W. Mark Felt Was No Idealistic Defender Of Democracy

[Itsthetruth]

The Nation
June 1, 2005

The Mysteries of Watergate
by John Nichols

In hindsight, we should have known that Washington Post writer Bob Woodward's source for the investigative reports he and Carl Bernstein wrote about Nixon-era corruption would not be an idealist who sought to expose a corrupt presidency. Rather, like so many of Woodward's sources over the years, W. Mark Felt was a consummate Washingtion insider. Far from being someone who feared for the Republic, Felt was a protege of longtime Federal Bureau of Investigation director J. Edgar Hoover.

Felt certainly couldn't have been all that worried about Nixonian skullduggery, as the tipster himself would eventually be convicted of authorizing federal agents to illegally break into the homes of suspected anti-Vietnam War radicals.

Indeed, it appears that "Deep Throat" was less concerned about defending democracy than about getting back at then President Richard Nixon for refusing him the directorship after Hoover's death in May 1972.

Considering the current circumstances of the nation, when Woodward and so many other members of the Washington press corps act as little more than stenographers to power, this week's renewed attention to the Watergate story ought to inspire an aching nostalgia in Americans who still take their citizenship seriously. It is inspiring to think that the system did once work; but it is painful to recognize the reality that Richard Nixon would never have been forced from office by today's major media organizations or today's Congress. And it is agonizing to think of how the far more serious crimes of presidents who succeeded Nixon -- especially, though certainly not exclusively, those of the current occupant of the White House -- go essentially unchallenged, even as more credible and patriotic Deep Throats than Mr. Felt have emerged. (The failure of most news outlets to examine what has come to be referred to as the Downing Street Memo, official British documents that confirm George Bush's machinations to start a war-of-whim with Iraq, provides ample evidence that presidents no longer have much to fear from major media.)


http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=3028

[Jacobin]

1. who cares why he ratted on the crooks?

I'm glad he did.

[Pacifist Patriot]

2. I'm glad we had a media that took up the story.

[nolabels]

4. Too bad we don't have one any more

I feel as if we are living the plight of most other third world countries now. The press in many of those countries with natural resources do them the same way. The way things change with them in the other countries is violent revolution, crime gangs and border wars (that even sounds like here)

[Itsthetruth]

3. I Care

You don't want Felt falsely portrayed as some kind of hero defending our Bill of Rights from attacks by the Nixon government .... do you?

I'm glad Felt spilled "some of the beans" which led to the uncovering of a huge government spy program targeting domestic dissidents and radicals. Felt didn't expose those FBI operations to Woodward.

[ProfessorGAC]

11. Can't Agree ITT

Falsely protrayed by whom? Why is The Nation, or Pat Buchanan, or Colson, or even Woodward any more qualified to presume Felt's motives than anyone else?

What if he was motivated by the disgust he had for the actions of the Nixon White House, and if he could also get even in the proces, so much the better? Then, he would be completely in the right.

You suggest that any attempt to make him heroic would be misplaced. Why? Why is it any less heroic than any other whistleblower?

For me the bottom line is simple: Did anything he tell Woodward turn out to be malicious misinformation? If no, what he did is honorable to me.
The Professor

[RPM]

9. I thought it was GHW Bush

He would have done it because Nixon's attitude towards China was not hawkish.

IMHO.

[BurtWorm]

17. GHWB was an unprincipled Nixon toady.

Vastly more interested in advancing his own career than in ideology of any kind.

[dbonds]

5. Spin spin spin

Felt didn't say this. They are making assumptions of his motives based on what was going on around him. Maybe that was a factor, but it would be a dumb plan if that was his motivation. This is just another attempt at making him look less like a hero. Maybe he was a hero for these reason, maybe he was for true ethics. In either way, he was a hero.

[Itsthetruth]

8. Felt Was An Opponent Of Democratic Rights And Freedoms

Felt sanctioned and organized numerous FBI spying and disruption operations against many progressives and progressive organizations while he worked for FBI Director Hoover and after Hoover died.

He was not our "hero". He was our opponent.

[dbonds]

13. Depends on your definition of hero.

So he was one of the bad guys that had a moment of good. That moment may not even be based on good intentions. But either way it was the moment that let truth win. We needed that hero moment, it was not without peril to him, there was risk. We now need that hero moment as an example to someone inside the bushworld, someone who may have done bad and is just waking up to what the future may hold if they don't speak.

[river2]

6. Hey he did what he didn't have to do....

that means something in my book...

[stillcool]

7. is anybody going to ask him why.....

he did it? Or...should we wait till all the corporate talking-heads muddy the water so badly that nobody gives a shit what he says.

[EVDebs]

10. Woodward today is running interference for Bush. So sad...

The Downing Street Memo vs. Woodward's own writings today...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. The real heroes are Woodward & Bernstein, Sam Dash, Sam Ervin,

and the rest who tenaciously kept after the crooks. We need those kind of heroes than the "insiders" who only pursue their own sleazy purposes.

Screw Felt. I'm just glad that Woodward was able to squeeze him for some the information that caused the downfall of the mass-murderer and some of his crew.

[JDPriestly]

14. Good motives don't make good acts.

Sometimes people do great things for the worst of reasons. Nixon was arrogant and insensitive. Eventually, he stepped on someone's toes and that someone stomped on his in return. That is how life works. Smart managers don't just kowtow to the people above them. They take good care of those under them, if for no other reason than that they realize that the person working for them today may be their boss (or may be in a position to blow the whistle on them) tomorrow. Clinton, after all, was probably betrayed by Linda Tripp, a Republican activist but also a disgruntled employee. John Bolton is, hopefully, learning that he bullied one too many of his employees. Bush may well be next on the list.

Whatever Felt's reason for doing so, he had the courage to step forward and say something. As with the Bolton matter in which a number of individuals, some nameless, reported problems, I suspect that Felt was by no means the only one who blew the whistle on Nixon. We will never know the whole story. From the recent statements made by the Washington Post, it appears that they corroborated the Watergate story pretty carefully. That means they probably had more than one source. Felt may have been the most significant of them. But, he may be taking the credit for the story because he is the least political of the sources, and the other source(s) don't want their roles to be made public.

[lonestarnot]

15. Yeah and he was very much against Vietnam War Protestors

Damn Hippies!

[formercia]

16. When you takes the King's Shilling...

ya do the King's bidding.

I had to do a number of things, having been given a choice, I would have declined. The only other option is to resign and go do something else.
It's a nasty World out there.

I think Felt did the right thing. Nixon was an assh0le.

[peacetalksforall]

18. Leaker/Feeder or Whistleblower?

Forget about hero or traitor. That choice doesn't cut it.

I honor whistle blowers. Mark Felt was not one. He was an underground leaker/feeder who avoided consequences and who ended up helping the country, but not necessarily FOR the country - possibly for himself.

Is what he did dishonorable? Once again, we are divided over the question...does the end justify the means or does doing something for yourself that benefits the country justify your purpose?

It is becoming obvious that his family had an influence in the unmasking (before death) and it may have been for profit based on the interview they granted yesterday.

So we will probably go on for years asking if Felt took the blame to cover up for others....i.e., Bush, Sr and friends. And was this mostly an FBI or a CIA operation?

Should Buchanan and Nixon friends blame the CIA, FBI, or Felt. Should they blame the Washington Post?

I think all we have is another issue to argue about. And Reagan - Bush papers are still locked by Bush.

[hector459]

19. Felt was like all the other conservative-Repub-nuts. Vengeful and greedy.

But it coulsn't have happened to a nicer person than Nixon.

[leftofthedial]

20. his motives are irrelevant

he outed a criminal

[Itsthetruth]

21. But His Deeds Are Relevant

"he outed a criminal" while he conducted criminal activity in violation of the Constitution and our Bill of Rights.