More from Salon’s War Room on Gannon and Wilson/Kerry

I posted yesterday that Peter Daou of The Daou Report said “Not so”, about Gannon’s insinuations about Wilson/Kerry. Salon’s War Room has a bit more to say on this. Here’s a few quips…

And not so, says David Wade, who was Kerry’s campaign spokesman. Wade told us earlier today that Wilson drew standing-room-only crowds as a surrogate for Kerry, and that the claim that he was somehow “discarded” by the campaign is “a classic Novakian regurgitation of only-on-Newsmax misinformation.”

And indeed, a little Google searching of our own suggests that Wade is right: In October 2004, just weeks before the election, it appears that Wilson was still on the road for the Democratic nominee, headlining a fundraiser for the Kerry-Edwards campaign in Arizona.

That doesn’t sound like the work of someone who was “dumped — hard,” Jeff. But as for the “rock solid” part — well, we suppose you’re the expert on that.

Jeff Gannon: Saying it must make it so

It’s a page right out of the Republican playbook: If you say the same thing often enough — Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, John Kerry would have turned over the defense of the United States to the French, Karl Rove didn’t leak Valerie Plame’s identity — it sort of ceases to matter if the thing was true in the first place. Through sheer repetition of the spin, people begin to believe it.

Jeff Gannon knows how to play the game…

Not so fast, Gannon says now. He says his report last summer was “so potent” that we’ve “taken to the task of rewriting history” in order to refute it. So what’s Gannon’s evidence that Wilson was, as Gannon puts it, “dumped — hard” by the Kerry campaign? Well, it’s that lots of other conservative commentators engaged in the same sort of supposition Gannon did. “It wasn’t just me who took note of Wilson’s hard fall from the spotlight he relished,” Gannon writes.

But even if repeating a lie could make it true, Gannon’s “evidence” on this point wouldn’t be particularly persuasive. Gannon cites an item in which the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto notes that the Wilson references are gone from the Kerry site and asks — asks — “Is Kerry ditching Wilson?” Gannon cites a transcript of a discussion in which Taranto, again seeming to base his charge solely on the missing references on the Web site, says that Wilson has become a “non-person” in the Kerry campaign. Gannon cites a column by USA Today’s Richard Benedetto that says nothing whatsoever about the Kerry campaign dumping Wilson. Gannon cites a Weekly Standard piece published just a day before his piece; it says that Wilson “remains” an advisor to the Kerry campaign. And Gannon cites a Washington Times piece in which Mark Steyn predicted that the Kerry campaign would drop Wilson in the future. (For what it’s worth, Steyn also predicted — incorrectly — that Wilson would be disinvited from the Salon cruise.) Oh, and Gannon says that the “online community” was “abuzz” with news that the Wilson references were gone from the Kerry Web site.

So where’s the evidence that Kerry dumped Wilson? Where’s anything other than supposition about the changes to Kerry’s Web site? And Jeff, who is the one “rewriting history” now?

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.