What Everyone Is Talking About

The identity of Deep Throat - the man who leaked secrets to the Washinton Post durin the Waterate scandal has been confirmed.

Mark Felt's family coaxed him into believin that what he did deserved public credit. They first told Vanity Fair maazine."We're all so proud of him," said his dauhter, Joan Felt. "Not only for his role in history, but for ... the character that he is."

Yet, many people believe that he violated the ethics of the law enforcement profession.

Now borrowin a question from Howard Kurtz of The Washinton Post, Would Deep Throat Be A Hero In 2005?

Comments

[caspar]

Heroism in the States is defined by many people through many a lens. Our national psyche can be looked at as split red state/blue state or as fundementalist vs liberterian. There are more choices than those as well. It seems more and more that the arquments and rationales are crafted to adjust to one's political belief system. One can defend the position in a manner that most supports one's formulated belief.

In this case, Deep Throat was a patriot who helped bring down a corrupt president. In this case, Deep Throat was a traitor who violated his oath of loyalty.

The values in which we operate are under seige and I cannot imagine that things are much different in Canada either. Right and wrong are no longer viewed by many as defined entities. The extreme intolerant nature of the religious right and the moral vacancy of the extreme left have created a landscape that offers little room for reason.

I wish the concept was mine, because it is really so very valid...but it is a time for Radical Moderation and Passionate Reason.

[Shane]

Here in 2005, I know people who would worship (almost) anyone known as Deep Throat.

[Adamant]

So all this time Linda Lovelace was an imposter?

We are entitled to the truth and if the truth violates somebodys view of 'ethics', perhaps it's those ethics we should be examining in greater depth?

[Blue]

He is a hero.

[Shannin]

I think it would depend on which side of the divide you stand on. Here in the US, if someone "brought down" our current president, he would be a hero for the blue and a traitor for the red. I also think that with the current state of the media and bloviating pundints on both sides, the identity of a Deep Throat would not be secret for very long. Once uncovered, his or her background would be drug through the mud, every skeleton shaken from the closet, every stone turned in the name of "responsible journalism."

[annie]

Honesty vs. loyalty...hmmm...that's always difficult.
I think he did the right thing. Only my family and close friends get my complete loyalty.
I've never worked for anyone who deserved my loyalty.

Has anyone seen the movie "Dick"? One of my favorite movies of the historical genre.

[golfwidow]

That, or just your typical disgruntled employee.

[caspar]

Annie, was that the one with the two post-teen girls and the Nixon White House?

[Paula]

Re Dick: hilarious movie! Loved it.

[Dingo]

I think Shannin said it well. It all depends on which side of the isle you stand on. If it were Bush in the cross hairs, Felt would be a hero to Frankin and a Traitor to Coulter. If it were Clinton in the cross hairs, it would be the exact opposite.

[nat]

If there's a Deep Throat in the Bush administration, he'd by a hero to ME!

[Sigmund, Carl and Alfred]

Well said, Dingo.

[Old Horsetail Snake]

Well, it doesn't always work out. Think Judas Iscariot.

[kenju]

It all depends on your perspective. I think he did the world a favor.

[annie]

Yes, "Dick" is the 1999 movie where two teen girls unwittingly uncover the Watergate scandal. Kirsten Dunst plays one of the girls. Will Ferrell is in it, too.

[annie]

Oh, and Mr. O.H. Snake; that is funny, yet true!

[Raehan]

Yes. Even more so because there is such an attack on disloyalty in our government.

Now we need more than one hero. We need Deep Throat (and I'm not convinced there are none), and we need journalists that are wiling to risk their careers to report the story.

[geoff]

George Bush, Rove and Tom Delay are their own Deep Throat. Their lies about the war have been exposed...they have exposed it. They showed pictures in the UN of the WOMD. Showed the trucks, the bases....maps and strategery (sic). Then ooops...no weapons, it was about implanting democracy.

Richard A. Clarke, anti-terror czar for several administrations, covered this quite well.

The thing about this is....we just don't seem to care. They lied to us and ....yawn. Hey, who is Paris Hilton marrying? It's her deep throat that is seemingly more of an issue.

[Sigmund, Carl and Alfred]

Actually Geoff, Richard Clarke was discredited- so much so that even the dems have distanced themselves from him. He was caught lying about the yellow cake uranium (and by extension, l'affaire Valerie Plume).

As for Bush and Delay, I fail to make the connection. Most of the evidence was taken from the previous administration. That was buttressed by the British and other foreign governments concurred. There was the matter of the UN- they believed that further inspections were still necessary- meaning, they were not all of one mind that Saddam had nothing. Further, Saddam, by his own admission, declared he would pursue WMD programs. There was a plethora of evidence found to validate that claim.

In addition, no one has said that Saddam did not have the CAPACITY to make WMD's- the issue was one of stockpiles- his DESIRE to have them was known and the fact that he used them, speaks to his concern vis a vis their use. On strockpiles, admittedly, no dice. However, to blame Bush only is preposterous. Bill Clinton made the same assertions, publicly and often- and the same Richard Clarke was there backing him up.

The war in Iraq is problematic for many reasons. That saids, your attempt at historical revisionism doesn't help you make your point.

[geoff]

Are the three of you wise men truly going to assert that the President of the United States didn't outright lie to the American people and the world at the United Nations, abusing the credibility of a good man, Colin Powell, in the process? I agree further inspections WERE needed, but further inspection is not what we got. Every day the caskets return to America, young men and women sent to die for what exactly? If you defend the war, would you then send YOUR son or daughter to fight in it?

Saddam clearly was an evil bastard, but the world is too full of them. If the US was to intervene anywhere....there were and are much more noble causes that deserve our "peace keeping" efforts. Rwanda might have been a better spot to start..and for that Clinton deserves some blame too.

The decision to invade Iraq was clearly made shortly after 9/11 and there is no case to suggest that Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorism. The US had a case to invade Afghanistan, but we soon tired of that. We moved to Iraq without capturing Bin Laden and with the blood clearly on Saudi's hands.

Why would the son be so willing to complete the unfinshed work of the father? It might take a trio of shrinks to answer that one.

[Sigmund, Carl and Alfred]

Your assertions are just that- what evidence do you have that Mr Bush knowingly lied? You avoid the issue- but not cleverly. By all accounts, most of the evidence was amassed in the previous administration- which touted the WMD claims themselves. Was Mr Clinton a liar, too, for having relyed on Mr Clarke, et al?

Discussing Saddam, Rwanda, etc., are worthy conversations, but not relevant to the matters at had- your assertion that Mr Bush knowingly lied. There is not now, nor was there at the time, any evidence to that effect. Neither is there any evidence that this president 'wanted to finish his father's work.' Really, such diversionary remarks are sophomoric, at best.

I neglected to mention that Mr Clinton concurred, when asked the question about Mr Bush having lied- he relied that he did not lie- that he relied on the information he was given.

Al Gore, of course did not concur, but hey, he's an Alpha Male.

[annie]

HEY! I thought we were talking about Deep Throat and if he would be a Hero in 2005?

And whether anyone has seen the movie, "Dick"!!!

[geoff]

SC&A.....

What sort of psuedo quack are you? I think your semi-insulting references to the cleverness of my discussion or your view re the sophomoric nature of my comments are really just a bit uneccessary. I really don't think that sort of pompous grandeur deserves to be served up on this blog. If I wanted to experience that, I'd visit your recently reactionary site myself.

Of course Clinton was a liar, but most of his lies had to do with his private life. He was a weasel. So Bush was merely misinformed? By whom? By Cheney? By the profiteers at Halliburton? And if he had been misinformed, maybe it might require the honesty to admit it? Or should we just crank up the carnage?
Where is the endgame scenario?
I apologize, Michele, your site is not about this sort of stuff.

And Annie, you're right too.

[Sigmund, Carl and Alfred]

Geoff, your remarks are irrelevant to the conversation you started. That you prefer ad hominems to discussion is telling.

That your remarks were sophomoric is clearly in evidence. There was nothing in your reply that even remotely attempted to justify your original assertions. Instead, you engaged in attempt to deflect attention from your original remarks.

Now, what evidence do you have that Halliburton was involved in any of this? Or are you attempting to argue a point (and a weak one at that- the Halliburton question has been long disposed) based on innuendo, only?

That Mr Bush and his administration were ill informed is a matter of record. The House and Senate 9/11 hearings made that abundantly clear. Further, those hearing and subsequent introduction of documents into evidence (the vast majority of which had their origin in the previous administration- Mr Bush had been in office less than a year at the time of 9/11 and the transition was not yet complete) clearly showed that there was no malfeasance involved, but rather, a massive failure of intelligence- one that spanned more than one administration.

The evidence that Mr Bush had been misinformed is clear. If anything, his reluctance to make a 'big deal' out of it is to protect the intelligence community from implosion- and, to ease the transition into a new model and a new line of accountability, reliability and verifiability- all reccomendations of the 9/11 report.

[Michele]

Gentlemen,

You are both bright men you can discuss topics without name calling, correct? Yes, of course it is correct. Now try doing that.

[monique]

i personally think he's a criminal of sorts. he made a giant ethical faux pas (did i spell that right?)... i don't care if he took out a republican or democrat, a dictator or tyrant or whatever.

what the man did was wrong... then, now, whenever.