I have come to hate the war and I cannot approve of lying under oath -- not by Scooter, not by Bill Clinton, not by anybody. But the underlying crime is absent, the sentence is excessive and the investigation should not have been conducted in the first place. This is a mess. Should Libby be pardoned? Maybe. Should his sentence be commuted? Definitely-Cohen

What does that mean? He "has come" to hate the war. But, oh well, I guess.

He "cannot approve of lying under oath". But he apparently thinks nothing is to be done about it.

He somehow knows that the "underlying crime is absent". How he knows that, I don't know.

So, in conclusion he says "this is a mess". Well, his column sure is a mess. Talking in circles through and through.

I chose a narrow focus:

I’m not going to waste my time or yours dissecting today’s partisan paean to neocon fantasies about what the Libby trial was about. I’m just going to note one thing:

But the underlying crime is absent, the sentence is excessive and the investigation should not have been conducted in the first place.

The one person in this country who is most knowledgable of the evidence—including classified information that never made it to trial or the press, who is the most impartial observer of the affairs, and has the clearest understanding of the case in the context of criminal trials that take place in the District, the one person who ranks the highest in the combination of these attributes is the judge in this case.

He ruled that there was an underlying crime, and that Libby prevented the prosecution of that crime through his deliberate obstruction. He made that ruling and then decided to use the sentencing guidelines for the IIPA rather than obstruction for that count. Who are you to arrogate yourself above this judge? What do you know that Reggie Walton does not?

Richard Cohen has ALWAYS been a useless waterhead. I can't ever remember reading a single column of his without thinking "what a lightweight.." or a thought to that effect.

It's good to take people like Cohen apart..but it's a little like shooting guppies in a teacup: Cohen has all the intellectual integrity and mature insight of a four-year-old on a sugar-high rampage.

It'd be nice to think that all the useless dopes who constitute the DC press corps would actually pay for their uselessness by getting fired, but that'd be too much to expect, I know.

I totally agree. This must the swan song of a bygone genre (MSM stars).

And, how the stars do line up! Enter the blogs & Glenn Greenwald's to usher in the new era.

Mr Cohen would do well to revisit Wilfred Owen's WWI poem "Dulce et Decorum Est", itself a reference to the age-old Noble Lie as initially related by Horace (Odes III, 2):

Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori:

mors et fugacem persequitur uirum

nec parcit inbellis iuuentae

poplitibus timidoue tergo.

(Owen's poem is in full here: http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen1.html)

Unpacking Cohen's article is daunting ... primarily because he's himself done the best job by simply writing it and giving a whole new meaning to what is "great and glorious to do for one's country."

jhillr64:

Two modules of my brain are at war, fighting for use of my face. The "Holy F'ing crap I can't believe this guy is serious", Outrage Module; and the "This is so F'ed up, I can't help laughing", Irony Sensing Module.

Finally, we begin to grasp the true evolutionary significance of the Bush years. Those who have a third module, one that can integrate irony and outrage into a single, as-yet-unnamed state will have a definite survival advantage--as their heads will not explode--unless, of course, global warminig makes this all moot.

The best part of the "[a]s with sex or real estate, it is often best to keep the lights off" line is that, if you're selling real estate, it's ILLEGAL not to disclose material problems with a property. So, if "keep[ing] the lights off" means hiding defects, then not only is it a bad suggestion, but it's against the law. Which gets us right back to Scooter Libby...

ps, to certifiedprep3ned (or whatever your name was), I'm sorry my previous comment went over your head. But don't worry, I'm sure Mr. Greenwald got it.

This is the message that needs to be delivered into the home of every voter. That the DC-punditry thinks the rules should be different for them than for the rest of us.

Indeed, it is so terribly unfair to investigate powerful government officials because, as "white-collar types," they have a "morbid fear of jail" -- in contrast, of course, to blue-collar types, and darker ones still, who really do not mind prison at all. Why would they? It's their natural habitat, where they belong. That is what prison is for.

That has been the real point here all along. The real injustice is that prison is simply not the place for the most powerful and entrenched members of the Beltway royal court, no matter how many crimes they commit. There is a grave indignity to watching our brave Republican elite be dragged before such lowly venues as a criminal court and be threatened with prison, as though they are common criminals or something. How disruptive and disrespectful and demeaning it all is.

Michael Harold... one small quibble. Cohen may be more right than wrong about the lights when it comes to sex. If you don't believe me, go back and look at the photos of those RWA pundits/ journalists/ commentators. You'll see what I mean. Otherwise, I wholeheartedly agree.

bebop-o... We have a million-candle-power flashlight in our house. Intended for emergencies, but I've only used it to discourage the transport workers who think it's okay to do rail maintenance work and trim trees (at a very high decible range) near my open bedroom window in the summertime... at 2:30 in the morning. Nothing like a "little flashlight" shining in the cab of one of those monster maintenance vehicles to make them decide to move on.

Dr. Steve... Please let us know if you get any kind of response.