# "Deep Throat"...traitor or patriot???



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

What do you guys think??? Do you think he should of "took it to his grave"...or do you think he is just in telling...I happen to think he should of kept his mouth shut.....what do you think????


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

I think the right thing for him to do would have been to go to the attorney general back when all this was going down. Going to the paper with it was obviously not a good idea.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

I agree....do you think they are looking for $$$$$$$$$. I happen to think that is the case. That is his family, not him, he is so "out of it" right now I dont think he knows what is going on.....although he was former FBI...he should have "standards".....to bad everybody gets old and "the family" takes over...I do beleive that if it was up to him....in his right mind...he would not of said anything.....however I do think there will either be a "book deal" or a movie....its all about $$$$$$$ guys....sad!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The guy should have tried do it the correct way first. I think attorneys said when he didn't he actually committed felony obstruction of justice. I don't know exactly how that works, but the legal beagles said that this morning on the news.

I think he did what he did for political reasons. One he was in hopes of being head of the FBI if Nixon was out of the way, and two as was also pointed out on this mornings news, he was in thick with people in the democratic party.

I have no problem with the way things went, but I have a problem with how they happened and why.

I agree I think he knows less than half of what is going on, and his family smells money.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

One thing that troubles me with the whole watergate deal is that the govt. was covering things up. Our very own, honest govt. I say that in jest of course.

Would that information ever have come out if he had not said something. I doubt it very much. I suppose he could have waited to see but would the country have been better off if Nixon had not resigned?

While leaking information to the media was against the law for a man in his position. I truelly think that Nixon would have covered things up even on the FBI side of things. Nixon was a man who cared only about his political career and not much else. While I was not alive during this time. The things I have read about Nixon do not place him in a very positive light in the history of our country.

Should he have come out and told that he was the informant. I don't know but what does it really matter at this point. His name would have come out as soon as he died anyway.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gandergrinder

Your probably right Nixon would have at least tried to hide it all. If he could have he would have. I think they should have tried the legal route first, and if that failed leaked it to the media.

History has not been kind to Nixon. I think back then and today things like Watergate happen. Nixon's boys were just stupid enough to get caught. The guy wasn't to bad with foreign affairs, and he did get us out of Viet Nam.

His good points and bad points perhaps made his presidency a wash. As I see it this was the beginning of really dirty politics. At least in my view it was the beginning of truth taking the back seat to winning. It hasn't got better since, political operatives have just become more cunning.

The guy was not a traitor, but was an ambitious self serving person. Hard to hold it against a fellow who perhaps doesn't know where he is or who he is half the time. Let the poor guy die in peace, but don't turn his family into multimillionaires for his crime.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

Money aside for a moment. This was a very important part of history in the US and I am very very interested in knowing what kind of motivations he may have had in leaking this information. Before it was all speculation, now at least we know who it was and people can begin to study it and understand it from another perspective. People and history are interesting that is for sure.

I actually wish he would have come out earlier. If in fact he is not as mentally competent as he once was, I'm guessin he was a pretty sharp guy given his no 2 position in the FBI, it would have been interesting to hear his side of things in full mental capacity.

Now I say this as a person who did not live during this time. I really have no opinions on the legality of it all as it really does not effect my life, at least in the sense that I can tell a difference from a before and after perspective.

In some respects the man is a very patriotic person, he single handedly, legal or otherwise put the most powerful person in the country, and our governent in check. He showed that no government position is beyond the reach of the people it is designed to serve. Now we can shut our eyes and ears and say that the law is blind but we all know that powerful people have a way of silencing certain things even if the right information is placed in the hands of people who are supposed to punish those guilty.

The country could use a few more whistle blowers once and awhile, just to let the people in government know that there may be someone watching, who acts like them, talks like them, but knows the difference between right and wrong.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> In some respects the man is a very patriotic person, he single handedly, legal or otherwise put the most powerful person in the country, and our governent in check.


I would have to disagree with you on this point. Without question he was a major player that fanned the flames but it was the hard work of the attorney general and many lawyers that brought down the administration. He already had a reputation for leaking things to the press and as second man in charge in the Hoover adminstration he certainly was no angel. Personally I think he was simply bitter he didn't get the top post and sought revenge. I also think the media is giving this more attention than it deserves


----------



## tail chaser (Sep 24, 2004)

I don't care why he did what he did! I have know idea what motivated the guy and as for his family making money of the deal? As if they are the only greedy family in the US get real! The point is Nixon was doing something he shouldn't have done, am I wrong? I don't think he is a hero he did his civic duty as a member of the community, a hero not. Try putting yourself in his shoes. What would you have done?



> I also think the media is giving this more attention than it deserves


 :beer: :beer:

TC


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

.1


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I would have to say that dirty politics probably started with the Kennedy Administration.


----------



## Storm (Dec 8, 2004)

He should of went through the proper channels, or at least tried. Two wrongs don't make a right. He committed a felony. He is no hero, just an older man whos family wants to cash in on before he dies.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

It would be impossible for someone to put themselves in this guys shoes unless they were also a back stabbing sneak who's main interest was self preservation and advancement up the ladder. Keep in mind this guy was FBI, and had he been doing his civic duty he would have blown the whistle publicly, especially since he was a LEO sworn to duty.

Watergate had already happened, they guys committing the crime had been caught, a grand jury had indicted them, a judge had publicly sworn to throw the book at them and did, and congress was moving for impeachment. Most think Felt fed Bob Woodward the information they were publishing every day in the paper, but in reality they were getting most of their information from other sources and what Felt was doing was confirming if the information they had was correct or incorrect. So the bottom line is he was a law enforcement officer, knew about wrong doing and failed to do his job in order to protect his own butt. So........I don't think I can put myself in this guys shoes.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

djleye said:


> I would have to say that dirty politics probably started with the Kennedy Administration.


Now that I think about it I would perhaps guess it started with George Washington. I never did believe that cherry tree story.

I perhaps got my bad attitude about politicians in college. At NDSU I had a professor tell our class that "society is kind of like a mud puddle. Next time it rains take a clean mason jar and go out and fill it in a mud puddle. Then come in and set it on your kitchen table and watch it for a couple hours. You will notice how slowly the scum rises to the top." I guess I would add "and the dirt settles to the bottom leaving all us nice clean guys at nodak outdoors in between."


----------



## IAHunter (Sep 1, 2003)

What is really unfortunate, or ironic, is that Nixon testified on the behalf of this guy when he was up on federal charges of burglarizing certian questionable organizations!!!! He ended up being convicted of this if I have the story straight. I don't know if this was before or after Watergate.

And remember, Nixon wasn't impeached for the actual Watergate deal, but for (get ready for this) for covering it up and LYING about it. I believe Nixon deserved the impeachment, but so did another president.

IaHunter


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

> I would have to say that dirty politics probably started with the Kennedy Administration


DJ, Plainsman -

You're gonna have to shed the American-centrist view on this and go back a few thousand years earlier! Greece or Rome anyone? About as corrupt and elitist as any world empire.

This is just people being people. We all want the best for #1 don't we? Its just that some choose one way to go about it, and others choose another. Its how it has been since the beginning...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Duh, next your going to tell me the sun and the rest of the universe don't revolve around Jamestown. Say it's so.


----------

