XDA

Of course he has no feeling, he is one of those sub-human Republicans.

But I do have to concede that he probably did not set out to expose a CIA
operative, the by-now overexposed Valerie Wilson (nee Plame), a specialist in
weapons of mass destruction.

So Cohen admits that Rove did not have the mens rea to commit the crime of 'outing' a CIA operative. Thanks for the concession, Richard. Do you really mean it?

It was Plame, administration sources told columnist Robert D. Novak and
others, who chose her husband to go to Africa to see if Saddam Hussein's Iraq
had tried to buy uranium in Niger.

Of course, Joe Wilson has denied this and continues to deny that his wife had anything to do with is being picked to go the Niger. So Cohen must think that Wilson is a liar as well.

He went and later said that he found nothing,

Yea, told his CIA handlers that attempts to buy yellow cake were made by Iraqi officials but then denied finding any evidence of the attempt in his op-ed piece. Which of the two mutually exclusive statements does Cohen back? The latter, of course. He backs the lie.

but George W. Bush said otherwise in his 2003 State of the Union address.

Yea, again the Republican told the absolute truth--the Brits had uncovered evidence (similar to what Wilson found) that Iraqi officials had attempted to buy yellow cake in Africa.

It was supposed to be additional evidence that Iraq had, in the memorable
word uttered by Vice President Cheney, "reconstituted" its nuclear weapons
program. That, of course, is the real smoking gun in this matter -- the crime,
if there is one at all, in what should now be called Karlgate. (It encompasses
so much -- the outing of Plame, the jailing of reporter Judith Miller, the moral
collapse of the press, the preening of Wilson -- that it sorely needs a
moniker.)

OK, the crime is telling the truth in the State of the Union address. This is the battle of the 16 words all over again, but now it is a crime (not merely a lie), the only crime here, that is, to speak the truth.

The inspired exaggeration of the case against Iraq, the hype about weapons of
mass destruction and al Qaeda's links to Hussein, makes everything else pale in
comparison.

I agree that the Plame kerfuffle (h.t. James Taranto) has very little importance, but the ineffectiveness of the CIA (and almost all the World's intelligence agencies) regarding what was really going on in Iraq vis a vis atomic, biological and chemical weapons there is not properly on the President's plate, is it? Wasn't Tenet Clinton's choice of CIA Director? Nor are the shortcomings of the World's spies a crime (a shame, no doubt--but not a crime).

. It was to protect those lies, those exaggerations, that incredible train
wreck of incompetence, ideologically induced optimism
and, of course, contempt for the quaint working of the democratic
process, that everything else stems from. Wilson was both armed and dangerous.
He claimed the truth.

Wilson lied again and again. At this point I can't tell if Cohen is aware of that or not. If I had to guess I would say no.

The truth about that truth was contained in a Post story about the leaks. It
quoted "a senior administration official" who said that the outing of Plame was
"meant purely and simply for revenge." It also said that two -- not one -- "top
White House officials" had called "at least six Washington journalists and
disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife."

Oh, I see, it is the Post, and not the investigation by Fitzgerald, which has found the motive for the mentioning of Plame's work. It wasn't to put the origin of Wilson's trip (the nepotism in the choice of this blowhard) in proper context (as the leaked Cooper memo clearly shows), it was revenge. Someone should call Fitzgerald and tell him he can pull the plug on his grand jury investigation; the Post has uncovered the truth of the truth-- 'nuff said.

This response might be reprehensible, but it was routine for the town and,
particularly, the vindictive Bush White House.

Care to back up that charge with, oh, I don't know, one example? Just one example of the vindictive Bush White House. There are, alas, none in the column.

What it was not, though, was a crime. The law prohibiting the outing of a CIA
agent is so restrictive that it has been applied only once and does not seem to
fit this case. I find it hard to believe that Rove or anyone at the White House
specifically intended to blow the cover of a CIA agent. Rove is a political
opportunist, not a traitor.

WOW, what gracious concessions! Rove is not a criminal nor a traitor. Thanks for the high praise.

Washington loves farce the way Vienna loves the waltz. It once extravagantly
inflated a sex act into the impeachment of a president,

Were the impeachment charges against President Clinton about illicit sex or were they about lying? I forget.

and it has now reduced the momentous debacle of the Iraq war into a question
of what Rove or someone else said to a reporter on the phone.

Momentous debacle? Does he mean our unprecedented victory in Iraq, the deposing of one of the worst modern dictators, and the midwifing of freedom and democracy for 25 million humans? I'm confused, because I always thought that debacle meant something bad.

Soon, the question will turn on whether Rove or others actually cited Plame by
name

I thought he already conceded that revealing Plame by name was not a crime. Who cares if the name was used or not if using the name was not a crime?

and whether the president's oath to fire anyone who identified Plame as a CIA
operative

The statement I heard President Bush say was that if someone in his administration had committed a crime, that person would be dealt with. Are there other statements by the President not as precise out there to which Mr. Cohen is referring? Could he take a few lines to straighten that out or does he prefer to confuse the issue and mis-characterize what the president actually did say? The question answers itself.

applies to someone who just mentioned her job title. It will all depend on
what "is" is or, to put it another way, whether Bush will concede that he
inhaled.

See. Everyone parses clear statements; everyone lies. Clinton. Bush. They're exactly the same in this regard.

None of this matters -- not really. The persistent criminalization of
politics does no one any good.

Criminalization of politics? You mean bringing perjury charges against someone who lied under oath? Or pretending that Karl Rove committed a crime when pretty clearly he did not? I can't tell. I'm not sure Richard Cohen can tell what he's saying here either.

This is a parody of Clausewitz. He said war is the continuation of politics by
other means. Now, we have special prosecutors as the continuation of politics by
other means. The New York Times called for one and now, as a result, its own
reporter is in jail.

Cohen must have been an English major--he can detect irony (the only skill English majors learn).

Washington is electrified with the abundant energy of buzz from a scandal --
speculation about Rove, about Bush, about Cheney's aide, Scooter Libby. Who
leaked? Who may have lied? How did Novak slip the noose?

In Cohen's World, the only candidates for lying, leaking, or escaping responsibility are conservatives. Yea, I think we can all agree on that.

But the real scandal is the ongoing mess in Iraq, the murder just the other
day of innocent children (is there any other kind?)

Did Cohen ever complain about the murder by Hussein of innocent children (is there any other kind?)? I can't recall his complaining about the horrors of the Hussein dictatorship. But now that child murders by Ba'ath fascists continue at a much lower rate (as Molly Ivins has finally learned), now Iraq is a scandal and a mess. Back before we finished the first Gulf War, children were flying kites in Baghdad. Cohen and I have seen the footage.

and the false notion that, somehow, taking out Hussein would make us all
safer. London gives the lie to that.

I'm shaking my head in disbelief about the incoherence and dishonesty evident in this column. Cohen is a maroon. But of course, thousands will read his column and maybe 50, alas, will read this.

# posted by Roger Fraley @ 7:47 AM 1 comments