E&P, Atrios Agree: Cohen is a Wanker

Ahh, the joys of being frist, I mean first.

Yesterday, I opined that Richard Cohen, muffler-wearing, cocktail-weenie inhaling ding-a-ling from the Washington Post, should gargle my schwetty schwetty schcrotum for his latest editorial droppings, "Bush Wanted War."

As I never tire of pointing out, Rich was one of those "liberal hawks" who was certain war was necessary, until pretty much the day it started when all of a sudden he wasn't so excited.

The man pusilanimous wanker has never acknowledged or apologized for his [bent over on all fours with ass cheeks spread] position, or his sabre rattling. But now he thinks he can just jump on board.

Uh, no.

And I'm glad to see that atrios has him as Richard Cohen Wanker of the Day, with a lovely link to Editor and Publisher, where Richar Cohen is also derided as a wanker. And you'll have to pardon me if I pull a Gilliard and copy almost the entire article. It's really that good, and if Greg Mitcehll ever visits Philadelphia, I'm going to buy him a beer. Or eleven.

(March 30, 2006) -- Richard Cohen, the longtime Washington Post columnist sometimes accused of being a “liberal,” produced a strong column today, titled “Bush Wanted War.” In it he said he had long been skeptical of this idea, but now had come to accept it. That’s all well and good, but where was Cohen a little more than three years ago, when this fact was as plain as the smirk on the president’s face, and the columnist agitated for war anyway?

If there was an “I’m sorry for being so stupid” embedded in Cohen’s column I didn’t spot it.

This is the man who, on Feb. 6, 2003, after Secretary of State Colin Powell’s deeply-flawed testimony in New York, wrote: “The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise.”
[snip]

A few more excerpts from his classic Feb. 6, 2003, column on the error-strewn and dishonest Powell presentation to the United Nations:

“The clincher, as it had to be, was not a single satellite photo or the intercept of one Iraqi official talking to another. And it was not, as it never could be, the assertion that some spy or Iraqi deserter had made this or that charge -- because, of course, who can prove any of that? It was the totality of the material and the fact that Powell himself had presented it. In this case, the messenger may have been more important than the message…. Here was a reasonable man making a reasonable case.

“[T}he case Powell laid out regarding chemical and biological weapons was so strong -- so convincing -- it hardly mattered that nukes may be years away, and thank God for that. In effect, he was telling the French and the Russians what could happen -- what would happen -- if the United Nations did not do what it said it would and hold Saddam Hussein accountable for, in effect, being Saddam Hussein.

“The French, though, are so far deaf to such logic. Their foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said that the consequences of war are dire and unpredictable. He is right about that. But the consequences of doing nothing -- and mere containment of Iraq amounts to nothing -- are also dire and somewhat predictable….

“As with Tevye, there is no ‘other hand’' when it comes to Iraq. If anyone had any doubt, Powell proved that it has defied international law -- not to mention international norms concerning human rights -- and virtually dared

Mitchell hopes Cohen apologizes. Don't bet on it. He'll just wrap his muffler of invisibility a little tighter and flounce away for another cocktail weenie.


Mona, they're being mean to me again!