Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

- General Discussion (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/)

- - "Deep Throat" revealed? (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/89981-deep-throat-revealed.html)

"Deep Throat" revealed?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8047258

Quote:

W. Mark Felt, who retired from the FBI after rising to its second most senior position, has identified himself as the "Deep Throat" source quoted by The Washington Post to break the Watergate scandal that led to President Nixon's resignation, Vanity Fair magazine said Tuesday.

This is interesting. I wonder if any evidence has been found as to whether he really is or if its just a cry for attention?

Interesting, in any interview I've read with both woodward and berstein, they claimed that they would not reveal who deep throat was unless he died...

Would be really interesting if they back up his claim

Quote:

Originally Posted by From the article

Carl Bernstein, who with Bob Woodward broke the story as Washington Post reporters, issued a statement neither denying nor confirming Felt's claim. Bernstein stated he and Woodward would be keeping their pledge to reveal the source only once that person dies.

It may well change and I haven't seen the actual 'issued statement,' but from the article it appears like they're keeping mum about the whole thing.

I find that very interesting.... I mean, what could the harm be in bolstering Felt's claim if he really is the notorious "Deep Throat."

Wasn't there a rumor about what Deep Throat looked like and Hal Holbrook, the guy who played him in the movie? So, I would be interested in what Felt looked like back then, no?

from the article:

Quote:

In the article, O'Connor reports that Felt's children, Joan and Mark Jr., urged him to go public after he revealed his secret to them in 2002.

Felt argued with them, O'Connor writes, saying he didn't want the story out there.

“I don’t think (being Deep Throat) was anything to be proud of,” Felt indicated to his son, Mark Jr., at one point, according to the article. “You (should) not leak information to anyone.”

But Joan is quoted as saying that "Bob Woodward's gonna get all the glory for this, but we could make at least enough money to pay some bills, like the debt I've run up for the kids' education. Let's do it for the family."

O'Connor adds that Felt finally agreed, saying "that's a good reason" even though Mark Jr. recalls him as saying "he wasn't particularly interested" in disclosing the secret.

Once more than 1 person knows a secret, it's no longer a secret.

I would trust that Woodward and Berstein to maintain thier journalistic integrity and not reveal a source. They wouldn't have a lot to gain from it. I'm having a hard time believing that the supposed Deep Throats children were aware of it, and managed to sit on it for some years... and now they are only leaking it for money?

Something just doesn't seem right there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

from the article:

Once more than 1 person knows a secret, it's no longer a secret.

I would trust that Woodward and Berstein to maintain thier journalistic integrity and not reveal a source. They wouldn't have a lot to gain from it. I'm having a hard time believing that the supposed Deep Throats children were aware of it, and managed to sit on it for some years... and now they are only leaking it for money?

Something just doesn't seem right there.

This seems like a legitimate publication with a legitimate author. Maybe the guy's kids did reveal this against his will, but this is just too much of a lie to publish as fact.

Here is the Vanity Fair article in question, in PDF format.

Woodward, Bernstein and the Washington Post have confirmed that Felt is Deep Throat. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...053100655.html

I'm absolutely astounded this has not caused more news, discussion or interest.

Perhaps just because the story is breaking?

Mr Mephisto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

I'm absolutely astounded this has not caused more news, discussion or interest.

Perhaps just because the story is breaking?

Mr Mephisto

I'm guessing part of the reason is that until there is much confirmation from others that it feels more like more speculation. There has been so much speculation over this subject that it will take a lot to make people believe that the real Deep Throat has really been declared.

Quote:

Originally Posted by raeanna74

The ultimate confirmation - from Woodward and Bernstein - has already come. The only other person who knew about Deep Throat was their editor, but I think their confirmation is quite enough.

I'm surprised, too, to see nothing from my news services. It seems appropriate that the announcement was made on the 30th anniversary of Nixon's resignation.

I always believed that it was an insider in the Nixon administration or CREEP. A senior member of the FBI would have been my last guess. Looking back today on how Nixon tried to shut down the FBI investigation, begins to make some sense.

Time to dig out and reread my copy of "All the President's Men." :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glava

The ultimate confirmation - from Woodward and Bernstein - has already come. The only other person who knew about Deep Throat was their editor, but I think their confirmation is quite enough.

Bradley has confirmed as well.

Here's a transcript from CNN's coverage of the story today.

It is indeed very big news, and it's starting to pick up now.

Quote:

W. Mark Felt is now admitting to "Vanity Fair" magazine, that he was Deep Throat, the man who 25 years ago supplied a series of clues to the "Washington Post" reporters who broke the Watergate story.

DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: And this has to do with Watergate and Deep Throat, one of the best kept secrets in the history of journalism. A man now coming forward, admitting to "Vanity Fair" magazine, saying he, indeed, was Deep Throat. The man who 25 years ago continued to give a series of clues to "Washington Post" reporters, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein as they broke the Watergate story.

That man, Mark Felt, W. Mark Felt. He's now 91 years old. At the time, he was the number two man at the FBI. He is now coming forward, once again, and saying to "Vanity Fair" magazine and giving his story, saying he was the man who spoke to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. It is a story and a secret that they have kept to themselves all these years. There have been of guesses over the years.

And, in fact, the guess of it being W. Mark Felt has come up a number of times. But now for the first time he's stepping forward and telling his story, saying he is the one who was Deep Throat. So once again, that's the breaking news. It has to do with one of the best kept secrets in the history of journalism. This man, the guy who was number two at the FBI at this time of Watergate breaking, saying he was Deep Throat.

Our Jeff Toobin, our legal analyst, knows a lot about the story, also this man. Joins us now on the phone to tell us more about what he knows. Jeffrey -- oh, you're there in person. Hello.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Hi, Daryn, how you doing? Here I am.

KAGAN: So do you know W. Mark Felt or you know of him?

TOOBIN: Oh, I know of him. I don't know him. He's been retired for a long time. He's in his 80s. KAGAN: He's 91 -- 91 now.

TOOBIN: Oh, is he 91?

KAGAN: Yes.

TOOBIN: But he has been a long-term suspect of being Deep Throat, I mean, of the people who have studied this. And I consider myself a modest Deep Throat buff, not a great expert. But, you know, remember, the person who is Deep Throat was somewhat an outsider to the Nixon administration. That's why the suspects did not include many people who were in the inner circle in the White House.

And Mark Felt, as the number two person in the FBI, had access to a lot of information, but he was not a Nixon loyalist. So that's why he was a prime candidate from the very beginning.

KAGAN: Well, and interesting that you used the word suspect, because here is a man who was giving this government information to the two "Washington Post" reporters, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. But were any crimes broken in what he did?

TOOBIN: Well, I don't think so. I mean, it's not a crime to leak information that is not classified. And Watergate didn't have much to do with classified information. It certainly was a violation of government procedures. But, you know, we reporters rely on people to leak to us and give us information that their bosses don't want them to do. So I use suspect not in a negative sense of criminal wrongdoing, but suspect in terms of just this guessing game of who was the person who played such an important role in the Watergate story and thus in Richard Nixon's resignation from office.

KAGAN: It was a story that brought down a presidential administration. And once again, it was the Nixon's administration's effort, this massive campaign to cover up the obstruction of justice of the Watergate break-in.

TOOBIN: Right. And if you remember -- and this is particularly vividly portrayed in the great movie version of "All The President's Men," where you'll recall Hal Holbrook played Deep Throat. And the thing that he always said to Woodward and Bernstein was, follow the money, follow the money. And it was through the control of the slush funds that Woodward and Bernstein uncovered, you know, how they -- they learned who controlled the slush funds that ultimately went to pay the Watergate burglars and pay for the various cover-ups. That was how the story was broken, and it was Deep Throat who kept pressing Woodward and Bernstein to follow the money.

KAGAN: And again, this would be I think the classic example of the cover-up being worse than the crime.

TOOBIN: Absolutely. I mean, one of the many mysteries of Watergate that have never been really solved -- and it's funny, people always forget about this -- is -- you know, everybody remembers there was the Watergate break-in. But no one really knows to this day what they were looking for. It was the office of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate office building. It was the office of Lawrence O'Brien, who was then the chairman of the DNC, who didn't even use that office very much.

There's been all shorts of wild conjecture about what the burglars were actually looking to do -- bugging that office, but know one really knows for sure. So even though this is probably the sexiest mystery of Watergate, you know, who was Deep Throat, there's still a lot of things that remain unknown.

KAGAN: You know, looking at this "Vanity Fair" article, because we do have an advanced copy here, the writer, John O'Connor, talks about W. Mark Felt. He was an older man. He had retired to California, living with his daughter. And goes back as far as 1999, when all the reporters were knocking on his daughter's door. Because it was the 25th anniversary at that time of Watergate. And people were like, you know, like, just checking again, are you sure you don't want to talk? Are you sure it wasn't you?

As we've been saying, he's coming forward now, talking to John O'Connor in "Vanity Fair," saying yes, indeed, I was Deep Throat, according to the magazine. But all these years denying it. What would be the impetus -- I think now coming forward because you're older, want to get it out because you're still alive -- but of keeping it secret all those years?

TOOBIN: You know, and his family had some fun with this over the years. You know, at one point, the suspicions grew so great -- he lives with his daughter now -- that his daughter changed the answering machine message on their home that if you'd like to message for Mark or Deep Throat, you know, wait for the beep. I mean, so they've had some fun with this. And I think the impetus has got to be -- look, he's 91 years old. This is a historically significant role that he had. I guess he doesn't feel any shame in the fact that he apparently violated some confidences, and he felt that it was, by and large, a good thing, that the story of Nixon's -- that he played a role in Nixon's departure from office. So what the heck? What are they going to do to him? He's 91 years old.

KAGAN: Yes, looking at some of the information as this story breaks and develops, that Richard Nixon, his guess of who Deep Throat was, was Mark Felt.

TOOBIN: As I said, I didn't know Nixon's guess was Felt, but a lot of people had guessed Felt over the years. I mean, there had been people speculating it was Henry Kissinger and Alexander Hague, and all sorts of celebrated and uncelebrated suspects, but Felt was, if not suspect one, certainly one of the top suspects. John Dean, who obviously had an important role in Watergate himself, I believe he suspected Felt for a long time. So this doesn't come as a great surprise.

But interesting, I think it's worth noting that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein have always said, they would not disclose the name of Deep Throat while Deep Throat was still alive. And as various figures have died, and they have not identified Deep Throat, the suspicion has focused even more on Mark Felt. But it's also interesting note, as we think about, you know, two Washington reporters now are looking to going to prison, Matt Cooper of "Time" magazine and Judith Miller of "The New York Times," over refusing to identify their sources in a criminal investigation, it's important to remember that it wasn't Woodward and Bernstein who identified Bernstein, it was Deep Throat himself. So this business of protecting reports is something that's very sacrosanct among journalists.

KAGAN: Right, and showing you how times have changed. I don't think there was a time, was there, to Woodward and Bernstein, that they could go to jail if they didn't reveal who their source was?

TOOBIN: No, they were never criminally or otherwise investigated that I'm aware of, but just as a matter of honor, as a matter of journalistic integrity, they were going to protect the it identity of their sources. However they always said the editor at the time, the editor of "The Washington Post," Ben Bradley, has always known who Deep Throat was, and consistent with sound journalistic practice, editors should know who anonymous sources are, but Bradley has kept the secret, just as Woodward and Bernstein have.

KAGAN: It will be interesting to see as the day goes on if we hear from any of those three men.

Jeff, we're going to have you standoff by. Our Bill Schneider is standing by in Washington D.C. with his thoughts about this news -- Bill.

WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SR. POL. ANALYST: There has been a long train of suspicion that Mark Felt might very well be Deep Throat. There was an article in the "Atlantic Monthly" in May 1992 by James Mann (ph), saying that Mark Felt he was the leading suspect, if you want to call it that, the person suspended of being Deep Throat. There was also a book in May 1992 by Ronald Kessler, "The Bureau: The Secret History of the FBI," in which he indicated his view that Mark Felt was, in fact, Deep Throat, and there was even a mention on the White House tapes from October 1972 that H.R. Haldemann (ph), a Nixon aide, telling Nixon that most of the leaks seemed to be coming from Felt at the FBI.

So it really isn't a surprise. The big surprise, in my view, is how long this secret has been kept.

KAGAN: And especially in a town that doesn't like to keep secrets.

SCHNEIDER: That's right. Obviously it was Mark Felt's clear desire not to reveal that he was Deep Throat until recently. He is quite ill. He lives in Santa Rosa, California with his daughter. Apparently he was watching, according to "Vanity Fair's" report, he was watching with his daughter a documentary on Watergate, and his daughter asked him, in the third person, do you think Deep Throat wanted to get rid of Nixon? And she says, she tells the author in "Vanity Fair," that her father replied, "No, I wasn't trying to bring him down." He claimed instead that he was doing his duty. That's when the secret began to be revealed.

KAGAN: Some more background, Bill, on Mark Felt. He was the third highest official in the FBI at the time of Watergate. And as you were pointing out, there have been articles written where they've tried to pare down clues. It was definitely believed it had to be somebody from within the FBI. Do you know why that was at the time?

SCHNEIDER: Because they would have had access to all the information, all the charges, the investigations. He was in a position to know more information than just about anyone, which was why it was suspected that he might well be Deep Throat. He was also known to be someone who gossiped a great deal, who heard a lot of rumors, and in this case, his motives don't appear to have been political. He said, he told his daughter, that whoever Deep Throat was, and he later said I, wasn't trying to bring Richard Nixon down; he was trying to do his duty, and he advised Woodward and Bernstein to "follow the money," and that became the most important clue of all.

KAGAN: What are your recollections of that time in Washington, Bill.

HEMMER: Well, I wasn't in Washington at that time, but I remember that this was an obsessive story for months in Washington, around the country. How did this happen? It started off very small. My biggest recollection was that it took months and months and months for this story to build into a crisis. The break-in was in 1972, the Watergate story started in the beginning of 1973, and Nixon didn't resign until August of 1974. Look how long it took for this to build -- drip, drip, drip.

It is, in fact, a major case study in how not to do damage control, because every week, virtually, the story got bigger, and bigger and bigger, and implicated more people and more crimes were revealed. It just grew and grew. The first principle of damage control is let the worst information out first. That's exactly the opposite of what happened in Watergate.

KAGAN: Bill Schneider, thanks you for your thoughts.

Let's get back and bring Jeff Toobin again, this breaking news out of "Vanity Fair" magazine. Their next issue will have an article by John D. O'Connor, saying the man who is Deep Throat comes forward and admits that he was W. Mark Felt, a high-ranking official at the time of the Watergate break-in.

TOOBIN: Daryn, did you speak to me?

KAGAN: Yes.

TOOBIN: Well, you know, one of the reasons why the FBI was so much expected as a source, was that if you remember what the Watergate coverup was, it was an attempt to impede an investigation that was being done largely by the FBI, that was interfered with by the White House. In fact, the famous smoking gun tape of the -- of -- which really got Richard Nixon thrown out of office, which lost him all this support in the Senate, was Nixon saying to the aides, let's use the CIA to tell the FBI to back off on the Watergate investigation.

So the FBI was offended institutionally that they were being used by Nixon to try to cover up his political activities in -- with his -- with the break-in and what not. So the fact that the FBI was the source of this animosity, if not to Nixon generally, then this particular act, in Nixon's presidency, makes sense that Deep Throat was an FBI loyalist. That's the way he felt it was.

KAGAN: Jeff, let me get this in here, because when you and I were talking about how Carl Bernstein, and Bob Woodward, and Ben Bradley had all said that they would never say who Deep Throat is until that person died. Even in light of this news, we're getting this statement from Carl Bernstein, where he says, and he is standing by his policy, and I'm just going to read you what he has said to CNN. This from Carl Bernstein.

"As in the past, we're not going to say anything about this. There have been many books, articles and speculation about the identity of the individual known as 'Deep Throat.' We have said all along that when that person dies, we will disclose his identity and describe in context and great detail our dealings with him, with all our confidential sources. We agreed not to idea him until their death. Nothing has changed in that. No one has released us from any pledge, and we will not identify Deep Throat until his death. So even with this article in "Vanity Fair," Jeff, they are standing by their pledge. They're saying nothing.

TOOBIN: Well, the usual journalistic practice, I think is to honor the request of a confidential source, unless that person specifically tells you that you are free to disclose their name. Perhaps, at least as my quick look at the "vanity Fair" story, suggest that he identified himself, but did not go back to Woodward and Bernstein and say, feel free to use my name. So they are, you know -- they are viewing their agreement with him strictly by the terms that they negotiated, and they're not disclosing it.

KAGAN: And it sounds like this was something done also through his family, through his daughter and his grandson, and that Mark Felt, at this point, at 91, is an older man. And Carl Bernstein until he hears from Deep Throat, he is not going to change saying anything.

But once again, to go back and talk about our breaking news, a man who was number two or three at the FBI at the time of the Watergate break-in, admitting to his family, and to a reporter for "Vanity Fair" magazine, saying he was Deep Throat. This is a man who has been on a long list of-- or actually a short list of people who have been suspected to possibly be Deep Throat, and yet a man who's never come forward before.

Do we still have Jeff with us?

TOOBIN: I'm here.

KAGAN: All right.

Jeff, and we were talking earlier, this is the best kept secret in the history of modern journalism because of three men or four men who know who it is who have never come forward before to this point. But as you were saying, no crime's committed here, even if it would be a high-ranking FBI official as somebody who had been feeding information to reporters at that time.

TOOBIN: Right. And, you know, I think one reason why there has been so much interest was that it was -- I mean, it's just such a great story. And, you know, even the name, Deep Throat.

The reason as I recall from "All the President's Men" is that, you know, the infamous porn movie "Deep Throat" had come out around that time, and that's where they got the name. And if you recall, when Woodward wanted to see Deep Throat, he would put a coffee pot in a planter, I believe, in his window by where he lived in Washington.

So this great cloak and dagger aspect of it made it especially enticing, but there are a lot of important Watergate stories. But Deep Throat has this majesty and resonance that nothing else has.

KAGAN: Right. Such a big story today.

Jeffrey Toobin, thank you.

Our thanks to Bill Schneider as well.

We're not going anywhere. We're just going to include our coverage now with our Suzanne Malveaux, who is in for Wolf Blitzer today in Washington, D.C.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Most people don't really care. You would have to be 40+ right now to be even aware of it when it happened, and 50+ to be old enough to really been into it.

Its more of a question amoung journalists as a 'who done it' rather than burning on most of the publics mind.

So while some may want to relive the glory years of their political protest days, and journalists will want to relive it, to much of America its only something they learned in history class (and if you went to a public school maybe not even there).

Had it happened 20 years ago it would have been a much bigger story, hell if Nixon were alive it would be a bigger story, but it wasn't and he aint. Any coverage of this will be press driven, not public interest driven.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I don't know Ustwo. It's already causing quite a bit of interest on the Internet news sites.

It's certainly something I'm interested in. I think it's just that it was a breaking story. I bet you'll see quite a lot of coverage, and real interest, in this topic.

Mr Mephisto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Does press coverage = real interest?

Of course the press is interested, Watergate is the kind of thing that validates the existance of a free press, something they are having a very hard time with lately. (CBS/Newsweek/NYtimes to name a few)

This was a shining moment for the press, when they caught a president lying and forced him out of office for it. THEY will be most interested. Its in their best interest to remind us all how important they really are.

On the other hand if you ask the 'man on the street' about Deep Throat, do you think he will be thinking about Nixon or about Linda Lovalace?

Well, you're entitled to your own opinion. I'm certainly interested. I guess, by your argument, nothing reported in the press or media is of real interest until verified by asking the "man on the street."

By way of example, it's front page news on CNN (www.cnn.com), FoxNews (www.foxnews.com), the Washington Post obviously (www.washingtonpost.com), the New York Times (www.newyorktimes.com), the International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/pages/index.php), the Los Angles Times (http://www.latimes.com/), Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/default.aspx), Associated Press (http://www.ap.org/) and here I decided to stop checking.

No one's interested, eh?

Mr Mephisto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

No one's interested, eh?

Yes the press is very interested. Do you really think most people care if Deep Throat was a retired FBI guy or Whitehouse advisor at this point? The press will now take the time to educate us why we should care, to remind us of their importance.

Had this been the 'real' assassin of Kennedy then you would see a lot more real public driven interest.

The source of a 36 year old story saying 'Yea it was me.' who seems to be a man of little overall importance is going to do nothing without a lot of press hype.

Quote:

Originally Posted by onesnowyowl

I think it's interested Felt decided to identify himself at his childrens' urging. His kids are admittedly looking to make money off of their father's revelation but I wonder how much they'll really see.

He may well have a book already done.

I'm interested and I'm 23. Watergate and Deep Throat are covered extensively in high school American history classes and so on.

I think it's interested Felt decided to identify himself at his childrens' urging. His kids are admittedly looking to make money off of their father's revelation but I wonder how much they'll really see.

Speculation as to who Deep Throat is has been going on for so long... for many folks I think it's nothing more than a 2 inch story below the fold... I have a hard time seeing why this is news...It's a bigger story that the kids are money grubbers rather than who deep throat was.... That's some how telling to me, I would have pictured Deep Throat as a fairly honorable person, making a lot of personal risks to expose corruption, only to raise to money grubbers? Not much integrity there...

Quote:

Had this been the 'real' assassin of Kennedy then you would see a lot more real public driven interest.

I really don't even see that as being a huge news story any more, unless you are Oliver Stone... Dead is still dead - and kennedy is very much dead... what really happened? I'm pretty old and it was just before my time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

Quote:

Had this been the 'real' assassin of Kennedy then you would see a lot more real public driven interest.

You're kidding, right?

You don't think that if it was proven Oswald didn't assassinate Kennedy, it wouldn't be news?!

Maybe that's "what's wrong with America" then. A lack of a sense of political context, of the defining moments in history etc. Personally I don't think people are as disinterested as you and Ustwo believe.

Believing that the media sets the agenda entirely on its own, and directs public discourse and awareness, is a bit too 1984 for me.

Mr Mephisto

EDIT: Not a bad idea for a seperate thread on its own right...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yes, I do believe that people care or, at the very least, are interested.

Here's a question for you.

Do you care? Are you interested?

Mr Mephisto

Curses on you yungin's. :) It's big news to most of us boomers. We don't have a press worth a damn these days to pull off what W & B did with the backing of their paper.

Ustwo, you might be right that today's press might be trying to gain some stature by association. Pretty sad to see kittens wishing they were lions.

Edit: For the record, I voted for Nixon not once, but twice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Maybe that's "what's wrong with America" then. A lack of a sense of political context, of the defining moments in history etc. Personally I don't think people are as disinterested as you and Ustwo believe.

Believing that the media sets the agenda entirely on its own, and directs public discourse and awareness, is a bit too 1984 for me.

Mr Mephisto

EDIT: Not a bad idea for a seperate thread on its own right...

Yes exactly! people should be interested in such topics. I wasn't even alive in the 70's and i am still interested in this; and i am Australian :p
I think it's a shame if stuff like who Paris Hilton is gonna marry is condiered more interesting than this type of political news? It was one of the biggest political scandals in US history; surely this should be interesting???

On a farcical note; how come Deep Throat was named after a porn movie released in the same year? Was it his voice? i believe it was distorted or something in the recordings?

If I remember correctly, "deep" referred to deep background source.

I'm not interested because it, by itself, adds almost nothing to the story.

Apparently this guy was a key 'suspect' to be deepthroat for a while, and good for him.

NOTHING changes but instead of an 'anonymous source' they can now put a name in the history books.

This is only important if it really adds to the story. I'll be honest with you, I'm not following this at all, I see only hype. Now if it turns out to have been a paid agent or the like, let me know.

If his kids have a book ready for press, don't bother waking me :)

i consider this news to be the biggest thing in the history of news, bigger than capture of saddam or anything else.

this is like the discovery of aliens, but we really haven't discovered any....yet....

my dad said this deep throat should not be trusted by anyone because he was in on it and turned against them. would anyone comment on this?

My understanding is that the Nixon gang tried to shut down the FBI investigation, and they nearly shut down Justice with the "Saturday Night Massacre." I have no reason to believe that Felt was "in on it", but he may have been protecting the FBI turf. He had no reason to love Nixon because he believed he had earned the top job that Nixon gave to another.

I was reading today that Felt was convicted of illegal wire taping and was pardoned by Reagan. He lived an interesting life to say the least.

Now if 'Deep Throat' turned out to be Mrs. Nixon, THAT would have been one hell of a story :D

Of course people are fascinated by this, besides ustwo that is. It's only natural. It's the final chapter to the Watergate story. Sure W. Mark Felt is is little more mundane than any number of the other people it could have been, but still this was the best kept biggest secret in our history.

From what I've heard of the declassified Watergate tapes, Nixon had it coming. His core had rotted long before he resigned.

Any answer yet on why he chose a porno alias? Or was that a W&B creation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Now if 'Deep Throat' turned out to be Mrs. Nixon, THAT would have been one hell of a story :D

Funny.... :)

BTW, apart from "visiting China", is there anything else Nixon is famous for? On the positive side, that is. So let's igore the fact that he was a thief and liar...

Mr Mephisto

This 28 year old has discussed it with her wife, born in the 80's, and it was a topic of some interest at my comic book discussion group this last evening, with a group of college-aged computer science nerds. I think this is big news and a lot of people are interested.

Well, I'm both fascinated and disgusted.

Fascintated about the revelation, but disgusted with the coverage from the cable news opinion mafia overall. I guess once we put a President in the ground, we seem to forget all the bad and overcompensate by exaggerating the good. I mean, on a few of these shows, the talking heads have gone as far to paint Felt as the bad guy.

It doesn't matter that Deep Throat has been outed. Even with, what seems to me to be, the definitive proof in Woodward's and Bernstein's confirmation that Felt was indeed who he says he was, there is a rather large number of folks who refuse to believe. I've seen all sorts of speculation abound on the internet, including a very pervasive notion that Felt couldn't have been the source because he wasn't in a position to know the information Deep Throat gave to Woodward and Bernstein.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Funny.... :)

BTW, apart from "visiting China", is there anything else Nixon is famous for? On the positive side, that is. So let's igore the fact that he was a thief and liar...

Mr Mephisto

I'm sure some would be quite happy he got us out of Vietnam.

History is a funny thing. Nixon was more 'liberal' then Kennedy, and did a lot of things I really did not care for (beyond running a bad coverup).

Nixon was an actual fiscal conservative, an extinct breed these days. He wasn't exactly socially liberal, but he was forced to ride out the late 60s cultural upheaval. He essentially approved of Roosevelt's New Deal and Johnson's War on Poverty. He just wanted those programs run better. It's a pretty short list of accomplishments really, but I would gladly accept him as president over our current Republicans. I feel that Nixon actually had the people's best interests in mind as he lead, I don't feel that way about GWBush.

There are a lot of Nixon's doings that people tend to be ambivalent about: the retreat from Vietnam, removing the gold standard for our currency....

He'll probably forever be thought of in negative terms though: Watergate, McCarthyism (he started out as Joe McCarthy's right hand in congress), keeping us in Vietnam so damn long, Kent State massacre, the Watergate tapes, war on drugs etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

He approved of the new deal and the creation of a black underclass with the war on poverty (btw did we win it?) yet he is a fiscal conservative?!?!?

:hmm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

He approved of the new deal and the creation of a black underclass with the war on poverty (btw did we win it?) yet he is a fiscal conservative?!?!?

:hmm:

Well I'm sure he would have ended quite a few of Roosevelt and Johnson's programs if he could have, but that wasn't a possibility with a Democrat controlled congress. Welfare created a black underclass? riiiight ustwo, couldn't have had anything to do with the previous 400 years of history...Glad you find this thread so uninteresting that you've replied 7+ times, that's just the kind of disinterest this board needs more of!

back on topic: W. Felt seems to regret having snitched out his superiors, but clearly it was the right thing to do. He could have gone public long ago and reaped all kinds of promotions, book deals, etc but his secrecy speaks to the nobility of his motivations.

The million dollar question is, of course, whether Nixon would have won in '72 without the Watergate break in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

Yes, we all know how successful the 'war on poverty' was and how the black community has flurished under is benevolent auspices.

Just by looking at him, I thought Bob Barker was deep throat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yes, we all know how successful the 'war on poverty' was and how the black community has flurished under is benevolent auspices.

Well yes, we might know this, but you seem pretty ignorant in this area. Turns out Social Security, medicare, medicaid have all worked pretty well. I suggest you educate yourself and stop trolling.

Another vote for the young and interested: I'm 25, taught US History for 11th graders, and this is VERY big news to me. I don't watch TV, hardly read internet news, but just the announcement itself caught my attention (I don't care for hype). When I hear "Deep Throat" I always think of Watergate first, Linda Lovelace several seconds later... (since I was waaaay more interested in history than porn up until the last 6 months or so!). :)

If you don't care about this topic, then you must have been stoned during US History in high school and college... I don't care if this broke 50 years after the fact, or 100.. it's STILL big news.

EDIT: Let me add that my 14 year old cousin is currently reading All the President's Men, and he is very into it. I don't care what age you are, you'd better damn well know your history, and know how important it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Yes, we all know how successful the 'war on poverty' was and how the black community has flurished under is benevolent auspices.

Just as successful the Republican's other wars...

War on Drugs
War on Terrorism

Personally, I'm holding out for the War on Pointless Wars Announced by Politicans.

Where do I sign up? :)

Mr Mephisto

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaya

If you don't care about this topic, then you must have been stoned during US History in high school and college... I don't care if this broke 50 years after the fact, or 100.. it's STILL big news.

The only one "not interested" in this topic, in this thread, is Ustwo. And he's being veritably frisky in his disinterest! :-)

Oh, and Maleficent. But I think she honestly doesn't give a shit...

Mr Mephisto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locobot

Any answer yet on why he chose a porno alias? Or was that a W&B creation?

Found this in wikipedea:

Howard Simons, the managing editor of the Washington Post at the time, dubbed the secret informant "Deep Throat," an allusion to a pornographic movie of the same name that had become a cultural phenomenon during the period; it was also a play on the term "deep background", used in journalism to mean information provided by a secret source that may not be reported directly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

thanks for that info elphaba

Mr. Mephisto I just ran into this on a link type site. I thought it might interest you.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8242

Quote:

Can anyone even remember now what Nixon did that was so terrible? He ended the war in Vietnam, brought home the POW’s, ended the war in the Mideast, opened relations with China, started the first nuclear weapons reduction treaty, saved Eretz Israel’s life, started the Environmental Protection Administration. Does anyone remember what he did that was bad?

Oh, now I remember. He lied. He was a politician who lied. How remarkable. He lied to protect his subordinates who were covering up a ridiculous burglary that no one to this date has any clue about its purpose. He lied so he could stay in office and keep his agenda of peace going. That was his crime. He was a peacemaker and he wanted to make a world where there was a generation of peace. And he succeeded.

That is his legacy. He was a peacemaker. He was a lying, conniving, covering up peacemaker. He was not a lying, conniving drug addict like JFK, a lying, conniving war starter like LBJ, a lying, conniving seducer like Clinton — a lying, conniving peacemaker. That is Nixon’s kharma.

When his enemies brought him down, and they had been laying for him since he proved that Alger Hiss was a traitor, since Alger Hiss was their fair-haired boy, this is what they bought for themselves in the Kharma Supermarket that is life:

1.) The defeat of the South Vietnamese government with decades of death and hardship for the people of Vietnam.

2.) The assumption of power in Cambodia by the bloodiest government of all time, the Khmer Rouge, who killed a third of their own people, often by making children beat their own parents to death. No one doubts RN would never have let this happen.

I have to admit that a lot of what Nixon did I had forgotten.

Thanks. Nice article.

I don't normally read the Spectator, as it's a well known right-wing British (capital B, by George!) magazine. But it's nice to see the other side of the argument.

Do you believe that Nixon should not have been impeached?

Mr Mephisto

EDIT: Just realized it's not the British (with a capital B, by George!) publication. It's the American version. I wonder if this is a right-wing publication too...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

Its not something I read, but I am pretty sure it is a 'right' publication and I know the author is.

I do think Nixon should have been impeached, he screwed up big time. He was fiercely loyal to his people, but when you start to cover up a criminal act its time for the axe. Had this been an issue of 'national security' I could understand, but it was just stupid.

on the ridiculous edito from the spectator:

the impeachment of nixon caused the collapse of the cambodian government and the period of the khymer rouge? that and not the american invasion, the destabilization of the situation in cambodia, the nature of the withdrawal? that's interesting...i think there is a term for this kind of argument..right revisionism.

the impeachment of nixon caused the implosion of the south vietnamese government? that and not its fictive status from the beginning? this position presupposes that the reader know absolutely nothing about the vietnam war itself. maybe that works for conservatives, not knowing anything yet passing judgements anyway, more revisionism.

nixon a peacemaker? i am sure the people of chile are still quite persuaded of the accuracy of that one.

nixon a peacemaker? nixon's adminsitration undermined the 1968 peace talks, which prompted another phase of war, which brought us such treats as the invasion of cambodia, the bombings and military action in laos, continued slaughter in vietnam---only to sign an agreement in 1975 on exactly the same terms as could have been signed in 1968--which means that all the deaths, on all sides, between 1968 and 1975 are on nixon's head, on kissinger's head, and that for nothing...yes, nixon was quite the peacemaker.

of course, he did make a tourist trip to china.
and it is clear that all he really did wrong was authorize the watergate burglaries.
that was the worst of it, all there was...so nixon is no worse than clinton etc.--these claims are really beneeath contempt. right revisionist horseshit.

i think that ustwo's "indifference" is a simple reflection of a problem for conservatives in america when it comes to history, particular when that history happens to involve the vietnam war--they can't make it go away--they can't change the legacy of that debacle of a war--they have tried and tried, starting with the fiction of the "vietnam syndrome" floated during the reagan period. trying to "overcome" the period of "self-hatred"--that is questioning of illegal and unnecessary military adventures undertaken by the american state--was an important motive for the fashioning of neocon ideology as a whole....the problems posed for the far right by vietnam have been amply documented: the whole genre of rambo-style vietnam revenge novels are one theater of compensation for a percieved humiliation...the rise of the fascist-style claim that the nice fellows in the american military were stabbed in the back by an evil anti-war movement floats through the same space. the rise of the militia movement is not unconected to this type of reactionary resentment--and you can see in that particular political sewer the origins of the contemporary right.

but the right cannot yet manage a wholesale whitewash of the vietnam period.
one result of this curious relation is statements like ustwos: who remembers who cares distant past another time dont think about it.

what strikes me as strange beyond this is that the americans have marched down the road of military humiliation and attempt to compensate for it that post 1945 france did: defeated in vietnam, the humilitated military hoped that the algeria would restore their "honor"--of course france found itself confronting an enemy in algeria that it could not really locate terribly well--the fln would today be branded a "terrorist" organization--and because the military could not locate an enemy to fight that resembled itself structurally, it had to try to make on up--a campaign of systematic torture directed at any and all suspected supporters of the fln followed from this. kinda like the place that the bush administration has found itself in, as a function of its absurd "war on terror"

it is clear that problems raised by the entire history of post 1945 war in vietnam are not worth thinking about.
it was long ago no-one remembers no-one cares dont think about it.

He was also really supportive of the National Endowment for the Arts. Gave it one of its largest budget increases ever. Don't know if you'd see that as a good thing or not, but I was certainly surprised when I found out.

Maybe the story isn't over afterall. Here's a bit of a twist I didn't expect:

Why the Revelation of the Identity of Deep Throat
Has Only Created Another Mystery
By John W. Dean
FindLaw.com

Friday 03 June 2005

The Bush Administration prosecutes government officials who leak sensitive information, even when that information is not classified - as I noted in my column on Jonathan Randal. The Administration is also prepared to send reporters to jail when they refuse to reveal their sources to a grand jury, as I noted in another column.

I doubt the Justice Department will go after W. Mark Felt - the ninety-one-year- old former Deputy Director of the FBI - even if he is the greatest leaker in American political history. Still, in the context of the Administration's stances on leaking, the surfacing of Deep Throat at this time is rather ironic.

Bob Woodward (and Carl Bernstein) have confirmed the Vanity Fair story identifying W. Mark Felt as their legendary Watergate source. The best kept secret in Washington, for three decades, is no more.

But this is not to say the mystery is resolved. To the contrary, while Mark Felt is alive, his memory for the details of his relationship with Woodward seems to be all but gone. So the revelation of his identity raises many new questions that it seems Felt himself will not be able to answer.

A Passing Tribute to Good Sleuthing - Now Ended

The game of guessing the identity of Throat, which moved from the parlors of Washington to serious inquiry during the last thirty years, is over. A number of us who were fascinated by the inscrutability of it all have been forced into retirement.

Adrian Havill, a freelance author who did some good digging, most recently thought Throat could be no less than former president George H. W. Bush.

Leonard Garment, my successor as Nixon White House counsel, focused his considerable intellect and keen intuition on the issue, and first thought Throat must have been former Nixon White House aide John Sears. Later, however, Garment was convinced that Throat had to be a composite (a hypothesis which has yet to be shown to be incorrect - but has been denied by Woodward and Bernstein).

Similarly, yours truly (the senior Throat sleuth) has made several incorrect runs at Throat's true identity. So I tip my hat to former Los Angeles Times reporter Jim Mann, who figured it out, and wrote about Felt in a 1992 Atlantic Monthly essay. Tim Noah of Slate was not far behind, forcing Felt to deny.

When I took a hard look at Felt years ago, I concluded he could not have known what Throat knew when the information was given to Woodward, particularly since he was gone from the FBI at the end, and scratched him off the list of viable candidates.

In fact, so sure was I that, even after reading the Vanity Fair piece and before Woodward had confirmed Felt's identity, I bet an NBC news person $100 it was not Felt, the morning the Vanity Fair story broke.

Fortunately, though, I knew my bet was covered, for I'd made an early wager, also for $100, with former Chicago Tribune investigative reporter William Gaines. Gaines, who now teaches journalism at the University of Illinois, has used Throat sleuthing as a teaching tool, but I was confident that he was wrong in naming my former Nixon White House deputy Fred Fielding as Throat.

Throat Sleuthing Moves into a New Phase: Scrutiny of Throat and Those at The Post

Woodward disliked this sleuthing. Now that the issue of Throat's identity appears resolved, I suspect Woodward is going to be even less enchanted with those who focus on his journalism. And Throat himself, Mark Felt, is going to be probed as he might never have dreamed.

I'm among those who believe Woodward is truly one of the great journalists. (Not an opinion shared by many of my former White House colleagues.) No Washington reporter has so consistently had access to those in power - meaning Woodward has often had uniquely compelling stories to tell. And Woodward's reporting is fair and honest - one reason he may maintain the access he has.

Still, Woodward's use of unidentified sources - a controversial practice, and one now banned at Newsweek after the "Koran desecration debacle" - has been extreme. And because Woodward's key Watergate source was unidentified, until now, no one could test his Watergate reporting.

Bob once told me that when I learned who, in fact, Deep Throat was, all my questions would be clarified. That, however, has not happened. To the contrary, I only have more questions now that I know Throat was Mark Felt.

I will raise a few of them here, in the hope of getting some answers, while Woodward is still out and about doing talk shows.

But first, for those not following this story closely, a little background is in order:

Felt's Position - and Power - during Watergate

At the time of Watergate, Mark Felt was the Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Former Director J. Edgar Hoover, who had elevated Felt to this post, had died only weeks earlier. President Nixon had selected the Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Division, L. Patrick Gray, to serve as the Acting Director of the FBI.

Even before Hoover's death, however, Felt was for all practical purposes running the FBI - as Hoover wanted it run, with a few exceptions. For example, when Hoover wanted to end surreptitious black bag jobs (entries onto premises without a court warrant), Felt continued them.

Later, Felt would be indicted and convicted by President Carter's Justice Department for continuing the practice of illegal searches, only to be pardoned by President Ronald Reagan for the practice. One wonders if Felt would have been pardoned by Reagan had it been known he was Deep Throat. Plus, I seriously doubt former President Richard Nixon would have testified on Felt's behalf - as indeed he did -during his trial, had he known of Felt's actions as Deep Throat. Deep Throat had earned top ranking on Nixon's post-presidency enemies list (one notch above yours truly.)

When Pat Gray became Acting Director of the FBI, I don't believe he had a clue how to run the place. In fact, he did not really focus on trying to do so. Rather, he spent much of his time traveling throughout the country literally campaigning at various FBI Field Offices to win the support of rank-and-file FBI agents for the job of Director. Thus, during much of the Watergate investigation, Gray was not even in Washington.

When I talked to Gray during the Watergate investigation, he typically said he would have to check with Felt and get back to me. No one at the Nixon White House believed Gray had any control whatsoever of the FBI. To claim otherwise, as Felt apparently did with Woodward, is absurd.

What Felt Told Woodward, and Why It Raises New Questions

Notwithstanding the article in The Washington Post (from his forthcoming book) about Mark Felt, Bob Woodward, so far, has told us little of his working relationship with Felt. Given Felt's aging memory, which is widely acknowledged to be less than razor sharp, it will be Woodward's story - not Felt's.

Yet we do know something about the information Felt, as Deep Throat, provided to The Washington Post from Woodward's book, All The President's Men. Woodward reports some fourteen meetings (depending on how they are counted).

Recently, I went through the book again, and pulled out every fact - or factoid - that Throat/Felt shared with Woodward, and noted when the information exchange had occurred. For a list of these facts - and an indication of which of them I believe may well be untrue - please see the Appendix to this column.

This summary of what Throat told Woodward and when, according to All The President's Men, is particularly illuminating now that we know Throat's identity. It, along with a few more clues Woodward has dropped since confirming Felt's role, raises new questions about the Watergate investigations and about Felt's leaking to Woodward.

Here are just a few questions that need to be answered:

How Could Felt Get So Many Things Wrong?

In his position as the No. 2 man in the FBI, and the man running the Watergate investigation for the FBI, Felt saw virtually all the raw data from the FBI's field investigations. In the few days since the revelation of his identity, I have not had an opportunity to compare the material from the FBI's Watergate investigation with the information that Felt gave Woodward to see if it is possible to determine how he got it wrong. But such a comparison will doubtless be fascinating.

Woodward, it appears, was seldom in a position to correct information that Felt gave him that was wrong. But when writing All The President's Men, he did correct one major false statement from Felt. Sometime in early May, 1973, Felt told Woodward "In early February, [Patrick] Gray went to the White House and said, in effect, 'I'm taking the rap on Watergate.' He got very angry and said he had done his job and contained the investigation judiciously, that it was unfair that he was being singled out to take the heat. He implied that all hell could break loose if he wasn't able to stay in the job permanently and keep the lid on. Nixon could have thought this was a threat, though Gray is not that sort of guy. Whatever the reason, the President agreed in a hurry and sent Gray's name up to the Senate right away. Some of the top people in the White House were dead set against it, they couldn't talk him out of it."

It appears that Felt has invented this statement out of whole cloth - or was seriously misinformed. It never happened this way, as the Nixon White House tapes make clear.

To reflect this, Woodward did add a footnote in this instance, stating that Pat Gray's attorney advised Woodward that the suggestion Gray had pressured or blackmailed Nixon was "outrageously false."

But most of Felt's bad information has never been corrected. In fact, a few writers about the period have quoted Felt's bad information as historical fact. As can be seen from the Appendix, some of these inaccuracies are minor (although I doubt not so minor to persons erroneously maligned by Felt). But some are not.

Given the complexity of Watergate, it is not difficult to understand how Felt made some mistakes when meeting with Woodward in the dead of the night. Yet in other instances, it is not easy to comprehend how the No. 2 man in the FBI could have provided such bad information, knowing it could become public. And why has Felt let this bad information sit on the historical record for the past three decades?

My opinion as to which information, provided by Felt, is wrong is based on my many years of reviewing great swathes and stacks of documents about the Watergate investigation. The Appendix speaks for itself. But here, allow me to flag just one (of several) particularly egregious sessions where Felt gave Woodward appalling information, apparently to try to manipulate Woodward and The Washington Post.

Was Felt Trying to Frighten Woodward and The Washington Post into Over-Reaction?

It must be noted, according to Woodward's reports, that Felt frequently told Woodward - falsely - they he and The Washington Post were under surveillance. And based on Woodward's most recent article about Felt, it seems Felt equated Nixon with Hitler, and that he saw the Watergate investigation as a Nazi hunt (harking back to his pre-FBI days in the military).

A month before Felt retired from the FBI, he had one of his more remarkable sessions with Woodward. On May 16, 1973 (as reported at pages 317-18 of All The President's Men), Woodward says Felt has become "transformed" by the Watergate investigation, and talks to him almost in a monologue. When finished, Felt departs; Woodward wrote it all down in a notebook, which he later typed out for Bernstein.

It is one of the most dramatic scenes in the movie, "All The President's Men": With a Rachmaninoff piano concerto playing in the background, a frightened Woodward types his notes from this session with Felt. Woodward's dread is understandable. The No. 2 man at the FBI has told him - now, it clearly seems, falsely - "Everyone's life is in danger . . . electronic surveillance is going on and we had better watch it. The CIA is doing it." The CIA role in Watergate was investigated, and had this occurred, it would be known today.

The report continues: "Dean talked with Senator Baker after [the] Watergate committee formed and Baker is in the bag completely, reporting back directly to [the] White House." This is absolutely false. I never spoke with Baker. And Baker certainly was not in the bag.

Felt says that the "President threatened Dean personally and said if he ever revealed the national security activities the President would insure he went to jail." This never happened, a fact that can be corroborated by Nixon's tapes.

As my Appendix notes, the flow of false facts continued. At one point Felt says, "The covert activities involve the whole U.S. intelligence community and are incredible," although he refused to give Woodward any details, claiming "it is against the law." In fact, no such operation was ever directed out of the Nixon White House.

Even more absurd are Felt's claims that those involved in the Watergate cover up were "chipping in their own personal funds. And Mitchell couldn't meet his quota [so] . . . they cut Mitchell loose." Absurd, too, is his claim that "these guys in the White House were out to make money and a few of them went wild trying."

Because Woodward could not quote Felt directly, none of the surprising number of false statements highlighted in my Appendix made their way into The Washington Post, but apparently Woodward believed them sufficiently to include them in his book.

If Felt was not trying to manipulate the Post, it is not clear what he was doing. Surely, he had to know - or at least, should have known - that much of his information was worse than speculative; it was plain wrong.

In short, the amount of bad information that Felt gave Woodward is alarming. How and why did it happen?

Was Felt Working Alone? The Evidence Makes It Seem Very Unlikely

Woodward reports - in The Washington Post story recently excerpted from his forthcoming book on Throat/Felt - how he and Felt devised a system indicating that Woodward needed to talk to Felt, since Felt did not want him calling his office.

"If you keep the drapes in your apartment closed, open them and that could signal me, [Felt] said. I could check each day or have them checked, and if they were open we could meet that night at a designated place." (Emphasis added.) But because Woodward liked to keep his drapes open, they agreed that Woodward would place a flowerpot with a road construction flag in it on his balcony as the signal.

Clearly, Woodward suspects that Felt, who would have been extremely busy running the day-to-day activities of the FBI, was not checking his apartment balcony daily himself. Woodward writes, "How [Felt] could have made a daily observation of my balcony is still a mystery to me. * * * The Iraqi Embassy was down the street, and I thought it possible that the FBI had surveillance or listening posts nearby. Could Felt have had the counterintelligence agents regularly report on the status of my flag and flowerpot? That seems highly unlikely, if not impossible."

I don't think it is impossible at all. To the contrary, I believe that Felt had to have one or more persons working with him. Thus, others in the FBI must have known Felt was feeding The Washington Post.

This is evident from the last reported conversation in All The President's Men between Throat and Woodward. Felt retired from the FBI five months before this last contact during the first week of November 1973. As a result of the conversation, Woodward (breaking his prior agreement not to quote Felt directly) uses his words in the Post story, which told of gaps of "a suspicious nature" in Nixon's secret tapes that "could lead someone to conclude that the tapes have been tampered with."

How did Felt, no longer in the FBI, get information that "one or more of the tapes contained deliberate erasures"? And when reporting this story in The Washington Post, on November 8, 1973, why did Woodward quote Felt as an anonymous "White House source"? Was Woodward by this time aware that Felt had an agent inside the White House, or a mole?

Is Felt a Hero and, More Specifically, What Is His Legacy?

There has been much discussion, on television in particular, as to whether Mark Felt is a hero or villain, not to mention what his legacy will be now that we know Throat's identity. Clearly, he is history's supreme whistleblower.

Because of my own involvement in Watergate, my knowledge of how those who sought to discredit my testimony (particularly before the Nixon tapes surfaced) operate, and my knowledge of the historical record, I know that Nixon apologists will attack Felt - and Woodward.

These attacks will be senseless (but that has long been the operative word with Watergate). It is time to learn from what happened, not refight battles Nixon has, for good reason, lost.

As my Appendix shows, the quality of Felt's information - at least as reported so far and what is found in All The President's Men - is of questionable value, given the amount of misinformation. It seems it was Felt's position alone that gave Woodward, and in turn, Woodward's editor at The Washington Post, Ben Bradlee, confidence in pursuing a story that other news organizations initially largely ignored. (Initially, Bradlee only knew Woodward had a source who was a high official in the Department of Justice - and Bradlee did not learn more until after Nixon had resigned).

To me, a true hero of Watergate is Ben Bradlee, who not only supported Woodward and Bernstein, but had the trust of the Post's owner, Katharine Graham. Initially, the rest of the national media and the nation ignored the story. Although The Washington Post never "cracked the case," their keeping the story in the news within the Beltway had a great influence on the Congress, making it an important story. Had Bradlee not done so, history might have been much different.

We still need to know much more about Mark Felt's activities, not to mention his accomplices, to understand the Byzantine workings of the FBI of that era. I hope Bob Woodward will answer these questions - about which he has knowledge - sooner rather than later, while there is still interest in the story. For it is information that is as uniquely relevant today - with the current White House hell-bent on returning the presidency to the imperial status it occupied before Watergate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephist

Oh, and Maleficent. But I think she honestly doesn't give a shit...

Gee thanks for clarifying my opinion.. it's appreciated :crazy:

Quote:

Originally Posted by maleficent

Gee thanks for clarifying my opinion.. it's appreciated :crazy:

That was meant as tongue-in-cheek. :)

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Besides... you did say you didn't care, or understand how it was a big story.

Mr Mephisto

I like the Billy Crystal quip from the TONY Awards about his disappointment that Deep Throat wasn't Harvey Fierstein. :D