Jeff Gannon, Jim Guckert, and... Prostitution?

squinney wrote:

I'd even say that per chance Bulldog might really be hanging around the White House for other reasons. One would think Bush supporters might question for who and does that leave us open perhaps to blackmail? Espionage? Other threats?

Ok, I'm gonna duck after I say this, so if any of you throw a pie or anything at me, please aim high. Here goes nothing.

Squinney, were you this concerned about national security and blackmail when Bill was in office, or was it just a blowjob and no big deal? Just curious.

I'm ducking now. :wink:

0 Replies

Oh, and actually Squinney, I tend to agree with you on this one. There needs to be some sort of checking to see how this guy (assuming the facts as presented about him are true) managed to get press clearance. And yes, the points you bring up about blackmail and such are valid to some degree.

0 Replies

Apparently, Presidential BJ's are a big deal with neoconservatives (what with national security and blackmail and all), but fake, gay, pornographic journalists who get to ask softball questions are no big deal whatsoever. Why would an established journalist like Maureen Dowd have such a hard time getting clearance for Bush press conferences when this fake Gannon guy, who had pictures of himself nude and demonstrating his John Thompson for all to see, and who had no journalistic background whatsoever, got in EVERYDAY for the last two years?

Let the spinning begin...

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

What facts, Ticomaya? The fact that gay escorts who advertise on pornographic sites and who state that they prefer "top only" are selling their services for a good time?

Or are you totally fixated on another fact completely unrelated to this story?

My guess is the latter. But you continue to spin wildly on this one.

"What facts" is right. You said escort = prostitution. Prove that statement. Be sure to identify where you make logical leaps of faith. That's the statement you made ... I'm not concerned with whether it's related to "this story."

It is amusing to hear the concern from the left about the "fake name." You people act as if journalists have never used pseudonyms before, and this somehow implicates the WH in some scheme. Incredible.

The "spinning" is being done on the left as you folks try to create something out of nothing. I'm going to sit back now and watch the show.

And CR, the answer to your questions is "Hell No." But then again some lefty said, "But Monica wasn't a prostitute" as if that made any sense in this context.

0 Replies

Coastal Rat:

There IS checking going on. You DON'T think they do background checks on every one allowed into a Press conference, ESPECIALLY when the pResident is fielding, um, er, faking his fielding of questions, thanx to the like of Jeff Gannon?

Why do you think it took Muareen Dowd MONTHS to get clearance?

What do YOU think? Do you think the administration THAT stupid? I seriously doubt it.

0 Replies

Exactly my point Tico. There may well be problems that need addressing with this current situation, but you can't now claim that we should be concerned about blackmail and security issues while maintaining that those same issues were not concerns with Bill.

As I said, investigate how the guy got his press credentials. I believe it should be done if for no other reason than to assure something like this does not happen again. I have no problem with that at all.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

...
What do YOU think? Do you think the administration THAT stupid? I seriously doubt it.

All this time I thought you thought the Administrations WAS that stupid. Oh well ... you are a moving target. <ducking>

0 Replies

What I find amusing (in a cynical way) is the fact that this guy apparently was part of the press pool for some time. From what I read (correct me if I'm wrong), his questions tended to be along the lines of, "Mr. President, how can you stand to deal with low-lifes like the Democrats in Congress?"

So, like, are questions like this typical in White House news conferences? Is that why the guy didn't stick out? It's curious...

0 Replies

God, you're sounding more desperate with every posting, Ticomaya. How very sad.

The fact that you cannot answer a simple question regarding the intent of "escorts" who advertise exclusively on pornographic sites is telling.

It also demonstrates your utmost lack of knowledge regarding this topic.

So, perhaps you should quit while your behind.

And speaking of facts, I suggest you read up some more on the timeline regarding all of this, if you dare. Gannon was in the White House asking questions BEFORE Talon News even existed.

Like I said, if this was the Clinton adminstration, you idiots would be all over this like flies on a stinking turd.

But in this case, you guys are more than willing to smell each other's nitrogenous waste if it serves your own partisan purposes.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Coastal Rat:

There IS checking going on. You DON'T think they do background checks on every one allowed into a Press conference, ESPECIALLY when the pResident is fielding, um, er, faking his fielding of questions, thanx to the like of Jeff Gannon?

Why do you think it took Muareen Dowd MONTHS to get clearance?

What do YOU think? Do you think the administration THAT stupid? I seriously doubt it.

Calm down Dook. Don't have a heart attack. Geesh. I know they do background checks. Maybe I did not make myself clear. If the checks on this guy were done, then maybe someone needs to investigate why a press pass was given (assuming this was known thru the background check). If it was missed on the background check, then I think we need to find out how and why it was missed. If it was carelessness, someone needs to be reprimanded. If the WH knew about his background and tolerated it in exchange for softball questions, then fine. They will pay the price in the eyes of public opinion. And they should.

But let's face it, in the big scheme of things, this is not exactly a major issue (outside of the possible security/blackmail issue brought up by
Squinney).

0 Replies

Ticomaya will now sit back and watch the show.

Just like Jeff Gannon, who has now decided to avoid the press, as it didn't work to his advantage in trying to spin all of this in his favor.

No difference, really.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

God, you're sounding more desperate with every posting, Ticomaya. How very sad.

The fact that you cannot answer a simple question regarding the intent of "escorts" who advertise exclusively on pornographic sites is telling.
.....

I assure you, the "desperation" is solely on your side of the aisle. Laughing

What is "telling" is your claim to be able to know the intent of an "escort". Do you tell fortunes as well on the side?

0 Replies

I could care less what side of the aisle, Ticomaya. Looks like another spin bites the dust for you.

And, since all your statements seem indicate that you actually do know the intent of "escorts" who advertise exclusively on pornographic sites, underground newspapers, and gay/straight magazines, then please, do tell.

I'm sure they advertise for "escorts" in the middle of the heartland as well.

0 Replies

You completely missed the point, which is not surprising.

I don't know their intent, nor do you. End of point. Carry on.

0 Replies

Sidney Blumenthal's take on this:

Quote:

Thus a phony journalist planted by a Republican operation, used by the White House press secretary to interrupt questions from the press corps, called on by the president for a safe question, protected from FBI vetting by the press office, disseminating innuendo and smears about critics and opponents of the administration, some of them gay-baiting, was unmasked not only as a hireling and fraud but as a gay prostitute, with enormous potential for blackmail....

Lifting the heavy Puritan curtain draping Bush's Washington reveals enlightening scenes of its decadent anthropology. Even as Guckert's true colors were revealed, the administration issued orders that the words "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual" and "transgender" be removed from the program of a federally funded conference on suicide prevention. But the transparent hypocrisy of conservative "values" hardly deters a ruthless government.

Salon on Gannon's access to the WH in February:

Thanks to the continued digging by online sleuths, there's now documented evidence that Guckert attended White House briefings as early as February 2003. Guckert, using his alias "Jeff Gannon," once boasted online about asking then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer a question at the Feb. 28, 2003, briefing. The date is significant because in order to receive a White House press pass, Guckert would have needed to prove that he worked for a news organization that, in the words of White House press secretary Scott McClellan, "published regularly," in itself an extraordinarily low threshold. Critics have charged that while Talon News may publish regularly, it boasts a nearly all-volunteer news team which includes not a single person with actual journalism experience. (The team does, though, have quite a bit of experience working on Republican campaigns.) In other words, the outfit is not legitimate nor independent, two criteria often used in Washington, D.C., to receive press credentials.
Click here

Quote:

But what's significant about the February 2003 date is that Talon did not even exist then. The organization was created in late March 2003, and began publishing online in early April 2003. Gannon, a jack of all trades who spent time in the military as well as working at an auto repair shop (not to mention escorting), has already stated publicly that Talon News was his first job in journalism. That means he wasn't working for any other news outlet in February 2003 when he was spotted by C-Span cameras inside the White House briefing room. And that means Guckert was ushered into the White House press room in February 2003 for a briefing despite the fact he was not a journalist.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't know their intent, nor do you. End of point. Carry on.

You've only proven the point that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

What do you think the intent is of a guy advertising as an escort who poses nude, boasts of being exclusively "top only," and tells you that he's looking for a "good time?"

Or do you have no idea what you're talking about?

I seem to always go with the latter these days...

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Quote:
I don't know their intent, nor do you. End of point. Carry on.

You've only proven the point that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
....

And yet I seem to know more than you about what I'm talking about .....

0 Replies

Dookie knows all about gay escorts and the services they provide. I wonder why that is.

0 Replies

Only YOU know what you're talking about.

And that's the sad part of all of this. What's also sad is you have no balls whatsoever to answer this simple question:

What do you think the intent is of a guy advertising as an escort who poses nude, boasts of being exclusively "top only," and tells you that he's looking for a "good time?"

And how could someone like this get unfettered access to WH press conferences, when his background check would have obviously dug all of this up? Amazing that bloggers are much more adept than the Bush administration in conducting background checks, it would seem...

Truly pathetic, really.

0 Replies

McGentrix:

Ever hear of Google? Or are you guys that inept to do the research yourself?

Once again, I believe it is the latter...

0 Replies

Jeff Gannon, Jim Guckert, and... Prostitution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know