from Ben's mom
I admit to hoping to know the identity of "Deep Throat" ever since watching All the President's Men for the first time years ago. When I watched it a second time just over a year ago, I remember thinking, "I hope they don't forget to identify this guy when it becomes safe."
The movie is fabulously done and helped give teeth to my history book understanding of the Watergate scandal.
So now, at 92, Mark Felt has confirmed his identity as the source of information that spawned the famous Washington Post investigation that ultimately led to the downfall of Richard Nixon and the convictions of many of his staffers.
And the reactions are interesting. Pat Buchanan refers to Felt as "a snake." Chuck Colson refers to him as "sneaking" and "violating his oath to keep the nation's secrets." G. Gordon Liddy says that Felt "violated the ethics of the law enforcement profession."
Others paint Felt as leaking information to Bob Woodward in order to "get back" at Nixon for not naming him director of the FBI upon J. Edgar Hoover's death in 1972. (No, Nixon was sure to appoint a man who was in his back pocket and not likely to say a word about the whole thing.)
Hmmm.... Interesting. There is just one small problem. Watergate was ILLEGAL and unfortunately, the nation's high-ranking law enforcement (Justice, FBI, and it appears CIA) were deep in the President's pocket. Felt's job was to work for justice and to help maintain law and order. But what are the chances he would have been able to get anywhere through "legal" channels without losing his job, or his life? Let's not forget that Felt's superiors, FBI Director L. Patrick Gray and Attorney General John Mitchell, were both indicted for Watergate abuses. The whole system was corrupt and I don't exactly see what choice Felt had but to go outside the system.
So I find it rather uncomfortable to agree with Mike McCurry, former White House spokeman under Bill Clinton, who said: "Normally, as a government employee, you've got to work within the process that's in place. But he clearly witnessed how the government was tampering with investigations. He believed there were crimes being committed ... and that his interest in getting out the truth overrode an obligation to work within the system."
Meanwhile GOP consultant Greg Mueller states, "I don't know that we should be making him out as a superhero. He played a role in bringing down a president who was fighting the Cold War." Huh? Is he really saying that because the president was fighting the Cold War, we should overlook that he was breaking the law and abusing his power to cover it up?
It is a sad day to be a Republican.
What if the tables were turned? What if the Deputy Director of the FBI had leaked information to the Washington Times in order to reveal the twisted abuse of power in the Clinton administration? What would the GOP consultants be saying then? Would he be excused because he was working to contain terrorism, strengthen the economy, and bring peace to Northern Ireland? I'm sorry, but I don't think all the good things a President is working on imply that we should all turn our heads and look the other way when he commits crimes. And to those who find themselves imbedded in a situation where doing the right thing will result in doing the wrong thing, God help them.
Thankfully, while not taking any sides, Donald Rumsfeld spoke some sense: "I think any time any wrongdoing occurs, I think it's important that wrongdoing be reported. Now who one reports that to -- the authorities is one thing, or somebody else is another. I'm not in any judgmental mood." Keep in mind that Rumsfeld also worked in the Nixon administration.
Was there another way? Could Mark Felt have kept his oath to guard the nation's secrets and still have brought the whole foul corrupt administration down? And does that oath imply that he was to keep the nation's secrets when those secrets were against the Constitution and the rule of law? Somehow, I just don't think so. And I, for one, am glad that Deep Throat talked.
3 comments:
Well said. A commitment to justice is more important that party loyalty.
Let it not be said that the Bigger/Reitz family blindly agrees with each other. I am of the opinion that (although justice is more important than party loyalty) Felt bypassed the established structure for selfish, bitter reasons, not because of any love of justice or feeling that a grand jury or congress would keep him from speaking the truth.
Felt was later pardoned by Reagan for authorizing illegal break-ins of his own. If he had problems with other individuals doing such an activity, it certainly wouldn't be because of what he believed to be the morality of the activity itself.
I think the vast majority people, even very partisan political junkies, believe that the break in at the DNC was absolutely unjustified and that nothing short of a resignation or impeachment would be enough. But the man who brought the house of cards down is not to be praised. He did what he did in the wrong manner. But more importantly, he was Deep Throat for the wrong reasons.
I have much more sympathy for Nixon, a man who did great wrong and paid the proper price for it (and who also did great good, but good that was forgotten) than for someone who may have achieved a righteous result, but for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way, and fully expecting 30 years later to be sainted instead of questioned.
Nixon is a lesson to us all. No matter how good your overall intentions and beliefs, cutting moral corners will destroy whatever legacy you would have otherwise deserved.
I can't speak for Felt's motives. But I seem to remember Democrats trying to villify Linda Tripp during the Clinton impeachment trials along the same lines. The Republicans I know for the most part lauded her as a hero. So the reactions now seem a bit incongruous. Was Linda Tripp politically/personally motivated? Probably. And the reasoning that Felt shouldn't have tattled because the President was fighting the Cold war is pitiful. And Felt was pardoned for his misuse of justice because he was actually fighting the bad guys (he ok'ed a search on criminal organization without a warrant). Not a good thing to do, (he was justly charged) but a little different than breaking in to spy on your political opponent and then covering it up. I'm primarily advocating that a commitment to truth and justice should outweigh party loyalty. And I'm still convinced that Felt's options were limited, particularly if he wanted to keep his job and not face eventual charges himself.
Post a Comment