Richard Cohen of the Washington Post is an Idiot

I just sent this to Richard Cohen, the Post's executive editor, and the ombudsman in response to this column and his defense of it at the following two links.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/18/AR2007061801366.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/06/19/DI2007061901259.html


"Dear Sir,
It was with great disappointment that I read your column entitled "The Runaway Train That Hit Scooter Libby" today on your paper's website. I suppose I shouldn't have been too surprised as I seem to recall that you write columns in cycles slowly moving from cautious support for whatever the liars are selling that month to rightous indignation that they could have deceived you so. This pattern seems to hold true in your (and the wider media's I suppose) treatment of the Iraq War, detainee treatment, Gauntanamo Bay, the NSA spying program, various other outrages, etc., etc. You may get off lucky in this case as it is likely that George W. Bush's ability in "practicing the dark art of politics" by manipulating his ultimate authority over our justice system will manage to "keep the lights off" and that the truth will never be known. But perhaps in another few months you'll end up writing yet another column about how you were wrong and the right-wing echo machine deceived you yet again, this time into supporting a pardon for a man guilty of one of the more cynical and corrupt examples of obstruction of justice that I am personally aware of.

Your column totally misses the point and seems, incredibly, to be more concerned with the fact that some journalists had their feathers ruffled than with the incalcuable harm the Scooter Libby case has done to our nation. Let me bottom line this for you. In retaliation for an op-ed piece that exposed out-and-out lies told, by the president to the american people, during the State of the Union address; the Vice President's Office exposed the identity of a CIA operative. That's what happened. If you want to argue about whether any of this was a "crime", be my guest. The CIA certainly thought it was a crime when they asked the Justice Department to investigate. You can blame "the liberal press" if you feel like it, but I've never noticed the administration cravenly kow-towing to the liberal press on anything else. Quite the reverse, frankly.

Now, let's go into this in a bit more depth. Whether or not Armitage was Novak's initial source for his column is completely immaterial. Testimony from Libby's trial makes it clear that Libby and Rove, at the very least, were shopping the "Wilson's wife works for the CIA" story around to their compliant press contacts. Novak is incidental, though scummy and borderline treasonous. Rove avoided indictment by the skin of his teeth, Libby was not so lucky. Let me make this as clear as I can: Libby and Rove were lobbying their press buddies to expose a CIA agent while keeping their names out of it. To punish said agent's husband for daring to publish the truth. Libby, at least, was operating under orders from the Vice President himself.

Since Cheney has the authority to classify and de-classify information at his whim, it is possible to argue that Scooter wasn't actually revealing classified information, since Cheney specifically told him to reveal it, it is de-facto "de-classified". You could also argue that this is self-serving hypocritical BS though. Being able to decide what is and what isn't a crime is very convenient if you're thinking of doing something illegal. Plus there's the fact that revealing a CIA operatives name is(or should be) a crime, whether or not that information is classifed. If you want to argue about "underlying crimes", "criminalizing politics" and what is technically legal or illegal then go ahead, no one can make you focus on what's best for the country. But let's look at the effects of what we've seen unfold over the course of the Scooter Libby affair.

Effect #1 - Anybody with a brain in their heads will be leaving the intelligence agencies as fast as they possibly can. This point gets obscured by the endless wrangling over who did what when and whether it was even really a crime, but it's probably the most important. What happened to Valerie Plame sends a very clear message to our intelligence community. Your bosses do not care about you in the least and will sacrifice you at a moment's notice for the most miniscule and ephemeral of domestic political advantages. Remember, exposing Valerie Plame didn't just affect Valerie Plame, but everyone she was connected to. All her contacts, all the agents working with her, suddenly anyone can open up the paper and start connecting the dots.

Effect #2 - Those that do stay in our intelligence branches will be even less likely to cross their political masters in any fashion, or to tell them anything they might not want to hear. This doesn't seem like a desirable outcome in agencies designed to find the truth about vital security issues.

Effect #3 - It seems likely that these effects will spread throughout the government more generally as well...

Effect #4 - The Scooter Libby case establishes once and for all that there are two justice systems. One for suckers, and one for pals of the president and vice-president. Yes, Scooter still has some felony convictions on his record and has to pay a big fine. Until his eventual pardon, which is all but guaranteed now. I suppose they'll have to refund the fine to his financial backers at that point?

Effect #5 - Another big step in the Bush Administration's campaign to elminate any and all trust anyone might have in any Department, Bureau or Agency of the federal government.

Effect #6 - This is the one that you seemed most upset about, although you completely mis-characterized the issue. The country is now aware, or should be aware,that not only does the press refuse to do it's job, not only will they not co-operate when someone (a special prosecutor in this case) tries to do their job for them, not only will they actually have to be forced into co-operation under the threat of jail time, but they actually have the gall to start whining about the First Amendment and their "sacred vows of silence" when they are FORCED to do their job.

I really can't stress enough how disappointed and angry I am, not just with you, but with the entire news media. No one went to jail for what they actually printed. The First Amendment seems alive and well to me, for what it seems to be worth, and it doesn't include a right to protect anonymous sources from the consequences of their criminal behavior. Judith Miller and others were strong-armed to provide evidence regarding their COLLUSION with Libby and Rove in smearing a political opponent and exposing the identity of a CIA operative.
This is all part and parcel of the media's slow conversion into a dissemination vehicle for government propoganda. The pattern, in which officials "leak" bogus information to their eager cohorts in the press, wait for the un-fact-checked story to be published and then point to that story as confirmation of their bogus claims is well established.

If you want to assert a right or privilege to keep your sources confidential, you better start demonstrating that it will be used for something other than anonymous character assassination and dis-information campaigns. And you better start remembering your mission in the public interest. The public interest is never served by mis-guided efforts to "keep the lights off". The media's job is always to turn the lights on, and to focus those lights on malfeasance and corruption within our government. To argue that "that's the way the game is played" as you do in your on-line chat regarding this column, is to abdicate your responsibility.

But, it's done now, I suppose. Libby's sentence has been commuted, and in time, he'll get his pardon. Cover-up accomplished, barring a miracle. I know you don't think revealing Plame's identity was a crime and that there was no cover up, I concluded this when you wrote in the aforesaid on-line chat, "Did they proceed knowing that his wife was a covert CIA agent? Maybe, but that turns out not to be a crime either. This whole thing happens in Washington all the time, which makes it hard for me to believe Libby's covering up for anyone", but that just demonstrates what I can only hope is naivete rather than complicity in treason. Revealing a covert CIA agent isn't a crime? For who? And why not?

This happens in Washington all the time? So what? And, by the way, when was the last time someone lied to the FBI and a grand jury, then clammed up and essentially refused to defend themselves ("I forgot" is not a defense, it's an insult) against obstruction of justice and perjury charges? Why is it hard for you to believe Libby is covering up for his bosses? They've refused to answer any questions about this from Day 1 since the case "is still pending". And now they've commuted his sentence without pardoning him, which means the appeal of his conviction "is still pending" but that he won't go to prison. Two for one. They don't have to talk because the media won't make them while they have any kind of laughably thread-bare excuse at all. And Scooter doesn't have to talk because he's off the hook. And that's why he's participated in this cover-up all along. He knew damn well that the Special Prosecutor was for show. That he would never do a single day in prison. That Bush would do what he's done. I guess everyone knew that but Patrick Fitzgerald. There's no remotely conceivable reason for any of them to do what they've done EXCEPT to cover-up whatever it is they don't want everyone to know.

The fact that the cover-up has succeeded is NOT evidence that it never existed as you seem to be saying in that insulting on-line chat, "The judge didn't say he was giving Libby a stiff sentence to encourage him to turn something else in -- he just said he did this because he lied to the grand jury. So there's not a cover-up involved." Except that the judge was probably as aware as anybody that Libby would never do any time, so all he was really doing was going on the record as to where he stood - and forcing the president to do the same.

You make a lot out of the fact that Fitzgerald never indicted anyone for actually outing Plame, "And in fact, a special prosecutor could not bring a case against anybody for the leak," but you seem to think that he prosecuted Libby for his health, rather than because perjury and obstruction of justice are serious crimes that PREVENTED him from indicting anyone for the crime he was investigating. The fact that Fitzgerald's ethics forbid him from commenting any further on the case has been exploited by Libby's defenders and allowed them to blather on and on about how no crime was committed essentially unchallenged. But the fact is that a crime WAS committed, Scooter Libby lied to the FBI and to the Special Counsel investigating the crime, and the president just let him get away with it. Again, the fact that the cover-up succeeded in covering-up doesn't mean that there was nothing to cover-up.

Anyway, I didn't really intend to spend this much time on this. I'm sure nothing I've said will convince you, but I just wanted to try and open your eyes. The person that wrote these sentences, "This is not an entirely trivial matter since government officials should not lie to grand juries, but neither should they be called to account for practicing the dark art of politics. As with sex or real estate, it is often best to keep the lights off.", has no business in journalism. H.L. Mencken would certainly have had you drawn and quartered and then disemboweled. If you're wise, you will reverse course while it is still possible that someone, somewhere may still believe you have any shred of credibility.

Sincerely,

Jordan Halsey"


In other news, Lord of the Rings Online is still awesome, and you should all get it and join Matt and I on the Arkenstone server.



Big Aristotle's gotta be out...