Full Version: Does Charles Colson get it?
Well, I for one am still floored that W. Mark Felt admitted to being the infamous "deep throat." While it is now undeniable that he is "deep throat" and Woodward and the Washington Post have admitted as such, I would like to branch out from this topic to a different tangent. Kudos to Daffygirl 
for bringing up the "deep throat" topic which can be found here.
The reaction to Felt's admission has been one of mostly shock, but I was somewhat amused at the reaction of convicted Watergate party Charles Colson. In a Washington Post entitled: Contemporaries have mixed views, Post writer Dan Morgan explained Colson's view:
Questions for debate:
1.)Was Felt irresponsible for talking to Woodward and Bernstein?
2.)Was this truly a minor episode like other events that get blabbed to the press? Should Felt have kept his feelings to himself or run it up to the chain of command?
3.)Does Colson unduly minimize the gravity of an event such as a sitting president and his closest aids willfully obstructing justice?
Now I have a feeling that reaction to Colson's comments will mostly fall along partisan lines, though let me remind our GOP friends here at A.D. First, Nixon created the EPA. Second, he instituted price controls and freezes-very un-laissez-faire of him. Lastly, William F. Buckley jr. detested Nixon and held meetings to try and steer the party more to the right.
for bringing up the "deep throat" topic which can be found here.The reaction to Felt's admission has been one of mostly shock, but I was somewhat amused at the reaction of convicted Watergate party Charles Colson. In a Washington Post entitled: Contemporaries have mixed views, Post writer Dan Morgan explained Colson's view:
QUOTE
But Charles W. Colson, a senior Nixon adviser who served seven months in prison for obstruction of justice in connection with Watergate abuses, declared that he was "personally shocked."
"When any president has to worry whether the deputy director of the FBI is sneaking around in dark corridors peddling information in the middle of the night, he's in trouble," said Colson, who founded Prison Fellowship Ministries after leaving jail. "There were times when I should have blown the whistle, so I understand his feelings. But I cannot approve of his methods."
"When any president has to worry whether the deputy director of the FBI is sneaking around in dark corridors peddling information in the middle of the night, he's in trouble," said Colson, who founded Prison Fellowship Ministries after leaving jail. "There were times when I should have blown the whistle, so I understand his feelings. But I cannot approve of his methods."
Questions for debate:
1.)Was Felt irresponsible for talking to Woodward and Bernstein?
2.)Was this truly a minor episode like other events that get blabbed to the press? Should Felt have kept his feelings to himself or run it up to the chain of command?
3.)Does Colson unduly minimize the gravity of an event such as a sitting president and his closest aids willfully obstructing justice?
Now I have a feeling that reaction to Colson's comments will mostly fall along partisan lines, though let me remind our GOP friends here at A.D. First, Nixon created the EPA. Second, he instituted price controls and freezes-very un-laissez-faire of him. Lastly, William F. Buckley jr. detested Nixon and held meetings to try and steer the party more to the right.
I don't know why you'd think this would be somehow partisan. I don't know many Republicans who will defend Nixon's actions (and those of CREEP) simply because he was a Republican. He did do many things besides Watergate which certainly helped the country (opening relations with China, ending the draft and the Vietnam war, the EPA, etc.). He certainly had his failures as well.
1.)Was Felt irresponsible for talking to Woodward and Bernstein?
There will always be some who question the decision of someone who decides to become a "whistle blower". It's inevitable. There is a certain feeling of betrayal involved. What we must do is to look beyond the short term betrayal and see the long term good. Being a whistle blower is not irresponsible.
In this case, what seems to be shocking is how high up the chain of command Felt was. In those types of cases, there is a certain expectation of trust. However, those that abuse public power should be exposed.
2.)Was this truly a minor episode like other events that get blabbed to the press? Should Felt have kept his feelings to himself or run it up to the chain of command?
Felt did the right thing.
3.)Does Colson unduly minimize the gravity of an event such as a sitting president and his closest aids willfully obstructing justice?
Colson's comments were about Felt. I don't really see anything about minimizing the gravity of the Watergate scandal itself. He questions how Felt did it, but not the fact that he did do it.
1.)Was Felt irresponsible for talking to Woodward and Bernstein?
There will always be some who question the decision of someone who decides to become a "whistle blower". It's inevitable. There is a certain feeling of betrayal involved. What we must do is to look beyond the short term betrayal and see the long term good. Being a whistle blower is not irresponsible.
In this case, what seems to be shocking is how high up the chain of command Felt was. In those types of cases, there is a certain expectation of trust. However, those that abuse public power should be exposed.
2.)Was this truly a minor episode like other events that get blabbed to the press? Should Felt have kept his feelings to himself or run it up to the chain of command?
Felt did the right thing.
3.)Does Colson unduly minimize the gravity of an event such as a sitting president and his closest aids willfully obstructing justice?
Colson's comments were about Felt. I don't really see anything about minimizing the gravity of the Watergate scandal itself. He questions how Felt did it, but not the fact that he did do it.
1.)Was Felt irresponsible for talking to Woodward and Bernstein?
Irresponsible? Not at all. As was noted further into the story you quote, the FBI director, Gray, was apparently in on the Watergate coverup as well feeding information to Nixon, and possibly destroying documents. If it hadn't been for Felt giving information to Woodward and Bernstein to follow up on and report, the story would have never gained legs. An administration would have gotten away with major crimes.
2.)Was this truly a minor episode like other events that get blabbed to the press? Should Felt have kept his feelings to himself or run it up to the chain of command?
As noted above, Felt really had no place else to go with his information, than to a newspaper, as everyone else in government around him seemed to be in on the conspiracy. Running it up the chain of command would have gotten him fired, or arrested.
3.)Does Colson unduly minimize the gravity of an event such as a sitting president and his closest aids willfully obstructing justice?
I'm not sure he's minimizing the event, so much, as trying to paint Felt as the bad guy in all of this. Not that he's the only one. Convicted conspirator G. Gordon Liddy, on CNN yeasterday, said that Felt was a criminal who should stand trial for revealing confidential investigative information to a newspaper. Pat Buchanan, probably still upset because Nixon's resignation cost him a cushy job, called Felt a "traitor".
So, to answer the question in your topic title as well, no, I don't think they get it at all. It's been 30 years, and these guys still don't think they were doing anything wrong.
Felt may have been breaking the law to pass this information to the public, but I think his actions far and away were better for the country in the long run.
Irresponsible? Not at all. As was noted further into the story you quote, the FBI director, Gray, was apparently in on the Watergate coverup as well feeding information to Nixon, and possibly destroying documents. If it hadn't been for Felt giving information to Woodward and Bernstein to follow up on and report, the story would have never gained legs. An administration would have gotten away with major crimes.
2.)Was this truly a minor episode like other events that get blabbed to the press? Should Felt have kept his feelings to himself or run it up to the chain of command?
As noted above, Felt really had no place else to go with his information, than to a newspaper, as everyone else in government around him seemed to be in on the conspiracy. Running it up the chain of command would have gotten him fired, or arrested.
3.)Does Colson unduly minimize the gravity of an event such as a sitting president and his closest aids willfully obstructing justice?
I'm not sure he's minimizing the event, so much, as trying to paint Felt as the bad guy in all of this. Not that he's the only one. Convicted conspirator G. Gordon Liddy, on CNN yeasterday, said that Felt was a criminal who should stand trial for revealing confidential investigative information to a newspaper. Pat Buchanan, probably still upset because Nixon's resignation cost him a cushy job, called Felt a "traitor".
So, to answer the question in your topic title as well, no, I don't think they get it at all. It's been 30 years, and these guys still don't think they were doing anything wrong.
Felt may have been breaking the law to pass this information to the public, but I think his actions far and away were better for the country in the long run.
1.)Was Felt irresponsible for talking to Woodward and Bernstein?
On the contrary, Mr. Felt was the only member of the Nixon administration who honored his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
2.)Was this truly a minor episode like other events that get blabbed to the press? Should Felt have kept his feelings to himself or run it up to the chain of command?
Mr. Felt's duty was to the Constitution. Keeping it to himself or running it up the chain of command would have abetted the continuing conspiracy. His only proper option was revealing it to the public.
3.)Does Colson unduly minimize the gravity of an event such as a sitting president and his closest aids willfully obstructing justice?
Mr. Colson is in violation of his duty as a citizen to uphold the Constitution. The President committed a crime; Mr. Colson continues to denounce the actions that were part of the justice system that addressed that crime.
Messrs Colson, G. Gordon Liddy, and Pat Buchanan reveal their antipatriotism through their condemnations of Mr. Felt. Clearly, their only notion of loyalty is to the man, not the Constitution. Ours is supposed to be a government of laws, not of men, yet these gentlemen condemn Mr. Felt for his loyalty to the Constitution. They are not traitors, but they are unAmerican in the most important sense.
It is sad that so many Americans have lost sight of the fundamentals. We pledge allegiance to the flag, not the Constitution. The flag is merely a colored bit of cloth; it means nothing. The Constitution is the very essence of America, yet we give it short shrift in our public declarations of patriotism.
On the contrary, Mr. Felt was the only member of the Nixon administration who honored his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
2.)Was this truly a minor episode like other events that get blabbed to the press? Should Felt have kept his feelings to himself or run it up to the chain of command?
Mr. Felt's duty was to the Constitution. Keeping it to himself or running it up the chain of command would have abetted the continuing conspiracy. His only proper option was revealing it to the public.
3.)Does Colson unduly minimize the gravity of an event such as a sitting president and his closest aids willfully obstructing justice?
Mr. Colson is in violation of his duty as a citizen to uphold the Constitution. The President committed a crime; Mr. Colson continues to denounce the actions that were part of the justice system that addressed that crime.
Messrs Colson, G. Gordon Liddy, and Pat Buchanan reveal their antipatriotism through their condemnations of Mr. Felt. Clearly, their only notion of loyalty is to the man, not the Constitution. Ours is supposed to be a government of laws, not of men, yet these gentlemen condemn Mr. Felt for his loyalty to the Constitution. They are not traitors, but they are unAmerican in the most important sense.
It is sad that so many Americans have lost sight of the fundamentals. We pledge allegiance to the flag, not the Constitution. The flag is merely a colored bit of cloth; it means nothing. The Constitution is the very essence of America, yet we give it short shrift in our public declarations of patriotism.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Jun 1 2005, 06:40 AM)
QUOTE
But Charles W. Colson, a senior Nixon adviser who served seven months in prison for obstruction of justice in connection with Watergate abuses, declared that he was "personally shocked."
"When any president has to worry whether the deputy director of the FBI is sneaking around in dark corridors peddling information in the middle of the night, he's in trouble," said Colson, who founded Prison Fellowship Ministries after leaving jail. "There were times when I should have blown the whistle, so I understand his feelings. But I cannot approve of his methods."
"When any president has to worry whether the deputy director of the FBI is sneaking around in dark corridors peddling information in the middle of the night, he's in trouble," said Colson, who founded Prison Fellowship Ministries after leaving jail. "There were times when I should have blown the whistle, so I understand his feelings. But I cannot approve of his methods."
First, let me say that I agree with Mr. Colson....and President that has to worry about such things is in trouble. Not for the sneaking, but for doing something that needs to be uncovered. Interesting that he then goes on to say that he himself should have blown the whistle...sounds like throat envy to me (at the risk of being far too graphic
).Questions for debate:
1.)Was Felt irresponsible for talking to Woodward and Bernstein?
That would depend on what other avenues were open to him. I'm fairly confident the other avenues were considered, and rejected for reasons that at least seemed plausible at the time. So, I think it was a prudent decision....clearly it was not one that was made for any personal gain.
2.)Was this truly a minor episode like other events that get blabbed to the press? Should Felt have kept his feelings to himself or run it up to the chain of command?
Who exactly would have been the 'chain of command'? Wasn't he number 2 in the FBI at the time? Given what was going on, how could he have been sure number 1 wasn't in on it? As number 2 in the FBI, wouldn't it also have been his sworn duty to do something if he found something illegal going on?
3.)Does Colson unduly minimize the gravity of an event such as a sitting president and his closest aids willfully obstructing justice?
Colson doesn't matter enough in this at this time to minimize the gravity of anything. This is just political spin....it would only be surprising if it wasn't happening. He would certainly not be alone in those who have minimized a sitting president and his aides willfully obstructing justice in recent times...but that is something for other threads, and has been duly discussed. It is worth noting the Nixon's own party pretty much turned on him (so I think your fears of partisanship were misplaced)...which never did happen in the other case. The conclusions that could be drawn from that are also the makings of another topic...
Thanks, nebraska29, for starting this topic!! 
1.)Was Felt irresponsible for talking to Woodward and Bernstein?
I don’t believe so. In the early 70’s, being what we now call a “whistleblower” would have been more likely to get you fired, blackballed and a plethora of other unpleasant things, depending on your position and how damaging your information was. The very people who should have prevented crimes like Watergate were responsible for them; who was Felt supposed to go to – his boss, who was hip deep in the whole mess with Nixon? The CIA, who was in Nixon’s pocket?
I find it funnier than hell that Liddy, of all people, has the nerve to criticize Felt for his actions as Deep Throat. And Pat Buchanan calls him a traitor.
Wow. Just…wow.
I think it’s sobering to realize that a whistleblower and a newspaper reporter today probably wouldn’t have the courage to investigate something as explosive as Watergate was in the 70’s.
2.)Was this truly a minor episode like other events that get blabbed to the press? Should Felt have kept his feelings to himself or run it up to the chain of command?
A sitting president abusing his power and authority is hardly minor. As for Felt keeping it to himself? Like I said above, he would have been the scapegoat, the sacrificial lamb, take your pick. Nixon and his cronies would have found a way to flip the blame around and ruin this man’s life. It wasn’t until the mid-80s when organizations began to form protecting whistleblowers from retaliatory actions. I don’t imagine it ever would have happened if not for the courageous actions of people like Mark Felt, who literally brought down a crooked president.
3.)Does Colson unduly minimize the gravity of an event such as a sitting president and his closest aids willfully obstructing justice?
Definitely. Failure to report a crime is a crime.
1.)Was Felt irresponsible for talking to Woodward and Bernstein?
I don’t believe so. In the early 70’s, being what we now call a “whistleblower” would have been more likely to get you fired, blackballed and a plethora of other unpleasant things, depending on your position and how damaging your information was. The very people who should have prevented crimes like Watergate were responsible for them; who was Felt supposed to go to – his boss, who was hip deep in the whole mess with Nixon? The CIA, who was in Nixon’s pocket?
I find it funnier than hell that Liddy, of all people, has the nerve to criticize Felt for his actions as Deep Throat. And Pat Buchanan calls him a traitor.
QUOTE
G. Gordon Liddy, a Nixon operative who engineered the 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Campaign headquarters in the Watergate building in Washington, and served four and a half years in jail for it, said Wednesday that Felt "violated the ethics of the law enforcement profession." China Daily
Wow. Just…wow.
I think it’s sobering to realize that a whistleblower and a newspaper reporter today probably wouldn’t have the courage to investigate something as explosive as Watergate was in the 70’s.
QUOTE
"Now, at a time when reporters' right to keep sources secret is under so much attack, it's worth asking whether Deep Throat would have shared his secrets" if he had not been confident the Post reporters would keep the secret. (ibid.)
2.)Was this truly a minor episode like other events that get blabbed to the press? Should Felt have kept his feelings to himself or run it up to the chain of command?
A sitting president abusing his power and authority is hardly minor. As for Felt keeping it to himself? Like I said above, he would have been the scapegoat, the sacrificial lamb, take your pick. Nixon and his cronies would have found a way to flip the blame around and ruin this man’s life. It wasn’t until the mid-80s when organizations began to form protecting whistleblowers from retaliatory actions. I don’t imagine it ever would have happened if not for the courageous actions of people like Mark Felt, who literally brought down a crooked president.
3.)Does Colson unduly minimize the gravity of an event such as a sitting president and his closest aids willfully obstructing justice?
Definitely. Failure to report a crime is a crime.
1.)Was Felt irresponsible for talking to Woodward and Bernstein?
I think Felt did act responsibly.
Yet on last night’s Hardball former Nixon speechwriter Pat Buchanan sounded eerily similar to Chuck Colson.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8058468
It’ll be interesting to see how some of the other surviving Watergate figures view Felt’s admission. Daffy mentioned Liddy. I wonder about Dean and some of the others.
I think Felt did act responsibly.
Yet on last night’s Hardball former Nixon speechwriter Pat Buchanan sounded eerily similar to Chuck Colson.
QUOTE(Pat Buchanan)
But about Felt, I think what he did is deeply dishonorable and shameful. Here is an individual who has taken an oath and who is part of a major investigation, who is running around, sneaking around at night leaking things to damage the president of the United States in the middle of a campaign. And I don‘t see what is heroic about someone who did that.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8058468
It’ll be interesting to see how some of the other surviving Watergate figures view Felt’s admission. Daffy mentioned Liddy. I wonder about Dean and some of the others.
I think Colson's (and possibly Buchanan's) point was that it was Felt's duty, as a law enforcement official, to start an investigation. If the investigation was blocked, hampered, etc. then he should have resigned and gone public with what he knew.
Instead, he kept his job and was either an accomplice to wrongdoings or indifferent to it. Felt was convicted in 1980 of authorizing illegal searches during this time period. So, instead of using his position to do what was right, he went to the reporters, hoping they would do the right thing. Subsequently, he became a spy for these reporters. It is sort of shady.
That's where Colson says that he disagrees with the methods chosen by Felt. He has a valid point on these grounds. Felt did not use his position of power to affect positive change.
Instead, he kept his job and was either an accomplice to wrongdoings or indifferent to it. Felt was convicted in 1980 of authorizing illegal searches during this time period. So, instead of using his position to do what was right, he went to the reporters, hoping they would do the right thing. Subsequently, he became a spy for these reporters. It is sort of shady.
That's where Colson says that he disagrees with the methods chosen by Felt. He has a valid point on these grounds. Felt did not use his position of power to affect positive change.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jun 1 2005, 01:14 PM)
I think Colson's (and possibly Buchanan's) point was that it was Felt's duty, as a law enforcement official, to start an investigation. If the investigation was blocked, hampered, etc. then he should have resigned and gone public with what he knew.
Instead, he kept his job and was either an accomplice to wrongdoings or indifferent to it. Felt was convicted in 1980 of authorizing illegal searches during this time period. So, instead of using his position to do what was right, he went to the reporters, hoping they would do the right thing. Subsequently, he became a spy for these reporters. It is sort of shady.
That's where Colson says that he disagrees with the methods chosen by Felt. He has a valid point on these grounds. Felt did not use his position of power to affect positive change.
Instead, he kept his job and was either an accomplice to wrongdoings or indifferent to it. Felt was convicted in 1980 of authorizing illegal searches during this time period. So, instead of using his position to do what was right, he went to the reporters, hoping they would do the right thing. Subsequently, he became a spy for these reporters. It is sort of shady.
That's where Colson says that he disagrees with the methods chosen by Felt. He has a valid point on these grounds. Felt did not use his position of power to affect positive change.
So, the remaining mystery is...why didn't he do it that way? Did he try, but was unsuccessful? Did he not try, fearing failure? Or did he not try, due to political leanings?
For the first two of these, you have a story, but nothing really indicating, to me, any malfeasance on Felt's part. For the third, however.....
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jun 1 2005, 12:14 PM)
I think Colson's (and possibly Buchanan's) point was that it was Felt's duty, as a law enforcement official, to start an investigation. If the investigation was blocked, hampered, etc. then he should have resigned and gone public with what he knew.
I disagree with Mr. Colson on this point. At Mr. Felt's level of operation, any attempt to initiate an investigation would most certainly have been blocked or subverted by higher authorities. Let's not forget what happened to Archibald Cox in the Saturday Night Massacre. I think that Mr. Felt exercised prudent judgment in keeping himself hidden, not least because it gave him access to a continuing stream of information regarding the machinations of the criminal conspiracy, the better to foil them.
QUOTE(Erasmussimo @ Jun 1 2005, 04:11 PM)
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jun 1 2005, 12:14 PM)
I think Colson's (and possibly Buchanan's) point was that it was Felt's duty, as a law enforcement official, to start an investigation. If the investigation was blocked, hampered, etc. then he should have resigned and gone public with what he knew.
I disagree with Mr. Colson on this point. At Mr. Felt's level of operation, any attempt to initiate an investigation would most certainly have been blocked or subverted by higher authorities. Let's not forget what happened to Archibald Cox in the Saturday Night Massacre. I think that Mr. Felt exercised prudent judgment in keeping himself hidden, not least because it gave him access to a continuing stream of information regarding the machinations of the criminal conspiracy, the better to foil them.
Since the Saturday Night Massacre occurred later, I don't think Felt could have used it as a precedent.
The facts are plain: instead of Felt using his powers as the #2 man in the FBI to do something about what was happening, he used a reporter. It might be defensible for a janitor at a major manufacturing operation to go that route, but as a law enforcement official, Felt's actions can be perceived as being cowardly.
He was in a unique position to at least start an investigation. He chose not to. He didn't do his job for fear of losing it. That is not wholly admirable.
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Jun 1 2005, 08:40 AM)
Questions for debate:
1.)Was Felt irresponsible for talking to Woodward and Bernstein?
2.)Was this truly a minor episode like other events that get blabbed to the press? Should Felt have kept his feelings to himself or run it up to the chain of command?
3.)Does Colson unduly minimize the gravity of an event such as a sitting president and his closest aids willfully obstructing justice?
1.)Was Felt irresponsible for talking to Woodward and Bernstein?
2.)Was this truly a minor episode like other events that get blabbed to the press? Should Felt have kept his feelings to himself or run it up to the chain of command?
3.)Does Colson unduly minimize the gravity of an event such as a sitting president and his closest aids willfully obstructing justice?
Well, I didn't think this was such a big deal until I heard Rush "Gimme Drugs" Limbaugh with his knickers in a twist all over Deep Throat being outed. (Yeah, I listen to Limbo. So what? I don't deserve a good laugh every now and then?) Rush was blaming Mark Felt, Carl Bernstein, Bob Woodward and "the liberal press" for everything for the fall of Vietnam to Pol Pot and everything bad except 9/11 (and there's probably a way to blame them for that too).
What could be more hilarious than old crooks, thugs and punks like Chuck Colson, Pat (I'm Not a Nazi, I'm Just Sympathetic to Them) Buchanan, John Dean and G. Gordon Liddy talking about duty, honor, and ethics. From the likes of them? Isn't that a bit like John Gotti teaching a class in Criminology 101 at the FBI Academy?
Colson is a fool. HE could have stopped Watergate. Not Mark Felt. He felt it was more important to serve Richard Nixon, a man so crooked they should have dug his grave with a corkscrew. Colson's loyalty was to a sick and demented man, not to the United States or the Constitution. For someone of his ilk to bark like a wounded puppy now is self-serving hypocrisy at it's worst.
They're bitter old men and the last dregs of a disgraced presidency. The next time they make the news it will be on the obits page.
To the questions at hand:
1. Felt was a whistleblower and without him the Watergate story would have been dead in the water. Maybe his reasons were self-serving. Big deal. EVERYBODY (except one man was motivated by reasons less than pure as the driven snow). Most whistleblowers aren't holy men with unblemished histories. Felt may have been driven by a sense of payback or wanting to do the right thing. Buy the Vanity Fair article and maybe his motivations will become clearer.
2. A minor episode? WATERGATE? Uh---I think not. Watergate, had it not gone undiscovered would have only furthered Richard Nixon's war against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and truth, justice and the American Way. And who exactly up the chain of command was Felt supposed to take his beef to? L. Patrick Gray, the tool that Nixon put in charge of the FBI after J. Edgar Hoover finally passed on to that Great Gay Bar in the Sky? Colson? Dean? Liddy? Buchanan?
3. Of course Colson would minimize it. To his demented way of thinking he probably thought it was a pretty good idea at the time. The crime was in getting c caught in a "third-rate burglary."
There was only one hero in the Watergate story. And it wasn't John Dean, Sam Ervin, Deep Throat, John Sirica, Archibald Cox, Ben Bradlee and certainly not Woodward and Bernstein. That's not to say they didn't play an important part in the drama, but only one man, mostly forgotten by history and certainly by fame and fortune, was just doing his job.
This guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Wills
Well, this is hysterical...Pawns in the biggest scandal in US Presidential history, CRIMINALS, and disgraces to our country are calling the guy who got them caught unethical, what can I say?
CP
QUOTE
1.)Was Felt irresponsible for talking to Woodward and Bernstein?
No! Because if he didn't say anything about it he'd be just as bad as Nixons goons like that self-righteous putts Buchanan and Gordon Liddy.QUOTE
2.)Was this truly a minor episode like other events that get blabbed to the press? Should Felt have kept his feelings to himself or run it up to the chain of command?
The chain of command? The chain of command was performing more illegal acts than entire jails at the time, so no, he did the right thing. The gov't was so corrupt at the time, there was no guarentee he'd be giving this information to a clean official.QUOTE
3.)Does Colson unduly minimize the gravity of an event such as a sitting president and his closest aids willfully obstructing justice?
Yes, Colson's an idiot. "When any president has to worry whether the deputy director of the FBI is sneaking around in dark corridors peddling information in the middle of the night, he's in trouble," said Colson. When any President has something so horrible to hide that he has to worry about people "sneaking around in the dark corridors", he's in trouble. CP
Here's a more extended explanation from Colson.
and....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8060320/
My lord, these guys are just truly something else.
QUOTE
I think he would be horrified because the FBI is in a unique position in government. They have everybody's dossier. Every file on every American sits there. If the guy who runs the FBI or the number two guy in the FBI feels free to give these out to people, you'd have absolute chaos in this country. You'd have tyranny run by the FBI. I just can't imagine somebody who was a consummate professional, as Felt was, somebody who had worked their way up through the ranks, who was implicated in the FBI culture, sneaking around dark alleys, cloak and dagger style handing out stuff to a couple of young reporters. It never computed with me, I never thought it made sense, because I thought Felt took his responsibility with a great more care than that.
and....
QUOTE
My experience with Mark Felt was that he was thoroughly professional each time I dealt with him. I trusted him completely. I was with the President one night and both the President and I talked to him on the phone, and I sensed that the President had a lot of trust in him. Nixon was a little paranoid sometimes about people leaking things, so he would have been blaming Mark Felt and anybody else he could think of.
But I look at this whole thing as kind of a tragedy. This is one more Watergate tragedy. Here's a man who had a distinguished public career who retires and he got in trouble for authorizing break-ins and so I don't think we want to start putting things on a moral field as far as his own behavior was concerned, but he could retire and have a distinguished government record behind him, but instead he's going to remembered in this thing as 'Deep Throat.' I think it's unfortunate at this age in his life, I believe he's being exploited. I really feel sorry for him because I think he goes out on a very sour note, he goes out of his life on a very sour note, not as a hero.
What could he have done, Amy? He could have walked into (FBI Director) Pat Gray and said, 'We're going to go over to the Oval Office and tell the old man what's going on.' If Pat Gray said no, then Pat Buchanan's right, you have a press conference and you leave. That's the honorable way to do it. People talk about a hero. A hero might have, if he had the courage, gone in and talked to the President. I know Richard Nixon well enough -- no paragon of moral virtue - but out of expediency, if he thought the FBI really had the goods on him, he would have turned off what was going on in the White House and he might have saved the government. Then, we really would have built a shrine to him.
But I look at this whole thing as kind of a tragedy. This is one more Watergate tragedy. Here's a man who had a distinguished public career who retires and he got in trouble for authorizing break-ins and so I don't think we want to start putting things on a moral field as far as his own behavior was concerned, but he could retire and have a distinguished government record behind him, but instead he's going to remembered in this thing as 'Deep Throat.' I think it's unfortunate at this age in his life, I believe he's being exploited. I really feel sorry for him because I think he goes out on a very sour note, he goes out of his life on a very sour note, not as a hero.
What could he have done, Amy? He could have walked into (FBI Director) Pat Gray and said, 'We're going to go over to the Oval Office and tell the old man what's going on.' If Pat Gray said no, then Pat Buchanan's right, you have a press conference and you leave. That's the honorable way to do it. People talk about a hero. A hero might have, if he had the courage, gone in and talked to the President. I know Richard Nixon well enough -- no paragon of moral virtue - but out of expediency, if he thought the FBI really had the goods on him, he would have turned off what was going on in the White House and he might have saved the government. Then, we really would have built a shrine to him.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8060320/
My lord, these guys are just truly something else.
QUOTE(Chuck Colson)
What could he have done, Amy? He could have walked into (FBI Director) Pat Gray and said, 'We're going to go over to the Oval Office and tell the old man what's going on.' If Pat Gray said no, then Pat Buchanan's right, you have a press conference and you leave. That's the honorable way to do it. People talk about a hero. A hero might have, if he had the courage, gone in and talked to the President. I know Richard Nixon well enough -- no paragon of moral virtue - but out of expediency, if he thought the FBI really had the goods on him, he would have turned off what was going on in the White House and he might have saved the government. Then, we really would have built a shrine to him.
Unbelievable! I have to say, my opinion of Chuck Colson has taken a huge nosedive right now. As a religious conservative but political liberal (I know, strange combination, hence I term myself overall a 'moderate'!) I had a lot of time for Chuck Colson and his work since her got out of jail, but his comments on Deep Throat in the past week have, as far as I'm concerned, put him right back in the Nixon camp.
Can you imagine Klaus Stauffenberg and the other plotters against Hitler in 1944 marching in to "talk" to Hitler about their perceptions of the problem with Nazi Germany? And the reception the might have received? I don't think Felt would have had any different expectations of Nixon's response, except that Nixon might have considered butcher's hooks a little extreme. But to think that Felt could have approached any member of that twisted administration with any confidence is just stretching credulity.
So Felt did what it took to end Nixon's corrupt reign, as Stauffenberg and his plotters had unsuccessfully attempted against Hitler. Would Colson disparage those courageous members of the German ruling class? I hope not, and in fact his book "Kingdoms in Conflict" would suggest otherwise. I just think Chuck Colson is too close to these events for his opinion to have much value other than as a personal viewpoint - he is certainly not an objective commentator. I would have hoped for much better from Colson - an admission that Nixon needed to go, and that Felt helped ensure that he did. It looks like that was too much to expect, and Colson has revealed himself as a fallible and partisan man rather than the wise elder statesman I had hoped for him to be.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jun 2 2005, 03:14 AM)
That's where Colson says that he disagrees with the methods chosen by Felt. He has a valid point on these grounds. Felt did not use his position of power to affect (sic) positive change.
Surely having a role in the removal from power of someone who was prepared to stop at nothing to regain power, and then to hold on to it at any cost, would be a positive use of Felt's position. This he achieved.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jun 1 2005, 01:27 PM)
Since the Saturday Night Massacre occurred later, I don't think Felt could have used it as a precedent.
I am not using the Saturday Night Massacre as a direct causal agent in Mr. Felt's decision, but as an indicator of the general tenor of the Nixon administration. This tenor is what rightly induced Mr. Felt to go to the press instead of working through the system.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jun 1 2005, 01:27 PM)
The facts are plain: instead of Felt using his powers as the #2 man in the FBI to do something about what was happening, he used a reporter. It might be defensible for a janitor at a major manufacturing operation to go that route, but as a law enforcement official, Felt's actions can be perceived as being cowardly.
He was in a unique position to at least start an investigation. He chose not to. He didn't do his job for fear of losing it. That is not wholly admirable.
He was in a unique position to at least start an investigation. He chose not to. He didn't do his job for fear of losing it. That is not wholly admirable.
You assume that:
1. Mr. Felt's powers were adequate to solve the problem. Given what happened later in the Saturday Night Massacre, Mr. Felt's assessment that his powers were inadequate to the task seems well justified, and your assumption unjustified.
2. Your statement that Mr. Felt's actions could be perceived as cowardly is based on your assumption that Mr. Felt acted out of fear of losing his job. You don't know that he felt this fear. Moreover, the course he chose to take entailed considerably greater personal risk in that, if his identity were revealed, he would surely suffer much greater consequences than the loss of his job. Moreover, his desire to pursue the whistleblower route is more readily perceived as prudent, as it enabled him to provide a continuing stream of information to the reporters, and, more important, respond to the possibility of even greater depredations on the part of the Nixon administration. Remember, nobody knew how this would turn out. Would President Nixon engage in further, even more extreme, illegal behavior? Now we can look back on those days and smile indulgently as such fears, but back then, a prudent man aware of the facts could not dismiss the possibility. Retaining a position from which he could monitor and respond to President Nixon's activities was a prudent course of action.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.