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 ...
There are a lot of online news organization that are reporting the news these days
The WH seems to be trying to included them in the pressers
If I recall .. Bloomberg News, The New Republic and a few other online news organizations were once considered not "legitimate"
I'm reminded of "The Birdcage"...except I don't think there were any "escorts" in that film.
Evidently you're not familiar with all the attendees at these briefings and their affiliations and backgrounds. At minimum Gannon was on par with his employment at Talon News.
And I'm tired of people like you talking about Gannon asking the President "questions" plural at "press conferences". Two questions over the course of time is not the stream of questions asked of President Bush by Gannon that you wish to convey. The correct phrase is "questions at press briefings" and they were to McClellan, not President Bush, who, as I just indicated, was asked precisely two questions by Gannon. I'm not impressed with such careless mixing up of facts. Try to be precise.
How would McClellan be aware that Gannon wasn't a "real journalist"? The man was writing articles for a news entity, namely Talon News.
I figured you end in sum with a misguided reference to a defense of Gannon when I have done nothing more than point to fact. My defense is more of the WH. I don't know how you twist it in your head to be a defense of Gannon, except to the extent that he really did produce news articles.
Actually, Guckert was around during the Ari days too, if I remember correctly. ?
Facts don't appear to be up your alley.
You seem to have an axe to grind and like to use events to that end.
Not impressive.
Whether I agree or not on Scott's job preformance as a Press Secretary .. does not make it right to attack him and get him fired for something he didn't do
You seem willing to accuse him of anything just to get him fired
No comment :0)
Hm, making a point of fact is "copious and tedious"? Why not produce one post of mine that illustrates this bizarre characterization?
My posts on this subject are over-whelmingly about addressing the left allegations that Gannon had something to do with the Plame business.
The WH seems to be trying to included them in the pressers
Quite.
You can bet if a dem obtains the WH again HateBill's dream come true will be a reality: Only journalists they want will be there. Oh, happy day.
Speculation and, really, in the end, irrelevant except to smear by association by the allegations made about Gannon and relationships to the WH and to Plame.
The latter two issues have nothing to buttress them except wild innuendo drummed up by we-can-guess-who.
Actually, Guckert was around during the Ari days too, if I remember correctly. ?
He's right. Gannon first started attending briefings in the spring of 2003.
That's not quite true. He used the name of the military to pimp himself to other homosexuals. He didn't really pimp anyone but himself using the name of the U.S. military.
What's your point?
I don't think we'd be charging as fact that he was a plant by that administration in the press pool unless we had real evidence of it, not wishful thinking, nor would we be associating him to an investigation based on an interview he conducted and twisting one question to make outlandish claims on how he came up with that question.
I got your point. It was juvenile and shallow.
Perhaps you're interested in this story in order to focus like a laser on Gannon's background. I'm pointing out his story is out because of his presence in the WH press corps and the leaps and bounds allegations that are being spun, aided with his purported background.
So your point that if he were a dem we'd be going after him like the left is going after Gannon does not ring true to me. Our side has an innate sense of fairness and perspective and while I'm sure if we uncovered that sort of past about a dem reporter we'd be gleeful to an extent, we wouldn't then take the story to riduculous lengths as has been done here re the stories I pointed to.
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.