On the Death of Deep Throat
"De mortuis nil nisi bonum." (Of the dead, nothing but good.) So said Dean Acheson of Sen. Joe McCarthy on his death in 1957. "Tailgunner Joe" had bedeviled the secretary of state for his lassitude toward communist penetration of State in President Truman's time.
But the passing of Mark Felt, associate director of the FBI in the later Nixon years, lately exposed as "Deep Throat," the source for the Woodward-Bernstein stories, calls forth some rebuttal to the tributes lavished upon Felt as the honest lawman who saved our republic.
When the Watergate break-in was traced to the Committee to Reelect the President, Felt was put in charge of the FBI investigation. Almost immediately, he began to leak to Woodward.
Felt, it is said, was justified, as the White House was interfering with his investigation. False.
This is a moral cloak belatedly cast over more base motives.
The truth: Felt was a bitter man. Having risen through the ranks under J. Edgar Hoover, whose black-bag jobs he had overseen, Felt expected to be rewarded by being named director on Hoover's death. Nixon had passed him over for an outsider, L. Patrick Grey.
By secretly colluding with the Post, Felt was ingratiating himself with an establishment that loathed Nixon, even as he exacted revenge for having being denied by Nixon the post he had coveted.
Had Nixon or aides restricted Felt, the Post would have had an explosive story. But the Post never charged the White House with interfering with the FBI investigation that summer or fall, because it was not interfering.
What Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein ran with were such shockers as that Nixon's men had hired a trickster to ape the Democrats' Dick Tuck, and said trickster had sent dozens of pizzas to a Muskie rally.
The FBI had ferreted out the Artful Dodger, and the Post led with the atrocity. "FBI Finds Nixon Aides Sabotaged Democrats," screamed the four-column headline at the top of page one.
Indeed, if what Felt did was honorable, why did he lie and deny it repeatedly when asked if he was leaking to the Post? Why did he lie in his memoir in 1979, when, well into retirement, he emphatically denied he was Deep Throat? Was Felt so noble he could save our republic, yet refuse, to the point of lying in his memoirs, to take any credit?
Answer: Felt knew what he did was dishonorable, corrupt—and unnecessary. For honest FBI agents were steadily making progress toward proving that higher-ups at CREEP were involved in aiding those caught in the Watergate break-in.
Felt had another reason for lying about his role as snitch for the Post. Former colleagues would be disgusted, for his was not only a breach of law, but of faith and trust, a dishonoring of his oath as an FBI agent.
One wonders what went through the mind of Felt, when, on trial in Manhattan in 1980 for those FBI black-bag jobs against the Weather Underground that had bombed the Pentagon and Capitol, ex-President Nixon walked into the courtroom to testify in Felt's defense?
When Felt was convicted, Ronald Reagan pardoned him, declaring that if the Carter amnesty was proper for those who had defected to Canada rather than serve in Vietnam, it was right to pardon those who risked their careers to protect the nation.
After exposure as Deep Throat, Felt wrote in a 2006 memoir, "The bottom line is that we did get the whole truth out, but isn't that what the FBI is suppose to do?"
No, Mr. Felt, that is not what the FBI is supposed to do.
Do we really want, here in America, our premier investigative and police agency to get the truth out that it decides to get out?
Would it have been right for Hoover to get the "whole truth out" on JFK's liaisons with suspected German spies, Mafia molls and Marilyn Monroe, and destroy his presidency? Would it have been right for the FBI to get the "whole truth out" of Hoover's secret files, and ruin all the public careers the FBI could have destroyed?
Isn't that what the old KGB did to its enemies?
In the early '60s, Robert Kennedy authorized Hoover to bug and tap Dr. Martin Luther King. When the FBI turned up film of King with loose women, LBJ's White House moved the photos to the Washington press.
Felt knew of this. The Post knew of this. The Washington press corps knew of this. Why didn't Felt and the Post blow the whistle on this squalid deed? Was it not so egregious as sending pizzas to Muskie's rally?
In that Scoundrel Time, the liberal establishment—the press, the politicians and the police bureaucrats—colluded to destroy Nixon, even as they covered for JFK and LBJ.
Nixon, you see, was not one of them. Is it not always thus?
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
This whole affair has minor similarities to the time Joe Wilson revealed to Pat Buchanan and Bill Press that the heavy lifting for the dirty work which cost his wife, Valerie Plame, her job at CIA was provided by Scooter Libby from the VP's office. A year or two later "The Bulldog" from Chicago proved up the case( the allegations made by Joe Wilson on Pat's program that very day ) before a federal jury. All after Pat and Bill Press had their noon hour show shut down over at MSNBC, after W. Bush promised prosecution for the leakers in his administration, only to have it all pardoned after years of endless debate, controversy and character assasins working from both sides of the duopoly. Is this really a surprise to anyone that Washignton is the Tale Of Two Cities providing cover for one Mega -Party ? As Pat says accurately, "Is it not always thus?"
I felt that Nixon was set-up like Mel Gibson after he was discovered talking about Jewish political influence in the US revealed in the Whitehouse tapes.
Watergate is a pretty minor scandal compared to other presidential scandals.
There is not scandal for instance that those air force generals responsible for defending the nations landmarks including the Pentagon on 9/11 failed miserably yet were promoted instead of being fired or charge with criminal negligence.
George @ 2
No, it was something that went back much farther in time. The Liberal Establishment hated Nixon for the key role he played in bringing down Alger Hiss. The left has neither forgotten nor forgiven that trespass, even today.
No one would have listened to Whittaker Chambers and his testimony if it hadn't been for the persistence of Nixon in giving energy to that investigation.
Why, exactly, are members of the news media so biased? I can understand why academia, with its focus on theory, abstract concepts, and isolation from real America, is a refuge for leftists. But I don't quite see the psychology in why liberals dominate journalism and broadcasting. It almost seems like the reverse should be true, that people who deal in facts and current events would resist ideology. But apparently that is wrong.
while it's true Nixon raced back from a vacation to support Chambers against Hiss, FBI man Robert Stripling was instrumental in keeping the flagging case going and warning Nixon he should return to help nail Hiss and his lies.
Stefanos Skopros @ 5
Yes, you are right. And Chambers also paid homage to the unflagging patience and persistence of the FBI agents whom he dealt with during the case. Without their careful probing and questioning, he might never have remembered all the details of his early life that eventually went into his masterpiece Witness.
Josh Cooney @ 4
Mencken was the best journalist America ever produced, and he was neither liberal nior leftist. But Mencken didn't attend college. Almost all journalists since 1940 have.
I am sorry about using this space to address a technical concern, but why does clicking on the headline of Srdja Trifkovic's latest return nothing but a blank page?
De mortuis nil nisi bonum
Pat you're too kind, I say good riddance to bad rubbish. The world now has one less traitor. He should have been imprisoned, his sneakiness is evidence of his guilt. Woodward and Bernstein should have been hog-tied and horse-whipped for their complicity.
Can Mr. Buchanan or anyone else here enlighten us as to why Nixon passed over Mark Felt, naming the outsider L. Patrick Grey instead?
Since this seems to have been a momentously consequential decision, it might help if we knew just why Nixon made it. If it had something to do with Nixon's character, then it could provide us with the outlines of a genuine tragedy.
Joseph Salemi.
Right you are. Hiss and his associates were the darlings of the liberal Eastern elite. He went to the right schools, he had superior tailoring, and he was a bird watcher---remember the pronthotory warbler!
Also, Nixon defeated another darling of the left coast, Helen Gahaghan Douglas, during which campaign, he alledged some unsavory, perhaps communist ties. Imagine such an upstart!
Joseph Salemi,
Of course this is not to defend Nixon. Only to indicate the historical reasons he was so despised.
Josh Cooney @4
Controlling the media is an important step in the Gramscian "long march through the institutions" of Western civilization, primarily here in the U.S., which is arguably the last nation on Earth whose native people between the northeast and west coast are members of Western civilization and proud of it. The news media, academia, and pop culture are the prize institutions whose influence over a civilization of people can either unite them towards a common goal of self-preservation and continuity . . . or sever their roots, killing at least the civilization and possibly all of its people along with it.
As for this post, my only comment is that I would like to see Pat denounce that crook Nixon as vehemently as he is denouncing another crook, Mr. Felt. Will he never free himself from his pitiful ties to the un-republican and un-conservative Republican party???
Merry Christmas everybody!
Christ is born, glorify Him!
"Would it have been right for Hoover to get the “whole truth out” on JFK’s liaisons with suspected German spies, Mafia molls and Marilyn Monroe, and destroy his presidency? Would it have been right for the FBI to get the “whole truth out” of Hoover’s secret files, and ruin all the public careers the FBI could have destroyed?"
Yes, of course it would have been right. Destroying Kennedy's presidency would have been a hugely valuable public service and may well have been the only one Hoover ever performed. Ruination of "public careers" at large and in wholesale lots would be a magnificent service were the American Stasi ever able to pull it off.
It would be wonderful if the FBI's role was to police the political class and leave citizens in peace. Your worshipful attitude toward politicians is kind of amusing.
"Why, exactly, are members of the news media so biased? "
I think that it's because they serve their masters in the corporate media. The US news media are simply a propaganda arm of the government. The news media outlets are owned by corporations, such as GE, and those corporations depend upon government largess and protection for their survival.
@15 EE Roberts
The NYT and Boston Globe are owned by the strange Sulzberger family. I don't know what exactly they'd sell to the government except for public service ads. It's possible they could be a Pravda-style mouthpiece, but I doubt it.
The truth is always important. The MSM usually gives selective coverage of politics. In doing so, they are commit a grave transgression against the right of the public to know the truth.
Thanks, Pat, for a post that provides a more complete picture of historical reality.
Let me get this straight: Buchanan is condemning Felt for an ulterior motive? That's just priceless.
Pat's former boss was the emperor of ulterior motives. Not only did Nixon obfuscate, deceive and distort, but he surrounded himself with a species of crooks, liars and cheats that would have made the Cheka proud.
That Felt, well, felt shanghaied by Nixon's political two-step in appointing his genuflecting pal Gray to the FBI post is certainly true enough, but Felt's reaction-robust or not-hardly softpetals the cut-throat machinations of the Nixon crowd.
Please do try to get past your nexus to a historical nightmare, Pat. The stench thereof only lingers and is nothing to behold. Your weblog spin and self-serving worldview of those dark days might give you some faux solace while conversing with the paleo crowd, but it won't allow you to escape at least one apodictic truth:
Felt had the balls to expose as a seasoned crook and of the highest order the very same president for whom you still seek contrived and manifiold enemies, some of which managed to artfully escape the original LIST....
Resh @ 18
Are you smoking something?
No matter what you might think of Richard Nixon's personal morality, the fact is that Mark Felt's treason had political consequences that were horrendous. It incapacitated Nixon as a President, and led directly to our left-liberal Congress's betrayal of South Vietnam and the fall of that country (followed soon by Cambodia) into the hands of Communists. These events were followed by mass murder on a scale unprecedented since World War II.
It led to a popular reaction in the U.S. against all Republicans, and contributed to the election of that fatuous peanut-farmer, Jimmy Carter, and all his subsequent left-liberal appointments, plus our failure under Carter to support our good ally the Shah of Iran. This in turn led to the collapse of the Shah's monarchy and the installation of a fanatically anti-American Islamic regime.
And you think Felt's actions were justified? Good grief.
Oh that's touching, Joe.
Amy more bogus slippery slopes you'd like to trot out?
Here's a little character experiment for you : it's called learning to take responsibility for one's actions. What happened to Nixon happened because of....drumroll, please...Nixon's illegalities. He has only himself to blame. Period.
Can you handle that concept?
Since you apparently got your history from right-wing bubblegum wrappers, let me help you out.
First, Nixon tried to obstruct justice. He deliberately, though covertly, tried to use the FBI to halt its investigation into the Watergate coverup.
Secondly, he foolishly taped his conversations, several of which later revealed his illegalities and political stupidities. I'll assume youre aware of his abuse of power and contempt charges, all of which (plus the obstruction charge) would have lead to his impeachment.
Mark Felt was at best a two-bit player in a house of cards that was doomed to collapse. Stop watching the Redford movie for your Watergate history.
Once John Dean, Nixon's legal counsel and Svengali, decided to talk, the party was over for Nixon-especially once the SCOTUS ruled that the tapes had to be turned over. Nixon's foolish claim of executive privilege was reduced to nonsense.
The non sequiturs that you recite simply aren't worth addressing.
Resh @ 20
You really are pathetically naive. You think Nixon is the only President who ever committed "illegalities"?
You think Lyndon Johnson and Jack Kennedy never "obstructed justice"? You think Lyndon Johnson never used the FBI to help himself politically? You're the one who doesn't know spit about history, pal.
As for non sequiturs, I don't even think you understand enough Latin to know what that phrase means. Why don't you go back to reading The Nation, or Mother Jones?
And I still think you're smoking something.
Ah, genius The topic happens to be about Mark Felt and Nixon. Maybe you should pay attention.
More to the point: what's with your kneejerk, dogmatic need to detail leftist losers, other than as a strawman to avoid discussing the issue at hand? Is that what they teach now in the goose-stepping paleo camps? Or let me guess: it gives your ideological penis a sense of relative size.
Of course.
As to smoking something, I do enjoy the occasional Romeo y Julieta, which come gift-wrapped via Cuba. I'd be happy to describe the place, but I'm guessing it might disturb your tidy worldview.
I rest my case. This person can't even handle English prose. let alone logical argument. I've never had an undergraduate this stupid, not even when I teach the remedial sections at the university.
Ahaha.
Your case?
The initial one wherein you acted the fool and trotted out some humpty-dumpty slippery slope argument to avoid discussing the issue at hand?
The second one where you resort to strawmen rather than address Nixon's culpability?
Or the third, most pitiful one whereby you attempt some bogus, appeal-to-authority crotch-pull?
Incidentally, try learning to compose a complete sentence; " let alone logical argument" is a subordinate clause, you idiot.
How's that faux pedantry feelin' about now, professor?
The period and the comma are right next to each other on the keyboard, putz. If you can't distinguish between a typo and a grammatical error, you really are an asshole.
More excuses, eh. So what's your excuse for repeatedly capitalizing "President" and "Congress" when neither are proper nouns as used by you, in context?
Wouldn't it be easier to admit you're a phony or just a bit stupid?
And do yourself another favor: learn how to debate. You're embarrassing yourself. This exercise was like taking candy....
John Dean was the mastermind behind the Watergate break-in. Nixon had no knowledge of Dean's activities, even long after the fact. The boyish Dean himself feared a prison stint during which he'd most likely be on the receiving end of something long, unwashed, unsavory and possibly infected. He blamed everybody else around him, and took a powder to California along with his call girl crumpet Maureen, who had been boffing members of the Democrat Party. The break-in was to retrieve a book with phone numbers of escorts, and Mo's was one of them.
Gordon Liddy exposed Dean for being the slimy weasel that he is. And God bless him for using his otherwise boring show to bring these facts to light. Liddy served 4 1/2 years behind bars for his role as fall guy. He was railroaded, just as Nixon was hounded from office by the guttersnipe media.
@21 Joseph
You must have read the book A Texan Looks At Lyndon by Evetts Haley. I also recommend The Roosevelt Myth by John T Flynn, proof that Old Rubberlegs was also rotten to the core in his abuse of office.