Foxes Deplore Henhouse Expose by Deep Beak
Josh asks the right rhetorical question. The newspapers' recourse to commentary by Charles Colson, Pat Buchanan & Co. on the Mark Felt revelation--and not so much, say, former Nixonian whistleblower John Dean, and not at all former Watergate committee staffer Hillary Rodham Clinton or former committee members like Elizabeth Holtzman (so far as I can see)--tells us who the established media think are the significant players in Watergate. It was left to Larry King to prompt a reaction from Bill Clinton.
Part of what's going on, I'm sure, is the conventional journalistic assumption that the parties worth hearing from are fellow insiders--even (or especially?) when they're dropping such pearls as this one from Colson (on Nightline): Felt "was a man that I would never have expected to be sneaking around in dark alleys at night, passing out information to reporters." But another part may be a lazy forgetting of the magnitude of the rackets going on in Nixon's White House. That the White House was a center of criminal conspiracies may somehow feel embarrassing in today's climate. The exposure of the crimes has lost some of its glamor as a pinnacle moment in the history of American journalism. More's the pity.
Do you have the reaction? =)
June 1, 2005 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
As usual, he finds a middle ground between condemning those who leak and those who blindly follow the administration. Ah, gotta love the Big Dog.
KING: What do you make of the Mark Felt story? Is he an American hero?
CLINTON: I think he did a good thing. And I think it's -- it was an unusual circumstance. I think Felt believed that there was the chance that this whole thing would be covered up. Ordinarily, I think a law enforcement official shouldn't be leaking to the press because you should let criminal action take its course.
When he did that, he obviously believed there was a chance that the thing would be covered up. And there was some evidence -- we now know that there was also a problem with trying to use the FBI, and the IRS, and other agencies of the federal government for political purposes back then. So there's some reason to believe he was right.
I don't think that -- he always felt ambivalent about it, apparently. And I think that's good. Because, on balance, you don't want law enforcement officials leaking to the press, even the truth, much less some vendetta or something that's not true. But under these circumstances, I think he did the right thing.
KING: You think it's good that it came out now?
CLINTON: Yes, sure, while he's alive. I just think -- you know, apparently his family encouraged him to do it. I'm just reading between the lines, but he looked pretty sprightly and pretty spiffy there, you know, at 91.
KING: Did you used to think about, who was Deep Throat?
CLINTON: Sure, I did. For a long time, I figured it must have been somebody that worked in the executive office complex, you know? I really had no idea. But apparently, according to the article, there were people in the Nixon White House that figured out it was probably him...
KING: Yes.
CLINTON: ... which I thought was interesting. I had not...
KING: On one of the tapes, I think Haldeman says...
CLINTON: Yes, I never had any idea that they knew that much about it, but it was interesting.
June 1, 2005 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
JS taskles this very subject in tonights Daily Show.
Video can be found here.
June 1, 2005 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
To the extent that activity that is harmful to our nation has been undertaken by persons in and out of government service, then and now, don't vary too differently.
What has changed from then to now is a passive acceptance of watered down ethical standards that permits all manner of collusion to go unchecked. The legal maneuverings proclaiming that no laws have been broken in so many circumstances establishes clear precedent for a rigorous overhaul of laws defining permissible associations between our elected officials and the private sector. Influencing legislation from the private sector side has served, as a practical result, to corrupt congress and the legislative process. Even within government we have an executive and legislative branch that generally act as one rather than as independent branches. And it is ludicrous to hear arguments that support the notion of party politics permitting this and ignores the constitutional aspects of separation of powers.
Nobody will publicly admit to the degree that this has grown wildly out of control but I am sure privately that many a discussion has covered the topic in detail. Considering the overall impact of events then and now I suspect the present day circumstances are of greater consequence.
The end result is today we have a government that has become more dysfunctional relative to the constitutional model as originally devised. And the state of that dysfunction has become fully incorporated across the entire federal bureaucracy thus compromising every facet of governance. Political, social and religious ideologies have displaced a common sense practical approach to what is actually good for the country. We have come to think with our hearts rather than our heads and this appeal most typically defies any chance of arriving at logical conclusions to problems.
thepeoplechoose
June 2, 2005 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Wategate apologists' slurring and smearing of Mark Felt is just the latest victory for those who would undo our society's acheivements over the last 100 years. I suppose at some point we'll be treated to a Cato Institute report explaining that Nixon got a bad rap on Watergate, that he didn't do half the things Johnson did, and that we should rename LAX "Nixon Liberty Airport" or some such nonsense.
And then we'll find out from the Heritage Foundation that FDR was a terrible rapscallion and that Manhattan's East River Highway should be renamed the "w."
Sheesh.
Felt's a hero, plain and simple. The executive had corrupted the ordinary law enforcement processes, so extraordinary action was necessary and under the circumstances heroic. End of story. There is no "countervailing" point of view.
June 2, 2005 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever is "good television," no matter how one-sided or misleading, is what tends to be presented. What Colson and Liddy have to say is "interesting," while historians or people who actually worked on the investigatory side of things are wonks who can only say what we already know, or otherwise bore us with useless facts. News has always had a certain element of this, but it seems to have gotten a lot worse over the past decade or so.
June 2, 2005 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
In most cases where law enforcement leaks to the media the goal is to either smear someone who will never be charged as in
Or they are attempting to dirty up someone with facts that they can't use at trial as in
Or they are attempting to just try a weak case in the press
In all these sorts examples which we see every day the motive of the leak is to do something that is improper. But follow the motive -- when the purpose of the leak is to prevent the course of justice from being obstructed by politicians we first need to focus on that problem and whether it really existed. Unless the motive is discussed and the exact nature of problem law enforcement faced in dealing with a President willing to use the CIA to obstruct a criminal investigation, we can't really put what Felt did it the context needed to contrast it with the sorts of abuses we see every day.
But the idea that an American president might misuse his powers to lie, and to cover up past lies, to the American people is not something that the main stream media feels comfortable with these days. I think we all know why.
June 2, 2005 4:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
People generally explain a lot of stupid, unbalanced, and uninformative coverage this way. Clinton's "scandals" were sexy, while Bush's are not. I don't buy it for 2 reasons:(1) Most of the T.V. media's news and political coverage is boring. I certainly can't watch it, and I can watch 6 straight hours of Law and Order. Now, partially that's because I disagree with the people on T.V., but even when I don't, it's just boring. (2) Interesting stories are often not covered, and stories that aren't all that interesting are. I'm not sure why the "Gay Hooker in the White House Press Corps" hasn't been a "sexier" story, but it hasn't. To sum, I don't think the "sexy" or "interesting" is the defining issue in what gets covered - or more accurately, isn't the only issue. Personally, I think it reflects the Control over the Networks by their advertisers and owners. Not sure that's true, but it seems to make more sense. It also certainly explains the Fox phenomonum, so why can't it explain all the others too?
June 2, 2005 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
They are. And it is ok to give us "interesting" things, but they need to be presented in context.
A good example of doing this was yesterday when Al Franken on his Air America radio program had a unique mutual radio interview with his "friend" Liddy (to whom Al tells us he is so close he gets to call him "Gee"). Liddy was also on his show live and after some small talk including giving Liddy a chance to impugn the motives of Felt, and his children, and his grand children, Al asked in his inimitable deadpan way:
To which Liddy replied, as though it was a totally serious question, "Oh no, not him".
I think that putting things in this sort of context lets us hear such people's "interesting" comments while reminding those of us, who may not remember, exactly what their in this were.
June 2, 2005 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't watched this on TV, but it sounds like we are witnessing some serious tampering with the historical record by clowns like Colson and the talking heads. Did they not listen to the Nixon tapes? Do they not recall the utter corruption in that White House with regards to the FBI? Just sad...
June 2, 2005 5:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quoted from above ... "But the idea that an American president might misuse his powers to lie, and to cover up past lies, to the American people is not something that the main stream media feels comfortable with these days. I think we all know why."
Perhaps it's because I'm in Atlanta and out of the Washington-New York loop, but I honestly don't understand why main stream media has not been vigorous in presenting the truth about George W. Bush and his cronies. I puzzled over this during the 2000 election and have been puzzling ever since. Can someone lay it out for me in plain English?
June 2, 2005 5:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bob Woodward has just published in the Washington Post an account of how the FBI's #2 man Mark Felt became Deep Throat. A key sound bite from Woodward's account, "There is little doubt Felt thought the Nixon team were Nazis."
For more on the demonization of Mark Felt by both Nixon and Bush apologists, see "Gagging on Deep Throat."
June 2, 2005 5:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's important to remind everyone that the mass-media self-congratulation over the most anonymous source in US history is at least partly motivated by a desire to whitewash Bob Novak and the concept of anonymous sourcing in the Valerie Plame leak. It's not just Nixon apologists.
Let's highlight the contrast: Mark Felt used his anonymity to bring to light criminal misdeeds on the part of the executive branch. The unknown traitor in the Plame cause used anonymity to commit a crime on behalf of the executive branch.
June 2, 2005 5:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just now on c-span Colson actually said (paraphrased) that if Felt has just walked into the WH and told "those guys" what he knew...why, he (Colsen) would have walked into the Oval Office and said "We'd better stop this they have the goods on us!"...demonstrating once again how the Republican wingnut mind works. The good news here might be that we only have to pray for ONE good guy out there who will walk into the WH with "the good" on this bunch! 'Cuse then, of course, they will STOP!
June 2, 2005 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
One word: Newsweek
One name: Helen Thomas
One acronym: CBS
One joke: Jeff Gannon
These are only a few examples the White House made, slapping down the press to prevent them from getting too uppity. <i> "No White House Press Gaggle for you!!"</i> if you don't toe the party line. A plague of right-wing blog locusts will descend upon you if you dare question the White House or the RNC. Or labeling/libeling as an <i>"anti-American treasonous traitor",</i> followed by a boycott by fundamentalist religious groups.
Seems incredibly obvious to me why the corporate-owned profit-motivated press in this country doesn't pursue the truth about this administration.
June 2, 2005 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Felt's a hero, plain and simple.
He doesn't have to be a hero for us to admire and appreciate what he did. Even if he was just protecting his parochial interests, the checks and balances in our government worked.
The scary thing about the modern conservative ideology is that they've got so many people marching to the beat of Grover Norquist, or whoever it is in the smoke-filled room. As Josh has pointed out on TPM, the parliamentarization over which Bush has presided has had many Republicans shelving their party loyalties. Maybe we're coming back now to a time when today's Mark Felts will be more self-interested. More questions about this here.
June 2, 2005 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Todd, mystery masters advisee here, though you probably know who it is…
Re: Buchanan, Colson, et al. Isn't this just an opportunity for all too predictable historical revisionism?
The thing about Buchanan, Colson, and other avatars of right-wing discourse, is that they will use any news event, revelation or other item, as an opportunity for spin. In this particular case, Buchanan and Colson are using Felt’s unmasking as cover to misconstrue what transpired during the Watergate years.
As someone pointed out on the letters page of the Times today, the notion that Felt could have worked within a system corrupted by an Administration to address a mounting Constitutional crisis created by that same Administration is laughable.
Sure, Felt had a personal beef with Nixon. True, his hands are dirty from his complicity in the illegal wire-tapping of the Weather Underground investigation. And yes, his family stands to gain from the disclosure of his identity.
But let us not allow these facts to obscure the big picture here. With his career and most likely his freedom at stake, Felt performed one of the most essential functions a citizen can perform in a democracy: whistle-blower. Like Ellsberg and others over the years, Felt pulled back the curtain on how things really work in government; exposing all of the dirty and occasionally criminal activities that characterized a rotten administration.
Without people like Felt, Buchanan might be living in his ideal America, but it is not an America that I nor most of the people I know aspire to live in. Loyalty to a President does not trump a citizen’s duty to his fellow citizens. How long will it be until we finally learn that Presidents are NOT above the Constitution?
It was interesting to watch Myers and Rumsfeld address Deep Throat at their presser yesterday. When asked whether they viewed Felt’s actions as patriotic, Rumsfeld responded that wrongdoing must be reported to the Justice Dept. Myers went on to suggest that it would be easy for an employee of the Defense Dept. to notify the proper authorities of internal wrongdoing, citing various “hotlines,” and other methods that employees can use to report wrongdoing.
One can imagine an exchange between Mark Felt and a “whistleblower service representative” at the Justice Dept.
[Automated Voice: This call will be recorded for quality assurance purposes.]
WSR: Good morning! Thanks for calling the Justice Dept. whistleblower hotline, my name is Julie, how can I help you today?
MF: Uh, yeah, um, I’m an uh, employee of the Justice Dept. and I’ve got some, um, wrongdoing to report.
WSR: Yes of course, sir. May I have your full name, social security, employee number and pin please?
MF: Um, I’m not sure if I feel comfortable giving you that information, I kind of just want to report the wrongdoing and hang up.
WSR: [Pause….]Um, yes sir, in that case you will have to fill out our anonymous whistleblower application, notarize it, and file it in triplicate with the person you are complaining about, the Sec Def’s office, and the Attorney General. What is the nature of your complaint exactly sir?
MF: Yeah, um, it’s a complex criminal conspiracy undertaken by the White House, the Attorney General, the head of the FBI, and members of the CIA to cover up the President’s efforts to silence the FBI’s own investigation into the Watergate break-in.
WSR: [Long pause……] Is this a crank call, because if it is then..
MF: [Interrupting] Listen lady, the President is using campaign contributions to spy on the opposition and is now conspiring to cover it up with the complicity of the Attorney General and the CIA. This is serious business
WSR: Um sir, this is the Justice Dept. help-line. We usually deal with employees who are reporting that the GSA is violating policy by refusing to stock the 5th floor bathrooms in the Pentagon with two-ply toilet paper; or that someone has “appropriated” a cabinet level parking space at the Ronald Reagan building. We usually don’t deal with stuff like…
MF: [Interrupting…] Look lady, we’re on the verge of a constitutional crisis here! Where are you anyway?
WSR: A call center in Bangalore.
MF: Your name isn’t Judy, is it?
WSR: No. It’s Jasminder.
MF: [Mutters…] Unbelievable. Anyway, look, I just wanted to alert the Justice Dept. that there is this major criminal conspiracy going on that reaches the top levels of our government!
WSR: Right. I see. [Pause….] Uh, sir, I’m going to have you speak to my supervisor.
MF: Look I gotta go, just follow the money, follow the money!
[Click…..]
WSR: [In background…] He hung up! Get a trace, get a trace!
--
June 2, 2005 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
ARE WE TO BELIEVE THAT NOW THAT THESE TWO GENTLEMEN HAVE BEEN TO JAIL AND NOW ARE RADIO COMMENTARIES THAT THE WAY TO CLIMB THE CORORATE LADDER NOWDAYS IS BY WAY OF THE ELITE JAIL SUPPER CLUB
June 2, 2005 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mystery man: Of course the criminals and cover-up artists, their apologists, fellow travelers, and crackpot fan clubs have crawled out of their caves to stand history on its head. They have a stake in clearing their own resumés. What's stupendous is two things: first, that so-called serious journalists are so fascinated by their reactions; and second, that the criminals and their fan clubs are so drunk on the prospect of retroactive vindication that they will concoct the most original and outlandish claims--viz., Peggy Noonan's staggering assertion that Felt and Woodward abetted genocide. Coming next: Woodward, Bernstein, Bradlee & Co. are responsible for the failure of Social Security privatization! And then: Sy Hersh recruited Mohammed Atta!! You heard it here first.
June 3, 2005 3:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose one positive that might come from the Felt disclosure and the resulting pathetic attempts to rewrite history on the part of some Nixon apologists, is that reasonable people will see how base, opportunistic and disingenuous such claims are.
When Buchanan and Colson make such assertions, my feeling is that reasonable people listen and think, “You have got to be kidding me.” It’s just utter bullshit.
The point is, the more the right tries to pull stunts like Schiavo, the nuclear option, and now The Great Mark Felt Revision, the more it marginalizes itself; the more it caters to that radical minority it erroneously believes will perpetuate its power, the smaller that minority becomes. Serious Americans do not tolerate such drivel; and the GOP is going to pay at a ballot box near you soon.
When historians look back at the Spring of 2005, many will say, “It was close, but patriots saved the Republic then.” It’s amazing that we have to devote so much energy toward actually preserving this country, when what we should be expending our energy doing is substantive public policy. What a waste of time. In that spirit, for more on this, http://theforcerecon.blogspot.com/2005/06/red-america-one-party-dominance.html" target="_blank">please see this site.
So now I’m done with the Felt business. Back to work.
Looking forward to reading your comments on my paper.
June 3, 2005 7:23 AM | Reply | Permalink