He had a Q and A session and the smugness was overpowering.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2007/06/19/DI2007061901259.htmla couple of choice exchanges....
Oakland, Calif.: Mr. Cohen, do you sincerely believe that when "practicing the dark art of politics," "it is often best to keep the lights off," and if so, how do you reconcile your view with the Fourth Estate's responsibility to serve as the public's watchdog against the abuse of power?
Richard Cohen: I think my responsibility is not the same as a politician's responsibility. I think there are a lot of things that are done in any line of work that you may not want to see exposed. Everyone in their life is a hypocrite of some sort, we all have areas of our lives we aren't particularly proud of, we cut a corner here or there. Politics is probably the most open of all endeavors -- it's on the public record, it's covered by the press, and people engaged in it can't keep their mouths shut anyway. But there are elements of politics -- leaks, anonymous sources -- have been done for years and years and years. And while some of this can be abused -- anonymous sources need to be limited more in my opinion -- they can be extremely useful.
New York: In this chat you just said the following: "In Libby's case, I don't know the reason for the crime. I don't know whether or not he was telling the truth and simply forgot he leaked this information -- it's a remote possibility but I don't buy it." With all due respect, whether you buy it or not means squat. A jury of Libby's peers bought it. They sat through a trial and weighed the evidence and found Libby guilty without a reasonable doubt. Isn't it a little arrogant for you to substitute your judgment for those that sat through the entire trial?
Richard Cohen: I didn't say that. I said I agree that he lied. I agreed with the jury. This is not a technical thing. I thought he was guilty. I thought he lied. Put that in your "squat."
more at the link if you can stand it.