Posted on 02/15/2005 11:19:19 PM PST by woofie
You call my comments "defensive" of Gannon and say I'm the moron?
LOL
You are way out of line, n00b.
Where did I say I made any conclusions?
Where have my facts about the spurious charges made about Gannon/Plame been shown wrong. They are exactly right.
That's not getting my ass handed to me. That is being correct.
Keeping an open mind about facts as they come out is not moronic. Making baseless charges is.
This place has standards. You don't meet them. You're right, you're pathetic.
And it sounds like you will blame and accuse him of anything just to get him to leave
Gee, I thought I said I did think they were him. I guess that makes you a liar.
Next, you say that the gay sites were fakes ascribed to him, but then he admits to those, but with another lie.
Nope. Never said that either. Another lie from you.
Following that comes the gay porn pics, which you refused to look at or accept at face value.
I looked. You lie again.
Now that you've had your asses handed to you a half dozen times, it was some insidious plot to embarass the White House?
So far I have been correct. My main points on these threads has been to demonstrate how the lefty (yoo hoo!) talking points vis a vis Gannon/Plame are faulty.
Now, if you had any sense in your silly head, you'd be embarrassed. Alas, I fear you won't. So sad...
I received private freepmails from people who had conversed with Gannon and told me he said he had received threats. It wasn't hard for me to think that this was a fabrication. I suppose my fault is that I don't go looking for evil in everyone's background.
He could indeed be a perverted opportunist who simply managed to get into the White House. However, he is a really STUPID one if he thought he wouldn't be found out.
Assuming the photos are actually him and are as damning as described, don't you think it odd that those weren't released right away? And that when one level of scandal doesn't suffice, another one rolls out? And why is the media continuing on finding out all these sordid details since Gannon resigned?
In the case of Bernard Kerik, the details were dragged out in order to make sure Kerik had NO political viability and to tar Rudy Guiliani in the process.
Of what possible political advantage is there for continuing to destroy Gannon? It isn't like getting Scott McClellan to resign would be a big accomplishment for the left.
Aren't you a little bit curious about those thngs I have mentioned? Don't you think this whole brouhaha is a bit weird?
Oh well, darn. Here I wasted all my time replying to that guy and he got nuked. LOL!
Ok Mr Sinless. Let me lay it out for you. There are conservative gays and they voted for Bush.They are part of our party/beliefs. I don't hate gays. Everyone has sins. What I don't believe is that gays should have special rights because of their sin. Whom one cooses to sleep with does not equate to the colour of ones skin. I will not gay bash either. You, in all of your pristine perfection, may do so but it won't make you a conservative.
Sure it isn't a photoshop job?
That site is tied to DU and they had a very long thread about what was coming.
I am glad you expounded on the way you think.
I, too, was reluctant to believe those were Gannon. I am glad we're the type of people that don't leap to conclusions and then remain unmoved despite unfolding events.
I think our speculative (not conclusive) thoughts on the matter are logical and certainly have more basis in fact than the ludicrous tales the left are spinning.
Despite our recently departed visitor's assertions, neither of us has made any statements about what the truth of the Gannon matter is. In fact, I believe we both made it clear we are keeping open minds!
Oh darn .. I missed being called a moron
I think it's weird, but I'm not sure it would be wise to write the entire event off at the moment. The two most striking facts about the Gannon affair are:
1) he appears to have been a male prostitute relatively recently, and he had a rather serious personal tax problem. In other words, he was involved in activities which are ILLEGAL.
2)he was given a daily White House press pass under what appear to be unusual circumstances. They would be the following:
a) a pass was continuously reissued to himon a daily basis. Many articles have stated that this is unusual or unprecedented.I think it's fair to say that Gannon is an undesirable and that anyone who was truly interested in protecting the President's interest, would have kept him as far away as possible from the WH press room.b) the daily pass allowed him to escape the normal FBI check that reporters who have long-term passes have to undergo
c)He was issued a WH pass, although he didn't have one for Capitol Hill. Again, many articles have stated that this is typically required before a WH pass will be issued.
I'm the one who pushed the button. Basic civility seems to be an achievement beyond his means.
I don't dispute that and didn't say that Guckert/Gannon is the only person who doesn't belong. But the "press" operation is McClellan's domain and he should have some responsibility here that someone who is by no definition a "legitimate journalist" got to ask the President a question at his press conference. (I would have had the same reaction if Carl of Newsmax asked the President a question.) Just because I may agree with his politics, doesn't make him a "legitimate journalist."
As I understand it, the qualification for getting a daily pass (and one that has been in effect for some time) is that the reporter work for a bonafide publication or media outlet.
Being familiar with Talon material through the preview feature on FR, it never seemed like it offered "original reporting" and the preview was uninteresting enough so that I didn't care to pursue to read the whole article. And to the extent that I was exposed to Jeff Gannon's posts, I wrote him off as a self-promoter who offered nothing new and original (sort of like Talon).
Maybe you want to defend Talon/Gannon's material as original, new, insightful, etc., but IMO it was none of those things.
I don't think that anything Gannon/Talon did qualified as "legitimate journalism" *regardless* of whether other questionners did or didn't, and thus, Gannon had no business asking the President a question at his press conference.
How in the heck would McClellan know about Gannon's background
I never said that, I just thought McClellan should have at least been aware that Guckert/Gannon was not a legitimate journalist and that Talon was not a legitimate news source. If I could know that, and I am a mere interested observer in the realm of political journalism -- and not a professional Presidential press secretary, then it is not too much to expect that McClellan should be aware of Guckert/Gannon/Talon's status.
I will agree that we need someone more effective than McClellan.
EXACTLY! Someone who was more competent than McClellan would have been aware of Talon's status and not have allowed its representative to have questionned the President. (I don't remember Kinsolving asking President Bush questions, although I remember his asking questions of Ari.) I would have given McClellan more of a free pass on this if the questions were just of McClellan, but once Guckert/Gannon got to ask President Bush questions as a representative of Talon I think that is the final word on McClellan's competence.
I may not agree with the politics of certain members of the White House Press Corps, but I think they are "more qualified" than Guckert/Gannon. I welcome your forthcoming lengthy recital of Guckert/Gannon's journalism credentials that qualify *him* to ask the President questions at a press conference.
You seem under the impression that McClellan is the keeper of the gate as to who is granted a pass.
I never said that, only that McClellan should have been aware that Talon was not a "legitimate" news source and Guckert/Gannon was their representative. *That* is his job.
...your argument is silly in addition to non-sensical.
I could say that your unlimited, copious and tedious support of someone as ineffectual and incompetent as McClellan is silly in addition to nonsensical, but I think I'll just suggest that you have too much time on your hands and leave it at that.
That guy eats his shorts on a daily basis. For real.
He has not served the President well in the capacity of Press Secretary. If people on this thread who defend Scott McClellan think he has been an asset to the President in his very visible position, please present evidence of that fact.
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.