... or, at least,
followers of Jesus. Last Friday, ChristianityToday's website published this
whiney-ass interview with convicted felon and Watergate crook Chuck Colson. One a his gleaming gems of blame-anybody-but-me logic shines here:
What (Mark Felt/Deep Throat) could have done is gone first to the director of the FBI and say, "There's criminal activity going on in the White House, and these guys are obstructing justice." If the director of the FBI wouldn't go with him to the President, then if Mark Felt had called me, I could tell you, guarantee you, I would have gotten him in to see the President because, I would have been afraid that if [we] didn't, the FBI would bring down the President. And the President would have done something immediately, not out of moral compunction but out of self-interest, because you can't have the No. 2 official in the FBI believing there is obstruction of justice in the White House.
More below...
Yeah, okay Chuck. By the way, Nixon had the Special Prosecutor removed from his job when he got too close. Not that too many people remember the details of those days anymore, so your little trip through myopic happy elephantland isn't easily challenged through first reading by memory.
However, them readers of ChristianityToday's website may be sheep, but some of them are smart sheep.
This was published on their website in response to the Colson blustersnivel:
Charles Colson's statements in CT regarding W. Mark Felt's identity as Deep Throat are an interesting example of argumentum ad populum, a style of argumentation which appeals to the assumed prejudices of the reader, rather than focusing on the merits of the case. By using hot button words such as relativism and postmodernism, he deflects the reader's attention away from the degree of corruption present in the Nixon White House, which would have made it nearly impossible for Mr. Felt to have done what Mr. Colson thinks would have been the 'honorable' thing to do, namely to go to the director of the FBI. It should be noted that the White House took actions to interfere with the FBI's investigations. If Mr. Felt had gone to his superior with his concerns, I do think that such action would have sparked "an immediate crisis," but not the kind that Mr. Colson suggests. I suspect Mr. Felt's position would have been in jeopardy, not the Nixon administration. We Christians should judge Mr Felt's actions only if we place those actions in historical context, a context marked by political corruption at the highest levels of government.
Kathryn Lee
I think it is shameful that Charles Colson is still trying to justify his actions. Charles Colson has no moral right to comment on these matters, and your magazine should not support him in his self-righteous justification. Had it not been for people like Charles Colson, Felt might not have had to take the actions that he did.
William Loeffler
Colson's remarks regarding Mark Felt's culpability (or not) for the choices he made in leaking information to Woodward and Bernstein sound just a bit like the self-justification he condemns in Felt. Suggesting that the Nixon White House would have acted honorably, even out of 'self-interest', is rewriting much of what was going on in those dark days for our country.
Ed Brown
In fact, one of my operatives inside has told me that ChristianityToday hasn't received one letter siding with Colson.
Here's the moral of the story, straight from the Gryffin ta you. These people are Republicans. They are evangelicals--members of the Christian right-wing, and G. Dubious Bush's base. But even they ain't buying into the recent canonization of St. Nixon, and the attempt to rewrite history.
Like frogs in a ecosystem, is the conversion of the Religious Right indicative of a bigger change in the political climate? They may not agree with us on alot of things, but if they follow the idea of "truth" that they place on the bumpers of their Lexii, some of 'em may vote with us on the next election.