Peggy Noonan has a new one up this morning. She’s always worth a read, of course, but today she hits on a topic I’ve been thinking about the last few days:
Mark Felt. Was he the hero the press is making him out to be?
Well, Peg doesn’t seem to think so.
No one wants to be hard on an ailing 91-year-old man. Mr. Felt no doubt operated in some perceived jeopardy and judged himself brave. He had every right to disapprove of and wish to stop what he saw as new moves to politicized the FBI. But a hero would have come forward, resigned his position, declared his reasons, and exposed himself to public scrutiny. He would have taken the blows and the kudos. (Knowing both Nixon and the media, there would have been plenty of both.) Heroes pay the price. Mr. Felt simply leaked information gained from his position in government to damage those who were doing what he didn't want done. Then he retired with a government pension. This does not appear to have been heroism, and he appears to have known it. Thus, perhaps, the great silence.
So why, then, is the press lauding him as such?
I think I touched on this when I first commented on Felt a few days ago…
Imagine with me the howling, had this occurred with a Democrat, instead of Nixon.
Rush Limbaugh, yesterday, came out in agreement:
Could you imagine, folks, let's go back to the Lewinsky and the impeachment era of the Clinton administration. Can you imagine if the FBI director or the number two in command at the FBI had leaked stuff from the Clinton investigations to the Washington Times? Can you imagine what would happen to that guy today, Louis Freeh or the number two man at the FBI at that time? If they had leaked stuff to the Washington Times or some other conservative newspaper, the mainstream press would call this a constitutional crisis and they would set out to destroy the leaker.
Let’s expand on that a bit further:
The press considers Mark Felt a hero not because of what he did but because of who he did it TO. Ben Stein in his American Spectator piece yesterday. points out, and rightly, that it was Nixon who brought down the American left’s fair-haired boy, Alger Hiss, and proved Hiss was in fact a traitor. The left.. and the press who is naught but a part of the left… never forgave Nixon that sin.
When his enemies brought him down, and they had been laying for him since he proved that Alger Hiss was a traitor, since Alger Hiss was their fair-haired boy, this is what they bought for themselves in the Kharma Supermarket that is life:
1.) The defeat of the South Vietnamese government with decades of death and hardship for the people of Vietnam.
2.) The assumption of power in Cambodia by the bloodiest government of all time, the Khmer Rouge, who killed a third of their own people, often by making children beat their own parents to death. No one doubts RN would never have let this happen.
So, this is the great boast of the enemies of Richard Nixon, including Mark Felt: they made the conditions necessary for the Cambodian genocide. If there is such a thing as kharma, if there is such a thing as justice in this life of the next, Mark Felt has bought himself the worst future of any man on this earth. And Bob Woodward is right behind him, with Ben Bradlee bringing up the rear. Out of their smug arrogance and contempt, they hatched the worst nightmare imaginable: genocide. I hope they are happy now -- because their future looks pretty bleak to me.
I couldn’t agree more with Stein on this one.
And in the case of Felt, who used his position within the FBI to bring down a sitting President… well, can you imagine the howls from the Democrats had such a person gone after, say, JFK, and brought HIM down?
And let’s get Stein to add some perspective on Nixon, here;
Can anyone even remember now what Nixon did that was so terrible? He ended the war in Vietnam, brought home the POW's, ended the war in the Mideast, opened relations with China, started the first nuclear weapons reduction treaty, saved Eretz Israel's life, started the Environmental Protection Administration. Does anyone remember what he did that was bad?
Oh, now I remember. He lied. He was a politician who lied. How remarkable. He lied to protect his subordinates who were covering up a ridiculous burglary that no one to this date has any clue about its purpose. He lied so he could stay in office and keep his agenda of peace going. That was his crime. He was a peacemaker and he wanted to make a world where there was a generation of peace. And he succeeded.
That is his legacy. He was a peacemaker. He was a lying, conniving, covering up peacemaker. He was not a lying, conniving drug addict like JFK, a lying, conniving war starter like LBJ, a lying, conniving seducer like Clinton -- a lying, conniving peacemaker. That is Nixon's kharma.
This bottom lines at power for the left, and who it is that stands in the way of attaining that power and maintaining it. Centerist Republicans.
Think on the connections here. The biggest hatred from the Democrats over the last 100 years has most demonstrably been aimed at two people; Both centerists, both Republican. George W. Bush, and Richard Nixon.
And yes, I hear you asking already “What about Ronald Reagan?”.. and yes, I agree they hated him, too.. but there was a personality factor there, that, when combined with the chagrin over the failures of the Carter years, prevented that hate from being quite so demonstrable.
Thus it is that after the biggest failure for the press in many generations… the frustrating inability to remove George W. Bush from office… and they tried everything… fake documents, openly championing John Kerry’s campaign, and all… the press seeks to re-establish itself by celebrating and making a high myth of what they clearly consider their greatest victory… the bringing down of the other subject of voodoo dolls at the DNC; Richard Nixon.
And why would this myth need to be pushed at the moment? The left is licking it’s wounds, but it’s also a student of history; they know what’s worked for their goals in the past. They’re THAT pragmatic, at least.
Consider the situation we find ourselves in. It is remarkably similar, in that we have a second term centerist Republican, whom the left has been trying, with everything they have to bring down, and one with another war thrust upon him… one the socialists of the world have stated they’d like to see us lose.
Thankfully the efforts to bring Mr Bush down have been exposed as the lies they are, so far. At least, they have been exposed so far.
We know what happened when Nixon got brought down. The left is simply trying to re-run that same play.
Now, let’s look at the Stein quote again. What was the result of bringing down Nixon?
1.) The defeat of the South Vietnamese government with decades of death and hardship for the people of Vietnam.
2.) The assumption of power in Cambodia by the bloodiest government of all time, the Khmer Rouge, who killed a third of their own people, often by making children beat their own parents to death. No one doubts RN would never have let this happen.
Perhaps we should be watching the leftist press’s actions toward our current president a bit more closely. Our world’s future apparently depends on it.
But as for Felt, here it is; He is simply a prop in the war for world socialism. And he’s only a hero, if you want to see the Untied States, lose that war.
Now, perhaps you understand why the press is casting him as a hero, a bit better.
Tags: BitsBlog
