100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

November 03, 1982 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1982-11-03

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

OPINION

Th i.hianal

Page 4

Wednesday, November 3, 1982

The MLchigon Doily

Liddy: Outrageous in all

respects

.6

G. Gordon Liddy, the notorious "tough
guy" of Watergate (you remember-he
held his hand over the candle), will appear
on campus tomorrow to debate Timothy
Leary, whose "tune in, turn on, drop out"
was a rallying cry for the 1960s drug
culture. Daily editor Julie Hinds spoke
with Liddy over the phone last week about
his newfound popularity on the college lec-
ture circuit and his reflections on the tenth
anniversary of Watergate.

political intelligence gathering. It's the same
sort of thing that goes on every four years in
this country.
Daily: So you don't think your activities were
unusual?
Liddy: No. What was unusual was all the
hysteria and carrying on about it. After all, in
1964 when Barry Goldwater's apartment was
broken into, a wiretap was put in, and his
papers stolen, it was page 23 news. That's
where it belongs. I don't have any quarrel with
that.
Daily: What do your contacts with students
tell you about the changing mood of the coun-
try?
Liddy: First of all, they tell me that the
young people of this country are very much for
this country, concerned about it. The students
are ambitious,, they're goal-oriented, they un-
derstand what's necessary for achievement.
They put that into practice. I would say that
older persons like myself who are worried
about young people as a result of what hap-
pened in the 1960s can just relax. The young
people of the 1980s are nothing at all like the
young people of the 1960s. And the country is
the better for it.
Daily: Who do you think would be better as a
role model for students-you or Timothy
Leary?
Liddy: Well naturally I would have to admit
to a prejudice and bias in my favor. So for a
young person seeking a role model, if his or her
choices were limited to Timothy Leary or G.
Gordon Liddy, I would suggest myself. I think
Timothy Leary would not.
Daily: About the current legal system in the
United States, you and Leary both have
criminal records ...
Liddy: I've got a much bigger criminal
record than Tim Leary has and let's make sure
we understand that.

Daily: . . . Do you think you both deserve
them? Do either of your convictions reflect a
weakness or failure in the legal system?
Liddy: I can't speak for Tim Leary on that,
but for me, it's quite clear that I broke the law
with respect to the Watergate break-in. I did it
then for reasons I considered good ones and I
would do it again in similar circumstances.
Now, with respect to the Ellsberg break-in (at
the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist), I
think that was an incorrect legal finding,
because I think that was justified and within
the power of a president for reasons of national
security.
Daily: You've been called a "nice scary guy"
by the Village Voice and a "thoroughly
dangerous man" by Theodore White. Which do
you think is closer to the truth?
Liddy: It depends upon the circumstance. I
am, for example, no danger to anyone who does
not mean me harm or does not mean my coun-
try harm. If, however, you approach me with
intent to harm or my country with intent to
harm, I'm probably the most dangerous person
you could ever run into.
Daily: What about some of the recent TV por-
trayals of yourself? Such as..
Liddy: Oh, there's lots of them. There's a
portrayal of me based upon the Dean book,
there's a portrayal of me based upon my book,
there's probably been half a dozen portrayals
of me on Saturday Night Live. There's so many
of them and they're all different, which I guess
is to be expected because they're looking at the
same person through different eyes.
Daily: Do you think they capture the essence
of your personality? Are you that outrageous in
certain respects?
Liddy: Well, I think I'm outrageous in all
respects, but I don't think that's a terrible thing
to be.

/ '

C

Daily: What do you think of President
Reagan? Does he inspire your loyalty?
Liddy: I think he's a good president. I think
he's the best president for now. This is not to
say I agree with all his policies. I don't agree,
for instance, with his insistence that we don't
need a draft. I think it's quite clear that we do,
so I think he's wrong there. I think he's dead
wrong on selling grain to the Soviet Union. But
then again, I didn't agree with everything that
Richard Nixon did. He was almost classically
Keynesian in his economic policies, and I
disagreed with that. But Richard Nixon also
was the right president for the right time.
Daily: Of the participants in Watergate, it
seems those convicted for their role have
become more popular-through books, lec-
tures-than the prosecutors or judges. Why do
you think that's happened?
Liddy: I don't think that is true at all. John
Dean is probably the most unpopular person in
the United States. Jeb Stuart Magruder-I
would say he's dreadfully unpopular and
nobody even thinks or hears of him. With
respect to John Sirica, who was judge, his'
reputation in the legal community is probably
about as low as it can get. Washingtonian
magazine took a poll and he was rated just
about unfit to sit on the bench.
Daily: How did you celebrate the tenth an-,
niversary of Watergate this summer? Did you
have any reunions?
Liddy: No.
Daily: Did you notice the event?
Liddy: It would be impossible to not notice it
was happening, because the television and
newspapers were full of it. But I can't even
remember what it was I was doing or not doing
at the time.
Daily: Any twinges of remorse?
Liddy: Good Lord, no. Over what?
Dialogue is a weekly feature of the
Daily's Opinion Page.

:I

4

Daily: The Wall Street Journal called you
"the big man on campus" because of your
popularity as a college lecturer. How do you
account for that?
Liddy: My individual lectures--apart from
my debates with Tim Leary-have been quite
popular. The reason they have been successful
is that so often when students go into their
political science courses and history courses,
what they get is the Holiday Inn version of
reality-with a seal of paper around it;
sanitized for your protection. They do not get
that from me. I give it to them flat-out, warts
and all.
Daily: Your audience of college students was
seven or eight-years-old when Watergate oc-
curred. What do you stress to them about your
role?
Liddy : I don't stress anything to them. I tell
them exactly what happened and why it hap-
pened. I make no bones about it-it was

I

N

:E;t FWA "

Liddy: No regrets

Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

Stewart

Vol. XCIII, No. 48

420 Maynord St.
Ann'Arbor, MI 48109

Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board

C.y*

-HEY SAY THE ELECTION
WAS A COMPEMi6iN
BE5W MN AMOR~E rOS
AND -O&WL5R PR~ICES, z

Deeper and deeper

0 THOSE who were naive enough
to think that the United States had
gone out of the business of actively un-
dermining selected foreign gover-
nments, the message on Monday was
clear. As far as the Reagan ad-
painistration is concerned, nothing has
changed from the good old days.
With a certain degree of moral
smugness, an administration official
yesterday denied published reports
that the United States, through the
Central Intelligence Agency, is waging
a covert war to overthrow the San-
dinist government in Nicaragua. "We
are not waging a secret war, or
anything approaching that," one
senior intelligence official was quoted
as saying. "What we're doing is trying
to keep Managua off balance and apply
pressure to stop providing military aid
to the insurgents in El Salvador."
At best then, what we are doing is
sending American advisers and money
to Central America for the expressed
purpose of harassing a sovereign
government. And at worst-as the
reports in the media suggest-the
United States is becoming deeply em-
broiled in a disastrous war.

In either case, it is very disturbing
that the Reagan administration ap-
parently favors a military-rather
than a political-solution to the
problems in Central America. Actions
such - as the "harassment" of
Nicaragua will ensure that Central
Americans will continue to regard the
United States .as an imperialist foe.
Undermining legitimate Central
American governments will only
prolong the conflict and gravely
damage U.S. interests.
From his first weeks in power to the
present, President Reagan effectively
has worked against policies, such as
land reform, which could provide long-
lasting, systematic solutions to the dif-
ficulties in El Salvador and Central
America. His administration continues
to provide aid and public support
to rightist elements in both El Salvador
and Honduras-despite their glaring
violations of human rights.
And now, the administration has
taken its policies one step further. With
each escalation, however, the ad-
ministration's position becomes more
destructive and the hope for peace in
Central America more remote.

So I VCr.MD DEMOCRATic
Fb'R A1oR; Toes ANrA
HIGHER PRICES.5
How MUCH CAN
st: THEY RLS E THE
A ' PMICE OF GENERIC
Pocr Foot?

I'
r 3
.
QG
FDp
I l

t ,+QT r >"Ly
92

LETTERS TO THE DAILY:

Kreii: A m indiess,

cynical punk

6

To the Daily:
I would like to urge restraint to
C. E. Krell ("Jazz on the front

lines," Daily, Oct. 26). The main
problem with his writing is that it
is not described as a piece of

... and a lousy writer too

To the Daily:
Today, I read C.E. Krell's
"review'' of the Gateway Trio
concert which took place last
Saturday at the University Club
in the Michigan Union. In the
review, C.E. thanks me for let-
ting him into the concert; to
quote, "Thanks ticket lady."
Please tell the "reporter" that
I prdfer to be called Ms. Ticket
Lady, and that he was not totally

the Gateway Trio will not read
the review. Unfortunately, the
members of Eclipse Jazz attem-
pted to do so. We usually look
forward to reading the Daily's
reviews of our shows.
In reviewing a concert, it is
your responsibility to present an
account of the event which is ac-
curate, well thought out, and
correctly spelled. Since both of
our shows were sold out, it is a
shame that T decided to ive the

pointless creative writing, but
rather is passed off as a music
review.
Nothing is farther from the
truth. Krell is a punk. He is not
only a punk, he is sufficiently
immature to be unable to enjoy
any kind of music but punk. If I
did a review of a punk concert, I
would probably insult a lot of
punks. But if I had the strange
and unhelpful notion of
describing my experience in-
stead of the show, I would at least
put in the audience's reaction.
From the Gateway Trio
review, no one knows how much
the audience-with the notable
exception of the cynical Mr.
Krell-loved the show.

I, for one, am sorry that he got
in. If he hadn't, this wonderful
show wouldn't have been
described as a bad acid trip. And
Krell doesn't even do that right;
It sounds like he gets his adjec
tives by sticking pins in copies of
Penthouse and a physics tex-
tbook-neither of which has
anything to do with music.
Statements like, "Sound not as
good as a glazed donut, not as bad
as a Mounds bar," do not tell us
anything. They just confuse us
for a moment until we realize it is
complete bullshit that doesn't
even make sense to the person
who wrote it.
Reading statements that don't
make sense is very unpleasant A

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan