"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".

[fredster]

Cooter,

I have no doubt about we killed a lot of MILITARY in Iraq, not "civilians".

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It's not the same as a fabricated "journalist" being used to spread blatant propaganda coming from within the administration itself.

You don't know that. You hope that. You wish it were true, past that, nothing. You reason it to be real, so it is.

I hadn't "reasoned" any untruth to be real. "Gannon" was found out. There is always the possibility that there may be other's, even liberal "plants". But until they are discovered, I'll save the conjecture for you guys.

I see a lot of critisim of the past, but no answers from the left for the future.. Everytime I ask a question in these threads about what should we do next It's - "well if bush hadn't have done this or that"

BULL. SH!T. Many people on this side of the aisle, including myself, have offered NUMEROUS suggestions/plans/idioms/theories/strategies/ideas that in NO WAY involve bashing Bush, and/or wallowing in the past. If you haven't heard them, then you're not listening. Furthermore, some debates may very well involve elements of the past, and may include criticism (which unbeknownst to Conservatives and Right-wingers, is not "bashing") of Bush's decisions, because that cannot always be avoided, since he *is* the president and his past decision's *do* effect the present and future of a given situation.

Conservatives are cowards
You don't know many do you? If you did, you wouldn't be saying that. Come down here to the south and say something like that.

Isn't the very definition of Conservatism, "preferring gradual development to abrupt change", ie: fearful of modernity and progress?  Well, the 21st century says.............."BOO!"

No Answer - Said the man who supports a president that has given the least amount of press conferences (answering to the public) in the history of the presidency.
No Plan - Said the man who supports a president w/ no post-war plan in Iraq.
No Vision - Said the man who supports a president, so blinded by corporate greed, he'd seek to dismantle/privitize (even against the wishes of a majority of his own party) one of the largest and most important social assistance programs in our nations history.

save one. "Bush is bad" and rant rant rant.

When a man is bad, that's all he gives you to work with, so don't shoot the messenger. I'm not going to praise him for the sake of it. He has to do something right first. When did you Bush supporters become so joined at the hip w/ the Boy-King that any criticism of him is a personal insult to you? The next four years are going to suck as bad for you as it is for us "Bush-bashers"...get over it now, he ain't gettin' any smarter.

"Dr.C"

[fredster]

Do I see a man on the street with a sign that says "THE WORLD IS ENDING TODAY" on it?

NUMEROUS suggestions/plans/idioms/theories/strategies/ideas that in NO WAY involve bashing Bush

Right. Sure. 

Said the man who supports a president, so blinded by corporate greed, he'd seek to dismantle/privitize (even against the wishes of a majority of his own party) one of the largest and most important social assistance programs in our nations history.

Last I heard, the President hasn't even presented his plan. How can you tear apart a plan that you haven't seen? What are the ACTUAL details of his plan? You don't know, unless you work for him now do you?  That kinda REEKS of "bush bashing" to me.

Isn't the very definition of Conservatism, "preferring gradual development to abrupt change", ie: fearful of modernity and progress?  Well, the 21st century says.............."BOO!"

  By that definition, I'd say Bush is a liberal.  He wants to abruptly change the world and abruptly change the tax system and abruptly change the social security system. He's one of you!!!!

When a man is bad, that's all he gives you to work with, so don't shoot the messenger.

"The man is BAD" again you aren't working off a fact sheet, you are working off the premise that he's bad.  It's a logical fallacy to say that since he's bad, all of his decisions are bad.

Check this list MrC, you can work up your arguments from here, you are only half way through the list.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy#A_list_of_fallacies)

[ChadTower]

No Plan - Said the man who supports a president w/ no post-war plan in Iraq.

Really?  Why do you assume that?  Is it because he has not shared it with you?  Or because he has not shared it with me?  Why would you be so important that such a plan requires your input and approval?  Why would I be?  While I disagree with being there or having gone there, I suspect I understand what he is trying to do and I do see a plan.  I don't have to agree with it to connect some pretty large dots and acknowledge a logical chain of events. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Last I heard, the President hasn't even presented his plan. How can you tear apart a plan that you haven't seen? What are the ACTUAL details of his plan? You don't know, unless you work for him now do you?

More importantly..*why* hasn't he presented the ACTUAL details of his plan? He is campaigning around the country, trying to strongarm opposition Democrats, yet...he hasn't unveiled the plan he's campaigning for? Sounds like a boondoggle to me.

Anyhow, there is enough information coming from this administration to make a valid criticism of Bush's planned direction w/ SS, without the bean-counting details. I suppose you'd have us wait until he ACTUALLY passed a reform bill before stepping up to the plate to voice concern?

Anyhow, let's save the Social Security debate for the other thread...personally, I don't care to debate it further, since Bush's plan is dead in the water. He can't even muster anything more than whimpering support from his own base. He just handed the Democrats a 'golden goose' platform for '06 w/ the whole privatization thingy.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

No Plan - Said the man who supports a president w/ no post-war plan in Iraq.

Really?  Why do you assume that?

It has nothing to do with assumptions. Maybe I should have added no "realistic" and/or "feasible" post-war plan, to be more clear. He hasn't provided our troops w/ enough armor because he didn't think we'd be policing the streets in the middle of an insurgency ("Greeted as liberators!!", "Flowers & candy!!"). He originally intended to "hand over" Iraq to Chalabi and his crew, until he turned out to be an Iranian spy. That's some plan!! He has yet to set-up an infrastructure capable of training enough Iraqi troops to take over these duties as well. The latest counts show that as little as 5000 Iraqis have been trained to combat ready levels. This administration seem to be throwing guys in uniforms, with little or no training, unarmed in some cases...just to inflate the numbers.

"Instead, only figures for troops "on hand" are issued. The small number of soldiers, national guardsmen and police capable of operating against the country's bloody insurgency is concealed in an overall total of Iraqis in uniform, which includes raw recruits and police who have gone on duty after as little as three weeks' training. In some cases they have no weapons, body armor or even documents to show they are in the police.

The resulting confusion over numbers has allowed the US administration to claim that it is half-way to meeting the target of training almost 270,000 Iraqi forces, including around 52,000 troops and 135,000 Iraqi policemen. The reality, according to experts, is that there may be as few as 5,000 troops who could be considered combat ready"

While I disagree with being there or having gone there, I suspect I understand what he is trying to do and I do see a plan.

Having a desired goal, is *not* the same as having a solvent plan for achieving it.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Well, in a more than likely vain attempt to get this thread back on track:

"BIG Gannon story coming tomorrow"
by John in DC - 2/13/2005 07:26:00 PM

I'm wrapping it up now. It's big. Very big. I've just contacted him for comment. If he now decides to go public to pre-empt my story, well, you heard it here first. Stay tuned."

Stay tuned people...I hope this pans out. Sounds exciting. I bet Drew can't wait!!

EDIT: Our first hint.
"The watch was a very important clue. Kudos to whomever of you noticed it first a few days ago. Here's another new photo of it you haven't seen before:"


(via: AMERICAblog)


mrC: I certainly hope this is something interesting, since we already know Guckert *is* "Gannon", we didn't need the watch to conclude that. Hmmm....remember, this story has always been bigger than just "Gannon". Drew/fredster, et al. seem to think it's about journalistic integrity, but it's more about the people linked to "Gannon" than anything else. Hopefully, soon, he will become insignificant and we can move to the real "meat" of the story.



mrC

[ChadTower]

Having a desired goal, is *not* the same as having a solvent plan for achieving it.

That appears to the the difference between our opinions.  I see a purpose and a plan, both working well.  They don't jibe with STATED goals or plans, but I see what I believe to be a coherent plan proceeding fully.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Having a desired goal, is *not* the same as having a solvent plan for achieving it.

That appears to the the difference between our opinions.

Definitely. Out of curiosity though, not that I'm trying to pin anything on you, but what would need to happen for you to consider the plan to be not working?

So far, from my perspective, all Bush has managed to do is take a uniquely secular Arab state and align it more closely with the theocracy next door. Somehow, I have trouble imagining that is part of a "successful strategy" in Iraq.

"But, in one of the greatest ironies of the U.S. intervention, Iraqis instead went to the polls and elected a government with a strong religious base -- and very close ties to the Islamic republic next door. It is the last thing the administration expected from its costly Iraq policy -- $300 billion and counting, U.S. and regional analysts say."

mrC

[ChadTower]

Definitely. Out of curiosity though, not that I'm trying to pin anything on you, but what would need to happen for you to consider the plan to be not working?

I would conclude that it is NOT working if I could NOT think of a plausible goal based on the evidence I can see.  I can see a reason for it to be the way it is, an intentional reason that would in fact be the type of military stratagem that would not be disclosable to the general public.  I have faith that it is our seasoned military leaders, and not Bush himself, that are truly running the strategy.  Presidents are not military strategists, they simply choose an option from many given them by their professional military men.

If one changes the goal from Democratic, independent, self sufficient Iraq to dependent, unstable Iraq requiring our military presence, the plan could be proceeding well.  It is certainly to OUR best military advantage to have a required military presence in Iraq for quite some time.

I consider things a total failure only when I consider myself intelligent enough and in possession of enough information that I cannot see a way to success.  I see ways for them to be succeeding in their plans so I will not conclude it to be a true failure yet.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

mrC: I certainly hope this is something interesting, since we already know Guckert *is* "Gannon", we didn't need the watch to conclude that. Hmmm....

From a poster on AMERICAblog: "D-R-I-N-K-M-O-R-E-O-V-A-L-T-I-N-E"


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! I hope it's better than that, but I won't get my hopes up. 
mrC

[fredster]

Last I heard, the President hasn't even presented his plan. How can you tear apart a plan that you haven't seen? What are the ACTUAL details of his plan? You don't know, unless you work for him now do you?

More importantly..*why* hasn't he presented the ACTUAL details of his plan? He is campaigning around the country, trying to strongarm opposition Democrats, yet...he hasn't unveiled the plan he's campaigning for? Sounds like a boondoggle to me.

So, you haven't seen the Plan, and apparently you haven't been Listening to him either. So you are "ranting" about something you haven't had a chance to see if it will work or give it a chance, or offer any solution, or even really want to see it **nuff said on that subject.

I consider things a total failure only when I consider myself intelligent enough and in possession of enough information that I cannot see a way to success.

I suggest you get a bigger sign. Maybe that will help. Start beating a tamborene or something to make your point " The sky is falling" etc.

Because I suspect that if one the greatest Military victorys of the Modern era isn't a "success" to you, then I'm not sure what would be. The transformation of a tyranny to a democracy isn't a success, then you can't be convinced.

If and when the Middle east has Iraq and Afgahnistan as an example of what freedom can do to the rest of these countries, we can see a very huge benifit.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

If and when the Middle east has Iraq and Afgahnistan as an example of what freedom can do to the rest of these countries, we can see a very huge benifit. 

"Sky is falling" VS. "Pie in the Sky".....sounds about right.

mrC

[ChadTower]

Because I suspect that if one the greatest Military victorys of the Modern era isn't a "success" to you, then I'm not sure what would be. The transformation of a tyranny to a democracy isn't a success, then you can't be convinced.

If and when the Middle east has Iraq and Afgahnistan as an example of what freedom can do to the rest of these countries, we can see a very huge benifit. 

Iraq and Afghanistan are not democracies yet and they are not free yet.  These people don't appear to want democracy nor freedom.  The only thing preventing a bloody coup in Iraq is the US presence.  We're talking about a region that in 8000 years has not once stood up and fought for its own freedom.  What makes us think they want it now?

Stomping a vastly inferior military is not a great victory, it's an expected one.  Outlasting the Soviet Union was a great victory.  Defeating Nazi Germany was a great victory.  Iraq was something we stepped on (and in).

Iraq cannot be called a success because it is nowhere near any plausible end goal.  It cannot be called a failure for the same reason.

[fredster]

Sky is falling" VS. "Pie in the Sky".....sounds about right.

Either one is likely.  People want to live and live without oppression. It has a better chance of success than failure IMHO.

On top of Godwin's law, I now introduce "fredster's law"
Any converation on BYOAC about politics breaks down to the Iraq question.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

OMG. Jeff Guckert exposed and his credibility is ABSOLUTELY GONE. Looks like the Republicans one-upped ole' Clenis....

The breaking "Gannon" story has been released over at http://www.americablog.org/. (NOT SAFE FOR WORK!!!)

I'll quote a summary:

WOLF BLITZER: Because one of the things, as you know, that were said is that you had some sexually explicit Web sites that you were working on. I don't understand what that is, but maybe you could explain that.

JEFF GANNON: Well, several years ago, before I came to Washington, I had registered various domain names for a private client. I was doing Web site development. Those sites were never hosted. There's -- nothing ever went up on them. And the client went on to do something else. - CNN, 2/10/05

... Cut to today below ...

"Why does this matter?

So in the end, why does this matter? Why does it matter that Jeff Gannon may have been a gay hooker named James Guckert with a $20,000 defaulted court judgment against him? So he somehow got a job lobbing softball questions to the White House. Big deal. If he was already a prostitute, why not be one in the White House briefing room as well?

This is the Conservative Republican Bush White House we're talking about. It's looking increasingly like they made a decision to allow a hooker to ask the President of the United States questions. They made a decision to give a man with an alias and no journalistic experience access to the West Wing of the White House on a "daily basis." They reportedly made a decision to give him - one of only six - access to documents, or information in those documents, that exposed a clandestine CIA operative. Say what you will about Monika Lewinsky - a tasteless episode, "inappropriate," whatever. Monika wasn't a gay prostitute running around the West Wing. What kind of leadership would let prostitutes roam the halls of the West Wing? What kind of war-time leadership can't find the same information that took bloggers only days to find?

None of this is by accident.

Someone had to make a decision to let all this happen. Who? Someone committed a crime in exposing Valerie Plame and now it appears a gay hooker may be right in the middle of all of it? Who?

Ultimately, it is the hypocrisy that is such a challenge to grasp in this story. This is the same White House that ran for office on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. While they are surrounded by gay hookers? While they use a gay hooker to write articles for their gay hating political base? While they use a gay hooker to destroy a political enemy? Not to mention the hypocrisy of a "reporter" who chooses to publish article after article defending the ant-gay religious-right point of view on gay civil rights issue.

Who in the White House is at the center of all of this? Who allowed this to go on in the People's House? Who committed the crime of exposing Valerie Plame? Jeff Gannon has the answers to these questions, and boy we know he loves to talk."


I sure hope he didn't give Bush a blowjob...where's Ken Starr when you need him. Again, I'm not sure how this'll play out. But the hypocrisy is unbelievable.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Countdown to Conservative "moral outrage" in.....3.....2.....1.....right?

[ChadTower]

On top of Godwin's law, I now introduce "fredster's law"
Any converation on BYOAC about politics breaks down to the Iraq question.

From what I've read, they always break down when people start accusing the other of bias, when people start making more snarky remarks than points, and when people start namecalling.  That's why I have made a point to do none of those things.  None of them are useful in a debate.

[ChadTower]

While they are surrounded by gay hookers?

How exactly does someone become surrounded by one person?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

While they are surrounded by gay hookers?

How exactly does someone become surrounded by one person?

LOL...he's a big guy?!   

Apparently "rough" too:
"AGGRESIVE, VERBAL, DOMINANT TOP"
I DON'T LEAVE MARKS....ONLY IMPRESSIONS"

mrC

[ChadTower]

See, that's the type of thing that makes me disbelieve the author.  Hyperbole is not effective on me.  I want facts, I want rational thinking, I want clear analysis.  That author had none of those things, instead he had the Whitehouse full of romping gay hookers dressed up like Richard Simmons.  Even if he HAD real, hard facts and astute analysis in there I will not take him seriously and neither will anyone thinking clearly.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Even if he HAD real, hard facts and astute analysis in there I will not take him seriously and neither will anyone thinking clearly.

The facts are there, dude. You just don't want to believe it. Invoices, receipts, PHOTOS!
The idea is that, if the WH would let one guy like this "morally depraved" individual into the press corp, unvetted...how many more? His hyperbole doesn't discredit the facts, just his analysis. You can still use the hard evidence to come to your own conclusion. You act like you need someone to inform you of events/situations in a way you can agree with, evidence be damned. That doesn't sound right.

I'm more interested in WHY and HOW he got there. Did someone high up, "owe" him a favor? How could they NOT know about this?

TWO MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES:

Why did he have access to a CIA memo?
Who's behind him? Who's funding him?

 I could care less about whether or not he's gay...but if this is what it takes to get "Scandalized" then whatever...personally I think Americans should have been concerned about his presence in the WH from the get-go, without all the "gay prostitute" stuff. Red staters probably won't care, 'cuz they already shown hypocrisy is fine, as long as it's their own.

That being said, there is real danger in this angle of the story, as it may completely draw attention away from the real issue at hand. The real issue is the Plame/Novak/CIA leak coming from a nobody/fake journalist/flimsy credentialed/porn-site operator/whom Scott McClellon calls on on a regular basis.

mr.C

[ChadTower]

That being said, there is real danger in this angle of the story, as it may completely draw attention away from the real issue at hand. The real issue is the Plame/Novak/CIA leak coming from a nobody/fake journalist/flimsy credentialed/porn-site operator/whom Scott McClellon calls on on a regular basis.

This is a true statement, and it is precisely why I say that hard slanted, hyperbolic articles can't be trusted.  It's not only the source that cannot be trusted.  You cannot trust the resultant response to said articles, either.  It all fits into a larger picture to those who are making a concerted effort to not be sucked into that behaviour.

[Crazy Cooter]

Jeez CT, I had no idea you were one of those "government alternate motives everywhere" kind of people too.

I put forward this:
Most of the general public doesn't think more than 5 minutes in front or behind them.  Once word gets around that this guy is a gay prostitute (or rumored to be whatever, I don't care).  The public will totally miss the fact that this guy should never been where he was.  Who better to take the blame?  Bush supporters (mostly) already think less of someone who is gay so they will miss the point, homophobes will miss the point, religious nuts (that oppose prostitution) will miss the point, and people who don't pay attention will miss the point.  Soo... 100% of non-voters, 90% of republicans and 80% of dems will completely miss the point.

Congrats Bush Administration.  Finally I can say "well done".  But I'm still   don't agree with what was done.

As a sidenote, Bush has been told NOT to reveal the details of his SS plan.  It's considered too touchy of an issue.  It's preferred that Congress fill in the blanks so if it comes apart, it won't be blamed 100% on a republican.   Pretty weak in my book.

[ChadTower]

Jeez CT, I had no idea you were one of those "government alternate motives everywhere" kind of people too.

I didn't realize protecting the citizens of the US is an ulterior motive.

I put forward this:
Most of the general public doesn't think more than 5 minutes in front or behind them.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The real issue will be obscured because this guy is gay.

I'm starting to think the Republicans are so insidious, that they've developed a methodology for scandal that involves building inherent "scandal fuses" into any potentially damaging situation. These fuses are then blown when the scandal starts to overload, and those who drew all the power are never damaged.

Like, "Hey, let's manufacture a media whore, who'll shill for Bus, re-direct the questioning of the WH press corp, and right hit-pieces on the opposition...but let's make him an *ACTUAL* man-whore, so if he's caught, no one will care about anything other than the OMGZ HE'S THE GAY MANWHOREZ!!!11"

Damn, stinkin' Rats.


mrC

[ChadTower]

I'm starting to think the Republicans are so insidious, that they've developed a methodology for scandal that involves building inherent "scandal fuses" into any potentially damaging situation. These fuses are then blown when the scandal starts to overload, and those who drew all the power are never damaged.

ALL parties do that.  That's what the Democrats did with Clinton, had the sex stuff come out to cover over the Whitewater investigations.  THAT was the real political danger, yet 90% of the public has no idea how many people went to jail or were killed over Whitewater.  All anyone remembers is that Clinton stuck a cigar in Monica and smoked it.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

That's what the Democrats did with Clinton, had the sex stuff come out to cover over the Whitewater investigations.

Yet the Republicans were allowed to organize a $70-million dollar tax-payer funded lynch mob and impeach him on it anyhow. What about this WH and the current sex cover-up? Where's our Ken Starr? Where's the justice? Hopefully it's coming down the pipe. I imagine this is *far* from over...

I hope they get to the bottom of this and I hope it doesn't stop at "Scott McClellan's gay lover got a cushy job lobbing softball questions to his beloved." /conjecture. Anyhow, that's a lot to hope for, given the things this administration has already gotten away with. They seem to reward incompetence and encourage chicanery, and no one seem to care.

The real question is, in a post 9/11 ultra-tight security laced WH, how/when did a male prostitute get the privileges to hear/see/read classified information about an undercover CIA operative? Pillow talk?

mrC

[ChadTower]

Pillow talk?

One cannot talk with their face jammed into a pillow.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

THESE ARE HILARIOUS!!  A satirist couldn't write better stuff. Too bad "Gannon" stopped short of, "Mr. McClellan...I have a follow-up to that last softball, why is President Bush so awesome?"

Some of Gannon's greatest hits, as featured in a video montage on Olberman's show last night:

May 10, 2004: "Q In your denunciations of the Abu Ghraib photos, you've used words like 'sickening,' 'disgusting' and 'reprehensible.' Will you have any adjectives left to adequately describe the pictures from Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers? And will Americans ever see those images?

"MR. McCLELLAN: I'm glad you brought that up, Jeff, because the President talks about that often."

July 15, 2004: "Q Last Friday, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report that shows that Ambassador Joe Wilson lied when he said his wife didn't put him up for the mission to Niger. The British inquiry into their own prewar intelligence yesterday concluded that the President's 16 words were 'well-founded.' Doesn't Joe Wilson owe the President and America an apology for his deception and his own intelligence failure?"

April 1, 2004: "Q I'd like to comment on the angry mob that surrounded Karl Rove's house on Sunday. They chanted and pounded on the windows until the D.C. police and Secret Service were called in. The protest was organized by the National People's Action Coalition, whose members receive taxpayer funds, as well as financial support from groups including Theresa Heinz Kerry's Tides Foundation.

"MR. McCLELLAN: I would just say that, one, we appreciate and understand concerns that people may have. I would certainly hope that people would respect the families of White House staff."

Feb. 10, 2004: "Q Since there have been so many questions about what the President was doing over 30 years ago, what is it that he did after his honorable discharge from the National Guard? Did he make speeches alongside Jane Fonda, denouncing America's racist war in Vietnam? Did he testify before Congress that American troops committed war crimes in Vietnam? And did he throw somebody else's medals at the White House to protest a war America was still fighting?"

Is Drew really Jeff "Gannon"...and how did he get a job in the WH? Is he still renting himself out? If so, how much for a weekend? I could use a hand building my cab...

[ChadTower]

Is he still renting himself out? If so, how much for a weekend? I could use a hand building my cab...

...oose.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Like Gannon said "people detached from reality".  It hit a nerve with the dems and forced them to wake up a minute.

Just wanted to clear this up, Guckert's "divorced from reality quote", as horrible a partisan comment it was, was not the thing that got the left up in arms. That the Right claims to have a monopoly on reality, while eschewing it for "faith", is nothing shocking. What finally drove Guckert out into the light was this, (from the Washington Post):

"Pretty much every day, Gannon got cleared into the White House briefing room by a press office that knew his real name. Press Secretary Scott McClellan frequently called on him during the mid-day briefings, using his fake name. McClellan was consistently rewarded with questions that -- in stark contrast from most of what passes for questions in that room -- were more expressions of conservative dogma than actual attempts to elicit information. Members of the press corps individually confronted Gannon and told him that he didn't belong there. But nothing more serious than that happened -- until Bush called on him at his televised Jan. 26 news conference and he asked a loaded, inaccurate question partly derived from a Rush Limbaugh joke.

In the ensuing days, liberal Web sites and an army of bloggers determined his real name, called attention to his lack of journalistic credentials, found a link to gay porn Web sites, pointed out how that ran afoul of his "family values" positions, and apparently hounded him into resigning."

Mr. Guckert was caught plagiarizing one of Rush's lame jokes, trying to pass it off as fact...too bad he chose to do so by disparaging new minority leader Harry Reid (D), a Dem with some newfound backbone. He stood up for himself,  the left took up the cause of defending him as well. The research into "Gannon" ensued and his shadowy life was flushed out into the open. Don't let Guckert play the victim here, he's an ass, and he's getting what he deserves.

mrC

[ChadTower]

I have to admit, when so much of your post (and it usually is) is someone else's work, I don't read it.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I have to admit, when so much of your post (and it usually is) is someone else's work, I don't read it.

Boo hoo.

It's called supporting evidence, and you don't use any because you never have it. I always give credit for the quote, and I link when necessary.

And here's some more for you, from a press "gaggle" shortly after Guckert came to light. Proof that McClellan was complicit in hiding "Gannon's" true name:

" Q Jeff Gannon. How did he get a White House pass, or what kind of credentials did he have?

MR. McCLELLAN: Just like anyone else who comes to the White House.

Q Hard pass?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, he had never applied for a hard pass. He had a daily pass. I think he's been coming for --

Q Was he coming for --

MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on. I think he's been coming for more than two years now.

Q Under what name?

MR. McCLELLAN: Sorry?

Q Under what name?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you have to get cleared. You have to -- just like anybody else that comes to the White House, you have to have your full name, your Social Security number and your birth date. So you have to be cleared just like anybody else.

Q So he was being cleared under James Guckert, or whatever his name is?

MR. McCLELLAN: My understanding, yes...

Q But did you know during all this time that he really wasn't Jeff Gannon?

MR. McCLELLAN: I heard at some point, yes -- previously."

mrC

[ChadTower]

It's called supporting evidence, and you don't use any because you never have it.

The sources you use are not the type of sources I go to for evidence.  Evidence is a fact, cold and hard.  Places like the Washington Post wouldn't know what to do with a fact if it were cold and hard and shoved up their behind.  I don't quote sources because the things I post are my own opinion, formed by critical thought after reading several items on the subject from both sides of the fence.

[DrewKaree]

May 10, 2004: "Q In your denunciations of the Abu Ghraib photos, you've used words like 'sickening,' 'disgusting' and 'reprehensible.' Will you have any adjectives left to adequately describe the pictures from Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers? And will Americans ever see those images?

"MR. McCLELLAN: I'm glad you brought that up, Jeff, because the President talks about that often."

July 15, 2004: "Q Last Friday, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report that shows that Ambassador Joe Wilson lied when he said his wife didn't put him up for the mission to Niger. The British inquiry into their own prewar intelligence yesterday concluded that the President's 16 words were 'well-founded.' Doesn't Joe Wilson owe the President and America an apology for his deception and his own intelligence failure?"

April 1, 2004: "Q I'd like to comment on the angry mob that surrounded Karl Rove's house on Sunday. They chanted and pounded on the windows until the D.C. police and Secret Service were called in. The protest was organized by the National People's Action Coalition, whose members receive taxpayer funds, as well as financial support from groups including Theresa Heinz Kerry's Tides Foundation.

"MR. McCLELLAN: I would just say that, one, we appreciate and understand concerns that people may have. I would certainly hope that people would respect the families of White House staff."

Feb. 10, 2004: "Q Since there have been so many questions about what the President was doing over 30 years ago, what is it that he did after his honorable discharge from the National Guard? Did he make speeches alongside Jane Fonda, denouncing America's racist war in Vietnam? Did he testify before Congress that American troops committed war crimes in Vietnam? And did he throw somebody else's medals at the White House to protest a war America was still fighting?"

So these are examples of the softball questions that take the press conferences off track and can't be brought back to the topics that "needed" to be brought up?

My humblest apologies. 

I have NO idea what I was thinking!  Somebody call the cops! 

Seems Mr. Olberman found the life boat he needed after leaving his cushy job as Dan Patrick's sidekick.  At least he's still funny - he'll ALWAYS be the best second-fiddle ESPN ever had (unless you're into STOOYA Scott  )

We're EVER so glad you pointed out exactly what you meant.

To aid you in your cause, I'm starting the petition to impeach President Bush.

Enter your complete name, address, and signature on the line provided below.  They have some stiff rules, though.  They won't accept any information that doesn't fit on the line, so make sure to write neat.  Someone start us off - remember - stay on the line provided.

1.      

[ChadTower]

1. W

[DrewKaree]

1. W

AWW man, that sucks!  I think everyone agrees with William Jefferson Clinton, but since all he can fit on there is the first letter of his name, we'll have to disregard his signature  (besides, that just looks like sour grapes to be the "me first, me first" guy to sign up )

[ChadTower]

Concede it, man, that was a great response.   

[DrewKaree]

Only if you'll conced it was easy to deflect and just as funny a retort!

NEVER!  alright, that was pretty funny!

[ChadTower]

I'll go so far as saying it was easily deflected but will also say the deflection wasn't nearly as funny.   

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I have to admit, when so much of your post (and it usually is) is someone else's work, I don't read it.

This also begs the question...Do you read Drew's posts?? or do you just avoid mine because I'm of a different political persuasion than you?

Drew usually quotes a whole article and makes it ONE BIG LINK. At least I provide what I'm able to deem the most relevant portion.

Cases in point:
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,30674.msg272642.html#msg272642
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,31259.msg272643.html#msg272643
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,31921.msg272650.html#msg272650
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,31854.msg272648.html#msg272648
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,31508.msg272647.html#msg272647

mrC

[ChadTower]

I often scroll past his, too, for the same reason.

[DrewKaree]

Drew usually quotes a whole article and makes it ONE BIG LINK. At least I provide what I'm able to deem the most relevant portion.

Cases in point:
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,30674.msg272642.html#msg272642
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,31259.msg272643.html#msg272643
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,31921.msg272650.html#msg272650
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,31854.msg272648.html#msg272648
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,31508.msg272647.html#msg272647

That's funny! 

Chad, you should click the links he's pointing you to and just read ONE of them.  Really, as a favor to me, click ANY of the links he's pointing you to, and read one story the whole way through.  I think you'll see why I asked you to do it after you're done...especially the last sentence in each article....it should help clear up what I deemed "relevant"    You'll probably WANT to read the rest of them after you give just a single one of them a quick perusal.

Ummm, just a guess, C, but you didn't read them either, did you?  Or did you just take them seriously?  It's GOT to be one or the other, because you did a better job pointing out your ignorance than I could have EVER hoped for! 

Oh, and they're ALL "relevant".  Every link.   

pssst, careful when those guys offer you that new white coat with the buckles up the back...they're NOT your friends.  Run.  I made this really small so "they" couldn't read it!  IXNAY, IXNAY!

   

[fredster]

Yhaaannn. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Or did you just take them seriously?  It's GOT to be one or the other, because you did a better job pointing out your ignorance than I could have EVER hoped for!

I know they are satire. That's not my point.  The point is your tendency to quote other people's work verbatim. That fact that they are satire makes them even more irrelevant to the conversation.

Your desperate "gotcha" game is pretty tired Drew and it insults my intelligence..and frankly, yours as well.

P.S. I also find it amusing that you've recently started somewhere between 4-6 threads containing lame @ss, tired old conservative jokes, that have "zero" replies. Oh wait...except for the one you bumped up w/ a response to yourself. oooohhh....*snap* /gotcha /irony  (I couldn't resist)

mrc

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Yhaaannn. 

KHAAAAAAAAN!!!!



mrC

[DrewKaree]

I know they are satire. That's not my point.  The point is your tendency to quote other people's work verbatim. That fact that they are satire makes them even more irrelevant to the conversation.

....and to prove your point, you chose to select only those that WERE satire    You BET I tend to quote other people's work verbatim when it's as good as I thought those witty pieces were, why I made the entire post a link, and if you weren't so inclined to check the link, you wouldn't have to, but if you found it funny, you could find others just like it. 

....and that you can't even step back for just a MOMENT to realize that the satire I posted not only ripped on liberals, but conservatives too?  Check the context - they usually poked fun at my views too.

Seriously, cut back on the caffeine or whatever winds you up to the fever pitch that doesn't allow you to even laugh A LITTLE - just as a mental break, even - once in a while.  You're going to KILL yourself with the amount of stress that can and will cause, and as much as we go back and forth, man, it's simply not worth you stressing yourself to DEATH over these things! 

Injecting some levity into these conversations (and CLEARLY that's what those were intended to do) not only is relevant, but necessary.  It helps those who might be reading them to laugh a little and realize it's ok to laugh at some of these "deathly serious" topics because at times, EVERYONE goes overboard with the rhetoric. 

Your desperate "gotcha" game is pretty tired Drew and it insults my intelligence..and frankly, yours as well.

So I guess we should BOTH stop posting things such as this....or should we continue insulting each others' intelligence?  I'll assume you don't believe you are guilty of the same, and simply shrug that off....it comes with the "everything IS NOT so serious" streak in me, even when I myself get caught up in it. 

P.S. I also find it amusing that you've recently started somewhere between 4-6 threads containing lame @ss, tired old conservative jokes, that have "zero" replies. Oh wait...except for the one you bumped up w/ a response to yourself. oooohhh....*snap* /gotcha /irony  (I couldn't resist)

Exhibit...what's the number before 1, yer honah?  I'd like to reference this to the "desparate gotcha game that insults another's intelligence"

You obviously are referring to the picture threads I posted that didn't require a response, although they DID garner a whole BUTTLOAD of views! That you think they're tired old conservative jokes doesn't bother me.  I'm not too proud to poke fun at myself or offer you a laugh at my expense.  That they at least amused you in some fashion or another means they helped to lighten your mood. 


Mission accomplished!


If this is all because you're jealous that I chose Dexter to skip arm-in-arm down the street with, it's all good, you can join in....I'm an equal opportunity skipper, I ain't too proud to be seen skipping down the street with you.  I'll even wear that pink tutu you requested, but only if you wear the tights and the tiara I requested that YOU wear.

[ChadTower]

For the record, even though that was entirely new material, I still only skimmed it lightly.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I'll even wear that pink tutu you requested, but only if you wear the tights and the tiara I requested that YOU wear.

I've had them on the whole time. Very comfortable.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Here's something new and interesting about Mr. James (The "Cannon") "Gannon"....

During the February 10 White House briefing, Press Secretary Scott McClellan stated that Jeff Gannon, "...like anyone else, showed that he was representing a news organization that published regularly" in order to receive his day pass to press briefings.

"It has been confirmed that Jeff Gannon was in the White House briefing room, actively participating in these briefings, as early as February 28, 2003 a full month before Talon News even existed"

Sweeeeet!!!

Please note: This means he was embedded in the WH, BEFORE he claims to have become a "reporter" by taking his $50 2-day course in order to join "Talon News"....WTF?


mrC

[ChadTower]

No head, no backstage pass. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

This just keeps getting better and better. Now I know why Republicans had such a hard-on for the Monica thing...this is *FUN*!!!  Thank god mr. Guckert appears to be as gossipy as Monica was.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/02/breaking-news-gannon-reportedly-knew.html

"A news producer for a major network just told me that Gannon told the producer the "shock and awe" campaign launching the Iraq war was about to happen four hours before President Bush announced it to the nation."

...

"The producer went on to say that Gannon often had correct scoops on major stories, including information about Mary Mapes and the Dan Rather BUSH/AWOL scandal that this news outlet got from Gannon before any had the information publicly."

If true, this goes WAY deeper then a kept homosexual lover planted in the WH...this guy is an administration "best of show" thoroughbred propagandist.

mrC

[ChadTower]

Mmm, hearsay.

[fredster]

If true, this goes WAY deeper then a kept homosexual lover planted in the WH...this guy is an administration "best of show" thoroughbred propagandist.

You'd like to believe that wouldn't you???

[shmokes]

I don't see what the big deal is with this Whitehouse plant.  Personally, I think it's double-plus good.  At least.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I don't see what the big deal is with this Whitehouse plant. 

Well, for me, I enjoy the sweet effervescence of the exposed, blatant hypocrisy inherent in this administrations behavior.

For example, in his 1/26 press conference, Bush said, "Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet."  His VERY NEXT QUESTION came from "Gannon."

If the President's agenda is so strong and righteous, why does he need to defer to scripted partisan lap-dogs for follow up?

The double-plus for me is the possibility that this guy was an established front used launder potentially damaging stories for this administration. If he can be linked to the Plame memo...we'll find the leak inside the WH (that Bush claims to be searching *so* hard for).

I doubt it'll go that far, but, Aaahhhh...A man can dream....

mrC

[ChadTower]

Dude, seriously, you need to have a beer and start thinking about ways to improve things rather than make them worse. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Dude, seriously, you need to have a beer and start thinking about ways to improve things rather than make them worse. 

I've had a few beers. (I definitely drink more heavily under this administration.) Beyond starting threads in an arcade forum, I am working on as many other ways to improve things, given what my livelihood and my time will allow. (I ain't rich, I need to work) I post on this forum for fun and discussion...I don't consider *this* highly effective activism, but it does inform others, and the continued debate helps me develop framing for issues outside of this environment.

Furthermore, I see bringing malfeasance to light, and removing the 'wrong doers" as one of the best ways to improve things. My political allies will see many failures, as this admin continues to wiggle out of it's responsibilities...but all they need is one success*.

Gannon existence in the WH was a tremendously huge breach of security and a tremendously huge breach of ethical standards. I know those that support Bush would love for the story to be as insignificant as they think it is, but hopefully the cover-up will not continue any longer.

mrC

*Preemptive Right-Wing Response: "Just like the terrorists!"

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Drew, from another thread:

The fact the story is gone so fast should explain the importance of the matter

[Dartful Dodger]

P.S. I'm posting this not because I feel that it validates the story - it *is* still FOX after all

That link goes to americanblog.

[fredster]

Yeah, he won't even directly link to Fox. He can't do it, he just won't let himself do it.

I saw that segment.  It puts forth both sides. I can decide. My opinion is it doesn't freaking matter. Simple.

That was the Fox News Watch show where they critique news segments and the media every week. One many of the fair and balanced shows on FoxNews.  (and if somebody disagrees, I'd like to know if they every watched Fox)

He had a pass that you could get MR.C.  If they start screaming about people not using thier names, why not go after Larry Zeigler and Gerald Riviera ?  (Larry King and Geraldo Rivera )? How many people have pen names?

In the pre-election surveys we find that over 80% of the press want to vote democratic.  Wow.  20% won't. Wow. So do we have to sort through them? Do you think that they didn't pitch Clinton some softball questions?

Gannon existence in the WH was a tremendously huge breach of security and a tremendously huge breach of ethical standards.

Sloan.com was there too. Did you rifle through the list to see who else didn't belong?  Maybe we could sort.

so-called "Liberal Media."

Read the NYT, the LAT,  watch Dan Rather, hell, read "biased". 
Keep in mind the media maybe keeping a real cap on the story because there was issues like this on both sides.  It makes them (the media) nervous to be the story.

How many other shakey criedentials are there on the left we don't know about?  Or are they totally blameless and honest? 

Besides, we need both sides of an issue don't we? The plus and the minus. that Yen and Yang thingie.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Yeah, he won't even directly link to Fox. He can't do it, he just won't let himself do it.

Conspiracy theories aside, here's a link that provides a direct copy of the transcript. You can search FOX.com yourself.

He had a pass that you could get MR.C.

Your assumption is 100%, absolutely, unequivocally FALSE. ESPECIALLY using a FAKE NAME. I am working w/ several other individuals in an attempt to acquire a day pass to the WH press pool. I may film the process for a short documentary...I'll fill you in on how that goes. However, since this story broke, several, more qualified individuals than myself have applied for a daily pass and have been denied. Other agencies have commented on how difficult the process is for just a one-day pass. Let alone a day pass, everyday for two years.

From the Augusta Free Press:
"Yes, we have been through the process for obtaining White House day passes.

And let us just say that it is not at all an easy process to get through.

Needless to say that it is difficult to think that it could have been done using a fake name - the Secret Service needs your real name so it can do a background check on you before letting you inside the gate.

Several phone calls placed over the course of a two-week period were needed to get us inside.

And that was for a one-shot deal."

Keep in mind the media maybe keeping a real cap on the story because there was issues like this on both sides.  It makes them (the media) nervous to be the story.

Totally agree that this *may* be exactly why we aren't hearing about the story, which doesn't exactly support yours and Drews theory that there is "nothing here."

Even the loonies at FreeRepublic get it, fredster:

"To me, the only thing the name has to do with anything is that McLellan knew his real name as written on the application, yet remembered to call him by his stage name. It's more evidence that McLellan knew him well, which is one of the prerequisites for being a plant."

How many other shaky criedentials are there on the left we don't know about?  Or are they totally blameless and honest?

Ya' know, quite bitching and go find them then. You disparage the work done by those on the left when they expose right-wing propaganda machines, by accusing them of fostering the same methodologies, yet you won't make any effort to prove it. Dan Rather? At least he uses his real name.

One many of the fair and balanced shows on FoxNews.

Dude! I watch FOX and it's the most right leaning channel on the face of the planet. Murdoch and Ailes are staunch BIG 'R' Republicans who have shown a sophisticated penchant for spinning stories in favor of Bush.

The administration couldn't PAY for better press. FOX friggin' counts ANN COULTER as a frequent guest for christsakes. O'reilly? Hannity? Cameron? You ever see Michael Moore on CBS? And don't even start with Dan Rather, he got "fired"..er, resigned. Fox's "hard news'" segments are running shorter than commercial breaks lately, as they're being replaced with more and more right-wing op-ed segments. This is the FIRST and probably the last time they'll report on the Guckert story because it is so potentially damaging for this administration. I am absolutely stunned that they even went so far as to suggest Rove is linked to it somehow. My guess is that they took a shot across the bow of Rove's political machine in order to press for some sort of further favoritism. Nothing is left to chance when Murdoch is involved.

Just because they allow some pathetically week-kneed liberal like Colmes attempt to counter Hannity with his doormat mannerisms, doesn't make them "Fair & Balanced." You think they are fair because you are right-leaning and they report what you want to hear. I consider them shills for Bush because they report absolutely nothing I want to hear. They constantly choose angles for stories favorable to the Bush administration. They featured the debunked Swift Lairs incessantly during the 2004 election, Carl Cameron fabricated quotes online to smear Kerry directly, and was promoted for it on Bush's 2nd inauguration day. They don't even hide the fact that they shill for Bush anymore. I've seen news "anchors" vehemently DEFEND Bush against factual, legitimate criticism. These aren't the editorial segments either, I'm talking about anchors that are supposed to at least feign impartiality.

There is no WAY that FOX can be considered "balanced" by even the loosest use of the term. I just won't accept it, and you have no proof to the contrary. I, on the other hand, can provide documented instances of their extreme bias.

Following are examples of other FOX News "hard news" correspondents' and anchors' engaging in falsehoods, distortions and smears:

[fredster]

Yep, I was right, he can't go to foxnews.com even.

And I bet you don't watch FoxNews do you Mr.C.? 

They lean right, no doubt about that. But they balance the story out pretty well. If you don't watch, you don't know do you?  Don't worry.  Fox is no.1 and soon will own the rest. 

If you don't watch it, then you won't know for sure will you? You are just taking the word of bloggers.  Great souce of info. Want me to post powerline or little green footballs? What blog are you pulling this from?  I know you aren't writing this stuff yourself.

Didn't "Gannon" use his real name for the pass? He had a pen name and then he used his real name.  Just like Larry Ziegler would and write as Larry King?  No issue there.

Major Garret wrote a new book on the success of the '92 republican party and a review of the Contract for American recently, you left that out.

Jim Angle quoted a reported quote. Is that all?

Nah, I'm going to stop there.  It's no surprise that journalists have bias.  Look at Dan Rather and his former boss.  Look at Ted Turner and CNN.  Is it surprising?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

And I bet you don't watch FoxNews do you Mr.C.? 

Actually, I do....and I have proof. I don't link to them, because I don't support them (via traffic) if I don't have to. A transcript is a transcript. If it makes you happy to ignore it based on the fact that it's not on FOX, you are welcome to do so.

The other day, I was lucky enough to have been watching FOX when Ann Coulter, hate-mongering terrorist and Right-wing media darling, made another in a loooong line of unsubstantiated claims by calling Alan Colmes a liar, instead of answer the question she had been asked. Colmes, in a rare case of "spine", called her on it and left her quivering. I didn't want this event to be lost in the annuals of TV-dom, so I immediately contacted a media watchdog group I'm familiar with and they tracked down the segment, encoded it for the web, and hosted it on their site. I had also spread the word amongst the largest left-leaning blogs on the net and by the end of the night...the video is everywhere.

While I *am* boasting because I'm proud, it *does* provide a documented trail leading to proof of my FOX viewership. So *nah* *nah*!!!

Here's the trail:

9:26PM - I see the event live on FOX.
10:00PM - I start a diary on dailyKos, it immediately gets promoted to the top 'recommended diaries'.
10:05PM - I tip my contact at Crooks and Liars. He begins searching for the feed. I tip several other top bloggers.
10:10PM - Crooks and Liars, posts the video and quotes my diary entry.
11:15PM - Oliver Willis points to the video and it makes the rounds all over the blogsphere.

How's that egg on your face taste, does it compliment the foot in your mouth? You don't know anything about me fredster (well mostly, outside of our PM's), and you assume too much.

I continually watch FOX because I help document it's falsehoods. I stay in contact w/ individuals associated with various watchdog groups, and I do what I can to help document false claims and erroneous reporting on FOX. Why FOX? Because they are *by far* the worst offenders and they are the most widely viewed. So their sin is even more egregious. CNN is horrible, but their ratings reflect that. CBS? Why waste my time. Wingnuts are falling over themselves trying to catch them in another "Rathergate." MSNBC is actually the most "balanced" in their coverage...but I haven't had a lot time to watch them.

Working together with organizations like Media Matters, the right-wing spin machine can be held accountable for the misinformation they so readily spread.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Fox is no.1 and soon will own the rest. 

I thought you cared about the truth and balance? How do you suspect we'd get the truth through such a horribly bad idea as your suggested media consolidation?

Given the flippant attitude you seem to have toward any of my concerns over diversity and balance in the media, I have to ask, would you support a state-run media? Do you support competition in the marketplace in other venues, or do you support monopolies?

If not monopolies, why would you support one were it to be in control of the vast amount of information given our citizens? Do you care so much more about "party politics" that you'd put that over your love of country? of Truth?

I am seriously curious about where you're coming from on this...

mrC

[fredster]

Ok Ok. Fox is okay, CNN sucks, and I fall asleep when I watch MSNBC. Fox will overtake the rest, and dominate for a while.  Notice the numbers dive for CNN.  CNN dominated that for about 10 years.

CNN was the reverse of Fox. I was sick of wolf blitzer and that idiot (that was fired, I can't remember hs name) reporting on "baby milk factories" in '90 in GW1.  They words were in english, and this guy was taking it seriously. Man what a tool.  And who is this Candy Crowley woman? She breaths hard when she sets up. 

Don't take too much into what I said about Fox taking over, but it's obvious with .2 ratings MSNBC can't live much longer.  And a choice between Fox and CNN is a no brainer. Yahn on CNN. But the tsunami coverage was really good. Nobody did that better.

O'Reilly ran your piece about the teacher.  Now that I actually saw the video, I think the teach was a little out of hand, but it was just as I though, a ploy to get this hothead teacher in trouble.

But I got something for your diary, and I don't know if this was even mentioned, I didn't see it anywhere.  I saw fox do something that nobody even mentioned that I though was a right wing once.  Remember the incredibly wonderful end to the Republican Convention?  Kerry and whoever was his running mate (the name escapes me now) were doing an impromptu appearance right after the curtian went down. Likely they saw the MO Bush was getting, and since the dance was over they wanted a little spotlight.  MSNBC and CNN covered it, I was surfing between them, and what was fox doing? They had the little republican Debs on and were talking to the stary eyed Bush supporters.

Nobody even noticed. I didn't see a word of it on any website.

I read your diary, and I saw that spot. Sorry, I thought that she was as just as beautiful as she always was, and she was just waiting on colmes to calm down.  Ann Coulter was never known for subtlety.  She sees a lot of things I don't, but she was a little over the top there, and I think she realized it and let colmes do his thing. But most of what she said was true, wasn't it?  Kos hates Ann, and therefore he liked your diary. I have one too, I think.

Keep in mind MrC, you don't know much about me either.  But if that actually was your writing I am more impressed with your passion, although I knew you were sincere.  There was a media lock on the country for years by CBS, NBC, and ABC.  Now we have a lot of news from every corner of the earth.  When I grew up it was worse, I could only pick up CBS and NBC where I lived.

Because they are *by far* the worst offenders and they are the most widely viewed. So their sin is even more egregious

If you think so, but I watch them all. CNN doesn't even try to go the other way.  CNN makes the conservatives defend, Fox makes the liberals defend. It's the opposite angle.

Working together with organizations like Media Matters, the right-wing spin machine can be held accountable for the misinformation they so readily spread.

My prediction? You will get 0 yards. Nobody is surprised that news organizations are biased left or right.  Books have been written about it, documentaries, and numerous websites.

In the end, people make up their minds based on what they really believe. Move down south for a while or move to Indiana or someplace in the midwest and see what other people think. I've been to your area, and I was always real happy to leave. I couldn't believe that people actually thought that way and lived what appeared to be normal lives. You would be in for a shock.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

He had a pass that you could get MR.C.

Just to further debunk this false assumption: http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/west_wing_reportage/wh_gaggle_watch_day_two_19071.asp

Read the most recent adventures of a group trying to get the pass that's so easy to get that even MR.C could get it!! Hell, fredster why don't you just apply for one and shut down this whole issue?

mrC

[fredster]

I would if I lived close enough, or if I really cared.

It's a very dead horse. The government has media people all over it. Every "spokesman" is a plant. Every speech is a coreographed sketch.  Every appearance calculated.

You have underestimated the Bush team over and over and over MrC.  You do it again with this.

If they had a plant, he would have been much more reliable and he would have been much more well known.  Gannon had the same credentials as anybody from Salon, etc.  The only reason this guy even hit the radar was his inflamatory statement he made.

Give them credit for NOT being that stupid.  Gannon no doubt was not part of some short term near sighted media campaign.  He was a guy who was sympathetic to the press, had the right contacts, said the right things, and got in.

I doubt very seriously if they will make that mistake again Mr.C.  They are watching. If we had known this in secret about 3 months ago, you and I could be yelling questions at the president.  But now this out in the open, this loophole is very closed.

The media won't cover it right because it's a media issue and there are sorted rivalries and they don't like to be in the spotlight.  The media doesn't cover media issues very well. Even the Rathergate crap wasn't exposed to the nth degree. There's more to that than we know. It's like cops turning in cops, or lawyers turning on lawyers, it's just not done very often or very well.

I don't like it on either side of the isle.  ?But I believe what Scott McClellan said.  I aslo believe that Gannon was a kinda real reporter that barely made the grade.  But I don't believe the administration was stupid enough to put somebody like that out in public, no way.

Don't underestimate Bush Mr.C. It's your downfall.