Daily Kos Diarist SusanG has been leading the Kos Kommotion in their attempt to discover a connection between the dubiously credentialed White House journalist "Jeff Gannon", and the Valerie Plame leak investigation.
How is that working out? The short version is that all of the evidence gathered so far can be explained simply by arguing that Jeff Gannon relied on a Wall Street Journal description of the classified memo. This has led to a bit of a rum stretch for the conspiracy theorists, as even they admit. And ever since the assembled staff of JustOneMinute pointed out this possibility last Jan 30, we have been busy demonstrating why it is that no one likes an "I told you so."
Let's give SusanG both props and mockery for her thoughts as of Feb 10:
I don't care if Mr. G is gay; I happen to think he's not.... If this supposedly horrible sex stuff is what's bringing him down in all this mess, it's not only sad for him as an individual, it's sad for us as a nation.
I agree.
What I want to know is this: are you a qualified reporter from a recognizably legitimate outlet? It is on these counts that Mr. G should be escorted out of the hallowed briefing room, not on this mindless titillating speculation about his private life.
And oh, yeah ... remind me. Just what was this guy doing with access to an internal classified memo?
His lack of qualifications, the dubious nature of his "news" outlet and his access to that memo are the real questions. The rest is just smoke and mirrors.
I disagree. Obviously, his access to that memo remains controversial.
But let's see where SusanG's thought process has taken her as of Feb 15 (and I did promise good news). In a comment on the apparent collapse of the Plame connection, she says this:
- We may be entirely wrong and Froomkin and McGuire may be entirely right. But that does not discount the need for him being questioned to absolutely rule out whether he saw the memo or no.
- Both Froomkin and McGuire seem to be negating the need to get to the bottom of it. I disagree with this. Sure, maybe we're wrong, but all we've been driving toward all along is getting questions answered. The answers may not be what we expect, i.e., it may turn out he was full of bluff and never had access to a memo or information about it, but I think they're both way off in intimating that we're nuts for wanting those questions answered. Don't we as citizens have a right to know if he did or did not have access to classified information? Why the big deal about stopping all questioning on the matter?
Emphasis added, and here is the good news! Even in John Ashcroft's America, even under Alberto Gonzalez, even with the post 9/11 collapse of civil liberties and the horrors of the Patriot Act, we still retain some basic civil liberties and a right to privacy in this country! Celebrate with me!
And for SusanG, a simple request - ask some of your friends on the left whether the public has (a) a right to grand jury testimony; and (b) a right to be kept current on the status of FBI investigations.
I think you will be as astonished by their answers as I am by your ignorance.
Still not satisfied? In our representative democracy, we have "Congressional oversight". Rep. Louise Slaughter did send a letter to Special Counsel Fitzgerald recycling your concerns, and inquiring as to the status of the investigation.
Now, did Rep. Slaughter take up this odd, faith-based request despite an embarrassing lack of supporting evidence simply because the Kos is a large Democratic Party fundraiser? I have NO BASIS for that allegation! But inquiring minds actually do have a right to know, and yes, lots of donor records are publicly available with the FEC. Hmm, this "accusation first, evidence later" game is kind of fun - I see why you like to play.
MORE: I relent - I'll bet that Rep. Slaughter was only involved because of her Committee status. Whether it was a favor for another Congressman, a favor for a large donor, or just the excited work of a staffer who is spending a bit too much time reading the wrong blogs, I can't say. But an intrepid political reporter might want to find out - paging Katherine Seelye of the Times!
And the notion that I am calling for an end to an investigation is not supported by my Feb 11 post, where I said:
My guess - there is much less here than even the newer, calmer Kos Crew supposes. Maybe Gannon got the memo when some other folks did; I'll bet he reads the news. Time will tell.
"a qualified reporter from a recogizably legitimate outlet"
What, pray tell, makes a reporter qualified?
Is there a qualifying examination?
And how would someone recognize a legitimate outfit?
By sight? Or is it intuition?
Standards, by implications, might disqualify many WH reporters. Be careful what you wish for.
It's rather amusing that some, who generally demand greater transparency, would want to limit access to WH press conferences with some sort of closed shop--continuing the trend of old media to its demise.
Posted by: Forbes | February 16, 2005 at 11:05 AM