and the best of all of the sites is this one, I think. If you click here and go to about the 5th paragraph, you can hear a segment of a program on NPR's ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. Amusing that this Bursey was also a troublemaker back in the Nixon years. This is going to be an interesting trial when it comes up in the fall (I think I read that in one of those sites):

Free Speech Zone

Where does everybody stand on the question of presidential security or the First Amendment. Have we any precedents here?

Harriet, I have not researched this at all, just merely read a few sites and, as I understand it, Bursey was arrested and fined, but he appealed and the case is pending. Am I getting it right? I have little time to do much else today but I would like to know more.

I note this from the clickable I posted previously:

"Representative BARNEY FRANK (Democrat, Massachusetts): I'm all in favor of a free speech zone. I think it should be the United States of America. The notion that there should be places where you can engage in free speech and places where you can't is totally antithetical to the Constitution."

There is also this:

"This isn't the first time Bursey's protests have landed him in trouble with the law. In the early '70s, he was jailed almost two years for painting anti-war graffiti at a draft board office. He also was arrested for trespassing in 1969 as he demonstrated against Richard Nixon at the same Columbia airport. In that case, the South Carolina Supreme Court overturned his conviction."

Such an interesting question we have here and I am anxious to know how the rest of you feel about it.

New questions are in the heading for your perusal.

Harriet here are a few concluding thoughts on the so-called free speech zones question.

Do you believe that the 1st amendment grants Party B the right to impinge upon the free speech rights of party A? This goal is certainly available as an aggressive campaign “dirty tricks” tactic. By the aggressive entrance of a relatively small group of Party B patricians carrying signs and aggressively dashing through the crowd the attention of the crowd is at once diverted from Party A. Members of the crowd not wanting to get involved in violence quietly leave. This is the result even though the patricians only carry signs saying nothing. Their goal is achieved; they have denied Party A its 1st amendment right to free speech. The free speech zone concept does not impinge one parties free speech; it only assures all parties their opportunity for free speech while only preventing one from denying the other theirs.

Also of course this year the issue might be particularly sensitive since one of the candidates will be an incumbent President seeking reelection and as President he might carry a greater security risk than the other candidates. Fairness of course requires protest zones provisions apply equally to all candidates. Perhaps this incumbency problem argues for a constitutional amendment limiting the President to one term. Since 4- years are insufficient for any President to execute his programs, perhaps a single 6-year term would be desirable. This is the constitutional rule in Mexico where it has worked well in denying life-tenure to individual as has happened is many developing areas.

Harriet, I think we both realize that this is a complex issue not amenable to simple solution. As you say fortunately on this issue we can agree to disagree.

That was said by the magistrate, Marchant Bristow, at Bursey's trial last fall. I've spent the last hour exploring any number of links pertaining to this interesting test of 'freedom of speech.

'Lordy, it was such a busy time', Bursey says about his lifetime of protest.

'Indeed, he has been arrested so often that although he thinks the first time was when he burned a confederate battle flag, he is not sure.'

The worst thing you could do to Bursey, says one lawyer, is to dismiss the charges against him.

So it seems to me that this guy is only, and always, just looking for a platform. He has never held down a job, it seems. His message by now is lost in his notoriety. Is the principle of freedom of speech to be twisted out of shape just to accomodate his determination to grab a headline?

Jonathan

I had not researched sufficiently to know that Bursey was a frequent protestor, but isn't it true that John Scopes, the young teacher who was the defendant in the 1925 "Monkey Trial" that argued creationism vs. evolution also knowingly served as a volunteer activist to further academic freedom?

Is it fair to categorize all those who invite legal action by testing repressive laws as troublemakers?

Where is the boundary line between peaceful political protest and danger to the president? I agree that it is vitally important to protect the president's safety. Yet, was that why Bursey, the ONLY placard-carrying dissenter in the Columbia airport, according to newspaper accounts, was arrested? If the Secret Service was familiar with Bursey's past actions and patterns, then they KNEW he was a "troublemaking activist," but NOT a threat to the president's safety?

Harold, you bring up an interesting point when you claim that the "free speech zones" should apply to ALL presidential candidates. I feel the policy would have a totally different look, although it WOULD be an unamerican look in my opinion, if ALL dissidents were segregated from ALL political occasions for the protection of the candidates.

However, by law, the SECRET SERVICE can only offer its services and consequently, the advance segregation of dissenters, to "major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, and their spouses within 120 days of a general Presidential election." Under our current administration, the Republicans have been segregating their dissidents for a much longer time than that.

By contrast, currently Republicans can protest Democratic candidates without hindrance of any sort to their free speech? How even-handed is that?

Bursey is described as a Progressive Network Director (rather than as being unemployed) in one newspaper article, but, even if this is a specious courtesy title, I don't think it should detract from the First Amendment issues he is bringing up.

After his arrest by the Secret Service, he was AQUITTED of all charges in a South Carolina court last fall...the judge upheld his right to free speech in the matter of the "No War For Oil" placard. Despite that aquittal the Federal government then indited him on a little known law about trespassing on the president's personal space (even though that space consisted of 70 acres and was occupied by hundreds of other people also waiting to hear the president.)

With a potential penalty of 6 months in jail and/or $5000 dollars, Bursey was found guilty by a federal court on Jan. 6, 2004 and fined only $500. It was a slap on the wrist, I thought, although it was also a legal loss of case. Maybe we need our pain-in-the-neck agitators to remind us all that, when this terrible time of terrorism passes, civil liberties must again assume its vital place in the lives of all Americans.

If the federal government really believed that Bursey was in ANY shape or form a potential presidential assassin, wouldn't that have been included in the federal charges? Wasn't the government's intent to discourage peaceful protest rather than to eliminate danger to the president?

Harriet

Click Here for a bit of addition information from Jack Anderson on his surveillance by the CIA and the plot to kill him involving Liddy. Near the bottom of the page are three links to comment from Anderson himself. Both the Audio recording and the PDF transcript took between 5 and 10 minutes to download, and I was never able to get the DOC transcript to load. While this does not provide much additional information, it does tell of a post Watergate bet that Anderson proposed with Liddy under which all Liddy had to do to win was to “supply the name of the agent and some evidence that I (Anderson) had anything to do with his death.” But according to Anderson Liddy, never took him up on it.

Even today there don’t seem to be much detailed information on this event. Liddy certainly did not tell us much in the book. He did, however, use the incident to tell us something of the self imposed limits he had set on his “blind obedience to responsible authority.” Liddy in his own words on page 289 describes this limit as follows:

While there is a presumption of regularity that must obtain to any order from legitimate superiors without which no government could function, I believe in individual responsibility, free will, and the rule of reason. There is a point beyond which I will not go, and that is anything my conscience tells me is malum in se (evil in and of his self), or my judgment tells me is irrational. I have no problem with doing something that is malum prohibitum (wrong only because of the existence of a law prohibiting it.

Do we see a bit of Liddy’s Jesuit conducted education emerging here? Liddy went on to judge Anderson’s supposed betrayal of the agent fell under the malum prohibitum exception. Anderson was doing great damage to the Government’s ability to conduct its foreign policy by his betrayal of the agent. The Killing order to Liddy therefore was not the malum in se required for his disobedience. It would seem to me that at this late date we could be told who this agent was and the details if in fact this event actually occurred.

Ella, was that question meant to be taken seriously? Like should we buy all those nefarious, unimaginative proposals of his, which he trys passing off as diamonds, rubies, emeralds, topazes, opals, ad infinitim.

Isn't it amazing, the way Liddy goes about telling the reader how it all was in that serious business of presidential politics. Looked at from his point of view, it all, in a way, seems to be justified. But in the end there is just too much wrongdoing, despite the casuistry (as Harold has pointed out) in his malum prohibitum arguments. If it takes such political hardball, then so be it. Then suddenly we're into a situation in which we hear him blurting out that he's personally prepared to go out and kill Jack Anderson! As well as other 'certain U.S. citizens'.

I like to think that Liddy himself was horrified as he looked back on that former time in his life. Things had come to a sorry pass for one who couldn't even kill a chicken without emotional trauma. The serious, methodical effort he had put into mastering troublesome emotions have turned him into a cold-blooded killer. He even seems proud that the team he has assembled for his covert operations

'includes professional killers who have accounted between them for twenty-two dead so far, including two hanged from a beam in a garage.'

And hearing this,

'Mitchell gazed at me steadily, took another puff on his pipe, removed it from his mouth,...'

What a great writer! By now the inspired author really has us hooked on his story, even if we remain completely baffled by his personality. He seems to be trying to explain how it happened, and his method of going about it is certainly unique. Is it a case of hearing, as is so often heard by judge and jury, a lot about extenuating circumstances? Wrapped up in clever legalese and casuistry.

I keep thinking of what Liddy told us about the unforgivable sin at the FBI...don't embarass the Bureau. It's almost as if he is acknowledging, with this story of his activities, his guilt of having embarassed the legal profession.

Jonathan

HARRIET AND HAROLD! GREAT ARGUMENTS FOR BOTH SIDES OF THE QUESTION OF FREE SPEECH AND PRESIDENTIAL SECURITY. Thank you so much! This was the first, for me, case of Internet propaganda – or so it seemed, does it to you? A dirty tricks campaign on the Internet, possibly, as none of us have heard about it in the other types of media? Whether or not it is, the question remains very interesting.

Tonight on TV they showed a picture making the rounds of the Internet of John Kerry with Jane Fonda (she of Vietnam fame) and then they showed the original picture which was John Kerry alone. Someone put Fonda’s picture beside him and displayed it – easy enough to do. Now the candidates must fight such tactics as if newspapers, magazines and TV was not enough!

It’s a new world and gets more complicated all the time.

And I thank Jonathan for his information on the Bursey case. An habitual protestor huh?

HAROLD, this quote from Liddy is disturbing – “I believe in individual responsibility, free will, and the rule of reason.” Not the rule of law, as most lawyers would say, or most people would believe, but the rule of reason. Just anyone’s reasoning. At the moment, as all of you know if you listen to national news, in Columbus, Ohio, our capital city which is about 15 miles from where I live, we have a shooter who is putting bullet holes in cars from overpasses and has killed one person. He is doing this of his own free will and maybe believes, in a sick kind of way, that there is reason behind it.

As Ann said earlier, Liddy can be disturbing!

And, as Jonathan has just pointed out – “the inspired author really has us hooked on his story, even if we remain completely baffled by his personality.”

So we ask ourselves again, was the book written to shock, to sell, or did he have a serious purpose? I would love to ask him that questions today; by now, age is settling in and he may want to tell the truth, if he can remember it!

Let me ask this about malum prohibitum? I’ll confess, I have sat at a red light for what seems like 5 minutes at an intersection where no cars are coming from any direction and after a time I tell myself how perfectly silly I am to be doing this and I turned left on a red light; actually I’ve done it several times and have seen others do it. It’s a road rarely used and the lights are very long in one direction. I could have sat there in “blind obedience” to the law………

What should I feel? Guilty? Or that I used common sense!

Haven’t any of you been guilty of an act of malum prohibitum? I feel rather smart in using such a term – hahahahaaaa

Harold, our lawyer, no doubt can give us better examples? Any come to mind, HAROLD????

Liddy writes that the Ten Commandments, in their original Aramaic, translate “thou shall not do murder” rather than “thou shall not kill.” Have you ever heard that? His two examples leave me a bit confused. What’s the difference between murdering an intruder in your home or killing him?

Also his example of killing a three-year old child in the road to protect a busload of school children is extreme, but it could happen. Do we call that killing the child rather than murdering him? Is that the difference – the fact that there was a good reason for killing?

Am I dense tonight?

THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR POSTS, I LOVE THIS DISCUSSION, EVEN THOUGH IT IS BASED ON A BOOK WE CAN SCARCELY BELIEVE IS TRUTHFUL?

The only legal reference source that I have available here is “Black’s Law Dictionary. I see it contains 7 separate entries in which “Malum” appears including both “Malum in se” and “Malum Prohibitum.” Neither of the definitions given in the dictionary conflict with GGL’s definitions given in the book.

When I first saw GGL’s term “Malum in se” in the book my first impression was that it should have been “Malum per se. I suppose I was thinking of the far more common term “negligence per se” often used in modern pleadings to mean “gross negligence. I was wrong on that point as GGL’s wording is exactly as it appears in the referenced dictionary. The following are a few other “Malum” variations:

“Malum Non Praesumumitur:” Wickedness is not presumed.

“Malum Quo Communius Eo Pejus:” The more common an evil is, the worst it is.

Regarding examples of everyday violations that would qualify as Malum Prohibitum I suspect everyone is guilty. Perhaps it could be pleaded as a defense by those charged with sharing copyrighted music files as in:

Yes Your Honor My client did down load those 9,459 copyrighted songs, but clearly it is only “Malum Prohibitum” in no way constituting the “Malum in se” required to hold him accountable.

Of course in this situation this defense would make no more sense that it did in GGL’s reasoning that it would be justification for him to kill Anderson. In both cases it is only the individual’s rationalization of a moral justification despite the legal prohibition.

It would be interesting to hear more views and ideas on the subject of freedom of speech. It seems so simple and basic in principle - until one gets to specific cases. As has already been pointed out in the case of someone shouting fire in a crowded hall. Shouldn't a parade marshall have some say in who gets to be part of the parade? Without being concerned about somebody insisting on his rights.

Liddy seems quite good at finding loop-holes in the law. Like turning the crime of break-and-enter with intent to commit burglary into the lesser misdemeanor of denying the victim an element of his human rights. If it suits him, he'll insist on the letter of the law. Killing is a sin. Killing is, if one believes the Bible, malum in se. Or is it?

Do you remember the Jains in India? In the Freedom at Midnight discussion. They sweep every little insect out of their way, at every step, so as not to kill. Every morsel of food, vegetarian of course, is examined minutely for evidence of animal life. It would be totally irresponsible to go chomping away at a wormy apple.

The refinements of civilization, very often only an extension of rights to the seculars in society, as opposed to the religious, made it necessary to take into account the 'malum' concept. Hence, varying degrees of homicide. Everything from unmeditated, unfortunate killing, to murder with malice aforethought.

Liddy knows his law, as Harold has pointed out. What he does with it is always done in the best interests of his client. Which, of course, in the book, is himself. So, we have, on the one hand, a clever lawyer defending himself, while, on the other, we have the defendent who puts himself on the stand and confesses all. It may not be the whole truth, but why insist on it. It's more than enough either to convict or acquit. Liddy must have thought while writing his memoir, his brief: I won't make it seem too easy for the jury.

Not to worry, Ella. About going thru the red light. Have your day in court. Establish that you waited at least for what seemed like 5 minutes. It would take a malum magister to convict you after that. Alternately, take a page from Liddy's book. Go armed! And shoot out those inconvenient lights. If you insist on using common sense, you might try going a different way.

I'm still reading a Liddy surprised at how far he had fallen after taking up with the wrong people.

Jonathan

Enough of law, I say!!!

Tonight is not the night to digest such erudite posts that you, Harold, and Jonathan have made. I must apologize - I have quite a bit of work underway this evening and must leave you with just barely a thought.

What do you remember about Attorney General John Mitchell (EXCLUDING MARTHA, OF COURSE!)

Click for information:

Attorney General John Mitchell

A quote – “Richard Nixon met John Mitchell when his law firm merged with Mitchell's in 1967. The two men became friends, and in 1968, with considerable trepidation, Mitchell agreed to become Nixon's presidential campaign manager” - Did you know that Nixon had a law firm? Who were his partners? And he merged firms with Mitchel?

What a bad decision on Mitchell's part!

See you all tomorrow!

Yikes. I was out of touch all weekend as my family took a trip up to the redwoods in Northern California for President's Day Weekend. I have so much to comment on, but I will keep it brief.

I love Jonathan's comment: "What a great writer! By now the inspired author really has us hooked on his story, even if we remain completely baffled by his personality. He seems to be trying to explain how it happened, and his method of going about it is certainly unique. Is it a case of hearing, as is so often heard by judge and jury, a lot about extenuating circumstances? Wrapped up in clever legalese and casuistry. "

I agree completely. He is a great writer and story teller, and as Jonathan also said in an earlier post does the truth of what he says really matter. After all this is his perspective on the events.

(Please Harold do not take offense at this next paragraph because it clearly does not apply to you or even most lawyers I know) Although Liddy and President Clinton are nothing alike I keep thinking of both of them because it seems to me they used the same sort of lawyer speak and thinking to justify actions that most people would not try to justify if caught (I am not equating their actions only how they justified them). But I can't help but think that their legal education caused them to think that this sort of legal theorizing made any sense outside of a courtroom.

I also can't resist commenting on Jonathan and Ella's earlier posts about Liddy's later conversion. Like Jonathan I find it hard to believe, but haven't we all seen some amazing conversions (or life changes) in someone we thought would never change? I know it is rare, but it does happen. And although I am the youngest one here I also think that age has a tendency to allow people to see things more clearly. Like Ella I would be fascinated to hear what Liddy says today about all this.

And finally about Liddy's romances. I must admit that I have no idea if he was joking on his radio show when I heard his confession. I think it is quite possible that I did not get his sense of humor (especially when I was all of about 19). Even in his book I sometimes think maybe he is joking (and he may be).

It makes one sad to read that Lorrie Gorg has died. I knew a little of her personal circumstances, from what I would occasionally see in the posts. I got the impression that she was a person with character. And she could write well. I suspected that she was ailing when the MOBY DICK discussion was cancelled, that she had been eager to DL. I was looking forward to that. We're all losers with her passing away, if only for that reason. Maybe I'll reread the book anyways, with her in mind. Rest in peace, Lorrie.

And the rest of you, take good care of yourselves.

Jonathan

Thanks, Jonathan, for that tribute! Yes, we are all very sad about Lorrie, she was one of the best and people flocked to her discussions, we will miss her very much. Many of the Discussion Leaders have met each other at a few functions and I met Lorrie in Chicago; she persevered through many trials in life and we all admired her strength and courage.

Thank you Jonathan for your words in remembrance of our Lorrie Gorg who passed yesterday. She was a dynamic discussion leader and a dedicated contributor of her time and talents to many of our Books programs. She is irreplaceable and as you said in your message #136, “we’re all losers with her passing.” We will miss you Lorrie!

I certainly will miss Lorrie also, Ella, Harold and Jonathan. She had a knack for bringing out the interesting issues in a book in such a simple, pleasant way. She did this with so much kindness and she seemed to take such pleasure in the responses of the people who shared her discussion.

What a lovely lady she was, and what a sad loss for all of us.

Harriet

Be assured Ann I see no offense in any comment you or others might make relative to the lawyer mind set. In my case I added my law credentials late in my career and was by choice no more than marginally involved in the profession.

I suppose I do see how one might argue GGL and Bill Clinton did use similar legal reasoning styles to justify their own separate breaches of laws. I think in both cases after the breach of the law each rationalized his own available excuse. I will not delve further in Bill’s justification but Liddy’s use of Latin Verbiage seems particularly weak to me. “Malum Prohibitum” by definition is an act defined by the authority of law as an evil act punishable as a crime. As a result the only value of “Malum Prohibitum” so far as GGL was concern was maybe some sort of moral justification.

In the end I don’t think GGL’s Legal background or his Jesuit education either one had much to do with his conclusions. I really don’t see many Lawyers or Jesuits arriving at similar conclusions. GGL said he believed in “free will” and pursuant to that belief he had from childhood set out to develop the mind set that led him to justify violations of the criminal law for his purpose- the reelection of a President. The Law of course saw it differently and put him in prison

Ella mention John N. Mitchell and Nixon’s career as lawyer prior to this 1968 campaign for the presidency. I do remember Nixon leaving California after his unsuccessful bid for Governor. This was probably 1962 just after his defeat by Kennedy in 1960. Remember Nixon was peeved at the press and gave his historic news conference farewell saying “you won’t have old Richard Nixon to kick around any more.” After that he moved to New York and became a Partner in a prestigious N.Y. Law firm. Mitchell was either a member of that firm or his firm immediately merged with Nixon’s. In any case in 1968 I think Nixon was technically a resident of N.Y. (not California) when he became President.

To me Mitchell’s role in the 1972 reelection campaign and Watergate so overshadowed his previous 4 years as Attorney General that I really don’t have much recollection of him as an Attorney General. I tend to see him as an talented manager and organizer rather than a lawyer, and I suppose that is exactly what an Attorney General is supposed to be.

Though Mitchell was found guilty of Watergate crimes and sentenced to prison he only served a few months at a minimum security “Country Club” prison before he was paroled for heath reasons. This was not exactly “Hard Time” like GGL served. For more information on John Mitchell as Attorney General and Watergate principal: Click Here for an Obituary.

Liddy is a figure of such complexity and contradictions that I just can't come to any conclusions about who he REALLY is. How did he separate his two worlds of home and work? Did he really come home to his young children and wife and react normally with them after a day of planning to murder or destroy other people?

Different bits of dialogue in the book keep running through my head. First there are the things GGL writes to promote his formidable and fearsome self-image. That's the self-image that he seems to enjoy projecting?

p.265 "He called you a falcon," said Barker, "the bird other birds fear."

Liddy seems to love this description of himself that came from the men he was interviewing for an anti-riot squad. Those men had an extensive record of committing prior murders and Liddy seems more than pleased when they admire him.

First among murderers, huh?

P.270 Liddy feels friendly toward Bud Krogh. "Bud, if you want anyone killed, just let me know." Then he assures Krogh, "I'm serious, you know."

I can't figure out what this offer had to do with Liddy's much vaunted standards against evil, or for morality and rationality. There's no malum prohibitum here or malum in se either for that matter. Other men might express friendship with a drink after work or a friendly dinner. Liddy's friendship offers murder, no questions asked?

p.234 Liddy carries a knife to the break-in of Dr. Fielding's office. Afterwards, Bud Krogh asks him incredulously. "Would you really have used it...I mean kill somebody?" Liddy responds, "Only if there were absolutely no other way. But yes, I would, if necessary to protect my men."

As I read this incident I am reminded of a prior anecdote that Liddy related about his interview with a common thug. Liddy was a young FBI agent at the time and fervently anti gun control. He thought everyone should have a gun for their own self defense in case of a run-in with a criminal. Liddy quotes the thug on page 182:

"On my mother, when I go on a piece of work I don't look to hurt nobody. But God forbid something goes wrong and I gotta do what I gotta do...I mean it ain't all that cut and dried, you know..."

The thing that surprises me most is that Liddy and this thug seem to have a common philosophy regarding weapons, except that the thug expresses his beliefs with much less grammar and flair. Liddy quotes the thug on carrying weapons with no apparent realization that he will quote himself almost the identically on p. 234.

Brothers under the skin, Liddy and the thug? Compare Liddy's statement with his criminal interviewee. I wonder if Liddy ever saw the parallel between their two philosophies?

Who is Liddy? Is he representing himself accurately?

So now, the question in my mind is, how come this fearsome "falcon" this James Bond, got shafted so often at work? His GEMSTONE plans needed to go through other men to reach John Mitchell? Magruder kept giving Liddy extra-curricular assignments and chipped away at Liddy's funds. His colleagues seemed remarkably unafraid to pull the tail of this Liddy-tiger and didn't hesitate to try to outmaneuver and manipulate him? Why weren't they more afraid of him?

If Liddy suspected that an order infringing on his creative James Bond plans came from Mitchell or the President, he bent his head and obeyed, even when the order was relayed by a lesser colleague. Is it possible that his money problems seemed to indicate, not only the comic aspects to his deeds of derring-do, but also his possible status with the Republican top echelon?

Was Liddy as dangerous a man as he represented himself to be?

Harriet

As is often the case Harriet says it so much better than I could. I want to echo Harriet's statements about how come Liddy had so much trouble in his workplace. He did not seem to have much direct influence. I think it goes back to what I term his "social disability." He doesn't seem to understand how to "manage up" as they say in business school. He seems incapable of understanding what it takes to win the trust and respect of his higher ups. And he has a knack for annoying them.

Wonderful comments to read this morning. Thank you all so much, it’s quite a story as all of you have remarked! With your comments, the book just gets better and better!

Ann stated that Liddy and President Clinton both used “lawyer speak” to justify the actions which made me remember the “is” denial Clinton made on TV – is he blushing about it today? Shouldn’t he be?

Nixon and Clinton had much in common, also, as both denied any wrongdoing until it was too late; had either of them told the truth to the public history would have been much kinder to them both, don’t you agree?

“Truth is cruel, but it can be loved and it makes free those who have loved it.” - Santayana

Liddy never rose to the heights he expected his “will” to take him and when I think of how he punished his flesh to get there it seems a complete waste of a man, a bright and intelligent man. How his parents must have suffered through it all – did they live to read this book – is their any way of finding out?

Thanks, Harold, for that clickable about Mitchell, it was very informative; I hadn’t read much about the man before and he was well respected as a lawyer and as a friend, affable and cheerful. He never seemed that way on television the few times I remember hearing or seeing him, particularly in the Watergate hearings, which I listened to as often as I could manage in those days. In that article there is this mention of Liddy - “Even before assuming formal control of the Nixon campaign, according to testimony in the Watergate hearings, Mitchell had serenely listened in his Justice Department office to a proposal by G. Gordon Liddy to use prostitutes and electronic listening devices to get information from Democratic officials.”

“Serenely!”

One would think a lawyer and an Attorney General would immediately throw Liddy out the door; however in the book when Liddy presents his GEMSTONE PLAN to Mitchell he took a few puffs from his pipe and just asked about the costs of the program and dryly commented “let’s not contribute any more than we have to to the coffers of organized crime.” Unbelievable to read. Am I just too naïve? Are such political shenanigans continuing today?

Once again Liddy returns to his love of all things German when he states that he knew that Mitchell, a naval officer in WWII, would get the message if he translated the English “Special Action Group” into German! Oh, really! Everyone in WWII was to have learned German somehow??

HARRIET, your posts are a delight to read! Your questions – “Who is Liddy? Is he representing himself accurately?” and “Was Liddy as dangerous a man as he represented himself to be?” have no answers, of course. As we have speculated before the man is a great story teller, he has written a best seller and because of it all has made a good living from the lecture circuit.

Did you notice that often he brings in important figures to his tales, e.g. Howard Hughes?

The very fact that he was not sued from those mentioned in the book says to me that he was clever only to tell the truth where people could verify the facts; the other stories he tells, the ones that fascinate us about his character, his “will”, his viewpoints are where the reader is left to speculate.

I'll post new questions tonight, but let's go on to finish the rest of the book, okay?

Ella, I agree. Not only is the book getting better and better, but the last scheduled section I found the best of all.

'The formidable and fearsome self-image' which Harriet mentioned in her post (141) is further enhanced as he draws on the experience of prison life.

Harriet also asks: 'Was Liddy as dangerous a man as he represented himself to be?'

To that I would say no. Only to himself was he really dangerous. He seems to be more at war with himself than with anyone else. He detests a few, it's true. But his anger and frustrations are taken out on himself. They bother him, and always have. At the very beginning he told the reader how much he would like to control his emotions.

Why else would he tell us about them. As for example, that display of temper, when Magruder put his hand on Liddy's arm, while waiting for the elevator. He threatens to kill Magruder, on the slightest provocation from Magruder. A bit of sarcasm, I believe it was. Liddy got more of that from Mitchell, on several occasions. But then Mitchell was just as tough, if not tougher than Liddy, and that was to be respected.

The teen-agers in the back lane drove Liddy batty, to distraction. But these things are told us, I believe, to give us some idea of what he was struggling with. Did he, in fact, engage in physical violence other than in self-defence? He often wishes himself at a scene of action, but it seems like a Walter Mitty sort of thing.

Ella, you ask, How his parents must have suffered through it all. And suggest that his life turned out to be 'a complete waste of a man.' Gosh, I'm not sure that I can agree with you on that. Perhaps I have a misguided view of things, but I believe that Liddy did the very best with what he had. It was that damn, troublesome fate that stalks one through life, depite the best and strongest will in the world, that does one in. He has a message for all of us in his book.

I believe he mentions the death of his father as happening while he is in prison. He died with his boots on, as the son puts it, as did his grandfather, who also seems to have spent some time in prison. But we are never told why. And what memories did that bring back for the son, when he points to the door, while hurrying through the halls of the EOB, the door to the office where his mother used to work. Back in '29.

Ella I like your Santayana quote. But if truth be so cruel, why go to such lengths, threaten the institutions of one's country, to uncover every last crumb of it? As was done during Watergate.

Liddy was prepared to die if that would plug the leak in the dam behind which truth was cowering. But they wouldn't let him. Or was it, as Liddy suggests, only because he was the only one there who was willing and able to do such a deed on command. Was there no one there who wanted to see Liddy dead? That tells us something about him, surely.

Jonathan

JONATHAN, I just have time this morning for a brief post before I'm off. But I must say something about this part of your message of yesterday:

"Gosh, I'm not sure that I can agree with you on that. Perhaps I have a misguided view of things, but I believe that Liddy did the very best with what he had. It was that damn, troublesome fate that stalks one through life, depite the best and strongest will in the world, that does one in. He has a message for all of us in his book."

I know at the beginning of our journey through this book you had a favorable impression of Liddy and were hoping that you could convince us he was a good guy. Those are not your exact words but something similar.

Pray tell us what Liddy did with his life? And what his message is? He was given a head start as a child, with intelligent parents, a good home, great education, he was very bright himself.

What did he do with these advantages?

I thought perhaps you might like to see the infamous Watergate Hotel. Has anyone been near it or in it? I know Bob Dole lives there and Monica Lewinsky and her mother did at one time - anybody else that we might recognize?

I came that close to making a significant typographical error as I was heading off my post with Ella's question. Giving it a quick glance before hitting the POST button, I noticed that I had inadvertantly typed: Pray tell us what Liddy did with his WILL. Tells you what has been nagging me all along the way.

Ella, I haven't changed my mind about him. In fact, the more I reflect on it, the more I have to wonder at what life did with him. As an aside, if I could give GGL some advice, I would suggest that he remember the words of the song that Louis Armstrong used to sing: 'When God tells man...he's really free.'

I am surprised

, that you would even ask the question, when his life has been such a string of achievments. Achievments which could be described as a model of devotion to public service. First in the military, then in law enforcement, then in his prosecutorial work in the courts, and finally his commendable involvement in the political life of his country. Who can blame him if he played at it, of necessity, with the generally accepted rules of the game.

He reminds the reader countles times, more of less, or indirectly, that the worlds in which he moved was not filled with angels.

What was his message?

Naturally it will be different for each one of us. But a message there must be, one has to think. I've had to reassess my views on that several times along the way. At first, I believe I stated as much in an early post, I looked at Liddy's memoir as a cautionary tale. I've gone from that all the way to thinking of it as an inspirational book. And not at all as pointing to a man who should be feared, or is setting a bad example.

I keep thinking of Ella's question: 'Why did he write the book?' We should try to come up with an answer to that too. I hope it doesn't leave us cynical.

Jonathan

Judging by that picture of the Watergate complex, I would conclude that it should be a difficult place to get 'caught' in.

I too do not think my opinion of Liddy has changed much after reading this book and three weeks of our discussion about him. Despite differences that lead me to conclude we would never have accepted one another as friends or associates, I still see in him character traits that I believe worth of respect. In particular I like the way he himself took responsibility for his life. From his very early years through middle age and beyond, it was always he himself who while not always right, was always in charge. After Watergate, its trials, and hard time in prison, GGL emerged (as Jonathan said in message #91) “with an optimistic determination the get on with his life ----.” “Not to put it behind him, that’s impossible. His past is now his future.” Such a spirit I say is worthy of respect.

Amidst all the bluster of Liddy in this book (is there a better word for it?) have I neglected to state the man's achievements, his life work? Let's check out a few facts that I have quickly put together:

Military service: he was assigned to guard the skies over NYCity, the rest of his unit went to Korea. Admittedly, he did try to go to war!
Law Enforcement: FBI – 1957 – 1962, field agent and administrative work.
Lawyer: 1962 -1965 – worked in his father’s law firm
Prosecutorial work: from 1966 - 1969 he did investigative work in the DA’s office and tried cases

From then on, of course, he began his career in the White House.

Perhaps I should have said he did not attain a distinguished career; in fact, he would not have had any material for this book had it not been for Watergate.

Do you agree with that statement?

Would anyone of known of him had it not been for his illegal activities in the course of his service to the President?

It will be interesting when Harriet and Ann bring their opinions to the table.

Meanwhile back to the Watergate, that shameful episode that brought down a President of the USA.

Everything you would ever want to know about it is located at this site: Watergate Information

Chapter 20 begins by Liddy telling us that he learned, in strictest confidence, that within 24 hours Nixon would take forceful action to end the Vietnam war – with hindsight we can now say HOW WRONG CAN A PRESIDENT GET!! He sat in the middle of a maelstrom and didn’t know what was going on in the rest of the country!! Isn’t it interesting to remember all of this!!

And the chapter ends with this statement – “The Watergate entry had been successful. Or so I thought.”

Liddy suggested in a meeting of CREEP that the Red river dikes be bombed, drowning and starving the Vietnamese, Mitchell criticized him by, in effect, telling him to shut up! Are you surprised that Liddy included this? Would bombing the dikes been an option at any time for the U.S.? Would it have been too shocking a deed for the world to have witnessed?

It would have been utter chaos for the people of Vietnam. Click here and read the whole page carefully to realize what the dikes and the river means to these people: Red River Delta Just to quote a bit from that clicable:

” Found here, near Thanh Hoá in the Ma~ River valley is the presence of an Austro-Asiatic civilization in the millenium before Christ at the Bronze Age called Dongsonian Age. Also started with the Bronze Age, the mystical periods of Vietnam's history. The first legendary dynasty, that of Hồng Bàng, would have reigned until 3rd century B.C.”

Did you see the little boat traveling along at quote a clip at the bottom of the page? Cute!

Read a bit of this indictment of the United States during the Vietnam era, some of it makes you downright sick: International War Crimes Tribunal

A lovely site about Vietnam is here: Vietnam Today

” Vietnam's forests are inhabited by many large mammals, including elephants, deer, bears, tigers, and leopards. Smaller animals, such as monkeys, hares, squirrels, and otters, are also found in considerable numbers throughout the country. In recent years, scientists have identified several previously unknown species of animal life in the Truong Son, including the endangered sao la, a cattlelike animal. Many species of birds and reptiles, including crocodiles, snakes, and lizards, also thrive in Vietnam”

I didn’t know that, did you? Elephants, tigers and leopards in Vietnam!

The country is just beginning to recover fully from the war with the USA.

I just started reading a great book by David Gergen titled "Eyewitness to Power: The Essence of Leadership: Nixon to Clinton. Interesting observations about Nixon. Good book, I recommend it.

Sorry for the length of that post, I got carried away by researching Vietnam. Anyone know any Vietnamese?

I feel that Liddy has a sickness of the soul. There is a twist in his personality that's entrenched so deeply that it would never occur to him to question the values he lives by. I believe the darkness within him centers around his concepts of "masculinity" and "success."

I suppose those two concepts are key in the lives of many men, but it seems particularly sad to me when I consider the way that the young Liddy defined those words and tried to grow into them. Somehow, in his childhood, a "shame" button was pressed that made Liddy loathe himself for his fears and set him on a torturous and extreme path of fortitude. The adult Liddy defined manhood in a unique way.

Yet all of his efforts turned Liddy into a man that other men, particularly the group of "successful" and "powerful" men that GGL longed to be part of, didn't ultimately trust or fully understand. Some of Liddy's traits, like his willingness to accept responsibility, are admirable. Other of his traits are repellent, at least to me. He's a mixed bag, our Liddy, of the admirable and the abhorrent, and just too difficult to categorize.

Top government figures became uncomfortable as they began to see the extremes in his personality. The manipulative Jeb Magruder recoiled when he learned how Liddy burned his hand. Attorney-General John Mitchell tolerated and USED Liddy, but he never offered him the casual friendliness, or warmth and affability that our Harold's link to John Mitchell's obituary #140) indicates was his more usual style.

I think Liddy was valued in the Committee To Reelect the President, not for his brains or capabilities, but for the "crazy" strain in his nature. If some job was too abhorrent for the top guys, they gave it to good old GGL. At the same time, Liddy's projects were drowned in an impersonal chain of command and he wasn't trusted enough to be given sufficient funds and self determination. The top guys assigned their underlings to deal with the loose cannon that was Liddy. When he worked in the White House, Liddy was sooo close to his definition of success, but it ultimately kept sliding away from him because of the lack of acceptance by the top VIP's...due to his personality defects?

Ann was absolutely accurate when she said that Liddy had a "blindspot" or "social disability." Yet I believe that there's NO way that he can ever be brought to understand this. He believes he's simply conducting himself like a man with "balls" because he just has a different definition of manhood than most people.

This is too long a post to continue and go into the way Liddy's hang-ups impacted his marriage and WHY Fran might have stayed with him. A future post will have to do on that subject. Suffice it to say that his long-suffering Fran was thrown into a lot of difficult situations while Liddy was off on the job of being manly and courageous. If he had given her HALF of the loyalty and organization that he expended on his burglar staff who were breaking into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office, surely her life would have been easier and more pleasant.

Also, seems to me that the people Liddy got on best with were his fellow prisoners when he arrived in jail. All of his fellow convicts understood, admired and SHARED Liddy's concept of masculinity in prison. Liddy was finally among those who were completely comfortable with his personal code of honor. Again, a future post to deal with this peculiar happenstance.

Jonathan, I believe that Liddy superimposed his personality aberrations on what was once essentially a sweet and naive personality. Who knows, maybe that sweetness still lingers under the surface, perhaps with his children. So many of them chose their father's code of honor to at least some degree, so they MUST have loved him?

Harriet

BRAVO, HARRIET! Good post! It gives the good, the bad and the ugly side of Liddy's personality.

Later, eg

perhaps it has always been, and still is there for Fran.

Bravo indeed!! Harriet. What a fine analysis of the veneer of strange peccadillos and macho fixations. There is so much in your post to comment on.

As there is in Ella's and Harold's. I'm looking forward to hearing more from Ann, too. We all have our work cut out for us in the coming week, to arrive at some conclusions about Liddy. He has divulged so much of himself that it may in the end prove to be impossible.

Jonathan

You think he has divulged a lot about himself, Jonathan? Indeed, yes, we have much left to talk about here.

As I read Harriet's post I thought she could have been describing Nixon who also had a dark side, a self loathing, a tormented state of mind, was tightly coiled and I think secretive.

What we know of Liddy is what Liddy wants us to know. I believe the man has many sides to his character that remain unknown.

I just had an idea too fantastic for words almost, but could it be possible that Liddy, realizing how far the cancer had spread in the Nixon White House, had his Catholic Conversion then and there and became what we know as DEEP THROAT? Impossible? We have mentioned his patriotism before and if he thought it was for the good of the country would he have? When money was discussed at one point with Howard Hunt, Liddy said:

”I came to Washington to do something for my country that needed to be done and I did it . I did what I did because I believed in it. I still believe in it. We won the election and Richard Nixon’s got four more years to straighten this country out, and I won’t be a party to anything that could change that.”

At one time, I think he was sincere in believing the country was truly in danger of surviving the external and internal wars going on around him.

And at one time he believed he might be killed to save the presidency; further, he did admit the break in was all his own fault. Suppose he thought that if he was going to die, it should be for a purpose?

To answer the questions in the heading, NO, I didn’t learn anything new about Watergate, in this book, did any of you? Still, I must admit it was exciting to read about those bygone days that Gergen believes has crippled every president since Nixon’s resignation. An interesting quote:

”In domestic terms, the 1960’s was the second most disastrous decade in U.S.history, following only the 1860’s, ravaged by an actual civil war.”

One minor amusing anecdote in the few chapters I’ve read of Gergen’s book is that he was asked to write Nixon’s resignation and he didn’t know to whom it should be addressed; The Speaker of the House, the Senate president pro tem, the secretary of state, GOD?

Okay, who did he address it to?? A little quiz for your enjoyment.

In answer of Question No. 22 it seems unbelievable to me that Liddy would have such a clear memory of details; however, he had those years in prison to prompt those images and possibly he asked for and received help from others in recall..

Question No. 23 is the most enigmatic of them all! Why did he write this? What is he inferring – an uncaring wife? One who has heard it all and can take no more? Was she incapable that evening of listening to any more of his stories? I have no answer to any of these questions but they remain.

Anyone have an ideas?

All speculations, of course, which makes the book one you do not forget over the years.

I know the answer to Ella's quiz question and why it was addressed to that source. I will defer giving the answer until tomorrow evening to give one of you the opportunity to respond first.

Regarding question 23, I wonder if that was the first realization from which Frances realized a jail sentence was both possible and likely. I think details of the role Frances played in Liddy’s life are one area in which he should have told us much more. From what he told us she was little more than a wife and mother yet we know from the fact that she completed a master’s degree and taught school that she mist have been a good deal more. She seems to have kept the family together with the children on a steady course during the Watergate and post Watergate period

Ella that is interesting casting on your part- GGL as the “Deep Throat” character. The fact that it would have been to GGL’s advantage during the trial to admit that role would seem to discount the possibility. Yet I suppose it is a possibility. We’ll have to wait until the character (whoever he/she was) dies for Bradlee to finally tell us who it was. Hopefully Bradlee has made provisions for the information to be known should he die first.

If my memory serves me correctly, it was to the Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, that the letter of resignation was addressed. What an event that was! It should not have happened. I suppose it is unthinkable, but with Liddy showing such great presence of mind in the days immediately after the break-in, (more on that in a later post) I can't help feeling that another memo to the President, outlining a course of damage control, might have saved the day. Harriet, in her great post, mentions that no one trusted Liddy. I think that Nixon might have, if he had had a chance to hear Liddy out.

That may sound wild, but is it any wilder than thinking that Liddy might have been deep-throat? I believe, Ella, that the answer to your most interesting speculation is given by Liddy in the quoted paragraph following the one with your suggestion. 'I will not be a party that would change' the result of the election. I believe him on that. Was Liddy deep-throat? Did he rat? We know how he felt about rats. One of his fixations. They always seemed to get in his way, he tells us. He ate the first one. He stomped on the last one, in the prison yard. A second fixation had to do with things German, primarily those with Nazi associations. These things seem like a refrain right thru the book. Without any real overt reason. I have found these fixations exasparating. Was he perhaps only applying something he learned in that writing course in prison. He would have been told that a book should have unity. It does make the book hang together somehow, doesn't it?

Which brings me to a thought re Question 23. First, as an indication how quickly his mind was working, illustrating very well what Harold had to say about Liddy's capability of manging his affairs. He assessed his situation within the hour, practically, of the arrest of his team. A dramatic way of telling the reader, by telling his wife. Then he brings the curtain down. His wife's reply is of no concern to the reader. It is my impression that Liddy deliberately kept information about his family at the barest minimum. He seems so eccentric, so impulsive almost by nature, but its matched by a cold, calculating awareness of what he wants to do.

I'm going to try answering question 21 tomorrow. I'll sleep on it first. Good Night, all.

Perchance I'll dream about the post promised by Harriet, 'to deal with this peculiar happenstance', the explanation why Liddy finally found kindred spirits after landing in prison. Have I got that right, Harriet? I'm really wondering what you are going to do with that. I'm anticipating another of your wonderful posts.

That it ever got beyond Judge Sirica's courtroom, was, I believ, an abuse of law, and an abuse of truth. Not to mention the cruel and unusual punishment meted out to Gordon Liddy. It did irreparable harm to traditional American political customs.

Jonathan

Harold, I agree that Liddy is purposely keeping his family out of the book, but that remark about Frances struck me as very odd! He didn’t need to put that in at all, but he did and if I were Frances I would have resented it.

In my opinion, Liddy is a very clever man and knew where the “rot” in the White House was coming from; he must have resented Nixon’s role in the whole dirty affair – he had previously affirmed his faith in the American presidency and then to have been let down by Nixon had to have been a blow. Perhaps a blow from which he never recovered fully and a blow that led him to fight back with the revelations to Woodward and Bernstein.

He decided, as Jonathan stated, not to be a rat but with a difference. No one would know until his death!

I’m being melodramatic I know, but no more so than Liddy when he said “Take it easy, kid,” to his wife as he entered jail. Shades of Humphrey Bogart!!!

Judge John Sirica wrote a book about Watergate in 1979; certainly that put to rest all the questions concerning the trials of the conspirators?? Click here: Judge John Sirica

However, Liddy’s book was written a year later and yet he believes he used his power “as a judge to seal the record of everything that had transpired with respect to the entire incident…It remains officially a secret to this day; the record of this portion of the trial is still sealed.” Does anyone know if this is true? He is speaking of the fact that the Judge mishandled matters regarding the jury

Another clickable about Judge Sirica: Judge John Sirica that is more in detail.

I have much more to say later, but 60 MINUTES is on now and I never miss it when I’m home. I’ll be back!

Ella, you certainly have surprised some of us with that crazy suggestion. As you can see, it is even difficult to disagree with you in a respectful manner. I cannot even imagine how that could have occurred to you. Playing the role of Deep Throat would have been totally out of character for someone like Gordon Liddy, no matter how eccentric he may seem at times. I don't think he ever lost his admiration for Nixon and his policies. Liddy, I believe, could easily be seen as a samurai, and we know how high honor is in a samurai's scale of virtues. At that point in time I doubt if even God could have come between Gordon Liddy and Nixon. I'm sure Liddy had a conscience like the rest of us, and it was not for sale. Consider how scrupulous he was with CREEP funds.

Liddy makes clear that he had reasons to be suspicious about McCord. That he might have been playing a double game. Hunt, too, seemed untrustworthy. But, what else is new. Everyone was running scared in that crowd.

But I must confess that your wild hypothesis has chills running up and down my spine. It just can't be. Do we have dates, and times, and places, for the various occasions on which Woodward met Deep Throat? If we can show that Liddy was in a locked cell on any of those occasions, that would blow away this cloud over his head, wouldn't it?

Jonathan

The suggested casting of GGL as the “Deep Throat” character while unlikely is I believe possible considering the Intelligence community culture from which dual agents appear and re-appear rather often. In any case the suggestion has given me another reason to live; yes, I must outlive “Deep Throat” in order to know who it was!

Jonathan raises a good point in mentioning GGL’s early confinement in jails as making it unlikely that he could have participated in ”Deep Throat” meetings with the Post reporters. By my understanding of Liddy’s schedule in 1973 and 1974 he was in assorted jails and prisons between the end of January 1973 and October 2, 1974 after which he was out on bail until Jan 20, 1975 when he was returned to Federal Prison to serve his 20 year sentence. The main Watergate investigation into Nixon’s role in the break-in it would seem, occurred while Liddy was in jail under the contempt citation. When he obtained his less than four-month release on Oct 2, 1974 the Watergate issue was over and Nixon (resigned Aug 1974) was long gone. It appears to me almost certainly that the “Deep Throat” meetings came sometime in 1973 while GGL was in Jail making it very unlikely that it was he.

GGL certainly expressed a poor opinion of Judge John Sirica. Of course he had many personal reasons not to like him, but It would be interesting to know if Sirica’s reversal record was really as bad as GGL say s it was. I note that in GGL’s case Sirica ‘s judgment was not overturned although the Court of Appeals did note the existence of Constitutional Error that in this case it held was harmless error. This GGL noted was an application of the “If they wantcha, they gotcha Rule”

Actually as I remember popular sentiment at the time, Judge John Sirica had become quite a popular hero during the Watergate years of 1973 and 74. In fact I seem to remember him as the Time Magazine Man of the Year for one of those years, probably 1973.

How many people has he told us in this book he was going to kill, but something intervened; I’ve lost count! Another ploy to keep the reader’s interest? He survived in prison, I’m sure, because he was rough, tough and mean, but a killer? I see no proof of it, do any of you?

”Fran told me privately something that cheered me considerably. The very day that I first went to prison, an unmarked car arrived at the front of the house…..in it was an officer of military intelligence……who left a number where he could be reached in the event of necessity. Fran was to understand that she was not alonge. This communication, I learned later, had nothing whatever to do with the White House.”

He has been betrayed by those he worked for in the White House and the president to whom he gave his loyalty; but about all he says is that Nixon resigned and he believed his silence helped bring Nixon two additional years as president? I have looked under “Nixon” in the index and still see no negative remarks about him which surprises me, doesn’t it you? By this time, the whole country was in a turmoil over Nixon’s lies, his language, his resignation and Liddy barely mentions it?

Nixon, indirectly, put him in prison.

I have not studied the book six ways from Sunday to determine how many times Nixon has been mentioned but I would have remembered if Liddy had been bitter about the whole business of Watergate.

SO I WAS A BIT DERANGED IN QUESTIONING WHETHER LIDDY MIGHT HAVE BEEN DEEP THROAT? Hahahahaaaa - A bit crazy? Well, it made for a bit of fun but I do believe Harold has given us the proof that Liddy could not have been in that garage with two reporters and in jail at the same time.

Jonathan, I do believe the man is capable of anything, yes, even of revenge against a president who deprived him of 6 (?) years of freedom.

”I do not love thee, Doctor Fell; the reason why I cannot tell. But this alone I know full well, I do not love thee, Doctor Fell.”

Hahahahaaaa

Do comment upon his years in prison and his behavior while incarcerated. I’ll be waiting to see what all of you think!!!

Not at all, Ella. I liked your idea of GGL as Deep Throat. After all, we are brainstorming a unique book, authored by a somewhat far-out man, aren't we? And we should consider everything remotely possible. If I called it a crazy idea, it was only because it seemed so novel. It does point to new angles, and a differnt train of thought, and a good talking point.

And you did supply a motive, by suggesting that Liddy might have been savoring a bit of revenge for having his loyalty rewarded with betrayal. All those years in jail for having been willing to risk so much with all his covert and surreptitious operations to help re-elect the president. What a brutal, ugly experience it must have been. It's not pleasant to read Liddy's account of life in prison.

But, no, it doesn't surprise me that Liddy has nothing negative to say about Nixon. He, GGL, saved all his wrath for Judge Sirica, who tried to coerce Liddy into 'talking' with his harsh sentence. With Liddy it seems to have been a matter of honor, as well as a part of his damage control thinking. Or setting an example, perhaps, to those American servicemen who were under duress in captivity, to divulge things which might aid the enemy.

His refusal to talk in Judge Sirica's courtroom, however, becomes interesting in a later context. In prison, when he is befriended by those aristocrats of crime who sit at the High Table, Bill Bonnano and his mafiosis. Just like that and he's singing for these thugs, something the judge could not get him to do! Isn't it touching? To imagine this gang celebrating Christmas Mass, with the ex-G-man leading them in song!

Singing was a significant thing in Liddy's life, wasn't it? At one time he considered making a career out of it. He used to sing for hours, he told us at the beginning, to relieve the tension he was under. And he goes out singing, with that rousing thing from CABARET. But for Judge Sirica...never!

Prison life as GGL describes it was and is an ugly thing. On the other hand, here too, Liddy comes up with many humorous things. We may not learn very much that's new about Watergate, but Liddy makes up for it with entertainment. I'm almost inclined to say that the Liddy in the book is a literary creation, too odd to be true.

The humor I had in mind at the moment comes when Liddy sets out to teach World History to the guys at High Table. World History, as he sees it, that would be instructive and agreeable for his listeners. And what does he choose. A brilliant example of how to rub out all one's enemies at one sitting. Carried out by a distinguished compatriot of the boys at the table, Catherine de Medici, and the killing of the Huegenots in the Saint Bartholomew's Massacre!! In 1572, in Paris. I'm blown away by the way Liddy sneaks that in.

Did anyone watch the Medici doc, last week? That little, 13-year-old girl kneeling in prayer at the altar in the Florentine church, and then cradled by her uncle, the cardinal, that was Catherine, the later mother of three French kings, and a greater king than all of them. GGL would probably love her. I've never been able to understand why Liddy was so eager to embrace violence, to settle disputes between brothers. After all it goes against everything that a lawyer believes in. Here's where the difference is greatest between him and someone like Gandhi. But then one can't exactly think of Liddy as an avatar come from heaven, can one?

Jonathan

Wonderful post, JONATHAN! Thank you so very much, but I am puzzled by this comment: "setting an example, perhaps, to those American servicemen who were under duress in captivity, to divulge things which might aid the enemy."

Liddy setting an example for servicemen! Somehow that idea is very weird, as servicemen are fighting for their country whereas Liddy is just holding to some standard that he thinks in his own rather sick mind is loyalty to a man who was the very first and, we hope, last to have ever resigned in disgrace as an American president.

If you ever read Gergen's book, he gives cogent reasons why Nixon should never have been pardoned by Ford. Very interesting.

The contrasts between the two - a serviceman and Liddy is too much for me to swallow.

But I certainly agree with your statement that Liddy is almost a literary creation, too odd to be true! Indeed, yes, but hasn't it been fun to discuss! Whether you like, dislike, hate the man he is unforgettable for that very reason.

I'm going out of town early tomorrow morning to my daughter's house, but I will be checking in sporadically to read your comments to the end of this book.

My daughter, who has had 19 years in the Army Reserves as a nurse, and thought perhaps she could coast through until the 20th and retire therefrom, has been called to active duty to undertake, with a task force, medical and psychiatric problems that national guard and reservists soldiers are having mustering out. Unlike active duty soldiers, who can get help from their base, these soldiers are being held over from returning to their civilian status due to problems and the Army is finally taking heed!

Ordinarily she teaches nursing, and her life is being disrupted and put on hold for awhile, as are many of our soldiers, but she is looking forward to the challenge to be of help. She will be stateside in Wisconsin, thank goodness; she was in the Persian Gulf War in '90-'91 with a field army hospital unit. She could write a book about that experience!

See you all later, ella

P.S. New questions in the heading - final questions we can consider as we end the book discussion.

Ella, have a safe and pleasant journey, a happy stay at your daughter's, and wish her good luck as she takes on those active duties.

I wondered what impression that would make, my considering Liddy's situation similiar to that of soldiers being subjected to all kinds of coercive interogations during captivity. I regret if it strikes a wrong note. Somehow I feel that Liddy wouldn't feel averse to being a role model for those soldiers. The farthest thing from my mind would be to seem to be trivializing the problems of the soldiers by comparing theirs to Liddy's.

Liddy was a soldier at heart. And always in a state of war. Then again, it was a serious issue at the time, the brainwashing and tortures inflicted to get soldiers to talk, contrary to military custom. The crew of the Pueblo come to mind. Others in Vietnam were put to the test. Wasn't Sen McCain one who resisted all efforts to get him to cooperate with the enemy? I seem to remember that it was a serious, agonizing, talked-about issue at the time.

Liddy was a pretty normal, patriotic guy in many ways, wasn't he? Considering the strong feelings he had about defending his country in some kind of internal war, or the instituton he was trying to save with his silence, well, I hope that makes some sense of the inclusion of that thought.

It has been a wonderful discussion. It is. It ain't over until our hero sings. Bon voyage.

Jonathan

Ella, have a wonderful visit with your Cindy before she leaves for active duty in Wisconsin. I'm so glad to hear that she will be stateside during her tour of duty, and I know she will provide much needed help to our returning veterans. Hopefully she and they will soon be able to return to their normal lives.

Have you all noticed that there are very few TV or news stories about our returning wounded servicemen? And no coverage of our returning dead? There used to be tremendous news coverage of the coffins of dead servicemen returning from the Gulf War during the presidency of Bush, the elder? There's no equivalent coverage in the administration of Bush, the younger?

Goodness, so many wonderful, meaty posts to respond to! There are so many riches on our discussion table, and it's hard to decide in what direction to respond first.

Harold, I do remember also that Judge Sirica became something of a folk hero during the Watergate trials. I never much liked him because, although I disapproved of what Nixon might have been involved in, I would never have liked to see a sitting president, a symbol of the United States, imprisoned or in chains.

Isn't it remarkable how future presidents, who were the only men in the world who shared the pressures Nixon lived under, chose to use Nixon and enhance his comeback as a statesman during future years? They never showed the same hatred that the press did?

Jonathan, I'll try to make good on writing about Liddy in prison. I'll quote you when you pointed out that "prison life as GGL describes it was and is an ugly thing."

I agree absolutely... because Liddy was a man who could not tolerate being demeaned, and incarceration deliberately strips the dignity, pride and self-determination from a prisoner in the name of discipline and control. Add to that the pressures of any sadistic guards or vengeful wardens, and prison can be termed a hell on earth, especially for a person of Liddy's personality. He constantly fought the system so he did "hard" time during his imprisonment, with much time in solitary.

Yet prison, for Liddy, had two sides. We should also consider his relationships with the other prisoners. Once he had stomped down any other convict who wanted to test out Liddy's combat skills, he found himself in a unique situation.

He points out that his education made the other men regard him almost as a god. When we consider that he used his education to help others in their legal appeals, it is easy to see why he was admired. The very traits that marked him as peculiar in the outside world were an asset among the other convicts. He was admired for his touchy temper, his pride, his intractability, his violence, his unwillingness to conform to prison rules. I smiled when I read your double entendre on the term "singing," Jonathan. Yes, the prisoners admired a man who knew when to keep silent.

He was invited to join the "aristocracy" among the prisoners and enjoyed their friendship. He apparently found some common elements of compatibility with them. There were NO impediments to the trust and respect of the other prisoners, as there were in his Washington relationships.

He never writes of killing anyone in his book, but do you expect that he would, if he actually had done so? The other prisoners certainly seemed to believe that he might kill if pushed too hard? I wonder...

It's strange how all the aspects of his temperament "meshed" in that prison society?

Ella, re your question #23, I didn't see Fran's response to GGL's impending imprisonment as a lack of caring at all. I thought her reaction indicated ineffable weariness and hopelessness. As you wrote, "She had heard it all and could take no more."

If I were Fran and knew my husband well, as I believe she did, I would have mulled over worst scenario possibilities in the dark of the night for years prior to Watergate, and prayed that they would never happen. Surely she understood the wild and reckless streak in her husband and must have wondered if it could lead to legal problems someday?

When Liddy crawled into bed after his Watergate burglars were arrested, and informed Fran about her difficult future as a single parent, she knew that her prayers had NOT been answered.

I don't think that Liddy used that anecdote merely as a literary informative technique. I noticed that whenever he feels particularly guilty about Fran, he vents in his book. Remember a similar emergency when he told about Fran weeping and banging her head against the wall in exhaustion earlier in their marriage? Maybe it's a kind of mea culpa admission?

I'd hate to think that Fran was unimportant in Liddy's story because I identified and sympathized with her a lot.

Harriet

I really wonder if GGL was, as much in control as his narrative of his prison life would indicate? From his account he seems to have exerted substantial control? Of course he used his law background and he had powerful friends on the outside particularly his attorney Peter Maroulis who somehow got GGL a 3 day, un-guarded furlough from Prison when his Father died in 1975.

A greater victory came in 1976 when according to Liddy, he won a Wit of Mandamus against the Warden and prison staff ordering them to evoke certain reforms benefiting prisoners. Liddy acknowledges the aid of the Legal Services Division of the Yale Law School but claims he ask for an received permission to prosecute the case himself (page 471). While today it is not uncommon for prisoner prepared writs of several kinds to be filed in many courts, I have never before heard where a prisoner actually tried a case in court himself. In this case in particular other prisoners, not just him, were parties. GGL’s Law license must most certainly been suspended when he was found guilty and in addition there is the matter of getting him to the court. His words on pages 472 on this matter are not real precise and I suspect he only prepared the paperwork for filing with the actual representation before the trial court handled by a Yale Law School advocate.

Another comment on GGL in the stocks concerns an early visit from Frances during which he suggested that considering the length of his sentence, she might want a divorce. I am unable now to locate this incident in the book, but as I remember her reply it was something like, I’ll stick with the looser I know rather than hook-up with one I don’t know.

Jonathan, my question to you is are Canadian prisons as over crowded, as dehumanizing, and generally as ineffective as instruments of human reform as American ones as described, I think quite accurately, by Liddy?

Harriet, I too am forming a rather negative opinion of Judge Sirica. I keep comparing Sirica’s selection of the jury for the Liddy trial as described by Liddy with my recollection of Judges Session’s selection of the jury for the Judge Wood’s Assassination trial that I witnessed first hand in the 1980’s. In particular I am suspicious of the voir dire examination of prospective jurors individually in his private chambers instead of publicly in open court. I was surprised the Federal Rules of Procedure permitted this sub-rosa procedure. Judge Sessions did it in open court though it took 5-days before the Jury was seated. After that the trial lasted several months with all of the defendants found guilty. As I understand it the principal defendant, the triggerman, is still in prison. Fortunately for him the offense occurred before the re-enactment of the Federal death penalty as this guy would have been a prime candidate had it been available at the time.

I am critical of GGL’s description of his trial before Judge Sirica. Most of the verbiage relating to this principal event related to the voir dire examination of prospective jurors and their seating and a bit on the prosecution’s case. That was it, there was not a word on the defense. GGL was found guilty, and immediately with bail rescinded handed over to the Federal Marshal for incarceration. I think it would have been interesting to hear how Peter Maroulis presented the defense though I suspect there was not much to offer limiting defense to cross examination of prosecution witnesses and weak efforts to impeach their testimony.

Today I might wonder if GGL would receive a parole after serving just 6 years of a 20 year sentence. Of course there was obvious injustice in the length of his sentence compared to the far lesser terms received by his superiors who authorized his crime.

Harold, your legal view of the voir dire examination in Liddy's trial is most interesting and appreciated. It provides a perspective I could not have had otherwise. Sirica seems to have been determined to bring him to heel. I too believe that Maroulis's defense would have been very limited without his client's cooperation.

So Liddy would not likely have enjoyed the legal right to personally try his 1976 case against the Warden and prison staff? I wonder how many other embellishments and half truths there are in this book?

I found the scene between the imprisoned Liddy and Fran memorable also, when he offered her an opportunity for a divorce. Here is how I interpreted the incident, although it obviously can only be called conjecture.

Possibly Liddy felt guilty over all the crises he had imposed on his family, and particularly on Fran. Usually Liddy polishes his rough and tough image, but in this particular instance I believe he wanted to be seen as a family man. He trying to show us all how unselfish he is... that he offered Fran her freedom, but she didn't choose to accept it?

I remember Fran's words as saying that she preferred "the devil she knew to the one she didn't." Anyway, both of our memories evokes a very similar sentiment from Fran's lips, and it is NOT a flattering image of Liddy that his wife expresses, except perhaps to Liddy?

To me, it seems typical of Liddy that he might be pleased to have his wife term him a "devil," almost like an adolescent who loves the image of himself as a "devilish fellow."

I also particularly noted that Liddy didn't trouble himself to write of his gratitude that Fran decided to stay married to him. The only acknowledgement that Liddy makes regarding the chaos into which he has thrown his wife and family is the offer to allow her a new life? Now he no longer has to feel guilty because she has CHOSEN to stay with him? I thought the whole story was a way of deflecting guilt from himself regarding the stress his family endured during his prison years?

He certainly doesn't open up about his own feelings. Liddy never writes openly that he might have felt miserable if she had decided to accept his offer?

There is a scene very late in the book when Liddy is released from prison and illegally takes the wheel of their car. To avoid reporters, he drives so recklessly that he scares his devoted Fran into tears.

Sobbing, she says to him, "God, after all these years you haven't changed ar all."

This is Liddy's triumphant finale to the book. Is he saying that he will never change or be defeated by what happens to him? Isn't he also saying that he will NEVER reform into a considerate husband?

Harriet

Harriet I understand your analysis of Liddy’s action and motives regarding Fran and his family after his conviction and imprisonment. I certainly can’t argue against the precise reasoning you used to arrive at your negative concluding judgment of Liddy’s domestic character. I suppose I too also again see his usual macho self-interest motive in his offering her the divorce alternative. Perhaps also his innate feeling he was in control led him to feel confident that she would reject the offer making the offer more for show than a serious possibility..

I also like your characterization of the drive home after GGL’s final release from prison as “Liddy's triumphant finale to the book. Is he saying that he will never change or be defeated by what happens to him? Isn't he also saying that he will NEVER reform into a considerate husband?“ Didn’t Liddy sing to Fran to quell her tears during the wild drive home? Yes, I understand your conclusions regarding Liddy’s character and I generally agree. Yet somehow I guess I would in the end rate his overall character score considerably higher!

Here is another word on the problem of presenting a court defense in a criminal trial where the prosecution has much evidence to support the cause and the defense has little or none that positively shows innocence. Are we seeing in the current Martha Stewart trial a situation similar to Liddy’s? In Martha’s case the prosecution presented a stream of witnesses over a 2, or was it 3, week period. Her defense offered one witness that one account said took 15 minutes. Her entire defense rests on the Jury seeing the prosecution’s case as being insufficient to support the charge. There was offered no evidence positively asserting her innocence. We might hope for Martha’s sake that she has a better deliverance than Liddy.

Oh, good analysis of Liddy's character, Harold. Your comment about Liddy's "innate sense of control" added much to his portrait for me . Thank you.

Interesting look at Martha Stewarts's trial. To tell you the truth, as long as the Enron principals are walking around free, I can NOT agree with a jail term for Martha. I find myself wishing her well because her crime was so, so, so much less hurtful to other people than that of Enron.

Harriet

To my way of thinking, there are no easy answers to Ella's straight-forward questions.

I don't have an answer, either, Harold, to your question about prison conditions in Canada, as compared to those we have been reading about in Liddy's book.

And I'm having the same difficulty as you, Harriet, in trying to make some kind of sense of what Liddy has to say about his prison experience; about what he would like us to see in it; what it meant to him; or even how it defined him. Isn't it ironic, for example, that in prison Liddy became the activist he detested on the outside.

Why did he write the book? Ostensibly, as he puts it, to pay his debt to history, and to explain himself. He does neither in a satisfactory manner. So we must look for a different reason. It would be easy to claim that he wrote it for money, hoping it would get him out from under that $346,000 debt (mentioned in the Postscript, 1996). He knew the world was dying to hear from him!

Then again, there is the confessional urge one hears about, the compulsion to admit guilt, which he confronts with so much courage in chapter twenty-two, following the realization that he 'will be going to jail', hearing which, Fran makes the very dramatic, very heart-breaking response: 'she closed her eyes and said nothing'. It must have added immeasurably to her husband's misery.

In the pages that follow, we get an endless reiteration of guilt:

To Hugh Sloan: 'It was my mistake.'

To Jeb Magruder: 'I take responsibility.'

To AG Kleindienst: '...that was my fault.'

To his defence attorney, Peter Maroulis: 'I can't let you win. I'll have to sit still, (in court) shut up, and take the weight.'

It's curious to see the shift in his thinking, as he prepares himself for his sacrificial role (makes his guilt and failure meaningful)...prepares himself for the need, if necessary, for his being shot.

To John Dean: 'I accept full responsibility...just tell me what corner to stand on and I'll be there.' Isn't that dramatic?

Writing the book also gives Liddy a chance to relive the most dismal episode in his life...a catharsis, and a coming to terms with the lack of success in the greatest mission in his life. His term in prison gives him an opportunity to reenact the whole business. This time with the greatest success, ending with his imagined apotheosis, after winning a significant legal action for his fellow prisoners. There, behind the grandstand in the prison yard, getting the adulation of the inmates with their stiff-arm, fisted salutes, and hearing again in his heart the martial music of Hitler's Germany:

'In that moment, I felt like a god.'

More down to earth were all those things he did, while in prison, which are a reflection of his role in Watergate. This time successfully. His developing an elaborate intelligence system, with wire-tapping, informants, some of whom were guards, accessing surreptitiously and rifling prison files, etc. Everything done very professionally.

Perhaps he wrote the book just for the fun of it. I can see many instances in which he must have felt a keen satisfaction, finding a release for some emotion or other.

What a high-strung guy he was in those years. Many examples of that side of his nature impress themselves on the reader's memory. I'm sure they will pop up from time to time in mine, in the future. As for example, in his intolerance for a noisy TV, which 'forced' him to move his cot out of doors, to get some sleep in a 12F cold! Or was he adding ice to the fire of his masochistic ways? In his reckless driving, already noted, to evade a few curious news reporters after his release from prison. In his being too impatient to wait for a traffic light to change. But that would have to be factored into the exuberant, hilarious wager he offers his wife at the end.

Would I recommend the book? I took Ella's recommendation, and I thank her for it. So, sure, I'll pass it along to others. Liddy doesn't come clean and I can't see historians getting excited about him, but he is a pretty fair storyteller.

Jonathan

I have been asked to wind up this discussion as Ella is indisposed today. I know that our literate and inventive Ella sets an extremely high standard to follow, but I will try my best. Thanks to all of you in advance for any of your concluding comments.

Jonathan, I love your summary of Liddy, in particular your perceptively ironic observation that Liddy became an activist himself when he opposed prison conditions, just like the VietNam war protesters that he hated so much. I'm also reading the same edition of WILL as you are, with the 1996 Postscript. Another ironic note from that postscript...isn't it interesting to note the friendship that eventually evolved between himself and Timothy Leary? It's hard to imagine two people more unalike in ideologies.

Harold, thank you for your wonderful comments. I tend to evaluate Liddy on two levels. First I have to look at the man who, in a high administrative position, became involved in Watergate. Not so admirable, but perhaps no different than other politicians of past and present eras? It's hard to imagine that dirty tricks are NOT still going on in the current election campaigns on both sides and the pressures on each side to produce a win for their candidate must be just as intense as in Liddy's time? I suppose it's very cynical of me but I tend to be a bit less critical of the political Liddy who worked in this pressured environment. At least he was loyal and tried to save his president through his silence with Judge Sirica?

However, the domestic Liddy does NOT get high marks from me as a husband. For example, witness his final anecdote about that reckless drive with Fran. Surely Liddy must have judged that he was in perfect control of the car during that wild ride. However Fran clearly feared that her life was in danger and was so scared that she was crying.

Now we have to remember that Fran had seen Liddy make quite a few bad and irresponsible judgments during their marriage, otherwise why had he ended up in prison? Could it be that his evaluation of his ability to handle that car after six years in prison WITHOUT ANY DRIVING might have been a little grandiose?

How come the first thing he did when they were reunited was to scare her to death?

How did crooning to Fran when she was so frightened show consideration? IMO, doesn't it seem that what that self-absorbed Liddy needed to do... was to acknowledge that his wife felt emotions that were different from his, and SLOW THAT DARN CAR DOWN?!!!

HERE'S A FINAL QUESTION.

At the beginning of the month, Ella put a link in our discussion heading for a Presidential Pardon for G. Gordon Liddy I suppose such a pardon might, at the least, clear the way for him to reverse his disbarment and practice law again?

WHEN WE LOOK AT THE SUM TOTAL OF LIDDY'S BOOK AND EVALUATE OUR CURRENT BASIC FEELINGS ABOUT HIM, WHAT ARE YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT SUCH A PARDON?

Harriet

Harriet and all. Obviously it would be hard to score GGl very high on the basis of his domestic role as husband and father. I suppose one might argue that he deserves some credit for the apparent success of all of the children, but the fact of the matter is that GGL was immersed in his career during their early life and later during their most formative years he was in jail. This is hardly the basis for awarding him a high score as a father, which is another way of saying that Fran who bore the brunt of the child raising responsibility deserves high credit on that count.

I guess I’m not sure but I think it quite likely that GGL could get his Law License back if he wanted it. He would have to make application citing his post conviction reform, but I believe such reinstatement of released felons is frequently allowed. I could not find a New Jersey, New York, or Arizona Lawyers Directory on-line that might show GGL”s present status.

To me I think GGL’s successful career since his release establishes him as a member of a rather unique social class- a paroled felon who after release did not return after conviction for a new offense or other parole violation. On the contrary GGL has had a spectacular and very socially acceptable career since his release. More over he has accomplished his success without abandonment of his own moral standards that previously had led him to the violation of laws and a term in Federal Prison. In my judgment his successful career since his release justifies the approval of his application for a Presidential Pardon. I hope he gets it.

In conclusion I want to thank ELLA for bringing this book to us for discussion. Frankly my first impression when I heard it was proposed was very unfavorable. Yet when I began hearing the comments raised in the pre discussion posts, I began to see the depth of the issues raised by this man’s complex character and how his 1970’s role led to the most dangerous constitutional crisis to affect our nation in the 20th century. So I got the book and participated.

I also want to thank everyone for their participation. It really turned out to be a serious presentation of the issues as we as individuals saw them. In particular I want to thank Ann Wrixon who until recently was the CEO of Seniorsnet, for her contribution as a participant. Ann you will be most welcome in any of our future discussions that you might choose to join.

Ella, my very best wishes for a speedy recovery from whatever has got you feeling indisposed.

It has been a very enjoyable discussion. A lot of fun to have been part of it.

Harriet, so many things in your summing up remind us all just how unusual this book really is. I've been in basic agreement with you throughout the discussion. But now, reading your final assessment, we come to a parting of our views regarding the Liddy matrimonial affairs.

I'm disappointed to read that you can't give Liddy high marks as a husband. And you give as one reason the awful ride that Fran gets on the way home. Your conclusions are beautifully expressed, but they are all wrong. There was never a moment when the car, the Pinto, was it, was not being firmly controlled by a sure hand and foot.

I just have to look at the picture facing page 183, to know that Fran was never in any danger. For those without this edition, it is a picture of a very robust, determined-looking Liddy, with his '520 hp Lingenfelter modified ZR-1 Corvette.'

Liddy was in a big hurry to get HOME. And I think Fran was crying with sheer happiness to have him free and coming home again. Happy at his eagerness.

I must say I'm impressed by that plate on his car: H20GATE.

How is that for making the best of a bad thing? He's a good man. I think he deserves a pardon. How do the rest of you feel about a Pulitzer Prize?

Jonathan

Jonathan, I can't say I'm in favor of a Pulitzer Prize for Liddy, but would you believe I'm actually wavering back and forth toward thinking a presidential pardon is a good idea?

Loved reading both of your posts, gentlemen. Jonathan, I'm not sure whether some parts of your last post were tongue-in-cheek or serious, but you made me smile. Actually, so many of your wonderful posts make me smile and it takes a lot of different opinions to make an interesting world. I've loved reading yours.

I have loved participating with all of you... Jonathan, Harold, Ann, and, last but not least, Ella... in this discussion. I can't say enough about my enthusiasm for any discussion that Ella leads. She is a wonderful and inventive catalyst for exploring new ideas.

In particular, I know Ella would enthusiastically agree with all of us that it was a pleasure to have you in the discussion, Ann Wrixon. Please do come and visit again in future discussions. We'll always be glad to see you.

I have just a minute or two to post as I am on my way out of the house, but I will return tonight or tomorrow to elaborate on why I, who am not a great fan of Liddy in many areas, might possibly consider a pardon an acceptable idea. (I can't believe I said that!)

Hurriedly, Harriet

I'm still wavering about the validity of a pardon, but my reasons for supporting a Liddy pardon would be that, although Liddy constantly insisted on taking the responsibilities for all of Watergate, I think the concept of Watergate and other similar stunts probably evolved much higher up in the chain of command. Liddy acted as the link between the "General" and the "foot soldiers." The ultimate responsibility belonged elsewhere.

Liddy was merely the man who chose to shoulder the final blame in order to protect the administration and his commander-in-chief.

He obeyed his orders and did the crime, but others, much guiltier, were punished much less, or not at all.

Justice proceeded in an uneven-handed way in his case.

Goodness, I keep rethinking this so much that I'm getting out of breath jumping back and forth over this fence. Yet, considering my negative outlook on Liddy when I started his book, it's remarkable that I've come this far.

On behalf of Ella, who led this discussion so well, I want to thank everyone who participated. It has been such fun to interact with you all. I loved the experience.

I had a great time, Ella.

Harriet

I want to add a few further words on the subject of Watergate and its effect on national political campaigns today. I agree with the previous post noting that the Presidential campaigns today probably have a well-budgeted “Dirty Tricks” section. HOWEVER, I don’t think for a moment that they call it by that name, or that they would go to the extent of the blatant violations of criminal statutes that occurred in 1972 with the Watergate and other violations of criminal statutes.

In other words I think our political community learned a lesson from the Watergate experience. The spectra of the Richards Nixon’s disgrace in his world televised departure by helicopter from the White House steps on his way to political oblivion, the last farewell speech and final goodbye wave, is imbedded forever in the minds of every presidential aspirant today. This image is further supplemented by the prison sentences (short though they were) for the underlings. Today I am confident that any “Dirty Tricks” activities are no more than research seeking to discover any negative past of opponents.