Mark Felt - Why Is This A Controversy?

I am having a real hard time with the vitriol and controversy that has greeted the revelation that W. Mark Felt is the source of information that blew open Watergate. I have got the sound bites of various folks - Novak, Liddy, Buchanan, etc. - claiming that Felt is somehow a "snake" or a criminal. Calls that there should be an investigation because he "conspired" to bring down a President. If we are going to apply that criteria, then perhaps we should go after Newt Gingrich and Ken Starr and everyone behind trying to "bring down" another President - Clinton.

Mark Felt was number 2 at the FBI when Watergate happened. Everyone above him (including his boss) were connected to the illegal activities going on. The Attorney General was implicated. Who was he supposed to go to? Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought that the job of the FBI was and is ultimately to protect the Constitution and the public - not to conspire to cover up illegal activity. (Yes, I know they have done a fair amount of that too, as well as engaging in illegal activity.) Regardless of alleged motive (sour grapes) there was massive illegality going on in the Nixon Whitehaous and it was truly a conspiracy. Mark Felt "blew the whistle" on that activity. In my opinion, he did the country a great service.

For Novak (who outed an undercover CIA operative - an illegal act by the way) to bad mouth Felt is ridiculous. Buchanan was IN the Nixon Whitehouse, and Liddy went to jail for his part in Watergate. Hardly a credible group if you ask me.

Did Felt "conspire" to "bring down" a President? Perhaps, but what he did was to open the door to an investigation into impeachable offenses by Nixon, and criminal activities by a number of others. Is "loyalty" to protect a President at the cost of the Constitution, the Law, and the people of the United States? Watergate was an offense against us all - not just the Democrats. It was an effort to rig an election. Is that for the good of the people? Does someone who does that deserve to be President - much less deserve to have blatant violations ignored?

Who does the FBI answer to? Who are they to "protect," and at what cost?

Is Mark Felt a "hero?" I don't know that I would go that far as his maintaining his anonymity served first and foremost to protect his position within the machine. However, he did do a great service to the country.

The "outrage" is that he didn't follow the "Chain of Command" in blowing the whistle on the illegal activities. Given the scope of the involvement, the Chain of Command was corrupted. The story likely never would have come out if Felt had "followed procedure." But perhaps that is the real issue here. Those screaming themselves red in the face over the lack of ethics (and possible criminal violations) of Felt, are in effect saying that the story NEVER should have come out. That regardless of the violation, the danger to the country, the rights of the population, that THEIR "guys" should be able to operate illegally and with impunity, with full faith that no one is going to challenge their activities. That is NOT the way it is supposed to work in the United States, where purportedly "no one is above the law," and that those elected and appointed are supposed to work in the best interests of the people - not themselves, their party, special interests, or some larger agenda. Their attacks speak volumes about what they think the United States should be, and that should make most folks very nervous.

In the News
5/30/05 Felt, Vanity Fair, "I'm the Guy They Called Deep Throat"

6/02/05 Woodward, Wa.Post, How Mark Felt Became 'Deep Throat'

6/02/05 CHB, Deep Throat: Hero or Snitch?

6/02/05 Johnston & Rosemblaum, NYT, Reporters Credit Felt With Keeping Story Alive

Posted by rowan at June 2, 2005 8:02 AM | TrackBack | [eMail this article!] |