The Nixon Coup

UPDATE: The NY Times now claims it had the Watergate story from L. Patrick Gray and flubbed it. Except for the discussion of Gray’s honorable conduct, the story is meaningless, even if true.

UPDATE #2 Today (6/12/12) there is an interesting article in The Daily Beast about Watergate and the movie, “All the President’s Men.” It casts more doubt on the Woodward and Bernstein series about the break-in. has a very important discussion of the Watergate story today. We now know that Mark Felt, who died last week, was the “Deep Throat” source for Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in their coverage of the Watergate scandal. Felt was the number #3 man in the FBI hierarchy at the time J. Edgar Hoover died. He expected to be named as Hoover’s successor but Nixon appointed an outsider, L Patrick Gray. Gray had had an outstanding career but was vilified in the Watergate story. He never spoke of it again until he commented on Felt’s admission of his role three years ago.

The Stratfor analysis has some interesting comments on the origins of the story.

Felt saw Gray’s selection as an unwelcome politicization of the FBI (by placing it under direct presidential control), an assault on the traditions created by Hoover and an insult to his memory, and a massive personal disappointment. Felt was thus a disgruntled employee at the highest level. He was also a senior official in an organization that traditionally had protected its interests in predictable ways. (By then formally the No. 2 figure in FBI, Felt effectively controlled the agency given Gray’s inexperience and outsider status.) The FBI identified its enemies, then used its vast knowledge of its enemies’ wrongdoings in press leaks designed to be as devastating as possible. While carefully hiding the source of the information, it then watched the victim — who was usually guilty as sin — crumble. Felt, who himself was later convicted and pardoned for illegal wiretaps and break-ins, was not nearly as appalled by Nixon’s crimes as by Nixon’s decision to pass him over as head of the FBI. He merely set Hoover’s playbook in motion.

Woodward and Bernstein were on the city desk of The Washington Post at the time. They were young (29 and 28), inexperienced and hungry. We do not know why Felt decided to use them as his conduit for leaks, but we would guess he sought these three characteristics — as well as a newspaper with sufficient gravitas to gain notice. Felt obviously knew the two had been assigned to a local burglary, and he decided to leak what he knew to lead them where he wanted them to go. He used his knowledge to guide, and therefore control, their investigation.

The story was not an example of outstanding journalism. It was Washington power politics but it was worse than that.

And now we come to the major point. For Felt to have been able to guide and control the young reporters’ investigation, he needed to know a great deal of what the White House had done, going back quite far. He could not possibly have known all this simply through his personal investigations. His knowledge covered too many people, too many operations, and too much money in too many places simply to have been the product of one of his side hobbies. The only way Felt could have the knowledge he did was if the FBI had been systematically spying on the White House, on the Committee to Re-elect the President and on all of the other elements involved in Watergate. Felt was not simply feeding information to Woodward and Bernstein; he was using the intelligence product emanating from a section of the FBI to shape The Washington Post’s coverage.

Instead of passing what he knew to professional prosecutors at the Justice Department — or if he did not trust them, to the House Judiciary Committee charged with investigating presidential wrongdoing — Felt chose to leak the information to The Washington Post. He bet, or knew, that Post editor Ben Bradlee would allow Woodward and Bernstein to play the role Felt had selected for them. Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee all knew who Deep Throat was. They worked with the operational head of the FBI to destroy Nixon, and then protected Felt and the FBI until Felt came forward.

In our view, Nixon was as guilty as sin of more things than were ever proven. Nevertheless, there is another side to this story. The FBI was carrying out espionage against the president of the United States, not for any later prosecution of Nixon for a specific crime (the spying had to have been going on well before the break-in), but to increase the FBI’s control over Nixon. Woodward, Bernstein and above all, Bradlee, knew what was going on. Woodward and Bernstein might have been young and naive, but Bradlee was an old Washington hand who knew exactly who Felt was, knew the FBI playbook and understood that Felt could not have played the role he did without a focused FBI operation against the president. Bradlee knew perfectly well that Woodward and Bernstein were not breaking the story, but were having it spoon-fed to them by a master. He knew that the president of the United States, guilty or not, was being destroyed by Hoover’s jilted heir.

There have been conspiracy theories about Watergate for years. I have read one book, Silent Coup, that postulates a conspiracy to overthrow Nixon by his political enemies. What the authors did not realize was that the coup was not by politicians but by the FBI.

The story of Deep Throat was well-known, but what lurked behind the identity of Deep Throat was not. This was not a lone whistle-blower being protected by a courageous news organization; rather, it was a news organization being used by the FBI against the president, and a news organization that knew perfectly well that it was being used against the president. Protecting Deep Throat concealed not only an individual, but also the story of the FBI’s role in destroying Nixon.

This story has been ignored since Felt’s admission. Why ?

Until Felt came forward in 2005, not only were these things unknown, but The Washington Post was protecting them. Admittedly, the Post was in a difficult position. Without Felt’s help, it would not have gotten the story. But the terms Felt set required that a huge piece of the story not be told. The Washington Post created a morality play about an out-of-control government brought to heel by two young, enterprising journalists and a courageous newspaper. That simply wasn’t what happened. Instead, it was about the FBI using The Washington Post to leak information to destroy the president, and The Washington Post willingly serving as the conduit for that information while withholding an essential dimension of the story by concealing Deep Throat’s identity.

Journalists have celebrated the Post’s role in bringing down the president for a generation. Even after the revelation of Deep Throat’s identity in 2005, there was no serious soul-searching on the omission from the historical record. Without understanding the role played by Felt and the FBI in bringing Nixon down, Watergate cannot be understood completely. Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee were willingly used by Felt to destroy Nixon. The three acknowledged a secret source, but they did not reveal that the secret source was in operational control of the FBI. They did not reveal that the FBI was passing on the fruits of surveillance of the White House. They did not reveal the genesis of the fall of Nixon. They accepted the accolades while withholding an extraordinarily important fact, elevating their own role in the episode while distorting the actual dynamic of Nixon’s fall.

I wonder if the history books will add this to the Nixon story. Conrad Black’s excellent Biography of Nixon does not consider this aspect of the story. Nixon did commit illegal acts in trying to cover up the break-in, which he may not have known of. Theodore White, who wrote Making of the President 1960, later wrote that he believed Nixon felt the country owed him some forbearance since he could have challenged the 1960 election results with a fair possibility of success. There was clearly vote fraud in Chicago and Texas, both states won very narrowly by Kennedy. The Eisenhower Attorney General, William P Rogers, told Nixon that he had enough evidence of fraud to probably overturn the result. Nixon declined to challenge the election result for the good of the country. According to White, he expected the same consideration during a war but did not receive it. He was naive. Something never said about Nixon.

Finding the truth of events containing secrets is always difficult, as we know all too well. There is no simple solution to this quandary. In intelligence, we dream of the well-placed source who will reveal important things to us. But we also are aware that the information provided is only the beginning of the story. The rest of the story involves the source’s motivation, and frequently that motivation is more important than the information provided. Understanding a source’s motivation is essential both to good intelligence and to journalism. In this case, keeping secret the source kept an entire — and critical — dimension of Watergate hidden for a generation. Whatever crimes Nixon committed, the FBI had spied on the president and leaked what it knew to The Washington Post in order to destroy him. The editor of The Washington Post knew that, as did Woodward and Bernstein. We do not begrudge them their prizes and accolades, but it would have been useful to know who handed them the story. In many ways, that story is as interesting as the one about all the president’s men.

Tags: , , , , ,

8 Responses to “The Nixon Coup”

  1. cassandra says:

    Wow. Poor Nixon – he was not a very sympathetic character. I admit to be young and callow and highly entertained by it all at the time, but they were just tearing him down. That’s all. And it began a whole cycle of payback in Congress. Every time someone starts talking about impeachment I think back to Watergate.

    The entertainment value was not worth it.

  2. EasySEO says:

    Hey I just did find your blog. Good Stuff! Don’t have time now to read trough all the topics but I will come back later to read more.

  3. doombuggy says:

    A lot in this world seems explained by in-group status seeking behavior, and building yourself up by tearing others down. I’m always amazed at reading the machinations in Stalin era Russia, most all targeted toward hurting each other. Let the Nazis invade, but I’ve got to be sure and get one over on so-and-so.

    I guess we’re forgiving of the FBI’s evil rogueness, and less forgiving of Nixon’s.

  4. There is a book, which I have read, by a Soviet defector to the British who wrote that Stalin had intended to invade Germany and Poland and maneuvered Hitler into striking first so as to avoid being charged as the aggressor by the West. Stalin misjudged the German Army and had gutted his own officer corps in the 1937 purges so he nearly lost the war. I didn’t believe his theory at the time, about twenty years ago, but there has been more written about it recently. This piece discusses Suvorov’s theory. Suvorov was a GRU colonel who defected to the British and wrote a chilling book about the GRU. One major factor is the fact that the Soviets had the world’s best tank, the T 34, and it finally won the war for them.

    More here about Suvorov’s theory

  5. doombuggy says:

    the Soviets had the world’s best tank

    Hitler onced remarked to Guderian, “If I knew they had so many tanks, I would have thought twice before invading.”

  6. Merry Christmas/Hanukkah/Festivus/Solstice/Saturnalia/Kwanzaa to you all!

    (Did I miss anyone?)

  7. Bradley, Merry Christmas. I’m afraid that Kwanzaa is over and of historical interest only (and not much of that). The founder of the festival, Ron Karenga, had his troubles too.