Posted on 02/18/2005 6:28:03 AM PST by kristinn
I don't think a sane person would conclude anything like that from what I said. What I said was we don't know.
You mean as was done to McGreevey on FR? Oh. Wait. Most Freepers were only concerned about the NJ Gov putting unqualified people in places of trust then using his gay status to coverup the coming storm.
Let me ask you a pertinent question. Do you know the sexual status of anyone else in the WH press corps? No? Why not?
I'm still at the office...think I may haveta skip that one...LOL!!
FReegards...MUD
I know that Helen Thomas is celibate. Because no one is that sick.
But I bet I would have heard about it if any other member of the press corps was soliciting tricks on the internets.
Oh, really? How long was Gannon/Guckert covering press conferences? Why did it take until now for you to hear of this? Or did you already know, and were just keeping quiet?
"I know that Helen Thomas is celibate. Because no one is that sick. "
LOL!!!!
My keyboard hates me now...
EWWWW! My Inner EyE!!!! LOL!!!
But I bet I would have heard about it if any other member of the press corps was soliciting tricks on the internets.
I'm not so sure. Look at Rather and Eason. What they did was worse and they were defended. The MSM defend their own and Gannon doesn't qualify. Do you honestly believe everyone in the WH press corps is pristine?
Yes, I believe they have:
White House Press Meeting Yields No Credentialing Changes, Yet (check out day pass requirements)
excerpt:
Following a meeting today between the leadership of the White House Correspondents' Association and President Bush's press secretary, Scott McClellan, neither side seemed to be in a hurry to alter the current system, which has drawn criticism amid the recent "Jeff Gannon" scandal.
After a 30-minute sit-down with McClellan, WHCA President Ron Hutcheson said he believed the current system was fine and hesitated to have the correspondents' association play a bigger role in distributing press passes. "I'm not sure we need to do anything," Hutcheson told E&P. "I'm not comfortable in passing judgment on who is a journalist and who isn't. My overriding view is that if I am going to make a mistake, it is going to be on letting people in rather than keeping people out."
~snip~
And that's about the hard passes, not even the day passes.
Ummm... Because he was using a fake identity?
In these days of Photoshop I'm surprised anyone believes a picture. What do you bet that someone finds the original gay bar picture without McClellan's face in it. That would be sweet.
Ummm... nice try, but the supposed "gay prostitute" stuff is under the same "Jeff Gannon" name, isn't it?
As far as the website registrations, I have no idea. What I saw didn't have a name on it.
Are those archives hackable? Asking for education here. I want to believe that those slimey pictures were Photoshopped.
It's okay to visit it. Just turn off your monitor first.
Slimey stuff. I still want to believe it's Photoshopped.
I have no idea. I seriously doubt that any other WH press corps reporters are offering their bodies for sale online...using real names.
They're a stupid lot over there.
What?
Oh sorry, my attention was deficating...
I usually got to the site below to check internet archives...it may lead to the same place. I have no idea what security they use...I doubt it was hacked.
http://www.waybackmachine.org
You're asking a "will that dog bite?" question. I assume most things to be hackable. However, the archives exist to record....so I assume at one time it must have existed. You could also search whosit to find out who owns the site, although I believe that info is already available.
Oh....and all dogs bite.
I see. Just this is a "sin". Nothing else. You're missing the point.
.using real names.
What name? See post 191 and 192
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.