The Global Intelligence Files

On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor's web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.

Re: weekly--Death of Mark Felt and the Crisis of Journalism

Released on 2013-11-15 00:00 GMT

Email-ID 1804435 Date 1970-01-01 01:00:00 From marko.papic@stratfor.com To analysts@stratfor.com, exec@stratfor.com

Re: weekly--Death of Mark Felt and the Crisis of Journalism





Link: themeData

Link: colorSchemeMapping



I learned a LOT from this weekly. I suspect this will get as much positive

response as the Solzhenitsyn piece. I don't have many substantial comments

below, just a few things to help the writers with. One substantial comment

would be that it would be great to tie the piece in at the end to a

contemporary example where we, conducting intelligence based analysis,

provided better information than the media (say Georgia? Kosovo?). A

sentence or two max.



Overall, I think this could do a lot of things... for one, the Post may

never ask us for opinion again (boo hoo). Second, the FBI may be slightly

miffed that we are revealing just how undemocratic and unamerican the

bureau had become by 70s. That is the underlying message throughout...

"Nixon is guilty... but FBI was spying on the freaking President." But, I

think our readers will really appreciate this.



The Death of Deep Throat and the Crisis of Journalism







Mark Felt died last week at the age of 95. For those who dona**t

recognize that name, Felt was the famed a**Deep Throat,a** who provided

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein critical information on the break-in at

Democratic Headquarters in the Watergate in 1972, and provided them

critical information about what had happened, how it happened and where to

look for further corroboration. Woodward and Bernsteina**s expose of

Watergate has been seen as a high point of journalism, and their

unwillingness to reveal the identity of Felt until he revealed it himself

three years ago as symbolic of the moral rectitude demanded of

journalists.







In fact the revelation of who Felt was raises serious questions about the

accomplishments of Woodward and Bernstein, the precise price we all (we

all as in the "society" we, or we all as in "journalists"... probably want

to make sure it is the former) pay for journalistic ethics, and the fact

that for many years we did not know a critical dimension of the Watergate

crisis. At a time when newspapers are in financial crisis, and journalism

is facing serious existential issues, Watergate has always been held up as

a symbol of what journalism means for a democracy, revealing truths that

others were unwilling to uncover and grapple with. There is truth to this

vision of journalism, but there is also a deep ambiguity, all built around

Felta**s role. Therefore, this is not a probe into ancient history, but a

consideration of two things. First, the manner in which journalists become

tools of various factions in political disputes. Second, the relationship

between security and intelligence organizations and governments in a

Democratic society.







Watergate was about the break-in at Democratic headquarters in Washington.

The break-in was carried out by a group of former CIA operatives,

controlled by individuals leading into the White House. It was never

proven that Richard Nixon knew of the break-in, but we find it difficulty

to imagine that he didna**t. In any case, the issue went beyond the

break-in. It went to the cover up of the break in and, more important, to

the uses of money that financed the break-in and other activities.

Numerous aides, including the Attorney General went to prison. It was

Woodward and Bernstein, and their newspaper, the Washington Post, that

probed the story from the summer of 1972 until the resignation of

President Nixon. It was seen as a virtuous performance in journalism

coupled with the cautious courage of Ben Bradlee its editor. It was that,

but it was more.







Mark Felt was Deputy Director of the FBI in May, 1972, when J. Edgar

Hoover died. He had expected to be named Hoovera**s successor. Nixon

passed over him, appointing instead L. Patrick Gray, reaching outside the

FBI for the first time in 48 years since Hoover had taken over. Nixona**s

motives were certainly to increase his control of the FBI, but this had

been the motive of several Presidents before him, including John F.

Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Both of these Presidents wanted Hoover gone

for the same reason they were afraid to remove hima**he knew too much. In

Washington, as in every capital, knowing the weaknesses of powerful people

is itself power, and Hoover made it a point to know the weaknesses of

everyone. He also made it a point to be useful to the powerful, increasing

his value and increasing his knowledge of the vulnerabilities of the

powerful.







There are many lurid tales about Hoover. Chief among them was that he was

an active homosexual, and that elements of the American Mafia had proof of

his homosexuality. Until the early 1960s, Hoover denied what any kid

growing up in the Bronx new perfectly well, which was that there was large

scale organized crime in the United States. We do not know whether he was

sincere in this, we do not know if the mob had compromising pictures of

him and we do not know that he was homosexual. We do know that he was

powerful enough that, taking this idiosyncratic position on the mob, he

could prevent the FBI from actively engaging the mob. Congressional

hearings, Presidential suggestions or public opinion were insufficient to

sway him. Hoover owned the FBI and was, in many ways, a law unto

himselfa**and a man feared by Presidents.







His death achieved what Kennedy and Johnson couldna**t. It got rid of

Hoover. Nixon had no intention of allowing the FBI to continue as a

self-enclosed organization, not under the control of the President or

anyone else. Therefore the idea that Mark Felt, a man completely loyal to

Hoover and his legacy would be selected to succeed him is, in retrospect,

the most unlikely outcome imaginable. Felt regarded the selection of Gray

as the unwelcome politicization of the FBI (placing it under direct

Presidential control), an assault on the traditions created by Hoover, an

insult to his memory and a massive disappointment to himself. Felt was a

disgruntled employee at the highest level. He was also a senior official

in an organization that had traditionally protected its interests in

predictable ways. It identified its enemies, used its vast knowledge of

its enemya**s wrong doing, and leaked it to the press in as devastating a

way as possible, carefully hiding the source of the information, and

watching the victima**usually guilty as hella**crumble. Felt, who himself

was later convicted and pardoned for illegal wiretaps and break-ins, was

not nearly as appalled by Nixona**s crimes as by Nixona**s decision to

pass him over as head of the FBI. He set in motion Hoovera**s play book.







Woodward and Bernstein were on the city desk of the Washington Post. They

were young, inexperienced and hungry. We do not know why Felt decided to

use them as his conduit for leaks, but we would guess that these three

characteristics were what he was looking fora**as well as a newspaper with

sufficient gravitas to be noticed. Felt obviously knew they had been

assigned to a local burglary, and he decided to leak what he knew to two

young, inexperienced and hungry journalists whom he could lead to where he

wanted them to go. He used his knowledge to guide, and therefore control,

their investigation.







And now we come to the major point. For Felt to have been able to guide

and control their investigation, he needed to know a great deal of what

the White House had done, going back quite a way. He could not possibly

have known that simply through his personal investigations. His knowledge

covered too many people, too many operations, and too much money in too

many places to have been simply a side hobby of Felta**s. The only way in

which Felt could have the knowledge he did is if the FBI had been

systematically spying on the White House, on the Committee to Re-elect the

President and 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 Posta**s coverage.







Nixon was, in our view, incredibly guilty of more things than were ever

proven. Nevertheless, there is another side to this story. The FBI was

also conducting espionage on the President of the United States, not in

order to prosecute Nixon, but to increase the FBIa**s control over Nixon.

When Hoover died, his Deputy, was either given the portfolio or had been

in charge of the operation from the beginning. When it became clear that

Nixon intended to break the Hoover legacy in the FBI, Felt used that

informationa**as the FBI had done beforea**to break the President.







Woodward, Bernstein and above all, Ben Bradlee, all knew what was going

on. So did Bradlee also know who "deep throat" is? Woodward and Bernstein

might have been young and naA-ve, but Bradlee was an old Washington hand

who knew exactly who Felt was, who knew the FBI playbook, who had to have

understood that Felt could not have played the role he played except for a

focused FBI operation directed against the President. He 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 J. Edgar Hoovera**s

disappointed heir.







This was enormously important news. The Washington Post decided not to

tell it. 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 a President, and a news

organization that new perfectly well that it was being used against Nixon.

In protecting Deep Throat, what was being protected was not only an

individual, but rather the story of the role that the FBI had played in

destroying Nixon.







Again Nixona**s guilt is unquestioned by us. You can make the argument

that given John Mitchella**s control of the Justice Department, Felt going

through channels was impossible (although the FBI was more intimidating to

Mitchell than the other way around). You can say many things in many ways.

But the fact remains that Deep Throat was the heir apparent to J. Edgar

Hoover, a man not averse to breaking the law in covert operations, and

clearly drawing on broader resources in the FBI, resources that had to

have been in place before Hoovera**s death and continued operating

afterwards.







Until Mark Felt came forward in 2005, these things were not only unknown,

but protected by the Washington Post. They were in a difficult position.

Without the help of Felt, they would not have gotten the story on Felt.

The terms that Felt set however, required that a huge piece of the story

not be told. The Washington Post created a morality play about a

government out of control and bought to heel by two young enterprising

journalists and a courageous newspaper. That simply wasna**t what

happened. It was the FBI, using the Washington Post to leak information to

destroy the President, the Washington Post willingly serving as the

conduit, and by withholding the identity of Deep Throat, withholding an

essential dimension of the story.







Journalists have celebrated the Washington Posta**s role in bringing down

the President for a generation. Even after the revelations of on the

identity of Deep Throat in 2005, there was not serious soul searching on

he omission to the historical record. Nor was there serious consideration

on the manner in which guarantees of anonymity allow leakers to control

the news process, by making public information without allowing the public

to understand the motives of the leakers, and therefore the real context

of the event. Protecting Deep Throats identity kept us from understanding

the full dynamic of Watergate. We did not know that Deep Throat was a

senior FBI agent, we did not know the FBI was conducting surveillance on

the White House and we did not know that Felt had selected Woodward and

Bernstein has his vehicle to bring down Richard Nixona**rather than

enterprising journalists breaking the story.







Finding the truth of events containing secrets is always difficult. We

frequently prefer ferreting out the facts, incomplete though they are,

from people wishing to hide the truth, than working with people who claim

to want to reveal the truth. Those we trick into revealing the truth are

more reliable. They didna**t think they were revealing it. Those that

voluntarily speak, knowing we will publish it, are sometimes people who

believe that the truth shall set you free. More often, they have hidden

agendas and in giving us the truth, they exact obligations that means that

we are not providing the whole truth but only part of ita**the part whose

revelation will benefit them.







This is the difference between journalism and intelligencea**and the

reason we call ourselves and intelligence organization and not

journalists. Both have weaknesses. The weakness of intelligence is that we

must rely on our own judgment as to what the truth is, making sense of

contradictory facts and sources. Sometimes we use inference, not

connecting the dots but identifying what has to be in that black space.

Sometimes we use a single source. And sometimes we are wrong. Journalism

has practices that are to be admired and many might say that they are

superior to intelligence. But the case of Deep Throat represents, in our

mind, a defect of journalism. In the eagerness to get the story, the

Washington Post became a tool of Mark Felt and the FBI. He told the truth

about Nixon. The Washington Post did not tell the truth about Felt.

Journalistic ethics permits and celebrates this. It shouldna**t.







Mark Felt served his country in many ways and should not be judged only by

his role as Deep Throat. His final service would be that his death would

cause us to re-evaluate one of journalismsa** proudest moments, and with

it, the role that journalists play in our contemporary life.



----- Original Message -----

From: "Kamran Bokhari" <bokhari@stratfor.com>

To: "Analyst List" <analysts@stratfor.com>, "Exec" <exec@stratfor.com>

Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 7:41:27 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central

Subject: RE: weekly--Death of Mark Felt and the Crisis of Journalism



The Death of Deep Throat and the Crisis of Journalism







Mark Felt died last week at the age of 95. For those who dona**t

recognize that name, Felt was the famed a**Deep Throat,a** who provided

Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein critical

information on the break-in at Democratic Headquarters in the Watergate in

1972, and provided them critical information about what had happened, how

it happened and where to look for further corroboration. Woodward and

Bernsteina**s expose of Watergate has been seen as a high point of

journalism, and their unwillingness to reveal the identity of Felt until

he revealed it himself three years ago as symbolic of the moral rectitude

demanded of journalists.







In fact the revelation of who Felt was raises serious questions about the

accomplishments of Woodward and Bernstein, the precise price we all pay

for journalistic ethics, and the fact that for many years we did not know

a critical dimension of the Watergate crisis. At a time when newspapers

are in financial crisis, and journalism is facing serious existential

issues Both these points need to be explained as they are not apparent to

our readers, Watergate has always been held up as a symbol of what

journalism means for a democracy, revealing truths that others were

unwilling to uncover and grapple with. There is truth to this vision of

journalism, but there is also a deep ambiguity, all built around Felta**s

role. Therefore, this is not a probe into ancient history, but a

consideration of two things. First, the manner in which journalists become

tools of various factions in political disputes. Second, the relationship

between security and intelligence organizations and governments in a

Democratic society. A key point that is not explored in the piece.







Watergate was about the break-in at Democratic Party headquarters in

Washington. The break-in was carried out by a group of former CIA

operatives, controlled by individuals leading into the White House. It was

never proven that Richard Nixon knew of the break-in, but we find it

difficulty to imagine that he didna**t. In any case, the issue went beyond

the break-in. It went to the cover up of the break in and, more important,

to the uses of money that financed the break-in and other activities.

Numerous aides, including the Attorney General John Mitchell went to

prison. It was Woodward and Bernstein, and their newspaper, the Washington

Post, that probed the story from the summer of 1972 until the resignation

of President Nixon. It was seen as a virtuous performance in journalism

coupled with the cautious courage of Ben Bradlee ita**s editor. It was

that, but it was more.







Mark Felt was Deputy Director of the FBI in May, 1972, when J. Edgar

Hoover died. He had expected to be named Hoovera**s successor. Nixon

passed over him, appointing instead L. Patrick Gray, reaching outside the

FBI for the first time in 48 years since Hoover had taken over. Nixona**s

motives were certainly to increase his control of the FBI, but this had

been the motive of several Presidents before him, including John F.

Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. Both of these Presidents wanted Hoover gone

for the same reason they were afraid to remove hima**he knew too much. In

Washington, as in every capital, knowing the weaknesses of powerful people

is itself power, and Hoover made it a point to know the weaknesses of

everyone. He also made it a point to be useful to the powerful, increasing

his value and increasing his knowledge of the vulnerabilities of the

powerful.







There are many lurid tales about Hoover. Chief among them was that he was

an active homosexual, and that elements of the American Mafia had proof of

his homosexuality. Until the early 1960s, Hoover denied what any kid

growing up in the Bronx knew perfectly well, which was that there was

large scale organized crime in the United States. We do not know whether

he was sincere in this, we do not know if the mob had compromising

pictures of him and we do not know that he was homosexual. We do know that

he was powerful enough that, taking this idiosyncratic position on the

mob, he could prevent the FBI from actively engaging the mob.

Congressional hearings, Presidential suggestions or public opinion were

insufficient to sway him. Hoover owned the FBI and was, in many ways, a

law unto himselfa**and a man feared by Presidents.







His death achieved what Kennedy and Johnson couldna**t. It got rid of

Hoover. Nixon had no intention of allowing the FBI to continue as a

self-enclosed organization, not under the control of the President or

anyone else. Therefore the idea that Mark Felt, a man completely loyal to

Hoover and his legacy would be selected to succeed him is, in retrospect,

the most unlikely outcome imaginable. Felt regarded the selection of Gray

as the unwelcome politicization of the FBI (placing it under direct

Presidential control), an assault on the traditions created by Hoover, an

insult to his memory and a massive disappointment to himself. Felt was a

disgruntled employee at the highest level. He was also a senior official

in an organization that had traditionally protected its interests in

predictable ways. It identified its enemies, used its vast knowledge of

its enemya**s wrong doing, and leaked it to the press in as devastating a

way as possible, carefully hiding the source of the information, and

watching the victima**usually guilty as hella**crumble. Felt, who himself

was later convicted and pardoned for illegal wiretaps and break-ins, was

not nearly as appalled by Nixona**s crimes as by Nixona**s decision to

pass him over as head of the FBI. He set in motion Hoovera**s play book.







Woodward and Bernstein were on the city desk of the Washington Post. They

were young, inexperienced and hungry. We do not know why Felt decided to

use them as his conduit for leaks, but we would guess that these three

characteristics were what he was looking fora**as well as a newspaper with

sufficient gravitas to be noticed. Felt obviously knew they had been

assigned to a local burglary, and he decided to leak what he knew to two

young, inexperienced and hungry journalists whom he could lead to where he

wanted them to go. He used his knowledge to guide, and therefore control,

their investigation.







And now we come to the major point. For Felt to have been able to guide

and control their investigation, he needed to know a great deal of what

the White House had done, going back quite a ways. He could not possibly

have known that simply through his personal investigations. His knowledge

covered too many people, too many operations, and too much money in too

many places to have been simply a side hobby of Felta**s. The only way in

which Felt could have the knowledge he did is if the FBI had been

systematically spying on the White House A very disconcerting point.

Sounds very much like the ISI, MOIS, or MIT, on the Committee to Re-elect

the President and 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 Posta**s coverage.







Nixon was, in our view, incredibly guilty of more things than were ever

proven. Nevertheless, there is another side to this story. The FBI was

also conducting espionage on the President of the United States, not in

order to prosecute Nixon, but to increase the FBIa**s control over Nixon.

When Hoover died, his Deputy, was either given the portfolio or had been

in charge of the operation from the beginning. When it became clear that

Nixon intended to break the Hoover legacy in the FBI, Felt used that

informationa**as the FBI had done beforea**to break the President.







Woodward, Bernstein and above all, the Washington Posta**s executive

editor, Ben Bradlee, all knew what was going on. Woodward and Bernstein

might have been young and naA-ve, but Bradlee was an old Washington hand

who knew exactly who Felt was, who knew the FBI playbook, who had to have

understood that Felt could not have played the role he played except for a

focused FBI operation directed against the President. He 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 J. Edgar Hoovera**s

disappointed heir.







This was enormously important news. The Washington Post decided not to

tell it. 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 a President, and a news

organization that knew perfectly well that it was being used against

Nixon. In protecting Deep Throat, what was being protected was not only an

individual, but rather the story of the role that the FBI had played in

destroying Nixon.







Again Nixona**s guilt is unquestioned by us. You can make the argument

that given John Mitchella**s control of the Justice Department, Felt going

through channels was impossible (although the FBI was more intimidating to

Mitchell than the other way around). You can say many things in many ways.

But the fact remains that Deep Throat was the heir apparent to J. Edgar

Hoover, a man not averse to breaking the law in covert operations, and

clearly drawing on broader resources in the FBI, resources that had to

have been in place before Hoovera**s death and continued operating

afterwards.







Until Mark Felt came forward in 2005, these things were not only unknown,

but protected by the Washington Post. They were in a difficult position.

Without the help of Felt, they would not have gotten the story on Felt the

break-in?. The terms that Felt set however, required that a huge piece of

the story not be told. The Washington Post created a morality play about a

government out of control and bought to heel by two young enterprising

journalists and a courageous newspaper. That simply wasna**t what

happened. It was the FBI, using the Washington Post to leak information to

destroy the President, the Washington Post willingly serving as the

conduit, and by withholding the identity of Deep Throat, withholding an

essential dimension of the story.







Journalists have celebrated the Washington Posta**s role in bringing down

the President for a generation. Even after the revelations of on the

identity of Deep Throat in 2005, there was not serious soul searching on

the omission to the historical record. Nor was there serious consideration

on the manner in which guarantees of anonymity allow leakers to control

the news process, by making public information without allowing the public

to understand the motives of the leakers, and therefore the real context

of the event. Protecting Deep Throats identity kept us from understanding

the full dynamic of Watergate. We did not know that Deep Throat was a

senior FBI agent, we did not know the FBI was conducting surveillance on

the White House and we did not know that Felt had selected Woodward and

Bernstein has his vehicle to bring down Richard Nixona**rather than

enterprising journalists breaking the story.







Finding the truth of events containing secrets is always difficult. We

frequently prefer ferreting out the facts, incomplete though they are,

from people wishing to hide the truth, than working with people who claim

to want to reveal the truth. Those we trick into revealing the truth are

more reliable. They didna**t think they were revealing it. Those that

voluntarily speak, knowing we will publish it, are sometimes people who

believe that the truth shall set you free. More often, they have hidden

agendas and in giving us the truth, they exact obligations that means that

we are not providing the whole truth but only part of ita**the part whose

revelation will benefit them.







This is the difference between journalism and intelligencea**and the

reason we call ourselves and intelligence organization and not

journalists. Until the preceding sentence, the point of the piece is not

apparent. Both have weaknesses. The weakness of intelligence is that we

must rely on our own judgment as to what the truth is, making sense of

contradictory facts and sources. Sometimes we use inference, not

connecting the dots but identifying what has to be in that black space.

Sometimes we use a single source. And sometimes we are wrong. Journalism

has practices that are to be admired and many might say that they are

superior to intelligence. But the case of Deep Throat represents, in our

mind, a defect of journalism. In the eagerness to get the story, the

Washington Post became a tool of Mark Felt. He told the truth about Nixon.

The Washington Post did not tell the truth about Felt. Journalistic ethics

permits and celebrates this. It shouldna**t.







Mark Felt served his country in many ways and should not be judged only by

his role as Deep Throat. His final service would be that his death would

cause us to re-evaluate one of journalismsa** proudest moments, and with

it, the role that journalists play in our contemporary life.







After an intense narrative, which discusses leaks, the motives of those

who leak, the FBI subverting the presidency, the problems of journalism,

and a very brief treatment of the comparison and contrast between

journalism and intelligence, this ending seems quite weak.























-------



Kamran Bokhari



STRATFOR



Director of Middle East Analysis



T: 202-251-6636



F: 905-785-7985



bokhari@stratfor.com



www.stratfor.com











From: analysts-bounces@stratfor.com [mailto:analysts-bounces@stratfor.com]

On Behalf Of George Friedman

Sent: December-20-08 3:41 PM

To: 'Analyst List'; 'Exec'

Subject: weekly--Death of Mark Felt and the Crisis of Journalism















George Friedman



Founder & Chief Executive Officer



STRATFOR



512.744.4319 phone



512.744.4335 fax



gfriedman@stratfor.com



_______________________







http://www.stratfor.com



STRATFOR



700 Lavaca St



Suite 900



Austin, Texas 78701







_______________________________________________ Analysts mailing list LIST

ADDRESS: analysts@stratfor.com LIST INFO:

https://smtp.stratfor.com/mailman/listinfo/analysts LIST ARCHIVE:

https://smtp.stratfor.com/pipermail/analysts



--

Marko Papic



Stratfor Junior Analyst

C: + 1-512-905-3091

marko.papic@stratfor.com

AIM: mpapicstratfor









