1
   

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

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 11:56 am
Cyclops wrote:
There are many, many angles to look at this story from. The fact that Guckert/Gannon is gay pales when compared to the fact that he was using an alias to get into the WH and recieving classified documents.


Funny how you call it an "alias" and I call it a "pseudonym." I'm really not sure why your panties are in a bunch because he uses a pseudonym. As far as the receiving classified documents, that is an angle you should work on. Classified documents should remain classified.

Now, lets see if you can work this story without calling him gay. Just a little A2K test. Let's see how many posts on this thread can pass without using that word. Hold on, it's in the title of the thread. And, whadda ya know .... it was you, Cyclops that came up with the title of this thread.

See, now I'm picturing you, Cyclops, trying to come up with a title for your new thread. You aren't focused on G/G's sexuality at all, right? Riiight. So you come up with, "Jeff Gannon, Jim Guckert - fake journalist." Nope, that isn't quite right. Let's see ... how about "Jeff Gannon, Jim Guckert, the prostitute"? Well, now, you didn't go with that one.

So you came up with "Jeff Gannon, Jim Guckert , and Gay Porn."

Hmm. So it's not about his sexuality, right? Riiiiight .......


[Edited to delete the cute smilie waving the "BS" flag.]
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 12:24 pm
Cute smilies do not a convincing argument make, Tico.

If you'll look at the date of the first post, I created this thread on the first day that anyone knew about it; all that was really known was that the guy was using a fake name and had created gay porn sites for someone else. That turned out to be false; the sites were actually created for him, but noone really knew that at the time.

Therefore the question of whether or not Gannon was gay didn't come up for some time.

Despite your protestations that 'Guckert being gay' is the only reason for this thread, it is not. It is not even the primary reason. Does it present an irony when dealing with the administration, and especially in light of the virulently anti-gay articles Guckert himself wrote (apparently on the admin's behalf) over the last year? Of course it does. You'd be a fool not to see that irony.

But to pretend that's the only story here, or that the gay angle is the reason they're going after this guy, is ridiculous. I think you know this, and are merely arguing your point; so, let's drop this and talk about secret memos, media influence, and how he got in the WH before Talon News was created.

I hereby swear not to bring up Guckert's sexuality for at least ten pages, even though the guy is still operating escort sites with him naked on them. Which is a crime, but we'll forget that for now. Happy?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 12:26 pm
Ya know, ya could change the title of the thread, cycloptichorn.

Go back to the first post, hit edit - and edit the title.

It couldn't hurt the credibility of your argument.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 12:42 pm
Cyclops wrote:
If you'll look at the date of the first post, I created this thread on the first day that anyone knew about it; all that was really known was that the guy was using a fake name and had created gay porn sites for someone else. That turned out to be false; the sites were actually created for him, but noone really knew that at the time.

Therefore the question of whether or not Gannon was gay didn't come up for some time.

This quote is from your first post:

Quote:
I, along with most liberals, couldn't care less if one of our colleagues or employees is gay. That's a problem with right wingers, not our side.

So say Guckert's outing costs him his gravy train at Talon "News", and he is replaced by someone else, would that kill the issue?

Sure seems like the author you quoted thought G/G was gay and "outed," doesn't it?


Cyclops wrote:
I hereby swear not to bring up Guckert's sexuality for at least ten pages, even though the guy is still operating escort sites with him naked on them. Which is a crime, but we'll forget that for now. Happy?

Sure.

Now, why don't you start another thread where we can discuss whether operating a escort site with a naked picture of yourself is the crime you allege it to be?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 12:42 pm
Quote:
BREAKING NEWS: Gannon reportedly knew about Iraq attack four hours before it happened

by John in DC - 2/18/2005 09:57:00 AM

A news producer for a major network just told me that Gannon told the producer the US was going to attack Iraq four hours before President Bush announced it to the nation.

According to the producer, Gannon specifically told them that in four hours the president was going to be making a speech to the nation announcing that the US was bombing Iraq. The producer told me they were surprised that Gannon, working with such a small news outfit, could have access to such information, but "what did you know, he was right," the producer said today. 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.

This more than a few questions and points:

1. Assuming this news producer is telling the truth, and I have no reason to believe they are not, how did Gannon get access to such highly classified information as to when the US was going to bomb Iraq?

2. Even if Gannon were part of a press gaggle that was told embargoed information about the war by the White House, this producer alleges that Gannon would have broken any such embargo, which is a security risk to the operation, and more generally shows that concerns about Gannon's White House access posing a risk to national security might now be warranted.

3. How would someone on a day pass, who hadn't gotten the requisite 3-4 month FBI background check that other full-time White House employees get, get access to such highly classified information? Certainly the White House didn't include someone with simply a day pass in the highly-classified pre-briefing about details of the war (assuming such a briefing even occurred)? If the White House did a briefing and Gannon were included, this would mean ANYONE could walk in off the street, say they're a reporter, and provided by they don't have a criminal record, the White House will simply tell them at what hour we're launching a major attack? And if there was no briefing for reporters, then how did Gannon allegedly find out?

4. Even if the White House had simply told the press pool that Bush was speaking to the nation in a few hours, and the press had figured out that this meant were were attacking Iraq, was the information about the upcoming speech embargoed? Was the information about the upcoming speech also announced to the public four hours before? Or did Gannon get access to inside information concerning the war simply because of his presence in the White House - a presence that should have required an FBI background check considering how often he was there?

5. How would Gannon get inside information on the Dan Rather scandal BEFORE the rest of the major media? Assuming the producer is correct, did it come from a White House source, and if so, what does this say about possible White House involvement in creating this scandal in the first place?

According to my source, Gannon's insider tidbits were always on the mark. "Gannon's stuff was always golden," the producer says. My source says they kept asking themself, "how does this small news outfit get this info?"

How indeed.


I've posted all but the comments here just in case it gets archived and changes linkback.

Blog post and Comments can be read here: AMERICAblog
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 12:59 pm
Looks to me like Gannon was already in the briefing room in November 2002.

Edit [Moderator]: Link removed
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 01:06 pm
Quote:
Ya know, ya could change the title of the thread, cycloptichorn.

Go back to the first post, hit edit - and edit the title.

It couldn't hurt the credibility of your argument.


Hmm, didn't know that. Will do that right now.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 01:09 pm
damn, if it wasn't for the "gay porn" in the title I woulda never opened this thread.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 01:17 pm
squinney wrote:
Quote:
BREAKING NEWS: Gannon reportedly knew about Iraq attack four hours before it happened

by John in DC - 2/18/2005 09:57:00 AM

A news producer for a major network just told me that Gannon told the producer the US was going to attack Iraq four hours before President Bush announced it to the nation.


I've posted all but the comments here just in case it gets archived and changes linkback.

Blog post and Comments can be read here: AMERICAblog


I'm not saying this can't be true, but we all know how reliable news producers at major networks are. :wink: :wink:
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 01:24 pm
Fox, for example? Smile

CYcloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 01:36 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Fox, for example? Smile

CYcloptichorn


I think he was referring to the frauds over at CBS. But I could be mistaken.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 02:24 pm
You mean the frauds that now appear to have Gannon prints? Funny you should bring that up as a way to discredit!
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 03:20 pm
dyslexia wrote:
damn, if it wasn't for the "gay porn" in the title I woulda never opened this thread.

You can always start your own gay porn thread, dys.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 03:45 pm
What's the best reason to have a fake reporter shilling at White House press conferences?

a): Fake crises, fake news -- why not fake reporters?

b): Totalitarianism is the sort of thing you want to taste first before you dig right in

c): It's the only thing keeping Scottie ("Baby Bulldog") McClellan from breaking down and recanting everything

d): All the sucking up from regular reporters kinda pales by comparison
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 05:08 pm
E) Fake questions are a heck of lot easier to answer than those stick to the facts real ones.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 07:38 pm
Honestly, Ticomaya, at this point of the thread, you MUST have something better to do. I've never heard so much convoluted spinning in my life from the likes of you neocons over the plain and simple fact that a gay male prostitute/escort was allowed access to top secret CIA documents and unfettered access to the Press Room for the last several years, asked some of the most propogandist questions to a fake pResident, and basically was allowed to further make an arse out of this administration.

Then you all insist that somehow the left is homophobic by bringing this fact up? Oh my, you guys are a riot. The fact that Jeff Gannon was slamming John Kerry as the first possible gay president somehow eludes the neoconservative ideological radar screen.

Really. You MUST have something better to do by now...
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 07:42 pm
Now why would the moderator remove my link to pictures of Gannon in the WH briefing Room in 2002? It wasn't a link to a site I own.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 07:47 pm
That does seem odd. I thought you did a wrong thing, squinn, but as usual, I was wrong.

Joe(and I'm not even her husband.)Nation
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 08:33 pm
Joe ...Me? Do something wrong? I know the rules, and I play by them. That you have never been wrong either is actually one of the things I think we have in common. Very Happy

Here's a link to the Anderson Cooper interview with James Guckert: (We'll see if this one stays)

Click on "video" to watch
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 08:51 pm
And this quote from Fleisher is interesting.

Quote:


Joe Strupp writes in Editor & Publisher: "Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was so concerned about Talon News reporter James Guckert's potential ties to the Republican Party that he stopped calling on him at press briefings for about a week in 2003, Fleischer told E&P today.

" 'I found out that he worked for a GOP site, and I didn't think it was my place to call on him because he worked for something that was related to the party,' Fleischer said in a phone interview. 'He had the editor call me and made the case that they were not related to the Republican Party. He said they used the GOP name for marketing purposes only.'

"He said he resumed calling on Guckert, who used the alias Jeff Gannon, after Bobby Eberle, owner of both GOPUSA and Talon News, 'assured me that they were not part of the Republican Party.' Eberle is a Texas Republican activist and served as a delegate to the 2000 Republican National Convention."



Washington Post Article

Now, who believes that Ari Fleisher didn't know who Eberle is or that he is connected to the Republican party... IN TEXAS? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 10:35:11