Deep Throat Revealed!

**Cindy Hamlin** · 06-01-2005, 07:45 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...us/deep_throat

I guess we were ALL wrong!

**Spexvet** · 06-01-2005, 08:21 AM

I always thought it was Linda Lovelace! :hammer:

**Judy Canty** · 06-01-2005, 09:47 PM

As an interesting aside, Holland(before Holland Canty) Opticians made Mr. Felt's eyeglasses beginning in 1976 until 1991. I have his old record to prove it!

**Cindy Hamlin** · 06-02-2005, 12:32 AM

Judy,

That is interesting. Sad, though, that with HIPPA now you couldn't market that. I read an article this evening that said his family was going to market some of this new notoriety. I guess that is why he decided to come forward now as they needed the money. If it came out after his death no one would have bought it. At least he is able to prove his case now. The family indicates they have some docs to prove it. And oh....there is Bradlee, Woodward and Bernstein.

Did you see Dean's remarks? That he thought it was dispicable that he "told"? I guess the time in prison didn't help him to realize he was WRONG in what he did.

**Spexvet** · 06-02-2005, 10:22 AM

Dean, Colson, Liddy - they've all bashed this guy. It's as if he's the criminal and they did nothing wrong. What a bunch of warped hypocrits!:angry: Poor Richard Nixon! He was maligned by this nasty, yet pathetic, Felts.

**chm2023** · 06-02-2005, 10:51 AM

What's funny is that the folks now tsk-tsking don't suggest what Felts SHOULD have done with his info. Go to his boss? Well, Patrick Gray was busy leaking FBI investigation info to the WH and shredding documents. His boss's boss? Remember that John Mitchell was the guy who approved the break-in, no luck there. Nixon, the guy who suggested having the CIA call off the FBI in its efforts to investigate? It seems to me he did the only thing he could do. And thank God he did!!!!!!!

**Pete Hanlin** · 06-02-2005, 09:52 PM

Dean, Colson, Liddy - they've all bashed this guy. It's as if he's the criminal and they did nothing wrong. What a bunch of warped hypocrits!
Without making any attempt to exonerate the trio mentioned above (who did break the law), I would point out that Mr. Felt did indeed commit criminal acts- repeatedly. Furthermore, his motive for the crimes were certainly less than heroic.

I wonder how the press would have reacted if Janet Reno (or someone at the FBI during the Clinton Administration) had repeatedly leaked FBI classified documents that provided information on Whitewater, further implicated the President with Paula Jones or Ms. Lewinski, or somehow substantiated any of the other myriad claims of criminal activity by the Clintons (I'm not suggesting that the Clintons were actually guilty of any of the above- this is a hypothetical question). Somehow, I doubt the leaker would have been touted as an "American Hero-" especially if it so happened the leaker had felt "slighted" by the admin and committed his/her crimes out of vengence.

Anyway, Felt did leak information, the Watergate incident did escalate in the national consciousness, and President Nixon did resign- so its all water under the bridge. Of course, the result has been 30 years of special prosecuters as each party tries to distract, disarm, and disable each subsequent administration as they try to develop their own smoking gun issue, but hey- at least we got rid of a President who knowingly lied and misled the public and government officials (and of course, no President before or after Nixon ever did anything like that... well, that depends on what the definition of "that" is).

The guy was a frustrated pencil pusher who saw a chance to screw the admin and did so with great success. Give his family the royalties to whatever book, movie, mini-series they do on this and let's all go on (better yet, perhaps the two journalists who made a mint off the guy could just donate some money to his family and spare the rest of us the drama).

**chm2023** · 06-03-2005, 09:42 AM

I wonder how the press would have reacted if Janet Reno (or someone at the FBI during the Clinton Administration) had repeatedly leaked FBI classified documents that provided information on Whitewater, further implicated the President with Paula Jones or Ms. Lewinski, or somehow substantiated any of the other myriad claims of criminal activity by the Clintons (I'm not suggesting that the Clintons were actually guilty of any of the above- this is a hypothetical question). Somehow, I doubt the leaker would have been touted as an "American Hero-" especially if it so happened the leaker had felt "slighted" by the admin and committed his/her crimes out of vengence.

Ok let's make this a valid comparison. The situation would be: what if Janet Reno (John Mitchell) and Louis Freeh (Patrick Grey) were conspiring with the Clinton (Nixon) White House to hide info that clearly showed Clinton guilty of abuse of power. Would Freeh's direct report be right in exposing this? Hell yes.

My recollection of the media's handling of Clinton is that they could not get enough of the Monica story. (I remember traveling a lot internationally at that time and folks in other parts of the world were bewildered by the US obsession with someone's sex life!) The press fully cooperating with Starr's agenda perhaps less a litmus test of political leanings than the fact that a juicy sex story trumps everything!!

Felt (would I describe the #2 guy at the FBI as a "pencil pusher"??? Geez, what does that make me!!!!) may not have had completely pure motives and I think his family is avaricious (...the American Way...), but this is scarcely the point. Not all whistle blowers are Mother Theresa. And putting this greed at his feet is not fair as I understand he is well into dementia, or so says Bob Woodward.

**Spexvet** · 06-03-2005, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin

Without making any attempt to exonerate the trio mentioned above (who did break the law), I would point out that Mr. Felt did indeed commit criminal acts- repeatedly.

Like?

**hcjilson** · 06-03-2005, 10:25 AM

Thats the problem with conservatives.They try to sweep things under the rug by bringing up Clinton. Get over it. Nixon was guilty of the most serious breach of presidential power in history. I include, in my opinion, the time Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus in 1861. People look back in history and learn about the Stalins, Hitlers, Napoleons,and the myriad of others and ask: How could this have been allowed to happen?

It happened because the people LET it happen. In the case of our country, certain checks were put in place so this couldn't happen.A bunch of power hungry politicians thought they were above the constitution, and all you had to do to subvert it, was to claim "Executive Privilidge". Shame on anyone who thinks Richard M Nixon or his hacks were heros. We just got through celebrating the lives that were lost defending the document for which the Nixon White house had so little regard.They ALL should have gone to jail for a lot longer than they did.

**Pete Hanlin** · 06-03-2005, 01:46 PM

Wow, all Republicans just want to "sweep things under the rug," while Democrats (by inference) seek to expose only the truth and let the chips fall as they may... Quite an objective assessment of politics in America.

President Nixon was nailed for lying about a situation that- in and of itself- wasn't probably all that huge. President Clinton was persecuted for pretty much the same scenario- THAT's why the comparisons are drawn. That, and yeah- GOPers that are old enough to remember Watergate (myself not in that group) are ever on the lookout for the opportunity to "get even" for Nixon's resignation.

Its dirty politics, it was around before Watergate- its probably been worse since Watergate, and Felt was just as dirty as the rest of them.
As for a legit comparison, lets say Reno had stepped down from the head spot at FBI (which should probably have occurred after Waco) and the deputy director was passed over for a political appointment made by Clinton. With an axe to grind, the jilted deputy secretly goes to the press to leak FBI documents (which is, btw, definitely illegal).

Did Nixon get his just desserts? Probably. Have other Presidents been every bit as dirty (including Reagan and yes- Clinton)? Sure. Was Felt a hero? Not by any definition I've ever seen. Any merit you could credit his actions with are more than counter balanced by his personal motivations and the fact that he lurked in the shadows as he committed illegal acts. In fact, he himself approved similar illegal break-ins to obtain information the FBI wanted.

In short, Watergate was dirty on ALL sides (as was Iran-Contra, and Lewinski, IMHO).

**hcjilson** · 06-03-2005, 04:29 PM

I don't think I said anything about Republicans OR democrats for that matter- I think I said conservatives.I don't recall calling Feld a hero either, but regardless of what his motivation was, I am glad he did what he did. When you listen to the convicted felon G Gordon Liddy, you would have thought Feld was a traitor to his country.Why he is allowed to spout that pap is beyond me.I also was not assessing the politics of America, I was just reminding everyone what a dangerous course of action was taken by the Nixon white house, and for the actions of a few, would have carried it off. During Nixon's second term there was talk of a constitutional amendment to allow a third term.......I wonder why???

Pete said:
"President Nixon was nailed for lying about a situation that- in and of itself- wasn't probably all that huge. President Clinton was persecuted for pretty much the same scenario- THAT's why the comparisons are drawn. That, and yeah- GOPers that are old enough to remember Watergate (myself not in that group) are ever on the lookout for the opportunity to "get even" for Nixon's resignation."

President Nixon was not nailed for lying. He was nailed for using the power of his office to obstruct justice. I am willing to accept his statement that he had no prior knowledge of the break in, but that sort of falls apart in light of the Ellsberg break in9ordered by Nixon), to say nothing of the enemies list which was targeted by the IRS at the express order of the president.We would all do well to study up on our history before characterizing Watergate as a "minor blip"or a dirty trick.The burglars were in Watergate to tap phones to get information in order to blackmail Laurence O'Brien head of the DNC.

Even if the president had no knowledge, the attorney general did, because he approved it. I got news for those who aren't smelling the coffee. It was the most serious breach of trust this nation has seen since Aaron Burr.

**Pete Hanlin** · 06-03-2005, 05:16 PM

Please allow me to amend, then... All conservatives try to sweep things under the rug, while all liberals (by inference) wish to bathe in the pure light of truth. I take that this is your inference because you began with the line "That's the problem with conservatives..." Whether the term republican or conservative is used, its still a skewed view, IMHO- and I know you are capable of recognizing it as such.

If I'm not mistaken, Feld himself has been convicted of crimes (although perhaps not, as I recall President Nixon testified on his behalf... I seem to remember him receiving some penalty and/or sentence, however). You'll get no argument from me regarding Liddy being a loudmouthed ignoramus. However, the reason he is allowed to spout such pap is exactly congruous to the right of liberal commentators to demonstrate their own brand of ignorance across the airwaves.

The most serious breach of trust statement has me shaking my head a bit as well. For one, the Reagan administration's handling of arms for hostages was obviously a breach of trust (although I both agree with the actions that were taken and happen to believe Reagan had limited if any knowledge of the situation, which in and of itself was a problem). Also, if you can state with a straight face (or keyboard in this case) that the Clinton administration never obstructed an investigation, I suppose I'll just have to conclude there was a parallel universe in existance in the 90's and we were in seperate iterations!

Breach of public trust??? My god, every election, administration, etc. has breached that since time immemorial. It is entirely plausible that the election of JFK was due to a complete rigging of the vote (and one could make the same argument for the first election of our current President- its all in what facts you choose to magnify and which you choose to glance over).

Breach of public trust??? How about when FDR tried to change the Supreme Court to have 15 justices when he thought his SS programs were going to be defeated? The man tried to forcibly retire many of the justices simply because they weren't allowing his policies through the court! The fact that a showdown in the Senate didn't occur was due to one justice choosing to change his votes on most of FDR's agenda. Watergate positively pales in significance compared to some of the bonehead actions (and obstructions) taken by our Presidents over the years.

Personally, I don't think much of President Nixon. However, I have a feeling he was one of our more capable Presidents- and I feel his resignation probably did the nation more harm than good. He got canned because of a stupid (and somewhat insignificant) action by members of his party that he tried to hide. The difference between Nixon and Clinton was that the latter knew how to handle PR much more adroitly than the former.

I don't wish to dwell on the Clinton administration, either. Again, I don't personally care for the man- but he was probably a rather capable President. It would have done the nation more harm than good if he had chosen to step aside after being impeached by the House.

PS- I am completely disenchanted with the current administration right now. The fact that W stated it is even plausible to think that the rich could "save" SS by paying SS taxes with no ceiling and taking limited benefits is the complete antithesis of the platform upon which he ran. He is proving as incapable of handling his congressional majority as President Clinton did during his first two years in office, and I have a feeling the response from the public will be similar (general losses for the GOP in both houses in the midterms).

**hcjilson** · 06-03-2005, 06:49 PM

I differ with your view of history.I am also unaware of the presidential perogative to "forcibly retire" a supreme court justice which is a lifetime appointment, not "at the pleasure of the president, unless the justice voluntarily resigns.

Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin

Breach of public trust??? How about when FDR tried to change the Supreme Court to have 15 justices when he thought his SS programs were going to be defeated? The man tried to forcibly retire many of the justices simply because they weren't allowing his policies through the court! The fact that a showdown in the Senate didn't occur was due to one justice choosing to change his votes on most of FDR's agenda. Watergate positively pales in significance compared to some of the bonehead actions (and obstructions) taken by our Presidents over the years.

The reference to FDR not withstanding, the Watergate saga was considerably more important because the president knowingly ordered the law to be broken. His job is to preserve, protect and defend the constitution and he thought the law didn't apply to him. Using the various government agencies to thwart the investigation and subvert the document is very serious when viewed in the context of how certain dictators came to power. We say that couldn't happen here........it COULD happen here, and almost did! If you have memories of Watergate, then surely you remember the early Nixon years and the term "Imperial Presidency" They were talking about more than just the uninforms of the White House Police.All we were lacking was having the FBI and CIA in brown shirts.Forget about the Watergate break in and study the Tapes! Then you will find out what he really thought about the Civil Rights movement, anti war movement, the Jewish faith etc. etc. etc. The man was dangerous!

**chip anderson** · 06-03-2005, 08:11 PM

Nixon failed for being stupid. I know he had the reputation of being a smart man. But had he the brains to claim that H.H. Humphrey and company were so far left in the light, that he was having the C.I.A. make sure that they were not out and out Communists in the the dark. He could have pulled this off without a hitch.

He could have also handled this as though it were the equilivant of a college panty raid in politics, admitted it and the public would have forgiven him.

Incidentally in thier book the reporters of the times admit to committing the same type crimes they accused Nixon of and no one wanted to even make this a public point, much less proscecute.

Chip

**Spexvet** · 06-03-2005, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by chip anderson

Incidentally in thier book the reporters of the times admit to committing the same type crimes they accused Nixon of and no one wanted to even make this a public point, much less proscecute.

Chip

The difference? They aren't the president of the USA.

**chip anderson** · 06-03-2005, 08:37 PM

Isn't that what they said about Bill and Monica?

**jediron1** · 06-05-2005, 08:54 AM

chip anderson
Isn't that what they said about Bill and Monica?[/QUOTE]

Ya Chip your right, but wasn't the original intent of the thread on DEEP THROAT?
On that topic of DT, who cares it was over 30 years ago, life goes on. Lets get on to bigger and better things like when does football camp open, now that is important! Just my 2 cents

**chm2023** · 06-06-2005, 10:34 AM

My recollection (of reading about, not living thru it, I'm not that old!) is that Pete is right on the judges/FDR--tried to pack by expanding to 15 and then tried to enforce a mandatory retirement age. I would say the comparison to Watergate is off target as Roosevelt did all this in full view of the public, big, big difference.

I have always thought Nixon was one of the really tragic figures in American politics. Brilliant, tough, a true patriot in one sense, but unfortunately (IMO) clinically paranoid. An enemy's list? YIKES!!!!!!!

**Spexvet** · 06-06-2005, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by chm2023

I have always thought Nixon was one of the really tragic figures in American politics. Brilliant, tough, a true patriot in one sense, but unfortunately (IMO) clinically paranoid. An enemy's list? YIKES!!!!!!!

Tragic? Did you forget:

"Elected to the House of Representative, Nixon was invited to join the House of Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) where he became involved in its campaign against subversion. In 1947 the HUAC began its investigation into the entertainment industry and was responsible for the blacklisting of 320 artists.

J. Edgar Hoover and the Federal Bureau of Investigation provided Nixon with information on members of the Communist Party. Nixon soon emerged as the most skillful members of the House of Un-American Activities Committee and played an important role in the interrogation of Elizabeth Bentley and Whittaker Chambers. This led to the successful prosecution of Alger Hiss, Harry Gold, David Greenglass, Ethel Rosenberg and Julius Rosenberg."

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAnixon.htm

**hcjilson** · 06-06-2005, 08:03 PM

Also run a google search on "Nixon's Enemies list" and you'll find many who were on it. Obviously Dan Rather, but Paul Newman???Very interesting!

**shanbaum** · 06-07-2005, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by Pete Hanlin

PS- I am completely disenchanted with the current administration right now. The fact that W stated it is even plausible to think that the rich could "save" SS by paying SS taxes with no ceiling and taking limited benefits is the complete antithesis of the platform upon which he ran. He is proving as incapable of handling his congressional majority as President Clinton did during his first two years in office, and I have a feeling the response from the public will be similar (general losses for the GOP in both houses in the midterms).

From your keyboard to God's inbox.

**chm2023** · 06-07-2005, 08:39 AM

I think W has the opposite problem from Clinton re the Congress--under-reaching vs over-reaching. I am bemused when I hear W talk about SS and seems sincerely aggrieved that he is not getting credit for pointing out the problem and (this is a direct quote): "throwing out some ideas".

Think about the company you work for, think about a big problem the company has: is it your expectation that the CEO "throws out some ideas" or that he grabs the reins and drives home a solution?

Oy.

**coda** · 06-07-2005, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by chm2023

I think W has the opposite problem from Clinton re the Congress--under-reaching vs over-reaching. I am bemused when I hear W talk about SS and seems sincerely aggrieved that he is not getting credit for pointing out the problem and (this is a direct quote): "throwing out some ideas".

Think about the company you work for, think about a big problem the company has: is it your expectation that the CEO "throws out some ideas" or that he grabs the reins and drives home a solution?

Oy.

This is an interesting phenomenon of the current Bush administration. When they have what they believe to be a slam dunk they drive it home like Sherman to the sea (think the war in Iraq or the Patriot Act). However when there's a chance they might not win the day they lay back and "throw out some ideas", SS is the perfect example but there are others. Why not fight the good fight? Craft a plan (not some ideas), sing it's praises, rally the troups and see if you can get it accomplished. I figure one of two things is happening, the first is that the infact did learn from the Clinton health care initiative failure and are trying a different approach. The second is that they're afraid of loosing. What's to be afraid of? They can't loose the Whitehouse and they're unlikely to loose control of Congress (certainly not the Senate) in the midterms. Are they afraid of so tainting the party that they believe they could put the kibosh (sp?) on the next GOP presidential candidate? That seems unlikely to me since my prediction is that it won't be someone close to the president, perhaps I'm wrong and they're actually thinking Jeb '08 or, as my halloween costume pressaged, Rove-Cheney '08 (just kidding). In any event it's all rather confusing to me, perhaps ya'll can shed some light.

<warning> <warning> crassness below <warning> <warning>
An aside, rather than the 'Sherman's march to the sea' reference I was going to write "drive it home like a blind nonagenarian through a farmers market in Santa Monica" but I thought that was too tasteless. Unfortunately for my better judegment it's also rather funny so I included anyway. I await your slings and arrows.

**chm2023** · 06-08-2005, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by coda

<warning> <warning> crassness below <warning> <warning>
An aside, rather than the 'Sherman's march to the sea' reference I was going to write "drive it home like a blind nonagenarian through a farmers market in Santa Monica" but I thought that was too tasteless. Unfortunately for my better judegment it's also rather funny so I included anyway. I await your slings and arrows.

Hey I am a BIG fan of crassness. And if you can't make fun of people less fortunate than yourself, well you are really limiting your options!!!;)