Granted, I could have expressed the thought better.

However, the pith of my post is public knowledge, substantiated by (the sum of) every media account of Cooper’s actions published to date. I’m not obligated to spend three days tracking down citations for a series of events that everyone here is aware of, and aware of in detail.

It IS true that Cooper had to be forced to testify — and didn’t get why he was obligated to do so.

Did he publish some good, even redemptive articles? Sure, Jane, he did, and I cheered when I read them.

Yet he participated in same the disingenuous defense of dishonest sources, and did not understand how much damage that did to journalism, to his credibility, and to the country.

He protected his conduit to power and disinformation with all his might and main — until Fitzgerald forced him to come clean.

It was plenty obvious that he’d eventually testify — but equally obvious that it would require the actual threat of jail time. The indication is that Matthew Cooper may understand the nature of power, but not so much the problematic nature of the abuse of power. Include journalists in that equation.

His erroneous posture regarding journalists’ obligation under the law may be shared by many, but it did much damage to public discourse and the public’s ability to get on with it.

He also knowingly published false information about the Plame leak story, including who the leaker was as I recall, at a critical time in our country’s history. He knew plenty at a critical time — (above and beyond his resistance to Fitzgerald), and said nothing.

That’s on the record and in the public domain. It’s been substantiated by reputable journalists and is verified in legal documents from the Plame investigation.

Again, your’e not the only one to follow the these matters in great detail. So thanks for the warrantless intimidation re substantiating what I wrote — but no thanks. We’re all on very solid ground here. (Unless you can’t believe what you read in the paper.)

So we know that Matthew Cooper is adept at negotiation the halls of power. We know he can navigate choppy waters in the workplace, and steer his career into tranquil and safe harbor.

Though I saw at least one article that I thought must have taken some courage, maybe that’s telling as well.

The difference between a leak that is an abuse of power, conducted by criminal and/or abusive administration, is fundamentally different from a leak provided by a whistleblower, who’d be subject to abuse of power.

Cooper, Miller, and every other DC journalist who dissemble about that distinction did so right out in the open. Again, public record. That was much of the issue, and Cooper, Ifill, etc., cannot possibly us not to notice. In fact, it was joe public that had to instruct the media on that key point.

So yes, Jane — there’s a balance to be struck. But please — strive for that.

Folks eager to reward Cooper, w/o grappling w/some critical dynamics at work here, keep substituting his personal attibutes for his on-the-job decisions and methods. I substantiate that by citing you.

Matthew Cooper “is funny” — but let’s not talk about the actual chan of events.

The humor I’d seen was pretty damn repugnant. Also public record. Sorry — it’s just the way it is. I don’t think he was terribly conscious or cognizant of what that posture indicated.

Jane — thanks for all your great work. I’m a big fan, and am much impressed. Don’t take one disagreement and apply it acrosss the board.

Richard D. Felsing, Esq.

p.s. — Thanks for the ad hominem attack… but no thanks. You’re better than that. And you are unlikely to assume about me what you cannot know.

Cooper was happy to play the Rove-Miller game then, only gave it up because he had to, and still hadn’t regained his senses long after his deep draughts of Insider-brand Smug Kool-Aid.

Has he learned a lesson? Probably. But he testified only when forced; didn’t reveal that he knew he was publishing lies for his readers’ consumption; and has demonstrated extroardinary obtuseness and lack of judgment regarding what he “knows” versus what the public “knows.” It’s an open question who’s better off, or better informed.

Jane’s got plenty to keep track of, and can’t be expected to keep a clear eye on Cooper too. Everyone needs somebody to believe in…

Cooper doesn’t come off looking better through Jane’s endorsement — but rather the inverse holds true. It’s too bad, but not every affirmation rides on whether one is funny or well-liked. The ethical and integrity component of that endorsement doesn’t hold water enough to merit debate.

I am at a loss as to Matt Cooper’s credentials as a journalist and an editor. I only am aware of him because of his involvement in the Plame Affair. But if Jane at Firedoglake says Time made a good……

No, silly — he writes LOVE and HATE on them knuckles.

*/Leaning, leaning, leaning on the everlasting arm… /*

Agreed.

And I even respect that about him.

But the lack of acknowledgment, the continued disingenuousness, the willingness to repeat the same mistakes and play the same game — indicates Cooper hasn’t learned the most critical or the most basic lessons.

I dont’ think he’s able to. And his choices don’t speak well of the ethics or integrity his ‘friends’ claim he possesses.

I’ve picked up the paper and read his work and said, “Great work! Good for him.” And I’ve picked up the paper and found concrete evidence that Cooper doesn’t rise above J Iscariot Miller or any of the other self-regarding hacks in DC. He knew who leaked Plame’s name all along. — and committed the same error Miller did.

The example of ‘humor’ showed incredibly poor judgment. But worse, it was a real glimpse of someone who doesn’t comprehend just how out-of-whack and damaging his attitude, posture, and choices are, relative to power, his colleagues, and the general public. It wasn’t funny — it was repugnant. It threw into sharp relief the source of much of the damage the press inflicts on itself, the American people, the country, and on the body politic.

That smug, patronizing, and dysfunctionally amoral attitude towards outsiders and to the country, cannot be discounted or dismissed.

Do I exaggerate? NO. Cooper may be well-liked. But that’s a side-issue. It may be because saving a little bit of face by not being a TOTAL buffoon in the Fitzgerald run-in is something all his journalist pals can vicariously adopt as their own saving grace.

I say having your own gaggle of enablers cannot undo the fact that Cooper comitted some of the same mistakes as Miller and many others. They say he’s funny — which is beside the issue. He’s well-liked — also not the issue. Very telling. What CAN they say? Not much. Even when they go so far as to assert that Cooper is ethical, has integrity, they’re contradicted by the public record, and by Cooper’s own statements and writings. What the open-minded and non-judgmental amongst us had long suspected, but didn’t assume, was eventually borne out as conclusive evidence became available.

Cooper could have been forthcoming. He could have done his job. Instead, he wrongly protected a source that had (likely) committed a crime. The country would have been better served if he’d done his job — instead of twisting his obligations before the lw to suit his own interests.

Smug, patronizing, misguided, lacking any perspective, or any accurate take on the principles and event sthat landed him adn this country into their respective fixes.

I’m not sorry about saying all of this. Why should I be? Cooper’s not sorry. He’s just learned to play the same game, more carefully. At worst, I’m right — but Cooper & Co. are still the same ilk.

Both sound like veiled threats.

If you’ve got proof, let’s hear it. If not, go libel people on someone else’s site.

It was my first interview with the President, and I expected a simple “Hello” when I walked into the Oval Office last December. Instead, George W. Bush joked, “Cooper! I thought you’d be in jail by now.” The leader of the free world, it seems, had been following my fight against a federal subpoena seeking my testimony in the case of the leaking of the name of a CIA officer. I thought it was funny and good-natured of the President, but the line reminded me that I was, very weirdly, in the Oval Office, out on bond from a prison sentence, awaiting appeal–in large part, for protecting the confidence of someone in the West Wing. “What can I say, Mr. President,” I replied, smiling. “The wheels of justice grind slowly.”

There’s nothing good-natured about that exchange, on either of their parts. It’s also revealing, of course, of part of the Bush administration’s strategy in the face of the investigation – count on the press not to reveal their sources – as Cooper himself hints at here.