Richard Cohen Can Kiss My Ass!!!!

[lala_rawraw]

I feel so honored being attacked by the bastard who helped take down Gary Webb. The boy-toy of Perle and Wolfie comes to defend Judith Miller's honor- patriot saint, poster child of journalistic principle. Wow, this reality could not become more odd than if I had baked it in the oven myself.

Read this crap:

...(waxing moronic here)

After four score and seven of us were in the calaboose, the prosecutor would -- like the British facing the indomitable Gandhi -- collapse before our moral force and leave us to honor our solemn commitments as we have done since time immemorial.

...

(then the teeth)...

A somewhat typical blast at Miller comes from someone named Larisa Alexandrovna writing in Arianna Huffington's blog. "Pardon me while I intrude on the whorish theater of martyrdom now assigned to the likes of Judith Miller," she begins. She then proceeds to fatally oxymoronize herself by writing, "I agree that the principle of a free press is more important than any one journalist or source, but I do not agree that the principle applies to Judith Miller, who unconscionably helped lie a country into war and in doing so relinquished any right or privilege she had as a journalist."

...

and then the token Nazi comment...

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.

but in case there was any doubt, a small sentence to indicate that a). i am only a blogger and as such, b). I operate in a realm...

"... where the usual journalistic standards of proof are for some reason suspended."

I suppose it never occurred to him that my blogging at Huff Post is where I write some opinions, much like here, only less comfie. It seems that "someone" like me has no clue about standards and someone like him does not read much.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101585.html

[LeftNYC]

1. Judith Miller operated in that realm

while she was whoring for the Bushies...

[Straight Shooter]

2. So he's soft on treason. What's new?

Judas Miller has no ethics. She should be stripped of any label of "journalist" and then we can move forward from there.

Would Cohen appreciate the same war-mongering and would he defend someone involved in a treasonous conspiracy if that person did not wear the label "journalist"? He's saying his profession has double standards: one for them, one for the rest of us.

[bryant69]

3. I don't necessarily agree with you

I do find it troubling that the fact that her reporting may have helped the Bush Administration into Iraq negates any journalistic privileges she may enjoy. Perhaps i dont' know what you mean by that.

Do you think that she conspired with the Bush Adminstration? "Look Judith, Karl here. This is bullshit, but could you put in your next column that Saddam has an elite corps of Man Eating Gorillas dedicated to attacking the United States? It's not that much more nonsensical than the other stories you have published on our behalf in order to illegally invade Iraq. The money will be deposited in the usual account."

Is there any evidence that she actively conspired with the Bush Administration? Because as long as her actions can also be explained by her being a bad and dumb and gullible reporter, well than she should get the same legal protections any other lawyer would. Suspicion isn't enough, in my opinion.

I could be wrong, of course.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[lala_rawraw]

6. You have to read my whole piece

In which I provide ample info on this and which he apparently felt the need not to include.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/larisa-alexandrovna/judith-miller-the-patro_3778.html

[bryant69]

14. I read it - i think i read it when it first showed up - seems familiar

But I am still not sure I agree with it - see my response below.

[papau]

9. "Law & Order" teaches us that $'s need not be involved if something

valuable is at stake - like access, or position in company, etc.

"bad/dumb and gullible reporte"r is a great defense - but I doubt Miller would use it - and it can not be just assumed. While Suspicion isn't enough, "possible excuses" are not either.

If you are government plant journalistic whore selling lies, the "blanket shield law" would be nuts since it would do nothing to then protect freedom, Constitution, good government, whistle blowers endangered by government, etc.

[bryant69]

13. The question is could such powers be used by the other side

For example, could the same arguments be used by the Bush adminsitration or an even more corrupt administration to silence reporters who report things they don't like?

Look, I don't know that there's any question Judith Miller is a hack and doesn't deserve the position she has in society. But once you put in place a formula that says "some reporters are not really reporters because they are partisan hacks," how do you protect the good reporters?

Or to use a quote, "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." - H. L. Mencken

Bryant

[lala_rawraw]

15. not saying partisan hacks

cannot express themselves... am saying that all rights have responsibility and the fourth estate is charged with protecting "us" from "them" not working for "them" against "us".

government corruption covered up by government employees working as faux journalists is what is killing our democracy... lying, fabricating facts, planting evidence, etc., under the banner of news is dangerous as we see.

[bryant69]

16. To me it's a fine line

Obviously the government (under Bush) making fake news stories is a serious thing - but don't think that ties back to Judith Miller? Or is there a connection I'm aware of?

[papau]

18. It does tie - the Cheney planted lies were via Millar - she was shown that

they were lies and ignored that information.

But your question is a good one - how do we word a shield law so that it protects journalists from Government, while still promoting justice or at least a social good.

I suggest it should not be too hard to grant a blanket protection and to then carve out specific exceptions - such as the current USSC view as to national security, and the DU view as to con-games where info/lies are handed to a "journalist" so as to be blessed with protection against the public finding out that it was info planted by the government.

[bryant69]

20. I am unsure about the last line of your paragrpha

At any rate you seem to be suggesting an exception in which if a Reporter was
1). Provided False Information from a Government Source
2). Knew it was false information (or was shown that it was false information).
3). Presented it as true, and did not provide any of the facts the refuted such false information.

The key problem is number 2 - how do you prove that a reporter knows information is false?

At any rate, such a law might be a good idea, but it wouldn't apply in the current issue before us - the Judith Miller case. Such an exception doesn't currently exist - so the question is whether to protect her rights as a reporter or to suggest that she has already abdicated those rights. I understand your reasoning that she has abdicated such rights by her behaivour; on some levels I even agree - just not sure it's been tightly enough defined. When one is carving out exceptions to rights, such exceptions should be, in my opinion, extremely narrowly defined.

Bryant

[papau]

22. I agree - as to proving - as the USSC says - I know porn when I see

it.

I leave it to Judges to "know" a con game when they see it.

But the current question - Miller - is moot given that there is no Federal Shield law to defend.

[Gabi Hayes]

34. Hey....you! don't you get it?

it's been discussed ad nauseum what Miller's actual role is, and, with due disrespect, I submit that you are either clueless WRT the workings of a free press, or that you are disingenuously supporting the junta

I really really like you, though

[bryant69]

36. OK.

I don't know what you mean by WRT, but i get the gist of the rest of it. I don't raise these concerns because I'm under the illusion that Judith Miller is a nice person or a good reporter, as I've made clear several times. I think you preserve bastard's freedoms because it's the only realy way to preserve everybody's freedoms. You may disagree, but I don't see where there's much call to question my sincerity.

And as for "really really liking me," I can assure you I feel EXACTLY the same way about you.

[lala_rawraw]

24. By not rewarding

Bullshit and lies called "reporting" to pass for news. We can do that by boycotting the NYT for allowing her to report without a moment of thought to fact or accountability.

We, as citizens, have to respond to credibility issues by understanding that our fourth estate is for sale, to us, the consumer.

I want a shield law, but it may not and cannot apply to propaganda and we know this administration cans its own news and ships it out... why then do the citizens of the local stations that have aired these stories not called the sponsors to let them know that faux news on a tax dime means no buying of their products?

So while I do believe in freedom of the press, I believe that principle is there for a very specific reason: freedom from government, freedom to report on government, freedom to represent the citizens as a "fourth estate."

[papau]

28. I agree :-)

:-)

[papau]

4. Excellent Post - Sad that Richard Cohen is labled "liberal Dem" by media

:-(

[tanyev]

5. Oooo, "fatally oxymoronize"

I bet he thought long and hard to come up with that. Too bad it's fatally nonsensical.

[lala_rawraw]

8. I am writing a response

to this sad excuse for a person who cannot tell the difference between Gary Webb and Judith Miller... wow, the first amendment is only good enough for them, but not for us, even the us that work in the same sphere as them.

if you send along any emails to Mr. Dick, please post them as I would love to read them.

[blm]

21. Post your response, too.

.

[paineinthearse]

30. someone named Larisa Alexandrovna

...deserves equal space in the WP!

[lala_rawraw]

32. LMAO - neh

I like the duo of LA and John B = the tag team if you will. It is insane, poor-house ready, but fun as hell and a hell of a rush:)

[Bumblebee]

7. I still remember his 2000 columns praising Bush

supposedly, in contrast to how the rest of his family felt. I stopped reading him after that because I lost all respect for him. Anyone who could not see through Bush in 2000 is not smart enough for me to waste my time on.

[Just Me]

10. There is NO journalistic honor in participating in a cover-up,...

,...of one of the potentially most egregious frauds ever perpetrated upon the American people.

:wtf: is his problem?

He'd rather be loyal to a woman who solicited the American people into a bloody war based upon lies than be loyal to the integrity of his nation? DAMN!!!! What's the matter with people these days? :shrug: Surely, basic principles of truth and fairness haven't become so fragmented and buried that,...well, on the other hand,...geez.

[KharmaTrain]

11. Now They're Holocoust Victims?

I was in Skokie in '78. This goon has no clue what was going on there at the time...and my bets are, if he had been, he would have been appauled at the "fascist" antics of some of the JDL and disciples of Meier Kahane and how that just rilled up the situation...using their "free speech".

The gist of the Skokie debate wasn't about free speech. The Nazis were going to march...it was how they were going to do it. They wanted to march down Oakton Street...the main drag, while the village offered permits to demonstrate in various local parks. Frank Collins and his goons then claimed their rights were violated. In the end, the courts agreed with the original Skokie proposal to let them demonstrate in a park and the Nazis never marched. That wasn't about freedom speech, that incident was about embarassing Jews...especially Holocoust survivors.

Larissa, many kudos on what you and Raw Story are doing. You're obviously hitting a nerve when they shoot back the way they do...and have to do to such hyperbole to get a reaction. Keep on hammering!!

Cheers!

[mattclearing]

12. Cohen has been asleep at the wheel for years.

I stopped reading him ages ago. The only Post columnist worth reading consistently is Colby King. The rest are just too gun-shy to challenge conventional wisdom, and should be disregarded.

He's also afraid for his job. He knows that columnists' bluffs have been called, and tons of people are capable of providing the same service he does at higher quality for less money. That's why the columnist cries "integrity" at the blogger.

It's like a betamax yelling "image quality" at a VHS.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. The role of Miller in the WMD propaganda is irrelevant

The question is whether the source she is refusing to reveal has committed a crime that talking to Miller is connected with. If he (she?) didn't, then Miller can glory in her 'martyr' label; if, by witholding the information, Milelr is abbetting a crime, then she fully deserves to be locked up.

[blm]

19. Hey, Larisa - I think it's GREAT that more eyeballs got to read your work

and likely more of those eyeballs agreed with your assessment over Cohen's defense of Miller.

Cheer up - this is a good thing.

[lala_rawraw]

31. thanks... seems that

All of my male friends were happy as hell about this and all of my female friends agreed with me. Must be a hormonal thing.

[Wetzelbill]

23. Hell yeah Larisa!

Keep whipping ass, you are awesome!

[Catherine Vincent]

25. He's take up for Ms. Miller.

But hooray for you, you got mentioned in the Washington Post. And yes, this guy should kiss your ass.

[Disturbed]

26. The Prosecutor in this case did not demand that..

Cooper or Miller reveal their sources. He requested that they testify as witnesses in an ongoing Federal Investigation. They both refused to do so. The Judge in this case cited them with Civil Contempt of Court.The SC concurred with the Judge's ruling in this case. Mr.Cooper decided to testify. Ms. Miller did not. All this other talk about Ms. Miller, possibly being on the payroll of the
Bush Regime is not relevant to the reason that she is in Club Fed. In my view I hope that she is charged with Criminal Contempt of Court and stands trial for that charge.

[kodi]

27. cohen, as usual is wrong about miller's rights. she has none in this case

guys like cohen think that they no longer need to learn anything since they now have achieved enlightenment due to their years sniffing drain pipes for the Post.

the reasoning given for jailing Miller follows established rules and procedures long enforced with grand jury subpeonas. if cohen, a lazy, lousy hack had read judge hogan's or the appellate court rulings, he would know that what miller has done is illegal.

as to miller not divulging her "source," fitzgeralsd already stated for the court that he knows who her source is and wants her to tell the grand jury what that person said.

His prosecution brief urging her incarceration stipulates that "her putative source has been identified and has waived confidentiality."

Even Times editor Bill Keller has conceded that there's no imaginable journalist's shield law that would protect her.

So, what is it that Judy won't divulge?


Special Counsel Fitzgerald’s presentation to District Court defending subpoenas to Miller/ Cooper.

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/04ms407-G.pdf


Appellate Court Ruling on Miller Subpoena

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf

anyone here expect cohen to have taken the time to have actually read the court opinions on this?

cohen is a weakassed columnist who doesn't do his homework before he opens his stupid fucking mouth.

yet this clown cohen is one the right points to as a "liberal" columnist.

[papau]

29. No "liberal" columnist - he was rational long long ago - but never a

liberal

[AuntPatsy]

33. It should be no suprise that through the net as well, they attack

your site as being unreliable and bordering on fanaticism. Don't take it personal, it only means your doing the job you set out to do and you are scaring them....

[bleever]

35. He's not worthy!

Hey! Richie! If this is a fantasy world where the usual journalistic standards of proof are suspended, why waste your energy?

If Judy's position as a journalist and guardian of the public's right to know grants her special privileges to never testify in a court of law about anything she's told in confidence, what happens when she's promoted the opposite agenda of secrecy and deception? Witting or otherwise, she has ceased to uphold the sacred trust of the fourth estate. The lady is out of bounds, off the field of play, and no ollie-ollie-in-come-free. Play by the rules, and they protect you. Break a rule, by accident of out of human weakness, and the rules stop protecting you.

And don't pick on Larisa. Especially if that lame-ass name-calling is all you have to bring to the game.