This morning’s Washington Post reveals various interesting tidbits about yesterday’s revelation that Mark Felt is Deep Throat. (Previous posts here and here.)
Tidbit #1: White House special counsel Charles W. Colson, a.k.a. Nixon’s “hatchet man,” said he was stunned to learn that Felt was Deep Throat, because “he was a professional and that wasn’t a professional way to behave.” Hmm… and I suppose obstructing justice (to which Colson pleaded no contest in 1974) is “a professional way to behave”?
Then there’s Nixon himself. Alas, we can’t get a reaction from Tricky Dick, seeing as how he’s dead and all. But I think CBS’s Harry Smith is quite probably right when he says, “As for Deep Throat being an FBI guy — Nixon’s response would not have been printable.” Heh. And we can get at least a window into Nixon’s reaction by looking at some things he said in the past. That brings us to tidbit #2: the same Post story containing Colson’s reaction also gloriously recounts this classic Richard Nixon moment:
White House officials suspected Felt was leaking to The Post as early as October 1972. … Nixon, Haldeman and Dean were speculating about Felt during one of the sessions tape-recorded in the White House.
“Is he Catholic?” Nixon asked. Told by Haldeman that Felt was Jewish, Nixon replied, “F**k, they put a Jew in there?” To which Haldeman responded, “Well, that could explain it.”
Ah, Richard Milhous Nixon — not just our most corrupt president ever, but also possibly (hopefully!) our most anti-Semitic. (In point of fact, Felt is not Jewish.)
[Editor’s note: the actual Nixon quote in the Post is: “[Expletive], [the bureau] put a Jew in there?” I livened it up a bit for y’all. I’m sure the “expletive” in question was indeed the F-word; that was always Nixon’s favorite, especially when talking about Jews.]
Almost a year later, according to the same article, John Dean told Nixon that Felt was “the only person that knows” some of the details that were being leaked, but Nixon didn’t believe it; he thought (I’m quoting the Post now, not Nixon himself) that “no one would risk his career to become an informant.” Funny… many people would have thought that no one would risk his presidency to cover up a “third-rate burglary.” But hey, life is full of surprises.
Another Post article digs into the story of the story about the story — i.e., the history of the Vanity Fair article that “outed” Felt. As remarkable as it is that Deep Throat’s identity remained a mystery for this long, I’m almost as amazed (we’ll call this tidbit #3) that — in this modern age of instant information — Vanity Fair was able to maintain total secrecy around such a high-profile article, which has been in the works for two years and was worked on by more than a dozen people. Wow.
That Post article also discusses the “key journalistic question” of whether “Felt, who is 91 and in ill health from a stroke, [is] of sound enough mind to have confirmed his identity to O’Connor, or to have told Woodward that their agreement had ended.” It concludes that the situation is a bit murky. Ultimately, however:
Woodward and The Post decided to confirm Vanity Fair’s story yesterday because “Felt’s family and lawyer made their decision for him, and we had no choice,” [Post Executive Editor Leonard] Downie said.
Finally, an essay by Hank Stuever called “The Illuminating Experience of Being Kept in the Dark” includes this gem of a paragraph:
Had he lived in this era, Deep Throat might not have lasted long. He’d be blogged to bits. He’d be Drudged, smudged, Romenesko’d. People would disprove him with their own Deep Throats. His identity would be discovered within a news cycle or two, spun around, and he’d be left holding a book contract.
Heh. Indeed.
|
Categories: The Media & Blogs
|
June 1st, 2005 at 2:41:52 am
I don’t think Nixon was so much anti-Semitic in particular as he was a simple bigot. The man threw around every viscious stereotype for just about every race, from Latinos and blacks to Jews and European nationalities. He’d be hilarious as a senile grandfather, but as a president, it’s quite frightening to see how demented he was behind closed doors.
June 1st, 2005 at 3:02:05 am
the old, i’m not a bigot, i hate everyone tack eh :)
June 1st, 2005 at 5:19:12 am
Heh. Indeed. :)
“…the whole world is festering with unhappy souls,
The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles,
Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch ~
And I don’t like Anybody very much.”
~ originally by Sheldon Harnick, b. 1924
But No: Nixon reserved a Special place in his Spleen for the Jews. / Y’know, I think he Feared them even more than he did the Kennedys. :) / Perhaps because he Knew that (generally speaking of course ;) they were Twice as cultured and thrice as Smart ~ which REALLY left Yer Man the Dickster floundering hopelessly in the Dust. :>
Now then: before unto Dust all this Deepthroated hoopla shall Return, as the Newscycles passeth & the MJ Verdict impends, let us Pause to remember, however Briefly, The Original. // Not that I ever Saw it Back in The Black ‘72 of course. At the grand Opening (so to Speak :) or anything like that. :) Not that there’d have Been anything Wrong with That. :) // (Hi Linda. Yes, you should have been President. Nixon Sucked MUCH worse. :)
June 1st, 2005 at 5:37:07 am
…as the Newscycles passeth & the MJ Verdict impends…
To say nothing of the Rehnquist Resignation, which is expected sometime this month.
June 1st, 2005 at 7:41:52 am
I don’t think Nixon was so much anti-Semitic in particular as he was a simple bigot. The man threw around every viscious stereotype for just about every race, from Latinos and blacks to Jews and European nationalities. He’d be hilarious as a senile grandfather, but as a president, it’s quite frightening to see how demented he was behind closed doors.
June 1st, 2005 at 8:02:05 am
the old, i’m not a bigot, i hate everyone tack eh :)
June 1st, 2005 at 8:50:33 am
So if Nixon was anti-semitic, why put Kissinger in the most trusted position that he had?
June 1st, 2005 at 9:13:43 am
As for tidbit #1, Felt himself said it was an unprofessional way to behave.
As for the whole thing, I think it’s all bullocks. He’s senile. And the family will still have a book deal.
June 1st, 2005 at 10:19:12 am
Heh. Indeed. :)
“…the whole world is festering with unhappy souls,
The French hate the Germans, the Germans hate the Poles,
Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch ~
<i><b>And I don’t like Anybody very much.”</b></i>
~ originally by Sheldon Harnick, b. 1924
But No: Nixon reserved a Special place in his Spleen for the Jews. / Y’know, I think he Feared them even <i>more</i> than he did the Kennedys. :) / Perhaps because he <i>Knew</i> that (generally speaking of course ;) they were Twice as cultured and thrice as Smart ~ which REALLY left Yer Man the Dickster floundering hopelessly in the Dust. :>
<i>Now then</i>: before unto Dust all this Deepthroated hoopla shall Return, as the Newscycles passeth & the MJ Verdict impends, let us Pause to remember, however Briefly, <a href=”http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068468/”>The Original</a>. // Not that I ever Saw it Back in The Black ‘72 of course. At the grand Opening (so to Speak :) or anything like that. :) Not that there’d have Been anything Wrong with That. :) // (<i>Hi Linda. Yes, you should have been President. Nixon Sucked MUCH worse.</i> :)
June 1st, 2005 at 10:37:07 am
<i>…as the Newscycles passeth & the MJ Verdict impends…</i>
To say nothing of the Rehnquist Resignation, which is expected sometime this month.
June 1st, 2005 at 12:57:54 pm
Colson does have a point. As a member of a law enforcement organization, Felt should have followed the process and presented the evidence to a grand jury for the purpose of getting an indictment. Now, would Nixon have succeeded in obstructing justice if Felt had done that, it’s quite possible, so an argument can be made that it was better to go to the press and bring in some sunlight on the whole affair. Still, it’s quite accurate to say that what Felt did was “unprofessional”–the unprofessional nature of others’ transgressions being irrelevant to Felt’s behavior here.
As for Felt being Jewish or Catholic, you know why he asked if Felt was Catholic, right? Because if the answer was yes, Nixon would have launched into a tirade about papal influence and loyal Catholics being traitors.
I do think the anti-Semitic label is a tough call. There’s no disputing some of the vile things he said about Jews–among other races–but Nixon above all was a power whore, and he would have installed a black Jew from Mexico as Secretary of State if it served his purposes. Whether he supported Israel and Jews would have been wholly dependent on cold, Machiavellian power calculations. Nonetheless, in Nixon’s America, American Jews were largely associated with two things: media and entertainment; and communism. Those two associations gave Nixon every reason to believe and say the worst things about the Jews. Had Jews been largely religious and Republican, you can bet Nixon would have probably never been so vile about them.
June 1st, 2005 at 1:27:33 pm
On the contrary, Andrew, the unprofessional nature of others’ transgressions is absolutely relevant to Felt’s behavior here. You can’t look at what he did in a vaccum. Clearly, Felt felt (haha) that he had no other choice than to go outside the normal channels, because the administration was paralyzing his ability to do his job. For chrissakes, we’re talking about a president who ordered his attorney general to fire a supposedly independent special prosecutor for political reasons, and kept accepting resignations until he found someone who would submit to his political whims! The executive branch was completely under the thumb of a corrupt executive, so this idea (which I keep hearing on Fox News) that Felt should have reported his findings to the “proper authorities,” instead of leaking them to the press, is ludicrous! Felt WAS the “proper authorities,” and he was unable to do his job because of the corruption above him! Of course you should go to the press in a case like that, unless you believe that loyalty to party and bureaucracy is more important than loyalty to country.
I thought we had learned more from Watergate than this. I’m disappointed that so many people haven’t. I’m also disappointed in the lukewarm responses from members of the Bush Administration (Bush, Rumsfeld, McClellan, etc.). Their silence speaks volumes: they clearly do not approve of what Felt did. That’s a shame, but perhaps it’s not surprising, given that — while nowhere near as paranoid or corrupt as the Nixon administration — they do have a lot of the same tendencies to be secretive, hostile toward the press, and value personal “loyalty” to a somewhat disturbing degree.
They’re wrong, and so are you. Loyalty to your country is the most important thing, and there is nothing “unprofessional” about standing up against a corrupt executive branch that puts party and personal loyalty ahead of the best interests of the country and the proper functioning of law enforcement. The moment when the country’s law enforcement apparatus becomes subsumed within the political machinations of a corrupt president is the moment when it becomes right, proper and “professional” to find another way to get the truth out, lest it remain forever hidden. I wish more people had Mark Felt’s courage.
June 1st, 2005 at 1:50:33 pm
So if Nixon was anti-semitic, why put Kissinger in the most trusted position that he had?
June 1st, 2005 at 2:13:43 pm
As for tidbit #1, Felt himself said it was an unprofessional way to behave.
As for the whole thing, I think it’s all bullocks. He’s senile. And the family will still have a book deal.
June 1st, 2005 at 2:34:25 pm
Somehow I think you missed my entire first paragraph, which I’d otherwise assume you were addressing. Allow me to repeat myself:
As a member of a law enforcement organization, Felt should have followed the process and presented the evidence to a grand jury for the purpose of getting an indictment. Now, would Nixon have succeeded in obstructing justice if Felt had done that, it’s quite possible, so an argument can be made that it was better to go to the press and bring in some sunlight on the whole affair. Still, it’s quite accurate to say that what Felt did was “unprofessional”–the unprofessional nature of others’ transgressions being irrelevant to Felt’s behavior here.
Had Felt submitted the evidence to a grand jury, but been blocked and/or forced to resign by Nixon, then it would have been prudent for Felt to go to the press and scream bloody murder. But as long as he was the #2 FBI guy, he should have followed process first. I find it quite ironic that, for a process- and rules-oriented guy, you so casually support an ends-justifying-means action here.
June 1st, 2005 at 3:15:57 pm
Ummm … to put it a little differently, why could Mr Felt not have gone both to the relevant authorities *and* to the press ?
The proverbial Press Conference wherein is announced “I have just given the Justice Department/FBI/relevant authorities documentation proving that …” at which point the cat would have equally proverbially been out of the bag …
I know - it’s easy for us to say with 20/20 hindsight … and yet is it not also the honourable thing to have done ?
June 1st, 2005 at 3:52:38 pm
If Felt had gone through official channels first, or simultaneously, it would have been impossible to maintain anonymity. Under Alasdair’s scenario, he would have been going public himself; under Andrew’s, the Nixon Mafia would have very quickly and easily figured out who the “leaker” was. At that point, they would have set about digging up whatever dirt they could to discredit him, pulling out whatever dirty tricks they possibly could in order to silence him, and generally making his life a living hell. None of this is remotely speculative — it is self-evidently obvious that this is what would have happened; that’s the way Nixon’s people operated. These are the ratf**kers we’re talking about. And Felt knew it. He also knew that the official channels would not work — that it would be utterly pointless to go down that road, given the cravenness of Nixon & co. Again, this is not only self-evident to us in hindsight, but it was surely self-evident to Felt at the time, since he saw from the inside how the Nixon Administration operated. So, why let a band of anti-democratic thugs destroy your career and your life, when doing so (i.e., going through official channels, and thus, going public) has absolutely no chance of advancing the cause (and indeed, will probably hurt it; see “discredit him,” above)? Because it’s a “honourable thing to have done”? Bull f***ing sh*t. Mark Felt was clearly one of the few “honourable” people in the most corrupt government of modern times.
Andrew, turnabout is fair play: I find it quite ironic that, for such a Machiavellian type, you are so concerned about process, rules and semantics here. Bottom line, Felt did the right thing. Do the ends justify the means? In this case, yes, because there’s no way he could have brought the truth to light through the normal “means” (at least not without needlessly bringing about his own self-destruction at the hands of Nixon’s dirty tricksters), and the “ends” of maintaining the integrity of government — stopping blatant abuses of power and preserving the principle that no one is above the law — is far more important that some abstract principle that law enforcement personnel shouldn’t leak to the press (which isn’t really a valid principle anyway, considering it is disregarded with reckless abandon in far less important cases, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, all over this great country).
Bottom line, there was absolutely no need for Felt to take the fall and allow his life to be ruined by the ratf**kers, and none of us has any right to demand of him that he should have done so in order to be “honourable.” No one should be forced to pay that price in order to protect the country from criminals and rogues, and although it is surely honourable to be willing to pay that price if necessary, if there is a way to protect the country without paying that price, doing so is by no means dishonourable.
God bless America, and God bless Deep Throat.
June 1st, 2005 at 5:15:17 pm
I’m not sure I agree that Felt couldn’t have achieved his objectives without going anonymous. Ratf*ckers or not, I’d consider Felt a much bigger hero if he stood up to Nixon’s cronies then and there rather than hiding behind shadows and porn aliases.
“Andrew, turnabout is fair play: I find it quite ironic that, for such a Machiavellian type, you are so concerned about process, rules and semantics here. Bottom line, Felt did the right thing. Do the ends justify the means? In this case, yes, because there’s no way he could have brought the truth to light through the normal “means” (at least not without needlessly bringing about his own self-destruction at the hands of Nixon’s dirty tricksters), and the “ends” of maintaining the integrity of government — stopping blatant abuses of power and preserving the principle that no one is above the law — is far more important that some abstract principle that law enforcement personnel shouldn’t leak to the press (which isn’t really a valid principle anyway, considering it is disregarded with reckless abandon in far less important cases, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, all over this great country).”
Again, I don’t accept all your premises–I don’t think Felt standing up to Nixon publicly would have been nearly as Quixotic as you make it out to be. If blacks can march through firehoses to correct an injustice, an FBI insider can publicly stand up to the president. Evidence is evidence, and corruption is corruption; everyone would have seen that–everyone did see that.
Anyway, so you’re admitting then that the ends may at times justify the means? Because David and I have had this argument (he says they never justify the means), and I’m pretty sure you usually came down on his side and not mine in that debate.
Let me be clear: I am always “concerned about process, rules and semantics”. I mean, come on, what’s the basic definition of a conservative, especially in the Western sense? We stand for the rule of law, deliberate, slow, and careful change (as opposed to radical and/or liberal change), and linguistic purity. In other words, process, rules, laws, and words always count. What makes me Machiavellian is that I can admit where and where not certain laws apply, and in the international arena, the amoral, Hobbesian world is much more the reality. Just because I emphasize that the warrior first win, doesn’t mean that I don’t prefer the warrior win fairly, bravely, and admirably. Thus, I may forgive lapses in the latter, should the former be accomplished. Similarly, I can both admit that what Felt did was unprofessional and agree that ultimately he did a good thing. Similarly, if a man threatens me and my family, I might just unlawfully klll him first before he attacks, which I admit is murder but also stand firm is the right thing. To me, the two are not mutually exclusive.
I believe Felt going public after seeking an indictment would have been the more courageous, professional, and honorable thing to do.
June 1st, 2005 at 5:57:54 pm
Colson does have a point. As a member of a law enforcement organization, Felt should have followed the process and presented the evidence to a grand jury for the purpose of getting an indictment. Now, would Nixon have succeeded in obstructing justice if Felt had done that, it’s quite possible, so an argument can be made that it was better to go to the press and bring in some sunlight on the whole affair. Still, it’s quite accurate to say that what Felt did was “unprofessional”–the unprofessional nature of others’ transgressions being irrelevant to Felt’s behavior here.
As for Felt being Jewish or Catholic, you know why he asked if Felt was Catholic, right? Because if the answer was yes, Nixon would have launched into a tirade about papal influence and loyal Catholics being traitors.
I do think the anti-Semitic label is a tough call. There’s no disputing some of the vile things he said about Jews–among other races–but Nixon above all was a power whore, and he would have installed a black Jew from Mexico as Secretary of State if it served his purposes. Whether he supported Israel and Jews would have been wholly dependent on cold, Machiavellian power calculations. Nonetheless, in Nixon’s America, American Jews were largely associated with two things: media and entertainment; and communism. Those two associations gave Nixon every reason to believe and say the worst things about the Jews. Had Jews been largely religious and Republican, you can bet Nixon would have probably never been so vile about them.
June 1st, 2005 at 6:27:33 pm
On the contrary, Andrew, the unprofessional nature of others’ transgressions is <i>absolutely</i> relevant to Felt’s behavior here. You can’t look at what he did in a vaccum. Clearly, Felt felt (haha) that he had no other choice than to go outside the normal channels, because the administration was paralyzing his ability to do his job. For chrissakes, we’re talking about a president who ordered his attorney general to fire a supposedly independent special prosecutor for political reasons, and kept accepting resignations until he found someone who would submit to his political whims! The executive branch was completely under the thumb of a corrupt executive, so this idea (which I keep hearing on Fox News) that Felt should have reported his findings to the “proper authorities,” instead of leaking them to the press, is ludicrous! Felt WAS the “proper authorities,” and he was <i>unable to do his job</i> because of the corruption above him! <b>Of course</b> you should go to the press in a case like that, unless you believe that loyalty to party and bureaucracy is more important than loyalty to country.
I thought we had learned more from Watergate than this. I’m disappointed that so many people haven’t. I’m also disappointed in the lukewarm responses from members of the Bush Administration (Bush, Rumsfeld, McClellan, etc.). Their silence speaks volumes: they clearly do not approve of what Felt did. That’s a shame, but perhaps it’s not surprising, given that — while nowhere near as paranoid or corrupt as the Nixon administration — they do have a lot of the same tendencies to be secretive, hostile toward the press, and value personal “loyalty” to a somewhat disturbing degree.
They’re wrong, and so are you. Loyalty to your <i>country</i> is the most important thing, and there is nothing “unprofessional” about standing up against a corrupt executive branch that puts party and personal loyalty ahead of the best interests of the country and the proper functioning of law enforcement. The moment when the country’s law enforcement apparatus becomes subsumed within the political machinations of a corrupt president is the moment when it becomes right, proper and “professional” to find another way to get the truth out, lest it remain forever hidden. I wish more people had Mark Felt’s courage.
June 1st, 2005 at 6:53:15 pm
IMHO, had Felt gone public whilst still on the ‘inside’ it would have easily been twisted as a coup d’Ètat of sorts; a power-grab by a man seeking to be head of the FBI (or higher?) who thought the best strategy to achieve those means was forcing the removal of everyone above him.
Deep Throat’s long-time anonymity lends credit to the integrity of the cause rather than as a means to an end. I think it could have been ìcourageous, professional, and honorableî had Felt come forward right away. But, since dealing with Nixon & Co. was seems about as fun as midday jog across a minefield, this isnÃt your normal confront-the-boss-first-before-the-authorities-and-donÃt-involve-the-press kind of deal that I would normally recommend for conflicts, business or personal. Since the boss was the puppet master of all the relevant government authorities, going out of the chain of command seems ridiculously reasonable to me.
Now, Felt could have come forward sooner–after Nixon was well out of the ‘House, or after Nixon’s passing–and he would have likely been safe from any retaliation or negative publicity.
But coming out in the 70’s or even the 80’s might have been too politically dangerous, for FeltÃs career, and possibly the lives of his family.
Whistleblowers always take it on the chin, even when theyÃre rightÖ especially when theyÃre right.
June 1st, 2005 at 7:33:01 pm
I have never said that the ends never justify the means. I have only said that you can’t use an ends justify the means as the bais of your argument.
Of course I don’t think this is a case of the ends justifying the means. It is written in the very fabric of our nation that when a government becomes corrupt it is our responsiblity to stand up to it. As Brendan has pointed out the option to pursue official channels was compromised by the very nature of the conspiracy, therefore the next option is to go to the press and through them the people.
June 1st, 2005 at 7:34:25 pm
Somehow I think you missed my entire first paragraph, which I’d otherwise assume you were addressing. Allow me to repeat myself:
<i>As a member of a law enforcement organization, Felt should have followed the process and presented the evidence to a grand jury for the purpose of getting an indictment. Now, would Nixon have succeeded in obstructing justice if Felt had done that, it’s quite possible, so an argument can be made that it was better to go to the press and bring in some sunlight on the whole affair. Still, it’s quite accurate to say that what Felt did was “unprofessional”–the unprofessional nature of others’ transgressions being irrelevant to Felt’s behavior here.</i>
Had Felt submitted the evidence to a grand jury, but been blocked and/or forced to resign by Nixon, <i>then</i> it would have been prudent for Felt to go to the press and scream bloody murder. But as long as he was the #2 FBI guy, he should have followed process <i>first</i>. I find it quite ironic that, for a process- and rules-oriented guy, you so casually support an ends-justifying-means action here.
June 1st, 2005 at 8:15:57 pm
Ummm … to put it a little differently, why could Mr Felt not have gone both to the relevant authorities *and* to the press ?
The proverbial Press Conference wherein is announced “I have just given the Justice Department/FBI/relevant authorities documentation proving that …” at which point the cat would have equally proverbially been out of the bag …
I know - it’s easy for us to say with 20/20 hindsight … and yet is it not also the honourable thing to have done ?
June 1st, 2005 at 8:52:38 pm
If Felt had gone through official channels first, or simultaneously, it would have been impossible to maintain anonymity. Under Alasdair’s scenario, he would have been going public himself; under Andrew’s, the Nixon Mafia would have very quickly and easily figured out who the “leaker” was. At that point, they would have set about digging up whatever dirt they could to discredit him, pulling out whatever dirty tricks they possibly could in order to silence him, and generally making his life a living hell. None of this is remotely speculative — it is self-evidently obvious that this is what would have happened; that’s the way Nixon’s people operated. These are the ratf**kers we’re talking about. And Felt knew it. He also knew that the official channels <i>would not work</i> — that it would be utterly pointless to go down that road, given the cravenness of Nixon & co. Again, this is not only self-evident to us in hindsight, but it was surely self-evident to Felt at the time, since he saw from the inside how the Nixon Administration operated. So, why let a band of anti-democratic thugs destroy your career and your life, when doing so (i.e., going through official channels, and thus, going public) has absolutely no chance of advancing the cause (and indeed, will probably hurt it; see “discredit him,” above)? Because it’s a “honourable thing to have done”? Bull f***ing sh*t. Mark Felt was clearly one of the few “honourable” people in the most corrupt government of modern times.
Andrew, turnabout is fair play: I find it quite ironic that, for such a Machiavellian type, you are so concerned about process, rules and semantics here. Bottom line, Felt did the right thing. Do the ends justify the means? In this case, yes, because there’s no way he could have brought the truth to light through the normal “means” (at least not without needlessly bringing about his own self-destruction at the hands of Nixon’s dirty tricksters), and the “ends” of maintaining the integrity of government — stopping blatant abuses of power and preserving the principle that no one is above the law — is <i>far</i> more important that some abstract principle that law enforcement personnel shouldn’t leak to the press (which isn’t really a valid principle anyway, considering it is disregarded with reckless abandon in <i>far</i> less important cases, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, all over this great country).
Bottom line, there was absolutely no need for Felt to take the fall and allow his life to be ruined by the ratf**kers, and none of us has any right to demand of him that he <i>should</i> have done so in order to be “honourable.” No one should be forced to pay that price in order to protect the country from criminals and rogues, and although it is surely honourable to be <i>willing</i> to pay that price if necessary, if there is a way to protect the country <i>without</i> paying that price, doing so is by no means dishonourable.
God bless America, and God bless Deep Throat.
June 1st, 2005 at 9:03:37 pm
Hyperbole is not your strong suit, Brendan. :) “Mark Felt was clearly one of the few ‘honourable’ people in the most corrupt government of modern times. Insert the qualifier US and you’re fine, but Nixon’s administration was clearly not as corrupt as quite a list of dictatorships I could produce…
June 1st, 2005 at 9:34:05 pm
Sorry, I meant U.S. …
June 1st, 2005 at 10:15:17 pm
I’m not sure I agree that Felt couldn’t have achieved his objectives without going anonymous. Ratf*ckers or not, I’d consider Felt a much bigger hero if he stood up to Nixon’s cronies then and there rather than hiding behind shadows and porn aliases.
<i>”Andrew, turnabout is fair play: I find it quite ironic that, for such a Machiavellian type, you are so concerned about process, rules and semantics here. Bottom line, Felt did the right thing. Do the ends justify the means? In this case, yes, because there’s no way he could have brought the truth to light through the normal “means” (at least not without needlessly bringing about his own self-destruction at the hands of Nixon’s dirty tricksters), and the “ends” of maintaining the integrity of government — stopping blatant abuses of power and preserving the principle that no one is above the law — is far more important that some abstract principle that law enforcement personnel shouldn’t leak to the press (which isn’t really a valid principle anyway, considering it is disregarded with reckless abandon in far less important cases, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, all over this great country).”</i>
Again, I don’t accept all your premises–I don’t think Felt standing up to Nixon publicly would have been nearly as Quixotic as you make it out to be. If blacks can march through firehoses to correct an injustice, an FBI insider can publicly stand up to the president. Evidence is evidence, and corruption is corruption; everyone would have seen that–everyone <i>did</i> see that.
Anyway, so you’re admitting then that the ends <I>may</i> at times justify the means? Because David and I have had this argument (he says they never justify the means), and I’m pretty sure you usually came down on his side and not mine in that debate.
Let me be clear: I am <i>always</i> “concerned about process, rules and semantics”. I mean, come on, what’s the basic definition of a conservative, especially in the Western sense? We stand for the rule of law, deliberate, slow, and careful change (as opposed to radical and/or liberal change), and linguistic purity. In other words, process, rules, laws, and words <i>always</i> count. What makes me Machiavellian is that I can admit where and where not certain laws apply, and in the international arena, the amoral, Hobbesian world is much more the reality. Just because I emphasize that the warrior first win, doesn’t mean that I don’t prefer the warrior win fairly, bravely, and admirably. Thus, I may forgive lapses in the latter, should the former be accomplished. Similarly, I can both admit that what Felt did was unprofessional <i>and</i> agree that ultimately he did a good thing. Similarly, if a man threatens me and my family, I might just unlawfully klll him first before he attacks, which I admit is murder but also stand firm is the right thing. To me, the two are not mutually exclusive.
I believe Felt going public after seeking an indictment would have been the more courageous, professional, and honorable thing to do.
June 1st, 2005 at 10:15:41 pm
“God bless Deep Throat?” Now, I’m very pleased that Felt went to the trouble to report to Woodward and Bernstein what he did. Yes, it would take a lot of courage to go public…but it also took a lot of courage to go to Woodward and Bernstein. Now, that being said…
Felt was no saint. He’s no hero. This is a man who rose through the ranks of Hoover’s FBI. You talk about the ratf**kers? Amateurs. Felt could not go public because Nixon most likely had a lot of dirt on him…and when I say a lot, I mean tons and tons of it. I have no idea what motivated Felt to seek out Woodward and Bernstein. I’m glad he did. But 1) I’m not sure his motivations were well-intentioned and 2) he definately was up to his eyeballs in corrupt activities. Seriously, ask yourselves this: why would Felt have found himself in a position to know so much about the cover-up? Why would Felt have been trusted with the information that he had unless he had already established himself as the type of guy who could be trusted with knowledge of criminal behavior? I’m happy Woodward and Bernstein broke the story–but that doesn’t necessarily mean we should be blessing Felt as an American hero
June 1st, 2005 at 10:21:20 pm
Oh, and as for Bush being silent: what do you expect? Regardless of how understandable it was of Felt not to go public–he was still an FBI man. Do you really expect the chief executive to praise an FBI man of leaking information to the press? Not a chance. However rational it was of Felt to go to Woodward as opposed to going public–his duty was to go to the public. He didn’t follow his duty. The chief executive cannot condone such behavior–period
June 1st, 2005 at 10:31:06 pm
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I can respect your opinion, Andrew & beef, even though I disagree with it. What I can’t respect, of course, is the absurd statements coming from craven hypocrites like Colson, Gordon Liddy and Pat Buchanan, who have the unmitigated gall to attack Felt for betraying the country and so forth (and, in Buchanan’s case, for causing us to lose the Vietnam War!). Ugh. What assholes. Makes me want to barf.
June 1st, 2005 at 11:53:15 pm
IMHO, had Felt gone public whilst still on the ‘inside’ it would have easily been twisted as a coup d’Ètat of sorts; a power-grab by a man seeking to be head of the FBI (or higher?) who thought the best strategy to achieve those means was forcing the removal of everyone above him.
Deep Throat’s long-time anonymity lends credit to the integrity of the cause rather than as a means to an end. I think it <i>could</i> have been ìcourageous, professional, and honorableî had Felt come forward right away. But, since dealing with Nixon & Co. was seems about as fun as midday jog across a minefield, this isnÃt your normal confront-the-boss-first-before-the-authorities-and-donÃt-involve-the-press kind of deal that I would normally recommend for conflicts, business or personal. Since the boss <i>was</i> the puppet master of <i>all</i> the relevant government authorities, going out of the chain of command seems ridiculously reasonable to me.
Now, Felt could have come forward sooner–after Nixon was well out of the ‘House, or after Nixon’s passing–and he would have likely been safe from any retaliation or negative publicity.
But coming out in the 70’s or even the 80’s might have been too politically dangerous, for FeltÃs career, and possibly the lives of his family.
Whistleblowers <i>always</i> take it on the chin, even when theyÃre rightÖ <i>especially</i> when theyÃre right.
June 2nd, 2005 at 12:33:01 am
I have never said that the ends never justify the means. I have only said that you can’t use an ends justify the means as the bais of your argument.
Of course I don’t think this is a case of the ends justifying the means. It is written in the very fabric of our nation that when a government becomes corrupt it is our responsiblity to stand up to it. As Brendan has pointed out the option to pursue official channels was compromised by the very nature of the conspiracy, therefore the next option is to go to the press and through them the people.
June 2nd, 2005 at 2:03:37 am
Hyperbole is not your strong suit, Brendan. :) <i>”Mark Felt was clearly one of the few ‘honourable’ people in the most corrupt government of modern times.</i> Insert the qualifier US and you’re fine, but Nixon’s administration was clearly not as corrupt as quite a list of dictatorships I could produce…
June 2nd, 2005 at 2:34:05 am
Sorry, I meant U.S. …
June 2nd, 2005 at 3:15:41 am
“God bless Deep Throat?” Now, I’m very pleased that Felt went to the trouble to report to Woodward and Bernstein what he did. Yes, it would take a lot of courage to go public…but it also took a lot of courage to go to Woodward and Bernstein. Now, that being said…
Felt was no saint. He’s no hero. This is a man who rose through the ranks of Hoover’s FBI. You talk about the ratf**kers? Amateurs. Felt could not go public because Nixon most likely had a lot of dirt on him…and when I say a lot, I mean tons and tons of it. I have no idea what motivated Felt to seek out Woodward and Bernstein. I’m glad he did. But 1) I’m not sure his motivations were well-intentioned and 2) he definately was up to his eyeballs in corrupt activities. Seriously, ask yourselves this: why would Felt have found himself in a position to know so much about the cover-up? Why would Felt have been trusted with the information that he had unless he had already established himself as the type of guy who could be trusted with knowledge of criminal behavior? I’m happy Woodward and Bernstein broke the story–but that doesn’t necessarily mean we should be blessing Felt as an American hero
June 2nd, 2005 at 3:21:20 am
Oh, and as for Bush being silent: what do you expect? Regardless of how understandable it was of Felt not to go public–he was still an FBI man. Do you really expect the chief executive to praise an FBI man of leaking information to the press? Not a chance. However rational it was of Felt to go to Woodward as opposed to going public–his duty was to go to the public. He didn’t follow his duty. The chief executive cannot condone such behavior–period
June 2nd, 2005 at 3:31:06 am
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I can respect your opinion, Andrew & beef, even though I disagree with it. What I <i>can’t</i> respect, of course, is the absurd statements coming from craven hypocrites like Colson, Gordon Liddy and Pat Buchanan, who have the unmitigated gall to attack Felt for betraying the country and so forth (and, in Buchanan’s case, for causing us to lose the Vietnam War!). Ugh. What assholes. Makes me want to barf.