So I am watching this on-line chat with Richard Cohen where he tried to defend his free Scooter Libby column (and I say watching because he has yet to respond to any of the numerous polite questions I have posed) and I am simply astonished at the level of wankery ocurring right in front of my eyes, so I though I would share some of the choice nuggets with you all (although reading the whole thing is good entertainment):
He hits all the talking GOP talking points well, starting out by blaming the liberals for a prosecution by a Republican prosecutor, appointed by a Republican Attorney General to investiage a referral from the CIA:
the genesis of the investigation had to do with the naming of Valerie Plame in Robert Novak's column. But that didn't come from Scooter Libby, and the pressure for the appointment of a special counsel came from a whole lot of liberals who didn't trust the administration to investigate itself. The thinking was that this was an attempt by a pro-war member of the administration to tarnish a war critic who argued against the war in the New York Times. He was convicted of lying to a grand jury, and I don't excuse that, and I don't excuse the war either, but the fact is that he didn't commit the original crime. It's a hefty sentence, the end of a career, and there's no underlying crime
He wont name any of the 'liberals' who apparently can pressure the Bush administration into appointing a special prosecutor but can't seem to stop him from vetoing popular stem-cell legislation (not trust the administration to investigate itself?!?!? The Horror!). Note as well how he seemlessly moves into GOP talking point #2: There was no underlying crime. Ok, so here's a question: If there is no underlying crime why did Mr. Libby feel the need to lie, repeatedly, to the FBI and the grand jury? Cohen has no idea:
In Libby's case, I don't know the reason for the crime. I don't know whether or not he was telling the truth and simply forgot he leaked this information -- it's a remote possiblity but I don't buy it. I don't know if he was covering up for someone else's political embarassment.
To his credit, Cohen clearly states that he thinks Libby is guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted, but just doesn't think a nice guy like Scooter should have to go to jail.
But I do know that he was a successful lawyer probably making ... god knows, a lot of money ... and he chose to go back into government not because he thought he was going to get anything out of it, but because he thought it was good to serve.If he lied to a grand jury . . . it was because he was covering up for embarassment or because he mistakenly thought he had committed a crime. So fine, convict him. But 30 months is excessive.
Poor poor Scooter, mistakenly thought he committed a crime and therefore he had to lie, what choice did he have? He then, of course, goes on to hit GOP talking point #3:
I really don't think that anybody thought Valerie Plame fit that because she wasn't overseas -- no one thought they were risking her life, she was working in McLean, Va
[snip]
No one thought it was the outing of a covert CIA agent -- and in fact she wasn't covert -- it was just a leak.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but this matter-of-fact statement of something now known to be completely untrue by a prominent columnist in a national paper still stunned me. Lest anyone need to be reminded:
"She traveled at least seven times to more than 10 countries," the document states. "When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity ... At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson’s employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States."
Now as I said, Mr. Cohen declined to answer any of my questions even after I started signing my name when he said this:
Let me just say that I put my name on my column, so I don't even know why I'm responding to someone without a name
Maybe if he feels that way he should have the post, you know, ask for your name on the submission form?!? But I digress. After a bunch of handwringing about journalists keeping their source confidential (something I would be a bit more sympathetic to if the press had shown the ability to do it's job in the last 10 years) he does eventually address one of the points I was trying to make, and it is here that I think he gives the game away:
Ramsey, NJ: You are comfortable saying that the Plame case is "all about nothing." As you know, Ms. Plame was at the heart of the Brewster-Jennings CIA front company involved in investigating weapons of mass destruction. Do you know which agents were compromised as a result of her exposure? Which foreign assets and missions? You don't. So how can you possibly say this case is about nothing? Whose word are you taking about that? And why? Bill Cxxxxxx, Ramsey, NJ
Richard Cohen: I'm not taking anyone's word about it, I'm not saying there were no consequences to her outing, but it was done inadvertently. And in fact, a special prosecutor could not bring a case against anybody for the leak.
Whaa???? Wait a minute! Cohen has already stated he doesn't know why Scooter lied, but he is confident that any damage that may have ocurred was inadvertant. How can he have any idea whether the damage was inadvertant?!? Here we get to the core of the problem. To Cohen this is all just politics as usual, criminalized by a renegade Republican prosecutor and an overzealous Republican Judge. Now apparently Cohen does support the enforcement of some laws (although not nice public servants like Libby), in the last question he is asked whether he supported the pardon of Nixon, which he claims he did not because, you know, those were bad guys and real crimes were committed. Not like our poor old scooter:
Agnew was a crook and Nixon had abused his authority, and as far as I was concerned in a criminal way. As I wrote in a column, I'm not even sure I'd like to see Scooter Libby pardoned so that there's no consequence for what he did -- although he's spent every cent he's had on legal fees and not slept for eight months -- but I think the sentence is excessive, particularly without an underlying crime.
Apparently Cohen is not familiar with the wingnut welfare program. He finishes off in style by, despite claiming not to know why Libby lied, noting that he is confident it is no big deal:
When, as I keep going back to over and over again, you ask yourself if Scooter Libby was lying -- about what? About not much.
Not much. Which is pretty much what I think of Richard Cohen at this point.
UPDATE:
This little blurb has appeared at the bottom of the chat:
Richard Cohen: The column got a stunning, overwhelming number of e-mails, which I have been unable to answer, so I'd like to apologize to those people who did not get a response, and from the looks of it will not get a response. I hope this chat will suffice.
Suffice indeed.