PDA

View Full Version : "Deep Throat" was Mark Felt



Lance
2005-May-31, 03:52 PM
Per MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8047258/)

Doodler
2005-May-31, 05:20 PM
CNN.com has it too. Always nice to see the last pieces fall into place. Woodward and Bernstein aren't talking, as far as they're concerned, they swore not to talk about it till DT was deceased, and they're sticking to it.

Candy
2005-May-31, 05:22 PM
I just saw that on the local news at noon (FOX).

Gillianren
2005-May-31, 05:39 PM
The last Felt boomlet was in 1999, when a high school senior in New York claimed that Bernstein's son let the secret slip at a summer camp.

okay, even assuming Berstein told his kid, which I don't think is at all a safe assumption--summer camp?

I'll believe it when they confirm it, personally. heck, I could say I was Deep Throat. of course, none of you would believe it, given that I was born in 1976, but still.

jfribrg
2005-May-31, 05:58 PM
Interesting if true. I always wonder if some of the details were altered in order to disguise Deep Throat's identity. Different investigators eliminated various suspects based on their whereabouts on certain days. Changing the dates slightly would not effect the story too much, but would help to hide DT's identity. I like the Kissinger theory, if only because he has a deep voice. More concretely, I am impressed by the evidence that points to Fielding.

Of course even if Woodward and Bernstein did acknowledge that Felt was Deep Throat, i suspect that there would be people who refuse to believe them, especially the folks who supposedly "proved" that it was someone else.

frogesque
2005-May-31, 05:59 PM
Heard this on the radio (BBC Radio 4) Felt is now 91 and if this is true it looks as if he wants to set the record straight while he's still around. The statement came via his lawyer. As Doodler has mentioned, Woodward and Bernstein are still of the opinion that they were sworn to secrecy untill after the demise of DT. They have had no direct contact and as such their original promise still stands for the moment.

An amazing story and at a time when most journalists would be bursting a seam to get into print again their integrity is even more so.

Parrothead
2005-May-31, 09:11 PM
From what I'm hearing (on CNN) a statement is to appear on the Washington Post website shortly, Woodward is preparing a lengthy article for Thursday's edition of the Post and apparently Felt has released Woodward, Bernstein et al from their secrecy oath.

edit Now confirmed on Washington Post website.

Doodler
2005-May-31, 09:38 PM
I would assume that Felt and Woodward have spoken if he's now confirming it.

I said a while back when it was revealed Woodward and Bernstein were updating Deep Throat's obit because his health was failing that anyone who gives a dang about the value of an independent media and free speach in this country ought to thank this guy for his service. That still stands.

What he did took a measure of spinal integrity as great as anyone who puts their butt on the line for this country in combat. Especially in light of how far the Nixon administration was willing to go to pressure people to stay silent.

This guy's a certifiable hero for his actions, and Woodward's holding that secret as close to his chest as he did is a model for journalists to follow even now as that confidence is assaulted in the courts.

Vega115
2005-May-31, 10:21 PM
well, its official...Woodward and Berstein have confirmed it.

check out CNN.com

In a way, its almost kinda sad..the fact that it's all over, 30 years of mystery..over. even if it was before my time.

Swift
2005-May-31, 11:08 PM
I don't think it is sad, I think it is fascinating. For Americans like myself, who lived through Watergate, it was one of the great, unsolved mysteries. I have to admit that Felt was not on my short list.

Lance
2005-May-31, 11:12 PM
I must admit it feels somewhat anticlimactic. 30 years, and now, pfft...

Parrothead
2005-May-31, 11:41 PM
I look at it this way, more material about the whole Watergate investigation will now be published. That's one thing I like about history/political science, as more information gets released about past events, the events themselves stay the same, but interpretations of the actions of those involved are ever changing, giving us fresh insights into the people themselves.

Jim
2005-Jun-01, 04:13 PM
I look at it this way, more material about the whole Watergate investigation will now be published. ...

W&B will now release some of the Watergate notes they had held back because they revealed too much about DT's identity. They will be added to the previously established Watergate papers collection at the University of Texas' Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center.

farmerjumperdon
2005-Jun-01, 05:19 PM
OK, now that the Deep Throat thing is over, what year was it they were going to open the rest of the Kennedy assasination files to the public?

Doodler
2005-Jun-01, 05:29 PM
2037, I think.

Parrothead
2005-Jun-01, 05:36 PM
OK, now that the Deep Throat thing is over, what year was it they were going to open the rest of the Kennedy assasination files to the public?

Two different things really as Watergate/Deep Throat deals with an anonymous source/press issue, while Kennedy assassination deals with sealed gov't documents. IIRC though, the files were sealed for 75 years, in which case the earliest they would be unsealed would be Nov 2038. The possibility of information no longer deemed "vital to national security" could be released earlier at the discretion of the gov't. Just my understanding/recollection, others can correct errors on my part.

jfribrg
2005-Jun-01, 05:40 PM
I must admit it feels somewhat anticlimactic. 30 years, and now, pfft... I agree. I would rather have waited till W&B stated that so-and-so who just died was DT, and then let the various interested parties debate whether he was or wasn't. Now, with Felt still alive and presumably able to address any inconsistencies in W&B's notes, it just isnt gonna be as fun :(

Krel
2005-Jun-01, 05:48 PM
[quote=Lance]
it just isnt gonna be as fun :(

Of course it is. It turns out that Deep Throat was nothing more than a corupt, honorless weasle that was ticked off because he didn't get the job he wanted. :lol: Oh my, what a hero! :roll:

David.

Cylinder
2005-Jun-01, 06:56 PM
[quote=Lance]
it just isnt gonna be as fun :(

Of course it is. It turns out that Deep Throat was nothing more than a corupt, honorless weasle that was ticked off because he didn't get the job he wanted. :lol: Oh my, what a hero! :roll:

David.

I'm with Krel on this one. Felt's duty was to present this evidence to a grand jury not to use it for personal vendetta.

Gillianren
2005-Jun-01, 07:06 PM
OK, now that the Deep Throat thing is over, what year was it they were going to open the rest of the Kennedy assasination files to the public?

Two different things really as Watergate/Deep Throat deals with an anonymous source/press issue, while Kennedy assassination deals with sealed gov't documents. IIRC though, the files were sealed for 75 years, in which case the earliest they would be unsealed would be Nov 2038. The possibility of information no longer deemed "vital to national security" could be released earlier at the discretion of the gov't. Just my understanding/recollection, others can correct errors on my part.

jumping in to correct errors on your part . . . .

actually, pretty common errors, so no biggie. the thing is, LBJ wanted the Warren Commission (jeez, that word always looks wrong to me) files--not the report, obviously, which got hastened through before the election--to be sealed for 75 years. this, obviously, didn't happen, as the 26-volume set has been available for some time.

however, after the to-do when JFK was released, even most of the other files on the assassination were unsealed. (which proves that even bad things can at times do some good.) to date, 98% of the files on the JFK assassination have been released, and they still pretty much point to Lee Harvey Oswald as a lone assassin.

the remaining 2% are rather akin to those last Deep Throat notes--stuff that would give away people's identities or how intelligence operates or whatever. presumably, as those informants die, those files, too, will be declassified, but that's not a guarantee, as the government does tend to keep things classified if there's no reason not to. (some files from World War I are still classified.)

anyway, about Deep Throat . . . I'd never even heard of this guy. I was, like my sister, kind of going for Kissenger.

aurora
2005-Jun-01, 08:11 PM
Of course it is. It turns out that Deep Throat was nothing more than a corupt, honorless weasle that was ticked off because he didn't get the job he wanted. :lol: Oh my, what a hero! :roll:

David.

Of course, you left out the part about how the Administration was controlling the FBI and shutting down their investigation of the burglery.

Krel
2005-Jun-01, 10:05 PM
Of course it is. It turns out that Deep Throat was nothing more than a corupt, honorless weasle that was ticked off because he didn't get the job he wanted. :lol: Oh my, what a hero! :roll:

David.

Of course, you left out the part about how the Administration was controlling the FBI and shutting down their investigation of the burglery.

No I didn't, because that is not the point. He was an FBI agent, the greatest law enforcement agency in the U.S.(or at least it used to be). If knew or suspected that something illegal was happening it was his duty to go to his superior. If that failed he should have gone to the grand jury. If that failed, then he should have resigned and gone to the press. But because he didn't get the job he wanted, he acted like a petulnt, spoiled child. He didn't get what he wanted, so he was going to make them pay. He is a weasel with no honor or integrity.

He is a disgrace to all law enforcement personal that follow the rules and fight for what is right.

David.

Lance
2005-Jun-01, 10:52 PM
Doesn't the possibility exist that he may have been in fear for his own safety if he followed proper channels?

Gillianren
2005-Jun-02, 01:40 AM
um . . . I don't think he could have gone to the grand jury--at the time he started spilling to Woodward and Bernstein, I don't think a grand jury relating to the subject had been convened--and I'm reasonably sure his boss was being pressured by the President to keep quiet. certainly, Nixon was pressuring everyone he could to cover things up.

besides, even if you don't like the route he chose, the simple fact is that the information got out and was influential in ridding the White House of a crooked administration. whatever his motivations, isn't that a good thing?

Jim
2005-Jun-02, 03:40 PM
Of course, you left out the part about how the Administration was controlling the FBI and shutting down their investigation of the burglery.



No I didn't, because that is not the point.

Were you paying attention during Watergate? That was the entire point. There was a coverup orchestrated and controlled by the White House, including Nixon.


um . . . I don't think he could have gone to the grand jury--at the time he started spilling to Woodward and Bernstein, I don't think a grand jury relating to the subject had been convened--and I'm reasonably sure his boss was being pressured by the President to keep quiet. certainly, Nixon was pressuring everyone he could to cover things up.

besides, even if you don't like the route he chose, the simple fact is that the information got out and was influential in ridding the White House of a crooked administration. whatever his motivations, isn't that a good thing?

He could have gone to his boss, the Director of the FBI. But Grey was a Nixon crony... had been since at least 1960. He participated in the coverup by interfering in the FBI investigation and destroying evidence.

He could have gone to George Mitchell, but George was deep in the coverup himself.

He could have gone to the White House.

He might have found a DC prosecutor who might have been trustworthy and who might have felt there was enough information to maybe present to a Grand Jury. But, DC prosecutors are appointed by the AG. There was no Grand Jury dedicated to Watergate at any time.

There was an independent Special Prosecutor (Archibald Cox), but he wasn't appointed until later, after - and because - W&B started reporting. And then Cox was removed under instructions from Nixon when he got too independent. (Saturday Night Massacre, remember?)

Felt had little recourse other than going to the press.

Grey
2005-Jun-02, 04:27 PM
But Grey was a Nixon crony...
I was not! I'm a cosmology disinformation agent. What? Oh, different Grey. Forget I said anything. :D

Actually, I do have an offhand question. Does anyone know why he was codenamed after a porn flick? I'm afraid of the results I'd find if I try Googling for the answer... :-?

SeanF
2005-Jun-02, 04:55 PM
There was no Grand Jury dedicated to Watergate at any time.
I was just a kid back in those days, but a quick Google search turns up lots of references to Liddy, Hunt, et al being indicted by a Grand Jury for their roles in the Watergate break-in in Sept. '72.

Are these sites all wrong?

Jim
2005-Jun-02, 05:43 PM
Not dedicated to investigating Watergate. They did handle the criminal complaints that were brought out by W&B's investigation.

SeanF
2005-Jun-02, 06:00 PM
Not dedicated to investigating Watergate. They did handle the criminal complaints that were brought out by W&B's investigation.
Still, the break-in was in June and the grand jury was handing down indictments by September - the grand jury must've been convened, what, mid-July?

Why couldn't Felt have given his information to them instead of leaking it to the press? The grand jury would be independent of the White House and the FBI . . .

Swift
2005-Jun-02, 06:13 PM
Not dedicated to investigating Watergate. They did handle the criminal complaints that were brought out by W&B's investigation.
Still, the break-in was in June and the grand jury was handing down indictments by September - the grand jury must've been convened, what, mid-July?

Why couldn't Felt have given his information to them instead of leaking it to the press? The grand jury would be independent of the White House and the FBI . . .
IIRC, the grand jury had a very limited scope, just the break-in itself. At the time a lot of people thought that was the beginning and end of it (which is exactly what the White House wanted). W&B, with prompting from Deep Throat, went deeper (no pun intended).

One interesting thing that may relate though to the Felt/Woodward connection - during an interview this morning on the Today show, Woodward said that he actually became friends with Felt before Watergate and looked at him even before Watergate as a contact within the FBI.

If find it interesting that at least some of Felt's current critics are current talk-show hosts who just happened to be some of the key criminals from Watergate (G. Gordon Liddy was on the Today Show the other day rewriting history).

I personally am not that interested in the question of whether Felt was a hero or disgruntled employee (I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle). And even if what he did was all from personal self-interest, it still was a key part of exposing one of the key acts of corruption in the 20th century. I think we need not to lose sight of that.

Parrothead
2005-Jun-02, 06:15 PM
But Grey was a Nixon crony...
I was not! I'm a cosmology disinformation agent. What? Oh, different Grey. Forget I said anything. :D

Actually, I do have an offhand question. Does anyone know why he was codenamed after a porn flick? I'm afraid of the results I'd find if I try Googling for the answer... :-?

According to the transcripts of an interview session with Washington Post's executive editor Leonard Downie
Kensington, Md.: Who came up with the name "Deep Throat" -- and why "Deep Throat?"

Leonard Downie: The late Howard Simons, who was managing editor of The Washington Post in 1972, coined the phrase in humorous reference to a then popular, off-color movie -- and the name stuck. Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/01/DI2005060100769.html) from washingtonpost.com

SeanF
2005-Jun-02, 07:14 PM
Not dedicated to investigating Watergate. They did handle the criminal complaints that were brought out by W&B's investigation.
Still, the break-in was in June and the grand jury was handing down indictments by September - the grand jury must've been convened, what, mid-July?

Why couldn't Felt have given his information to them instead of leaking it to the press? The grand jury would be independent of the White House and the FBI . . .
IIRC, the grand jury had a very limited scope, just the break-in itself. At the time a lot of people thought that was the beginning and end of it (which is exactly what the White House wanted).
Why would a grand jury investigating a break-in not be interested in information pointing to a conspiracy to commit said break-in and cover it up? It's not like that's a separate issue.

In fact, didn't we find out later that the grand jury had named Nixon as an unindicted co-conspirator?

Makgraf
2005-Jun-03, 12:24 AM
IIRC, the grand jury had a very limited scope, just the break-in itself. At the time a lot of people thought that was the beginning and end of it (which is exactly what the White House wanted). W&B, with prompting from Deep Throat, went deeper (no pun intended).
I don't really know that much about Watergate, as in I've read All The President's Men. But Grand Juries don't have limited scope. They can pretty much do what they feel like. And if it hadn't done anything Felt could've gone to the press. Of course that implies that Felt's motives were to help save the constitution rather than get petty bureaucratic revenge against the man who passed him over to head the FBI.


According to the transcripts of an interview session with Washington Post's executive editor Leonard Downie
Kensington, Md.: Who came up with the name "Deep Throat" -- and why "Deep Throat?"

Leonard Downie: The late Howard Simons, who was managing editor of The Washington Post in 1972, coined the phrase in humorous reference to a then popular, off-color movie -- and the name stuck. Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/01/DI2005060100769.html) from washingtonpost.com
:o That's an interesting euphemism...

Grey
2005-Jun-03, 01:57 AM
According to the transcripts of an interview session with Washington Post's executive editor Leonard Downie
Kensington, Md.: Who came up with the name "Deep Throat" -- and why "Deep Throat?"

Leonard Downie: The late Howard Simons, who was managing editor of The Washington Post in 1972, coined the phrase in humorous reference to a then popular, off-color movie -- and the name stuck. Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/06/01/DI2005060100769.html) from washingtonpost.com
That's it? Just a frivolous association with nothing more significant? If it had been me, I would have told them that they needed to give me a better code name if they expected me to keep delivering information. :D

Celestial Mechanic
2005-Jun-03, 04:22 AM
One possible motivation for telling it now is this: either way he gets to be famous for 15 minutes, might as well do it while alive in order to enjoy it.

BTW, I cast my vote for "hero". I wish another hero would step up so that our current maladministration can self-destruct. :)

The Bad Astronomer
2005-Jun-03, 05:25 AM
Celestial Mechanic, please don't bring potentially flame-fest fodder partisan politics into this forum.

Krel
2005-Jun-03, 06:20 PM
No I didn't, because that is not the point.

Were you paying attention during Watergate? That was the entire point. There was a coverup orchestrated and controlled by the White House, including Nixon.



I was about 14 at the time, so the answer is no. :)

I stand by what I wrote, Nixon's crimes are not the point. Weasle boy's motives are. Perhaps I'm not the one, not paying attention.



Felt had little recourse other than going to the press.

He was the number 2 man at the FBI, if anyone had the resourses it was him. He could have gone to the grand jury. Even if they didn't have the authority (doubtfull as grand jurys have pretty broad authority), the information would have lead to a new grand jury being formed. Or he could had done one of the other options I mentioned.

W & B have said that Felt didn't tell them anything that they hadn't already found out. He just provided corroboration. W&B have also said that they believe that he was doing it because he didn't get the job he wanted. Given his actions and the fact that he had been suppling Woodward with information for a few years, he most certainly didn't deserve the Directors position.

This was going to come out, too many people were working on the story, and the press had been after Nixon's hide ever since he exposed Alger Hiss as a communitst and traitor.

Felt is a weasle, and will go down in history as such.

David.

Grey
2005-Jun-03, 07:35 PM
Heh, I was listening to an interview this morning, and I was amused by a particular line from one of the reporters. They were discussing Felt's motives, and someone's comment was that expecting the motives of anyone in Washington to be entirely pure would be applying an entirely new standard. :)

In general though, I might suggest that, seeing this to be a contentious topic, people might specifically try to tone down the rhetoric. "Weasel boy?" It's probably possible to question Felt's motives and actions without resorting to name calling.

Donnie B.
2005-Jun-04, 12:38 AM
What difference does it make what his motives were? He played a key role in exposing a deeply corrupt administration, and that's what history will remember him for.

Archer17
2005-Jun-04, 12:50 AM
..Felt is a weasle, and will go down in history as such..I disagree. Felt might've been miffed about his non-promotion (we all would if we thought we deserved one, it's human nature) but he also exposed a wrong. Without getting into the politics of the Nixon adminsitration, Watergate and the attempts at covering it up were wrong. I don't think going through normal channels to expose that wrong (considering its source) was a viable option. He's not a weasel to me.

Gillianren
2005-Jun-04, 01:38 AM
and still I say, even if he was a weasel, so what? he certainly was far from being the only weasel in that particular situation, and his alleged weaselness was pretty venal in comparison to the rest of what was going on. I mean, no, obviously I don't remember Watergate itself (though my sister's friend Doug from down the block was born the day Nixon resigned--that's my older sister, and Doug's about a month older than she), but I have read quite a bit about it, and I have the dubious advantage of having learned about it in history class.

the breaking into the hotel thing was pretty venal, even though they were breaking into the Democratic National Headquarters. we are, after all, talking about a President who was siccing the IRS and FBI on people that he thought were against him. we are talking about a President who left office about a step ahead of impeachment hearings--and pretty much only avoided prison because Ford pardoned him.

was Felt a weasel? no, I don't particularly think so--I don't think there was any other outlet for that information than to make it so public that it had to be investigated. if he was a weasel, was he the biggest weasel involved? really, really not.

Lord Jubjub
2005-Jun-04, 02:47 AM
My impressions from the interviews of W&B is that Felt was the one who told them which leads would be productive and which leads were false.

I suspect that most of the actual information uncovered by the Post was from people other than Felt. But those people would never have been asked to give information had not Felt told W&B that those people should be asked.

Obtuse, yes. Critical, probably. Traitor? In the larger scheme, no.

frogesque
2005-Jun-04, 09:46 AM
At the end of the day I think it comes down to whether whistle-blowers are brave for standing up for what they believe to be right or whether they are disloyal to the organisation they represent. Felt knew these guys were onto something and gave material assistance and guidance. He could have had them closed down. Real reputations and possibly lives were at stake here. Probably the only thing that protected W&B was the fact that their information was so accurate and the thing became so big after publication that they were beyond character or actual assasination. Felt was central to that, honourably W&B kept their word and refused to reaveal his identity until after he identified himself.

History will judge whether Felt was a hero or a traitor. He certainly helped change the course of politics at that time.

Are politics any cleaner now? I wouldn't bet on it! Are folk a lot more carefull now? Undoubtedly 8)

Krel
2005-Jun-04, 07:48 PM
the breaking into the hotel thing was pretty venal, even though they were breaking into the Democratic National Headquarters. we are, after all, talking about a President who was siccing the IRS and FBI on people that he thought were against him. we are talking about a President who left office about a step ahead of impeachment hearings--and pretty much only avoided prison because Ford pardoned him.


As Clinton proved, if your party is behind you, you can stay in office. Even Nixon's enimies in Washington admitted, he did have a respect for the office of President. Weither he resigned out of respect or not, I don't know.

Roosevelt used the FBI to look into his enemies, and used the FBI and the IRS to go after them. He also tried to pack the supreme court with his people.

Truman was a big believer in recording converstions in the Oval Office.

Kennedy and Johnson used the FBI to gather info on their enemies and used the FBI and the IRS against them. Johnson also told Nixoin how things operate in Washington. Also the then current head of the Washington Post, being a close friend of Kennedy did not cover any of that.

Nixion tried a cover-up to protect his people about a break-in that he had no prior knowlege of. He was also a bit parinoid, but then I think that most Presidents probably end up that way.

A few short years after Watergate the Democrats got caught doing the same thing in Chicago.

Hooover for decades kept control of the FBI by blackmail.

Cinton was a big believer in using the IRS to go after his enemies.

With all that has come out over the past couple of decades, I don't see where Nixon was any worse than the others. Infact he was not as bad as some.



was Felt a weasel? no, I don't particularly think so--I don't think there was any other outlet for that information than to make it so public that it had to be investigated. if he was a weasel, was he the biggest weasel involved? really, really not.

Just this past week, W&B have stated, on tv that he didn't tell them anything THAT THEY HAD NOT ALREADY FOUND OUT. The only thing he did was provide corroboration. He didn't tell them anything new, he didn't break any new sources. He was a convienece.

I disagree, there were may options to disclose this, and he didn't take any of them. He is just a petty, honorless, venal little weasel that was out for revenge, W&B even say this. He turned his back on everything that preported to believe in (and claimed to over the past 30 years of denials), and stand for as he stabed every honorable law enforcement agent in the back.

He was really, really the biggest weasel of them all.

David.

Kesh
2005-Jun-04, 09:09 PM
Ugh. Some of you are probably familiar with the name Ben Stein. He's best known for his game show Win Ben Stein's Money, and... er... some movie... I forget the name? Bueller? Bueller? ;)

He was also involved in Nixon's political campaigns and an absolute fanboy of Nixon. Which was amusing, in and of itself.

This article he wrote, though, goes way too far. (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=8255)

He not only spends the whole thing casting aspersions against Felt, he goes as far as to accuse Felt of making the situation in Israel worse (by forcing Nixon's resignation), and draws imagery of Felt as a kind of Nazi. :o

Somehow I think Stein would get himself banned on the BABB. ;)

beskeptical
2005-Jun-04, 11:19 PM
I must admit it feels somewhat anticlimactic. 30 years, and now, pfft... I agree. I would rather have waited till W&B stated that so-and-so who just died was DT, and then let the various interested parties debate whether he was or wasn't. Now, with Felt still alive and presumably able to address any inconsistencies in W&B's notes, it just isnt gonna be as fun :(He is somewhat senile so can't debate as you say.

beskeptical
2005-Jun-04, 11:23 PM
Celestial Mechanic, please don't bring potentially flame-fest fodder partisan politics into this forum.Darn! Just when I was about to get going on this. :wink:

Gillianren
2005-Jun-05, 01:21 AM
if you watch the footage of the Nixon resignation, you can see Ben Stein crying in the background. (he was in Dave, too, as himself.) ergo, I'm not particularly inclined to think he's unbiased on the subject. I mean, he worked for the man.

I'm stunned that he called Nixon a peacemaker, though. you'd have to be pretty devoted to the guy. sure, he pulled troops out of Vietnam, but I don't think you could call him a peacemaker if you look at his whole record.

oh, well. we're all too close to it, I think. in fifty years, though, I don't think any of the books on the subject will use the word "weasel."

Celestial Mechanic
2005-Jun-06, 04:17 AM
Celestial Mechanic, please don't bring potentially flame-fest fodder partisan politics into this forum.Darn! Just when I was about to get going on this. :wink:
But we can still call people "weasels" and "cronies". The Bad Astronomer has not commented on that. Although calling Richard Nixon a weasel is a terrible libel--against weasels! :lol:

I admit, though that I was taken aback by that response. I considered several options, such as deleting the offensive line, except that such gross revisionism is frowned on. Only remarks that are violations of the law (libel, copyright material beyond fair use, threats against government officials) or are beyond the standards of this board should be removed. I considered "whiting out" the remark, but that would just bring more attention to it.

I also want to add that I found the Watergate years to be very entertaining. Each day I looked forward to the news, wondering when the other shoe would drop. I was seldom disappointed. It seemed as if each day not only would the other shoe drop, but so would a boot and a pair of sneakers! I am grateful for the role Mark Felt played in keeping us on our toes! :D

The Bad Astronomer
2005-Jun-09, 12:06 AM
Actually, Celestial Mechanic, I was planning on posting on that.

I understand people's needs to talk about things political as they arise in the news. Talking about Nixon and calling him a weasel is perhaps marginally allowed, because 1) he has been shown to have acted criminally and lied about it, and 2) it happened long enough ago that most of us don't have as firm a stake in it as we do in current politics.

Having said that, I still don't like it. This thread is relatively civil, but is still skating on thin ice. Folks- keep the ad hominems to yourself, and discuss things on their merit. Got it?

Obviousman
2005-Jun-09, 08:41 AM
What I find most interesting is some people's reactions to the 'naming'.

For years people had theories about who Deep Throat was.

Now Felt, Woodward, Bernstein, and The Washington Post have said who it was.

And the rumbling begins.....

I see a lot of people, whose 'pet' theories were apparently negated, now claiming that Woodward et al are lying, and that it was not Felt. Their pet theories are displayed once more, and with renewed vigour.

I just have to laugh.

For some people, it's only truth if they agree with it.

publiusr
2005-Jun-09, 05:58 PM
I don't know what the big deal is--the story is what--only 30 yrs old?

What gets me mad is how CNN got rid of their NEXT@CNN replacement for CNN Science & Technology week.

Krel
2005-Jun-12, 12:53 AM
Talking about Nixon and calling him a weasel is perhaps marginally allowed, because 1) he has been shown to have acted criminally and lied about it, and 2) it happened long enough ago that most of us don't have as firm a stake in it as we do in current politics.



Funny, the exact same thing could be said about Mark Felt, especially as he has now confessed. :lol:

But as I am the biggest offender with 'weasel', I wish to tend my apologies. Bad, if I have in any way, manner or form violated your polices, either in word or spirit, then please accept my apology. I will try to do better in the future.

To anyone that has been offended by my choice of word, or tone, please accept my apology. No offense was intended.

I value this board, and the people on it. I have, in the past had many a spirited discussion, and they have all been a positive experience. I don't want ot loose that, or contribute to a bad situation.

A small explanation. I have known police officers all my life, even have a couple in the family. So I am very touchy when someone whom has shattered the trust of the position and has engaged in malfeasance is portrayed as something he is not.

Once agian, it I have offended anyone, I am truly sorry.

Bad Astronomer, thank you for your patience, and understanding.

David.

Archer17
2005-Jun-12, 03:14 AM
Talking about Nixon and calling him a weasel is perhaps marginally allowed, because 1) he has been shown to have acted criminally and lied about it, and 2) it happened long enough ago that most of us don't have as firm a stake in it as we do in current politics.



Funny, the exact same thing could be said about Mark Felt, especially as he has now confessed. :lol:

But as I am the biggest offender with 'weasel', I wish to tend my apologies. Bad, if I have in any way, manner or form violated your polices, either in word or spirit, then please accept my apology. I will try to do better in the future.

To anyone that has been offended by my choice of word, or tone, please accept my apology. No offense was intended.

I value this board, and the people on it. I have, in the past had many a spirited discussion, and they have all been a positive experience. I don't want ot loose that, or contribute to a bad situation.

A small explanation. I have known police officers all my life, even have a couple in the family. So I am very touchy when someone whom has shattered the trust of the position and has engaged in malfeasance is portrayed as something he is not.

Once agian, it I have offended anyone, I am truly sorry.

Bad Astronomer, thank you for your patience, and understanding.

David.Classy post Krel. I wasn't insulted or otherwise distressed by your use of the term "weasel." I happen to think Felt wrestled with his conscience before being "Deep Throat." Whether it was motivated by a sense of justice or sour grapes is open to interpretation, but I can't say what he did was wrong. What the Nixon administration did was wrong. McGovern's platform was weak and as the '72 election showed, there was no need for Nixon & Co. to try to gain an advantage with such shenanigans.. they already had it.

I can't speak for other's, but I don't think anyone here was insulted by your descriptor and you are entitled to your opinion just like the rest of us. Just be careful typing with fire in your veins. I'm still a work in progress myself when it comes to ad hominems, and, despite a recent bump in the road, I'm striving to refrain from typing when emotions run high. It's not always easy to do .. but it's more satisfying in the long run when ya do it.

sarongsong
2005-Jun-12, 05:35 PM
June 12, 2005
"... Watergate has gone back to being the "third-rate burglary" of Nixon administration spin. It is once again being covered up.
Not without reason. Had the scandal been vividly resuscitated as the long national nightmare it actually was, it would dampen all the Felt fun by casting harsh light on our own present nightmare...The July 2002 "Downing Street memo" (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html)..."
---NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/opinion/12rich.html?ei=5090&en=bd5f3e3355981260&ex=1276228 800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print)