Plame leaked by fake news source?

Did the White House dribble the Plame leak through its own fake mouthpiece news source?

Consider:

A fake news service employs a fake reporter who apparently was the only one "identified by the Washington Post as having knowledge of the [leaked CIA] memo's existence." What leaked CIA memo, you ask?  The one in which "Wilson ... suggests his wife was instrumental in his selection for the fact-finding trip to Africa." [cites in block quotes below.]

Let's back this pony up and look at what's come out in the past week.

Media Matters for the past couple of days has been delving into the mysterious "Talon News Service" and its mysterious, oh-so-helpful shilling reporter at White House press conferences, "Jeff Gannon."

First, from Media Matters:

Talon News, a conservative company whose Washington bureau chief and White House correspondent Jeff Gannon is well-known for asking loaded pro-Republican questions at White House press briefings,appears to be more a political organization than a media outlet.

Media Matters for America recently highlighted three Gannon articles that were little more than reprints of Republican and Bush administration releases; Media Matters has also noted Gannon's role as White House press secretary Scott McClellan's lifeline and Talon editor in chief Bobby Eberle's partisan political activities. A more in-depth look at Talon,Gannon,and Eberle casts additional doubt on Talon's claim to be a media outlet and raises questions about whether Gannon should be a credentialed member of the White House press corps.

Eberle is also,as Media Matters has previously noted,president and CEO of GOPUSA,a "conservative news,information,and design company dedicated to promoting conservative ideals." Though Eberle has claimed on the September 13,2004,edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country that GOPUSA and Talon News are separate companies,they overlap heavily.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501280006

But wait! "Jeff Gannon" isn't really Jeff Gannon after all, according to Atrios:

Special Treatment for Gannon?

According to sources, Jeff Gannon's real name is not, in fact, Jeff Gannon. According to the same sources, his White House press credentials list him as "Jeff Gannon" - they let him use his pseudonym -- even though married female reporters, who use their maiden name professionally, are given credentials with their married name and aren't allowed to be credentialed under their maiden names...

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_01_23_atrios_archive.html#110695056420863397

And then, a little Googling reveals this, from a March 9, 2004, "Talon News" release:

Talon News has learned that one of the journalists being targeted is Jeff Gannon, Washington Bureau Chief and White House correspondent for Talon News.

According to a subsequent Talon News story by Bobby Eberle regarding the Washington Post piece, "The Washington Post cites an unnamed source who says, 'The CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets.'

They point to a memo referenced in a Talon News interview of Wilson that suggests his wife was instrumental in his selection for the fact-finding trip to Africa."

Talon News was the only service identified by the Washington Post as having knowledge of the memo's existence.

http://www.jeffgannon.com/Making%20News/federal_grand_jury_could_subpoen.htm

So am I reading more into this than I should be? And why would "Talon News" fink its own self out about the grand jury subpoena? Has the Bush administration and its evil ways turned me into a permanent paranoiac? Does anyone want to join me in useless speculation as to what this complicated crapola means?

•  Please recommend this diary.

  It matters that we in the blogisphere know this.  I'm feeling so fatalistic lately that I don't believe the blogs will be around much longer.

  by Thistime on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:37:22 PM PDT

  •  Soon No Blogs?

    Well, we ARE you know a threat to "National Security"

    by proudtinfoilhat on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:48:04 PM PDT

    •  It is hard to believe

      what has happened has happened.  It has hit me like a wall this week.  Anything is possible.

      by Thistime on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:02:04 PM PDT

      •  It's nine guys

        Remember what Seymour Hersh said - the whole country taken over by about nine guys. That's not a lot of guys.

        by moon in the house of moe on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:16:30 PM PDT

        •  But we're 40,000 strong

          Take heart, damn it.

          We'll chip away at 'em, piece by scummy little piece.

          by SusanG on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:17:57 PM PDT

          •  The Sin of Despair.

            
            The Catholic even had a way to guilt you when you gave up.  There is a reason they had a rule against it I suppose.  

            You're right, but I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel today, things will look up tomorrow.

            by Thistime on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:30:32 PM PDT

            •  Where is Carmen Sandiego?

              Propaganda.  Leaks.  Fake trails included.

              by dotpeople on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 10:49:26 PM PDT

            •  Yes, it is wrong to despair

              Rembember Denethor--in the book (LotR/RotK) not (repeat, NOT) the movie.  

              But the original point stands.  Expect blogs to be shut down within a year--and plan for it!  Not that it is fated, but if it doesn't happen, it will be a sure sign that the tide is turning.  

              by gaianne on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 02:15:28 AM PDT

        •  Check the number of signatories

          on the PNAC's "Statement of Principles".

          That's the gang.  Even Dubya and Condi are just their pawns.

          But there's really more than nine, and that worries me; there's a parent group that spawned PNAC.  And not all of the PNAC gang or its parents are part of the inner circle.  

          Whatever happens as we go further into background on Propaganda-gate, we need to make sure we cover ALL the bases, check them ALL.

          by Rayne on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:35:35 PM PDT

        •  Here's my list of Suspects...

          I call them The Angels of Death, either active or complicit in a takeover of the US government:

          BUSH, CHENEY, ASHCROFT, RUMSFELD, RICE, ROVE, DE LAY, SCALIA, WOLFOWITZ, PERLE, FEITH, LIBBY, FRIST, GINGRICH,  KAGAN, KRISTOL, PERETZ, WOOLSEY, ABRAMS, KHALILZAD, RHODE, WOHLSTETTER, RUBIN, WURMSER, [f.]WURMSER, MALOOF, LUTI, SHULSKY, BOLTON, BRUNER, SCHMITT, ABOUL-ENEIN, CHALABI, BROOKE, NETANYAHU, SHARON, et al.

          There are others, of course. But, in my view, these are the main suspects.

          Google `em. Read their writings. You'll see - they're not shy.

          by QuoVadis on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 10:03:28 PM PDT

          •  And of course

            grandpa Strauss

            http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/49/articles/leo_strauss/flash.html

            by moon in the house of moe on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 10:08:14 PM PDT

            •  Of course. Musn't forget the Godfather. n/t

              by QuoVadis on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 10:33:32 PM PDT

          •  down down

            You guys... no joke... as a person of interest as defined by the pat act... you don't need much and this is too much... just don't want you to go poof...these are not softball people...oy... i am running from this thread... this is too far too fast and too public and too reckless...

            i am going to go play in the other diaries, even though this one is compelling, i think it is now, at this point, trouble...too hot, as it were.

            I suggest everyone quietly do the same. I covered some small county where some jerk did some things ... and boy, did i get the kind of attention i did not want... this would be 100 times worse...walk to exit quickly, delete posts and entire diary... don't speak in email or anywhere about this... red flags are going off

            Oy...there needs to be a security setting in public forums... where only specific people are allowed to read your posts... don't you guys think?

            by Larisa on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 03:45:02 AM PDT

            •  "running from this thread"

              ...and you're a journalist?

              heh.

              by RabidNation on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 04:35:34 AM PDT

            •  I think this is sarcasm folks

              if not, then I take my 4 back. . .

              by BigOkie on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 05:54:01 AM PDT

              •  asdf

                I don't think this is sarcasm.  She posted a similar message elsewhere in the thread.  If she really is a journalist then this goes a long way toward explaining why the media is completely worthless.

                by mraker on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 10:11:55 AM PDT

              •  You really do not get...

                Why research, even group research, should be done off the radar? Okay... you are right, take the 4. wow...

                by Larisa on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:47:16 PM PDT

                •  No

                  Keep it.  I read your other comments and I think you may have a point.  Consider this, though: if you are right then telling everyone to take it somewhere else, and then saying where to take it isn't much help in keeping it concealed.

                  by BigOkie on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 01:34:37 PM PDT

                  •  The place I was...

                    suggesting is where many journalists communicate with their sources... so i was saying, everyone run over there (whom Sus trusts, because this is her gem)... create a working group which will be solid from hacking for about 2 weeks.... and you can keep a running folder that everyone you allow can add to it can access and research or read the findings of others' stuff, take stuff... and you can chat in real time, email one another... have meetings. When the whole thing is put together and vetted... Then sus writes her article, with a fully confirmed story... then we all run back to Kos... she posts it as a solid piece...

                    Then we all go crazy and send it out to everyone. The end, takes a sedative:)

                    by Larisa on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 01:41:35 PM PDT

            •  huh?

              I don't get why you are so squimish, Larisa.  So you're a person of interest.  Many of us are.  What makes this diary "too hot?"

              by mjgzmark on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 07:38:01 PM PDT

          •  Scaife? nm

            nm

            by Doug in SF on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 05:12:44 AM PDT

          •  Where are we going?

            Love the screen name. What a rogue's gallery you list. Every day is now an Orwellian adventure in American thanks to these bastards. I just read - and responded to - a fawning article in the LA Times entitled: Recasting Republicans as the Party of Civil Rights. That's some recasting, Virginia. But don'tcha know they'll have the MSM tap dancing to this tune by Sunday afternoon.

            Core argument from diary above: Sure, why not. The bets have been on Scooter Libby as the mouthpiece to Novak. But the tidal wave of press/broadcast that followed could have come from one of these non-news news orgs. Double plus good!

            by deacon2 on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 10:50:42 AM PDT

          •  The Biggest Mistake ...

            to have a former CIA director be permitted to run for highest public office: VP in 1980 and POTUS in 1988.

            You listed too many small fish. Don't underestimate the Carlyle Group with James Baker III [Fla. 2000],  Don Carlucci, George Shulz, Casper Weinberger. Furthermore, Alexander Haig, William Casey, Elliott Abrams and even Brzezinski and the leadership of the Iran-Contra campaign. Those people were either pardoned or promoted. Have learned from their mistakes and will aim for a higher goal.

            Nice exercise is to run the URL of this diary through NameBase.org for a listing of the relationships. Here is the result: NameExtract and look up some social networks. Difficult to interpret the result, as it is based on publications of political and business ties.

            In 2005 - Be Liberal Support our Allies of Democracy on Human Rights, Environment, Gay Rights and Minorities & EU and UN Development Programs Third World & Our Friends

            by creve coeur on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:58:53 PM PDT

        •  It's Not Just the Nine Guys

          It's corrupt tyrannical politicians, yes.  Who are misguided colonialists playing army like little boys.

          But they wouldn't get any props for their tyrannous actions or their militaristic bloodthirst unless someone was benefiting and saying good boy.

          (like everyone agrees Hitler was evil but nobody asks who was financing him and if not him would they just have found someone else)

          Bush said it best.

          Its the haves and the have mores.

          His base.
          

          by baked potato on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 08:01:00 PM PDT

  •  Categorization

    Marking this diary as CategoryPlame will help organization by use of the dKos search tool.

    After I mark the main diaries, I think I'll try to set up a few assignment categories on the dKosopedia page and make the current assignment threads.

    by anonymous coward 8 on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 10:42:20 AM PDT

•  let's see

  a phony reporter that works for a phony newsgroup that asks setup questions...? what could it mean?
  could mean the republicans are cheating, lying sons of bitches...
  i miss my innocence, i can't even work up an "i'm shocked" anymore.

  by rasbobbo on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:43:35 PM PDT

  •  Freerepublic is credited

    with identifying the problems with the supposedly fake CBS letters moments after the broadcast.  Never once have I seen a MSM report that guy on Freerepublic who was the instant expert on typeface was a lawyer with friends who had lots of dirty tricks experience, but no expertise in obscure typeface.  The MSM plays like there was some credibility to the blogsisphere, when they were simply tricked.

    Is there hope? Tell me a reason to hope, please.

    by Thistime on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:55:18 PM PDT

    •  just a quick note

      The newer and more accurate term is RWCM - right-wing corporate media. Spread the meme!

      by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:58:26 PM PDT

      •  noted. nt

        by Thistime on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:10:21 PM PDT

      •  Thanks

        for the update on the much more accurate meme.

        by firedoglake on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:11:48 PM PDT

      •  I prefer Corporate Media Cartel

        It becomes a he said she said on whose political stereotype is in control.  Liberal media is too strong a meme.

        Corporate Media Cartel is apolitical, to a point.  We all know who supports big business, and so do the rest of Americans.  This also has a nice dirty criminal feel, which all Americans can embrace, not just one political persuasion.  Republicans will be guilty by default.

        The Plame Outing: another Political Assassination orderd by the Corporate Media Cartel.

        by k9disc on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:53:23 PM PDT

        •  It being RWCM n/t

          by k9disc on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:54:03 PM PDT

    •  The sun shone brightly today in Ohio

      That, my friend, is a miracle.  It actually lifted my heart a bit.  I was at a funeral, and it was just a strikingly beautiful blue sky, golden sun,  bright white snow on the ground.

      by Margot on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:39:22 PM PDT

      •  i hope

        You are okay after the funeral and the sun will shine... and when it does, i hope the full radiation of it shines right up Cheney's ass... i am a bit upset about his visit to a death camp as though he were some icon of peace... :D

        by Larisa on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:49:41 PM PDT

        •  Thank you

          You are kind, and I am fine.  Now today it's snowing and sleeting, so you see what a gift it was to have that lovely day.

          I'm not going to talk about He Who Must Not Be Named.  All I can do is think of Watergate, and ask for someone in our government to have the same spirit and fair minds of Sam Ervin, Elliot Richardson,  and Judge Sirica, to name a few.  

          I'm trying to think of anyone who is at all like them, and I'm drawing a blank.  Does anyone occur to you?
          

          by Margot on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 02:37:39 PM PDT

    •  He may well have been Rove's stooge...

      ... But the documents were clearly the product of a modern word processor. Even I could tell that at a glance. Any techie who's lived long enough to work with both typewriters and computer printers knows the differences that exist between them.

      HOWEVER, that should in no way take away from the hypothesis that this was a setup from the get-go. Feed a tantalising story to Rather, then subvert it by conning him with fake documents. Now, in spite of the fact that everyone they spoke to concurred with what was written on those docs, and in spite of the fact that people agreed that Bush had got special treatment, all the republicans have to do is shout, 'Forgery!' and the whole thing goes away.

      That's just the kind of inspired scenario that Rove excels at.
      

      by crumb on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 01:21:58 AM PDT

      •  although. . .

        If this was a Rove set up, then would he have used something so obvious as a word processed document.  Because if they were going to put the effort into staging such an elaborate set up, would they really want to risk having all their efforts be wasted if the CBS hired document checkers immediately identified the thing as a fraud and the story never went on air.

        More likely, if it was a Rove set up it seems that they would have gone for something that had only a slim chance of being identified as a fraud by CBS.

        The real question is why or how these documents got past the document checkers hired by CBS.  For your hypothesis to work, Rove would have had to have some way of making sure that CBS's document checkers okayed the documnets.  This could only work if the document checkers were in fact working for Rove as well.  And you might even have to add a further qualification that Rove had an agent inside CBS who could insure that he documents were sent for validation to these particular document experts.

        In short, it seems like too many new elements and too big of a conspiracy with too many possible points at which it could all break down.  By Occam's razor, I'd be inclined to dismiss it.

        Of course it's still a question as to why the hell the document "experts" didn't spot the forgery.  But it seems like simple incompetance is a more likely explanation.

        In any case, I certainly hope that their professional reputations are totally ruined

        by Nate Roberts on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 02:02:35 AM PDT

        •  CBS wasn't the intended victim;

          the guy who provided the documents to CBS was the intended target. The scenario played out better than the Rovians could have imagined in their wildest dreams.

          Rather believed that the documents were real because it is well known that such documents were created. The expert CBS hired did hedge in his opinion, why he didn't come out and id them as fakes is anyone's guess. Maybe he was lazy or incompetent, maybe he wanted the documents to be real so badly that his hope blinded his professionalism, maybe he wanted to make Rather look the fool, we just don't know.

          What we do know is that the WH circulated the documents widely to the press (as ostensibly authentic) the morning on the broadcast, after they were presented with them by CBS. The WH reason given for the wide distribution of what were supposed to have been very damaging letters was that it was consistent with the WH's policy of openness. That's all I needed to hear to have grave suspicions that this was the mother of all manipulations.

          by Thistime on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 06:11:48 AM PDT

        •  60 Minutes only had a few days

          Of course it's still a question as to why the hell the document "experts" didn't spot the forgery.  

          to evaluate the documents before they aired the story.  However, the CBS investigation into this that took a few months and included many experts did not conclude that the documents are forgeries.  To date this are not proven forgeries contrary to the CW that seems to have taken hold.

          by Marie on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 07:38:26 AM PDT

          •  wow!

            I guess I'e gotta get up to speed on this story.  Do you have any sources which lay it all out like that?

            But maybe I'm not understanding you properly.  Is not proving that a document is a forgery the same as certifying it as genuine?  I mean, what exactly did the final report say?

            by Nate Roberts on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 03:52:19 AM PDT

            •  The best review of this that

              I've seen was in Forbes: CBS's Show Trial.

              Authenticating all sorts of things can be very difficult.  There was a case in England a few years ago where a man had an artist forge a large number of paintings.  The forged painting were incredibly sloppy -- the paints and canvasses as well as subject matter were completely "off" for the artists who they were ascribed to.  Yet the provenance for all of them were impeccable.  On that basis, musuems and collectors bought them.  To the eye the paintings looked like the artists would have painted on a bad day.  The scam artist had managed to get into the provenance archives of the British Museum and create fake provenances for the forgeries.  He has since been convicted but they aren't sure if all of the forgeries have been found or how badly the archives have been compromised.

              If they had the originals of the TANG memos, it would be easier to determine if they were forgeries or authentic, or at least determine if they are more or less likely one or the other.  The copies appear not to have any markers that allow experts who has looked at them to date to conclude that they are forgeries.  However, that doesn't mean that they are authentic.  If Killian's secretary recollections are accurate, then these were not typed by her.  Yet, she also claimed to have typed memos that were similar in content and that Killian put those in a private file he kept in his desk.  What happened after that?  

              The problem I have with this is that it appears that whoever put together the ones we see today had to have had access to or intimate knowledge of the originals, including the dates of the alleged events.  The second problem I have is why do they only surface in 2004?  All a big mystery.

              by Marie on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 10:53:30 AM PDT

      •  The CBS investigation into "memogate"

        But the documents were clearly the product of a modern word processor.

        that consulted with many experts was unable to conclude this and unable to prove that they were forgeries.  Maybe they should have hired you since you seem to have skills that they nobody they consulted have.

        by Marie on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 07:34:20 AM PDT

      •  It's my understanding

        that the document was attested to as a "true copy."  That was a very standard phrase in use before it was possible to make exact reproductions with a copying machine.  
        Only an idiot would hand over the originals of anything.  And a xerox copy would not have the same legal credibility as a copy produced by another hand, or machine, whose information was sworn to as to its authenticity.
        Explaining such complexity is beyond the media when they have to answer a charge with "Yes, but ...."
        The only thing that counts is the first word.

        by hannah on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 09:10:45 AM PDT

      •  What is your expertise here?

        The early arguments that it was modern computer generated font have been refuted.

        by jimG on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 10:15:48 AM PDT

  •  How much were these jerks paid by the Bushies n/t

    by sara seattle on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:57:14 PM PDT

    •  Follow the money

      You're asking the right question...who wrote the check and to whom?  For what?

      Feeling a little FOIA-ish?

      by Rayne on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:13:29 PM PDT

  •  the stench of Rove

    This smells too much like a Rovian rat.  The kind pulled on Dan Rather.

    Do you think it's possible the Talon tattling could be like the tattling on Bush's not serving out his time in the Air Guard?

    Remember Rove pulled that one to get rid of Rather?

    Well perhaps he's designing the Talon tattling, and the phony reporter stuff because he's going to have someone point the finger for false reporting and it's going to lead back to a powerful democrat.  Couldn't they make this look like a ploy of the democrats who were just trying to make the innocent republicans look bad?

    Remember these words? "Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean people are't out to get me."

    by DollyLlama on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:31:14 PM PDT

  •  A phony reporter under an assumed name

    whose credentials are a 2 day workshop on journalism.

    by Agathena on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:25:54 AM PDT

  •  Nixon Redux.

    Secretive. Deceptive.  Juvenile.  This kind of crap is right out of the Colson/Hunt/ Haldemann/Erlichmann playbook.  Mayberry Machiavellis, indeed.

    by BlueManInRedState on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 09:41:52 AM PDT

•  If 'Talon News' is a fake 'News Service'

  and its Washington DC Bureau Chief is a conservative GOP party activist working under a false name like an actor playing a role... this needs to be blown up all over.

  Its fraud.
  Plain and simple fraud.
  ENOUGH of this corruption, propaganda, and lies.

  First we have the HHS inventing a news reporter for a fake news report touting Bush policy.

  Then we have a bunch, and who knows what the exact number is, of conservative pundits being paid payola to pimp Bush policies.

  And NOW we have a fake news service, run by GOP activists, serving up softball questions and outright lies (Harry Reid and Barbara Boxer were both smeared repeatedly by "Mr. Gannon" this week in questions to spokeswhore Scott McClellan) from a conservative con man working the White House under a fake name?????  

  by LeftHandedMan on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:46:32 PM PDT

  •  Please Recommend this diary

    We need a call to arms on this, and this needs to be spread to the entire DailyKos community for discussion.

    by LeftHandedMan on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:47:52 PM PDT

  •  oh my

    there's the "f" word again.

    by rasbobbo on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:00:16 PM PDT

  •  It does match the rest of the

    setup -
    fake pres
    darth vadar vp

    by glitterscale on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:25:21 PM PDT

  •  why the hard-on for eagles?

    Ever notice, if it has anything to do with an eagle, it's Republican.

    by bobinson on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:31:00 PM PDT

    •  well...

      If you go by the observations of Ben Franklin, it's a cowardly scavanger.  

      But it's big and looks fierce and that is what they like; size and illusion.

      by DawnG on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 05:54:57 AM PDT

    •  Kind of like our troops --

      the Rethuglicans like eagles as a fetish, not as actual living beings worthy of being treated with actual respect as to their living condition.

      by Em on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 09:15:42 AM PDT

•  Interesting, SusanG.

  If we're supposed to read between the lines of what was written, then the fact that Talon was the only one mention, and the article cites an angry CIA (in relation to the same memo)...

  So much has gone on over the last year, I forget...but didn't Feith's office and maybe Rove's have to turn over phone logs to Fitzgerald in his investigation?

  Wouldn't it be interesting to know if Gannon was on that log, and at when?

  Of course, since he's clearly the "go-to" media whore, that may just mean he was getting his instructions like any other day.

  Maybe Talon "finked" itself because it thinks it's so highly connected it will never be held responsible and could present itself as a victim of the liberal media (i.e. the part that isn't a wholly owned subsidiary of BushCo.)
   

  by fauxreal on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:47:03 PM PDT

  •  Feith

    Didn't Feith just resign the other day?? -- maybe this is the resignation before the storm!! hm hm

    by sara seattle on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:59:03 PM PDT

    •  Nail on head, Sara!

      The Pentagon hawk responsible for much of the planning of the war against Iraq has resigned. ...

      Mr Feith, 51, a Washington lawyer, is a protégé of Richard Perle, a senior Pentagon appointee during the Reagan era who won the nickname "the Prince of Darkness" for his hawkish views during the Cold War.

      http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/28/wfeith28.xml

      Antiwar's got this up -- and doesn't the OSP sound Talonish?

      "I think they decided to get rid him of long ago but were afraid that doing so would have been seen as a tacit admission that Bush screwed up in Iraq," said one administration official who asked not to be identified.

      He added that Feith's authority over policy had been gradually reduced over the past 18 months due to complaints about his performance from Congress, the uniformed military, and Washington's coalition partners in Iraq - particularly British Prime Minister Tony Blair who, according to one source, had asked Bush to remove Feith well over a year ago.

      As undersecretary, Feith played a critical role in the run-up to the Iraq war for which he was a major prewar booster. Two offices established under his authority, the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans (OSP) became particularly controversial.

      The former reportedly reviewed "raw intelligence" gathered by the official intelligence agencies and Iraqi exiles in order to try to establish the existence of links between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda that could be cited by the administration in its case for going to war.

      The resulting product - which was subsequently leaked to the neoconservative Weekly Standard - was then "stovepiped" to Cheney's office and from there into the White House, thus circumventing review by professional    analysts.

      http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=4629

      And now a word from Conspiracy Planet:

      But here's what Reuters failed to mention: Feith may end up in the hoosegow "for leaking classified information to The Weekly Standard," according to Karen Kwiatkowski, who once had the misfortunate of working with the "arrogant" Strausscon.

      The memo, dated October 27, 2003, alleges Osama and Saddam were buddies, an accusation we know is pure horse feathers. ...

      In the past, both Perle and Feith have been accused of passing classified information to Israel, a crime punishable by a firing squad in some countries. Due to his treachery, Feith was forced to leave the National Security Council, but he was soon back in government, his crimes apparently forgiven, or at least overlooked.

      In August, Feith's name was linked to Lawrence Franklin, who served in the military attache's office in the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv in the late 1990s. Franklin is suspected of passing classified information about Iran to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee and Israel. ...

      It can be stated with a large degree of accuracy that, thanks to Feith and the OSP, the United States underestimated the Iraqi resistance, prompting Gen. Tommy Franks to call him "the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth," according to Bob Woodward.

      http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=2&contentid=1837

      Aaaaaah, will a third-rate media operation prove to be the third-rate burglary of this Republican administration?  Is it a cancer growing on the presidency?  
      

      by KateCrashes on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:03:24 PM PDT

      •  Ah, yes. Now I can say it...

        teacherken posted below about the source of funding behind this; I responded that DoD's intel unit might have been able to do this, buy a fake reporter and a fake news agency, all outside of purview of laws regulating CIA/FBI.

        But what if it wasn't DoD but an extra-governmental agency that spawned this? (read: foreign)

        Who would have a vested interest in the continuation of the unilateral war on Iraq?

        And how close was the FBI investigation into spying getting to Feith?  

        Did Feith consider what he did "leaking" when Billy Kristol is the chair of the PNAC, the same group to which Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz are co-signatories to the PNAC's Statement of Principles?  Did he simply assume it was "all in the family"?

        by Rayne on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:58:07 PM PDT

        •  35435

          "Who would have a vested interest in the continuation of the unilateral war on Iraq?"

          iarael

          by Cedwyn on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:47:30 PM PDT

          •  okay...

            take this down... you guys, this is a public forum... should you actually discover something that may be too close to the "fire" you don't want to have it out like this...this is reckless... can we copy the entire thread and move it to a more sensitive area?

            and if this is a honey pot... it will take Kos down with it... that is why I keep asking for people to understand that not all bloggers are journalists and not all journalists are bloggers... sometimes they are in one, but that is not that common... so you need to understand why when you read something, you are reading a finished product...the work is not done in the open... especially not something this, possibly, real. until it can be confirmed and researched, and really to protect any possible sources and or bloggers... it should stay on the Q/T...so, is there a way to contact someone to please pull this (copy all posts first)... i really want to get this point across... oy:(

            by Larisa on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 03:26:25 AM PDT

            •  gutless.

              you working for Rove too?

              by RabidNation on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 04:37:18 AM PDT

              •  Nope, but you are...

                Check all of my comments where I actually, aside from warning my friends at Kos am also helping with the research and your comments? You hoping I don't actually help them? Hmmm... (and you know where I am going with this)..

                by Larisa on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:52:22 PM PDT

            •  Horseshit

              Larisa, I don't know wh you are or what you do for a ,iving, and I've tried to be civil to you...

              But these coy admonitions to BLOGGERS to keep it quiet and don't rock the fucking boat are pathetic and insulting to our intelligence.

              Seriously, are you a fifth string right wing plant? Because that's the only plausible scenario I can imagine in which you're actually sentient.

              by Maryscott OConnor on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 09:06:15 AM PDT

              •  I think they just let her out of the tinfoil ward

                Not the to be confused with The Proud Tinfoil Brigade

                by 313to212 on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 11:56:25 AM PDT

              •  No

                This is to keep it off the radar... until you can vet it...off radar is not shut it up, off radar is so that you can research it without setting off red flags...don't you understand why that is important?

                by Larisa on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:53:45 PM PDT

                •  Dear Larisa

                  "Sunshine is the best disinfectant."

                  We are all about getting it out in the open.

                  by MaximusNYC on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 11:18:02 PM PDT

            •  Wrong.

              This is all about the continued survival of us as a human race. If PNAC is allowed to completely take over our country, they will start numerous localized wars all over the globe. This will result in the depletion of our oil reserves, massive global warming, and the deaths of billions of people in the end because they can't breathe.

              This is just like the Civil Rights struggles in the 1960's. Now is the only time we have to stand up to them. Later might be too late.

              I have watched the Apprentice, and Donald Trump would rather have a hippy run one of his companies than someone who sticks their head in the sand.

              by Eternal Hope on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 10:38:03 AM PDT

      •  Even Tommy Franks hates Feith

        Franks wrote in his autobiography "American Soldier" that Feith was "getting a reputation around here as the dumbest (expletive) guy on the planet."

        http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/3/210859.shtml

        Sheesh this guy must be bad!

        by cedubose on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:33:37 PM PDT

        •  Box o' Rocks

          Don't have to be a rocket scientist to be a good tool, though.

          Just look at Dubya.
          

          by Rayne on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:02:25 PM PDT

      •  OSP sounds like osprey

        Not an eagle, but has talons and . . .

        Etymology: Middle English ospray, from (assumed) Middle French osfraie, from Latin ossifraga, a bird of prey
        

        by SarahLee on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 10:27:45 PM PDT

        •  google this - office of special plans

          After 9/11, Wolfowitz, Feith and his subordinate, Harold Rhode, recruited David Wurmser as a contractor from the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute to set up what became known internally as the "Wurmser-Maloof" project. F. Michael Maloof, neocon fellow traveler and former aide to Richard Perle, and Wurmser created a hidden intelligence unit, the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group, under Feith at the Pentagon. The purpose of the group was to end-run the CIA and create the rationale for invading Iraq. The parallel operations model was previously followed by Oliver North at the National Security Council and Elliott Abrams at State in their ill-fated Iran-Contra strategy. It should have come as no surprise that another neocon think-tank insider, Abram Shulsky, an Abrams colleague from their days as staffers to Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, would end up heading up what became the Office of Special Plans, the secret intelligence unit at the Pentagon under Feith. The weapons of mass destruction disinformation that was fed to the president and to the American public came directly from Shulsky's shop.

          After setting up this operation at the Pentagon for Wolfowitz and Feith, Wurmser, with the help of Perle, was sent in early 2002 to burrow in at State as senior advisor to John Bolton, under secretary for arms control and international security.

          In December 2002, Wolfowitz, Feith, Wurmser and Vice President Cheney's national security advisor, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, acting together, maneuvered Condoleezza Rice into appointing Elliott Abrams to the position of special assistant to the president and senior director for the Middle East at the National Security Council. This appointment gave the neocons everything they wanted -- the NSC, Executive Office of the President, Office of the Vice President, the Pentagon, a cornered director in George Tenet at CIA, and Wurmser at State.

          Read the whole story here

          I aint gonna work on Maggies farm no more

          by wharfrat on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 11:24:48 PM PDT

          •  That tagline, my friend, is the better

            summary of how I feel than I've seen in a long time.  I ain't gonna work for Maggie's pa no more.

            by Eph on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 07:17:09 AM PDT

    •  We can only hope.

      Sara, that would be the best news I heard in a very long time, over 4 years to be exact.

      by Vera Lofaro on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 07:43:21 PM PDT

    •  sara, that's what I was thinking too

      because of what Juan Cole had to say about Feith.

      Feith's office is the subject of an FBI investigation as well as two Congressional investigations, one by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Feith helped set up an Office of Special Plans in the Near East and South Asia desk of the Pentagon to cherry-pick Iraq intelligence and create a case for Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and having operational links with al-Qaeda. At one point, contrary to Federal law, Feith's people actually briefed officials in the Executive on intelligence. Feith sentDavid Wurmser from the Office of Special Plans, once its work was well under way, over to the staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, so that he could stove pipe OSP analyses into the VP's office and thence directly to the president, doing an end run around the CIA and the State Department Intelligence and Research division.

      Cole goes on to repeat the things former Lt. Col.Karen Kwaitkowski mentioned on Salon.com and The American Conservative about Feith bringing Israeli Generals in w/o making them sign in at the Pentagon, and little things like that...  
      

      by fauxreal on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:37:15 PM PDT

    •  Feith

      Are you sure this is the correct spelling?

      by Sorceress Sarah on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:51:15 PM PDT

      •  Yes, it's Feith

        Here's an incredible kos diary by abw that looks back on the entire campaign to go into Iraq.

        Here's some more interesting history:

        Murry Waas from The American Prospect-

        Rove and other White House officials described to the FBI what sources characterized as an aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson through the leaking and disseminating of derogatory information regarding him and his wife to the press, utilizing proxies such as conservative interest groups and the Republican National Committee to achieve those ends, and distributing talking points to allies of the administration on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. Rove is said to have named at least six other administration officials who were involved in the effort to discredit Wilson.

        ...These revelations come on the heels of a Newsday report that Justice Department officials had subpoenaed the phone records of Air Force One for several days in July before the Novak column ran. In addition, according to Newsday, officials subpoenaed records from the same time period of the White House Iraq Group, an internal task force created to strengthen the case for war made to Congress and the American public. In addition to Rove, prominent members of the task force included National Security Council deputy Stephen J. Hadley; I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney; and former Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs Nicholas E. Calio.

        ...and the WHIG is MOST FAMOUS in their role in the Iraq war lies because of this statement:

        Systematic coordination began in August, when Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. formed the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, to set strategy for each stage of the confrontation with Baghdad.

        In an interview with the New York Times published Sept. 6, Card did not mention the WHIG but hinted at its mission. "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," he said.

        A "strategic communications" task force under the WHIG began to plan speeches and white papers. There were many themes in the coming weeks, but Iraq's nuclear menace was among the most prominent.

        ---in other words, Rove wasn't just shilling for the prez by outing plame...he was getting direct payback for Wilson undermining the propaganda campaign in which Rove was instrumental.  

        by fauxreal on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 10:55:38 PM PDT

        •  Oooh

          Somebody remembered my only good diary! This warms my heart on a cold, dreary day.

          Aside: I didn't even know how to find that diary when I went looking for it recently (it's cycled off my now-empty "abw's diary" page--I just figured Kos wasn't paying to store old diaries... now I see I'm wrong). So thanks for the link. [N.B. I did save a copy locally.]

          If I weren't desperately busy trying to finish the dissertation (alas, it's unrelated to this topic of Bush's degenerate administration--or I'd dovetail), I'd be updating the timeline on a weekly basis. There is much that I could add and, I'm certain, much that I could learn from commenters' links. Sigh. Stupid graduate school. Always getting in the way of what's really important.

          by abw on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 08:57:03 AM PDT

        •  You missed it

          Swap the F and the TH

          by Sorceress Sarah on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 09:14:36 PM PDT

  •  Susan, you need a tip jar.

    You've done good!

    by Thistime on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:11:32 PM PDT

    •  Yay! Tip jar for me!

      God, I'm glad other people see something in this. I thought I was going crazy ... kind of "I see bad people" (like whatever movie that "I see dead people" is from).

      by SusanG on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:19:50 PM PDT

      •  Allow me to be the first.

        Congrats!

        by Thistime on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:22:22 PM PDT

      •  The Sixth Sense

        M. Night Shyamalan's "I see dead people" movie.

        by Andrea inOregon on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:25:43 PM PDT

      •  Susan, when you say ...

        ...Has the Bush administration and its evil ways turned me into a permanent paranoiac, it reminds me that we '60s-'70s activists used to joke that we were being too paranoid about government spies and agents provocateurs in our midst. When the Freedom of Information Act made it possible to see files kept on us by the FBI and other government agencies, we discovered that we had not been paranoid enough.

        Disinformation - the purposeful creation and sneaky delivery of falsehoods for political gain through apparently credible sources - has long been a useful tool of governments seeking to gain advantage over other governments, particularly, but not exclusively, in wartime. As we learned from Operation Mockingbird, those "disinformed" include not just foreign governments but a nation's own citizens. In an October 1977 article published by Rolling Stone magazine, Carl Bernstein reported that more than 400 American journalists worked for the CIA.

        Interestingly, the rightwing deployed one of its favorite techniques - that is, turning reality upside-down and calling the opposite of the truth true - when it gave the term "disinformation" itself a mass audience in The Spike, the deplorable roman a clef written by Count Arnauld de Borchgrave and Robert Moss.

        by Meteor Blades on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:51:28 PM PDT

        •  Don't Forget "Project Truth"

          featuring many of the same players that are now in power...they change the name, but the purposeful lying to the American public is the same...the Orwellian "Project Truth"

          Project Truth

          The main job of the psy-ops specialists was to pick out incidents in Central America that would rile the U.S. public. In a memo dated May 30, 1985, Jacobowitz explained that the military men were scouring embassy cables "looking for exploitable themes and trends, and [would] inform us of possible areas for our exploitation."

          Raymond's public diplomacy teams also exacted a high price from mainstream reporters whose work challenged the administration's assertions about Central America and other international hot spots. By 1986, a chastened Washington press corps was falling into line on the contra war and other controversial issues.

          In March 1986, Otto Reich, a senior public diplomacy official, reported that his office was taking "a very aggressive posture vis-à-vis a sometimes hostile press" and "did not give the critics of the policy any quarter in the debate."

          ----

          Q On Tuesday, the American Enterprise Institute held a media event where a video of Saddam's atrocities was shown. The tape showed fingers being cut off, tongues being cut out, and beheadings. None of the networks showed the tape. And few media outlets even mentioned it. Did anyone in this administration ask that these images not be showed to the American people?

          MR. McCLELLAN: No, Jeff. But it is important to remind people of the atrocities that Saddam Hussein's regime committed. Saddam Hussein was a brutal oppressive dictator who carried out atrocities over a period of years against his own people and against his neighbors. And it's important that the public --

          Q Well, how do you explain a virtual media blackout on these horrendous acts, when every single day there are pictures about what American soldiers have done in Iraq when these things are far worse? How is there any explanation for that? Is there somebody in the administration that doesn't want the American people to see that?

          MR. McCLELLAN: I think you're going to see the Iraqi people hold Saddam Hussein accountable for the atrocities that he committed. We will be turning him over to the Iraqi people to face a tribunal by the Iraqis for the atrocities that you mentioned. And I don't think the Iraqi people will ever let people forget those atrocities. It's important to remember that this was a regime that had mass graves, torture rooms, and rape rooms, and engaged in the kinds of atrocities that no one should stand for.

          ---unless, apparently, Gonzalez writes a memo okaying them and Rumsfeld concurs.

          by fauxreal on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 04:12:22 AM PDT

        •  Well, MB, you know

          the old saying:  "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean somebody's not following you."  Definitely applies in this situation.  Weirder and weirder.

          by jsmdlawyer on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 11:14:25 AM PDT

  •  There is no spoon

    There is no "Jeff Gannon" and there is no "Talon News".  Just dawned on me this was a possibility.

    I responded to some upthread who asked about money -- that we should follow it, do an FOIA.

    But what if this is a black op?

    This viperish brood, this cultish junta, nursed at Nixon's breast.  They get "plausible deniability" only too well.

    There's no leak if there's no reporter and no news agency.

    The best we could do would be to track down the person masquerading as "Jeff Gannon" -- if he surfaces again -- and take down White House security for permitting access to the president by unidentified parties.

    Is this another driving force behind Goss's hosing out of the CIA, does somebody there know something more about this that they wanted out of the way or discredited?

    by Rayne on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:22:19 PM PDT

    •  What's his real name?

      That's exactly what I was wondering.  How do we know that's a pseudonym?  And if we know it's a pseudonym, why don't we know his real name?  Or do we?
      

      by yatdave on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:19:26 PM PDT

      •  Karl Rove, Jr. ? n/t

        by georgia10 on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 06:34:04 AM PDT

        •  dave rayboen?

          In another dKos diary Jeff Gannon is outed as Dave Rayboen.

          I compared the photo of Jeff Gannon provided by Talon News:

          
          Jeff Gannon

          with a photo found on Plame leaked by fake news source? Part III :

          
          Dave Rayboen?

          and did notice striking similarities.

          Rayboen is a rather uncommon name - I searched the Yahoo "white pages" and was unable to find even one telephone listing anywhere in the U.S. for "Rayboen" as a last name.

          peace
          

          by peace voter on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 11:50:03 PM PDT

      •  Talon News Web Site

        Talon News has a Web site.

        If "Jeff Gannon" is not the guy's real name, he has been showing up for White House press briefings.  Presumably his face has shown up on C-SPAN.  Somebody in D.C. must know what his real name is.

        by lysias on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 09:44:27 AM PDT

      •  After playing a clip of a Gannon loaded question

        Jon Stewart identified the speaker as "Chip Rightwingenstein of the Bush Agenda Gazette".  Thus, the mystery is solved.

        by NonemptySubset on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 11:13:46 AM PDT

    •  we need

      a private investigator!

      by Cedwyn on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:51:01 PM PDT

      •  Gannon will turn out to be

        hired by a public relations firm, probably Ketchum, under contract to the White House, and Ketchum knows how easy it would be to establish a legally legitimate "news bureau." PR firms have done that before, and Ketchum is one of the largest.

        by doorguy on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 10:48:05 PM PDT

    •  Kinda doubt Talon's CIA

      Talon smells more of arrogant GOP oafishness than calculated pro infiltration.  

      In fact, Talon seems not to have infiltrated anything -- certainly not hobnobbing with the real media to learn their secrets; certainly working with WH shills, not snortling up West Wing intel for the CIA to use in its own defense.  Just clomping around like escapees from a Dollar Store pundit clearance table.

      Unlike in the Nixon era, in the Bush 2 era the CIA seems to have been mainly at odds with the ruling politicians.  That's why OSP was set up.  The "establishment" of the intel world wouldn't play crash dummy for the Cult.  

      Seems like most of the career feds -- in uniform and out -- have been trying to apply the brakes, hold the steering wheel steady, and honk the horn at passing investigators in a plea for help while the Cult races this nation toward disaster.

      by KateCrashes on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 07:51:24 AM PDT

      •  A 4 for detective-hero lingo

        and interesting insights. A political hack certainly would fit the bill - it needn't be more complicated or otherwise 'dark' than that.  (Though we well know they are 'dark' enough in their politicking...)

        by Em on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 09:04:10 AM PDT

  •  i agree

    they are in the highs of hubris...Kerik... they were going to sneak him by... no one would have noticed... sooooooooooooo

    Just make sure this is not a "honey pot", in spook slang (just learned that today... my first sentence with that jargon).

    Rathregate honey pot... hmmm... let me get my anagram games running simulations as well... again, can't spell to save my life... but can think in anagrams... i am soooooooo challanged.

    by Larisa on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:04:07 PM PDT

    •  Sticky

      Yeah, I gotcha on that, but the more complex this gets, the more difficult it is for them to manage.

      They're pushing the limits already, don't you think?  I have a feeling something is right out in the open that we're missing, simply because complexity is difficult for these people.

      The nuance thing -- they don't get it.

      by Rayne on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 10:03:37 PM PDT

      •  yes, fully

        agree... and it is reckless. one does not need much to become a "person of interest" these days... which is why this story is dead already... too many dangers have been opened if it is real and too much shite might stick to Kos if it is a trap.

        that stalker (you know, my "broke the story guy") who happened to find an email and did just this... he then contacted Bozo, who knows me... and asked Bozo to get it to me...and I told him, if it was not removed from every possible place, ASAP, I would not touch it because it would be done. soooooooooooooo... not sure what to say, have been asking someone to contact someone... but now the disinfo people will pollute it, discredit parts of it, overplay other parts of it, potential sources are lost, and others may have been inadvertently exposed, or worse... if this is a trap... then both media matters and kos will go down the "exposing a cov-ops spook" and lend in jail... not sure what to do now... i am not going to follow it from this point on, because of the above issues.

        but i will give you moral support if needed... we all need moral support... this serious discussion is not for public forums, ever:(

        oy!

        also, do not send to Rhodes and such... this is spreading too fast and could be the fire that burns the entire grass roots movement...oy... i wish someone would listen to me... darn it, do i have to take my shirt off?

        by Larisa on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 03:35:52 AM PDT

        •  I'm halfway down this thread

          and I have repeatedly read exhortations from you for everyone else to shut up, take this offline, whatever.

          You seem to be the only one saying this.

          Tell you something: I was just told today that my contributions to a nameless (for the moment) mainstream media outlet were suddenly 'no longer welcome.' Do you think I smell a rat, given some of my recent activities? Yes. Is it going to shut me up? No. If anything, the opposite.

          Journalism is about the pursuit of truth. Not about shutting up when things get inconvenient or sca-a-ary.

          I suggest that if you aren't comfortable with the material here, then there is no reason for you to address it. But there is no reason for you to dissuade others from pursuing the same.

          by RabidNation on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 04:47:02 AM PDT

          •  Hey Rabid...

            I hear your concerns.  If you come into this thread at this point in the morning, you won't understand how things worked last night.  Look at the timing of the above commenter's entries; you'll see that things were moving VERY fast here throughout the entire evening, and that the same person made a lot of valuable contributions.

            But at the same time there are legitimate concerns; we're now talking about the office of the president being culpable, and we're talking about people who'd take us to war, expend any money, allow Americans to die, to accomplish their ends.

            It's getting sensitive, and I don't know at what point we concentrate on the next step.  It's not as if we citizens at large have had many opportunities to do this kind of work before in an open-source environment.  We're not making software here.

            by Rayne on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 05:23:55 AM PDT

          •  Thanks Rabid

            I think the troll has had their membership discontinued.

            FWIW, the troll seemed more "differently wired" than intentionally malicious, but the result was equally disruptive nonetheless.

            </meta>.

            by Em on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 09:41:08 AM PDT

            •  troll?

              Okay... anyway... aside from the twin Rabid fool and his gang...

              Can we summarize the findings so that we can lead them to just a few things that we can confirm and some contact we can use?

              The problem is, who will phone them? You have to identify yourself if you are going to write about this. I think still, the strongest evidence is the CNP link... that is HUGE. Yet his background still worries me and he was almost too obvious... like they wanted us to go after him...his background does bother me.

              by Larisa on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 12:58:00 PM PDT

•  Nah

  Robert Novak leaked the story.

  He gets the credit for betraying an American in harm's way, while in the service of her country.

  by cskendrick on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:47:09 PM PDT

  •  I'd like to hear what Fitzgerald knows.

    It would be interesting to see Libby's phone logs and see how often he talks to Gannon compared to reporters at other news outlets.

    and, if Gannon is a conduit for BushCo, he also serves to keep other reporters from pursuing stories (not simply because he changes the subject) but also because he becomes an "ally" of the Bush administration, a plant that they can go to and freeze out other reporters.

    ..that "necklacing" that Rather talked about...long before he was necklaced.
    

    by fauxreal on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 05:54:20 PM PDT

    •  Gonzales will stop Fitzgerald.

      It is ironic that I honestly believed there couldn't be an AG worse than Ashcroft, but a dishonest AG with singular loyalty to the president pails in comparison.  Be careful what you wish for.

      by Thistime on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:20:23 PM PDT

    •  About Rather...

      what if the impetus behind "Rather-gate" was to discredit CBS because they were getting close?

      That article that CBS killed to cover the TANG story -- was there something in it that got too close to the outing?  Is "Jeff Gannon" or "Talon News" product quoted in production?

      Good God.  This is way, way too creepy.

      Gotta' hope we get a Deep Throat here that's able scoop Talon.

      by Rayne on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:48:18 PM PDT

      •  or because they leaked the torture photos

        in fact, Gannon mentions CBS in one of the press briefings with McClellan.

        "Q Despite warnings that the release of the Abu Ghraib pictures might put Americans in danger, CBS went ahead and did it anyway. The feeding frenzy over these photos has been briefly interrupted by the video of Nick Berg being brutally beheaded. But they won't show that on the air. Do you find any inconsistency with regard to the media treatment for releasing these photographs they knew would inflame the Arab street, but not airing something that they also know would inflame the American street, or at least the center and the right part of it would see the President --

        MR. McCLELLAN: What's important --- Jeff, I'm sorry to speed this up, but the helicopter is landing and we have to leave for another event. But what's important is that America shows the world how we act when these kind of issues come to light, when prisoners are mistreated. And we act by holding people responsible who committed these acts, and taking steps to make sure something like this doesn't happen again. It stands in stark contrast to a regime like Saddam Hussein's who tolerated and encouraged these kind of activities."

        --what I find amazing in so many of Gannon's questions is that HE DOESN'T QUESTION THE ADMINISTRATION. he questions the PRESS.

        Q On Tuesday, the American Enterprise Institute held a media event where a video of Saddam's atrocities was shown. The tape showed fingers being cut off, tongues being cut out, and beheadings. None of the networks showed the tape. And few media outlets even mentioned it. Did anyone in this administration ask that these images not be showed to the American people?

        MR. McCLELLAN: No, Jeff. But it is important to remind people of the atrocities that Saddam Hussein's regime committed. Saddam Hussein was a brutal oppressive dictator who carried out atrocities over a period of years against his own people and against his neighbors. And it's important that the public --

        Q Well, how do you explain a virtual media blackout on these horrendous acts, when every single day there are pictures about what American soldiers have done in Iraq when these things are far worse? How is there any explanation for that? Is there somebody in the administration that doesn't want the American people to see that?

        MR. McCLELLAN: I think you're going to see the Iraqi people hold Saddam Hussein accountable for the atrocities that he committed. We will be turning him over to the Iraqi people to face a tribunal by the Iraqis for the atrocities that you mentioned. And I don't think the Iraqi people will ever let people forget those atrocities. It's important to remember that this was a regime that had mass graves, torture rooms, and rape rooms, and engaged in the kinds of atrocities that no one should stand for.

        Q There is visual physical evidence out there. Why is not being put out there for Americans to see and make their own judgment against?

        MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I think I've expressed it from our standpoint. If you're talking about it from the media standpoint, I'll leave it to the media to address those issues?"

        --it's like a good cop, bad cop routine...

        by fauxreal on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 08:31:44 PM PDT

        •  Schizoid

          Wow.  Reading that is like watching McClellan talk to himself!!

          Could be right...DoD gets pissed off, uses their pre-existing intel department plants to psyop this situation.

          I still wonder what else CBS had, though.  Based on what the Brits had, it looks it would have been a matter of time before the media broke the story.  Was there something else that made CBS a target for smear?

          Or was it simply payback to Ailes?

          by Rayne on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:07:04 PM PDT

          •  Sock Puppets!

            by Agathena on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:51:24 PM PDT

        •  Worth repeating/highlighting

          --what I find amazing in so many of Gannon's questions is that HE DOESN'T QUESTION THE ADMINISTRATION. he questions the PRESS.

          --it's like a good cop, bad cop routine...
          Exactly!
          

          by SarahLee on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 10:40:19 PM PDT

      •  TPM

        author was one of the main authors to the story that was takin off for the Faked paper story.  Might want to make a phone call and a visit if you're in the DC area.  Yellow cake story

        by tikkun on Sat Jan 29, 2005 at 08:57:25 AM PDT

    •  This is Bushco modus operandi

      he also serves to keep other reporters from pursuing stories

      to go "directly to the people" and avoid "the filter" of the media. They did it in the campaign, and they're starting to gear up for it on Social Security. So it's all too believable that they would do it via this Gannon arrangement on matters related to Iraq.

      by Mnemosyne on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 09:28:35 PM PDT

  •  Novak leaked, but ...

    Who told him? If it's this "Gannon," then Novak can legitmately swear it wasn't a government source, right?

    I don't know ... this whole thing has me very befuddled. Like I'm trying to put a puzzle together and am still missing a piece.

    by SusanG on Fri Jan 28, 2005 at 06:02:36 PM PDT

    •  You HAVE TO read this-

      The comments on Atrios under the Talon/Gannon post.

      Katie lists tons of Gannon's press conference moments with links.

      At first I thought it had to be parod