The Villain/Hero Debate

[OETKB]

We must be careful not to fall into the neocon trap of arguing whether Mr. Felt was a hero or a villain. Many of us in our lives have to summon up "courage" to do what is right even if it is hard for us. The praise should go to this characteristic in humans and not try to lionize the individual. Predictably, what has happened is that Mr. Felt's entire life goes under the microscope trying to make him what he is not: A perfect human being. What we want are "thank god" moments in our lives so each of can aspire to whatever shred of nobleness exists in each one of us. Going overboard with praise or condemnation so the public doesn't know whether to throw eggs or flowers greatly misses the point. We need people to recognize a wrong that needs to be righted and to act on it, no matter what their former history was and for them to think this is the norm. Remember the Watergate burglers were brought down by a security guard, Frank Wills, who just did his job. It was exactly how he put it when asked and he expected no more. His life went on and, in fact, did not end happily, but nevertheless he made his mark and his effort is a prized example of the human spirit and what it means to be a true American.

We seem to always concentrate on the trees instead of the forest. The real goal is to foster this sense in as many people as possible to recognize wrong and then do the right thing. Wouldn't it be great if that was more commonplace and those who do the opposite more rare, making them the focus of attention instead.

Pertinent to the latter it didn't take long for those who were witneses to the wrongdoing in the Nixon administration to start slinging mud at Mark Felt. If what he was doing was considered more proper, these whiners would be seen for what they are: Criminals.

[DefenseLawyer]

1. It is nutty, but not surprising

that this revelation has somehow let the far right try to reinvent history by getting the media to jump on a "hero or villain" debate about Felt, where no debate exists (unless lying right wing nuts are allowed in the debate). The media uses this formula constantly to create controversy where none should exist. They do this by allowing "both sides" equal time on an issue, even when one "side" is clearly without any factual merit whatsoever, a perfect example being the swiftboat liars. These men were shown to be lying partisan hacks when their ridiculous claims were first put forth. Yet the media still presented the "story" as "Swiftboat guys say this... And Kerry SAYS it's not true", instead of saying "Swiftboat guys say this, but we have investigated and it IS NOT TRUE". As an aside, I actually heard a local radio nut say this morning that the liberal media was to blame for Nixon resigning. No, not that the uncovered Watergate, that they invented it.

[applegrove]

2. The first thing out of the prince of darkness' mouth was "do you think

Felt is a hero or a felon?". How the neocons want to reframe from the get go!

[OETKB]

3. Worse than that

It showed up as a question for discussion the next day on c-span.

[applegrove]

4. Aaron Brown was ridiculing the Nixon pundits on their hero vs criminal

talk by the end of the evening of the first day. But it just kept spreading.

Repeat it enough times and everyone falls in line.

[OETKB]

5. Shining the light

Exposing these "good citizens" for the criminals they are is totally necessary. Liddy, Kissinger, Klein, Colson, Kleindienst, Mitchell, Halderman, Erhlicman, etc, etc