Jump to content
The Education Forum

Bob Woodward


Recommended Posts

I nominate this as the strangest thread ever....Ecker and Simkin start arguing that Mark Felt was NOT Deep Throat. Carl Bernstein--one of those who blew the whistle on the CIA's use of the media--remember?--says Mark Felt was Deep Throat.

Bernstein actually agrees with me. He said after the story first appeared that Mark Felt was just "one" of the sources that made up "Deep Throat". As I have pointed out, the facts show that "Deep Throat" was not one person. Woodward argues this to cover-up the role that the CIA played in destroying Richard Nixon. As Ron has pointed out, the CIA have been much kinder to George Bush so far. The full story will eventually come out and Bush will be destroyed as well (see the bombing of al-Jazeera story that is gradually emerging in UK at the moment).

I agree with you about Bush, but you are apparently unaware of the recent Bernstein article in Vanity Fair in which he recounted the whole Deep Throat saga. The information attributed to Deep Throat may have come from multiple sources before being confirmed by Deep Throat, but there was, and is, only one source the people working on the story called Deep Throat, and that man was Mark Felt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark Felt could be the core of a composite character.

Woodward's executive level Naval Intelligence connections and the whole Washington Post / MOCKINGBIRD

connection makes me think he was steering us TOWARD Nixon and away from Paisley, Osbourne,

and the CIA's prostitution/blackmail ring............

He had many tricks and multiple Johns,

just like Linda Lovelace ........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
Ron wrote (in part):

. . .the sheeple

I think he's talking about us!

Sheeple tend to conform to two types.

1, The type that believes evrything their "betters" tell them. No matter how outrageous the lie.

2, The type that couldn't care less, as long as there is beer in the fridge, and sport on the TV.

Nope Tim, Ron's not talking about me. Howbout you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
It was a little humour, Stephen.

Somehow I doubt if many members of this august group are sheeples.

Tim, sorry, I have my grumpy head on this morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you about Bush, but you are apparently unaware of the recent Bernstein article in Vanity Fair in which he recounted the whole Deep Throat saga. The information attributed to Deep Throat may have come from multiple sources before being confirmed by Deep Throat, but there was, and is, only one source the people working on the story called Deep Throat, and that man was Mark Felt.

The point is that Mark Felt was not in a position to confirm a lot of the evidence that was provided by the so-called “Deep Throat” (see my posting above). Woodward either lied about what Deep Throat told him or he is lying that Mark Felt is Deep Throat. Most probably, he is lying about both these issues.

Bernstein relied on what Woodward told him about the identity of “Deep Throat”. Remember, he did not attend these meetings. What is significant is that Bernstein wrote an article for Rolling Stone (20th October, 1977) where he explained how the CIA manipulated the mass media in America.

I have been appalled by the way that the American media has accepted this obvious lie about Mark Felt being Deep Throat. True that some journalists like Jim Hougan have exposed this lie but unfortunately most Americans seem to rely on the information they receive from the CIA controlled media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"On November 16 Woodward admitted he had been called to testify on November 3 before the prosecutor, having been given up by a source after Libby's indictment. Woodward, it turned out, was the first journalist to learn Plame's identity. "I hunkered down," he told his own newspaper. "I'm in the habit of keeping secrets. I didn't want anything out there that was going to get me subpoenaed." Woodward claimed he heard about Plame in an interview he conducted in June 2003 for his book Plan of Attack, which failed to contain this startling information. While two Post reporters testified before the prosecutor, Woodward hid his role as material witness. With the disclosure, the storyteller lost the plot."

-end quote-

Sidney,

This is your crucial paragraph.

1. Woodward had this illegal information in June 2003.

2. He kept it from his editors supposedly to use in a book.

3. He published his book, this information is not in it.

4. When his fellow reporters testified, he still hid his role.

5. He used the media to disparage the investigation.

Why is he covering up for the Bush White House?

“He’s explained it by saying he did not want to become involved and did not want to face a subpoena, but he left his editor, our editor, blind-sided for two years and he went out and talked disparagingly about the significance of the investigation without disclosing his role in it. Those are hard things to reconcile.” (longtime Post journalist David Broder)

I'm not sure why you posted your remarks in the JFK assassination forum, but I'm glad you did. We must all be aware of the media's role in carrying water for secret sources in exchange for access. This recent NID conference I did a presentation on just that. It was two parts, one on the new findings in the Avarill Harriman papers regarding his sabotage of JFK's efforts to begin peace talks with North Vietnam in 1962 through India. (from Gareth Porter's book, "Perils of Dominance." Read it for insights into what's happening today and yesterday.) The other on the first press outing of a CIA agent, John Richardson, chief of station in Saigon by the State Department, particularly new ambassador H. C. Lodge. Richardson became the target of a media smear, really of the entire CIA but his name was published, and reporters became extravagant in their coverage of his actions. Access is a two-edged sword.

If you remember the Richard Starnes article of Oct. 2, 1962, on the "The CIA Mess in South Vietnam," that stated: "Arrogant CIA disobeying orders in So. Vietnam..." and "Spooks make life miserable for Ambassador Lodge." While the insider information on the CIA's empire in South Vietnam was important, the one-sided reporting by Starnes and others showed the power of the State Department, the media's hunger for access, and showed the public the split in the Kennedy administration over Vietnam. Of course, it ended Richardson's career. I've put a scan of the Starnes article here: http://www.jfklancer.com/nid05/ppt/conway/JR3.jpg. (Please see the book, "My Father, the Spy, by John Richardson, JR. He helped me greatly with this presentation.)

I ended my presentation by stating that I've warned against confusing patriotism with ideology. Now we must also watch for those in government who don't wish to govern -- their wish is for power.

Best,

Debra

Edited by Debra Conway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, John, but I have to disagree with you. Woodward explained that he initially dissembled a bit when asked about Felt, but once he confirmed that Felt had indeed gone public, the game was over.

Woodward says it was Felt. Felt says it was Felt and his motives are clearly stated in his book. He was angry at Nixonian meddling with the FBI; he was mad at being passed over for Director, and a political outsider being appointed; and he was aware that the WH was covering up involvement in Watergate and attemting to get the FBI to do the same. Even Nixon and his people thought it was Felt.

Felt was Deep Throat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, John, but I have to disagree with you. Woodward explained that he initially dissembled a bit when asked about Felt, but once he confirmed that Felt had indeed gone public, the game was over. Felt was Deep Throat.

Then maybe you could explain what Bob Woodward has refused to do since going public on his story. If Felt was Deep Throat:

(1) Why did Felt not tell Woodward about Alfred Baldwin's role in the break-in.

(2) How did Felt know about Nixon's taping system?

(3) How did Felt know that Nixon had erased part of the tapes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then maybe you could explain what Bob Woodward has refused to do since going public on his story. If Felt was Deep Throat:

In Felt's position, he had access not only to what he saw in the 302s, summaries, airtels, etc. He undoubtedly knew many people in government. He presumably had his own Deep Throats in various places. Can we limit it just to what the written record shows?

(1) Why did Felt not tell Woodward about Alfred Baldwin's role in the break-in.

Baldwin was a former FBI man and he was cooperating, and implicating some big names. Might Felt have protected him?

(2) How did Felt know about Nixon's taping system?

Through his US Secret Service liaison?

(3) How did Felt know that Nixon had erased part of the tapes?

A source in the Justice Department? In the White House?

All speculation, but all possible. Do you think that the lack of definitive answers to these questions calls the possibility of Felt as DT into serious question?

I read Felt's book many years ago and thought he would have made a great DT, but I discarded it due to the smoking issue and other reasons. Not to mention, it is kind of fantastic to contemplate one of the top FBI guys in a garage with Woodward, etc. Now that BOTH of them say it was him, the motive is very clear (in Felt's book.) What would be the purpose in floating such a false story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, John, but I have to disagree with you. Woodward explained that he initially dissembled a bit when asked about Felt, but once he confirmed that Felt had indeed gone public, the game was over. Felt was Deep Throat.

Then maybe you could explain what Bob Woodward has refused to do since going public on his story. If Felt was Deep Throat:

(1) Why did Felt not tell Woodward about Alfred Baldwin's role in the break-in.

(2) How did Felt know about Nixon's taping system?

(3) How did Felt know that Nixon had erased part of the tapes?

I don't think these questions need to be answered to believe Felt was Deep Throat. He'd been the number two man in the FBI--who knows who FELT'S sources were--perhaps Butterfield, perhaps Haig, perhaps, Rose Woods, the list goes on and on. While our friends overseas focus on the shenanigans of the CIA, within the United States the FBI has been a far more insidious force. COINTELPRO was many times as large an operation as any of Angleton's operations. Mark Felt was himself behind many of these operations. As far as why Felt may have left anything out, two reasons come to mind--1, he may have forgot (lets not forget how BAD the information was that Hoover gave to Johnson about the Kennedy assassination) and 2, he wasn't asked (both Woodward and Bernstein have stressed in all their recent writings about Felt that he only confirmed what they'd asked about, and offered up very little fresh info.

As for Debra's comments, I feel that they are quite pertinent. I saw Richardson on a talk show--the Daily Show?--talking about how his father's career was sabotaged. I'd read about the Richardson incident before, in Death in November, I believe. Anyhow, it certainly seems that Lodge, Harriman and Hilsman were throwing their weight around and trying to run their own foreign policy, and that they were even willing to butt heads with the CIA and use their media friends to discredit the CIA. (Let's not forget about Arthur Krock's column around this same time claiming that if there was a coup within the U.S. it would be at the hands of the CIA.)

This raises the ugly question of whether or not these same men, or even others like them, might have been involved in the assassination. By bringing the best and most powerful men in the country into his administration, Kennedy made the mistake of giving additional power to the most power-mad men in the country, and they may have used this power to subvert his policies, much as the CIA and Pentagon attempted to do during the missile crisis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about turning this question round. How do we know Mark Felt was Deep Throat? Because Bob Woodward says so. Is Woodward the kind of man who can be believed? I think his record shows this is not the case.

Why then should Woodward create a figure like Deep Throat? Critics at the time suggested that it was a literary device. For example, it has been pointed out that Deep Throat did not appear in the first draft of “All the President’s Men”. It has been argued that Woodward got his information from several sources. Bernstein has admitted this was the case. It is also clear that some of these sources worked for the FBI. However, what is clear is that there was one secret source that provided Woodward with information that was not available to any other reporter. It has been argued by several different journalists that this source was coming from inside the CIA. I agree. The point is that is was important for the CIA that this fact was never revealed. Especially as I believe that Woodward was himself someone that with the help of their long-term asset, Ben Bradlee, had been infiltrated by the CIA into the Washington Post.

One of the things that Woodward tried to disguise when he joined the Washington Post was his right-wing past. See Adrian Havill’s Deep Truth: The Lives of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (1993). His true political views have only emerged since the publication of “All the President’s Men”. Woodward has been since his youth a strong supporter of right-wing hawks in the Republican Party. It is no surprise that he has emerged as an apologist for George Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

Russ Baker, The Real Story Bob Woodward Won’t Tell (30th September 2010)

http://whowhatwhy.com/2010/09/30/%e2%80%9cobama%e2%80%99s-wars%e2%80%9d-the-real-story-bob-woodward-won%e2%80%99t-tell/

For almost four decades, under cover of his supposedly “objective” reporting, Woodward has represented the viewpoints of the military and intelligence establishments. Often he has done so in the context of complex inside maneuvering of which he gives his readers little clue. He did it with the book Veil, about CIA director William Casey, in which he relied on Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, a rival of Casey’s, as his key source. (Inman, from Texas, was closely identified with the Bush faction of the CIA.) The book was based in part on a “deathbed interview” with Casey that Casey’s widow and former CIA guards said never took place.

Typically, Woodward uses information he gets from his main sources to gain access to others. He then gets more secrets from them, and so on down the line. His stature - if that’s the word - as a repository of this inside dope has been key to the relentless success machine that his media colleagues have perpetuated....

But might there be more to Woodward and his oeuvre than just questionable work practices? Well, let’s see. Woodward granted former CIA director George H.W. Bush a pass by excluding him from accounts of Iran-Contra, which occurred while the notorious intriguer was vice president under the notoriously hands-off Ronald Reagan. (When I asked Woodward about this for my book Family of Secrets, he replied, “Bush was…What was it he said at the time? I was out of the loop?”) Later Woodward got exclusive access to H.W.’s son. He spent more time with George W. Bush than did any other journalist, writing several largely sympathetic books about his handling of Iraq and Afghanistan before playing catch-up with prevailing sentiment and essentially reversing course.

Now, for a bit of cognitive dissonance. Woodward’s signature achievement - bringing down Richard Nixon - turns out not to be what we all thought. If that comes as a surprise, you have missed a few books, including bestsellers, that put pieces of this puzzle together. (Family of Secrets has several chapters on the real Watergate story, but there are others that present detailed information, including those by Len Colodny and Robert Gettlin, James Rosen, Jim Hougan and others.)

Here’s the deal: Bob, top secret Naval officer, gets sent to work in the Nixon White House while still on military duty. Then, with no journalistic credentials to speak of, and with a boost from White House staffers, he lands a job at the Washington Post. Not long thereafter he starts to take down Richard Nixon. Meanwhile, Woodward’s military bosses are running a spy ring inside the White House that is monitoring Nixon and Kissinger’s secret negotiations with America’s enemies (China, Soviet Union, etc), stealing documents and funneling them back to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They then give what they stole to columnist Jack Anderson and others in the press.

That’s not the iconic Woodward of legend, of course - so it takes a while for this notion to settle in the mind. But there’s more - and it’s even more troubling. Did you know there was really no Deep Throat, that the Mark Felt story was conjured up as yet another layer of cover in what became a daisy chain of disinformation? Did you know that Richard Nixon was loathed and feared by the military brass, that they and their allies were desperate to get Nixon out and halt his rapprochement with the Communists? That a bunch of operatives with direct or indirect CIA/military connections, from E. Howard Hunt to Alexander Butterfield to John Dean - wormed their way into key White House posts, and started up the Keystone Kops operations that would be laid at Nixon’s office door?

Believe me, I understand. It sounds like the “conspiracy theory” stuff that we have been trained to dismiss. But I’ve just spent five years on a heavily documented forensic dig into this missing strata of American history, and I myself have had to come to terms with the enormous gap between reality and the “reality” presented by the media and various establishment gatekeepers who tell us what’s what.

Given this complicity, it’s no surprise that when it comes to Woodward’s latest work, the myth-making machine is on auto pilot. The public, of course, will end up as confused and manipulated as ever. And so things will continue, same as they ever were. Endless war, no substantive reforms. Unless we wake up to our own victimhood.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwoodward.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...