Richard Cohen: Patron Saint of Oxymorons

Quick, call Dictionary911:

Richard Cohen, liberal-label approved NeoCon crony over at the Washington Post, bent backwards and did a Heimlich-maneuver on himself in order to cough up his latest little gem, aimed at me:

"A somewhat typical blast at Miller comes from someone named Larisa Alexandrovna writing in Arianna Huffington's blog...She then proceeds to fatally oxymoronize herself."

You know, this flaccid attempt at clever wordplay is one thing, but why the attitude dear Richard?

Why all the fuss over a "someone named"? Clearly, not having written for the Washington Post my personhood is irrelevant, and yet there it is, a whole column devoted to someone like me, that "someone"/ woman even, writing over at that other woman's blog. Those liberal women, damn them!

Try using Google, Richard. Blogging at Huff is where I muse, not my day job, although I would blog all day if I could. Loads of fun, really.

So did I hit a nerve with our dear Richard? Or is it that Cohen ran out of ammunition and targets after having so soiled the nice clean sheets of WaPo in defense of his admin pals?

Maybe Cohen ran out of ways to use the term "baseless," having over-used it against Gary Webb, Cohen now conjugates and declines like a pro acrobat, worthy of Cirque de Soleil. Yes, the oxymoronic are afoot.

Cohen is afoot too, trying to defend the indefensible in his latest attempt for WaPo -- deliciously titled of all things, Judith Miller in Jail: Principle vs. Politics, in which Cohen sets out to prove something about principle and/or politics and manages to conflate both into "baseless" verbiage. I just love the word "baseless," Richard.

Let woman kicking man's ass begin:

Now I am of the opinion that if one is going to engage in a debate, with people, one must come prepared with at the very least a sound argument. Whatever the writing style and no matter how badly garbled the language is, as long as the argument is sound, I am more than willing to duel politely and honestly.

The argument made by Cohen is laughable, sprinkled with Nazi imagery for show and such cuddly moments of integrity...so very darling even, the little fellow trying to write all by himself.

Bullshit Principle Uno:

Richard states right off that he is a man of principle (or politics or both or something):

"Before Judith Miller of the New York Times went to jail for not revealing her sources, I offered her my services. I suggested that she tell me her source and then, once she was in jail, I would reveal that I knew, and the special prosecutor would jail me as well -- but not before I told another journalist."

Awww, is that precious or what? So let's use a hypothetical argument where a source is so famous that his throaty nickname is synonymous with the collapse of an administration, putting his life in danger permanently. Let us say that two reporters give their solemn word not to release said source's identity because the very people he put into prison and/or outed out of the criminal closet are still largely around, and some would even graduate from prison (or pardon) directly into the White House.

Such a source would clearly be in danger; would clearly rely on the integrity of the journalists he has entrusted with his identity; would clearly be in fear for his safety and the safety of his family.

Cohen would go to jail to protect such a source, right?

"At one point, years after Watergate, Post columnist Richard Cohen told Woodward that he was convinced Felt was Deep Throat and was planning to write a column saying so. Woodward warned him off." ...I lied, and insisted to Cohen that he had it wrong. W-R-O-N-G! I spelled it out, I recall"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/30/AR2005063002025.html

But why give countless examples, when we can move right to Cohen's next attempt at confusion and smoke/mirror logic.

The Jedi "Throw in Nazi" Trick:

Cohen then goes on to explain that even Nazi protestors have rights under the Constitution, and I agree -- although is he comparing Miller to Nazis?

And why the use of Nazis, Mr. Cohen? Is there no other way to make your point? Call it the Jew in me that would prefer to leave Nazi references for actual political fascists melded with members of the criminally insane who torture, murder, and engage in a plethora of unspeakable acts -- all in the name of deranged nationalism (yes both current and past Nazis would fall into this category). But there is a problem with the example given by Cohen, below:

"The trivial problem with such reasoning is that there is no way to suspend the rights of Miller and retain the rights of everyone else. If you are so inclined, you can see Miller as the functional equivalent of the neo-Nazis who once wanted to march through Skokie, Ill., a town with many Holocaust survivors. It turned out that the Constitution applied even to Nazis"

Pardon my Jewish heritage for a moment, but why this particular example? I understand and agree that even Nazis, as Cohen suggests, are protected by the Constitution -- yet why this context and this example? Surely there are other, more worthy Nazi freedom of expression examples to throw out, no?

I mean if you are going to use Nazi protests, peaceful protests, as an example of free speech -- why pick a case in which the leader of the group Cohen refers to (US Nazi Party), is himself both Jewish and a convicted pedophile?

Plus, there are many twists to the case regarding permits and zoning, but this is far too complex to list here. I urge the readers to look at the case fully. That said, however, I agree -- again -- that Nazis can march up and down my street and I will watch or walk away, but I would never presume to stop them. As a Jew, I have the right to march as well and that is more valuable to me, as it should be, than being offended by those who disagree with me or worse, even those who think it a good idea if me and mine were exterminated. But thoughts are thoughts and expressions are expressions -- people are allowed their own views.

I have no problem with a fist extended, just a fist making contact with my face.

That is the second flaw in Cohen's defense of Miller: He assumes that the government has equal footing with the governed under the Constitution.

The reason for the Constitution, my dear Watson, is not to protect the government from the governed, but to protect the governed from the government.

Miller's Silly Mistakes:

"It's possible that Miller came across dissenting arms experts or intelligence officials and failed to take notice of them. It is also possible that after the war she had a stake in perpetuating the WMD canard and failed to report that none of the weapons existed. These and other allegations have been brooded about in journalistic circles and on blogs where the usual journalistic standards of proof are for some reason suspended", muses Cohen.

I am not sure what limb of this confused revisionism, no doubt induced by time spent in prison with Judy, to address first.

But as I was penning my little rant, others were already posting a swift response, article analysis, and all that fun stuff that makes my list of reasons for her faux title as a journalist redundant.

Here are two great summaries, Mr. Cohen:

James Moore's Judy Tubes

Arianna's Judy File

My question to Cohen is simple: Are you saying, dear Richard, that our poor Judy was misled, confused, naïve? If so, then let us ask the deeper questions, shall we?

Let's say that Miller was duped once, twice, three times, and so forth -- how many times does a journalist need to make a mistake before they are asked to resign? Or better still, what kind of mistake needs to be made?

For example: is running a story with actual facts about Koran abuse at Gitmo, while perhaps making an error as to which government report those facts would appear in, worthy of a resignation, apology, crying fits, etc.?

Define for us, dear Richard, how, as you suggest, absolute rights (protecting sources) can be without absolute responsibilities (good faith, public good, duty to Constitutional charge of protecting the governed from the government)?

This is the principle I speak of -- rights AND responsibility to privileged entitlements. In other words, journalists of all stripes and political leanings should be able to protect their sources and must do so.

Government operatives, shills, whatever, who work against the public interest, fabricate information, and mislead the public would better be employed on K Street -- a government lobby of some sort, sponsored by ExxonMobil -- where such antics are common practice.

Journalism is not meant to be used for commercials or government "spin," but then again, we are dealing with an administration that packages its own news and pays for it out of public tax dollars.

I ask that Mr. Cohen define the principle of which he speaks, because somewhere between Nazis and oxymorons, the principle vs. politics definitions escaped my attention.

Is Miller protecting a source -- or the very mechanism that employed her as a weapon AGAINST the governed, the public interest, and so forth?

Can anyone honestly argue for Miller's credibility at this point? I am not remotely in the minority on this:

Miller has shiny toys taken away

Miller is sitting in jail because she would not testify against her own complicity. Period.

Raising and extending one's fist in protest is each citizen's Constitutional right. Extending a fist directly into another citizen's face and making impact is not a Constitutional right.

Miller took a national-platform-sized fist and battered the nation blind, deaf, and dumb with fear into giving up their children for a war that she helped paint into reality.

By abusing her honored, privileged role as part of the fourth estate she lost all rights that came with that position.

Yellow journalism is something that does not even apply at this point, because having succeeded at that, Miller then engaged in protecting the government once more -- engaged in possibly treasonous activity. No, we know she wrote nothing.

My theory -- of course everyone is welcome to disagree -- is that Miller was part of the front end leak, the selling of the story to other journalists.

I would also argue that since I wrote my own piece on Miller over a month ago, Cohen's delayed reaction is more likely a defense of something or someone else.

Our dear Richard might be protecting Karl Rove, once again and for good measure. The below Richard quote is strangely on the same topic for which Miller is serving her time and here, Richard really goes out on a limb for Rove:

"This is what Rove is supposed to do and what he has done for so long. It was only last month, after all, that Rove impugned the sanity and patriotism of all liberals by saying that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 produced in them the desire to "offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." This was to political rhetoric what the spitball is to pitching...

So I am not predisposed to feel Rove's pain, assuming he has any feeling at all. 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."

Both Rove and Libby waived their rights as sources, yet Miller is still in prison.

Since 2+2 still equals 4 (until the next version of the Patriot Act anyway), logic would argue that Rove is not who Miller is protecting.

Perhaps Richard's delayed reaction is to a piece I wrote much later, after the Miller piece, where I discuss Bolton as the possible back-end leaker, or verifier if you will?

Whomever Richard is defending, and for whatever reason, he is by no means defending something called a "principle." In this argument, the principle -- the very reason for the principle itself -- has been so abused that no defense is possible.

So Mr. Cohen, feel free to volley back, I heave with anticipation of your next verbal somersault while I try to figure out how to oxymoronize myself, fatally at that.