About
	Contact Us
	Articles
	Topic Index
	Reports
	Quotes
	On the Web
	Links
	TW Tracker
	Support

Times Watch for June 10, 2003

Randy Cohen’s Impeachment Proceedings

Randy Cohen writes the ethics column for the New York Times magazine, and often turns his moralistic gaze on conservatives like Bill Bennett. So when Cohen appeared on CNN Newsnight with Aaron Brown Friday and was asked about the ethics of possible White House intelligence lapses concerning Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, Cohen sounded armed for impeachment:

Cohen says: “I think the story -- and I think this is the big ethical story of the week -- is many people are asserting that the president is a liar, that the president lied about -- in order to get our country into a war. That's a serious story.”

Brown responds: “Well, yes, but it's also -- that would be a very serious story. One should have evidence of that, though, shouldn't one, before one makes that argument?”

Cohen: “Do you mean, before one drags the country into a war?”

Brown: “Well, that also. But before one asserts that anyone, including the president of the United States, is a liar, one ought to be able to prove that.”

Cohen: “Well, it's an interesting problem, that the -- and more and more papers are reporting it now, that the president listed three causes for the war, Iraq was an imminent threat to us, and to its neighbors, that Iraq was connected with the events of September 11, and that there would be weapons of mass destruction there. None of these things have been found. And I think many people believe the burden is on the president to prove his case. And if he doesn't, he then, it seems to me, is either a liar or a fool, and that's a very awkward position to be in.”

It’s left to Aaron Brown, of all people, to come to the president’s defense: “Why is the burden on the president, and why are those the two choices? Why isn't one of the choices that intelligence was simply wrong? They thought they were right, but they were wrong. That is also a possibility.”

Cohen replies: “Well, yes, but the alternatives then are corrupt or incompetent. And that if you are so wrong about all three causes, then I wonder if you can honorably hold -- continue to hold your office. It's an important thing. Many people died.”

In Cohen’s world, Bush is either (take your pick) lying, corrupt or incompetent -- which you choose, Cohen considers him unworthy of holding the presidency.

Revoking A Blood-Stained Pulitzer

Will notorious pro-Stalinist Times reporter Walter Duranty finally lose his Pulitzer Prize? Duranty, who covered Russia for the Times from 1922-1941, is infamous for coining the phrase, referring to Stalin’s bloody tactics: "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."

The New York Sun reports Tuesday on a new push to revoke Duranty’s 1932 Pulitzer for his pro-Stalinist coverage. Eric Wolff’s front-page Sun story opens: “Bowing to a letter writing campaign from Ukrainian-American groups, the Pulitzer Prize board has quietly convened a subcommittee to investigate revoking the award it gave to New York Times correspondent Walter Duranty in 1932.” Wolff adds: “The inaccuracy of Duranty’s reporting is beyond question -- his cover-ups of Stalinist atrocities while covering Russia for the New York Times from 1922-1941 are legendary.”

(The Ukrainian Congress Committee of America has more on the move to revoke Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer.)

“Ashcroft = McCarthy,” Take 17

Tuesday’s Arts section contains a Bruce Weber review of “A Bad Friend,” a play by cartoonist Jules Feiffer about a family of 1950’s Communists in Brooklyn. The review is titled “Uncle Joe Smiles Down on a Family of Old Lefties.” (Feiffer is an old lefty himself, having put in 40 years as a cartoonist for the Village Voice.)

Though Stalin gets his in both the review and the play, Weber nonetheless draws liberal bugbear John Ashcroft into the mix: “Stalin may inevitably conjure up thoughts of Saddam Hussein, and McCarthyites might spur comparisons to the Ashcroft Justice Department, but the value of ‘A Bad Friend’ has nothing to do with its contemporary relevance. In the end the play resonates with painful nostalgia and honestly appraised personal history.”

For the rest of Weber’s review, click here.