Nothing But Words

Peggy Noonan was one of Reagan’s speechwriters, and she has an occasional column in the Wall Street Journal. Her column last week – The Legend of Deep Throat – blew my mind. Noonan is a master of political writing – she usually makes most of her points by inference or implication – allowing her to make a persuasive argument, yet making it very difficult to pin her down on a particular statement. But Watergate clearly pushes her buttons, as her statements in this column are unambiguous. They are also immensely hypocritical. Here’s the most jarring statement:

The Washington Post said yesterday that Mr. Felt’s information allowed them to continue their probe. That probe brought down a president. Ben Stein is angry but not incorrect: What Mr. Felt helped produce was a weakened president who was a serious president at a serious time. Nixon’s ruin led to a cascade of catastrophic events–the crude and humiliating abandonment of Vietnam and the Vietnamese, the rise of a monster named Pol Pot, and millions–millions–killed in his genocide. America lost confidence; the Soviet Union gained brazenness. What a terrible time. Is it terrible when an American president lies and surrounds himself by dirty tricksters? Yes, it is. How about the butchering of children in the South China Sea. Is that worse? Yes. Infinitely, unforgettably and forever.

So, apparently, Woodward, Bernstein, and Felt are indirectly responsible for all the horrible things that happened around the world for the next few years after the Watergate story broke. The only conclusion that one can draw from this assertion is that we shouldn’t question the honesty and integrity of our leaders during “serious times,” because of the potential damage to our foreign policy. Reading this made me think of 9/11. Richard Clarke (counter-terrorism czar for both Clinton and Bush) revealed in his book that the Lewinsky scandal paralyzed the Clinton administration, and consequently, Clinton let pass an opportunity to kill Bin Laden (after taking a beating on the “Monica’s missiles” incident, he had no political maneuvering room to attempt another strike against Al Qaeda). I looked through Noonan’s columns since Clarke’s book came out, to see if she thought, in retrospect, the Lewinsky affair should have been swept under the rug for the sake of national security and getting Bin Laden. I found nothing of the sort.

Another section that got my attention:

Was Mr. Felt a hero? … 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…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.

I think Richard Clarke fits that definition of a hero quite well. He was so dismayed by the Bush administration’s handling of counter-terrorism that he resigned his position, wrote a book detailing his concerns, testified before Congress, and was subsequently raked over the coals by the Bush administration (they even tried to cast doubt on his sanity). But again, looking through her old columns, I found no praise for Clarke (I wasn’t expecting her to agree with his position, but after reading what she said about Felt, I thought she might at least respect Clarke’s forthrightness). When his book came out, the Republicans dismissed him as an egomaniac who wanted to hog the limelight and make a few bucks off his book. If Felt had acted like Clarke, how much would you be willing to bet that Noonan would have torn down Felt the same way the Republicans went after Clarke?

Her thoughts on Felt do not illustrate any kind of principled position, but they provide insight on how she rationalizes her own feelings of anger, while trying to score some points in the process.