Bigger Than Watergate: The Cover-Up That Succeeded

[David Guyatt]

A brief but interesting interview with Woodward on the identity of Deep Throat that suggests that it might have been Alexander Haig. For the MP3 go to website Watergate.com:

"Deep Throat" Used to Hide Haig: "Deliberate Erasures" on White House Tape

Alexander Haig, White House Chief of Staff, May 4, 1973. (UPI/Bettmann)

What was Concealed:

Woodward, by using "Throat", is concealing the person that actually erased the tape or at the very least witnessed it being erased.

Why This Is Significant:

Colodny tells Woodward in the interview transcript below: "the word that jumps out at you is deliberate. Because if somebody is deliberately erasing tapes that are before Judge Sirica, we're talking about a crime."
It is significant because, if for "Throat" to know it was deliberate, he either erased the tape or witnessed its destruction. It is clear that both the process of elimination and Woodward's changing story about "Throat" as a source, that Alexander Haig is the source that told him that there were deliberate erasures on the White House tapes.

Evidence:

Listen to and read the 4-minute excerpt from the EXCLUSIVE Interview with Bob Woodward, March 6, 1989
[TABLE="width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]

Listen to an Excerpt of the Exclusive Interview with Bob Woodward

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: oldformat, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD]Colodny:
[/TD]
[TD]I just have very little to ask. I just have some confusion and I thought maybe you could clear the confusion better than anyone else. I was trying to understand the agreement that you had with your source. Not who the source is. I'm not asking you who the source is and I don't want to get involved in . . . that's not what this book is about. We're not trying to find out who your source was. That game has been played so many ties you almost get tired of reading stories about who he is and deals . . . elaborate attempts to figure out exactly who the person is.

But I am interested in the agreement that you had with your source. And according to "All The President's Men" . . . you said that you would never identify him or his position to anyone. And further, you agreed never to quote the man. Even as an anonymous source. And that the discussions would only confirm information that had been obtained elsewhere and to add some perspective. Is that essentially . . . ?
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Woodward:
[/TD]
[TD]Uh . . . Uh . . . I mean, it's in the book.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Colodny:
[/TD]
[TD]I know, I'm asking you is that essentially . . . ?
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Woodward:
[/TD]
[TD]If that's what the book says
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Colodny:
[/TD]
[TD]You made the agreement, so I figured . . . and wrote the book, so I assumed that that's a correct . . .
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Woodward:
[/TD]
[TD]Go ahead, what's the question?
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Colodny:
[/TD]
[TD]Alright. What I don't understand is, and maybe you can help me understand better . . . well, look . . . (opening up "All The President's Men" among a stack of 3 books that includes "The Final Days").
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gettlin:
[/TD]
[TD]Listen, you're well read! Two out of three isn't bad there.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Woodward:
[/TD]
[TD]But it's a library book, Len! You didn't even buy it!
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Colodny:
[/TD]
[TD]Well, I can't afford it.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gettlin:
[/TD]
[TD]Listen, I've got . . . I've got a store-bought copy.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Woodward:
[/TD]
[TD]Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Colodny:
[/TD]
[TD]Okay. As ever, the always-observant Woodward. Right? . . . The story in the November meeting that you had with your source . . .
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Woodward:
[/TD]
[TD]November when?
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Colodny:
[/TD]
[TD]1973. Which is probably, based on this, the last meeting that took place. And in which you said, "Throat's message was short and simple. One or more of the tapes contained deliberate erasures." You described the meeting as occurring the first week of November, 1973. There's no date on it. But that's apparently it. It seems to me there's some confusion between the agreement, and whether he confirmed information. And whether you can tell me how it squares with the agreement. I don't quite understand if all he's doing is confirming the information you have . . . this, this is clearly information that only he had.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Woodward:
[/TD]
[TD]What do you mean clearly information only he had?
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Colodny:
[/TD]
[TD]You didn't come to him and say, "I know about the tapes being erased in the White House." And the word that jumps out at you is deliberate. Because if somebody is deliberately erasing tapes that are before Judge Sirica, we're talking about a crime. We're not talking about just any piece of information.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Woodward:
[/TD]
[TD]Hmm.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Colodny:
[/TD]
[TD]And he comes and he says "This is what I know." You didn't come to him and say, "I understand there's a deliberate erasure," and he confirms it.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Woodward:
[/TD]
[TD]Uh . . . Just like any relationship you may have with somebody, a source or otherwise, it's evolving. And I think it got to the point where there was uh . . . sufficient concern o his part that he told me that.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Colodny:
[/TD]
[TD]So in fact , . . . All we are trying to establish is that the relationship, as you wrote earlier in the book, about he would only confirm it, didn't stay that way, it changed.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Woodward:
[/TD]
[TD]Well . . . The book makes it clear.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gettlin:
[/TD]
[TD]It evolved.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Colodny:
[/TD]
[TD]But there's no statement of evolution. It just evolved.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Woodward:
[/TD]
[TD]Well, the statement . . .
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Colodny:
[/TD]
[TD]I mean, I read the book. There's no statement by you that somehow . . .
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Woodward:
[/TD]
[TD]There's nothing inconsistent with that. It's . . . the facts are laid out as they occurred. Over time.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]