Fact Check: Gannon/Guckert did NOT help out Plame

[BurtWorm]

At least one DUer is under the mistaken impression that he did. But Robert Novack did that all on his own (at the instigation of someone in the White House). Gannon/Guckert at most (maybe) participated in the phony leak of the State Dept. Intelligence Research Board "leak" of the memo "proving" Plame recommended Joe Wilson for the job of vetting the Niger yellow cake documents for the CIA.

[Tempest]

1. Gannon claimed he saw the CIA memo

How did he get his hands on a top secret CIA memo?

He didn't get it from Novak. Novak never said he saw it, Novak said he was told what was in the memo.

Gannon's in up to his eyeballs.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

2. Read this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3123180

It' helps clear it all up. :)

[Just Me]

67. He's a HO paid to spew propaganda created by a "righteous regime".

GROSS!!!!
GROSS!!!!
GROSS!!!!

His inflamed Plame thing just makes him and the WHITE HOUSE that gave him a privileged place in their propaganda machine even more

GROSS!!!
GROSS!!!
GROSS!!!


This HO was part of a deceptive propaganda machine produced by the White House,...a scheme intended to mislead the people.

[BurtWorm]

82. You're giving Gannon and the WH a lot more credit for cleverness

than they deserve. The WH has a deceptive propaganda machine, but I don't think Gannon was wittingly a part of it. I think he was a useful idiot and a tool. But he was no Armstrong Williams or Robert Novak, both of whom were directly used by the WH without a doubt. Gannon, I believe, was an accidental tool.

[Bethany Rockafella]

3. So which DUer are you talking about?

:-)

[Al-CIAda]

4. What about the Rather memo?

Was he involved along with GOPUSA (Tx.) and Rove?

[BurtWorm]

7. That I don't know.

I haven't paid much attention to that aspect of the story. There might be more there there (with Rather) than here (with Plame), if you follow me.

[Walt Starr]

10. More than likely just more Freeper bragging

If you go over to the Freaks site and read his posts, you'll see he was jusmping on the bandwagon after the fact.

[BurtWorm]

12. Walt, have you changed your thinking about Gannon?

Yesterday you seemed pretty certain he was a hot property. Unless I was misreading you.

[Walt Starr]

13. I'm firmly convinced he is a major scandal

but reading his posts about memogate convinces me he was just bragging.

I believe he has information regarding the Plame affair and will have to sing or go to prison on interstate prostitution charges.

[BurtWorm]

19. What makes you believe he has information about the Plame affair?

The fact that he insinuated he had it? And what is the information that you think he has? The identity of the person who orchestrated the outing of Plame? Or do you think he has information about more than that, such as about how that information was disseminated? Do you think, in other words, that he is a conspirator or just a tool?

[Walt Starr]

22. I believe he knows who in the administration outted Plame

Yes. This makes him a co-conspirator.

[BurtWorm]

25. Okay. What do you base this belief on?

If you don't mind my asking.

[Walt Starr]

26. Posts made on FR

and the timing of those posts.

[BurtWorm]

29. Can you be more specific? Like are we talking pre-July 2003 posts?

If you saw Gannon posts from before Novack outed Plame, I'd love to see them myself.

[Walt Starr]

30. The contexxt is multiple posts over a wide period of time

To get the same effect I did, you need to go over and read entire threads on the subject. that's the only way to put his posts into the proper context.

Especiallypay attention to the early threads and then the later threads where he has been subpoenaed.

[BurtWorm]

32. Just one question

What is the time frame we're talking about?

[Walt Starr]

44. 2003-2004 n/t

[bpilgrim]

5. if you mean by 'help out' as in helping the bush admin keep a lid on it...

you are CORRECT this bimbo is ERUPTING all over :bounce:

wooHoo!

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[merh]

6. If you are referring to me, you are so wrong. You have been trying

to dissuade the interest in and import of Gannon. I have opined that Gannon is a link that can help get to the members of the admin responsible for the leak. You were professing he had nothing to do with Plame, that is not the case and Wilson doesn't say that in his interview. Stop distorting my position and the facts.

[BurtWorm]

8. I've been trying to get Gannon into the proper perspective.

He had nothing to do with outing Plame. His involvement in the story came after someone in the Bush administration used the WSJ to publicize a (probably phony) memo from a State Dept. intelligence arm purporting to "prove" that Plame recommended Wilson for the Niger mission out of the CIA, which was supposed to further "prove" that it was "well-known" even at the State Dept. that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative. It was during the ass covering phase that Gannon first made his appearance. You understand that, right?

[merh]

9. No one ever said he had anything to do with outing Plame!

That you continue to insist that you have straightened fellow DUer's out on that fact is just silly.

He did have knowledge of the "outing" and he was provided access to the WH without proper credentials, education or experience. He was their plant, their shill and he apparently operated or operates a illegal prostitution business that crosses state lines. That is the Gannon issue, not the outing of Plame - GOT THAT.

Again, he is a weak link that could easily be persuaded in sharing what he knows about the Plame matter because of his unsavory business practice and his access to the WH.

[BurtWorm]

11. All right. If you insist that you never thought he outed Plame, I believe

you.

As for the rest of what you wrote, how do you know? How do you know he "had knowledge of the outing?" He never said he had that knowledge, nor has anyone but you, that I know of, stated positively that he had that knowledge. Also: what is "proper credentials, education or experience" for access to the WH? If the WH asks you for your name and social security number and you give them that information and they let you in presumably after doing a standard security check on it, what's improper about that?

How do you propose easily persuading Gannon/Guckert to spill what he knows about the Plame case now that everyone knows what a dirty guy he is? He seems to have finally clammed up as more and more has come out about him.

Believe it or not, merh, I do not have it in for you. I'm asking questions your posts prompt. That's all.

[merh]

14. I am not going into this with you all over again.

Your position that it is no big deal that he was given the press pass indicates that you are ignorant of security matters and/or you are just trying to minimize the impact and import of Gannon and his access to the WH.

He has committed crimes (prostitution is illegal and if crossed state lines, then the federal government can be involved). If he completed an application to gain access to the WH, did he list his true identity? Did he honestly answer the FBI's questions if and/or when questioned? He also seems to have tax problems and speaking of taxes, did he pay taxes on the proceeds from his extracurricular activities? He is very vulnerable.

You don't have it in for me, you just have it in your head that you are the only one correct about the import of the Gannon matter and you try to downplay the importance of his "involvement" with the admin.

[BurtWorm]

20. Well, you keep saying I'm ignorant of security matters, but you don't

support your own suppositions about security with anything harder than your repeated assertions that to not agree with you about them is to be "ignorant" of security matters. I admit, I don't know what exactly the rules are for getting into these briefings, but I have read in several places that a) it's much easier to get into a WH briefing than to join a Congressional Gallery, and b) at the WH, you have to give them your real name, your real social security number, and the news organization you represent. Is it so hard to believe either a) or b)? Do you have evidence to contradict either one?

You say Gannon has committed crimes, but the real issue is, was he arrested for any? Does he have a criminal record? Do you know the answer to that? If he doesn't have a record, why is it so hard to believe he would pass a security check? Does having a tax bill pose a security risk? If so, I pose a security risk. Is that going to affect my passing security checks in the future, even if I don't have a criminal record?

I am merely asking questions, I repeat, that a lot of these theories pose.

[H2O Man]

15. I'll bet we can

step back and put this into the proper perspective. I've read most (maybe all) the posts on the Plame case in the past few days. I have not seen anything to indicate that Merh thought Gannon was part of the initial "outing" of Plame: I think it's known that a couple WH officials called the journalists.

However, it would be interesting to find out when Gannon first became involved. Does he have a background that would have made him likely to be considered "useful" by the group that originally met in VP Cheney's office on 3-8-03 to discuss the "workup" on Wilson? Was he previously connected in any manner to the OSP that was run by Feith, or the VP's private intel group? I assume that these groups were not made up of only a few neocons in the comfort of a capital office.

My own belief, which admittedly involves some speculation, is that Mr. Gannon will not be an easy nut to crack. I could be wrong, but I think he is a more serious person than he is being made out to be in the mainstream media.

There is plenty of room for differing opinions on these threads. If any two of us think exactly alike, it means only one is thinking. But we don't need to have quarrels or hard feelings. We do best by considering as many options as possible.

[merh]

18. Haven't I read in your posts that it was the attempts to cover up

that finally blew open the Watergate investigation that lead to Nixon's impeachment?

Gannon is part of the cover up - he was given the wet raw hide, to pull along the trail to distract the dogs from following the proper scent. Who gave him the rawhide?

I agree with you, we must consider all options. I am just leery of those who twist the facts and distort others positions in an attempt to minimize the interest in Gannon.

[H2O Man]

28. Oh, my gosh!

When the Nixon administration tried to cover up Watergate & related break-ins/dirty tricks, the investigations led to some unreal discoveries. These discoveries indeed led to Nixon's resignation, which allowed him to avoid impeachment.

I'll mention just one thing that DUers may find of interest. I've mentioned E. Howard Hunt before. Interesting character: his book, "Undercover: Memoirs of an American Secret Agent" (Berkley Press, 1974) details how in the WW2 days, he was an OSS agent. Now, of course the OSS became the CIA. What was Hunt's cover? He was a journalist. Hunt wrote for LIFE magazine, and tried his hand at writing novels.

But what does this have to do with the discussion at hand, you ask? Well, he wrote some fake "cables" that were an attempt to show that President Kennedy had ordered the assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem in October, 1963. One might ask, "Why the heck would the Nixon 'plumbers' want to make it look like JFK ordered the death of the South Vietnamese president?"

However, my point is that people involved in "cover-ups" may not be the curious journalist they are portrayed as. They may even be connected to forged documents that were made "after the fact" .... just to confuse the issue at hand.

[merh]

16. Let me add that his financial situtation would have prevented him

from obtaining security clearance. He owed taxes, interest and penalties in the amount of $20k or so to the state I believe.

In this time of terror, with the enhanced security precautions taken by the admin to protect the very paranoid weed, a criminal that owed back taxes would probably not be allowed to sit 20 feet from him.

http://www.navysecurity.navy.mil/finacons.htm

[BurtWorm]

21. Would "probably not be allowed"

is too speculative for my taste, but that's just me. The link is very interesting, but it describes security for Navy personnel, not journalists attending a press conference. Of course financial concerns are important as security matters when you're talking about employees of the government who have access to sensitive information. But to a journalist who is only seeking access to what will be widely available via C-SPAN and the WH's own Web site? I don't understand why they would go through such trouble. Seems highly inefficient to me. Do you really believe they look into the finances of everyone who wants to attend a WH press briefing? I personally doubt it.

[merh]

31. Does the press travel with the president and/or members of his

admin?

[BurtWorm]

34. Did Gannon?

No.

PS: You have to have a "hard" pass to travel with the "president." Gannon, you'll recall, only had a day pass.

[merh]

37. Do you know that for a fact?

:shrug: Provide proof and please provide proof that no security clearance or background is performed on members of the WH press corp or has in the past been performed. You insist I back up my statement, you back up yours. And again, please let me know what prostitute besides Gannon ever served as a member of the WH press corps?

Back up your speculation. Back up what you claim as to be the facts.

[BurtWorm]

38. All I know is what Dan Froomkin of the Post told me in e-mails

last weekend. I don't have access to the e-mails here, but I'll post them when I get home or PM you if you'd like.

[H2O Man]

39. BurtWorm:

Are you convinced that Mr. Gannon had absolutely no connection to Feith or Bolton's intel groups? Have you ruled out any connection to the VP's private intel group?

[BurtWorm]

41. I find it highly unlikely.

What is making people draw this extreme conclusion from the minuscule number of details connecting them? What is making you draw such a conclusion, or consider such a possibility?

[H2O Man]

43. For one example

the report that Fitzgerald subpoenaed the record of correspondences between White House officials and Gannon. I'm thinking, "Why would Fitzgerald subpoena the record of correspondences between White House officials and this fellow? He's not Chris Matthews. He's no Judith Miller. From all reports I've seen, he's not even a pimple on Bob Novak's ass." Now, I can't see Fitzgerald specifically writing a subpoena to get the records of communications between White House officials and a pimple on Bob Novak's ass. So I'm thinking there's something more.

Then I'm thinking, "This fellow who is less than a pimple on Bob Novak's ass is telling people that he had access to some documents that I don't think he could have, would have, or should have." And I start thinking, either he is a pathological liar, or he's more than that pimple on old Bob's dehydrated ass. Maybe a combination.

I guess I also wonder why it seems -- and I could be wrong -- that the Gannon issue seems to be being downplayed today. I haven't seen anything that would make me think that his role in our Washington culture is so insignificant that we shouldn't question who he really is. If Fitzgerald wants records of White House communications with him, I think he's likely worth some attention.

Of course, not everyone is going to share my interest in his role. I don't think it should be manditory. But I don't think it should be discouraged.

[BurtWorm]

45. But is it okay with you for someone to criticize the theory?

Because I think it requires a gigantic leap to get from "pathological liar...less than a pimple on Novak's ass" to key to the mysteries. If he didn't exhibit such a full-of-shit personality, bragging about his importance on free republic and "flattering" himself to be counted among such illustrious company in the subpeonaing of records of contact... the evidence all points to his being "less than a pimple."

[H2O Man]

49. I think it's great

to examine and question each other's theories. Critical thinking is fine. I'd think critical thinking about the idea that he was less than a pimple on old Bob's ass is a good place to start. I find that the most gigantic of leaps. It just doesn't have the ring of truth to it. Yet, life is full of surprises.

[BurtWorm]

52. I appreciate that.

Some of those I've been debating with on this seem to me to be ignoring the fact that I am definitely holding the minority opinion at DU, and possibly on the left, that Gannon isn't so significant. I'd just like to say that I won't try to stifle your opinion if you won't try to stifle mine, as long as we allow each other to express them.

[H2O Man]

54. Sure.

I think you and I have always gotten along fine. So I'm confident that we can have a vigorous debate without any chance of it ever being other than good-natured. Because the Water Man loves nothing more than good-natured debate.

Now, on this very day, Joe Conason, who I believe to be one of the best authors on the left, has an article in which he states: "In fact everything we know about him comes from material he posted on public web sites." Hmmm. Now, supposing we may know a bit more still means we don't know much more than Gannon wants us to know .... unless you know much more than Conason.

The name of this article is " 'Liberal' media silent about Guckert saga." It is sub-titled: "GOP dirty trickster posed as White House reporter." Hmmm-mmmm! Mr. Conason appears to see Gannon/Guckert as more than a mere pimple on the dehydrated anus we call Robert Novak. In fact, he writes: "What Mr. Guckert seems to have been is not a journalist but a Republican dirty trickster."

Wel, well, well!!!

Conason writes: He also made a curious cameo appearance in the Valerie Plame controversy. In late 2003, Mr. Guckert called former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. During that interview, the Talon correspondent mentioned a C.I.A. document that supposedly showed Ms. Plame had dispatched Mr. Wilson, her husband, on a government mission to Niger to investigate rumored Iraqi uranium purchases. That allegation was meant to discredit the former ambassador ...."

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=18564

Now that sounds more like a secretive dirty trickster attempting to discredit Wilson, than it does like the description that I think you are trying to portray as Gannon. Possible?

[senseandsensibility]

57. Thanks for the link to Joe's

article. I love Joe, and am glad that he weighed in on this. I look forward to hearing him discuss it on Friday on Air America with Al Franken.

[BurtWorm]

58. Possible. But still not likely.

And I also consider Conason to be one of the very best journalists on the left or right. I think it's accurate to describe Gannon as more of a dirty trickster than a journalist. But note that Conason is very careful not to make more of a claim for Gannon's significance than meets the eye, which is not the case with a lot of the theorizing that's been going on at DU. Clearly Gannon was trying to discredit Wilson. No doubt about it. But was he using disinformation he received from the people who outed Plame, or was he using disinformation that was already out there? I think the latter, and I will think that until I see better evidence to the contrary.

[H2O Man]

61. "GOP dirty trickster"

has a fairly specific meaning, I would suggest, when we discuss republican scandals. I think that to imply that a man as wise with his use of the language as Conason meant something other than that is very likely an error.

As I mentioned on another thread, where you said that you believed Gannon was a "waste of time," you are joining a number of other people in investing time in discussing Gannon. Reps. Louise Slaughter and John Conyers have sent a letter to Fitzgerald, requesting that he investigate Gannon.They seem to feel he isn't a mere "waste of time."

And, again, if he were as insignificant as you suggest, it doesn't seem to make sense that Fitzgerald would subpoena all White House communication records involving him. I don't think Fitzgerald is wasting time.

[BurtWorm]

64. How do you know Fitzgerald is so interested in Gannon?

Just because he's on that list? Nicholas Kristof is on that list. How deep do you think *he's* in on it?

Just because people want more information about him doesn't mean there's more information to get. ;)

[H2O Man]

65. "so interested"?

I know that he is exactly as interested as I said -- he included Gannon on the list of White House communications records subpoenaed.

Hence, are you suggesting that Fitzgerald erred in including him? And wasn't exactly as interested as it would take to include him?

If there isn't "more information to get" on Gannon than, as Conason states, "from material he posted on public web sites," I think that would make him a most interesting "GOP dirty trickster." You may be satisfied to take Gannon's word, as posted on the public web sites. But I think others will want to dig deeper.

[merh]

40. post away!

:shrug:

[BurtWorm]

42. As I say, I'll post them when I get home.

[BurtWorm]

66. My questions to Froomkin and his replies

I asked this when I was certain the answer would be "very difficult:"



>I would greatly appreciate your taking just a second to give me
> your impression of just how difficult it should be to get a WH
> press pass. Just a daily pass. I've been told that you'd have to
> have (or have to have had) a pass to one of the Congressional
> galleries. Is that true?
>
> Also, is there a place online where I can find the rules for
> gaining access to the press briefings or news conferences. The WH
> itself doesn't seem to have it.
>


Froomkin replied:

Historically, getting a daily pass has been very easy, as long as you work for some sort of journalistic entity. You just call, give them your name and DOB and SSN....

Then if you can find a seat, you're all set.


I found that to be a very disappointing answer, so I pressed him again:


Is it really easier to get access to a White House briefing than to a Congressional Gallery? That seems counterintuitive.

Also, is there a place on-line where the rules for access to WH press breifings are spelled out.

And again he replied:

Easier to get in for a day, yes. And no, I don't think such a place exists.



Make of this what you will, but there it is.

[merh]

74. So you doubt that Secret Service backgrounds are required?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3127354&mesg_id=3127354

[BurtWorm]

76. For hard passes, yes.

For day passes, no.

[merh]

90. So how long do you think you can spin the spin?

Peter Goss comes out yesterday with that scary warning that we will be attacked again by Al Qaeda and they will use WMD or biological weapons.

Yet, some wannabe military stud puppy, boy toy, that displayed his porn photos and prices on a male escort site, complete with reviews of his talents and skills, takes a 2 day course, proclaims himself a journalist, writes for repuke propoganda fake news agencies and gets a coveted pass or passes into the WH to join the press corps for WH briefings. Now this puesdo journalist may sit 10 to 20 feet from the president and members of the admin, yet, he is not required to have a security clearance. So you have a man with a very, vulnerable personal life, who operates an illegal and immoral prostitution enterprise (still active in 2003 when he began at the WH) and owes $20K in taxes, that access to the WH, yet the terror fears are real and our government operates under "heightened security" measures, except for this guy.

Go tell it to the fundies and the RWers, they will like your spin. I think you have been roved and are trying to do that to others here.

[BurtWorm]

92. I object to your insinuation that my take (which you call "spin") isn't

politically correct. I think you have not been thinking very critically. I'm trying to raise questions to sharpen your attack, but you keep returning with this blunt charge that anyone who isn't with you has been "Roved."

Your outrage over the danger his studliness put the White House in seems phony to me. What do you care about the Bush White House's security? If you're like me, all you really care about the Bush White House is that its stay be as unpleasant and unproductive as possible, given what they're trying to do to the country. So why pretend you care how secure these press briefings are?

[merh]

96. No, I resent this administration that has used "terra" to control the

people, yet it has no concerns about terra or our national security. I despise hypocrisy and Gannon Guckert is the poster boy for their hypocrisy.

They perpetuate the hate of gays, yet a gay prostitute is allowed unfettered access to MY White House.

They proclaim that we are in danger of being attacked by terrorists using dirty bombs or chemical/biological weapons, yet they allow access to a fake reporter that is vulnerable to manipulation and is a prime candidate for extortion and thus could be used as an arm of the terrorists to get the dirty bomb or biological/chemical weapons into the White House.

You have not tried to sharpen anything, you have tried to dull the import of their hypocrisy. It is you that has failed to use critical thinking and your total ignorance of security clearances and what type of individuals or generally not given daily access to the White House proves that.

Again, your twisting of my outrage clearly reflects your inability to comprehend the issues involved. It is my White House, it is my nation and I an entitled to outrage when those left in charge of it don't give a crap about it and lie and use their lies to ruin the future of my nation.

[BurtWorm]

97. You've very clearly come to conclusions about the case and closed your

mind to any alternative interpretations. I know you probably find it irritating when I say things like that. Imagine my irritation when you say things like I've been Roved and give aid and comfort to "fundies." I have absolutely no hope that you will look at my judgment about your argument and your own about mine and think about which is closer to the truth. You repeatedly demonstrate a closed mind, an unwillingness to think about my questions, and I don't see any reason to continue such a numbingly repetetive and unproductive dialogue. But I will if you will.

[merh]

101. The same can be said about you. What is worse, you continue

to repeat what those trying to downplay the Gannon story have said.

Gannon had a hard pass.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3127394&mesg_id=3130366

Why repeat their lies as facts?

What are they hiding?
What are they afraid of?

[BurtWorm]

102. Why do you insist on characterizing my disagreement with you

on these questions as "repetitions" of what "they" say? I haven't been reading right wing spin about this. I almost never read the right wing media. All of my opinions about this are my own. It's a very low tactic to try to paint someone you're arguing with here at DU as one of "them." Very low. It's a signal that you don't have much to work with on your own. I've been having very civil disagreements with almost everybody else about this. Very few people have tried like you to insinuate that I'm wrong because I'm not following the party line on this.

Some day you may find yourself in disagreement with the majority at DU on some issue, and you may find yourself being accused of thinking like "them." It might be good for your character to go through that. It might make you better at defending the reasoning behind your positions all the time. Because, if you don't mind my advice, you do need to work on that.

[merh]

103. You should work to defend your positions and the reasoning behind

them. I have provided you links, supported my posts with legitimate reasoning and the facts, while all you have done is parrot Scotties lies (it was a day pass) or challenged the security clearance requirements without any back up, scoffing at them as if I am stupid.

It is you that should work on better defining your position and then you should try to do a better job of backing it up with facts and links. Attacking me or complaining because I do not like the way you have adopted the administration's spin on Gannon doe not mean I am demanding your to walk in lock step. To the contrary, I am challenging you to not walk in the lock step of the administration.

When a poster starts attacking the other poster in an attempt to belittle them, that poster is generally wrong and knows it.

[BurtWorm]

104. You have provided links, I'll give you that.

;)

I'm sorry you felt stupid when I challenged your expertise in security. Maybe you'll condescend at some point to actually address my naive questions with relevant answers?

As for your "challenge"... :eyes:

PS: My friend, if you go back to our earliest exchanges on this subject, you'll see that you were rude to me from the start. If you think I was rude to you, you might want to develop thicker skin.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BurtWorm]

106. I've been upfront about what my game is.

Why can't you all figure it out? I've spelled it out in plain English. I don't think Gannon is all that sinister. I'm not shocked and outraged by his presence in the WH briefing room. I doubt he knows much about the Plame outing. I think he's a tool, not a player. What is so hard to understand about this position?

I'm amazed at how fragile some of you are that you can't deal with some straightforward skepticism and dissent over this.

PS: My theory for why some you can't deal, on a little reflection: you're taking a faith-based approach to your conspiracy theory. My agnosticism must be some kind of affront to your certainy. :shrug:

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Carni]

17. I was confused on the did he/didn't he out Plame matter

Mostly because of his boastful posts on freakrepublic (I do however think he was in on advance info of what was going down as far as the outing because he seems like the type that is slithering around in everything)

With that said...I don't think outing Plame would be the only big issue here -- even if he DID out Plame (which it appears he did not)

The big issue with me... is that in this heightened climate of so called security, the man should never have been allowed access to the WH, or the President (not that I personally care who accesses him)

So this tells me one of two things, either the secret service isn't doing it's job, OR someone very high up cleared Gannon for WH access.

If the WH just wanted to use a shill that loves bush there would be plenty to choose from with much cleaner backgrounds.

This guy was screwing someone at a very high level IMO and that person compromised national security when they allowed Gannon to have access. JMO

[BurtWorm]

24. How do you think he got in on this?

You think Rove was laying out the plan to get Wilson and saw Gannon out of the corner of his eye and someone said, "He's okay, he works for Bobby Eberle"? I don't think he got anywhere near the center of power, except for those stupid grip and grin occasions he bragged to his freeper friends about.

[Carni]

47. Call me a romantic

<GAG> Ok that was a joke-

My own half assed theory is that Gannon was the romantic interest of someone that knew about the plan and he learned about it through them.

[BurtWorm]

51. It's possible.

And revolting. :hi:

[RainDog]

56. wrong Gannon was in the press room long before that.

go over to dKos and read the press briefings...then check out a diary up today that has captured video of Gannon in the press room long before Plame. I think it's by Robert in Wisconsin.

imho, Guckert was a plant in the press corps as part of the propaganda the white house/rummy/poindexter, etc. admitted to then retracted. he was there all along to make points for the Bush side by both attacking the press in the room with him, by staring the fake story about the antiwar teacher, by trying to downplay the plame issue, then with his smears on Kerry, later the smears on other dems.

he's also probably been the paid boy for someone pretty high up in the white house administration.

he probably also uses his male prostitution gig to blackmail people.

jmho.

[BurtWorm]

60. There's no doubt he was there in March 2003. No doubt at all.

But when does he first mention the Plame memo that he had allegedly seen? Three weeks after it was first put in the public domain, which was in a WSJ article dating October 7, 2003.

[H2O Man]

63. Correction:

When do we know he first mentioned it? Because we simply cannot assume he did not know previously, or that he did not discuss it previously .... any more than we can say he did. But the fact that he was there before March 2003 certainly leaves the door of opportunity for a man that Conason accurately calls a "GOP dirty trickster" ..... unless we assume he was not a "GOP dirty trickster" at that time.

[DoYouEverWonder]

73. Here's an article by Gannon

where he claims that Talon News wrote about the memo in Oct. 2003. He also claims that Talon News (doesn't say who) was questioned by the FBI regarding these memos.


Senate Intel Report Discredits Wilson's Claims About Iraq, Niger
By Jeff Gannon, 7/13/2004 8:57:23 AM

<snip>


Wilson denied that his wife played a role in his selection for the mission when questioned by Talon News during an October 2003 interview. He repeated those denials in his book, "The Politics of Truth."

But the Senate Intelligence Committee discovered a memo from Plame dated February 12, 2002 to the Deputy Chief of the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) that "offered up his name." It was also revealed that Wilson traveled to Niger for the CIA in 1999 on a mission whose details are redacted from the report.

In October 2003, Talon News reported on an internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel that detailed a meeting where Plame suggested Wilson be sent to Niger. Wilson claimed to have never been in a meeting with his wife, but a State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analyst's notes indicated that a meeting was "apparently convened" by Plame who had proposed her husband go on the mission. Plame told the committee that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes.

A CIA source told the Washington Post in December 2003 that the INR memo was still classified and disputed its contents. As a result of asking Wilson about the memo during an October 2003 interview, FBI agents questioned Talon News under the guise of the leak probe to discover the source of the memo that refuted the assertions of the agency and Wilson about the circumstances by which he was chosen for the trip.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?00b00ea1-6df1-464b-a611-3f31ef22e9e5

[BurtWorm]

78. Nothing in that article comes out and says Gannon ever saw the memo.

Think of a typical leak. When I see them in the Times, for example, there's always a statement like "The New York Times has obtained a document," or "according to a document viewed by a New York Times reporter." Is there anything in this story that actually says, "Talon News has obtained a document" or "has seen a document?" I don't see it. Maybe it's an error of omission, but it seems odd to me that he wouldn't come right out and say he has it or has seen it. It's always "reported on." It's odd, in my opinion, and remarkable.

[DoYouEverWonder]

83. Since Gannon is not a real journalist

I wouldn't expect him to even know the basic rules of journalism.

I'm not trying to say whether or not he saw the memo, just that you have unreasonable expectations about his reporting style and ability.

[BurtWorm]

84. He knows at least what to say to impress upon readers the import

of what he is writing. He didn't get to be where he was without reading a lot of newspaper articles, particularly ones about leaks of sensitive information. That doesn't mean he necessarily followed the rules or conventions of reporting on these things--or that he didn't say he'd seen it because he *had* seen it and was afraid of the consequences of having seen it--but his consistently vague language around that seems to me noteworthy, especially when you take into account that when all this negative attention was on him he said explicitly that he'd never said he saw or had it. If he hadn't said that, I wouldn't have gone back and noticed how odd his word choice always was around the memo.

PS: He's been playing a double-edged game, wanting to impress his freeper buddied with how inside he is and wanting to impress others with his being a "real" journalist. Unfortunately for him he got cauught not being a real journalist.

[H2O Man]

89. I find it funny

that people say he wasn't a journalist. Sure he was. Might not have had a degree in journalism. Might not have been a good journalist. But I think that he was a journalist: he worked for a "news agency" of sorts, wrote articles of questionable quality, was in on a good number of press conferences, and appears to have been paid for his work.

If he is being judged "not a journalist" because of his lack of writing skills, or for his apparent tendency to plagiarize, then a heck of a lot of journalists with degrees don't cut the mustard .... and one need not look beyond one of the best newspapers in the country to find examples of plagiarism on occassion.

[BurtWorm]

91. That's a good point. I've been thinking about that same idea myself.

Which is why I have problems with the angle that the WH shouldn't have let him in because there's something called a "journalist" that he wasn't. But along the lines of what Conason says, he's more of a dirty trickster or a propagandist than a reporter, certainly. In other words, he was not about recording history as it happens. He was about influencing policy toward a conservative agenda.

[H2O Man]

107. Those are distinct issues.

The congressional chambers, for example, have certain restrictions for what journalists are allowed in. The White House has it's own policy. Neither has anything to do with defining a journalist: they are merely policies on who they let in.

What constitutes a journalist is not to be confused with what opens a door in Washington. Good gosh, if the government could define what a journalist is, that would violate the Consitution, wouldn't it?

[txaslftist]

23. Possibly true, but we don't really know, since Novak won't name

his "source". His source could well have been Gannon. Regardless, Gannon's given us plenty to whack the 'pukes over the head with.

[BurtWorm]

27. While we've been trying to whack them over the head with Gannon

they successfully muted yet aNOTHER person not on their page in the Iraq war, and that was Eason Jordan. This discrepancy between our Gannon party and their Jordan wake kills me. I think we're wasting our time while they're just furthering and furthering their agenda.

[txaslftist]

35. You need to move to page two...

...opposition to the Iraq war is a waste of breath now. Put your mind to opposing the IRAN war.

[BurtWorm]

36. No shit.

:hi:

[bpilgrim]

72. good thing we didn't 'move on' during Vietnam

especially to a non-existent war

:hi:

peace

[Carni]

48. If it makes you feel any better

Sean Hannity just called the freepers childish and fringe on his radio program.

Hannity was a fave at all the freeper gatherings in the past (attended their stupid events raved about them etc)

I think he's trying to distance himself from FR because of Gannon.

I really am not sure this Gannon thing is dead in the water.

[bpilgrim]

70. we are EXPOSING their people... it's a GOOD thing

are you trying to say we should just ignore the plastic turkeys?

that, my friend, is exactly what they are hoping for AND what got us in this mess to begin with.

i really don't see your point here... you want us to pretend there isn't a problem while they continue to lie with immunity?

why?



peace

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Stephanie]

46. No, he attempted to help with the cover up

Right?

[BurtWorm]

50. Maybe.

I am guessing that his part in the coverup was accidental. I'm guessing that he read the October 7, 2003 story in the Wall Street Journal in which the INR memo was first alluded to in this way:


"An internal government memo addresses some of the mysteries at the center of the White House leak investigation and could help investigators in the search for who disclosed the identity of a Central Intelligence Agency operative, according to two people familiar with the memo.

"The memo, prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel, details a meeting in early 2002 where CIA officer Valerie Plame and other intelligence officials gathered to brainstorm about how to verify reports that Iraq had sought uranium yellowcake from Niger.

"Ms. Plame, a member of the agency's clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested at the meeting that her husband, Africa expert and former U.S. diplomat Joseph Wilson, could be sent to Niger to investigate the reports, according to current and former government officials familiar with the meeting at the CIA's Virginia headquarters. Soon after, midlevel CIA officials decided to send him, say intelligence officials.

"Classified memos, like the one describing Ms. Plame's role, have limited circulation and investigators are likely to question all those known to have received it. Intelligence officials haven't denied Ms. Plame was involved in the decision to send Mr. Wilson, but they have said she was not "responsible" for the decision."

In my opinion, this article was a clear case of disinformation being spread by the Bush White House to offset the damage of the investigation into the Plame outing. They wanted to make it seem that a bunch of people knew Plame was CIA--that it wasn't such a secret. I don't think there really was a memo. I think the author of the article (David S. Cloud), was sold a bill of goods. But this was the talking point that hit freeperland and winger radio. I think Gannon picked this up and carried it with him to the Wilson intervi, which took place three weeks later. That's at least as likely an explanation for his involvement in the cover-up--based on what we know of his serial plagiarism, serial parroting of right wing talking points, and serial blowhardism--as his being in on the circle of conspiracy.

[Stephanie]

75. That's a very plausible scenario -

but did "Gannon" ever say he saw the memo? I thought he said he had seen it or was in possession of it. Which isn't to say that the memo ever existed. If he was claiming to have seen a memo that he had not seen, who told him to say that? I think he was in too tight with his benefactors to stray too far from the party line. He would say what they told him to say.

[BurtWorm]

77. It's possible. But it's also possible that he's on auto pilot

like a lot of freepers. Feed them a talking point from any source and they'll do as they're self-programmed to do: regurgitate the hell out of it. Did someone feed him directly? Maybe, but would they really be so careless to use someone like Gannon--someone who has "blowhard" and "freeper shill" written all over him--as an insider?

By the way, Gannon hinted that he had seen or had the memo when he was bragging to freeperland about how important he was, but he now says he never said he had the memo--and it's true! If you look at his words, he never says he's actually had it or had seen it. He says things like "the FBI wanted to to know how I got it," which is not the same thing--though I admit it's awfully *like* the same thing--as "I got it." To me, the way he has talked about the memo is in keeping with this character as someone who wants to be seen as an insider but who probably isn't.

[Stephanie]

86. Never overestimate Rove & BushCO

Everything they do, outside of stealing elections, is a huge failure. I would expect them to hire an incompetent mole.

[BurtWorm]

93. That is a good point!

;)

[Edgewater_Joe]

53. That's Not The Issue Here

The issue is simpler: why the Hell did a gay hooker have the Plaime info in the first place?

[BurtWorm]

59. He had the Plame info after it was already out in the public domain.

Look at my response to Stephanie above.

[H2O Man]

62. Interesting thought.

It is certainly true that he had the info after it was out in the public domain. What we don't know is if he had that information before it was out in the public domain. And we are not sure if Gannon played any role in making it part of the public domain. However, your theory that he did not have it before it was in the public domain is interesting, and possibly true.

[BigBearJohn]

55. This just in: Court TV and Gannon

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

[bling bling]

68. According to this article:

"An interesting footnote: On the list of subpoenaed materials are included administration contacts with more than two dozen journalists. Included right up there with superstars such as Walter Pincus and Dana Priest, of the Washington Post, Evan Thomas (Newsweek), Andrea Mitchell, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Nicholas D. Kristof, and Judith Miller, we have one Jeff Gannon, of something called "Talon News.""

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2100

So, the administration contacted Gannon. Interesting. Gannon gets a hold of fake secret memo. Gannon interviews Wilson about the memo. Before the memo has time to be debunked - it's too late and the damage has been done. Why do I not believe that this was a coincidence?

Maybe all of the isolated incidents by themselves don't amount to anything -- but together, the dots connect to produce a clear picture: Gannon isn't/wasn't an independent journalist. Gannon WAS/IS a tool of the GOP. Having said that, he was an active participant in the disinformation/smear campaign launched by the GOP against Wilson and Plame.

Just my opinion.

[BurtWorm]

80. No that's not what this subpoena means.

It does not mean that the administration contacted Jeff Gannon. It means that the grand jury wanted to see records of the administration's contacts with Jeff Gannon *if they had them.* Just because the grand jury wanted to see records of the contacts, in other words, it doesn't mean the administration actually *had* the records, or, more to the point, had contacts with Gannon.

Let me make clear that it's possible the administration had contacts with Gannon and had records of contacts with him. It's also possible they had contacts and no records, or no records they would want to share. But the subpoena doesn't say anything about whether or not these contacts or records actually exist.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

69. Fact Check: Putting "Fact Check:" in your subject line...

... and then following it with nothing more than supposition is falling short of "facts".

You are making a claim: "Gannon/Guckert did NOT help out Plame". Please back it up with facts and corroborated references (which you have demanded from people in other threads). None of your posts in this thread -- nor in all the other Guckert threads in which you have posted many, many times -- provide more than supposition.

[BurtWorm]

79. The simple fact is that Novak and Novak alone outed Plame.

Gannon doesn't enter the Plame picture until the coverup stage. That is a fact.

[H2O Man]

85. Gannon indeed

is not known to have played any role whatsoever until the cover-up stage. However, the "simple fact is that Novak and Novak alone outed Plame" is clearly in error. Novak wrote the first column that reported Plame's identity; however, no one can say Novak "alone" outed Plame.

[BurtWorm]

94. True enough, but among the journos, Novak was the outer.

Clearly, though, he wasn't the only journo in on the Plame outing. Nothing I have seen has suggested Gannon was in with that elite crew.

[Blue_Roses]

98. I agree

you make some excellent points in this thread.

[BurtWorm]

99. Thank you.

:hi:

[peacetalksforall]

71. I believe Joe Wilson. Gannon referred to a memo that refers to Plame

in the interview G sought from Wilson and Wilson granted. Most people beieve that few or no other journalists had seen it. I firmly believe that G either read the memo, read a copy of it, or had possession of a copy of it. Why would Rove or Cheney want Wilson to know there was a memo. G either goofed or wasn't briefed correctly or sufficiently.

This is only what I believe. NO ONE NO ONE can say for sure until it all comes out.

[BurtWorm]

81. You firmly believe he had it.

Your firm belief and a $1.15 gets me a large coffee at my local deli.

I don't see any evidence other than vague hints that he actually had it, and it's just as likely, when you look at the timeline, that he saw a report of it elsewhere and was regurgitating the report of it, like a good little freeper.

[YNGW]

87. You're right about Gannon/Guckert.

I don't think there's anything to this Gannon/Guckert thing at all. He doesn't know anything, he just said things to make it sound like he was an "insider", a "big shot", when he was nothing but a blog reporter. Once again, it's going to end up being another dead end road.

[mmonk]

88. My first impressions

are that when things are odd and don't match up, there's some monkey business afoot. Gannon/Guckert is such a strange anomaly and combine that with Fitzgerald's interest in some capacity makes it impossible for me to dismiss or ignore him, even if he is nothing but a paid political hack meant to distract. He somehow folds into the whole situation in some sort of fashion.

[BurtWorm]

95. About his being a "paid political hack"

Has anyone shown that he was actually paid for what he did for TalonNews.com? My understanding is that Talon is staffed by volunteers, that Gannon was never paid for a word he wrote for them.

[crispini]

100. kick for a good thread.

:kick: