Nixon makes Mark Felt FBI director

Realpolitik

Banned
Here's the transcript of Mark Felt on the Larry King show:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/25/lkl.01.html

I have not read the whole thing, but I'm not really seeing any explosive matter at all. Maybe someone else can.


KING: How do you look back at this presidency?

M. FELT: I think he did a good job.

KING: You do?

M. FELT: Yes.

KING: What went wrong, though? Watergate went wrong.

M. FELT: Well, that's a pretty big job to have nothing go wrong, I think there were minor problems and some major problems, but they weren't Nixon's fault. Not those, anyway.

KING: So on balance you think it was more the people under him?

M. FELT: Yes.
It's not really explosive so much as it is the irony and his overall demeanor concerning said irony that just stunned me at the time. I'm not the best at reading people, and it's been a long time since I watched the interview, so I will confess that I might be wrong. I believe it was Bradlee who was with King and Felt on the interview.
 
Last edited:

Realpolitik

Banned
Even if he were not indicted, Jimmy Carter would have demanded he retire in 1978, when he turned 65. There would have been no more lifetime tenure for Directors of the FBI.

Shame. "Dictator for Life" has such a nicer ring to it. :p

In all seriousness, the FBI was its own semi-independent agency back in the day. Along with the CIA and others... everybody stabbed everybody in the back. Washington in that time was a very murky place. And it was bound to burst.

So funny. Politics was so much more classically corrupt pre-Watergate, for all our complaints about today's politics. Then again, maybe it's just a different type of corruption. The rise of the media has made some things a lot better, and some things a lot worse. Not to mention private interests having a LOT more influence than they did in 1972.
 
Last edited:

GeographyDude

Gone Fishin'
It's not really explosive so much as it is the irony and his overall demeanor concerning said irony that just stunned me at the time. . .
Okay, I can kind of see the irony, since the guy was one of the main factors bringing down Nixon.

Now, on a related subject, as far as the American public turning against Pres. Nixon, was RN tone deaf in certain important ways?
 

Realpolitik

Banned
Okay, I can kind of see the irony, since the guy was one of the main factors bringing down Nixon.

Now, on a related subject, as far as the American public turning against Pres. Nixon, was RN tone deaf in certain important ways?

Sorry I never responded to this...

Nixon severely underestimated the scandal during the time period that it would have been easy to deal with-the seriousness of the scandal and the details, what the media would do about it(remember, the press treated the Presidents with kid gloves before the Nixon era compared to after), how Vietnam had eroded the trust of the people, what his subordinates were doing in regards to the problem, and how much trouble he was in-until Watergate was clearly about to blow in April of 1973, and probably figured it would just go the way of most Beltway scandals prior to that time. By the time his "survival instincts" surfaced, it was too late for them to come in handy for dealing with the problem the old fashioned way-it was too big by then. He wasn't alone in this. Lyndon Johnson-the king of domestic political instinct, and someone who knew a little something about coverups, wiretapping, and "dirty tricks" himself thought so as well. In talking to Billy Graham during the summer of 1972, when asked about Watergate he just grinned and said "Hell, that's not going to hurt him one bit".

A diversion. Most of the "old school" politicians probably would have thought of prosecuting wiretapping and Nixon's resignation over his offenses COMPLETELY ASB in June 1972. Even the most partisan of his enemies in the media and in Congress could not have imagined the opportunities they would get, and would have never dreamed they could get to impeachment... like I've said, after a certain point, Watergate was beyond the control of anybody (and this is part of why I think the Ford pardon was one of the best decisions in history). Wiretaps and IRS audits, the tools of the old timers, were of declining use against the new forces in play, and Nixon didn't want to accept, or was socially incompetent enough not to get that this was changing. J. Edgar Hoover had gotten it a few years before most of Washington "discovered" it when Watergate came along. Hoover had accepted it, and that's why Nixon made the Plumbers-they did what Hoover used to do, once Nixon had lost faith in the FBI. This is why Nixon was (at first, looking back on it during/after Watergate, he might have regretted that Hoover wasn't around to help him) so psyched about Hoover dying, as any of his predecessors would have been-it meant that the FBI could now be under his control. Felt, a Hoover/FBI loyalist, did NOT LIKE that.

Anyway, Hoover still did a spot of wiretapping at Nixon's behest-the "victims" were different from popular imagination. Guys like Henry Kissinger, the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon, Larry O'Brien, and Teddy Kennedy (all of whom were doing their own tapping) were more frequent targets than Abbie Hoffman and "the kids". It was an inter-establishment mud fight, no matter how much certain figures like to flatter themselves about being oppressed by Tricky Dick-and did other "standard" things like COINTELPRO, but he wouldn't do the black body "jobs" anymore (this was the man who sent a phone call urging MLK to commit suicide, remember?). Times had changed. Hoover thought that Nixon, in his insecurity, wasn't getting it, and he wasn't. As we saw later on OTL, there were plenty of new tools to use in politics after the 70s-it wasn't less "corrupt", it was just different. Nixon wouldn't adapt.

Watergate changed things. Big time. It was the culmination, the focal point, of the radical social change that had taken place in the US over the past ten years. Impeachment became a goal for the opposing party. No Watergate-like event means Iran-Contra would have never blown up. Monica would be a punchline of backroom jokes in DC, but not the subject of an impeachment trial. And without the media starting to think of themselves as crusaders and the polarization that results from that, I think Bush II and Obama would not be basically compared to Nazis constantly by the opposing side. I mean, I disagree with both men A LOT, but never once did I think that Bush II liked killing people for the sake of it, or that Obama secretly wants the US to fail, as you would pick up if you read/watch certain places all the time. (Mind you, if we want to be moralistic about it, impeachment doesn't happen nearly enough. Most modern Presidents have committed impeachable offenses or stuff that, while not necessarily impeachable, would look awful and is "shady". Including some I rather like and admire.)

Ending diversion.

Anyway, he probably thought that if it hadn't gone away, his second term plans would make it so. As he said in his memoirs-which need to be taken with a grain of salt, of course- "For the first time, I began to realize the dimensions of the problem we faced with Congress and the media. Vietnam had found its successor with the media".



And even around April, while he knew he was in serious trouble, he was expecting "a rough couple of months" when talking to Kissinger, not impeachment. The tapes from May 1973, when he is talking to Reagan and Rockefeller about this, are interesting. Rockefeller compared the mess to Attica. So, I think it was fair to say that he thought that the American people were just going to get outraged over this, then forget about it. He probably underestimated how disgusted the people were.

In his own account, Nixon said it was in October during the Yom Kippur crisis when the press accused him of calling a DEFCON III nuclear alert as a way to deal with Watergate (nuclear war is a very interesting way of distracting people from a coverup of a petty burglary), in conjunction with the reaction from the Saturday Night Massacre, that he realized how deeply Watergate was effecting the people. He only resigned the Presidency when it was clear he had no chance in hell of keeping it, and there was nowhere to run. He also definitely seems to be VERY cynical and occasionally patronizing about "the average voter" and humanity in general in later clips after the Presidency. I think tone deaf is an excellent way to describe it.
 
Last edited:

Realpolitik

Banned
One last thing.

I generally tend to argue that Nixon saw the world more clearly than his psychoanalyzers and the bloggers/TV personalities/journalists who constantly tell us how deranged he was will ever admit. The environment of early 1970s Washington and the world would make anyone who had to head it paranoid. That's before you take into account someone who was already hated by many people-some of whom, deep down, never accepted his Presidency as legitimate, like Johnson. Also like Johnson, their antipathy to Nixon was not always free of class-based overtones, post Camelot. "They could never compete with a saintly ghost". Nixon, to a certain degree, committed the "offense" of "going after the rich and powerful", like Chomsky said. Some of said people were quite influential, and Nixon was also someone whose personality was the antipode of someone suited to social discourse and politics, which could have ameliorated the situation. "Nixon basher". We don't have a term for "another President" basher. That says it all. When it really counted, though, he didn't and retreated to "munching chips on the captain's chair as the ship hit the iceberg". Mind boggling how it all played out. That he wasn't taken down over something big and huge, but rather this...

What's amazing is that here, the one time where it would have been GOOD to be paranoid and to be completely ruthless and disloyal to his subordinates, he wasn't. The man could have truly been the subject of a Shakespeare play. It was carried out by such third rate characters, it would have been so easy to avoid for a man who had been in far tighter and in far more crucial situations, good and bad. That it was something like this that got him-I mean, nailing Nixon for the Watergate coverup was like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion. But he seemed almost determined to fall, by committing every last incompetent, wrong move possible. "Watergate was worse than a crime, it was a bungle...". Why? If I trusted psychoanalysts more, I'd be interested in the brain process behind that. And the weird part is, it is so hard to imagine Nixon being Nixon without tragically falling in the end.

As another side point, if this place existed back then anyone who would have said that the President would resign in June 1972, even if they were informed fully about the Watergate coverup, would have have SCREAMED ASB. That all the pieces fell in the right way was amazing. That's what makes the story really interesting for someone who wasn't there. It was the convergence of all these forces... the point that isn't emphasized enough is the sheer amount of social liberalization that took place in Nixon's time. The changes became more "normal" among the young. Society takes some time to digest a countercultural trend-things that were condemned when the hippies did it in 1968 were more "mainstream" by 1973. Just look at the difference in how the reporters looked-haircuts-between 1968 and 1973. It's really astonishing. Watching Archie Bunker is an example of the radical changes and how different people felt about it-empowered, lost, or sometimes both. Bunker was the type of Democratic voter who Nixon went after, in part because he was one of them to an extent-the "hard hats". Nixon and Haldeman/Kissinger/Ehrlichman/Haig-who were born in Nixon's time period or a little later-actually commented on an episode treating homosexuality in the tapes, and is another case in point of the changes between generations that you can still see today in society. This wasn't a Democrat/Republican thing at that time period-George Carlin and Monty Python were making similar comments/stereotypes about gays at that time period. It was changing, but there was resistance on a lot fronts, and some things are still controversial even today.

The liberalization used by the students during the 63-68 period was "coopted" into mainstream society AFTER the time period when it was most famous in popular history. This tends to be the case, again, with any new trend. The conservative trend in the 80s could be treated similarly-it started off small, on a well defined group, then seeped into mainstream society. Look at how powerful the GOP became during the 90s. Things need time to absorb.

One other irony of Watergate was that the FBI never actually went through with the obstruction of justice order on the tape that nailed Nixon for good.
 
Last edited:
The question is would Director Felt be Deep Throat. I read a theory that Felt leaked to Woodard and made other leaks to embarrass L. Patrick Gray. Even if Woodard and Bernstein do not get their inside source, the Watergate investigation goes on and nothing changes. Gray would have to resign in 1977, when he was indicted for violating the civil rights of the Weatherman.
 

Realpolitik

Banned
The question is would Director Felt be Deep Throat. I read a theory that Felt leaked to Woodard and made other leaks to embarrass L. Patrick Gray. Even if Woodard and Bernstein do not get their inside source, the Watergate investigation goes on and nothing changes. Gray would have to resign in 1977, when he was indicted for violating the civil rights of the Weatherman.

Felt is not leaking as Director, nor is he going to help Congress or the courts against the President(which is more important than Deep Throat). He's not going to be brought down like Gray was, being an old hand in the vein of Hoover rather than an obvious power grab by Nixon, when he fails to cooperate. The boys on the Hill will respect and fear him like they wouldn't Gray. Simple as that. That people could believe that he was leaking out of moral anger at Nixon for covering up a black ops job speaks to the degree that people confuse what they want their myth to be with what reality is (and how dishonest Bradlee and Company have been about Felt over the years). This was a power struggle in an epoch in Washington that makes medieval Florence look tame. Nixon overreached on the "beast" and got bucked as a result, and because of his ability to get America to vote for him in massive numbers yet still fail to inspire personal warmth in tandem with the sheer amount of antagonism between himself and much of the state and Congress (including Ted Kennedy, who was vital in setting up the Watergate committee and choosing a chairman that would accepted), was vulnerable. But in the end, Watergate would take down the "victors", in a weird way too, when you saw what happened to the intelligence community afterwards. Congressmen suddenly had their private lives open to exposure, and having to prove "outsider" credentials rather than experience. This led to Carter, than Reagan in the White House. The Democrats would find themselves on the opposite end of the watchdog media later and realize it wasn't so fun, as well as deal with a new, less compromising brand of conservatism in the GOP. Nobody realized the genie that had been released would leave a whole new government in its place. It was the death of the "old state", in a weird way. New powers-the media, private interests/business, "new" intelligence types-would be the new brokers.

I'm not so certain about that. On one hand, like I've said, the idea that the Post single handedly took down Nixon is horse****, Woodward said so himself. It was the courts, a COOPERATING FBI(with a Director Felt, that might change-the FBI could help squelch investigations, as I mentioned. That is what is crucial rather than Deep Throat), and Congress that "got" Nixon, not the media. What the Post did in constantly reporting on the story in the early days of Watergate kept the story alive and got relevant people in DC interested. They didn't uncover anything crucial themselves-the key was insinuating that there was more, constantly, without actually saying so. Deep Throat gave them the confidence to do that. It's not the most important thing, but its not nothing. It depends if everything goes as scheduled OTL, which is up in the air.

They mattered. Just not like they want to matter in the "heroic journalist" myth. They were FAR behind Judge Sirica, the FBI, and certain people in Congress who REALLY wanted to go after Richard Nixon in importance. What Sirica was doing was far more beautiful than what the Washington Post and their "source" was doing-Nixon could launch nuclear missiles across the globe, but he could not influence the courts. Shows that the USA, for all its faults, is still pretty good.

Depends on when crap hits the fan for the American state in the post Vietnam era, as I've stated before. Once it does, the CIA, FBI, and Co. are all in trouble until someone who can restore confidence gets into the White House, and even then won't be as powerful as they were before.
 
Last edited:

abc123

Banned
Allende also helped do himself in. He was running the economy into the ground, with our help, but also with the help of his own incompetent policies. He wanted social change too fast, and had a lot of enemies. He didn't have the necessary wiliness/intelligence, base of support, or ruthlessness to get it through as quick as he wanted-frankly, I'm not sure anyone would. Allende was also becoming more authoritarian, and was against a lot of his legislative branch, the military, the landowners, etc. They thought he was becoming another Castro. It was a dangerous game to play in 70s South America when you have far more than the 35 percent of the vote than he did, and he lost. Again, America had a hand in destabilizing things, and this was horrible, but in the end, Chileans took down Allende for Chilean reasons.

I FULLY AGREE.;);)
 

Realpolitik

Banned
I FULLY AGREE.;);)

I'm glad to hear it. When I stated that Allende wasn't the innocent freedom fighter taken down by two DC sociopaths taking their emotional problems out on the Third World of popular lore, I was worried I was going to be attacked as some apologist for the guy. Pinochet was disgustingly hypocritical with his faith, in particular.

Nixon with Allende is like Woodward with Nixon-they helped, but they were far from the main factor in why they went down. Popular history doesn't admit this, because people want it to be simple. "Media bad/heroes" or "Nixon bad". Pinochet wasn't even the Chief of Staff in 1970, when "covert action" was approved-people didn't even know who he was until shortly before or after the coup. And Nixon, like Allende, brought himself down more than anything else. Also, in the time period, the CIA, like the FBI, was semi-independent with its own operations often ignored by the President.

And to be blunt, nobody makes LBJ out as satanic for doing the same thing-approving, supporting after the coup, but not CAUSING the coup-with Suharto, who killed far more people in his rise to power. It's so funny that all the "hey, hey" people failed to criticize Johnson for that in Indonesia, but condemned him as a war criminal for bombing a totalitarian dictatorship that was invading its neighbors(not saying that the Vietnam War was a good idea).** Depends on what issue is "sexy", I guess.

Pinochet wasn't worse than Mobutu or Marcos or the 80s right wing Central American despots/terrorist groups*, and a hell of a lot more competent than these guys. Nor was it on the sheer level of strategic stupidity that approving, rather than halting, the Diem coup was. Or what was about to happen in Indochina, in part thanks to those who so loved to criticize Nixon on his Vietnam record. I'm so sick of hearing that Chile is some unique evil in our history approved by a uniquely evil President when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Doesn't make it right when you look at a lot of the sick, scary stuff that Pinochet did, but let's be fair.

The first criticisms you hear of Nixon are Watergate and Chile. I think that there are real things you can condemn Nixon for that aren't heard of as often or at least aren't the first things mentioned (Bangladesh, some of his economic policies that led or at least helped to lead to stagflation-and moreover were done purely for political success, the mere existence of the Plumbers, Huston Plan, Ellsberg, mistakes in fighting in Vietnam/Cambodia, hypocrisy after running a law and order campaign, very poor judgement in dealing with "friends" and enemies, not uplifting or trusting or inspiring the people as a President desperately needed to do, and just generally being an evil SOB/crook sometimes), but the two most well known evil moments are just not as uniquely singular as they are made out to be, among other things. Similar opinion on Kent State (anyone heard of Jackson State?), the "Enemies List", and the language/"isms"/moments on the tapes. So much one can criticize Nixon about, but the things that are usually most well known in popular imagination are the ones that actually happen to be somewhat nuanced and often misunderstood in popular history. And often taken completely out of context by people wanting to attack Nixon.

*Or at anytime, though Reagan took it to new levels. We were already messing with that region early on in the century with Haiti/Dominican Republic, and FDR had his "SOB" in Trujillo. Eisenhower overthrew Arbenz at the behest of United Fruit. JFK really ratcheted it up further with his activities in the region. LBJ had it correct with what he got from Kennedy-"I've inherited a damn Murder Inc. in the Carribean".

**Nixon said that there wasn't an antiwar movement, there was an antidraft movement. There is a degree of truth to this. I remember one peace activist complaining in 1972 that she had a hard time getting people at college to go to peace rallies ever since the draft was phased out. Again-most of the protestors/high society types cared more about being "cool" or "chic" or not going to war (or I suspect in the case of ex Kennedy/Johnson advisors-after they were done stabbing LBJ in the back, that is-and Democratic politicians, obscuring their own records) than actually helping human rights or CARING about the Vietnamese. Not all, but a lot of them. There isn't anything wrong with that, especially with the students that were facing the draft, but I don't like the hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
Top