Conversely if photo-shopped picture of Helen Thomas are viewed pour the chemicals into your eyes.............
Posted on 02/15/2005 11:19:19 PM PST by woofie
The Jeff Gannon story is still bouncing around the Internet, and now there are pictures.
The kind you shouldn't open up in the office.
The X-rated twist has made for a lot of clandestine clicking in a town where Deep Throat conjures images not of a porn star but of a man in a parking garage. But it has also deepened the debate over blogging and the tactics used to drive a conservative reporter from his job as White House correspondent for two Web sites owned by a Republican activist.
In most Beltway melodramas, the resignation ends the story. The problem for Gannon, whose real name is James Dale Guckert, is that he told The Washington Post and CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week that he never launched the Web sites whose provocative names he had registered, such as hotmilitarystud.com. But a Web designer in California said yesterday that he had designed a gay escort site for Gannon and had posted naked pictures of Gannon at the client's request.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Conversely if photo-shopped picture of Helen Thomas are viewed pour the chemicals into your eyes.............
LOL..I loved that post!
What is the point in continuing to dredge up increasingly vile information on Gannon? Why does the MSM keep this story alive? Why are they fixated on homosexuality, and ignoring the four other non-MSM reporters that have been there for years?
I remain convinced this is a manufactured scandal. What I don't know is whether Gannon has been tarred unfairly, or if he deliberately placed himself into the White House with a ready-made "history" so that Brock could start the scandal mill running.
What I do know is that I am not going to allow the MSM to stampede me into some sort of hysteria, and I am not going to allow unverified accusations go unchallenged. And I am going to do my best to keep Free Republic from being painted as a bunch of homophobic nutcases.
So Clinton was applauded for saying that sex was a private matter and the MSM tried to shield him.
This article states the web designer thought it was hypocritical of Gannon to write anti-gay articles while he himself was gay.
So if you're gay, you can't be opposed to gay marriage? Is that a new rule we hadn't heard about? Tammy Bruce is gay but is opposed to gay marriage. According to her, lots of gays are opposed to gay marriage.
And talk about hypocritical. Clinton talked about values and made sure he was seen going to church with his trusty Bible tucked under his arm. All while he broke every Commandment there is.
Oh boy.....this is getting really nasty.....
We're supposed to be outraged 'cuz we're conservatives?
No Howie. We don't care.
Say, Howie, about Eason Jordan, who said outright traitorous things about American tro...(click)
....Howie?
.............Howie?
The irony for me is that I would have paid absolutely zero attention to this if I had not seen the threads here.
I have to take exception to your definition of "Republican". You seem to be confusing the religious belief that homosexuality is wrong, with the Republican/Conservative notion that homosexual couples should not be given special consideration, or the sanctity of marriage. They are simply people, like anyone else. All that conservatism says is that they should not be treated like a minority or special interest group.
Having gay people support Republicans and conservatism does not compromise the integrity of the right in the least. However, being a religiously anti-homosexual bigot like you, does. You don't like them or what they do? Fine. Don't like the idea of gay marriage? Fine. But to say that you won't accept their support for conservative ideals like sensible economic policy, self-reliance, personal responsibility, etc., simply because they are gay? You're shooting yourself in the foot.
You're talking about a lot of hairdressers and flower store workers. Also, the DNC may be setting bloggers(FreeRepublic) up for the ultimate political sin: gay bias.
I've looked...I do not have blinders on..Jeff was a much better journalist than depicted by the same blog if he got secret documents. Democrats.com has really gone over the cliff on this..
This is a minor reporter who had a day pass and asked a total of two questions in 2 years of the President..Many here did not even know who he was!
I cannot absolutely say the nudes are Jeff..same watch..This is something I find regrettable and embarrassing but hardly the big deal the left hopes..The gay bashing left..What irony.
I thought they believed in "it's only sex"/private life and had nothing to do with whether they are doing their job.
Yes..and he may be trying to feed that very thing..if you notice.
Pray for W and Our Troops
I always want to know "more" before believing everything I read..even if it's about someone I don't like..I was offended by some of the wild accusations made about Clinton..There was plenty that was verfiable to be outraged about.
Kurtz is having a great time with this one..too bad he was so late on Eason Jordan..a real media story.
You've just outed yourself as either a troll, or a moron.
Barney Franks was a freaking member of congress. Get a grip.
Does anyone know -- has Kurtz ever admitted that any of the questions posed by WaPo, LAT, NYT, Reuters, AP, ABCNBCCBSCNN or other reporters were "loaded and inaccurate"?
I have wondered that of David Gregory, Helen Thomas, Sam Donaldson, and who's that crazy old lady? The other one? Sarah McClennon, or something?
Dan
Just because the commies support gay-marriage, doesn't mean they accept queers... they're just a convenient ally in their agenda.
They're very creepy.
House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) this week questioned how Gannon got access to the documents and asked the special prosecutor investigating the Plame leak to include Gannon in his probe.
Gannon interviewed Wilson about 10 days after the WSJ had published an article describing the memo. I therefore deduce that Gannon didn't have "access" to the documents. He had "access" to the WSJ.
Ta Da! Was that so hard?
This story only involves Plame because Gannon asked a question to Wilson about a memo the WSJ had written about.
It only involves the WH because they check for security reasons and do not do invasive checks that go beyond what is required. I can only imagine the howls if a leftist reporter were barred due to his "personal life".
I do not like what Gannon did, but to say his activities reflect on the WH is ridiculous. To say it "involves" Plame reveals the real reason you and the left keep flogging this dead horse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.