Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Thu

12

Apr

2007

The Big Lie of Richard Cohen
Thursday, 12 April 2007 17:22
by Brent Budowsky

[ED NOTE: Brett is a guest writer via Larry C. Johnson]

Richard Cohen repeats the big lie in a recent Washington Post — i.e., Patrick Fitzgerald knew "that no law had been violated" when Valerie Plame's identity was exposed.



The truth: Fitzgerald believed and has stated publicly that it has been impossible to know the full truth about what laws have been violated, because Scooter Libby's lies threw sand into the legal procedures that search for truth.

First, Senator Lloyd Bentsen was the original sponsor of the Identities Law; I spent years of my life working on it; I worked on a related bill that provided death benefits to families of those killed in the line of duty, in part for identities exposures; and I was thanked and commended in writing, along with Senator Bentsen, at the level of Director of Central Intelligence.

So: unlike Mr. Cohen, I know what I am talking about, and unlike Mr. Cohen, when the lives of our covert officers are involved I have a sacred respect for truth, integrity and honor.

I will hold Mr. Cohen to the standard of being literate enough to read the news pages of the Washington Post.  And I would assume that Mr. Cohen lowered himself to see or read the transcript of what Mr. Fitzerald publicly said.

Enough delusion, enough dishonesty, enough spin, enough waterboy for the defense of the perjurer, enough obsession and damn right, enough lies.

Here is another lie often told by the promoters of perjurers:

They parrot Cheney and say that Valeria Plame got her husband Joe Wilson the trip to Niger as a junket.

This is a lie.  Valerie Plame did not suggest Wilson, others at the Agency did.  She did not authorize the trip.  She had no authority to authorize the trip.  She did not provide money for the trip. She had no authority to provide money for the trip.

This argument, too, is a lie.  Those who repeat it know it is a lie.  Yet they persist in telling the lie nevetheless.

For the record, when Victoria Toensing wrote her fictional piece bannered in the Outlook section of the Post, as the case went to jury, and this lie intended to smear the wife, to smear the husband was repeated I was the only person permitted to answer her on the pages of the Post as the jury got the case.

I tried to set the record straight on this slander of Valerie Plame, but the truth was censored by the editor, while the lie was allowed to stand.

It is still said by some, that Valerie Plame was not covert.  This, too, is a lie.

It is said by some that Valerie Plame did not do covert action abroad within the five years covered by the law.  This, too, is a lie.

That these are lies, is not my personal opinion, it is verified, public, official, formally stated fact.

Yet they continue to lie.

As some continue to lie about WMD in Iraq.

As some continue to lie about Saddam having ties to Al Qaeda.

Again, this are public, verified, indisputable, clear, absolute facts from those who have the authority to know them, and have said them.

Again and again, it is public record of fact, versus the public attempt to propagate the lie.

Year after year, lie after lie, blunder after blunder, death after death, failure after failure, lie after lie.

The President publicly stated that he "decided" to surge and escalate after the commanders urged him to.

In this, the President lied.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously urged him not to escalate.  The Iraq commanders urged him not to escalate.  He ignored them, disrespected them, demeaned them, pressured them, tried to intimidate them, but they still opposed the surge.

Then the President lied about them, then the President replaced them.

Those who so obsessively and compulsively promoted this war have propagated lie after lie, year after year, from the initial lies about 9-11 and WMD to the latest lie on the editorial pages of the Washington Post today.

To Richard Cohen, I say this: the reason that the obsessive, compulsive security risks who call themselves neoconservatives, who reach the highest levels of our government, are so desperately pushing for a pardon is their deep, mortal fear that Scooter Libby will cop a plea before sentencing, and then we will know the truth, about whether a crime was truly committed.
 
More from this author:
Gee Whiz, Iran Training Militia, Who Knew? (6922 Hits)
by Larry C Johnson Well, the New York Times just got sucked in again to help the Bush Administration make the case for starting a war with...
Swearing on the Quran? (5898 Hits)
by Larry C Johnson Normally I ignore religious controversy, but the latest flap surrounding incoming Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison, a...
A Soldier's Story - MAJOR BILL EDMONDS (7603 Hits)
by MAJOR BILL EDMONDS [Note from Larry Johnson: A CIA buddy forwarded this article. It is a must read. It is consistent...
The Iraq Catch-22 (5325 Hits)
by Larry C Johnson Regardless of your feelings or beliefs about sending more U.S troops to Iraq, you must accept the painful truth that...
Three Must Reads (4541 Hits)
by Larry C Johnson The mainstream media has finally caught up and fleshed out some important issues regarding Iraq that I wrote about on...
Related Articles:
Court Circular: Richard Cohen and the Apologists of Power (7345 Hits)
If you would like to know how a ruling clique really works, with its vast army of retainers and courtiers scurrying Osric-like to serve the needs of...
Inflation and the New World Order by Richard C. Cook (3245 Hits)
by Richard C. Cook The sunlight on the lake sparkles at dawn. As they have done for millions of years, the rounded tree-shrouded shoulders of...
Sinking the Ship of State: The Presidency of George W. Bush - Book Review by Richard G. Kastelein (6281 Hits)
by Richard G. Kastelein With wit and wisdom, Walter M. Brasch digs deep into the Bush–Cheney Administration and extracts the truth of the past...
An interview with Richard C. Cook: Che Challenger Disaster, Financial Collapse — and Viable Solutions (2216 Hits)
by Gary Corseri GC: Just a little background: I was reading your articles on the Web, with much interest, getting a lot of information; then, I...
Obama v. Richard Falk on Israel and Occupied Palestine - (3115 Hits)
by Stephen Lendman Obama leaves no ambiguity where he stands. From public statements, campaign pledges, policy advisors, and war cabinet...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (2)add comment

a guest said:

0
Problems with language and possibilities
It appears to me that we will never really know what Fitzgerald knew, or did not know, absent some bizarre memo outlining eveything in an explicit way. But there are at least three possibilities:

1. he knew there was no crime and went ahead anyway
2. he did not know if there was a crime and went ahead anyway
3. he knew there was a crime and that was why he went ahead

Arguably, no prosecutor should move forward in scenarios 1 and 2. For all of the passion in this piece, Fitzgerald's perspective - at least as outlined here - seems to place him, at best, in scenario 2, at worst in scenario 1. Maybe someone can produce a statement or two from Fitzgerald which spells out exactly what law(s) he thought was(were) broken, exactly how it(they) was broken and by whom.

P.S. Ruckman, Jr.
 
April 12, 2007 | url
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
...
PRO FITZGERALD COMMENT ON AMERICAN THINKER ARTICLE
"Plame did not meet the test of the IIPA nor did anyone who disclosed her association with the CIA know of her status." Editor @ American Thinker
This pointedly has not been established. Fitzgerald, on request, did not address this in public. Novak called the CIA to find out. They advised him not to print the article. The CIA person Novak spoke to said he could not say if Plame was covered by IIPA (Inelegance identity Protection Act). It would be illegal for him to say so if she were. The indictment of Libby indicated that Plame may still be covered or at least up to the time of the indictment. The letter of the CIA to Justice asking for an investigation indicated that the CIA lawyers who monitor this law and had regularly, several times a year, sent such letters in other cases, believed from their experience that she was covered by IIPA. In addition Plame recently said to congress in hearings by the Waxman commettee that she was coverd by the Inelegance Identity Protection Act at the time of the leake. Since then neither the the Congress, the White House, Justice Department nor the CIA has declared that she was not covered on the many occasions they have been asked about it.
If some one knows that she was not covered by the Inelegance Identity Protection Act they can say so freely because she is not so coverd by the Act, if she was covered they are required not to comment.
.
In addition you say Libby 'had no motive to deliberately lie'. (Editor @ American Thinker) This has not defiantly been shown, and it is very questionable if it can be proved. This statement is a "universal negative". Logically it can not be affirmed as fact. It is wrong of you to present to the world by your personel example that average and above American Thinkers do not understand common sense logic. That we engage in the commonsense logacal falicy of 'universal negitive'. This represerntation is not true.
 
April 13, 2007
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top