Jeff Gannon - A Voice of the New Media

« June 2005 | Main | August 2005 »

July 31, 2005

Berger's got big ones

Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger is criticizing the Bush administration over the lack of security in Iraq. He may be right - it couldn't even stop Berger from stealing top secret documents from the National Archives in downtown Washington, DC.

Posted by jeffgannon at 10:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

McClellan scores one "I told you so!"

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has been getting abused by the partisan denizens of the James Brady Briefing Room over the past few weeks about the CIA leak probe. But on Friday, the presidential spokesman had a laugh on the reporters.

From the transcript:

Q Great, okay. So, moving on from that, since you want to talk about the economy -- in the context of the discussion we've been having here this morning, one gets the sense that you think that there's an "I told you so" coming here for the administration, because the press, in the past four months, has been writing the President off as a lame duck. Is that what you're doing? And, if so, why?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I wouldn't say that. But I remember being in this room, I remember all the coverage at the time, just two months ago, and, frankly, there hasn't been a whole lot of focus in the media this week on the significant accomplishments that are being achieved for the American people. This is important for the American people to know that this Congress has come together and gotten things done. That's what the President vowed to do in his second term. He did it in his first term, and he's doing it in his second term.

There are a lot of --

Q So, if I may -- pardon the interruption -- are you suggesting then that the absence of coverage to your standard is because the media is deliberately trying to suppress that information on behalf of the administration?

MR. McCLELLAN: All I know is that there was a lot of coverage saying, two months ago, that the President wasn't going to get anything done on the domestic agenda, that he was maybe entering lame duck status, and the facts say otherwise. We are getting things done for the American people, and the ones who are benefiting are the American people. Thank you.

I don't know who the reporter was, but he (or she) really nailed it with the suggestion that the media was suppressing information. It happens all the time. When's the last time there was a story about how good the economy was? It's strong and getting stronger, but no one would ever know that from the Old Media.

Posted by jeffgannon at 09:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Columnist angered colleague quoted her "suicide promise"

An old saying goes: "There's no honor among thieves." Apparently that holds true for reporters, too. Long-time White House correspondent Helen Thomas is angry that her "off the record" comments to Albert Eisele about Vice President Dick Cheney were printed in the Hill. Sweet.

Posted by jeffgannon at 08:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 30, 2005

Clinton-appointed judge rules parts of Patriot Act unconstitutional

A woman appointed by President Bill Clinton to be a judge for the U. S. District Court in California has ruled that parts of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional. Judge Audrey Collins' ruling reinforces the perception that Democrats cannot be trusted on issues involving national security since most experts agree that the Patriot Act has enabled law enforcement in the United State to thwart terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001.

Posted by jeffgannon at 05:45 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 29, 2005

Dems play the race card on Roberts

It didn't take long for Democrats to decide what they would use to fight President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court. The hit comes from their surrogate, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch which published an editorial: JOHN G. ROBERTS JR.: Opponent of civil rights

As a condition of sale earlier this year, the Post-Dispatch must maintain its liberal editorial bias.

Posted by jeffgannon at 08:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Castro-enamored director to trash Bush on 9/11 in movie

The Hollywood wing of the Democratic Party never fails to remind America why it continues to elect Republicans. STORY

Posted by jeffgannon at 08:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Journalist jeered while wearing Bush-Cheney shirt

Richard Rushfield walked the streets of various California cities last October to gauge the reactions of people to his campaign wear. What he discovered was interesting and predicitable. STORY

Posted by jeffgannon at 07:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 28, 2005

Run, Dick, Run!

The always impartial Helen Thomas said the following as reported by The Hill:

“The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I’ll kill myself, all we need is one more liar.”

What more incentive do you need, Mr. Vice President?

Posted by jeffgannon at 03:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Senate Dems probed for leak of top-secret program

Ignored by the media lynch mob chasing White House political advisor Karl Rove is the investigation into the leak of a classified satellite surveillance project by Senate Democrats. STORY

Posted by jeffgannon at 10:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Old media sees conflict of interest at Fox News

Liberal blogger Garrett Graff reports on a potential conflict of interest at Fox News. He suggests that new White House correspondent Greg Kelly might not be able to objectively report on the Commander-in-Chief because he is the son of New York City's Police Commissioner and a major in the Marine Corps Reserves. STORY

It's a stunning assertion considering all of the incest that exists between Democrats and the media with absolutely no disclaimers. Time magazine's Matt Cooper is married to longtime Clinton media consultant Mandy Grunwald, CNN reporter Christine Amanpour is married to former Clinton State Department official Jamie Rubin who appears as a foreign policy analyst on the SAME NETWORK, Washington Post's Walter Pincus is married to Ann Pincus, a Clinton political appointee to the U.S. Information Agency and later the State Department. George Stephanopolous parachutes from the White House as Clinton spokesperson to be instantly tranformed into a journalist for ABC News despite having NO JOURNALISM CREDENTIALS and the list goes on and on...

Posted by jeffgannon at 09:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

AFL-CIO: Not your father's labor union

The AFL-CIO passed a resolution at its recent convention in Chicago that called for the "rapid withdrawal" of American troops from Iraq. David Bacon of ZNET reports on the fiery antiwar rhetoric that reflected socialist talking points about "occupation" and "wealthy elites." STORY

Sen. Ted Kennedy was a keynote speaker at the weeklong event.

Posted by jeffgannon at 08:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Reporter posed as "embed" to locate soldier who shot journalist

Editor & Publisher has a disturbing story about a reporter that posed as an "embedded" journalist with American troops in Iraq. His primary goal was not to report on the war, but to track down a soldier involved in the death of a Knight-Ridder reporter.

I'm going to hold judgement on this for the moment until more facts become known, but if the old media is true to its anti-military agenda, it won't be long before the soldier will be portrayed as a monster.

Posted by jeffgannon at 08:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 27, 2005

CIA leak protester encouraged agency leaks

A former counterterrorism analyst who was the key figure at a mock hearing conducted last week by Congressional Democrats about the alleged outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame, is part of a group that encouraged leaks from the agency in 2003.

Larry C. Johnson is a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, a group that actively solicited agency operatives to reveal classified information months PRIOR to the Robert Novak column that referred to Plame as a CIA employee. STORY

A noteworthy member of the group is Ray McGovern, a former CIA anaylst who has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's policy toward Iraq. His writings appear on most antiwar and liberal websites, including AntiWar.com, TomPaine.com and CommonDreams.

Investigation into these men and their contacts inside the agency would probably lead to the rogue group at the CIA that was actively working against the Bush administration. This would likely be revealed at any trial that would take place if Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald were to issue indictments in the probe.

Posted by jeffgannon at 07:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Liberal radio more important than inner-city kids' programs?

The New York City Department of Investigation is looking into allegations that contract funds for youth programs were diverted to support Air American Radio. Michele Malkin has the story Franken and Rhodes WON'T be talking about today - or any other day.

Posted by jeffgannon at 09:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Plame contributed to Soros supported group

A search of Federal Election Commission records discovered that Valerie Plame gave money to an anti-Bush group last year while still an employee of the CIA. STORY

FactCheck.org reports that in 1999, Plame made a contribution to the Gore 2000 campaign.

Posted by jeffgannon at 09:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 26, 2005

Pardon me, Mrs. Clinton?

This must be why the junior Senator from New York can only nod her head when the subject of Karl Rove as the alleged leaker of Valerie Plame's identity comes up. STORY

Posted by jeffgannon at 01:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A daughter's touching tribute

Peggy Dowd died last Sunday at the age of 97. Her daughter Maureen, a columnist for the New York Times shares a touching tribute to her mother.

I send my condolences and prayers to Maureen and her familiy.

Posted by jeffgannon at 12:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

John Roberts frustrated by White House over John Roberts

Howard Kurtz reported this in last week's Washington Post:

The other John Roberts -- the CBS man -- has this to say on covering his namesake's nomination:

"It was a bit of an 'Alice In Wonderland' moment last night, watching President Bush in the State Dining Room lauding the accomplishments and character of one 'John Roberts.' After my four and a half years covering the Bush White House, I couldn't imagine the name 'John Roberts' and the phrase 'widely admired for his intellect, his sound judgment and his personal decency' being used in the same time zone, let alone the same sentence. More likely would have been 'John Roberts' and 'should join Judith Miller in jail'; or 'frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs'; or, 'Oh yeah, we've got a dossier on him'. I'll tell you, it was all a bit disorienting.

"But it could work to my advantage. Now, every time I telephone a White House official and say that it's 'John Roberts' calling, I'm certain that I'll hear a heart skip a beat on the other end of the line. I imagine that it won't take long for aides who answer the phone to soon pick up the query 'Is this Judge Roberts?' And I'll be relegated (through my innate sense of fairness) to say, 'No, it's the CBS correspondent' -- which, no doubt, will be met with a sigh of relief and a disparaging 'Oh.' "

Roberts adds: "I don't want to say that the swirl of speculation surrounding names like Edith Clement, Edith Jones and others was an elaborate head fake to keep us off the scent of the real nominee, but a lot of people who were in the 'initial loop' of selecting a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor were pushing those names pretty hard. Of course, we bear some responsibility for that, as well. We are so determined to crack the nut of this uber-disciplined White House that any dribble of information is lapped up like mother's milk. And, I must admit, we created a media echo chamber Tuesday. Eventually, we began to hear back rumors that were prompted by our own inquiries. I'm certain that there was no end of glee at the White House as officials watched us chase our tails all day. And I'll bet they chuckled to themselves as they let their telephones ring and ring as their caller IDs flashed up the numbers of White House reporters."

Just think of how frustrated the White House must have been with a network that acted as a political operative for the Kerry campaign with phony documents, promotion of Bush-bashing books and an 18-month-old story about stolen explosives recycled as a breaking news story days before the November election.

Posted by jeffgannon at 07:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 25, 2005

Democrats Stage a Show Trial

Democrats continue their efforts to frame the investigation into the alleged leak of a CIA agent's secret identity with the template of Watergate. Last week, Sen. Byron Dorgan and Rep. Henry Waxman staged a media event at which a handful of former intelligence analysts accused the Bush administration of jeopardizing national security for failing to take action against Karl Rove and others. Democrats have demanded that the President's chief political advisor be fired or at least stripped of his security clearance despite the fact that he has not been charged with any wrongdoing.

The participants referred to the meeting as a hearing, but it was not an official function of any committee of Congress. Therefore, no witnesses could be subpoenaed to submit to questioning and those who voluntarily spoke were not under oath and had no obligation to give truthful testimony at the risk of committing perjury. What transpired was theatre, an amateurish show trial.

Waxman produced a list of eleven alleged security breaches in the case, using media accounts to make his claims. He cited Executive Order 12958 to call for immediate disciplinary action against Rove, since the threshold for taking punitive measures is far lower than the standards of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

On center stage was a panel of "expert" witnesses, former intelligence officers railing against the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity. Several of them hyperventilated about the damage that could be done by the outing of a covert agent, statements that normally could be taken seriously except when those making the protests are political operatives.

The panel of witnesses was lead was Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA analyst and counter-terrorism specialist with the U. S. State Department until 1993. He offered blistering criticism of the White House and concluded his remarks by saying, "Where are these men and women with any integrity to speak out against this? ...I expect better behavior from Republicans."

The question that needs to be asked is where Johnson and his colleagues were when the Clinton administration decimated America's intelligence capabilities with reduced budgets and restraints like the Gorelick Wall. It is doubtful that he spoke out against the "Torricelli Principle," which prohibited CIA agents in the field from recruiting informants who may have committed “human rights violations.” The disastrous result was that by 2000 the CIA had no human intelligence assets in the world's most troublesome region.

But Johnson, who left government service to found BERG Associates, an international business-consulting firm that helps multinational corporations and financial institutions manage risks and counter threats posed by terrorism, did offer his opinions in July 10, 2001 article in the New York Times. In the piece titled, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," Johnson said that except for pursuing business interests in some dangerous places Americans "have little to fear" from terrorism.

He declared that he was not "soft on terrorism," but complained about using the threat of terrorism to violate constitutional rights. It is no surprise then that agents who might be suspicious of Muslim men taking commercial flight lessons would not risk their careers by running afoul of political correctness. In the late 1990s, sensitivity training became more important than investigative techniques at the intelligence agencies.

Johnson blamed the 24-hour broadcast news operations (most likely referring to Fox News) as hyping the threat posed by terrorists. Ironically, his article appeared only two months before the most devastating terrorist attacks in American history. Osama bin Laden's plan was well under way when the former counter-terrorism analyst was downplaying the danger of radical Islamists.

He goes on to suggest that terrorism was a manufactured enemy that bureaucracies in the military and the intelligence agencies used after the fall of the Soviet Union to justify their budgets. Johnson concludes by saying, "terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way."

History has shown that Johnson could not have been more wrong. Analysis like his suggests a mindset in the intelligence community that misunderstood and underestimated the motivation and determination of al Qaeda, despite its increasingly bold attacks over the previous eight years.

As a result of the flawed analysis of intelligence like Johnson articulated, America was left vulnerable and unprepared in every way to deal with the greatest threat of the 21st century. Perhaps he should have testified before the 9/11 Commission to answer for his incompetence instead of representing his foolish conclusions as some kind of expert opinion on the editorial pages of the New York Times. In any event, the outrage he expressed last week should only be viewed as the theatrics of a partisan opportunist.

Posted by jeffgannon at 11:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Leopards never change their spots

Treasonous weasels don't change their habits, either. Jane Fonda announced that she will take a break from her nationwide tour of talking about her vagina to embark on some good old fashioned antiwar activism. STORY

Here's Hanoi Jane posing with North Vietnamese soldiers in 1972:

Posted by jeffgannon at 11:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 24, 2005

Anti-war Democrat campaigns at Marine's funeral

It takes enormous brass ones for a politician to campaign at a Marine's funeral and make anti-war statements to the bereaved. But Pennsylvania's manly Democratic Lt. Governor strapped on a pair and did just that. Is it any wonder why Democrats sink further into the minority will each election? STORY

Posted by jeffgannon at 01:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Democrats' campaign of obstruction begins

Despite pronouncements that the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts would not be held up by partisanship, Democrats have already set the stage for delays. Sen. Patrick Leahy indicated that he would request privileged documents from Roberts' tenure in the office of the Solicitor General, which the White House customarily refuses to release. The same tactic derailed the District court nomination of Miguel Estrata after years of wrangling over the papers.

Sen. John Kerry urged the White House to release the documents "in their entirety." This coming from a guy who has yet to release his FULL military service record despite promises to do so. STORY

Posted by jeffgannon at 12:51 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 22, 2005

Liberal icon tried to use FBI to smear political opponents

Lawrence Silberman, a former deputy Attorney General and co-chairman of President Bush's Commission on Intelligence Capabilities relates some fascinating anecdotes about the FBI and how several presidents used the agency against its political opponents in the Wall Street Journal. STORY

Take special note of the actions of former Lyndon Johnson aide, Bill Moyers, who would go on to be an "unbiased" journalist for PBS:

Only a few weeks before the 1964 election, a powerful presidential assistant, Walter Jenkins, was arrested in a men's room in Washington. Evidently, the president was concerned that Barry Goldwater would use that against him in the election. Another assistant, Bill Moyers, was tasked to direct Hoover to do an investigation of Goldwater's staff to find similar evidence of homosexual activity. Mr. Moyers' memo to the FBI was in one of the files.

When the press reported this, I received a call in my office from Mr. Moyers. Several of my assistants were with me. He was outraged; he claimed that this was another example of the Bureau salting its files with phony CIA memos. I was taken aback. I offered to conduct an investigation, which if his contention was correct, would lead me to publicly exonerate him. There was a pause on the line and then he said, "I was very young. How will I explain this to my children?" And then he rang off. I thought to myself that a number of the Watergate figures, some of whom the department was prosecuting, were very young, too.

Moyers is a vocal critic of the Bush administration.

Posted by jeffgannon at 09:04 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

How else would you lure rats?

Yet another story about vote buying involving Democrats. STORY

Lesson: Use the right bait to attract the right rats.

Posted by jeffgannon at 08:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 21, 2005

The diversity hypocrites

The announcement of John G. Roberts, Jr. as President Bush's pick to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor has brought out the "diversity hypocrites." Liberal feminist groups complained that Bush didn't replace a woman with a woman. Bruce Shapiro wrote the most ridiculous lead for his hit piece on the nominee in The Nation:

Judge John Roberts is a white male who has spent his entire adult life in Washington. Those facts themselves mean nothing, but they do beg a question: What could be so compelling about Judge Roberts as a Supreme Court candidate that the White House was willing to forswear all claims on ethnic diversity and all geographical political advantage, not to mention the express desire of Laura Bush and countless other women to see a nominee of their gender?

First, I thought he was talking about Al Gore, who for the record spent his entire childhood in Washington, DC in addition to his adult life.

Second, the notion that the president's wife and should have influenced his choice for the Supreme Court shows the Left's fixation on Hillary Clinton as the model for all First Ladies. Luckily for America there can only be speculation as to who Teresa "Gin and prozac" Heinz Kerry would have wanted for the Court.

Still on the topic of diversity, which liberals demand of political opponents, but rarely practice themselves when it counts, how many non-white men have Democrats nominated for president? How about the diversity pick of Howard Dean, a white man who suceeded Terry McAuliffe, another white man as chairman of the Democratic National Committee in a long, unbroken string of white men to lead the party?

Posted by jeffgannon at 08:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Andrea Mitchell manhandled!

That was a headline that caught my attention. I figure something like this hasn't happened in about 20 years. But it wasn't a reaction to the positive job numbers today, it was a story about an ugly incident in Sudan that occurred during Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's visit to that African nation. Mitchell was asking pointed questions about the state-sponsored violence that has recently been referred to as genocide. She was literally dragged from the room in order to keep her from posing uncomfortable queries. (Scott, take note.)

I'm sure the veteran NBC reporter quickly got on the phone with her husband, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to report her ill treatment. His first call after hanging up was to World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz telling him to cut off aid to Sudan. The second was to George Soros suggesting that he short that country's currency.

But seriously, why does the United States help these murderous thugs? The continent has a bunch of similar tinhorn dictators, but the only criticism that can be heard about is aimed at America for being so stingy.

Posted by jeffgannon at 05:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Democrats are over a barrel with Roberts nomination

The media is reporting that the battle over the Supreme Court is beginning to heat up now that President Bush has nominated a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor. Interest groups on the left and right have swung into action to exert pressure on the process. Politicians are stepping to the microphones to bluster about judicial temperament and respect for precedent. The wagging tongues fill the airwaves trying to decipher how the nominee, John G. Roberts, Jr., might vote on important issues based on his past record but it is clear that the makeup of the Supreme Court will be tipped to the right.

The reality is that the battle for the court was decided last November. The oldest group of justices in American history could not have gone another four years without a vacancy. Nature would probably have created a vacancy if a retirement did not. Whoever was elected in 2004 would have been able to choose as many as four new faces for the Court by 2009. Those appointments would have a profound effect that would last a generation.

Democrats and the media have come to that realization since they tried to make the case that O'Connor, a "swing vote" should be replaced with someone equally unreliable in order to maintain the status quo. They also suggested that the nominee should be one that would "bring the country together." The only problem with that is that the constitution doesn't mandate swing votes and consensus nominees. In fact, the only role of the Court is to interpret the Constitution in terms of the cases argued before it.

Stalling tactics will be employed against the nominee as the opposition groups dig for anything that could be used for character assassination. The committee hearing will be comprised of fifty different versions of the question of how Roberts would rule on Roe v. Wade. Spectators will be able to watch Sen. Chuck Schumer ask Roberts if his "deeply held beliefs", code for traditional Catholic morals, will affect how he looks at the law, subtly insinuating that those with strong Christian values should not be on the Court. Should that fail, the Democrats will haul out the "document request" strategy to hold up the process. They used it against Miguel Estrada in the past and are using it against John Bolton now.

The Democratic base is demanding that Roberts' nomination be defeated, but the minority leadership in the Senate is reluctant to pursue the filibuster. The problem for them is that the charade of token opposition won't mollify the increasingly radical wing of the party, now led by the rationally impaired Reps. John Conyers and Louise Slaughter.

Roberts is a pro-life conservative, make no mistake about that. But Roe v. Wade isn't at stake this time around. Assuming Roberts would vote against Roe, the score on that is still 5-4 to uphold. Something of far greater danger to liberals is at stake in this nomination; the philosophy of the court is being changed. The Supreme Court is the last branch of government from which liberals could legislate. Schumer let it slip on Tuesday when he talked about the nominee and making law from the bench. Voters have rejected liberal ideology in ever greater numbers since 1994 and the court is the last refuge of an ideological anachronism. But that is about to change.

Democrats have already lost on this nomination. Elections have consequences, and the President gets to pick judges for the court. The Senate's only role is to accept or reject the nominee, and with a 55 seat Republican majority, Bush will get his nominee through and the court will be transformed.

Posted by jeffgannon at 01:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Gay activists losing tolerance toward Islamic terror regimes?

For over a year, radical gay activists have been shrieking over the treatment of terrorists at Abu Gharib, Guantanamo Bay and the Kandahar airport at the hands of U. S. soldiers. Having expended so much vitriol toward the Bush administration in serving as useful tools of the pro-terror, anti-American Left, I wonder if they have any outrage left for this:

Mr. Behi reports that the two Iranian youths pictured were hanged after being convicted of the crime of homosexuality.

So will they put aside their blinding hatred of the Bush administration and join the war on terror?

My Spidey-sense says no.

But they will call for one of their classic bitchy telephone, fax and email assaults on a country that won't give out a parade permit. STORY

Posted by jeffgannon at 12:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Corruption probe in Ohio

This isn't the one the liberals hope will put the swing state into the 'blue' zone. First I've heard of this, I'm wondering if it's because everyone involved is a Democrat. STORY

Let's see, Philadelphia, now Cleveland...

Posted by jeffgannon at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Will Bush call them "vigilantes"?

The Border Patrol may just call them "volunteers" STORY

It's about time.

Posted by jeffgannon at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 20, 2005

White House played mainstream media on SCOTUS nominee

Anyone who thinks the White House is off its game in the wake of the media feeding frenzy over the leak probe only had to watch Tuesday's Supreme Court nominee announcement to see otherwise. The spectacle began to unfold on Monday.

During a joint press briefing with the Prime Minister of India, a reporter informed the President that, "We understand you are now close to a decision on a Supreme Court nominee." Bush teased him saying, "Thank you for telling me how close I am to -- or at least indicating what others think."

During Tuesday's joint presser with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a news bunny who was probably wearing flip-flops, struck out too. The playful, but clearly annoyed leader of the free world referred her to the answer he gave the day before. She mentioned the name of Edith Clement - using a French pronunciation - imitating the pompous NBC correspondent David Gregory's infamous performance with Jacques Chirac several years ago.

Clement's name had been floated earlier in the day as a misdirection play, accomplishing two things: keeping the real nominee a secret and diverting attention from Rove. The media took the bait and began to speak authoritatively about her - and stopped talking about Bush's "embattled advisor."

This filled the newscasts until it was announced that the nomination would be made later that evening. Then it was "leaked" that the nominee was not going to be Clement. This put the media and their gaggle of wagging tongues into overdrive trying to guess who would be the nominee.

Finally, White House had a background briefing at 8:00 during which reporters were told the nominee was John G. Roberts, Jr. and provided some biographical information. They also described the timeline of the selection process. Details were embargoed until the President made his remarks at 9:00.

The media performed like trained seals, dropping everything to follow the story. Bob Franken at CNN said that Rove was "yesterday's news."

Liberal activists complained that the momentum of the CIA leak would be lost because the media couldn't "walk and chew gum." They are right about that - and at least one guy on the Left knows it. My good friend David Corn sees how they have all been played, but still seem powerless to do anything about it. Moreover, he realizes how much trouble the Democrats are in with the Roberts nomination, which will be the subject of my Thursday column.

It's all just so Rovian.

Posted by jeffgannon at 06:04 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

BREAKING NEWS: Fitzgerald announces indictments

Peter Fitzgerald, the Special Prosecutor investigating the alleged leak of a CIA agent's identity has announced two indictments. STORY

Posted by jeffgannon at 11:31 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Left begins attacks on Bush SCOTUS nominee

It didn't take long for the Hard Left to attack President Bush's nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

Here's a roundup of the groups, their constituents and their press releases:

Human Rights Campaign, representing liberal gays:

JUDGE ROBERTS THREATENS TO TIP THE COURT TO FAR RIGHT

People for the American Way, representing liberal activists:

Nomination raises serious concerns, questions

NARAL, Pro-Choice America, representing pro-abortion liberals feminists:

Tell your Senators to oppose anti-choice John Roberts

National Organization for Women, representing radical feminists:

Bush Picks Anti-Roe Judge...Women's Lives on the Line

Alliance for Justice, representing liberal activists:

Opposition to John G. Roberts, Jr. nomination (to DC Circuit)

These are the attacks that came within an hour of the announcement of Roberts' nomination. Expect more soon.

Posted by jeffgannon at 12:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Hold for the smear

Meet John G. Roberts, nominee to the Supreme Court and future threat to democracy (according to the Left):

He's white, male, conservative, Catholic, heterosexual and has a few bucks.

It shouldn't be long before we learn he has horns and bites the heads off live puppies.

Posted by jeffgannon at 12:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 19, 2005

Supreme Court nominee announced

The White House has announced that President George W. Bush will nominate John G. Roberts, Jr. to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor. (No, not the CBS reporter that was waving the phony TANG documents around.)

Roberts appears to be the kind of judge that will interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. He is reportedly a solid conservative liberals are already complaining that he may tip the balance of the Supreme Court. That makes him good enough for me.

Dems will get hammered if they try to Bork this guy. I'll be interested in hearing what the hard core Senate lefties like Kennedy, Boxer and Schumer have to say about him.

As an aside, there is no constitutional requirement for the court to be balanced, in fact, the only thing these judges should be deciding is what the Constitution says.

This summer just keeps getting more interesting here in Washington, DC.

Posted by jeffgannon at 07:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Election fraud and corruption

These stories aren't about Ohio and Florida, where no election fraud was found to take place or Tom DeLay and Karl Rove who as of yet haven't been indicted for any wrongdoing. These are about Democrats, one the son of a Democratic member of Congress who vandalized the vehicles of Republican party campaign workers in order to sabotage the GOP's get out the vote effort and another, the treasurer of the Democratic-dominated city of Philadelphia who was convicted of taking part in a scheme to trade city contracts for gifts, favors and cash.

Posted by jeffgannon at 01:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 18, 2005

CIA Tried to Discredit Secret Memo Through Washington Post

Much of the discussion this week about the latest disclosures in the alleged outing of a covert CIA agent will focus on an internal memo that detailed how former Ambassador Joe Wilson was chosen for a mission to Niger. The document indicated that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, “offered up his name” for the assignment to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein tried to acquire uranium from the African nation.

Wilson denied that Plame pushed him for the job and said that Vice President Dick Cheney asked him to go. An official who works for the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research authored a memo that contradicts both of those assertions.

The former ambassador accused the White House of exposing his wife’s identity to columnist Robert Novak in order punish him by destroying her career. Wilson had written an op-ed for the New York Times that criticized the Bush administration for continuing to suggest that Iraq had attempted to acquire the nuclear material when his investigation had uncovered no evidence to support it.

It appears that White House officials, who discussed Plame in the context of explaining how an outspoken opponent of the administration’s policy on Iraq was chosen, may have been unaware of her status with the agency. Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper revealed that he brought up the CIA analyst to Karl Rove, which refutes Wilson’s charge of a “smear campaign” against his wife by Bush’s chief political advisor. Cooper confirmed that Rover never mentioned Plame’s name and tried to steer him away from putting too much faith in Wilson’s account.

Officials at the CIA tried to discredit the “smoking gun” memo and the news service that confronted Wilson about it in October 2003 in order to keep the White House on the defensive. They relied on a sympathetic recipient of previous leaks that cast the administration in a negative light for the disinformation effort. In December 2003, the Washington Post quoted an agency source as “challenging the accuracy” of the document, claiming that the meeting described could not have taken place.

Wilson too, continued his self-righteous charade of being a patriot instead of a partisan until July 2004 when the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence authenticated the memo and chastised him for his dishonesty. He was quickly dropped as a senior foreign policy advisor to John Kerry’s presidential campaign and disappeared from public view until last Thursday when Senate Democrats tried to strip Rove of his security clearance.

While Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald continues to sift through the testimony provided by administration officials and reporters, the role of the CIA officials in the Plame affair is the subject of an internal investigation. Some of those involved in the operation to undermine the administration have already been reassigned or forced to resign. When Porter Goss was named DCIA last year, sources friendly to the Washington Post complained that the new regime was running roughshod over the agency’s senior staff. Stephen Hayes wrote in the Weekly Standard in November 2004 of Goss’ efforts to stop leaks from the agency and the pushback he encountered from the entrenched bureaucrats he was charged to manage.

Clearly, Plame was part of the element within the CIA that actively worked against the Bush administration. The available evidence shows that it is likely she suggested her husband for the mission so that the agency would be assured of the anti-Bush results. The INR memo is the only evidence of the plot and the renewed focus on the document may bring this into public view. Additionally, the agency is in the untenable position of having to stand by its contention that Plame still had covert status, despite significant evidence to the contrary. Without that, any case involving violation of the 1982 statute protecting secret agents would collapse and confirm the political operation.

With the assistance of a sympathetic media and opportunistic Democrats, the CIA has portrayed a third-rate analyst as a James Bond in high heels and her husband as the definitive authority on transfers of uranium to terrorist regimes after an eight-day junket to Africa. Plame’s specialty was weapons of mass destruction proliferation, yet little of the information the agency possessed turned out to be accurate in terms of Iraq.

Responsibility for the intelligence failures that culminated in the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 lies squarely on the shoulders of the CIA. It had become dysfunctional and highly politicized by the end of the 1990s as the result of budget cuts and neglect. The extent to which it was a rogue agency is demonstrated by its attempt to influence the outcome of last year’s presidential election.

Officials in the administration should be applauded for blowing the whistle on the CIA’s political activism and taking steps to refocus its attention on the urgent need for reliable intelligence in a post-9/11 world.

Posted by jeffgannon at 09:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 15, 2005

New York Times statement on Judith Miller

"Ms. Miller learned about Valerie Plame from a confidential source or sources whose identity she continues to protect to this day. If the suggestion is that she is covering up for herself or some fictitious source, that is preposterous. Given that she is suffering in jail, it is also mean-spirited."

Posted by jeffgannon at 02:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Reporters told Rove about Valerie Plame

The New York Times and the Associated Press is reporting columnist Robert Novak told White House political advisor the name of the CIA analyst married to Joe Wilson. Novak indicated that his source is ANOTHER REPORTER.

Will Judy be taking the Fifth?

Watch for the spinning today, but it will be Democrats trying to free themselves from the web of wild accusations made against Rove, now that we know he did nothing wrong. They will try to deflect criticism with a Dan Rather defense: "OK, so he wasn't the leaker, but he should have known better than to talk about a CIA employee without knowing whether she is an agent under deep cover or not."

So who are the journalists who outed Valerie Plame? Any of the ones who were at the same Washington cocktail parties with the "covert" agent and her blowhard ex-ambassador husband? Was Wilson betrayed by the very media stars whose attention he so vigorously sought? Will anyone be frog-marched from the National Press Club?

Posted by jeffgannon at 08:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

And the winner is...

The Jeff Gannon Excellence in Journalism Awards for 2004/2005 have just been announced. If Halle Berry can show up to pick up her "Razzy" the least I can do is link to CITIZENSBLOG

Posted by jeffgannon at 07:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 14, 2005

The Plame Affair Reveals Troubling Realities About CIA

It is a foregone conclusion that by the end of the 1990s, the CIA was highly politicized and dysfunctional. While diversity goals and sensitivity training targets were met, there was a critical dearth of Arabic translators. There were few, if any human intelligence assets in the Middle East, despite the fact there were increasingly bolder terrorist attacks on American interests carried out by Islamic extremists. Ultimately, the agency that bore the primary responsibility to uncover and diffuse threats to the United State failed miserably and cost the lives of 3,000 citizens, killed without any warning whatsoever.

The Plame incident begs an examination of the CIA and the rationale behind Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger. Why was a known partisan who opposed the Bush administration’s policy toward Iraq chosen for such an important mission?

The answer lies in the question. To bring in an outsider suggests that the CIA had not been monitoring one of the world’s richest deposits of uranium, the key element necessary for a nuclear weapon. Since we have come to know that Plame’s specialty was weapons of mass destruction and proliferation, why didn’t she already have the information sought by the White House?

A more cynical view is that Wilson was a known quantity that the agency didn’t own. The CIA knew what it would get if it sent the former ambassador on an 8-day junket to Africa. As a civilian, whatever Wilson found out would not be classified. In fact, the agency didn’t even require him to sign a confidentiality agreement. Wilson would be free to do exactly what he did – use his conclusions to publicly attack the Bush administration.

Wilson has been discredited in several ways and revealed to be a political operative. His claim that the White House sent him on the mission has been unequivocally refuted. In an October 2003 interview with me, Wilson conceded that it was unlikely that it had any idea he was being sent.

The ambassador’s denial that his wife proposed him for the mission has also been proven to be false by an internal memo that detailed the meeting at which this took place. So damaging was this revelation, the CIA felt compelled to discredit the “smoking gun” memo and my reporting on it in the Washington Post. In December 2003, White House reporter Dana Milbank wrote an article that said the memo was inaccurate, that such a meeting could not have taken place. The Senate Select Intelligence Committee decided otherwise and chastised Wilson for his deception.

The agency’s insistence that Plame was still a covert agent is equally incredible. It is virtually impossible to maintain a secret identity in Washington when you work the same cocktail party circuit along with politicos and journalists with a flamboyant ex-diplomat enamored with the sound of his own voice. Still, what is a covert agent in deep cover working on inside the Beltway, not far from her young children?

It is most likely that Plame is part of a group at the agency who actively worked against the administration and even tried to affect the outcome of the presidential election. At the height of the 2004 campaign, the agency allowed an active agent to publish a book critical of the administration under the name “Anonymous.” That was an extraordinary event considering retired agents who write about the CIA wait years for their books to be vetted.

People on the Left should have no problem embracing a conspiracy theory about the CIA acting in direct opposition to a president. Skeptics on the Right should only look to the state department where the careerists are decidedly anti-Bush. Some of the more paranoid creatures on the Left still believe that I am a victim of a CIA plot, but the only conspiracy that I have been a victim of is that which Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and others at the agency perpetrated on us all.

Posted by jeffgannon at 12:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Jackasses Learn to Love the CIA

The lazy indifference of the usually slow summer news cycle in Washington was disturbed two weeks ago by the surprise announcement of Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement from the Supreme Court. The Liberals' fear of a rightward shift in the court if President Bush appoints a solid conservative in her place has produced a morbid deathwatch for Chief Justice William Rehnquist. As if the potential changes on the Court were not enough to thrill Washington insiders, along came a new wrinkle in the Valerie Plame case.

The new excitement has resulted from the media feeding frenzy over the Valerie Plame leak case. The buzz became a roar once it was known that White House chief political advisor Karl Rove had a conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper where he mentioned that, “Joe Wilson’s wife apparently worked at the agency” the sharks shifted to Watergate mode.

But the greatest spectacle has been the parade of Democrats who leaped to the microphones to demand that Rove be fired for “outing” an allegedly covert agent of the Central Intelligence Agency and damaging national security. Unfortunately for them, however, they need to frame their outrage by expressing their devotion to the CIA. This marks the first time since its creation decades ago that Democrats have made a comment about the agency that expressed anything but outright loathing. Their pronouncements ring as hollow as those of their fellow Democrat, former Kleagle Robert Byrd when he denounces the Ku Klux Klan.

To put this newfound devotion to the CIA into perspective, it is important to know that in 1994 a committee chaired by Senator John Kerry (D-MA) issued a report claiming that the CIA was facilitating the sale of crack cocaine in Los Angeles to finance the Nicaraguan contras. In his zeal to protect the agency which he so maligned in 1994, the failed presidential candidate now says that Karl Rove should be fired, even before the Special Prosecutor announces his findings.

Standing alongside Kerry, nodding in agreement was the 2008 Democratic presidential front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton. One must wonder whether Mrs. Clinton bobbed her head similarly each time her husband submitted budgets that reduced the funding for American intelligence by several billion dollars.

Former President Clinton’s disdain for the CIA was evidenced by the fact that he met privately with Director James Woolsey only twice in a two-year period. When a light plane crashed on the White House lawn in 1994, a joke circulated around Washington that said the plane was piloted by Woolsey who was trying to make an appointment. Hillary’s predecessor, Daniel Patrick Moynihan once led a group of senators who demanded that the CIA be eliminated altogether.

New Jersey Democrat Robert Menendez led the outrage parade in the House. He is from the same state and party that sent Robert Torricelli to Congress in the 1990s. It was the 1995 “Torricelli Principle” that prevented the agency from employing intelligence assets that might be guilty of “human rights violations.” In that same year, after receiving classified information from a state department official, he outed a paid CIA informant, Guatemalan Col. Julio Roberto Alpirez to the New York Times.

Democrats’ respect for America’s intelligence capabilities was demonstrated yet again by Clinton Justice Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, whose 1995 policy created the “Gorelick Wall” that prevented intelligence agencies from sharing information. Most recently, Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger pleaded guilty to removing and destroying top-secret documents from the National Archives, in order to avoid jail time for committing a felony.

All of the phony breast-beating has nothing to do with national security and is clearly a political ploy to take down the key architect of successive Democratic electoral defeats and wound President Bush. Missing in all the liberal hand wringing and moral indignation is the role Democrats have played in abusing and politicizing the CIA over the last decade.

Posted by jeffgannon at 11:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

MoveOn.org to hold "spy" protest

The liberal activist fundraising arm of the Democratic Party is holding a protest in front of the White House today to call for Karl Rove to be fired. Raw Story reports: "If you want to come dressed up in costume as a spy and protest the media will love that," the group wrote. "Think: trench coat, sunglasses and a little nametag that says, 'Spy.'"

Posted by jeffgannon at 08:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 13, 2005

Joe Wilson's lies

An interview I did in October 2003 with Ambassador Joe Wilson was published by Talon News and linked to by other websites. The interview was presented as a transcript in three parts. In the first part, I get to the essential questions which show Wilson to be a liar. First four questions elicited three lies. The rest of the interview is more noxious fumes from the discredited ex-diplomat gasbag .

Posted by jeffgannon at 12:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

It's the NYT's turn to talk

The New York Times published a nonsensical editorial today urging Karl Rove to hold a press conference and tell everything he knows. But he already has - to the Grand Jury investigating the alleged leak.

It's time for the New York Times and Judy Miller to stop obstructing justice and tell what they know and stop hiding behind some First Amendment right that doesn't exist. The NYT and its reporter are in contempt of court. Does the rule of law only apply to others?

Posted by jeffgannon at 12:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Powerline nails NYT's hysterical hypocrisy

John Hinderaker takes the New York Times to task for its hypocrisy over the Plame leak. He points out the the "Old Grey Lady" depends on such leaks to fill its pages. LINK

Posted by jeffgannon at 09:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Cooper "burned" Rove as a source

I'd say whatever credibility Matthew Cooper had is now shot. STORY

What is exceedingly clear is that Karl Rove was not trying to punish Joe Wilson by exposing his wife. What is also clear is that you cannot tell most White House reporters ANYTHING in confidence.

After this is over, I predict journalists will have far less access to the officials of this White House. They only have themselves to blame since have been acting as political operatives for the opposition since January 20, 2001.

I know, I was there for two years. What I saw and heard will shock and suprise many of you. Some suspected what was happening there but didn't have proof. I do.

Posted by jeffgannon at 08:34 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

White House press corps' agenda laid bare

New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin exposes the political organization that is the White House press corps in the wake of the feeding frenzy to take down Karl Rove. STORY

Posted by jeffgannon at 08:30 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Gimme that old time religion of peace

Story #1: Killing in the name of Allah

The defendant in the trial of the religious hate crime murder of Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh says that he was killing for his religion and that he would do it again if released. STORY

Story #2: On my summer vacation I earned my jidahi badge!

Dutch police raided the home of a 17-year-old who had exposives and had made threats against a lawmaker and espoused radial Islamic views in internet chat rooms. STORY

C'mon libs - defend this.

Posted by jeffgannon at 07:38 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Washington Post pleads for moderate SCOTUS nominee

Radio host Michael Graham refers to the "Washington Post Democrat" when he talks about the muck-raking DNC house organ. A recent editorial reflects Harry Reid's talking points on the next SCOTUS nominee: Don't appoint anyone who will upset the status quo. STORY

It says that Clarence Thomas more radical than Antonin Scalia in terms of wanting to overturn precedents. What does the Post think of the radicals who overturned the Dred Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson?

Posted by jeffgannon at 07:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 12, 2005

Democrats call for Rove to be fired

Democrats have become fully invested in the latest "scandal", that of the CIA leak probe. Now that Karl Rove has been named as someone who mentioned "Joe Wilson's wife", they have turned away from Gannongate, the Downing Street Memos, Bush lied, Bush knew and Halliburton to take him down.

They have been down this road before. Just like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown as he gets ready to kick it. It's more than likely this could be the outcome of this episode. Rove survives and the Democrats and their Old Media handpuppets fall flat on their as**s.

Posted by jeffgannon at 03:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Who is Judith Miller's source and why did the NY Times make her go to jail?

Rush Limbaugh raised a question on his show Tuesday that needs to be asked: Who is Judith Miller's source and why is the New York Times making her stay in jail?

Miller has acknowleged that she has a release from her source. It is clear that it isn't Karl Rove, since she would have been given the same release to provide testimony to the Grand Jury that Matthew Cooper got from him. Therefore, if Miller were to talk it would take the focus off Rove, which the press corps and their Democratic Party soulmates have in their sights.

So who is it? Is it another reporter, someone else in the administration, Valerie Plame or Joe Wilson or no one at all?

Posted by jeffgannon at 03:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

White House press corps convicts Rove

For the past two days, my former colleagues in the White House press corps have been pummeling Press Secretary Scott McClellan with all kind of questions about Karl Rove. It would appear they have decided the President's chief political advisor leaked the name of Valerie Plame, despite the lack of evidence that he violated any law.

The front row was in full attack mode and backed up with reinforcements brought in just for the occasion. David Corn, a columnist for the very liberal Nation magazine and author of "The Lies of George W. Bush" picked up a day pass to take a few shots at McClellan. He crowed about it on his wesite. It's good to see they're keeping all the partisans out of the briefing room.

If you want to see the agenda-driven White House press corps in action, check out C-SPAN.

Posted by jeffgannon at 02:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 11, 2005

Joe Wilson Outed Valerie Plame

Democrats and their operatives in the mainstream media are breathlessly reporting