Kristof Is Just A Dupe, But Richard Cohen...

Richard Cohen goes Nick Kristof one better today in the Washington Post.

The case against Bush need not and should not rest on guilt by association or half-baked conspiracy theories, which collapse at the first double take but reinforce the fervor of those already convinced. The success of Moore's movie, though, suggests this is happening -- a dialogue in which anti-Bush forces talk to themselves and do so in a way that puts off others. I found that happening to me in the run-up to the war, when I spent more time and energy arguing with those who said the war was about oil (no!) or Israel (no!) or something just as silly than I did questioning the stated reasons for invading Iraq -- weapons of mass destruction and Hussein's links to Osama bin Laden. This was stupid of me, but human nature nonetheless.

Some of that old feeling returned while watching Moore's assault on the documentary form. It is so juvenile in its approach, so awful in its journalism, such an inside joke for people who already hate Bush, that I found myself feeling a bit sorry for a president who is depicted mostly as a befuddled dope. I fear how it will play to the undecided.

Poor Richard, so afflicted with morality and evenhandedness, always willing to give equal weight to both sides of the argument even when one side is manifestly bullshit. I'll bet he even agonized over whether he should sexually harass that girl at the New York bureau of the Washington Post, before ultimately deciding that the pro-sexual harassment side of the argument had merit, too.

Where was Richard Cohen's aversion to guilt by association when he supported the rape of Iraq? He condemned the administration for its flimsy "guilt by association" insinuations of a link between Saddam and Osama, but supported the war anyway.

Where was Cohen's skepticism about half-baked theories when he noted the inability of the U.N. weapons inspectors to find WMD in Iraq, but justified the rape of Iraq anyway on the basis that Saddam threatened us all, and concluded that under the circumstances peace was no better than war?

Richard's self-absolution, his onanistic praise of himself for "questioning the stated reasons for invading Iraq -- weapons of mass destruction and Hussein's links to Osama bin Laden," is emetic in the extreme. Richard Cohen joined the execrable Richard Perle in trashing Dennis Kucinich when Dennis had the temerity to question the Deserter's avowed reasons for war, insisting that anyone who believed oil played a part in our lust for war was a "liar."

It is little wonder the Deserter is able to maintain his Shame and Dishonor offensive against America, what with self-proclaimed left-leaning columnists like Kristof and Cohen defending his lies as mere "hype" and "exaggeration" while helping Perle slander as liars people like Kucinich who courageously stated their opinion - their opinion - that the Deserter's motives for war were less than wholesome.

Kristof is a dupe, a weak-minded, credulous dupe who shamelessly finds mendacity in Michael Moore's defense of the republic and veracity in the Deserter's brazen lies. But Richard Cohen - Richard Cohen is a disgrace, a genuine war-whore who repeatedly professed skepticism over the lies that propelled us into war against Iraq and then shrugged his shoulders and said "fuck it - bombs away!"