Daily Page | Zebrality | NCAA Pool | General Chat | Latest Comments

You are on an individual archive page

Click here to return to the main page


The Daily Links Page
Got a link to submit?
  • McCain would buy bad homeowner mortgages
       [ 2 comments ]
  • UW band suspended, won't play Saturday's Ohio State game
  • Upset fantasy football player arrested for allegedly threatening to kill roommate
  • Madison burglars say they owe it all to the Discovery Channel
  • Charged as kid in Young slaying, man, 19, now accused in robbery
  • Congress Clears Hotly Contested Bailout Bill
  • Former GOP Congressman's 1996 Prognostication a Tough Reminder
  • WI appeals court throws out drunk driving conviction for man with .259 blood-alcohol content
  • Before That Sex Change, Think About Your Next Paycheck
  • The Obama channel
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Flirting with Palin earns Pakistani president a fatwa
  • Walgreens pulls display of cups, pingpong balls
  • Audio: 'Going, Going, Braun'
  • McCain turns irritable, sarcastic in interview
       [ 3 comments ]
  • Who should throw out the first pitch in Saturday's Brewers game?
  • We Need to Recapitalize the Banks
       [ 3 comments ]
  • The spark that could ignite a revolution
  • Somali Pirates Tell All: They're in It for the Money
  • NFL bust Mandarich says he used steroids at Michigan State
  • Wisconsin man to stand trial for allegedly damaging girlfriend's vehicle
  • Community Organizers for Bad Mortgages
  • It's snowing on Mars
  • House rejects $700B bailout
  • Brewers fans cheer, drink, shop
       [ 3 comments ]
  • Report: 60 Million People You'd Never Talk To Voting For Other Guy
  • EU climate goals under pressure as recession looms
  • George Bush: The Comeback Kid
  • Brewers fans admit they've 'never felt this feeling'
       [ 1 comment ]
  • Video: What's Brewin'
       [ 8 comments ]
  • The week in baseball: Sept. 20-26, 1982
  • Presidential Children Don't Belong in Battle
  • Improving the inevitable big bailout
  • Gov. Blunt Statement on Obama Campaign's Abusive Use of Missouri Law Enforcement
  • Paul Newman Dies at 83
  • Video: Handing out some bailout blame
  • Ten Liberal Movies So Lame They Make Even Democrats Want to Vote Republican
  • Bailout sentiment running 50-50: '50% no and 50% hell no'
  • Obama seeks to take down NRA ad
  • Man Charged With Battery For Farting in Police Officer's General Direction
  • Somali Pirates, a Suspcious Hijacked Iranian Freighter, and a Cargo of Radioactive Death
  • More bailouts - Maryland fisheries
  • Longer Lines = Voter Suppression
  • Obama's 'Gardengate'
  • Could Clinton still come back? Internet buzzes with rumours Biden will be replaced by Hillary as Obama's running mate
  • Schoolhouse Rocks & The Politics of Personal Destruction
  • Lies (and the newspaper that abets a lying liar)
  • Glamour writer mocks Republican's rape claim
       [ 1 comment ]
  • On the Bailout...
  • Millen out as Lions president, GM
  • Presidential debate organizers say going ahead for Friday

     

  • Is 'Deep Throat' a Hero?

       June 01, 2005

    Now that he's been revealed as Deep Throat, some people are falling all over themselves in calling W. Mark Felt a hero. I can understand the man's grandson saying "I guess people used to think Deep Throat was a criminal, but now they think he's a hero", but should the rest of us fall into line with the new conventional wisdom?

    I don't think so. I think Pat Buchanan had it exactly right when he said:

    Mark Felt himself was doing black-bag jobs during the previous era. What he should have done, was if he felt the investigation was corrupted, stand up and say, 'I'm going to resign from the FBI because I don't want to be a party to what's going on. This is not correct, I think things are going on in the White House that are wrong. I don't believe they're investigated. I don't believe they're being investigated properly.'  Instead, he sneaks around during a political campaign and leaks the results of an investigation to the Washington Post. I think he did it, Amy, for the same reason Woodward said, he was passed over for Director and he was bitter and full of resentment, and this was payback.

    Former Nixon aide Charles Colson seconded Buchanan's words on MSNBC today:

    What could he have done, Amy? He could have walked into (FBI Director) Pat Gray and said, 'We're going to go over to the Oval Office and tell the old man what's going on.' If Pat Gray said no, then Pat Buchanan's right, you have a press conference and you leave. That's the honorable way to do it. People talk about a hero. A hero might have, if he had the courage, gone in and talked to the President.

    Maybe I'm asking too much of Felt. But I expect a lot from someone who's a real hero. The problem with this reveal is that it not only reveals who Deep Throat was, it also reveals his motivations. A mystery man only has the motivations we imagine for him. And, since we usually prefer our mystery men to be dashing and noble, they're motivated simply by the need to do what's right. Unfortunately, flesh and blood people are rarely that noble. So, let the press laud Felt as a valuable informant, but that should be it. He's no hero. He's just a man. Kind of like how Nixon was no evil villain, he was just a man too.


    Posted by kris at June 1, 2005 12:14 PM

        The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/937

     

    Trackback Entries
      It Is What It Is linked with Dead Ass Thursday
      No Oil for Pacifists linked with No Hero of Mine

     


    Comments

    #  June 1st, 2005 4:12 PM      mbrlr
    Kris, you weren't here then. I was, and even as a kid, I knew he was a hero because he saw wrong and didn't cover it up but tried to cut through the AG and the political nonsense going on at the FBI, in complete violation of ethics, to get it out. As I said before, he was a hero, later ethical lapse re the Weather Underground notwithstanding. And he still is.  
     
    #  June 1st, 2005 4:16 PM      BVBigBro
    Hero? Come on, you can say he was right, but not heroic. He risked nothing, and his Weather Undergound involvement was contemporary with Watergate. And Kris was here then.  
     
    #  June 1st, 2005 4:23 PM      kris
    Well, I wouldn't say I was very aware of what was going on at the time.  
     
    #  June 1st, 2005 4:29 PM      mbrlr
    Risked nothing! Oh, please. He risked his career, his reputation, for everything he believed in and had fought for in WWII and in his years in the FBI, even under Hoover --- not my favorite fellow. He did it for his country and for the rule of law and to catch a bunch of crooks. That's a pretty good reason to do it.  
     
    #  June 1st, 2005 4:35 PM      kris
    He only risked something if he got caught. That's a hell of a lot different that putting your name out there. Compare what he did to what, for example, the whistle blowers that Time magazine named the People of the Year a few years back did. The whole reason he remained anonymous was because he DIDN'T want to risk his career and reputation.

    Felt's history showed that he didn't have a very high regard for the rule of law (his conviction in the Weather Underground case shows this). I think he believed in rule of the FBI (over the executive branch) and in his own fitness to run it more than anything else.

    The guy was a snitch. Since we don't like the snitchee, we think it's okay. But that doesn't make him a hero.  
     
    #  June 1st, 2005 4:48 PM      BVBigBro
    Hey, even Woodward said the source was disgruntled. He did what he did out of spite, for his own self interest. Nixon did what he hid for his own self interest. Neither deserves accolades and both got what they had coming.  
     
    #  June 2nd, 2005 12:37 AM      mbrlr
    He remained anonymous because if he'd become nonymous (that's what it ought to be in a logical language), then the whole possibility of actually reversing what he was seeing --- an Attorney General providing files concerning an investigation relating to the President to the President, for example --- was essentially nil. Woodward gave him info and he confirmed or said no. That wasn't snitching; that was acting honorably in a world where all was turned backwards. If he'd gone to Nixon or to Nixon's AG who was entirely inappropriately giving Nixon investigation material rather than to the only reporters who were truly on track at that time...well, Nixon would have retired in January of 1977 without any of this coming before the country.

    Kind of makes you appreciate how important a truly independent and occasionally antagonistic press can be, doesn't it? The Fourth Estate is in some ways our fourth branch, our watchdog. At least it used to be. Now, we just have an amen chorus. But hope isn't quite gone --- take a look at the Memorial Day editorial in the Star-Tribune in Minneapolis. Someone finally had the nerve to put two and two together and add it up to four. God bless them and God help the United States. And I offer that prayer as a private citizen, btw. Just in case you were wondering.

    Look, Felt deserves accolades and our thanks. Look at what one of the Watergate special prosecutors, Richard Ben-Veniste, had to say about him and those who take the path he felt he had to take: "the importance of whistle-blowers shouldn't be underestimated, particularly when there are excesses by the executive branch of government -- which in this case went all the way to the executive office." Face it, he was a hero, Weather Underground error notwithstanding. We lack his type now and we're poorer for it.  
     
    #  June 2nd, 2005 10:47 AM      BVBigBro
    Felt was one of the excesses. Nixon was one of the excesses. And this business that he only said yes or no to information Woodward gave him is strictly Hollywood's interpretation. We don't know what his role was.

    I laughed out loud when I read Star Tribune,  
     
    #  June 3rd, 2005 3:26 AM      shakespear
    I think that Buchanan must think that he is talking to a bunch of kindergarden kids. I am not ready to believe the stupid comment that if Felt saw wrong he should have >.

    AND THEN WHAT??? Miraculously Nixon would have stopped and been a good boy. No letme guess, FBI would have said Uhh we need to do something because one of our guys is leaving.

    People with access to information that shows greivous wrong being done by gov. have a moral duty to do something. We do not live in a perfect world and THAT is why we need to keep these imperfect guys guessing that someone may tell on them when they are doing bullsh.t.

    Take for example the Downing Street Memo which came out of Blair's gov. Without it we would not have the smoking gun showing what these boys were thinking and doing.

    Interestingly we don't hear these people today screaming for heads to roll as a result of all of the lies coming out of Washington that led us into Iraq.

    But we were ready to impeach Clinton for having sex with Monica. AMAZING how Democracy works.

    Does anyone know what was the circumstances surrounding the "Pentagon Papers" Affair?? Guess you will not find this in High School history class.

    Keep an eye on the Weather!!!  
     
    #  June 3rd, 2005 10:15 AM      BVBigBro
    Well, to be fair the downing street memo is one persons opinion of what some people, some of whom he had no contact with, were doing and thinking.

    Interestingly, we don't see the same people willing to accept the downing street memo as gospel accepting Britain's contemporary intelligence reports as gospel.  
     
    #  June 3rd, 2005 1:17 PM      Laura
    In all fairness, we *did* (not "were ready to") impeach Clinton for lying under oath.

    Personally I'd rather have seen him impeached for taking campaign money from the Chinese and giving them access to technology that they should not have had, but that investigation was not permitted to run its full course and we'll never know how it would have turned out.

    As for the lies about Iraq, lot of that going around:
    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

    "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
    Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

    "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
    Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
    Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

    "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
    Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.
     
     

     

     


    To leave a comment you must be logged in.
    Log in here
    or Get an Account here.