|
Deep Throat revealed?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
Watergate = an era where politicians actually took responsibility for their actions and stepped down when the need arose (Paul Martin are you listening?)
| quote: | NEW YORK (AP) -- A former FBI official says he was the source called "Deep Throat" who leaked secrets about President Nixon's Watergate coverup to The Washington Post, Vanity Fair reported Tuesday.
W. Mark Felt, 91, who was second-in-command at the FBI in the early 1970s, kept the secret even from his family until 2002, when he confided to a friend that he had been Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward's source, the magazine said.
"I'm the guy they used to call Deep Throat," he told lawyer John D. O'Connor, the author of the Vanity Fair article, the magazine said in a press release.
Felt was initially adamant about remaining silent on the subject, thinking disclosures about his past somehow dishonorable.
"I don't think (being Deep Throat) was anything to be proud of," Felt indicated to his son, Mark Jr., at one point, according to the article. "You (should) not leak information to anyone."
Felt is a retiree living in Santa Rosa, Calif., with his daughter, Joan, the magazine said. He could not immediately be reached for comment by The Associated Press.
The Washington Post had no immediate comment.
Felt is one of a number of people who have been named over the years as the source whose disclosures helped bring down the Nixon presidency. Others include Assistant Attorney General Henry Peterson, deputy White House counsel Fred Fielding, and even ABC newswoman Diane Sawyer, who then worked in the White House press office.
In 1999, Felt denied he was the man.
"I would have done better," Felt told The Hartford Courant. "I would have been more effective. Deep Throat didn't exactly bring the White House crashing down, did he?" |
|
|
|
| The Highroller |
*snicker* "Deep Throat" *snicker*
Sorry... I just couldn't resist |
|
|
| MarkT |
why would Martin step down when his popularity remains relatively high? (and please don't say "because it's the right thing to do" or I might fall off my chair laughing at how cute and ideological that would sound)
face it...the people dislike Harper more than they care about the ad scandal, as evidenced by the most recent Decima polls that show the NDP bridging the gap between themselves and the Conservatives with the Liberals enjoying a significant lead. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Why did nixon step down when "he did not have to?"
He could have gone through the whole impeachment process. Oh yeah, they have one there dont they? What keeps our politicians in check again? Oh yeah, nothing. |
|
|
| MarkT |
Nixon knew he was ed...impeachment is a drawn out, embarassing process. By stepping down, he avoided the inevitable embarassment that likely would have followed. Obviously Martin doesn't feel that he's in the same position as Nixon.
The law seems to work well enough. The first charge came down today (yesterday?) as a result of the Gomery Inquiry.
If Martin is proven guilty of anything...then he should be booted out of office. Expecting him to voluntarily step down is just naive. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
Nixon knew he was ed...impeachment is a drawn out, embarassing process. By stepping down, he avoided the inevitable embarassment that likely would have followed. Obviously Martin doesn't feel that he's in the same position as Nixon.
The law seems to work well enough. The first charge came down today (yesterday?) as a result of the Gomery Inquiry.
If Martin is proven guilty of anything...then he should be booted out of office. Expecting him to voluntarily step down is just naive. |
Its been proven that under his watch, money was stolen. Either way he is responsible. When employees cause negligence at a company who gets fired? Both the employee and the person who supervises him. Since Martin was finance minister he was the supervisor and the buck stops with him.
Sadly people do not understand the idea of responsibilty or indirect responisbility in the age of "blame everyone but yourself" |
|
|
| AwakenedAddict |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
What keeps our politicians in check again? Oh yeah, nothing. |
Usually I don't correct you on political matters Jayx1, but ffs! The "vote of confidence" in canadian parliament is very similar to the impeachment process in the US. The only difference really is that the confidence vote in canada can be applied to a bunch of different issues (ie: the recent budget vote) which has little to do with the actions of the PM. In addition, a US president needs to lose a much higher percentage of such a vote to be removed from office (66.7% vs 50.1%). In fact, you could say that the canadian head of state is much easier to remove than his/her US counterpart. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
Nixon attempted to cover up the fact that the men caught in the act of breaking and entering worked for his re-election campaign.
What the Lieberals have done (AdScam, TsunamiGate, JudgeScam, Oil-for-Food, HRDC, Shawinigate, proven connection to mafia, $25 billion in hush money, etc. etc.) is FAR, FAR worse.
It's PATHETIC that people defend the Lieberals... |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by AwakenedAddict
Usually I don't correct you on political matters Jayx1, but ffs! The "vote of confidence" in canadian parliament is very similar to the impeachment process in the US. The only difference really is that the confidence vote in canada can be applied to a bunch of different issues (ie: the recent budget vote) which has little to do with the actions of the PM. In addition, a US president needs to lose a much higher percentage of such a vote to be removed from office (66.7% vs 50.1%). In fact, you could say that the canadian head of state is much easier to remove than his/her US counterpart. |
What about in most cases where there is a majority? King Chretien could have never been removed. |
|
|
| AwakenedAddict |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
What about in most cases where there is a majority? King Chretien could have never been removed. |
This is true, but the fact is that an american president is still more entrenched. Party loyalty is higher in the states, so if a president has a majority in Congress then it is quite hard for him to lose 66.7% of the vote there. In Canada, party loyalty is much lower (due in part to the fact that there are more than 2 viable parties), so even if a PM has a majority in Parliament, if he/she did something which would would warrant removal, there is a good chance that the vote will pass (also due to the lower actual requirements for removal 50% vs. 66.7%). |
|
|
| Orko |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
When employees cause negligence at a company who gets fired? Both the employee and the person who supervises him. |
im not defending the liberals, or Martin, just correcting your statement.
A manager is not always at fault for the negligence of their sobordinate. Often managers, have far too many duties to attend to, to be able to keep track of every action of every employee. Also, workers often become wise to their manager's scheduals, and control systems, allowing them to exploit such systems.
Becareful before you blame two parties, when only one was responsible. Again i am not applying this to the case at hand, but just a general thought.
If one of your employees spits in the sub of a customer, should YOU be held accountable? I think not. If you failed to right the wrong, that you were aware of, then you need to be punished. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orko
If one of your employees spits in the sub of a customer, should YOU be held accountable? I think not. If you failed to right the wrong, that you were aware of, then you need to be punished. |
Actually i would be because id be the one sued and probably shut down and the employee would be fired.
Thanks for backing me up ;) |
|
|
|
|
