OnTheRocks Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I was only 8 years old when the Watergate story broke so most of what I know about it I initially learned from the movie, All The Presidents Men. Personally I don't think he is a hero or a traitor. I think he was instrumental in uncovering a Political Scandal. Other than that, "Thanks for playing our game". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I was only 8 years old when the Watergate story broke so most of what I know about it I initially learned from the movie, All The Presidents Men. Personally I don't think he is a hero or a traitor. I think he was instrumental in uncovering a Political Scandal. Other than that, "Thanks for playing our game". 348754[/snapback] I'd wager to most of the public he's neither...but the key here is that he's a hero to the press (not without reason, I might add), and therefore will be portrayed as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I'd wager to most of the public he's neither...but the key here is that he's a hero to the press (not without reason, I might add), and therefore will be portrayed as such. 348768[/snapback] I was young as well during this time, but as I aged and thought journalism was a good career move (see...drugs do fry your brain), I remember a conversation in a journalism class where it was basically determined that Watergate changed the relationship between the media and the presidency. The word of the government was rarely questioned by the press back then, and once Watergate broke, that was that. The media questioned every single movement by the government and no elected official could escape the wrath of the media. As the story goes, the media ultimately got tired of waiting for the government to screw up, so they created Dan Rather...and he decided to just make things up to keep it interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 I wouldn't consider him a hero, but I would consider him a rolemodel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 They're airing interviews with some of the guys convicted over Watergate. One of them (not MacGruder) said that while he didn't view him as a hero, or a traitor, he thinks that he is a man of character. Coulson (sp), I believe it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Sweet poll on the "quasi-local" Fox station last night. Felt - Criminal or Hero (nice choices...nothing like extreme black and extreme white) 68% said criminal. Those are some jaded bastards. BTW, is criminal still applicable in this case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Neither. I personally have higher standards for the label hero. This was certainly in the right direction, and the case could be made it was heroic, but I reserve the title for those who risk their lives to save others. And LarryBoy. I would consider him as a role model in regards to his behavior in this issue, however. Nor was he a traitor. His first duty was to law enforcement. He absolutely did what was right. He chose the wrong method out of necessity. Normally, if you have information about criminal activity in an ongoing investigation, you report it to the prosecutor. However, since Nixon and then acting FBI director Gray were actively trying to suppress the investigation, the only way to get the information out would be through the press. Going the official route, he would have ended his career, and probably for nothing. I can understand staying mum while still working, even after the prosecutions were completed. Once past his retirement, I'm not sure what the point of remaining silent has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Once past his retirement, I'm not sure what the point of remaining silent has been. 349797[/snapback] Probably because he's seen the power of the government in action when it comes to ruining people's lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reuben Gant Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Sweet poll on the "quasi-local" Fox station last night. Felt - Criminal or Hero (nice choices...nothing like extreme black and extreme white) 68% said criminal. Those are some jaded bastards. BTW, is criminal still applicable in this case? 349736[/snapback] I saw that on WB. The Frog outfoxes Fox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 I saw that on WB. The Frog outfoxes Fox. 349809[/snapback] Watergate's enough before my time that I don't know the details...but I wouldn't be surprised if he WAS a criminal for his actions. I was just thinking about that this morning: for the sake of completely putting the Watergate issue to bed, DOJ ought to do an investigation (basically, interview him) to see if any laws were broken...and if so, he should be given an immediate Presidential pardon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Probably because he's seen the power of the government in action when it comes to ruining people's lives. 349801[/snapback] I don't think that was it. It could be, since a Reagan pardon in 1981 alleviated him from a conviction on authorizing break-ins of people's homes who were associated with the Weather Underground. So I'm sure at least at some level there was concern of being prosecuted. But I think it was more of a personal thing. Leaking information to the press wasn't something he was proud of. That's an old-school mentality, all right. It was his current generation family wanting to cash in on the subject that talked him into coming forward. Left to his own devices, he would have taken his secret identity to the grave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Watergate's enough before my time that I don't know the details...but I wouldn't be surprised if he WAS a criminal for his actions. I was just thinking about that this morning: for the sake of completely putting the Watergate issue to bed, DOJ ought to do an investigation (basically, interview him) to see if any laws were broken...and if so, he should be given an immediate Presidential pardon. 349864[/snapback] Why? Because he leaked something illegally? Imagine if EVERY cop did their job like this. Scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 I don't think that was it. It could be, since a Reagan pardon in 1981 alleviated him from a conviction on authorizing break-ins of people's homes who were associated with the Weather Underground. So I'm sure at least at some level there was concern of being prosecuted. But I think it was more of a personal thing. Leaking information to the press wasn't something he was proud of. That's an old-school mentality, all right. It was his current generation family wanting to cash in on the subject that talked him into coming forward. Left to his own devices, he would have taken his secret identity to the grave. 349875[/snapback] The government doesn't have to prosecute you for the crime you committed. Think about it. Trumped up charges and glitches can amount to thousands of dollars in legal fees and numerous headaches - especially when you're collecting a pension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 The government doesn't have to prosecute you for the crime you committed. Think about it. Trumped up charges and glitches can amount to thousands of dollars in legal fees and numerous headaches - especially when you're collecting a pension. 349881[/snapback] True. I guess my point is I think it was more of a personal belief that leaking information is wrong, and he didn't want to be known as that guy. It was his family's desire to make a buck and his advancing age that prompted him coming out now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Why? Because he leaked something illegally? Imagine if EVERY cop did their job like this. Scary. 349877[/snapback] Are you saying he shouldn't have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Are you saying he shouldn't have? 349904[/snapback] He SHOULD have gone through official channels even if it meant him losing his job. At least then he would have been able to come out with the allegations above the board rather than breaking the law. There's nothing worse than a cop that breaks the law IMO. Well, unless you count liberals that think they know what they're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Why? Because he leaked something illegally? Imagine if EVERY cop did their job like this. Scary. 349877[/snapback] Why what? Why should it be investigated, or why should he be pardoned if he's found to have acted criminally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 Watergate's enough before my time that I don't know the details...but I wouldn't be surprised if he WAS a criminal for his actions. I was just thinking about that this morning: for the sake of completely putting the Watergate issue to bed, DOJ ought to do an investigation (basically, interview him) to see if any laws were broken...and if so, he should be given an immediate Presidential pardon. 349864[/snapback] I thought I read that Reagan Pardoned him. Could have been for something else though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 He SHOULD have gone through official channels even if it meant him losing his job. At least then he would have been able to come out with the allegations above the board rather than breaking the law. There's nothing worse than a cop that breaks the law IMO. Well, unless you count liberals that think they know what they're talking about. 349915[/snapback] Proper channels? Last I checked, the director of the FBI was appointed by Nixon and would have quelched that real fast. Not real sure who else he would report it to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 He SHOULD have gone through official channels even if it meant him losing his job. 349915[/snapback] Damn Joe, didn't you serve in the military? Some things are way too big... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Hero or Traitor, either way i say we should sign him I mean anyone has got to better than lindell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Hero or Traitor, either way i say we should sign him I mean anyone has got to better than lindell 350116[/snapback] Sad part is, its true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 Neither. I personally have higher standards for the label hero. This was certainly in the right direction, and the case could be made it was heroic, but I reserve the title for those who risk their lives to save others. And LarryBoy. I would consider him as a role model in regards to his behavior in this issue, however. Nor was he a traitor. His first duty was to law enforcement. He absolutely did what was right. He chose the wrong method out of necessity. Normally, if you have information about criminal activity in an ongoing investigation, you report it to the prosecutor. However, since Nixon and then acting FBI director Gray were actively trying to suppress the investigation, the only way to get the information out would be through the press. Going the official route, he would have ended his career, and probably for nothing. I can understand staying mum while still working, even after the prosecutions were completed. Once past his retirement, I'm not sure what the point of remaining silent has been. 349797[/snapback] He was a role model who did things the wrong way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 He was a role model who did things the wrong way? 350825[/snapback] Basically. A law enforcement officer, who saw the agency he respected and loved being corrupted, who went outside the lines to leak information. Had he reported through official channels, he would have been sacrificing himself, and quite possibly for nothing, as Nixon was working very hard to make the FBI a political weapon. Not something I would admire except under extraordinary circumstances, and I believe that situation qualified as extraordinary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted June 4, 2005 Share Posted June 4, 2005 Hero or Traitor, either way i say we should sign him I mean anyone has got to better than lindell 350116[/snapback] But....he's a left footed kicker. Can we do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_of_manhattan Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 Watergate's enough before my time that I don't know the details...but I wouldn't be surprised if he WAS a criminal for his actions. I was just thinking about that this morning: for the sake of completely putting the Watergate issue to bed, DOJ ought to do an investigation (basically, interview him) to see if any laws were broken...and if so, he should be given an immediate Presidential pardon. 349864[/snapback] He did what he did because evidence was being destroyed by his boss and the DOJ was not doing its job - Nixon was about to fire the special prosecuter - it was a mess! Now all of Nixon's cohorts are running around the real issue here and denigrading Felt - have they no damn shame? What ever happened to apologizing and moving on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
don_of_manhattan Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 He SHOULD have gone through official channels even if it meant him losing his job. At least then he would have been able to come out with the allegations above the board rather than breaking the law. There's nothing worse than a cop that breaks the law IMO. Well, unless you count liberals that think they know what they're talking about. 349915[/snapback] there was no recourse, too many people had too much to lose and were in on the MASSIVE coverup - he did the illegal, but RIGHT thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 He did what he did because evidence was being destroyed by his boss and the DOJ was not doing its job - Nixon was about to fire the special prosecuter - it was a mess! Now all of Nixon's cohorts are running around the real issue here and denigrading Felt - have they no damn shame? What ever happened to apologizing and moving on. 351326[/snapback] You're just f'in weird, man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 5, 2005 Share Posted June 5, 2005 You're just f'in weird, man. 351362[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 He was pardoned by Reagan. It was for authorizing break-ins on radical left groups like the Weathermen, SDS, etc. How ironic- The left is prasing him for being deep throat, while he did the same thing that the people he ratted out did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 6, 2005 Share Posted June 6, 2005 He was pardoned by Reagan. It was for authorizing break-ins on radical left groups like the Weathermen, SDS, etc. How ironic- The left is prasing him for being deep throat, while he did the same thing that the people he ratted out did. 351763[/snapback] Pat? Is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts