World spins, media disregards. Federal employee conspires to harm a United States President in office, media waves hello. Old man admits he’s defrauded and lied throughout his lifetime, family calls him “hero.” Old lying guy captivates liberal media, media congratulates themselves with giant red and black type: the ongoing charade that is the liberal media — perhaps I should call it, “the ongoing defraud,” because it’s all fodder for political coups.
“CONFLICTED AND MUM FOR DECADES”
“W. Mark Felt always denied he was Deep Throat. ‘It was not I and it is not I,’ he told Washingtonian magazine in 1974, around the time that Richard M. Nixon resigned the presidency in disgrace after a lengthy investigation and threat of impeachment, aided in no small part by the guidance Felt had provided to The Washington Post.
“It was a denial he maintained publicly for three decades, until yesterday. Throughout that period, he lived with one of the greatest secrets in journalism history and with his own sense of conflict and tension over the role he had played in bringing down a president in the Watergate scandal: Was he a hero for helping the truth come out, or a turncoat who betrayed his government, his president and the FBI he revered by leaking to the press? . . . (READ THE FULL STORY)
Like a lot of people, I got caught up at a young age in the entertaining star power of Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman on film — not to forget that by Jack Warden (to my view outshines the two former stars) — in Alan J. Pakula’s 1976 filmed adaptation of the book by the same name, “All The President’s Men,” by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward.
The film (“The Watergate scandal from the reporters’ perspective…” and, “The most devastating detective story of the century!,” and,
“Reporters Woodward and Bernstein uncover the details of the Watergate scandal that leads to President Nixon’s resignation…”) displaced reality and replaced real circumstances with a cool, trendy message: Nixon, bad.
And that’s remained in the popular discourse as it began those decades ago, with the gritty realities from 1976 through to our present being those of celebrity, media presence, denigration of conservatives and glorification of a convoluted set of concepts that generally posits that what is conservative/Republican is not to be trusted, while what is liberal, and particularly communist-sympathetic, is good, and that “star power” method I referred to earlier has certainly worked to ensure that that message sticks. What has taken place since 1976 is that further examination of the Nixon Presidency ceased, as did the issue of “Watergate,” although the media has finally begun to get it’s due review.
The media, for lack of a better thing to write here, became the message and not only the message, but became the history. No one looked any farther than “All The President’s Men,” — it was a popular film. And, Nixon resigned. End of story, to most, except that the arch-informant, “Deep Throat,” significant to the Watergate Scandal, remained unidentified. But, the film stuck, while explorations about the history of the actual events that inspired the film has been supplanted by the film itself.
So what was written into history books (and most people’s awareness) was that “The Watergate Scandal” was a glorious moment for the two glorious workers in the People’s Struggle for Supremacy over the Republican President, the Man with the Dark Beard, Nixon. Not to mention the rest of the Nixon gang. Big box office afterward means it’s what people want to know and anything else, just let it be.
To read and hear most of the media today — once again FOX News and Talk Radio has other things to say but, unfortunately, in 1976 and for a few decades afterward, we did not have FOX News nor much to any Talk Radio to counter the naysaying by the liberal media — so to read and hear most of the liberal media today (and media sources who only reprint wire service stories but apply giant headlines to amplify the reprinted message), you’d think an old guy who didn’t quite betray the ethical standards of his employment, and who now admits to having acted based upon spite and resentments resulting in a United States President resigning from office to protect further harms to our country from within and without, you’d think otherwise that this deceiving, sneaky guy was “heroic.” Some call him that (his family, for starters). But some don’t and I’m one of those who do not.
I’m disappointed to read, among other things, that Carl Bernstein’s parents were (life-long) communists. I don’t know what that makes Bernstein but he certainly has to have a perspective that’s been shaped by his familial politics.
And that the guy — W. Mark Felt (“Deep Throat” or so he says) — responsible for the Bernstein and Woodward expose (“Watergate”) was passed over for an appointment to head the FBI and was disgruntled because of that, now saying that he “acted” because he wanted to exact some sort of personal justice on behalf of an agency he was not to head but thought he should. He says he has aligned with a goodly concept of “law enforcement” but I doubt that his behavior would be considered goodly, much less ‘heroic,’ by many in law enforcement today, with the exception of, perhaps, in Castro’s Cuba, and maybe that’s the point.
Meaning, what I think it is is that this W. Mark Felt’s mismash of a mission has been throughout his lifetime to demean the nature of law enforcement, to put a blight in the eye of what it is to have a federal law enforcement agency in a democracy. Thank God he was never named to head that agency, because just look at all the harms he wrought by being passed over.
Felt had a lifetime to correct an initial lie. He opted to enforce and reinforce the lie, now lies in multiples, right up until this last week when it is starting to look like financial issues influenced his admitting he’s been a liar all along. Now still a liar, but a liar lying about lying no longer, or perhaps now just a liar glorifying in his deceit.
Felt now is captured glorifying his glorifications about lying. In a showdown of ethics, he loses; there’s been no “conflict” by Felt, except as to whether he should make his glorifications public, and what that describes to my read is someone who just can’t stand not getting the credit for the crime.
And the media loses: they who glorifiy the glorification, the ethical mess itself, by omitting balance. President Nixon has never looked so intelligent by comparison, or so ethical in his resignation because of it.
I agree with Ben Stein.
And with Henry Kissinger:
“…’My own view is that if you’re in a high government position or any government position and you disagree with the government, you ought to resign, and if you think you have seen a criminal act, you ought to go to the prosecutor.’
“Kissinger said there is nothing heroic about a high-ranking government official spying on the president:
“‘I could fully understand if he (Felt) had resigned; and I could fully understand if he had told the president that what the president was doing was wrong; and if he then went to the prosecutor — that would have been heroic…but hero is not the word that comes to my mind.'”