"Jeff Gannon"

[spike]

Fake newsman acquires access to years of white house press confrences in order to lob President Bush easy questions designed to make him look better, while being bankrolled by a barely operating republican news org, funded either by the Bush administration or other republican groups.

Link

[*DAMN Bondo]

He is also a gay prostitute/gay porn site organizer...but who's keeping track. Can you imagine how apeshit the media and Republicans would be if this happened when Clinton was President. Bush gets away with every fucking thing. Liberal media my ass.

[BFG]

Come on now guys, you know that this is just the invention of gay love hating evil  environmentalist liberal black women terrorists.

Poor Mr Bush, afterall how could any self respecting intelligent person actually expect him to answer any intelligent or complicated questions that he hasn't already been pre-prepped with?

[BTs_Mysterio]

The best part, when I watched him interviewed on CNN, was he actually thought he was a journalist.

[*DAMN Bondo]

That Jeff Guckert is a gay prostitute/porn involved is 100% fact. This is important primarily because this is someone directly linked to the Bush Administration (they let him in,) an administration that is supposedly all about moral values that exclude homosexuals. So it is hypocricy. Second, it is one thing to let independent media into white house breifings, it is another to let someone with a false name clear the security clearance and yet have people allegedly not know. That is a MAJOR security breach and that IS the story.

As for Gannon. He is NOT a journalist, journalism is not the same thing as public relations/advocacy. He was a political employee. He was paid by the GOP (GOPUSA owned the site he wrote for.) Being a Republican employee while reporting on politics is a massive conflict of interest, bad journalism ethics. Of course ethics is mattering less. It is like Carl Cameron of Fox News, he was their political reporter in 2000 while his wife was actively involved in the Bush campaign. Again, conflict of interest.

[bronto]

i think a liberal should impersonate a republican and infiltrate, then get a position as the fake reporter to throw softballs and then ask him something you know he'll shit himself over when he calls on you....ever see The Yes Men? watch it.

["Sixhits"]

Everyone take a minute to imagine if this had happened during the Clinton presidency. Or, for that matter, under any Dem pres.

...


A male prostitute using a fake name is given daily passes to the White House press corps where he acts as a lifeline for the press secretary and the President. He is also wanted for tax evasion in Delaware. He is tied to a GOP political organization -- his "news" site is owned by one. And someone in the White House leaked him classified information on Valerie Plame ("Gannon" is one of the handful of journalists who this was leaked to) and got him around security... for over two years. Finally, someone clearly went around the Secret Service on his background checks, potentially a federal crime -- and endangered the President's life (as much as I hate the man, he is still the damn pres) -- because someone wanted for tax evasion and with a history of prostitution is ripe for blackmail. Who knows what one might blackmail him to do?

In a word: ridiculous.

The Right might have called it "impeachable".

Additionally, this whole issue re-exposes the hypocracy of the Right. They hate gay Americans, running for office on building that hate into our Constitution, and yet employ them -- employ gay prostitutes -- in furthering their agenda. They speak about family values and yet have close working relationships to active prostitutes -- ones who are actively and currently engaged in illiciting johns, which is ilegal.

We could continue to explore just how hypercritical the Right is, but it would take a long time to do so.

Everyone in this country knows the Right is morally bankrupt -- sprewing the rhetoric of morals and values while failing to act responsibly and lawfully when push comes to shove. Those on the Right know this; just as the progressives know this. In fact, the Right is willfully duplicitous. They know their hypocracy; they live it daily. The Right has one creed; one Faith. it is not God's. It is not American. It is not patriotic.

It is power. The Right and those that self identify as such diefy power.

And we see the result of the Right's Faith in "gannongate": Abuse of Power.

Look at what they have done to your country: is it good for you? For America? Does it align itself with any but the most lapse moral conventions? It is a false creed; a corrupt one. Instances such as "gannongate" issue glimpses of the depths of their corruption. We on the outside can only imagine what it all spirals down into. But those that practice the Right's Faith know. And they know Evil.

[*DAMN Bondo]

Sal, wtf are you on about?

Jeff Gannon IS a fake name, that isn't in question, that isn't some Democratic lie.

The reason the Dems jump on the homosexuality isn't a lack of tolerance, it is because of the hypocricy it entails in the Republicans.

Bush has been one of the most closed and anti-media presidents in history. Yes, he allowed journalists to be embedded, but that was not because he was open, it was because he wanted to use the media as a propaganda tool (and he did.) He has given less press conferences than any President in the history of the television era. He actively dodges questions, he has restricted FOIA to amazing levels, he has prosecuted journalists for protecting sources (well, the non-Republican sources.) The only journalists the Bush Administration likes are the ones they have paid to advocate for them (an ethical violation of journalism, which is why Gannon/Guckert doesn't meet journalist standards.)

["Sixhits"]

"Will someone please try to define the term journalist, whilst maintaining your position that Gannon is not a journalist but all the other boobs in the white house (including a bunch of noname news organizations) are."
Please. This is such a bullshit request. Gannon's a pundit put in place by a corrupt administration. There are good reporters and bad reporters in the White House press pool -- but the difference is clear: they work for established newspapers and their job is to report the news, not plagerize and progandaize for the Administration. There is a difference.

"Further, you could say "the republicans let him in"   and while it is true that a republican had to clear him into the white house for an 'appointment', it likely wasnt for politcal reasons."
Wrong. It was 100% political. And it was DIALY for more than two years; a portion of that time he wasn't even employed by "Talon News" but by GOPUsa -- an overtly political org.

"Clearing people into the press breifings is like a secretary scheduling a conference call, it is more secretarial than politcal."
IN NO WAY does the process work like this. It's not a "call and reserve" hotline. It's not an idle thing. It's serious business. Put it in perspective: there are thousands of journalists in the US. How many get to be in the White House Press Pool? Two dozen? Creme-de-la-creme baby. Further, consider all the real news people and news services that have not been invited to join the press corp at the WH.

I get the feeling that you have no understanding what you're talking about.

"Democrats in the know about white house operations know this is a bogus story, but they are not going to explain the truth preferring to exploit this for as much politcal capital as they can get.  It is also odd that the democrats to claim to be gay tolerant, would exploit the gay element to defame this person Jeff Gannon."
No one on the left has criticized "gannon" for being gay. We point out that he is a prostitute and gay, put in place to serve a progandistic purpose by an Administration who's bread and butter is gay baiting and gay bashing... AND "gannon" himself authored numerous anti-gay articles -- not least of which refered to Kerry as set to become the first "gay president".

"Bush, to his credit, is much more open to the press, and he is more of an advocate of the first ammenedment than the democrats." 
What world do you live in?

"For example Bush opened the otherwise secret operations in the military and invited the media in allowing complete access to US troops."  
Otherwise secret operations? Untrue. And the access he did grant is not unprecedented. Further, it is carefully managed.

"Apparently Bush's white house is open to all sorts of small-time, independent, and foreign press, including Agence-France Presse (which accompanies him on Air Force One), Al-jazeera, which  also coveres the daily white House breifings, and a number of others small-timers."
And the point is? That foreign news orgs get to report on the president? That was news a hundred years ago.

"Many of the journalist who work in the White Hosue press Corps have an extensive background in politcs from working with previous administrations, to working on political campaigns etc...."
There is a difference between having a background in politics and being an active pundit posing as a reporter. One is having experience. The other is lacking morals.

"Nearly ALL the TV networks and publications have taken money from political organizations.  Usually to the tone of hundreds of millions from Campaigns."
And so?

"This is a BS story.  The Democratic leadership should be ashamed to allow their constituency to beleive something they themselves know not to be true.   But then, thats what the dems did with WMD isnt it?"
You're edging towards wackoness, dude. This is one of the most amazing stories of this administration. They've been caught red handed; all the scandels of the past four years seem to dovetail towards this guy. Plame. Propaganda. Hell, "gannon" had the exact time of the Iraq war's shock and awe campaign.

Here's the story: It's in three parts
How did such a person gain access to the White House press pool?
Is this yet another case of the Bush Administration's media manipulation?
And who leaked classified information in regards to Valarie Plame to "gannon"?

[c| Spetsnaz.]

The most logical explanation is that GannonGuckert is very close to someone high up in the White House. That person must have really liked GannonGuckert to give him such access.

Someone with very powerful connections had to hook him up with that press pass because it was in his fake name "Jeff Gannon" not Guckert, and the Secret Service does background checks on all members of the White House press core, so they had to know what was up, and were probably told to back off.

I think Karl Rove is GannonGuckert's homosexual lover, granting him the press pass to lob "soft ball" questions at Dubya. GannonGuckert was also leaked insider information about various happenings, like DanRathrGate, Plame, and the initial invasion of Iraq.

This would explain Karl Rove's ability and willingness to tell lies and fool people into thinking something that is not. After all, he's been lying about who he is all his life. He hates the fact that he is a homosexual and this in turn has caused him to become devoid of all moral principles.

If you do a little research on Karl Rove, you'll find he has made lying and winning no matter the cost (including sending two innocent men to jail, and planting a bugging device in his own office) a way of life.

Karl Rove, the president's closest adviser and architect of the 2000/2004 presidential election victories is a closet homosexual that manifests his inability to be who he is by lying to the American people, and pursuing power no matter the cost.

In either case The White House has connections to homosexual prostitution.

[BFG]

No response from GS, MacUser or any Hardline Republicans? I would have thought that any Christian Republicans would have been very happy at the idea that the white house has connections with homosexual prostitution? Or is all this being ignored because its just 'lies created by the democratic socialist pussy's' to blemish the good lord jesus christ george bush's name?

Further, you could say "the republicans let him in"   and while it is true that a republican had to clear him into the white house for an 'appointment', it likely wasnt for politcal reasons.

well yes, the very idea that allowing journalists access to the white house might be for political reasons is pretty stupid now isn't it, after all what has politics got to do with the white house... Um reality check maybe?

I think you summed it up pretty clearly Six with the "Everyone take a minute to imagine if this had happened during the Clinton presidency. Or, for that matter, under any Dem pres."  ... its absurd. 

[BTs_GhostSniper]

No response from GS, MacUser or any Hardline Republicans? 

Sorry, don't have time to write a 3 page dialogue like Spets, Sixhits, or Sal.  Some of us have a life and a job.  I honestly havn't even read anything that they wrote, as I seldom do when I see people who have no clue what the word "brevity" means.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

P.S.  Condense some of your posts and I might actually bother to read them. 

[spike]

1. This thread isn't even over a page yet
2. My first post is only a paragraph long. I assume you have sufficient skills and patience to read a paragraph. Yet, no reaction?
3. Sounds like Bush did something you can't defend, and you're hiding behind some pretty flimsy excuses for not facing it.

[c| Spetsnaz.]

 brevity-The quality or state of being brief in duration. Concise expression; terseness.

It's pretty much summed up in one sentence of 30pt font in my last post.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

1. This thread isn't even over a page yet
2. My first post is only a paragraph long. I assume you have sufficient skills and patience to read a paragraph. Yet, no reaction?
3. Sounds like Bush did something you can't defend, and you're hiding behind some pretty flimsy excuses for not facing it.

1. You know what I meant.  I don't read really long posts.  Period.  Anything over 5 or 6 lines just loses my attention.  So sorry.  Sue me.

2. Yes, your first post was only a paragraph long...and then there was a link I was supposed to go to that I didn't care to go to.  Oops.

3. Sounds like Bush did something that I don't care to defend.  Hell, I don't know anything about it.  I'm not even sure if any of this is true or accurate, as I havn't had the time to look into it.  I'm in the middle of 400 fleet truck orders and I just don't have the time right now to pay attention to politics.  Hell, I havn't even watched Fox News or listened to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity in over 2 weeks.

Damn people, GET A LIFE!

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

[BFG]

why do i get the feeling that if Al-Gore had just been caught fucking a male stripper in the back of his car you might be a touch more interested?

[BTs_GhostSniper]

why do i get the feeling that if Al-Gore had just been caught fucking a male stripper in the back of his car you might be a touch more interested?

I really wouldn't be.  In fact, when the Monica-Clinton thing happened, it was really no big deal to me.  I never even said I agree with all of the things that Bush stands for...he was, however, the closest candidate to my beliefs, which is why I supported him in the last two elections, and which is why I continue to support him.  It really doesn't matter to me what party you belong to, it matters what your beliefs are and how closely they match mine.  If John F. Kennedy were running for President today, I would vote for him, even though he was a Democrat.  Likewise, if Colin Powell runs against Hillary in the next election, I'm supporting Colin Powell.

Peace.

-GhostSniper Out.

["Sixhits"]

P.S.  Condense some of your posts and I might actually bother to read them. 

Sry, don't have time to cater to hypercritical fundamentalists.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

P.S.  Condense some of your posts and I might actually bother to read them. 

Sry, don't have time to cater to hypercritical fundamentalists.

I never asked you to cater to me.  I simply said don't expect me to read posts more than 5 or 6 lines long.[/size]