"Propagannon" confirmed : Fake reporter in WH press conferences.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

First 'Payolgate' now this???


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/02/02/white_house_friendly_reporter_under_scrutiny/

"The Bush administration has provided White House media credentials to a man who has virtually no journalistic background, asks softball questions to the president and his spokesman in the midst of contentious news conferences, and routinely reprints long passages verbatim from official press releases as original news articles on his website."

...

"Nonetheless, transcripts of White House briefings indicate that McClellan often calls on Gannon and that the press secretary -- and the president -- have found relief in a question from Gannon after critical lines of questioning from mainstream news organizations.

When Bush called on Gannon near the end of his nationally televised Jan. 26 news conference, he had just been questioned about Williams and the Education Department funds, an embarrassment to the administration. Gannon's question was different."


EDIT:  I took the "?" out of the title, since it is has now been confirmed that the White House gave a daily press pass to a man who was (knowingly, according the WH Press sectretary Scott McClellan) using an alias.



mrC

[Sephroth57]

thats awesome, his name is Gannon

[mr.Curmudgeon]

thats awesome, his name is Gannon

Gannon is not his "real" name though...to quote someone from another site:

"1. "Jeff Gannon" is a pseudonym. It is unreasonable to give White House press credentials to a non-journalist who appears out of thin air one day with a fake name. Try getting White House press credentials sometime to understand just how ridiculous this is. Female reporters aren't even allowed to use their ACTUAL maiden names, they MUST change their credentials when their name changes.

2. Gannon's name has come up in the Valerie Plame investigation, he has been subpoena'd by the grand jury. Gannon just happened to get his hands on highly confidential documents which he quoted out of context in an attempt to discredit Joseph Wilson. He played a role in the smearing of Wilson and the outing of Plame.

    White House-credentialed fake news reporter "Jeff Gannon" from fake news agency "Talon News" was cited by the Washington Post as having the only access to an internal CIA memo that named Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a covert CIA agent. Gannon, in a question posed to Wilson in an October 2003 interview, referred to the memo (to which no other news outlet had access, according to the Post). Gannon subsequently has been subpoenaed by the federal grand jury looking into the Plame outing.

3. Gannon's articles are often literally word-for-word renditions of White House press releases.

This guy is a creation of the administration."

[mr.Curmudgeon]

This story just keeps getting dirtier. Did the White House create this guy ("Jeff Gannon" aka Jim Guckert) to not only get them off the hook with tough questioning, but to also act as a  "hit man" against detractors?

Did he leak the memo outing Ambassador Wilson's CIA agent wife, Natale Plame?

"On Oct. 28, Talon News, a news company tied to a group called GOP USA,posted on the Internet an interview with Wilson in which the Talon News questioner asks: 'An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?'"
(December 26th, 23 piece in the Washington Post)

Meanwhile, the administration that purports to be a bastion of moral values, full of crusaders against the "homosexual agenda", might want to look into their next hitman's social life. Here are just a few of the domain's owned by Mr. Guckert:

jeffgannon.com
Hotmilitarystud.com
Militaryescorts.com
Militaryescortsm4m.com

And here's a picture from his now defunct personal webpage. Same man?:


Now, personally, I think his sexual preference has no bearing on the larger issue of this administration creating another fake propaganda machine, let alone one working from inside the White House itself. I do, however think, as a separate issue, every single Republican/Conservative/Right-Winger pundit that continues to support an administration that seeks to ostracize a portion of our society based solely on their sexual-preference, should have their sexuality called into question, lest they be exposed for the glutenous hypocritical cretins they truly are.


mrC

[Crazy Cooter]

lol.  Even I wasn't so sure about this one.  Turns out it is TRUE!  George planted this dude.  The Washington Post is getting all over this thing.  It's starting to hit the mainstream news...

Too funny.  When is the impeachment process going to start?

[ChadTower]

You speak about this concept as if it's not regularly done in all aspects of media, from school board meetings all the way up to the White House.  It's done in sports and entertainment.  It's how the media game is played and has been for a long, long time.

[Buddabing]

LOL!

I wonder if he got the idea from Doonesbury or vice versa.

McClellan for Secretary of Toady Affairs!

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You speak about this concept as if it's not regularly done in all aspects of media, from school board meetings all the way up to the White House.

No. This is *not* "regularly done." This man, with the support of conservative organizations, was posing as a journalist for an illegitimate agency, using a fake name, and deliberately reporting misinformation about administration detractors, while providing "life-lines" in the form of leading questions to the WH press secretary and President, in an orchestrated attempt to avoid answering real questions, while slandering opponents. He also, very likely, acted as a political "hit-man", exposing an undercover CIA agent, destroying years of investigative work relating to WMD, and putting numerous people at risk. In other words, TREASON, with the assistance of someone from within the White House itself.

Please, point to one documented example of this exact sort of thing happening anywhere else, let alone in "all aspects of media"...keep in mind that this is in NO WAY the same thing as bias, and/or subjective reporting. This is outright deception and blatant propaganda.


mrC

[ChadTower]

If such things were documented, they wouldn't exactly be effective, would they?  I've seen it done firsthand in business over and over again, and to think that it's not done far more often in politics is incorrect.  This is the way politics at that level are done.  That's why we get such ---smurfy--- Presidents over and over again.  No quality candidates worth voting for are also dumb enough to expose themselves and their families to that life.  There are many people out there in the business world who have turned zeroes into billions in less time than it takes your average President to finish a third grade mathbook.  Why don't they run?  There are plenty of military personnel, plenty of University professors who would make excellent Presidents.  They don't run for the same reason.

I think now that things have gotten SO DIRTY that no one makes it out cleanly, we're only going to see more and more inferior, powergrabbing people as Presidential candidates.

[RetroJames]

Is this some kind of joke?

http://www.jeffgannon.com/

www.talonnews.com/bios/jeffgannon.shtml

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/extra/archives/001437.html

http://199.249.170.220/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000796790

NEW YORK Jeff Gannon, the controversial White House correspondent for the obscure, conservative Web site Talon News who resigned from his job Tuesday, confirmed late Wednesday, in a phone interview with National Public Radio, that he has been using a false name. A few hours later, Howard Kurtz, writing in The Washington Post, confirmed earlier tips, arising from liberal blogs, that the reporter's real name is indeed James D. Guckert.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Chad,

"If such things were documented, they wouldn't exactly be effective, would they?"

So, in other words, you have nothing to back up your daming assertion?

You seem to take an extremely cynical view of things that are unfavorable to the Bush administration. I can't, for the life of me, imagine you being so banal about something like "Gannon" if he were created by Kerry and/or Clinton.

While I respect your opinion on a lot of issues, you seem to be justifying this behavior because "that's the way it's done". Do you advocate it then?  Is it more "OK" since Gurkert liked Bush too?

I don't agree with anything you've said in this thread so far, and your statements aren't grounded in any kind of factual evidence. Here's some appalling/anti-American behavior staring you in the face and you just keep throwing out tin-foil hat level theories as justification.

Lots of people don't run because they don't care enough about politics to do so. Not everyone is corrupt, and those that are proven to be should be run out on the rails. I believe a system that's broken, can be fixed...


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Is this some kind of joke?

Sadly, no. This is George W's America.


mrC

[RetroJames]

After reading the Wash post, I will have to see alot more evidence of some kind that he is a plant.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I will have to see alot more evidence of some kind that he is a plant.

• Scott McClellan admitted in a recent press breifing that he knew "Gannon" was using a fake name.
• Despite his lack of journalistic experience, Guckert used an assumed name and was granted access to the elite White House Press Corps.  His application for a press pass to the House and Senate galleries was rejected because Talon News shares ownership with GOPUSA.com and did not meet press pass standards.  Yet somehow he was still given a daily press pass to White House Briefings for almost two years.
  
  In a press briefing on Feb. 10th, White House Press Secretary McClellan claimed that Guckert was granted White House access because he "showed that he was representing a news organization that published regularly." (emphasis added).
  
  However, Talon News came into existence on March 29, 2003.  It was granted White House Press Corps access just four days (approx. 96 hours) later.  During that four-day time period, Talon News published a total of nine "stories."

There are several FOIA requests for documents relating to Gurkett, I'm hopeful they will be able to follow this guys trail. Read this Media Matters link for more detailed info on this guys shady past.

mrC

[fredster]

This man, with the support of conservative organizations, was posing as a journalist for an illegitimate agency, using a fake name, and deliberately reporting misinformation about administration detractors,..

I didn't see you get this upset with the fake documents in the CBS story.  I don't remember you being taken aback at "moveon.org" that was funded by George Soros.  Huh. Double Standard maybe?

But wait, this guy is on the RIGHT. OMG how could that happen?
The "scandal," supposedly, is that somebody who wasn't a Democratic party shill would be allowed journalist's credentials.

Talon is no more a "fake" news service than Salon.

As far as the left retaliation, I gues some 'journalists' just don't like to have their stories ridiculed. Especially in the White House Pressroom.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Guckert did not have a regular White House press pass but was cleared on a day-by-day basis to attend briefings and used his real name.

"He, like anyone else, showed that he was representing a news organization that published regularly and so he was cleared two years ago to receive daily passes just like many others are,"

What exactly was the question that upset you?  That he said the Dems were "detached from reality?"

How many stories does it take to make a journalist?  For some on the left it only took one or two.  Salon.com is online and writes stories.  So what? Who cares?

So in summary,
1) He had credentials.
2) He used his real name.
3) He is not a "plant".

Any questions?

Sadly, no. This is George W's America

I again tell you MrC, I share your pain. I had to go through 8 Clinton years so I know the frustration and disappointment of an  administration I didn't like. 

Unfortunatley for you, Dean did get the leadership of the Dems. So I guess you can kiss the next 2 administations off too.  I'd blame that on Karl Rove. If he did that, he is the genuis we think he is.

That would make this a story.  Otherwise, it's a total NON story.

[Crazy Cooter]

So in summary,
1) He had credentials.
2) He used his real name.
3) He is not a "plant".

How on earth do you get to those conclusions?
If "bloggers" can get passes and ask the president questions, sign me up.  I've got a few questions I want to ask.  Face it, this dude was PLANTED.  Plain and simple.

[fredster]

Where's you data? Some left wing hack web site? Common, the daily Kos?

The "loyal opposition" jumped in and started calling this man a porn monger.  They started a smear campaign that you have bought into.

There's a lot of money being spread out all over for political influence. If you ever take the time to listen to any press conferences or watch on cspan, then judge for yourself who is left leaning. I can't believe some of the disrespectful members of the press.  The way the ask the questions is almost as if they were from the daily Kos.

Prove to me that this man was a plant. The White house says he wasn't. Only the left says he is because of the way he framed the question that put him in the spotlight.

Like all the other "aligations" about the white house, this one is distortion and definately a non story.

[ChadTower]

You seem to take an extremely cynical view of things that are unfavorable to the Bush administration. I can't, for the life of me, imagine you being so banal about something like "Gannon" if he were created by Kerry and/or Clinton.

I am cynical about ALL GOVERNMENT.  I don't like Bush either and I've stated this many times.  What I like less than Bush is people who simply bash bash bash bash without ever presenting a plan or a solution.  I actually liked Clinton until he stood up there and LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE about something that was not a matter of national security.  All the other stuff, the illegal financial dealings, the people dying to save his ass, I just didn't care about.  But the moment he openly stood at a podium and LIED TO US to save himself, that was it.  A man of integrity would not have done that.  I'd rather have an idiot of integrity than a weaselly liar.

While I respect your opinion on a lot of issues, you seem to be justifying this behavior because "that's the way it's done". Do you advocate it then?

[Crazy Cooter]

Where's you data? Some left wing hack web site? Common, the daily Kos?

The Washington Post

[tmasman]

For some of you who may be interested to read some of this guys stuff...

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.jeffgannon.com

Use the "Way Back Machine" to look up just about any website & see it's past content.

[fredster]

Ok, Cooter, where's the link?

Does it say this - "Jeff Gannon, Washington Bureau Chief and White House correspondent for Talon News and syndicated columnist
brings you an inside perspective on the news."

[SeaMonkey]

So what?

As far as "scandals" go, this is pretty tame. Bush has a long way to go to catch up with his opening act in that department.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Prove to me that this man was a plant. The White house says he wasn't.

ROFL! Ok then. It's settled. The WH says so!! Good for you and those well-worn critical-thinking skills!!

So in summary,
1) He had credentials.
(mrc: That's the problem. He shouldn't have, he didn't meet the official WH criteria.)

2) He used his real name.
(mrc: Uh, no. No he didn't. "Gannon" isn't his real name.)

3) He is not a "plant".
(mrc: Great argument! No supporting evidence!! Nicely packaged!! Would buy from again!!!  AAA+++)

Talon is no more a "fake" news service than Salon.... How many stories does it take to make a journalist?

Apparently exactly nine, in the eyes of the White House. Because that is all "Talon News" had published in the five days before they gave them credentials.


fredster,

You are in some serious denial on this one. Mr. Guckert, HIMSELF, has admitted to using an alias. As far as him being a legitimate journalist, he has no degree (He only attended a $50 two-day seminar at the Leadership Institute), and he was previously denied press credentials by the 2003 for the Senate/House galleries because "Talon News" failed to prove itself to be a legitimate news agency, and DID NOT meet the very same standards required for credentials to the White House. Furthermore, "Talon News" was formed five days before his first pass to the WH was granted. The mere fact that he was allowed entrance to the WH press corp for the past two years, given these circumstances, is completely unbelievable.

BTW, as far as the CBS memo scandal goes, you're ideological bias is showing when you accuse me of ignoring it. I've spoken out numerous times regarding my disappointment over the lack of verification re: the memos authenticity. I've written and spoken to several individuals at CBS in an effort to express that very same disappointment. However, this situation with "Gannon" bears no resemblance *AT ALL* to the TANG memos, thus your attempt at moral equivalency is completely irrelevant. I also find it extremely ironic that you'd disparage the investigation into "Gannon" simply because it's initially being done by a left-leaning blog ("Some left wing hack web site?"), yet you'd banner-wave a story (TANG memos) by a completely fringe, hate-filled right-wing site (freerepublic). You're too much sometimes. I prefer to let the content of the story speak for itself. Which, btw, is all over the media...well, except FOX. They won't touch the story. (Which to me proves it's authenticity even more)

Lastly, it's not my, or any other posters job, to prove anything to you. If you're not willing to follow the story for yourself and come to some sort of logical conclusion, then there's nothing anyone else can do.

I had to go through 8 Clinton years so I know the frustration and disappointment of an  administration I didn't like.

Poor thing. Record surpluses, economic stability, record job growth, relative peace...it must have been hell for you.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I simply said it is done and to bash one administration for it without bashing every other major media outlet isn't useful.

No other media outlet, or administration, has been caught having a fake reporter credentialed in the White House.

Try and keep focus rather than searching out a new reason to bash every couple of days.

The focus is to hold the White House, and the Bush administration at large, fully accountable for any and/or all misdeeds committed during their tenure, whilst not using the word "bash" 'cause it just sounds too whiny and apologetic.

I actually liked Clinton until he stood up there and LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE about something that was not a matter of national security.  All the other stuff, the illegal financial dealings, the people dying to save his ass, I just didn't care about.  But the moment he openly stood at a podium and LIED TO US to save himself, that was it.  A man of integrity would not have done that.  I'd rather have an idiot of integrity than a weaselly liar.

Somehow I find it impossible to believe you're truly morally outraged over a lie about a blow job. But if you say so...

Anyhow, how's that "idiot of integrity" doing with that WMD search?

[ChadTower]

Somehow I find it impossible to believe you're truly morally outraged over a lie about a blow job. But if you say so...

Anyhow, how's that "idiot of integrity" doing with that WMD search?

Well, if you're going to accuse me of lying on that point, do it.  Personal integrity is far more important to me than anything else.  Clinton proved he had none when he stood there and lied about something simply to protect himself.  Lying to save lives is one thing, there's a positive motivation for it.  Lying to save himself trouble is unforgivable, especially given the insulting condescension of it when he knew it was provable.  Now, it's not impeachable, but that's not what he was impeached for anyway.

As for record surplusses and all that loveliness, all one can call that is coincedental timing since he didn't do anything but eff us any harder than any other President.  Things like NAFTA don't benefit us at all.

Bush didn't find the WMDs.  We knew going in that the odds of finding a briefcase full of mason jars in a desert country were next to impossible.  Keep in mind that EVERYONE, even the French and Germans, were in full agreement that he must possess those weapons. 

[DrewKaree]

Talon is no more a "fake" news service than Salon.... How many stories does it take to make a journalist?

Apparently exactly nine, in the eyes of the White House. Because that is all "Talon News" had published in the five days before they gave them credentials.

So nine, then, is the answer?  I'd have figured the number to be smaller, but as long as you've nailed it down to nine, ok.   

As far as him being a legitimate journalist, he has no degree

So in order to be a "legitimate journalist", you must have a degree.  Interesting.  Is that due to hiring practices, or that you must have been "properly schooled" in order to be able to use the title of journalist?  I ask, because if that's the case, I think the "proper schooling" is letting down the American public, and the world (as to assume this is simply an American problem alone is delusional at best) by teaching that injecting personal bias into stories in reporting, or failing to report, the stories that will be viewed by others.  I'm not saying they have to, or don't have to, but the news used to be given to us by people called "reporters", and "journalism" seems to have become synonymous with reporting, when in fact it's simply a perversion of news reporting.

BTW, as far as the CBS memo scandal goes, you're ideological bias is showing when you accuse me of ignoring it. I've spoken out numerous times regarding my disappointment over the lack of verification re: the memos authenticity.

When the subject was brought up, http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,24829.0.html, if that's your idea of "speaking out", you have no concept of the phrase.  You continually avoided saying ANYTHING about Dan Rather, and instead couched your "disappointment" in how Bush is/was/forever-will-be wrong "even if this story didn't exist".  Before you tell us how "outraged" you are about something and point to "what you've done", try to make sure your words actually match up with what you want us to believe.  Your words are anything BUT genuine on this point.

I also find it extremely ironic that you'd disparage the investigation into "Gannon" simply because it's initially being done by a left-leaning blog ("Some left wing hack web site?"), yet you'd banner-wave a story (TANG memos) by a completely fringe, hate-filled right-wing site (freerepublic)...I prefer to let the content of the story speak for itself.

Yet, while "letting the content of the story speak for itself", you can't resist the urge to "bash" a website for being "fringe, hate-filled & right-wing".  Nevermind the fact that the website's story was proven to be true, if YOU don't bash the people who show the bias of the major news outlets, who will?  Trying to equate what you do with "holding this administration accountable" is laughable, and you MIGHT be able to fool some folks into believing it, if you weren't so transparent and your very own words didn't tell a far different story than you wish to paint about yourself.

You seem to think ALL that was at issue with Clinton was a blow job.  It's probably why folks have a hard time not choking when you offer platitudes such as "investigate the story yourself", "let the story speak for itself", or "it's my duty to hold him accountable".  You'd probably garner a lot more respectability if you'd simply follow your own advice.

[DrewKaree]

Keep in mind that EVERYONE, even the French and Germans, were in full agreement that he must possess those weapons. 

That fact will NEVER be accepted.  It is vital that the opponents of this war NEVER admit or accept this fact, because to do so means they lose the "Bush lied" card, which means they lose the "he tricked the American people" card, which means they lose the "he ordered the killing of men (sorry, not men, we must focus on the idea that he's only killing the other groups) women and children" card, blah blah blah.

Chad, it STARTS there, and it's like it's the middle card in the entire house of cards their argument is based on.  While you, me, and a fencepost are able to see that fact you posted, it will NEVER EVER be accepted as fact, and you only need to read several posts in these political threads to see that I'm right, and to see the contortions people are willing to go through in order to get away from that fact in order to avoid admitting Bush ever did ANYTHING right, outside of "being born into the right family"

[Crazy Cooter]

Keep in mind that EVERYONE, even the French and Germans, were in full agreement that he must possess those weapons.

That fact will NEVER be accepted. It is vital that the opponents of this war NEVER admit or accept this fact, because to do so means they lose the "Bush lied" card, which means they lose the "he tricked the American people" card, which means they lose the "he ordered the killing of men (sorry, not men, we must focus on the idea that he's only killing the other groups) women and children" card, blah blah blah.

Chad, it STARTS there, and it's like it's the middle card in the entire house of cards their argument is based on. While you, me, and a fencepost are able to see that fact you posted, it will NEVER EVER be accepted as fact, and you only need to read several posts in these political threads to see that I'm right, and to see the contortions people are willing to go through in order to get away from that fact in order to avoid admitting Bush ever did ANYTHING right, outside of "being born into the right family"

Did they believe the information available warranted military action?
That is the point.  They did not, Bush did.  He asked for help ("Coalition"), they said no.  Were they 100% sure or 99%?  Who cares?  It was bogus info.  And Drew, we should focus on the women and kids killed.  How many of the 100,000+ civilians killed over there have been women and children?  That's an important fact that shouldn't be swept under the table.


Anyhow, back to the topic:
In order to be a legitimate journalist, you should have SOMETHING.  If not a degree, several years of experience in the field.  These people should be seasoned professionals, (and even they can be stupid and not check facts).  We depend on these ---meecrobs--- to give as an accurate picture of what is heppening so we can come here and argue facts, that's why we argue over the legitimacy of the site's we all reference.  If this dude was just reporting on what was being said, nobody would care.  BUT the fact is that he was granted access without proper credentials (I call that "planted"), and then used that position to further the administrations agenda by "steering" the direction of the news conferences away from important topics.  THAT's where I object.

[ChadTower]

Did they believe the information available warranted military action?
That is the point.

[fredster]

Who cares?  It was bogus info

It wasn't "bogus" until we verifed it was it?  Kerry voted for it, and he was on the intel committee. Part of the branch that the CIA reports to along with the President.

How many of the 100,000+ civilians killed over there have been women and children?  That's an important fact that shouldn't be swept under the table.

  Exactly where are you getting this "fact" of "100,000" Plus CIVILIANS?  Where?

The UN itself should have formed a coalition to go after Hussein personally for ordering the Kurd gassings.

But they didn't did they?  Have they done Anything to stop killing of innocents in the last 20 years?

We should disban the UN NOW.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

So in order to be a "legitimate journalist", you must have a degree.  Interesting.  Is that due to hiring practices, or that you must have been "properly schooled" in order to be able to use the title of journalist?

Oh Noooz!! My Liberal Elite sensibilities have once again clouded my judgment. I meant to say that a person may pick any title they want, without the need for education, training and/or experience. Therefore, you must now address me as Dr.Curmudgeon, and as such, I declare you certifiably insane.

Don't you find it the least bit sad that you've got to continually lower the standards, for just about everything, in support of Bush??

Your completely missing the fact that Guckert was already denied press credentials by one branch of our government for not meeting their established standards. He was then granted access by the WH, on a DAY BY DAY basis, for two years, even though they share the SAME REQUIREMENTS! These reporters are vetted by the FBI, and must pass background checks in order to make it into the WH press corp. Somehow, his lack of requirements went "unnoticed" all that time, if we're to believe he wasn't planted.

You continually avoided saying ANYTHING about Dan Rather...  Your words are anything BUT genuine on this point.

You neglected to quote the second half of my statement. Anyhow, this issue has nothing to do with Dan Rather, so enjoy suckin' on the Red Herring.

Never mind the fact that the website's story was proven to be true, if YOU don't bash the people who show the bias of the major news outlets, who will?

"Maryland's faux-family-values Governor Erlich had to fire his aide for getting caught spreading FALSE rumors about the family life of a potential opponent... One of his favorite fora for dishing this made-up dirt? FreeRepublic."

Yeah. Who will, Drew? Who will?

Trying to equate what you do with "holding this administration accountable" is laughable, and you MIGHT be able to fool some folks into believing it, if you weren't so transparent and your very own words didn't tell a far different story than you wish to paint about yourself.

Ever the conspiracy theorist Drew.  Ssshhhh! I'm really out to turn America into a Islamic Utopia. Don't tell anyone. Sheesh.. I thought us "lefties" were the tin-foil hat crowd.

You seem to think ALL that was at issue with Clinton was a blow job.

I've never met a man who should have lost his job for lying about a blow job. Have you? Btw, it wasn't about a blow job. It was about Republicans trying to bring down one of the most popular and successful Democratic president's of our time. All they could get him on was lying about a personal matter that any man on earth would probably lie about if caught. I'm not justifying his actions, I just don't think they warrant the amount of vile hatred spewed forth from your side. Talk about transparent. Your "moral outrage" was scripted by Ken Starr.

It's probably why folks have a hard time not choking when you offer platitudes such as "investigate the story yourself", "let the story speak for itself", or "it's my duty to hold him accountable".  You'd probably garner a lot more respectability if you'd simply follow your own advice.

And you'd have a lot more respectability if you'd actually address the issue at hand, and the topic of this thread, as opposed to making this about Dan Rather, Clinton and mr.Curmudgeon.


mrC
P.S. I always know when you're defending the indefensible, because you always try to come after me and completely avoid the topic, or like fredster, you just change it completely.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Keep in mind that EVERYONE, even the French and Germans, were in full agreement that he must possess those weapons. 

That fact will NEVER be accepted. 

So you are actually *FOR* a "Global Test"? Huh. Who'da thunk it?!

The French and Germans believed what the Bush administration told them, because America once had integrity. They won't be fooled again. Case in point, even the Brits are beginning to distance themselves from the U.S. in regards to Bush's failing about over Iran.

"JACK STRAW has drawn up a dossier putting the case against a military attack on Iran amid fears that President George W Bush

[Crazy Cooter]

Fredster, go to the UN website to see what they have done in the past 20 years, besides, the UN isn't "ours" to disban.

[ChadTower]

Fact no one has mentioned about those Iraqi casualties:

A large % of them were killed by Iraqis.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Fact no one has mentioned about those Iraqi casualties:

A large % of them were killed by Iraqis.

What percentage?

Via Iraqbodycount.org: "Individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media" show that U.S. military has killed at least 18,000+ civilians. I'd hazard a guess that the number is *well* beyond that, as cluster bombs and bunker busters have a habit of leaving nothing but dust.

And either way, we brought the civil unrest, so your claim of large percentages of people being killed by other Iraqis doesn't wash the blood off of U.S. hands. No matter how hard you scrub.

mrC

[DrewKaree]

Did they believe the information available warranted military action?
That is the point.  They did not, Bush did.  He asked for help ("Coalition"), they said no.  Were they 100% sure or 99%?  Who cares?  It was bogus info.

And you demonstrate yet again, that "Did they believe the information available warranted military action?" IS NOT, in fact, "the point". 

You point to wondering about it warranting military action.  If they wondered about military action, then they believed him to possess WMD's. 

Then, you conclude that nobody cares about the percentage of "how sure were they", and then claim it was bogus info. 

The POINT is that Bush acted on info that everyone believed to be true, while everyone who hates him wants to paint these actions as "Bush Lied". 

Which is it CC?  Everyone agreed on the information, or Bush lied?  If everyone agreed on the information, then not only can you NOT say Bush lied, you also can't tell me it was "bogus info" that Bush somehow cooked up to sell this war.

Whether military action was warranted or not has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the belief and intel by other countries that Sadaam possessed WMD's.

You don't even realize you're proving the very point I was telling Chad.

And Drew, we should focus on the women and kids killed.  How many of the 100,000+ civilians killed over there have been women and children?  That's an important fact that shouldn't be swept under the table.

Then how about being at least a LITTLE honest and speak of ALL the people killed, instead of attempting the little guilt trip.  You've NEVER seen me say we should sweep it under the table, but you HAVE seen Dexter bring this up as if we're ONLY killing women and children.  Please.  You know the point I'm making, and you know it's disingenuous to bring it up in that fashion, and is only done so to promote an agenda.

In order to be a legitimate journalist, you should have SOMETHING.  If not a degree, several years of experience in the field.  These people should be seasoned professionals, (and even they can be stupid and not check facts).

The fact that even those seasoned professionals can be stupid and not check facts should demonstrate that the idea of a "legitimate" journalist is a myth.  Several years of experience in the field doesn't make someone legitimate, it simply makes them seasoned.  Perhaps seasoned in how to somewhat disguise the slant to their stories, perhaps seasoned in how to ensure their story recieves massive attention, perhaps seasoned in how to fake "credibility", but please don't try to sell me on how "putting in their time" somehow makes someone "legitimate".  John Edwards was a more legitimate presidential candidate for the Democratic party, but according to your standard, they put forth the guy who was deemed more "legitimate", and used the guy they should have gone with, as VP, in order to prop up Kerry where his "legitimacy" was in question. 

BUT the fact is that he was granted access without proper credentials (I call that "planted"), and then used that position to further the administrations agenda by "steering" the direction of the news conferences away from important topics.  THAT's where I object.

Thank goodness we have Helen Thomas to even it all out.  She can speak for the goat-loving population of the world. 

If one guy (and one incapable of maintaining anonymity, at that) was capable of steering the direction of an entire news conference away from important topics, then the bigger question you should be asking is why aren't these other reporters, sorry, "journalists", capable of sticking with the story they were searching for.  Perhaps doing a little more of that "fact checking" you spoke of instead of being so servile might have given them the backbone they needed to ask the tough questions they were so dazzlingly talked out of by this Svengali.

I'll care about this guy when stories that leave NO DOUBT as to their intended purpose of trying to affect the opinion about a presidential candidate don't "just happen" to come out in the weeks before the election, or in the case of my state, the smear stories that come out the EVENING BEFORE AND MORNING OF the election.  Please tell me that the YEAR of campaigning prior to the election wouldn't have brought out some DUI story, and that it somehow wouldn't have come out the DAY BEFORE the election. 

Yeah, somehow it only happens on the right.

[DrewKaree]

I'm not justifying his actions, I just don't think they warrant the amount of vile hatred spewed forth from your side. Talk about transparent. Your "moral outrage" was scripted by Ken Starr.

It probably never occurred to you to read what I had to say on this subject, but I'll say it again but I didn't think his actions warranted putting the country through all of that either.  You can pin your "moral outrage" charge elsewhere.  (btw, this is my "writing a letter"....see, if I don't believe or disagree with something, I'm direct enough to say it here, rather than tell everyone "I did something I can't prove, and I don't have the personal conviction to type it out loud here instead of avoiding it)

And you'd have a lot more respectability if you'd actually address the issue at hand, and the topic of this thread, as opposed to making this about Dan Rather, Clinton and mr.Curmudgeon.

I have, and each of the things you brought up DO relate to this thread, as much as you'd like to think they don't.  Your failure to get this worked up over Mr Rather relates to you, and the opinions you've expressed over this man directly equate to Dan Rather.  Pointing out your outrage on one issue and your avoidance of an equal issue when it relates to others of your stripe is EXACTLY what is needed in this thread. 

In case anyone missed it, I didn't bring up Clinton, Chad did, and assessing it to me probably has people questioning how you can keep facts straight.  I was simply replying - now follow the order, since you can't seem to keep the facts straight, I'll repeat it for you - to a statement from Chad, fredster, and lastly, YOU.  Also, Mr Rather was brought up by others before me, as they see the relevance as well. 

Perhaps you'd like to re-read the thread.  Assessing respectability is probably better left to someone who is able to follow the thread, and clearly, that rules you out.

...completely avoid the topic, or like fredster, you just change it completely.

I did neither, but simply responded to that which has already been put forth....AND addressed the topic.

Again, I point to the Dan Rather thread and your very own attempts to do that which you charge of me here.  In fact, you addressed the topic there less than I've done here.  It's probably why you can't comprehend how THAT subject relates to THIS subject. 

I purposefully stayed out of this topic this long because I KNEW you had no clue how the two subjects related to each other and that trying to demonstrate it to you would be fruitless, but you just have a knack for sucking people in with inane comments about what constitutes "legitimacy" and double-speak about "reading for yourself" while demonstrating that you won't when it comes to proving yourself wrong. 

That this is a non-story with so little bearing on anything is lost on you.  You should instead be initiating another "letter-writing" campaign to these nincompoop "legitimate journalists" who were so incapable of continuing their "hard-hitting" line of questioning because they were so overcome by this dime-store Svengali.  If the rest of these guys were so "legitimate", why are you arguing (without realizing it, naturally) that, in fact, they AREN'T?

[DrewKaree]

Fact no one has mentioned about those Iraqi casualties:

A large % of them were killed by Iraqis.

100%

(see?  I can pull a DanJeff RatherGannon too! Soon I'll have my very own "legitimate" N.Y. Times press credentials!  )

[Crazy Cooter]

Bush acted on information he thought was true.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

In case anyone missed it, I didn't bring up Clinton, Chad did, and assessing it to me probably has people questioning how you can keep facts straight.  I was simply replying - now follow the order, since you can't seem to keep the facts straight, I'll repeat it for you - to a statement from Chad, fredster, and lastly, YOU.  Also, Mr Rather was brought up by others before me, as they see the relevance as well.

Meeeooowwrrr!!!  Catty much? ...and Chad has accused me of being condescending?...it's getting ridiculous. I never suggested you started on the Clinton excuse...but I did address your quote "You seem to think ALL that was at issue with Clinton was a blow job." Don't lecture me on reading comprehension if you can't follow the thread yourself.

Perhaps you'd like to re-read the thread.  Assessing respectability is probably better left to someone who is able to follow the thread, and clearly, that rules you out.

You must really be worked into a lather about this? So far you've said next to *nothing* about the facts regarding "Gannon's" proven illegitimacy, connections to right-wing conservative groups associated w/ Bush Co., and/or his mysterious presence in the White House, other than defending his lack of journalism background with some lame attempt at bagging on Rather. I guess defending the criminals in the White House is starting to wear on you.

It's probably why you can't comprehend how THAT subject relates to THIS subject. 

I love how disagreeing w/ you means I somehow don't comprehend you and your ultimate wisdom. Dude, I get what your saying, and I don't believe it relates. Dan Rather is only relevant to you because it allows you some level of moral justification for "Gannon's" presence , as you feel it somehow offsets what you see as "liberal bias" in the media. It's classic "two wrongs make a right." You can come down from the pedestal now.

I purposefully stayed out of this topic this long because I KNEW you had no clue how the two subjects related to each other and that trying to demonstrate it to you would be fruitless, but you just have a knack for sucking people in with inane comments about what constitutes "legitimacy" and double-speak about "reading for yourself" while demonstrating that you won't when it comes to proving yourself wrong. 

WAAAAAAAAH!!!! Jesus. It's fruitless because I ain't buying it. It's a lame-ass red herring. Let me clear something up for you re: my "outrage"...Dan Rather's "MemoGate" was the lead story on EVERY FRIGGIN news station for 3 weeks straight. An investigation was being launched into the memos authenticity before his 60-minutes piece was even finished. He no longer works for CBS, four people have been fired as well, everyone but you has moved on. I wasn't going to march outside CBS news since the wingnuts were already climbing over each other to get there. I said Rather got what he deserved, and I feel he's done more damage than good. "GannonGate", on the other hand, is an embarrassment to journalists across the board, and as such, his story has received 1-2% (Guessing here) of the coverage "Memogate" had in the SCLM (So-Called Liberal Media). The right hates the story because it exposes the fallacy of the "liberal media." When the leader of the free world and his spokespeople can call on fabricated journalists in order to spread administration propaganda, you sound kinda' nutty, cryin' about liberal bias. Nobody is "legitmate" in your eyes if they question the President. It's like Nazi Germany, only without all the cool arm-bands.

If one guy (and one incapable of maintaining anonymity, at that) was capable of steering the direction of an entire news conference away from important topics, then the bigger question you should be asking is why aren't these other reporters, sorry, "journalists", capable of sticking with the story they were searching for.

Just so you know, this is what is called a "Straw man" fallacy. It doesn't address the existence of "Gannon", nor his presence in the WH. It also makes a nice side dish to your Red Herring argument about Dan Rather. Other journalists and their lack of focus has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the WH aided and abetted a fraud.

That this is a non-story with so little bearing on anything is lost on you.  You should instead be initiating another "letter-writing" campaign to these nincompoop "legitimate journalists" who were so incapable of continuing their "hard-hitting" line of questioning because they were so overcome by this dime-store Svengali.  If the rest of these guys were so "legitimate", why are you arguing (without realizing it, naturally) that, in fact, they AREN'T?

Nothing but op-ed and more straw men. I have plenty of beef with the kowtowing journalists present in the WH press corp, myself. It still doesn't justify "Gannon's" existence in the WH. Sorry. "Gannon" and "bad journalists" are not the same thing. "Gannon" was a phony plant used to misdirect press conferences and change the line of questioning, because this administration is too chicken-$hit to answer to the public. Bad journalists are people that just don't ask good questions, or inject their own bias into a story. It's not the same as a fabricated "journalist" being used to spread blatant propaganda coming from within the administration itself.

As much as your side seems to hate Helen Thomas (contrary to your whining up-thread about weak-kneed journalists not being able to control the questioning in the WH, I can only IMAGINE the foam spewing from your frothing jowls were one to actually offer a "hard-hitting" direct line of questioning to the WH)...at least Helen Thomas is her real name. Conservatives are cowards.

Sincerely,
"Dr.C"

P.S. DAN RATHER'S MEMOGATE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "GANNON".