posted
Woodword and Bernstein apparently refuse to confirm this. They say they won't release the name until Deep Throat is dead.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Our local NBC outlet has, within the past few minutes, reported that both the Washington Post and Bob Woodward have now confirmed that Felt was indeed Deep Throat.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't know if you're in the majority, Bob, although I agree with you completely. The news here did just show a clip of Pat Buchanan calling for the man's prosecution for leaking government secrets or something. Guess you have to consider the source, huh?
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they were government secrets that resulted in people being hurt or something, sure. But these "secrets" were about sabotaging political enemies and subverting the process of government. Nixon was a bad dude and deep throat did the right thing.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Woodword and Bernstein did say they wouldn't release the name until "Deep Throat" was dead. But I heard it was Deep Throat's family that convinced him to give his identity. A lot of good movies have come out of the Nixon years, I wonder if a new movie is going to be made based on Mark Felt's life, or something.
posted
It must have sucked for his kids and grandkids, when they learned about Watergate in school, and they couldn't tell how much they knew.
Posts: 376 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, Mark Felt, for caring more about the dream that is the United States of America than about a leader who turned out to be a criminal, not just a liar but proven by his own words (eventually) to be complicit in a crime against the people of this country and the democratic process that is the lifeblood of our liberty, for all its flaws and missteps.
Signed,
Ele
Descendent of Richard D. Reynolds, Revolutionary War patriot and resident of the oldest colony in America,the birthplace of Thomas Jefferson, Virginia
Posts: 745 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Thank you, Mark Felt, for caring more about the dream that is the United States of America than about a leader who turned out to be a criminal..."
In all honesty, Felt almost certainly didn't care about the "dream that is the United States of America" as much as he wanted to hurt Nixon. But either way, we're glad he did it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
How awesome that this information has only been known for roughly a day and a half and you've already (somehow) uncovered Felt's true motives: Nothing heroic at all, just the blind desire to "hurt Nixon."
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This isn't really that big a deal. Everybody, including Nixon, knew this was the guy.
I think we'll discover, in retrospect, that it was harder for the media to cover up that this was the guy than it was to figure it out.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
According to this, the family answering machine even identified him as Deep Throat as far back as 2002, although it does say it was done in jest.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the story as it plays out is fascinating.
Mark Felt really isn't easy to categorize. He was J. Edgar Hoover's man - and Hoover was never known for his great respect for constitutional limits on the FBI's powers. Felt himself was indicted for his role in ordering illegal searches of families and friends of members of the Weathermen group.
Charles Colson, who was one of the most blatant power-mongers in the Nixon whitehouse has come out blasting Felt for his "betrayal" of the president. Colson did time for his role in Watergate and found religion - and although I don't agree with a lot of his politics, it looked like it might be sincere. But the Colson on the talk shows yesterday sounded a lot more like the Colson who worked with Nixon.
Today, Carl Bernstein had a great comment about the accusations that the family might be motivated by profit. He pointed out that just about every Nixon staffer that served time wrote a book after they came out and profited. Why the heck shouldn't Felt's family profit?
I'm not all that surprised by the mix of murky motives. That's how things usually work out in life. A bunch of flawed human beings managing - once in awhile - to do the right thing, even if for the wrong reasons.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I personally feel like this man did the right thing
I agree with you.
Although, I'm not sure he did it for all the right reasons (altruist) -- but that doesn't matter in the long run, it was still good that he did it.
And the argument has been made that what was done by that administration was nothing different than what had been done by previous administrations (JFK, etc.) -- however, that doesn't excuse it as bring right.
So what stephen said, basically -- the right thing, however perhaps for the wrong reasons.
quote:Originally posted by TL: How awesome that this information has only been known for roughly a day and a half and you've already (somehow) uncovered Felt's true motives: Nothing heroic at all, just the blind desire to "hurt Nixon."
Try reading up on his own statments, and you will see that it was fairly easy to find. Also, Felt himself went to jail for things that were every bit as bad as this, so obviously there wasn't a lot of moral high ground there.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing - Pat Buchanan, John Dean and Charles Colson have been saying Felt should have gone to one of the following players:
1. The president/White House staff 2. The Department of Justice 3. The Director of the FBI
Reality check: The White House was blocking every move in a meaningful investigation - by means both fair and foul. John Mitchell, the attorney general, was part of the cover-up. L. Patrick Gray, the FBI Director, was cooperating with the White House in limiting the investigation and a cover-up.
There was one legitimate channel left for Felt - he could have gone to Congress. But that was really the only one. The White House, Attorney General, and FBI Director were up to their necks in it.
To Kwea: While other administrations abused their powers in various ways, this particular effort involved an effort to subvert the political process - it began with a bunch of CIA private contractors breaking in to Democratic headquarters.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does anyone know what specifically Nixon did? I know that there was break in (for what or to get what?) and that Nixon lied. What I don't know is what did he lie about? What was the break in for. I'm admitting complete ignorance on this, and I have done a lot more reading lately but all I hear is that he lied and is just the most awful human being ever. What was the lie about or what is the whole Watergate thing about? I mean what does "complicit in a crime against the people of this country and the democratic process that is the lifeblood of our liberty" mean? What crime? I hear that Felt blew the whistle on Nixon, but for what? Again what does "sabotaging political enemies and subverting the process of government" mean? I am totally admitting vast ignorance on the subject, but just doing some cursory looks at things I'm not finding much info on what actually happened. Just Nixon lied, and everyone else is a hero. I will keep looking though. Politicians lying is nothing new
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I think the whole thing is mostly about politcal spying, that he was secretly going after dirt on Democrats? Is that right?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
BTW, I think, of the persons who have posted on this so far, only Bob_S, Farmgirl, and I are old enough to have watched the Congressional hearings and Nixon's resignation - old enough to be interested and have an idea of the importance of it all.
::shakes cane at youngsters and launches off into an account of all my health problems::
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:October 10, 1972 FBI agents establish that the Watergate break-in stems from a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage conducted on behalf of the Nixon reelection effort, The Post reports
The stupid thing is that this really didn't have to happen. Nixon was a shoe-in and won the next election by a landslide (even in the midst of Watergate) -- so it was stupid of him and his people to resort to breaking and entering in order to get the dirt on democratic opponents.
yes, I remember Nixon's resignation speech well. My household were big fans of his, and they were all very disappointed over everything that had taken place.
Farmgirl (sndrake - gee, thanks for pointing out my age again) Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We were Watergate Hearing junkies in my family too. I was 12 or 13 at the time. And I read the entire book of the White House Transcripts when it came out. It was a real eye opener. Anyone who has respect for Richard Nixon should read that book of his most intimate conversations and strategy sessions with his aides. He struck me as a fearful paranoid man who had no respect for human dignity, no compunctions about misuse of power, and who felt himself to be completely above the law. His downfall was, in my opinion, the best thing that ever happened in U.S. politics.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
at the time of the break-in, the presidential nomination for the Dems was still up for grabs. It was a pretty serious fight at the convention, which McGovern's disciplined "troops" won. (The parts of Hunter Thompson's "Fear & Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72" that don't feature paranoid fantasies and ramblings about ibogaine contain some very detailed and shrewd commentary about the Democratic struggles leading to McGovern's nomination.)
In short, Nixon and his people were worried. The public never really liked him - in 1968, he was voted in as the lesser of two evils (Humphrey was too attached to LBJ's Vietnam policies). Nixon wasn't delivering on his "plan" to end the war. The economy wasn't doing great. Not an ideal set-up at all, and there was real fear they could lose reelection. Who knew McGovern's campaign would self-destruct so spectacularly, beginning with the Eagleton fiasco?
posted
Not exactly the high water mark of ethics in civil service...
While Nixon got, at the very least, what he deserved and should still stand as a villain; Felt was no angel.
He was a holdover from J.Edgar Hoover and he didn't get that high up in the FBI without being just the kind of fellow that Hoover felt good about. And Felt's later troubles showed he wasn't above breaking the law either.
My take on this is that Felt wanted one shot at putting a positive spin on the Deep Throat deal before he died. He could, in short, fire the first salvo in the debate that would arise. By doing so, and saying publicly that he feared being branded a villain, he paints the picture of a man afraid of being remembered wrongly.
Sure, what he did was the right thing, no matter his reasoning behind it at the time. I just believe it has a lot more with his not being chosen as head of the FBI than some altruistic concern for the sanctity of the law of the land.
Is he a hero? Not by definition. There was no element of self-sacrifice in what he did and it is apparent that he did a lot to keep his tracks covered, in public if not in private. As a sworn member of the FBI, what he did should have been considered part of his job.
But everyone deserves a moment of redemption. Heck, we've seen Nixon lionized before he passed away and right afterwards. Even G. Gordon Liddy is seen as a hero in some circles today, he certainly is a celebrity.
I guess Felt wants his moment in the fickle spotlight of public redemption.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As has been pointed out, besides his crucial role leaking and confirming Watergate info as Deep Throat, Felt was ironically one of only two FBI agents indicted for his role in the FBI's infamous COINTELPRO . He was found guilty of authorizing the same "black bag"* break-ins that were at the heart of Watergate.
DarkKnight, black bag ops are one of the main illegal activities that Nixon's administration were involved in. The reason the whole scandal was called Watergate was because security at the Watergate Hotel busted a black bag break-in at their hotel, in the offices of the Democratic National Committee. Accounts differ as to whether Nixon knew in advance about the break-in, although apparently Attorney General and head of CREEP (comm to re-elect the pres) John Mitchell knew and approved it.
Nixon and his administration went to great lengths to cover-up and deny any involvement, up to and including felony obstruction of justice, payoffs to witnesses, destruction of evidence, etc. Here's a decent summary of the scandal that I just skimmed.
quote:Archibald Cox, Jr., had been appointed special prosecutor in charge of investigating the Watergate Scandal. When he insisted upon receiving secret tapes that President Richard Nixon had made in the Oval Office, Nixon ordered Cox fired. On October 20, 1973, after both Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus resigned their position rather than fire Cox, Nixon assigned the task to U.S. Solicitor General Robert Bork.
Who promptly fired Cox. One of the main reasons Bork was denied confirmation to the US Supreme Court--and why the judge on the Simpsons has that weird beard.
The release of secret Oval Office tapes was the crucial reason Nixon resigned. He resigned right after the Supreme Court unanimously ruled (except for current Chief Justice William Rehnquist, he abstained, the weenie) he had to cough them up, to satisfy a subpoena Jaworski, Cox' successor as Special Prosectutor, had asked Judge Sirica (the judge from the original break-in) to issue. Nixon had to produce the tapes, and did. And with damning evidence of various crimes on the tapes, especially obstruction of justice, Nixon would have lost his impeachment trial. So, he quit rather than losing his trial in the Senate.
*"black bag" is term for official (FBI, CIA or other government agents) breaking in to a home or office without warrants, for various purposes. Highly unconstitutional and illegal. Free-lance operatives are often used for deniability if caught. Remember Mission Impossible?--"in the event that you are compromised this agency will not confirm or deny any knowledge of your existence."
posted
I was 7 when Nixon resigned. It's my first political memory. Our family was over at the neighbors' when the speech was aired, and I remember the adults trying to explain it to me so that I would understand and be reassured. So they said that the President had admitted to having done a bad thing, and so he had resigned so that a better person could take his place.
Here's a link to a story by Bob Woodward about how he met Mark Felt, along with some speculation about Felt's motives.
Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I guess I am a little surprised at some of the hate spewed at Nixon for this. I'm certainly not defending him for this, but he did do a lot of good things too and all he is remembered for is Watergate which is essentially political espionage which I would think ever person who becomes President has been engaged in. I mean this is Politics. Politics is not known for it's honesty. People make Nixon sound like the absolute worst villian in Presidential history, and I guess I wonder how much of that is just the 'legend' of Watergate. I guess to me, he was a decent President, got us out of Vietnam and all kinds of stuff. He got busted doing what all politicians do, tried to cover it up, which is what politicians do too, was going to be impeaches which he should have been, and resigned the office before he was impeached. Because of the Watergate legend he is remembered for "I'm not a crook" and not for any of his accomplishments. Lots of Presidents have had scandals, I am curious as to why Nixons is just soooo terrible
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's this kind of quote from Tatiana "He struck me as a fearful paranoid man who had no respect for human dignity, no compunctions about misuse of power, and who felt himself to be completely above the law. His downfall was, in my opinion, the best thing that ever happened in U.S. politics. " that makes me think I am missing something more? I mean Nixon's downfall is the best thing that ever happened in US politics? That seems, to me, to be a little strong? I'm not trying to pick on you or anything like that, but I hear this kind of stuff a lot about Nixon and I don't know where it comes from? I think sndrake is correct when he said "The public never really liked him - in 1968, he was voted in as the lesser of two evils" and since sndrake is old enough to really remember Nixon ( I didn't even make an old joke! ) I guess I wonder if Nixon became the biggest villian in US history because he just wasn't that likeable of a guy, unlike say Reagan or Clinton or JFK or so on who had their fair share of scandals too but were likeable people.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you really think that all politicians would stoop to using the FBI to subvert the very constitution? Beacause that is what Nixon did, or at least what he covered up. He also lied under oath, adn he would ahve been facing serious prison time had he not been pardoned by Ford.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread made me wonder why I don't remember much about the death/funeral of Richard Nixon -- seeing as how when past president Ronald Reagon died, it was such a huge news deal.
But the biography at Wikipedia tells me that his family chose to not have the "state funeral" -- which is probably why I couldn't even remember when he died. (I was in junior high during the Watergate scandal, but Nixon's death was only a few short years ago - 1994).
I liked reading that bio. Learned lots I didn't know about his humble childhood. Maybe I should read his memoirs...
posted
Well, yes, a lot of politicians stooped to using the FBI for all kinds of illegal things. And you again stated the same kind of stuff, he "stooped to using the FBI to subvert the very constitution". he subverted the Constitution? Nixon is not the first nor the last President to use the FBI, CIA, NSA to get dirt on his enemies. Clinton had all kinds of records 'found' in his offices about Republicans, no big deal. Sandy Berger was caught stuffing classified documents down his pants and no one really cared. No alarm bells raised, that was pretty covered up by saying he was a slob. I am sure there are more examples of both sides doing that same thing. Clinton lied under oath, no big deal, Reagan couldn't remember anything under oath which I guess isn't technically illegal but it's right along the same lines.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: BTW, I think, of the persons who have posted on this so far, only Bob_S, Farmgirl, and I are old enough to have watched the Congressional hearings and Nixon's resignation - old enough to be interested and have an idea of the importance of it all.
::shakes cane at youngsters and launches off into an account of all my health problems::
*clears throat* Hey, sndrake. What about me? I turned 18 the same month Nixon resigned, and had followed the whole thing very closely.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Ahem. If you were to cast your mind back in history a scant six or seven years ago, you may perchance recall that event you dismiss as, "No big deal" led to the SECOND IMPEACHMENT EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES?
No big deal. Just what do you consider a big deal?
Your saying that, basically, any crime is simply, "Politicians doing what politicians do" is cynicism in its worst form. These are the people who represent us. Who we elect to uphold the laws and to protect our interests. Nixon broke that trust in an outrageous fashion. People went to jail for helping him. Yes, it was a very big deal. Read some of the tapes. Watch the movie. Educate yourself.
I'm only 25 and I can recognize this matters.
Engaging in elaborate cover-ups, obstructing justice as outlined in the constitution, and lying to Congress and the American public are SERIOUS matters. Especially when those lies include cover-ups for activities which subvert the democratic process.
Cynicism of the sort, "Yeah, they're all liars" is simply an excuse for laziness and refusal to hold public figures accountable. I know it doesn't always work this way and that the system isn't perfect. However, I think the question is not "Why do you hate Nixon" but rather, "Why aren't you outraged at these other people?"
Posts: 99 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I liked the mystery.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
