Sunday, October 09, 2005

Treasongate: Gannon exposed

Is "Jeff Gannon" part of Treasongate? He's in it up to his chinny-chin-chin. Is he in legal trouble? Possibly.

The debate revolves around that "intelligence document" Jeff brought up during that "gotcha" interview with Joe Wilson. In truth, the document was filled with misleading data -- labelled false by the CIA itself. The State Department has its own intelligence service -- the INR -- which, we are told, authored the paper.

Misleading or no, the document bore a "secret" stamp.

At first, Gannon acted as though he had indeed seen this secret document with his own eyes. I believe he did; Rove probably showed to him. In fact, I think the INR put the thing together for this very purpose.

When critics pointed out that Gannon had no security clearance, and thus had no business being given this sort of reading material, the he-ho hemmed and hawed and gave conflicting answers.

Finally, he came up with what he probably considered a slick explanation: He had never seen the actual piece of paper. He merely read about it in the Wall Street Journal, which had mentioned the very same document in a story "a week earlier." (How the WSJ got hold of the thing is a mystery for another time.)

Does Gannon's explanation hold water?

I've always doubted this particular yarn. And now the Left Coaster has done some marvellous double-checking. The chronology just doesn't add up.

The Wall Street Journal piece was published on October 17, 2003.

Talon News (Jim/Jeff's fake news organ) published the interview with Wilson on October 28, 2003.

So far, the dates line up reasonably well -- and that's why many have decided to accept Gannon's story. But, but, but...

Gannon's interview with Wilson took place in September of 2003 -- according to Gannon himself!

We thus come face to face with another Gannon lie. This one may get him into some serious trouble.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Am I blind, Joseph, or did you manage to get through an entire post about Gannon without making any puns about gay sex, prostitution, or gay prostitutes? Considering the seriousness of the subject matter, maybe it was better you didn't, but still. My reading experience simply wasn't the same without that.

Anonymous said...

Oh, wait...I just re-read the entry's titlel. Okay, good. I was starting to worry you were giving up that flourish. That'd depress me.