NationStates Jolt Archive

Deepthroat, the source that helped Bob Woodward and Carl Beirnstine break Watergate, has been revealed as Mark Felt, a retired FBI official.

Pat Buchannon called him a traitor on the very same day.

I told my friends "Oh, don't worry. It's Past Buchannon. He was in a position of power in the Nixon administration, of course he's upset." But then I thought: do some people think Mark Felt is a traitor? Or not? Did he do the right thing, but should people usually leak information if they are in law inforcement?

I want to see what people think.

Not a traitor--in fact, the opposite. Look at it--Nixon had the FBI and the CIA running in circles, chasing each other. There was nowhere else for Felt to go, so he went to the press. I'm not saying he didn't have his own reasons, but if he were looking to cash in, he'd have done it long ago.

Not a traitor--in fact, the opposite. Look at it--Nixon had the FBI and the CIA running in circles, chasing each other. There was nowhere else for Felt to go, so he went to the press. I'm not saying he didn't have his own reasons, but if he were looking to cash in, he'd have done it long ago.


Exactly!

But, at the same time, if there was to be a raid on a terrorist lair, I belive it would be his job to keep it quiet.

But Watergate was a situation of very special circumstances.

Besides- cash in on it? He's probobly spent most of his life in fear of Nixon's goons!

Deepthroat, the source that helped Bob Woodward and Carl Beirnstine break Watergate, has been revealed as Mark Felt, a retired FBI official.

Pat Buchannon called him a traitor on the very same day.

I told my friends "Oh, don't worry. It's Past Buchannon. He was in a position of power in the Nixon administration, of course he's upset." But then I thought: do some people think Mark Felt is a traitor? Or not? Did he do the right thing, but should people usually leak information if they are in law inforcement?

I want to see what people think.
Not a traitor ... a true patriot, and a courageous one at that.

Only Rush Limburger could make such a rancid smelling statement. A Traitor how? He's no traitor and I don't think he considers himself to be a hero. Desperate times call for desperate measures. He did what he felt he had to do given the situation.

It's been said, but he's anything but a traitor. This was the administration overstepping it's legal bounds, and someone had to keep them in check. Everyone was afraid to do something, but this man did what no other had the cajones to do (even if it were a very secretive sort of arrangment)

It's been amazing to me how the Nixon apologists have just been crawling all over each other to call Felt a douchebag--Liddy, Buchanan, Ben freaking Stein (who surprised me after all the anti-semitism from the Nixon White House), Peggy Noonan. I mean, they blamed Felt for the rise of the Khmer Rouge for crying out loud.

I think it would have been far more awesome if Ben Stein was deep throat instead of boring ol' W. Mark Felt. I mean, the announcement that it was him is almost anti-climactic.

It should have been someone awesome.

Not a traitor ... a true patriot, and a courageous one at that.


Yes indeed...

Well...

I'm very, very glad to be able to report to my friend that the public perception of Deepthroat is that of a hero with guts...

A traitor? Not to the American people, but you could say he betrayed Nixon I guess. As I understand it it was a stupid thing, Nixon found out that the FBI was spying on the Democrats and rather than expose it he covered it up to save his friend's reputation. Am I right? I don't think Deepthroat is a traitor IMHO.

Well...

I'm very, very glad to be able to report to my friend that the public perception of Deepthroat is that of a hero with guts...
I don't know if I would have had that sort of courage. Give me a good weapon I can use, a good team to work with, point me in the general direction and I'll accomplish the mission. But to risk ruining my career, destroying my family's welfare ... I just don't know if I could take that sort of risk. :(

That bastard is morally responsible for millions of deaths in Southeast Asia and for 9/11. He broke both the law and his oath. For a very petty reason of having been bypassed for a promotion. If he really felt the urge to share his inside knowledge, he could just go directly to Congress, ya know. But no, he wanted to hurt the president anonymously.

As a matter of fact, Nixon did not do anything that his Democratic predessors in the previous half century had not also done (well, actually he's an angel compared to FDR). Moreover, he had a moral right to stay until the end of his term. He fully earned it by not challenging JFK's election and various irregularities, like dead people voting in Chicago and throwing Illinois to JFK. Nixon believed he had no right to weaken the country in the middle of the Cold War for the sake of his own ambition. Similarly, undermining the president when the country is in an actual shooting war is really treason, and #2 at FBI should have known that.

For all those who admire Felt I have a simple question: what do you think of Linda Tripp?

Personally, I just feel bad for the guy for getting such a horrible codename.

Seriously, Felt's foremost responsibility was not to Nixon, but to the United States. He leaked the information because he believed it was what was best for the US. That's not just patriotic, it's commendable.

As for blaming him for 9/11...I can't say what I feel about that because the mods would be on me like vultures, so suffice it so say that I hold that opinion in the deepest contempt it is possible for me to feel, and the world would be a better place if certain people of said belief were removed from the equation. However, because I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, feel free to spout your ignorant bullshit nonsense.

I wasn't around for Watergate, but from what I hear most of the people that got in the most trouble for it weren't actually involved in the hotel breakin in any way. (Specifically I refer to the innocence of Nixon, Colson, and their respective staffers.)

As for saying that Felt is responsible for the loss in Vietnam and 9/11... it's remotely possible that if we had had a different line of succession that we wouldn't ever have gotten involved with Osama bin Laden and the Middle East terrorists in the first place. But I think that trying to lay all of those tragedies at the feet of one man who reported a cover-up to the press is laughable.

You know it is nice that he came foreward and set history correct, but after seeing the news and seeing him I dont think it is so much because he wanted folks to know what happened, but to clear his own conscience,
and he knows that he is pretty old and will most likely die soon, and heck what can they do to him now?

This is kinda like a Deathbed confession, to your kid that you are not really his parent and then you die, while he is still in shock about that and by the time he realizes what you said you are dead, and now he has no closure but you got your say in.

Had Mr Felt come foreward about 20 years ago, then perhaps it would have been heroic.

Felt's duty was not to his president, but to his country. Equating the two can lead down a very dangerous road, one that could see the development of a dictatorship-style cult of personality. Exposing Nixon was definitely not treason, in fact, the opposite.

As for blaming him for 9/11 or the Khmer Rouge, or the loss in Vietnam... that's the most ludicrously stupid thing I've heard this week.

Midlands, do you know that George Washington is a traitor? Thomas Jefferson? they betrayed there motherland to do what they knew was right, and so did deepthroat. He freed the united states from a corrupt president. It is thanks to him we didnt lose MORE people in vietnam.

The guy stopped some MASSIVE political corruption. Corruption is a threat to our republic from within. The only "traitors" were Nixon who should have been hung with his ilk.

Mike Felt is a goddamned hero.

Traitor? By definition yes. Did he do the right thing? Given his limited perspective on the issues and areas in question, probably. Was it the best possible solution or end result? Only the winning side writes history.

Sagir, Emperor of Successoria
------------------------------
Perspecitve is all you truly have...until it changes.

You know it is nice that he came foreward and set history correct, but after seeing the news and seeing him I dont think it is so much because he wanted folks to know what happened, but to clear his own conscience,
and he knows that he is pretty old and will most likely die soon, and heck what can they do to him now?

This is kinda like a Deathbed confession, to your kid that you are not really his parent and then you die, while he is still in shock about that and by the time he realizes what you said you are dead, and now he has no closure but you got your say in.

Had Mr Felt come foreward about 20 years ago, then perhaps it would have been heroic.

It could be he simply waited for people to die.

Woodward said they still have info that the public does not know. They are going to wait for people to pass before they release it.

Mr. Felt followed his oath... to support and defend the constitution of the United States

Nixon's campaign broke the law flagrantly by breaking into the Democratic National Headquarters and then compounded it by attempted to bribe the burglars and cover up the entire situation. In short, Nixon's campaign was trying to rig the election, and as the candidate he was ultimately responsible for the actions of his staffers.

How stupid that was is another thread, but in short Nixon won by a landslide because McGovern ran a terribly ineffective campaign but Nixon apparently was too paranoid to realize what an amazingly bad decision was being made.

The "Saturday Night Massacre" when Nixon fired the Archibold Cox and a couple of key members of the Justice Department resigned rather than do so shows how wrong Nixon was (Robert Borke actually did the firing after the two men above him said no)

Mark Felt worked for the FBI, and was not a Presidential appointee, but a long time civil service member with a distinguished record in World War 2 and during the Cold War (and a less distinguished record wiretapping the Weather Underground, but thats another story). The fact that he was willing to break the law (at the time his actions however were not considered a felony if I remember right though) is admirable, and he did his country a service by pointing out to Woodward and Bernstein where to find the evidence that would bring out the truth about what Nixon's office was doing.

I don't blame him for keeping his identity a secret, and its in keeping with his training and history as a counter espionage agent.

Men like him should make all Americans proud. He did what was right.

as far as treason goes... treason is very narrowly and specifically defined in the US constitution. He was not spying for a foriegn power, nor was he attempting to overthrow the government (constitutional government). If anything, he was trying to prevent a President from getting away with tampering with an election. Something that in itself violates the spirit of the Constitution.

That bastard is morally responsible for millions of deaths in Southeast Asia and for 9/11. He broke both the law and his oath. For a very petty reason of having been bypassed for a promotion. If he really felt the urge to share his inside knowledge, he could just go directly to Congress, ya know. But no, he wanted to hurt the president anonymously.

As a matter of fact, Nixon did not do anything that his Democratic predessors in the previous half century had not also done (well, actually he's an angel compared to FDR). Moreover, he had a moral right to stay until the end of his term. He fully earned it by not challenging JFK's election and various irregularities, like dead people voting in Chicago and throwing Illinois to JFK. Nixon believed he had no right to weaken the country in the middle of the Cold War for the sake of his own ambition. Similarly, undermining the president when the country is in an actual shooting war is really treason, and #2 at FBI should have known that.

For all those who admire Felt I have a simple question: what do you think of Linda Tripp?
Somebody's been reading their right-wing talking points, I see. Save it--there are people on the right more worthy of your passion than Richard Effing Nixon. Much as I hate Bush--and I do hate him--even I will argue that Nixon was a greater threat to the republic than Bush is to this day. Now, admittedly, Bush still has three years to try to outdo the man who set the standard, but that's a hell of a legacy to overcome.

That bastard is morally responsible for millions of deaths in Southeast Asia and for 9/11. He broke both the law and his oath. For a very petty reason of having been bypassed for a promotion. If he really felt the urge to share his inside knowledge, he could just go directly to Congress, ya know. But no, he wanted to hurt the president anonymously.

As a matter of fact, Nixon did not do anything that his Democratic predessors in the previous half century had not also done (well, actually he's an angel compared to FDR). Moreover, he had a moral right to stay until the end of his term. He fully earned it by not challenging JFK's election and various irregularities, like dead people voting in Chicago and throwing Illinois to JFK. Nixon believed he had no right to weaken the country in the middle of the Cold War for the sake of his own ambition. Similarly, undermining the president when the country is in an actual shooting war is really treason, and #2 at FBI should have known that.

For all those who admire Felt I have a simple question: what do you think of Linda Tripp?
Nixon had a 'moral right' to stay until the end of his term??? You must have drastically different definitions of 'moral' and 'right' than I do, I honestly don't have a the faintest idea what you mean by this. If a president abuses his power, we have to take it from him to prevent further abuse, that's just plain common sense.

As for Linda Tripp, if you honestly think she's comparable to Felt, I think you're out of your mind, but to be fair I'm guessing that you haven't actually given it much thought and are just repeating what you've heard.

Anyway, I would recommend for your own edification that you try to work out why people think the two are so different, and then once you understand that, you'll be in a good position to agree or disagree rationally.

Is Felt a traitor? Well, maybe by the present "neo-con" and "Pre-Revolutionary" definition of "Treason" used in monarchial regimes.... However, under the US principle of such (as a free republic) he is not.... He in fact is the opposite of it, because he holds his duty to his country as higher than that of even it's own officials.

An executive covering up his own illegal acts, is treason.... An agent, breaking the coverup, is a hero.

Felt's duty was to go before Congress with his concerns. By not doing this, he betrayed his oath.

He is, therefore, a traitor. He didn't fulfill his duty, he merely carried on a private war against an elected President, and all because he didn't get J. Edgar Hoover's job.

An ironic failure, he failed to get Hoover's job, and took his revenge in a way that proved he was unsuitable for it.

"The fact that he was willing to break the law is admirable, and he did his country a service"

No, it isn't, and he didn't.

He made no attempt to resolve this legally, and frankly, if you find it admirable that one of a nation's most senior law enforcement officers broke the law unnecessarily is appalling.

His primary loyality was to the United States of America - not to its president, even though the interest of those two are supposed to be identical. In that respect he was not a traitor to his country.

However, if Disraeliland's statements are accurate, his behaviour and motives were far from noble and ideal. Protocols exist for a reason - *if* he did not observe it he should defend that with a better reason.

Save it--there are people on the right more worthy of your passion than Richard Effing Nixon.

I don't know why, but this sentence cracked me up.

You notice no one had really ever cast Deep Throat in a negative light until he revealed himself?

Think about that. The people going after Felt are only lashing out now because they can.

On the one hand, yeah, it's generally bad form to be so cloak and dagger about these things, this I will concede.

But when the other options are either the perpetuation of the crimes being committed at the highest levels of government, or YOU getting put into a body bag, there's no real question about what should be done, nor about how it should be done.

The only thing that would have made Deep Throat a traitor is if he had done nothing.

from what ive heard which is very little id say traitor.
Who is this Nicson anyways?

Um, I thing of deep throat, and it just reminds me of that crappy porn film and... no, just no. :eek:

"Think about that. The people going after Felt are only lashing out now because they can."

It couldn't possibly be that people are talking about it now because it just Deep Throat's identity just became public. :rolleyes:

"But when the other options are either the perpetuation of the crimes being committed at the highest levels of government, or YOU getting put into a body bag, there's no real question about what should be done, nor about how it should be done."

Nice how you just casually dismiss the very notion that there was something else, something Constitutional he could have done. :rolleyes:

By the way, Milhouse van Houten (from The Simpsons) is named after Nixon (Richard Milhouse Nixon)

It's funny all those Nixonites are crawling out of the woodwork and being nasty since they got caught breaking their own government's laws. They got exposed as the criminals they are.

Not a traitor ... a true patriot, and a courageous one at that.

I second that.

For all those who admire Felt I have a simple question: what do you think of Linda Tripp?

Clinton wasn't an accessory by having an affair. Morally, what Clinton did was rather reprehensible, but that's between him and his wife--not the American public. Nor was it ever against the law. But a ton of our taxpayer dollars went into an investigation that our government had no right to investigate.

Clinton broke a law AFTER Tripp decided to want publicity. It's a completely dissimilar situation from what Nixon was hiding before any kind of investigation.

No, I'm not a big Clinton fan, but infidelity is a far cry from being an accessory to burglary and espionage.

That bastard is morally responsible for millions of deaths in Southeast Asia and for 9/11.
I would like to see the evidence and logic linking Felt to 9-11. This seems like either some incredible leap of logic or some "Six Degrees of Separation" type thing.

mr felt should get a medal of freedom while he is still alive to enjoy the honor

That bastard is morally responsible for millions of deaths in Southeast Asia and for 9/11.


For all those who admire Felt I have a simple question: what do you think of Linda Tripp?
AND NEW COKE! and american idol! and that bastard is responsible for the worst thing that has happened in the past 30 years ... BRITTNEY SPEARS

linda tripp was a tool. im just glad shes not a friend of MINE. with friends like that....

"mr felt should get a medal of freedom while he is still alive to enjoy the honor"

Why? For waging a private war against an elected President who didn't give him the job he wanted?

If he'd gone before Congress with what he knew, acting in accordance with the Constitution he swore to protect and support, I might agree with you.

:sniper: Anti climattic how so i mean this man is a hero and a good man for doing what he did. Im a republican but that shit was bad. :mp5: I think it would have been far more awesome if Ben Stein was deep throat instead of boring ol' W. Mark Felt. I mean, the announcement that it was him is almost anti-climactic.

It should have been someone awesome.

You know, it's interesting, but I recently read that the term "Deep Throat" was taken from a porn movie of that name, and that the star of this movie later wrote a book claiming that she'd had a gun held to her head during the movie, and that people were watching her being raped when they viewed the film. She is considered a traitor to the 'porn industry'...so does "Deep Throat" now mean, "traitor"? And why the heck did they choose that particular name? What were they suggesting?

:upyours: the guys is 93 dam years old tell how he is responsible hmmmm :headbang: That bastard is morally responsible for millions of deaths in Southeast Asia and for 9/11. He broke both the law and his oath. For a very petty reason of having been bypassed for a promotion. If he really felt the urge to share his inside knowledge, he could just go directly to Congress, ya know. But no, he wanted to hurt the president anonymously.

As a matter of fact, Nixon did not do anything that his Democratic predessors in the previous half century had not also done (well, actually he's an angel compared to FDR). Moreover, he had a moral right to stay until the end of his term. He fully earned it by not challenging JFK's election and various irregularities, like dead people voting in Chicago and throwing Illinois to JFK. Nixon believed he had no right to weaken the country in the middle of the Cold War for the sake of his own ambition. Similarly, undermining the president when the country is in an actual shooting war is really treason, and #2 at FBI should have known that.

For all those who admire Felt I have a simple question: what do you think of Linda Tripp?

"mr felt should get a medal of freedom while he is still alive to enjoy the honor"

Why? For waging a private war against an elected President who didn't give him the job he wanted?

If he'd gone before Congress with what he knew, acting in accordance with the Constitution he swore to protect and support, I might agree with you.
No--for exposing a corrupt President and his administration. Why don't you tell the whole story, Disraeliland? About how Nixon had the CIA giving the FBI false leads in the Watergate case in order to throw them off the scent. About how the head of the FBI at the time, Felt's boss, was going along with Nixon because he wanted his position to be made permanent. About how--and this is on tape, by the way--Nixon wanted to bomb the Brookings Institute and find a way to blame it on the left, and was looking into ways to have newspaperman Jack Anderson killed. Add in all the financial corruption while you're at it, and it's a whale of a story--and Nixon damn near got away with it.

Why didn't he? Because Felt did something about it. When his official channels were closed, he found a way to keep the story alive. Sure, he had personal reasons, and he was no saint, as his wiretapping of liberal groups in the early 70s indicates--but in the end, he was a hero, because he did the right thing, and the fact that you so vituperatively defend Richard Nixon shows just how short-sighted and unpatriotic you really are.

"the fact that you so vituperatively defend Richard Nixon shows just how short-sighted and unpatriotic you really are."

Don't be a bonehead, where did I defend Nixon, I am attacking Felt. There's a difference.

"No--for exposing a corrupt President and his administration. Why don't you tell the whole story, Disraeliland? About how Nixon had the CIA giving the FBI false leads in the Watergate case in order to throw them off the scent."

So, why did he not go to Congress, they're supposed to act as a check on the Executive?

"Why didn't he? Because Felt did something about it. When his official channels were closed, he found a way to keep the story alive. Sure, he had personal reasons, and he was no saint, as his wiretapping of liberal groups in the early 70s indicates"

Nope, still unanswered. Why did he not go to Congress?

He tapped Weather Underground, a domestic terrorist group implicated in several atacks, including the murder of police officers.

I'll put this in big letters, for your benefit, since crayon doesn't work over the net:

A law enforcement officer is supposed to remain within the law. He takes an oath to support and defend the constitution. Once he acts outside the law, he becomes the very thing he is out to destroy. Felt's leaking was unjustifiable because he failed to go to Congress with what he knew. If he got no result there, he should have resigned, and then gone to the press.

Snip

I'll put this in big letters, for your benefit, since crayon doesn't work over the net:

A law enforcement officer is supposed to remain within the law. He takes an oath to support and defend the constitution. Once he acts outside the law, he becomes the very thing he is out to destroy. Felt's leaking was unjustifiable because he failed to go to Congress with what he knew. If he got no result there, he should have resigned, and then gone to the press.

Great way to argue … a lighthearted attempt to deride your opponents supposed comprehension and then use massive annoying letters (which the rest of us also have to read) :rolleyes:

Ditto to UT.

I agree that Felt should have gone to congress; there was no call for him sneaking around like that. But all in all, I feel the same way about him that I do about other people who engage in civil disobediance: They should be punished according to the law, and let history judge the rest. And I have a feeling that history will smile on Mark Felt.

At the time Felt did his leaking, Congress wasn't investigating. Hell, most newspapers weren't investigating. Woodward and Bernstein were the only ones on it, and they basically lucked into the story--they were assigned the original break-in story and just kept after it until it exploded into the biggest story of our time, but they had no clue that it was as big as it turned out to be.

So a little historical perspective please--Democrats had control of Congress, but had just taken a massive electoral beating, so they weren't going to be likely to take on Nixon unless they had reason, especially on something like corruption where their hands were hardly the cleanest.

Secondly, Felt was hardly the only source that Woodstein had--he was just the most highly placed. He didn't provide them with a ton of new information, either--he was usually confirmation for other stories that they'd dug up, and told them if they were on the right track or not. Read All the President's Men--the movie is okay, but it's a movie--read the book. It's dry and very detail-oriented, but it's fascinating in its own way.

So did Felt break the law? Sure, the same way that Ellsworth did when he smuggled the Pentagon Papers out and gave them to the Times. But extraordinary times call for extraordinary actions, and Nixon was about as extraordinary as you can get. Felt saved this country by doing what he did, and screaming "traitor" at him only demeans the screamers.

That bastard is morally responsible for millions of deaths in Southeast Asia and for 9/11. He broke both the law and his oath. For a very petty reason of having been bypassed for a promotion. If he really felt the urge to share his inside knowledge, he could just go directly to Congress, ya know. But no, he wanted to hurt the president anonymously.

As a matter of fact, Nixon did not do anything that his Democratic predessors in the previous half century had not also done (well, actually he's an angel compared to FDR). Moreover, he had a moral right to stay until the end of his term. He fully earned it by not challenging JFK's election and various irregularities, like dead people voting in Chicago and throwing Illinois to JFK. Nixon believed he had no right to weaken the country in the middle of the Cold War for the sake of his own ambition. Similarly, undermining the president when the country is in an actual shooting war is really treason, and #2 at FBI should have known that.

For all those who admire Felt I have a simple question: what do you think of Linda Tripp?

Felt was no traitor, nor was Tripp. She was simply classless and on a power trip ... no pun intended. Felt, on the other, pointed out serious violations of the law. It is the responsibility of Americans to watch out for their government when it is in danger of breaking our country's laws. Tripp, on the other, was only out to try to humiliate a president who had sex outside of marriage. There is a difference between breaking and entering which Nixon ordered and simply receiving fellatio.

To say that Felt is responisble for 9/11 is like saying that george W. Hitler Bush was responsible for the Great Depression ... wait a minute, maybe his family did help to orchestrate that to line their wallets with the moneys lost by the working class of this country!

I highly doubt that Nixon would even let Felt get to Congress. The President is a powerful man, and Nixon had a habit of silencing those who went against him. He would have pulled some strings, found out about the wire taps and the personal motives, and used them to cast doubt on his testimony. The Rupublican part of Congress would have denied the claims up and down. By the time Congress sorted through all the junk Nixon would have put on Felt, Nixon would be out of office and gotten away scot-free.

As usual, Tom Tomorrow knocks this story right in the head:

http://salon.com/comics/tomo/2005/06/06/tomo/story.jpg

Does anyone else find it kind of ironic (and hilarious) that the conservatives are lashing out in their usual reactionary style? I guess they got sick of bashing liberals, so now they have a new target. They're like children.

Conservatives are funny to watch.

Take some advice, neo-cons: Keep your collective mouth shut and go back to crying in your beer about whatever other liberal conspiracy Limbaugh tells you about.

That bastard is morally responsible for millions of deaths in Southeast Asia and for 9/11. He broke both the law and his oath. For a very petty reason of having been bypassed for a promotion. If he really felt the urge to share his inside knowledge, he could just go directly to Congress, ya know. But no, he wanted to hurt the president anonymously.

As a matter of fact, Nixon did not do anything that his Democratic predessors in the previous half century had not also done (well, actually he's an angel compared to FDR). Moreover, he had a moral right to stay until the end of his term. He fully earned it by not challenging JFK's election and various irregularities, like dead people voting in Chicago and throwing Illinois to JFK. Nixon believed he had no right to weaken the country in the middle of the Cold War for the sake of his own ambition. Similarly, undermining the president when the country is in an actual shooting war is really treason, and #2 at FBI should have known that.

For all those who admire Felt I have a simple question: what do you think of Linda Tripp?

Well I think the simple fact that Nixon was breaking the law means that he had to go. He stepped beyond the bounds as leader of the nation and turned into a tyrant. The man kept a book of names for fuck sake and people are calling Mark Felt a traitor? Nixon had to go, simple as that.

Does anyone else find it kind of ironic (and hilarious) that the conservatives are lashing out in their usual reactionary style? I guess they got sick of bashing liberals, so now they have a new target. They're like children.

Conservatives are funny to watch.

Take some advice, neo-cons: Keep your collective mouth shut and go back to crying in your beer about whatever other liberal conspiracy Limbaugh tells you about.
While I don’t agree with their viewpoint try to lighten up on the derogatory phrasing
Turning this into the personal detracts from your arguments and your credibility

Earlier in this thread, I suggested that Nixon defenders/Felt smearers ought to look at the historical record on this as to why Felt talked to Woodward (Woodward did initiate contact, it should be noted) instead of going to Congress or a special prosecutor. Well, Media Matters lays the story out there (http://mediamatters.org/items/200506060002), mainly because Bill O'Reilley and Andrew Napolitano got the story all kinds of ass-backwards (as they usually do):
Napolitano initially claimed that Felt should have brought his information on the Watergate scandal to his superiors at the FBI and the Justice Department. But when O'Reilly responded that those superiors, Attorney General John N. Mitchell and FBI acting director L. Patrick Gray, were both Nixon loyalists and that reporting to them could have ruined Felt's career, Napolitano replied that Felt "had a special prosecutor he could have gone to." (In fact, by June 1972 Mitchell had already resigned as attorney general to take over Nixon's re-election campaign, but his successor, Richard G. Kleindienst, would have faced a similar conflict of interest: Kleindienst resigned in May 1973 "because of close ties to individuals implicated in the Watergate inquiry," according to the Post's contemporaneous account.)

But Felt began aiding Woodward months before a special Watergate prosecutor was appointed. Felt began providing Woodward with information two days after the burglary, on June 19, 1972. Assistant U.S. attorney Earl Silbert took charge of the case immediately, but he answered to the attorney general, and Nixon's White House aides monitored him closely. After months of revelations in the Post, with help from Felt, four of Nixon's top aides (including Kleindienst) resigned or were fired on April 30, 1973, and Nixon empowered Kleindienst's replacement, Elliott Richardson, to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Watergate. Cox accepted the position on May 18, 1973; later that year, in an act that became known as the "Saturday Night Massacre," he was fired on Nixon's orders for subpoenaing tapes of important White House conversations. Leon Jaworski was named as Cox's replacement on November 1, 1973 [New York Times Abstracts, 11/2/73].
The linked article has many links to the Washington Post for further backup on the story.

special prosecutor

You've accounted for Special Prosecutors, not Congress.

I highly doubt that Nixon would even let Felt get to Congress. The President is a powerful man, and Nixon had a habit of silencing those who went against him.

Arguments, please. Not Paranoia.

The Rupublican part of Congress would have denied the claims up and down. By the time Congress sorted through all the junk Nixon would have put on Felt, Nixon would be out of office and gotten away scot-free.

Why? I can tell you why they would be against Nixon, since it was he who started talks with Communist China, he who made arms control agreements with the Soviets, and he who started the Environmental Protection Administration.

So a little historical perspective please--Democrats had control of Congress, but had just taken a massive electoral beating, so they weren't going to be likely to take on Nixon unless they had reason, especially on something like corruption where their hands were hardly the cleanest.

So, politicians won't do something hypocritical? Riiight. The Watergate break-in would have had them all over it. How could they not exploit it?

simply receiving fellatio.

Bollocks, KKKlintoon lied under oath to Congress. Besides, if he couldn't uphold an oath to his wife, how could he be expected to uphold an oath to the people of the United States?

Bollocks, KKKlintoon lied under oath to Congress. Besides, if he couldn't uphold an oath to his wife, how could he be expected to uphold an oath to the people of the United States?
The lying was wrong ... but the issue should have never went to trial anyways

I'll just say this as simply as I can.

Deepthroat i5 teh b0m6!

There is my fractured 1337 Speek.

I'll just say this as simply as I can.

Deepthroat i5 teh b0m6!

There is my fractured 1337 Speek.
The more apropreate
15 73h 60/V\6

Arguments, please. Not Paranoia.
I didn't mean killing him or somesuch thing, I mean something along the lines of the Saturday Night Massace Nazz posted above. He would have tried something similar with Felt.

Why? Party loyalty and keeping political power. Having someone of your party as President, especially if the opposing party controls Congress, is too good to lose.

My point still stands that Nixon would bring up the personal motives and destroy Felt's credibility.

Also:KKKlintoon Blow-job + Perjury = White Supremacy? I don't buy it.

Was Felt a traitor? Yes. But so are all Americans, due to the original betrayal of the Founding Fathers. Does treason make it any less heroic? No.

Was Felt a traitor? Yes. But so are all Americans, due to the original betrayal of the Founding Fathers. Does treason make it any less heroic? No.

I think you missed the point of the option, DLE.

I think you missed the point of the option, DLE.

No, I quite got the point. I'm just tired of seeing all of the crap about whether he's a traitor or not and how people are using that to influence their opinion of him. Of course he's a traitor. Hell, if people really wish to execute traitors in America, my best advice for them is to walk into a shopping mall with an AK-47 and start shooting everyone they see*. Then, they can burn the Stars and Stripes, rip up the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and surrender to Britain (as the second attempt, maybe this time the Brits will be smart enough to accept it).

The point is, as someone pointed out earlier, treason isn't necessarily a bad thing. But if you hate treason so badly, remember you're living in a nation founded by traitors.

*This is a sarcastic suggestion. If you are stupid enough to do it, don't come crying to me when your cell mate is trading you for cigarettes and booze. I don't accept responsibility for other people's stupidity.

Blow-job + Perjury = White Supremacy? I don't buy it.

It's voodoo mathematics. :p

Party loyalty and keeping political power. Having someone of your party as President, especially if the opposing party controls Congress, is too good to lose.

My point still stands that Nixon would bring up the personal motives and destroy Felt's credibility.

Your point is untested supposition.

My point is that Felt had to at least try, not merely count the D's and the R's and dismiss it altogether.

Some good advice for mayhem on a cloudy day.

Right. All I was saying was that you don't need to click on the "Traitor" option in order to make your point. It makes the collective forum/thread posters look bad, or at least misinterpret the poll as to say a larger number/percentage of people were dumb enough to decry Deepthroat as a traitor, at least in the conventional colloquial sense of the term.

Actually, I have yet to mark the poll. Most of the time, I find them pointless and easily ignored. In this case, I'm tied due to the damn coin landing on its edge.

I must say that Felt not only did the right thing, but should be held high in America as a hero. Yes, a hero. Nixon was far too powerful as a president, with more time I could see him trying to seek more than two terms in office, which he probably could have gotten away with. Felt did his ultimate duty as a citizen. As it is stated clearly in the constitution the people are to overthrow, or at least put in it's place, the government if it become tyrannical (which is the real reason we have the 2nd amendment). I say we give much praise to Felt, for doing what any true patriot should do in that situation.

"Felt did his ultimate duty as a citizen. As it is stated clearly in the constitution the people are to overthrow, or at least put in it's place, the government if it become tyrannical "

The executive branch became tyrannical, and Felt's duty was clear, to held Congress to check the executive.

He can't just abandon the Constitution because he didn't get Hoover's job.

"Felt did his ultimate duty as a citizen. As it is stated clearly in the constitution the people are to overthrow, or at least put in it's place, the government if it become tyrannical "

The executive branch became tyrannical, and Felt's duty was clear, to held Congress to check the executive.

He can't just abandon the Constitution because he didn't get Hoover's job.

LOL.

I'm not sure what you mean by "to held Congress to check the executive." I can't decipher the typos.

Regardless, please point to the Constitutional provision Felt violated.

This should be fun.

Well being as he leaked information concerning illegal activities, he would be a traitor if he, as a law enforcement agent, didn't disclose the truth.

Treason as defined by the text of the Constitution of the United States of America

"[1] Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

[2] The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=46799

by definition, Felt is not guilty of treason, nor is he a traitor. Technically he broke a law regarding the release of confidential information, but I feel sure the Founding Fathers wouldn't have minded and would certainly have found his actions worthy.

there is nothing about revolution in the Constitution, although Jefferson (who was not present at the convention and did not write it) commented that a revolution now and then is a good thing.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants."

-Thomas Jefferson

Read the Washington Post article about the revelation, he only did what he did because he was passed over for a promotion he thought he deserved and wanted revenge, he could have ratted to the KGB, but instead he talked to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Was he a "hero" or a "heathen" well, his motives were allegedly not pure, and neither were the motives for his coming out pure as he is said to try and garner a book deal from this and get money to send his daughter's child to school. Collect the facts and make your own decision.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots and tyrants."

-Thomas Jefferson

thanks, I was trying to remember the exact wording and couldn't remember it of hand.

Clinton wasn't an accessory by having an affair. Morally, what Clinton did was rather reprehensible, but that's between him and his wife--not the American public. Nor was it ever against the law. But a ton of our taxpayer dollars went into an investigation that our government had no right to investigate.

Clinton broke a law AFTER Tripp decided to want publicity. It's a completely dissimilar situation from what Nixon was hiding before any kind of investigation.

No, I'm not a big Clinton fan, but infidelity is a far cry from being an accessory to burglary and espionage.

You also have no idea as to what you are talking about. You simply parrot nonsense that you have been told. Please go read some history. You will find that Clinton was convicted of perjury and can no longer practice law. (not that he ever could) He lied to a federal judge that he himself appointed to the bench. If that isn't the business of the American People I don't know what could be. It is also a fact that Clinton was under investigation before he ever became president. The result of that was 30 of his associates either pleaded guilty or were convicted of a whole range of assorted crimes. One crime he easily could have been charged for but was not would have been treason when he sold national defense secrets to the china. Lets not forget had it not been for that stupid hillbilly ignoring the first terrorist attacks 3000 people would still be alive today because WTC never would have happened.
Bill and Hillery Clinton are sleezy frauds and no matter how you try and re-write history, that's a pair you can never clean up.

Liverbreath']You also have no idea as to what you are talking about. You simply parrot nonsense that you have been told. Please go read some history. You will find that Clinton was convicted of perjury and can no longer practice law. (not that he ever could) He lied to a federal judge that he himself appointed to the bench. If that isn't the business of the American People I don't know what could be. It is also a fact that Clinton was under investigation before he ever became president. The result of that was 30 of his associates either pleaded guilty or were convicted of a whole range of assorted crimes. One crime he easily could have been charged for but was not would have been treason when he sold national defense secrets to the china. Lets not forget had it not been for that stupid hillbilly ignoring the first terrorist attacks 3000 people would still be alive today because WTC never would have happened.
Bill and Hillery Clinton are sleezy frauds and no matter how you try and re-write history, that's a pair you can never clean up.

except he wasn't disbarred, his license was suspended instead for 5 years.

"On Jan. 19, 2001, the day before he left office, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license and his paying of a $25,000 fine to the Arkansas Bar Association. In exchange, Kenneth Starr's successor, Robert Ray, agreed to close the Whitewater probe, ending the threat of criminal liability for Mr. Clinton after he left office."
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0760626.html

and his popularity was such that he could have given George W. Bush a good fight and possibly have been reelected again in 2000 if the Constitution had allowed him another term.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39a5710670c4.htm
(this from a conservative political organization too)

most Americans didn't feel the way you do and still don't about Clinton

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a393907ac2a8e.htm

So in short, comparing Clinton to Nixon just doesn't work. Clinton still serves the United States as recently as the Tsunami fundraising this year and was appointed by George W. Bush, and serves alongside George H Bush. You certainly have to admit that the friendship between those two men wouldn't occur if George H. Bush thought Clinton was of low moral character.

Nixon was never invited to serve in any official capacity whatsoever after he left office.

Ah, with quotes like these:

Midlands
That bastard is morally responsible for millions of deaths in Southeast Asia and for 9/11.

As a matter of fact, Nixon did not do anything that his Democratic predessors in the previous half century had not also done (well, actually he's an angel compared to FDR). Moreover, he had a moral right to stay until the end of his term. He fully earned it by not challenging JFK's election and various irregularities, like dead people voting in Chicago and throwing Illinois to JFK. Nixon believed he had no right to weaken the country in the middle of the Cold War for the sake of his own ambition. Similarly, undermining the president when the country is in an actual shooting war is really treason, and #2 at FBI should have known that.

and

Disraeliland
A law enforcement officer is supposed to remain within the law. He takes an oath to support and defend the constitution. Once he acts outside the law, he becomes the very thing he is out to destroy. Felt's leaking was unjustifiable because he failed to go to Congress with what he knew. If he got no result there, he should have resigned, and then gone to the press.

John Stuart Mill's statement on conservatives is correct:
Where is it true that not all conservatives are stupid, all stupid people are conservative

I wish they taught people how to think in schools these days, and not just parrot back the braying of talk-show hosts and media pundits

I don't know...I've encountered quite a few fellow liberals whose IQ didn't break the bank.

Read the Washington Post article about the revelation, he only did what he did because he was passed over for a promotion he thought he deserved and wanted revenge, he could have ratted to the KGB, but instead he talked to Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Was he a "hero" or a "heathen" well, his motives were allegedly not pure, and neither were the motives for his coming out pure as he is said to try and garner a book deal from this and get money to send his daughter's child to school. Collect the facts and make your own decision.
I read it--did you? Woodward and Bernstein say that he had personal as well as enough respect for the Constitution to become a source for them. Remember--Woodward approached him first. It's not like Felt went out to spill his guts--he just saw an opportunity and took it, and while his personal animus toward Nixon may have been a factor, it was certainly not the only one.

I don't know...I've encountered quite a few fellow liberals whose IQ didn't break the bank.

People in general are stupid. Intelligence plummits at the age of 20, in America at least. 93% of all americans drop 20-30 IQ points within 3 months of their 21st birthday. It's a proven fact in the USA Today.

*Note-USA Today referring to United Seangolian Arbitrary

Seriously, though. I have no faith in humans. They are stupid.

People in general are stupid. Intelligence plummits at the age of 20, in America at least. 93% of all americans drop 20-30 IQ points within 3 months of their 21st birthday. It's a proven fact in the USA Today.

*Note-USA Today referring to United Seangolian Arbitrary

Seriously, though. I have no faith in humans. They are stupid.
My experience has been that individuals are smart--groups are dumb, and large groups are the dumbest of all. They're scary dumb--voting for Zaphod Beeblebrox dumb.

Treason as defined by the text of the Constitution of the United States of America

"[1] Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

[2] The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted."

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=46799

by definition, Felt is not guilty of treason, nor is he a traitor. Technically he broke a law regarding the release of confidential information, but I feel sure the Founding Fathers wouldn't have minded and would certainly have found his actions worthy.

there is nothing about revolution in the Constitution, although Jefferson (who was not present at the convention and did not write it) commented that a revolution now and then is a good thing.

You're missing several key points:

1. Treason in the U.S. today has a far more expanded definition. It includes espionage and leaking confidential information. This is due in part to people like Nixon and to the Cold War.

2. The Constitution's definition of treason has been openly ignored by the federal government for decades. By this point, it no longer applies.

3. Even if your arguement is right, the fact remains that Felt is still a traitor. You can be a traitor without commiting treason. Many people manage it.

4. The entire United States is not what the Founding Fathers imagined. They wanted a nation that would last and stay true to its morals, eventually straightening out what problems were around in their days. Today, the U.S. is the flagship of corruption, greed, and self-destruction. It is the anaethema of what they invisioned.

You're missing several key points:

1. Treason in the U.S. today has a far more expanded definition. It includes espionage and leaking confidential information. This is due in part to people like Nixon and to the Cold War.

2. The Constitution's definition of treason has been openly ignored by the federal government for decades. By this point, it no longer applies.

3. Even if your arguement is right, the fact remains that Felt is still a traitor. You can be a traitor without commiting treason. Many people manage it.

4. The entire United States is not what the Founding Fathers imagined. They wanted a nation that would last and stay true to its morals, eventually straightening out what problems were around in their days. Today, the U.S. is the flagship of corruption, greed, and self-destruction. It is the anaethema of what they invisioned.

Espionage is a federal crime, but it is not treason unless during time of war (which is covered specifically in the Constitution).

As far as being a traitor goes... without committing treason? How do you figure? In this country we get to disagree, its enshrined in that exact same Constitution you think we ignore. While I agree the Republic isn't exactly as the Founders envisioned it, I don't feel we are a flagship of corruption, greed or self destruction either. Maybe you should get out more and meet people. Most Americans are pretty good people just making a living, voting, raising their kids the best they can and dealing with the constantly changing world. Hardly corrupt or self destructive.

Although most of them should really vote more.

Espionage is a federal crime, but it is not treason unless during time of war (which is covered specifically in the Constitution).

And yet, the ones who commit it even during peace and get caught are sometimes charged with treason. Don't you find that odd?

As far as being a traitor goes... without committing treason? How do you figure? In this country we get to disagree, its enshrined in that exact same Constitution you think we ignore. While I agree the Republic isn't exactly as the Founders envisioned it, I don't feel we are a flagship of corruption, greed or self destruction either. Maybe you should get out more and meet people. Most Americans are pretty good people just making a living, voting, raising their kids the best they can and dealing with the constantly changing world. Hardly corrupt or self destructive.

The moment you betray anything, you are a traitor. A simple fact of life. Whether or not you did the right thing is another matter. Treason is only commited against governments or nations, but betrayal can be commited against anyone or anything, including yourself. So many fall by the wayside because they do not recognize that.

The reason why the U.S. is the flagship of corruption is simple: It's the most visible and the most arrogant, which makes it the most obvious. It is visibility that determines the flagship.

We're not ignoring the entirety of the Constitution, but that is not as far away as you would think. The fact is that every day the U.S. struggles, internally, to balance the ideals it once had, the wealth and power it now has, and the ambition it wishes to fulfill. Some ideals are sacrificed, some wealth and power lost, and some ambition doomed to be unfulfilled.

Although most of them should really vote more.

Why? The Founding Fathers never trusted the American people, even back in their time. They founded the Electoral College and purposefully set it up so that the only people directly elected were the House of Representatives. Do you think the people have honestly changed in a measly two centuries?

I' m sure its been said before but, your options ain't the best.

Where is the, "He is a criminal but not a traitor."