On the Passing of ‘Deep Throat’
I’m sure the news article probably caught many readers’ eyes today: “Deep Throat”, anabolics the informant who helped bring down the Nixon Presidency, has passed away. Some lauded him as a hero who proved one man can make a difference even against the most menacing of would-be dictators. Some scorned him as a turncoat who betrayed his Commander-in-Chief. Some, like those of my generation, remember him as a stupid footnote in history that made us get a B+ instead of an A- on our American History midterm. Regardless of your opinion of his actions, you have to have respect for the ability of the man to keep a secret. No one knew his true identity for decades, despite books and movie about his role in history that he surely could have cashed in on.
While all the major news outlets covered the story, I found the write up by BBC News, found here, to be the most interesting. Mainly because of this single line “…Deep Throat – named after a popular pornographic movie of the time…” It wasn’t until today, despite knowing about the man for many years, that I learned that somebody thought it’d be a great joke to name the informant bringing down one of the most up-tight men in history with what was essentially a dirty joke. I admit, I giggled a little bit when I thought about it.
So thank you Deep Throat, and rest in peace. I for one cannot wait until someone follows in your footsteps and brings down another prominent politician, someone named “Two girls one cup”.
Follow
December 23rd, 2008 at 5:21 am
A couple caveats for those inclined to give Mark Felt sainthood:
1. His identity has been pretty well known since 1980ish; he just never confirmed it until 2005.
2. No matter how you feel about Watergate and Nixon, Felt betrayed his oath and the trust given him. NOT somebody I’d have wanted to know! And surely there was a better way than to sell (yes, SELL) the story to a newspaper?
3. He was also a hypocrite: he told Woodward and Bernstein about the Watergate break-in of 1972 because he was ‘disgusted’ about that illegal act, but Mark Felt himself was CONVICTED OF AN ILLEGAL BREAK-IN in 1980. (He was later pardoned by Reagan.) Felt committed a felony when he broke into the home of a member of the Weather Underground without a warrant, evidence or authorization, with nothing more than his personal belief that the person was building bombs in the house — which, by the way, was false.
So all in all: Mark Felt was indignant about other people committing crimes, but it was okay when he himself did?!?
Don’t get me wrong, the Watergate break-in WAS wrong, but Mark Felt was far from rightous!
Reply
December 23rd, 2008 at 8:55 am
are u really a hypocrite by doing something illegal if u believe “that the person was building bombs in the house”
and the following the law is very different to being righteous
i might be completely wrong since i have no idea what any of this is about but…
and no im not gunna look up what your on about i cba
Reply
paula reply on December 23rd, 2008 3:46 pm:
You’re a hypocrite, in my opinion, if you condemn someone else for committing an illegal act, but feel you were rightous eight years later when you do the same crime.
Reply
Andy reply on December 23rd, 2008 3:49 pm:
for a different reason ?
Reply
Sequoia reply on December 23rd, 2008 9:46 pm:
Please learn to type in an understandable way. That was nearly impossible to decode, and yes, it makes you a hypocrite unless you repent your ways.
Reply
Andy reply on December 25th, 2008 3:14 am:
yeh cos wot i said makes no sense at all….
its not the same crime at all, its like someone shooting a person for the fun of it compared to someone shooting to save their own life, ok they’re both shooting someone but its still completely different situation
try looking up the meaning of hypocrite
Reply
paula reply on December 26th, 2008 4:19 pm:
Hypocrite: one who feigns to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; esp.: THE FALSE ASSUMPTION OF AN APPEARANCE OF VIRTUE. (Caps mine.)
Merriam-Webster, 2004 edition.
Andy reply on January 1st, 2009 8:34 am:
sucker punch to the mind… i rly dont know wot to say anymore
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:53 am
A saint? No. A character famous, or infamous, for his role in history. I’ll grant that.
captcha: allowing 45c – because we can’t afford 50 Cent.
Reply
December 23rd, 2008 at 8:50 pm
The character of “Deep Throat” was actually a fictitious combination of 3 people, Mark Felt providing the largest chunk.
Reply
December 23rd, 2008 at 10:16 pm
OMG! My favorite movie has been destroyed.
I have a question for all of you that replied to this submission. How many of you were alive during the Watergate investigation and if you were, how many were adults?
I commend you for knowing history and for having an opinion. Living the history and having an opinion is another thing. I will be interested 30 years from now what your opinion on the events of 2008 are and why Bush and Chaney were not impeached.
Oh, thank the Gods that it was only history that died and not the best porn ever made.
Reply
paula reply on December 24th, 2008 4:10 am:
I was seventeen: old enough to follow what was happening, not yet old enough to vote. (And I’ve been an avid news tracker from childhood; at that point, years before the internet was available, I was reading three different daily papers plus getting the news on TV: yes, I think I was a pretty well-informed citizen.)
Reply
Lit reply on December 24th, 2008 5:18 am:
I was, at the saying goes, merely a twinkle in my father’s eye. I wasn’t born until some ten years after this all happened.
Reply
Kortnee reply on December 24th, 2008 7:26 pm:
I wasn’t even a twinkle in my father’s eye when all this happened.
I believe history will bear out my opinions about the last 8 years but we’ll have to see, won’t we?
Reply
December 24th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Ultimately, whistleblowers have to betray someone or something. Hopefully, they do it out of conscience, though sometimes there’s money or some other incentive involved.
History gets to judge them in the long run. Peers and bystanders have the much tougher job of seeing it without the long view. The further we get from those events, the less significant they will look in the context of a century.
captcha: varying said – that’s what I’m trying to do.
Reply
December 27th, 2008 at 7:54 am
I was 14 in ’74, and delivering the Daily News on Long Island kept me pretty current on what was happening- I tended to read the papers between delivery stops
Reply