Beating the crap out of the Post's Richard Cohen

[bobquasit]

I made this comment to Richard Cohen in his chat at the Washington Post. It was a follow-up to his ridiculous column claiming that Scooter Libby shouldn't have to do any jail time.

Cohen: Why Scooter Shouldn't Do Time

Mr. Cohen seems to have ended his chat abruptly; perhaps he is off in a broom closet somewhere at the Post, sobbing on Fred Hiatt's shoulder about the terrible, terrible internet rabble who dared to question him.

I didn't expect him to respond to my comment, but fortunately I saved the text:

Mr. Cohen: I am sure that you are getting many hateful, angry questions and comments right now.

They are well-deserved.

No doubt you're feeling quite martyred, the victim of a baying pack of bloggers and internet liberals - how DARE they question you? - but the fact is, Plame's own superior did testify that she was covert, and she was found to be covert by Mr. Fitzgerald. The crime was real.

It is therefore quite clear that Mr Libby's cover-up harmed the administration of justice in this country - hardly a trivial offense. That he's one of your "in crowd", part of the Washington elite who are apparently above the law in your feeble estimation, is NOT an acceptable reason to excuse him.

If anything, his privileged position imposed even greater responsibility to obey both the letter and spirit of the law.

Your elitist attitude and role as a "liberal" who usually follows the
neo-con line rightfully enrage the vast majority of your readers. Do you ever take a moment to consider how much blood has been shed because of YOUR very vocal support of the Iraq war? I very much doubt it.

In short, you are contemptible.

Comments

[klyfix.livejournal.com]

I get the impression that some of the conservatives don't (or won't) realize that the reason Fitzgerald didn't prosecute anybody for the actual crime of leaking Plame's name is that he lacked adequate proof that they knew Plame was covert. I noticed in the Globe that BU teacher person and former news person Bob Zelnick thinks this was all an evil political stunt; one wonders what he thought of the Ken Starr witch hunt. Were Fitzgerald like Starr the investigation would still be active and would be off on every tangent that could be thought of.

The only real question now with Libby is when Bush is going to pardon him; I can't see much reason for Dubya to not just give a big "Up Yours!" to Fitzgerald and Bush's critics by doing it now. He may just wait until it looks like Scooter is actually going to be physically heading to jail.

[bobquasit.livejournal.com]

There have been thousands of angry responses to Cohen's column. Hell, even Glenn Greenwald's post on Salon about Cohen's column has gotten over 375 responses, and that's WAY more than the average.

So I made another comment in the comments section on the Cohen article (it's on page 107). I suppose it might be deleted, so I'm copying it here:

Okay. Clearly 99.9% of commenters think that Richard Cohen is a sleazy, pathetic excuse for a human being, much less a columnist or pundit.

The response here has been overwhelming. The problem is, Fred Hiatt couldn't care less - Cohen is echoing the neo-con party line, just as Fred wants him to. If anything, all this response will serve as a reason to KEEP Cohen.

Post talking point #107: "He must be doing something right, look at all the attention he's getting!"

Post talking point #230: "We're in the entertainment business. If we get a big reaction, positive or negative, it's all good."

So the answer is this: STOP READING COHEN. Don't click on his column. If the clicks go down, his audience goes down - and he doesn't deserve an audience.

And if you subscribe to the paper edition of the Post, for god's sake, STOP! And be sure to write and let them know why. Hell, write to advertisers in the Post and tell them that you won't be buying their products because of the ridiculous stands taken by Bush toadies like Fred Hiatt and Richard Cohen. Cc the Post.

Maybe THAT will get their attention - if enough people do it.