Washington Post opinion columnist Eugene Robinson was online Tuesday, May 9, at 1 p.m. ET to discuss his recent columns and anything else that's on your mind.

Today's column: Serious Business for the CIA , ( Post, May 9, 2006 )

The transcript follows.

____________________

Eugene Robinson: Hi, everybody. I'll be here chatting for the next hour, and I'm betting it'll be kind of a free-for-all. Today's column is about the changes and disarray at the CIA, last Friday's was about the father-son relationship between Tiger and Earl Woods, and of course there's no shortage of other news all around.

_______________________

Sunrise Beach, Mo.: I was surprised to read in your column today the following regarding President Bush and the CIA: "But the CIA should at least tell him the truth, not what he wants to hear". Does this statement mean to imply that you believe the CIA lied to the President about the question of whether Iraq possessed WMD for some reason or another of self interest rather than tell him the truth? I have always wondered how George Tenet, who had been director of the CIA under Clinton as well as Bush, could have told the President so definitively that it was a "slam dunk" that Iraq possessed WMD if he wasn't extremely certain of that position. So what went wrong? Was the CIA lying or inept?

Eugene Robinson: I believe that in the run-up to the war in Iraq, the professionals in the CIA told the truth to their superiors, as far as they could discern it. When evidence for WMD was shaky, they reported that it was shaky. There were times when George Tenet cautioned the White House about going too far in claims about Iraqi weapons capabilities. But in the end, with his famous "slam dunk" comment, I suspect that Tenet was telling the president what he wanted to hear. There don't seem to be a lot of professional analysts in the agency who thought it was a definitive slam dunk that Iraq had WMD.

_______________________

Chantilly, Va.: Can you give us a little more detail on your reply to one of last week's questioners that the illegal immigration issue would not be an issue if it were Scandinavians who were illegally crossing the border? Do you believe that your upbringing and life's lessons forces you see the world at all times through "race-colored" glasses?

Eugene Robinson: Certainly not. On a given day, most of the interactions and experiences I have seem to me to be race-neutral. But from the tenor of your question, I think it's probable that I see the effects of race in more situations than you do. I think it's a fair generalization that African Americans and other minorities often see race as a factor in situations where whites do not -- perhaps because life has trained us to watch out for it, lest it smack you in the face.

_______________________

Whately, Mass.: Hi, thanks for the chat Eugene. Have you had to give Cohen your box of Kleenex off your desk? He's been doing a lot of crying over the mean old Internet beating up on him. Do any of the other opinion columnists have the guts to do a chat weekly like you do? Cohen should account for himself.

Eugene Robinson: The writer is referring to Richard Cohen's column today about the huge (and negative) e-mail response he got to an EARLIER column, in which he slammed Stephen Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondents Association dinner as rude (to the president) and unfunny. Richard has spoken for himself, so I won't try to do that. I enjoy doing these chats and encourage other columnists to do them too. The fact is that none of us really has time to answer each e-mail anymore, given the volume, and so I consider the chats an opportunity to respond to points raised by critics. Plus, I get good column ideas from you folks.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: Does anyone on The Post have anything positive to say about the rise of Blogs, especially on the left? Cohen gets a few mean emails (and he admits he didn't read 90%) and uses to condemn the VIEWS of an entire segment of people. Where is the balance? Why isn't the media trumpeting the fact that so many formerly silent Americans have taken up politics passionately rather than saying their actions will lead to a modern day Nixon. Can a columnist just make any claim he wants without the chance for rebuttal?

Eugene Robinson: To take your last question first, can a columnist make any claim he wants without offering rebuttal? You betcha -- getting to spout off is the greatest joy of this gig.

On your main question, I have lots of positive things to say about blogs. I like them -- some are entertaining, some are informative, some are infuriating, some are just delightful. Are blogs journalism? Not exactly -- we do have standards and practices here in what's derisively called the MSM that seek to ensure factual accuracy, and some bloggers refuse to let the facts get in the way of a good story. But I applaud the rise of real fervor on the left -- the far right has been baying rabidly for years now, and if the left has to shout to be heard, then everybody shout. I don't follow Richards's conclusion that left-leaning blogs lead inexorably to another Nixon. But he does make a good point about the level of vitriol that gushes forth whenever a left-identified columnist deviates even slightly from the party line. The worst e-mails I get are from right-wingers, who sometimes are openly racist. But I also get e-mail from the left that calls me a right-winger for the slightest doctrinal deviation. That ticks me off.

_______________________

Va.: As a liberal, why are you suddenly pro-CIA? Sen Church has done more damage to the CIA in the late 1970s than the KGB.

Eugene Robinson: I don't think I've ever been called "pro-CIA," but I accept the reality that every country is going to have spies, simply because information is a valuable and sometimes vital commodity. So we're going to have a CIA. Given that fact, I want it to be an effective CIA (and an ethical one, not a CIA that tries to assassinate foreign leaders, as was done before Frank Church put an end to all that).

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Did you get picked on when you were a kid because your name is Eugene?

Eugene Robinson: Not really. I was tall and could run pretty fast. In second grade, I had an arch-rival, Alfred Bush, with whom I would have a playground fight at least once a week. But nobody really got hurt. I don't think it was my name that pissed him off, I think it was the fact that I was kind of cocky about being a smart kid.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Can I ask you an off-topic question? Why do you think the Duke rape case ends up being viewed differently by political affiliation? Or am I paranoid? But I notice conservative shows position the story as he-said, and non-conservative shows (and writers) tend to position it a bit more she-said. Or at least not calling the woman names. Why is this?

Also, when did it become the cool thing to do to yell at a woman in the metro "DUKE LACROSSE!!"?

Eugene Robinson: Wow, yelling "Duke Lacrosse" in the Metro sounds like a highly uncool thing to do. I do think that partisan positions seem to be congealing on the Duke case, and how ridiculous is that? Aren't conservatives supposed to be for law and order and against crime? I'll be accused (again) of seeing the world through "race-colored glasses," or maybe "class-colored glasses," but I did notice that the accused are wealthy and white and the accuser is non-wealthy and black.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Some time back (maybe after Katrina?), when President Bush's approval ratings really began to tank, you wrote a column saying something to the effect of, "We can't afford to have this guy fail. He's in office for another two and a half years."

I'm starting to worry that we are there--that our president will be so crippled that he cannot accomplish anything either at home or abroad. I find this somewhat scary. Even though there isn't much that he'd be likely to do that I'd like, it's disturbing to think there's no one in charge.

What do you think? Are we there yet?

Eugene Robinson: I think we're there. Maybe he can bounce back, but there's a sense in Washington of going through the motions right now. A president with a 31 percent approval rating (and still falling) just doesn't speak as loudly as a president with a 60 percent approval rating. This could be a long couple of years.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Eugene,

Regarding Earl and Tiger Woods. I agree with you that it's a beautiful thing that a father and son can be so close, and that Earl Woods raised an extraordinary golfer. But I don't get this Earl Woods deification movement.

For example, the overblown rhetoric Earl repeatedly and publicly used to describe Tiger's greatness - for example, that he was going to be greater than Nelson Mandela - was pretty questionable.

Tiger Woods may be a great human being. I hope that he is. But I'm not sure that even extraordinary golfing and serving as a corporate pitchman qualifies him as the savior of humanity.

I also thought there was something pretty unseemly about Earl Woods trotting 2 year old Tiger out on TV shows with a golf club in his hands. I think Earl is lucky that Tiger didn't burn out, like many young athletes do.

Isn't it enough that he was a good and involved dad?

Eugene Robinson: I'll add one more to your list of caveats about deifying Earl Woods: The fact that he has three other children from a previous marriage, from whom he at times has been estranged. That said, I still am touched by the Earl-Tiger relationship -- and what touches me the most is the way Tiger looked up to his Dad. Tiger Woods isn't a perfect person, but he turned out pretty well -- he handles his fame and wealth better than I would, probably. So whatever Earl Woods did wrong in his life, he set out to raise a good person in Tiger and I think he did a great job. As the father of two sons, I applaud him for that.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Your comment about your schoolyard fights and being a smart kid makes me wonder where you grew up, how you chose journalism, and how you ended up at The Post.

Can you give us a bit of background about yourself?

Eugene Robinson: I think you can find a bio on the Web site somewhere, but: born in Orangeburg, S.C.; wanted to be an architect but learned my first semester at Michigan that I had zero aptitude for it; wandered into the student newspaper and within days had found what I wanted to do with my life. Started at the San Francisco Chronicle, got hired at the Post by Bob Woodward in 1980, have done a bunch of jobs here, and now get to write a column, which is Nirvana.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: People call you a right-winger? Further proof that people are crazy I guess.

Eugene, I read with interest the articles over the weekend about the democrats strategy for 2006 and the potential of Hillary Clinton and other candidates in 2008. What is your take?

I think a lot of work needs to be done if the democratic party really wants to appeal to new constituents and make a run at taking back the house. And I'm not sure they can do it.

Eugene Robinson: You're anticipating a column I'm planning to write soon. The Democratic Party is in a great position to take back one or both houses of Congress and then the White House in two years, but this has happened in spite of the Democratic leadership, not because of it. I'm not talking about Howard Dean, I'm talking about Nancy Pelosi in the House and Harry Reid in the Senate. In my view, uninspiring.

_______________________

Madison, Wis.: Sorry to belabor the Lacrosse team incident, but I don't think race and class are the source of the Democrat/Republican split in opinion. It's because the accuser is a woman, and the defendant are athletes. Conservatism is at its heart a fiercely patriarchal (forgive my poor spelling) "philosophy," so it's not surprising that conservatives would find male jocks more credible.

Eugene Robinson: A perfectly reasonable theory.

_______________________

Burke, Va.: What is your impression of the Colbert comedian sketch? It seemed to really take off far more than I expected it to. I'm guessing it fit well into the pre-existing narrative about "the media" that many liberal bloggers and their readers have - that they are thin-skinned, unwilling to challenge the president, and will ignore things they don't like - even if it is news. Actually I think it was the perceived ignoring of the Colbert piece that really set people off.

Eugene Robinson: I didn't go to the Correspondents Dinner -- I'm not saying I'll never go, and maybe next year I will, but I've written in the past about my unease at these events at which reporters are all palsy-walsy with the officials they cover. I understand the good they're supposed to do, and I certainly understand the need for reporters to have access to the powerful, but what can I say, they leave me uneasy. But of course I've heard recordings of the Colbert monologue, and I thought it was pretty funny.

_______________________

Simpsonville, S.C.: Am I the only one waiting for some facts before voicing an opinion with Duke LaCrosse?

I wrote in a blog that it was a racially charged incident that would not have happened if the dancer were white and the players minorities because in my experience minorities can sense when they are in a racially charged situation and white folk (like myself) are oblivious most of the time.

Good work BTW. I enjoy your columns.

Eugene Robinson: Waiting for some facts? You are my hero. Let's see what happened before we decide what it all means.

My time is up, but thanks for tuning in. See you next Tuesday, same time, same place.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.