home

Gannon Speaks

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 05:52:42 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Talon News reporter Jeff Gannon goes public again, saying he made mistakes but he is still entitled to be a journalist. He denies improper White House access, having a permanent White House pass and ever seeing Valerie Plame documents. John Aravosis of AmerciaBlog is named throughout the WaPo piece and Gannon is forced to respond to his allegations.

Gannon's story of why he used a pseudonym doesn't quite ring true. He says it's because his name is hard to pronounce. James Guckert. So why not be James Gannon instead of Jeff Gannon then?

Crooks and Liars has the video of Gannon's appearance Friday on Anderson Cooper's 360.

< Rehnquist to Miss Two Weeks of New Court Session | Questions About Negroponte >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Gannon Speaks | 73 comments (73 topical)
    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 11:21:34 PM EST
    I've yet to see what the big issue is here. Some loser gets a press pass. Same said loser turns out to be a gay porn dirtbag. In Massachusetts, that gets you elected! Why the hubbub? He asked questions that seemed "freindly" to the Administration? Anyone here ever see a Clinton White House Press Briefing? So what? He may be a leak recipient? How many of the vultures in the White House Press Corps aren't? How do you think they get those jobs? Why is every lefty blog in the country bent on destroying this guy?

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 11:25:10 PM EST
    It's amazing how agitated TL is about this, and how noisily TL shouted "Academic Freedom" with regards to Ward Churchill. Larry Summers? Dead silence.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 11:33:35 PM EST
    Guckert/Gannon is a lying sack of s**t. I can't believe that people can't understand what the big deal of this is. It is a VERY big deal...part of the sleazy tactics of this administration.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 11:56:14 PM EST
    jillian- What is there to get worked up about? So what? Some guy who went to a couple of briefings turns out to be a dirtbag! Can we look into ALL of the Press Corps now? Highlight all the drunks, potheads, and other deviants? Can we pick out the gangbang queen? So this loser didn't toe the liberal "we hate you Mr. President" line- is that what has everyone all upset?

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Feb 18, 2005 at 11:57:08 PM EST
    James, I haven't been following Larry Summers--he's in Boston, Churchill is in my back yard-- until today when I got a call from Fox asking my position. So I looked it up. My position is the same for both: Neither should be fired. Academic freedom and freedom of speech and thought must prevail. Whether I agree with their views is irrelevant. They have the right to express them.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 12:13:40 AM EST
    There's nothing academic about Gannon, so I fail to see what Churchill and Gannon have to do with one another. And if you've been following TL's posts you'd read that she defends his right to privacy, to be gay, to be a prostitute, and to be a conservative.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 12:21:19 AM EST
    I've yet to see much "academic" about Churchill, either.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 12:34:45 AM EST
    Gerry Owen: I've yet to see what the big issue is here. On a scale of evil, with the destruction of Fallujah at 1000, there's no doubt that for the Bush administration to put a fake reporter in White House press briefings in order to ask McClellan softball questions, is something like a 5. You're right that the Bush administration has done far worse things than this: even if we only include "manipulation of the media" I'd say that paying columnists to shill for the administration while they pretend to be independent is worse than setting up a puppet to pose as a reporter and ask McClellan (and Bush) easy questions. It's very embarrassing for the Bush administration, of course, especially after all their hard work getting out the homophobic voters onto their side, to have one of their media whores turn out to be a real whore... and a gay man. But it's not nearly as evil as betraying Valerie Plame's covert identity, even. It's just cynical media manipulation calculated to deceive the American public, and Bush supporters enjoy being manipulated and lied to by the present administration (they must do: they just rolled over to have it happen to them for another four years) so I can see why you don't get what the fuss is about.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 12:37:56 AM EST
    What is there to get worked up about? So what? Some guy who went to a couple of briefings turns out to be a dirtbag! Can we look into ALL of the Press Corps now? Highlight all the drunks, potheads, and other deviants? Can we pick out the gangbang queen?
    Why do I get the feeling that the same people who want to excuse Guckert as "no big deal" would find all these other possibilities ("drunks, potheads, and other deviants") to be a "big deal" if they were in the White House press room?
    So this loser didn't toe the liberal "we hate you Mr. President" line- is that what has everyone all upset?
    It amazes me that the right-wing is still propping up this straw man. Not a single article about Guckert has complained that he's "conservative." No one is complaining about Fox News having access to the White House Press Room, or the Washington Times, or any other news outlets. Guckert was not a reporter. The White House broke its own credentialing rules to put him in the room - giving him the spot a real reporter should have had - so that he could lob softball questions when the going got rough. It's like having two candidates debate in a public forum, and finding out later that the guy one candidate kept calling on was not an "average voter," but a paid campaign worker asking ringer questions. First it was PR video broadcast as fake news without telling anyone. Then it was paying columnists to support the administration's position without telling anyone. Now we find out that at least one "reporter" who has access to the President of the United States is not a reporter at all, but an ideological plant admitted under a false name to keep even the Fox News guys from asking tough questions. Of course, Jillian, it is impossible that you don't understand this, as you can clearly put sentences together and express mature thoughts. Yet you continue to try to excuse the inexcusable for reasons I can't quite fathom. If the Bush adminstration's positions are so self-evidently logical, why can't they sell them without making fake news, fake columns, and fake reporters?

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ray Radlein on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 02:31:09 AM EST
    James, I haven't been following Larry Summers--he's in Boston, Churchill is in my back yard-- until today when I got a call from Fox asking my position. So I looked it up. My position is the same for both: Neither should be fired.
    If Larry Summers were a Professor, I would agree with you; however, he's a university uresident. That's an entirely different job, with entirely different requirements and responsibilities. And the first of those responsibilities is to try not to damage the university's reputation too badly. More directly to the point, Summers has almost certainly made it more difficult for Harvard to attract top-notch female academics in the future. Frankly, Harvard had a fairly poor reputation in that area to begin with; and his comments have pretty well cemented that reputation in the minds of potential academics. If Summers had been a simple professor, speaking as a professor, it would be a cut and dried case of academic freedom. Similarly, if Ward Churchill had been a university president, speaking on behalf of his university, the Trustees would almost certainly have had him out on his ear before he had reached the end of the sentence. Ultimately, of course, it's up to the Trustees; they may not feel that what was said represents a problem; or they may feel that other facets of his job performance (the ability to get grant money flowing inwards, for instance) outweigh any negatives. Heck, the president of my university got convicted of all manner of ugly federal criminal charges shortly after I graduated; but at first, even when things were starting to break all around him, his abilities as a fund-raiser and glad-hander to the elite kept him afloat and employed for no small amount of time.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#11)
    by bad Jim on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 03:45:42 AM EST
    I still think the Poor Man had the definitive take on this:
    Think about it: what are the chances that a media whore like Gannon would turn out to be an actual whore? It's impossible. It boggles the mind how infinitely unlikely this is. It's like if you found someone pirating CDs, and it turns out he actually had a peg leg and a parrot on his shoulder and sailed around the Caribbean saying "arrrrrr!" and plundering booty.


    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 03:57:27 AM EST
    Frankly, Harvard had a fairly poor reputation in that area to begin with; and his comments have pretty well cemented that reputation in the minds of potential academics.
    There's some truth to that. A friend of mine got a full ride in the MD/PhD program at Harvard, JHU, and WUSTL, and she picked WUSTL precisely because they had a better reputation for how they treat women.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#13)
    by Peaches on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 05:28:01 AM EST
    Can we look into ALL of the Press Corps now? Highlight all the drunks, potheads, and other deviants? Can we pick out the gangbang queen? Go ahead Gary. Go find them. The point is that this guy did no have the credentails to even be in the press corps. He was not only a loser, he was a loser who the President called on in a press conference. Right after someone asked the President a question about Armstrong Williams. THe irony never ends Bad Jim-LMAO I love the comments from the probushies on this forum insisting its a nonstory. Nonstories don't require a response or a justification. Stories no one cares about are left alone. Noone ever goes around saying that a "nonissue" is a nonissue. Only real big issues get the label "nonissue."

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 06:04:02 AM EST
    Peaches - I know of no set of rules that defines the credentials that a person must have to be at a White House press briefing. If you have a copy of the rules, please provide same. Ray R writes - "If Larry Summers were a Professor, I would agree with you; however, he's ......a president..." Okay, pick any lower level management business dude and say he shouldn't have been fired for getting a BJ from one of the firms very young employees... and then follow that to its logical end... and you have to say, Clinton should have been fired. Matt writes - "Guckert was not a reporter." Matt, I know of no rule that says he has to be a "reporter." Define reporter: " one that reports: as a : one who makes authorized statements of law decisions or legislative proceedings b : one who makes a shorthand record of a speech or proceeding c (1) : one employed by a newspaper, magazine, or television company to gather and report news (2) : one who broadcasts news" Based on the above, Helen Thomas shouldn't be there because she now writes a column, commenting on the news instead of reporting it. Also you write - " but a paid campaign worker asking ringer questions." Can anyone remember the female student who got tossed because she would not submit her questions for approval? And the politician? I remember it was a Democrat, and seems like it was during the primaries.. et al - I'm still laughing.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#15)
    by DonS on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 06:11:06 AM EST
    Dear tools of the right, Gannon could not have gotten into the press briefings without inside assistance. Given his pretty open, sleazy background (I means how long did it take to blow his cover when people made and effort to look), it seems pretty clear there was no check, or it was intentionally overlooked. Why? How? Who? Y'all want us to look the other way. There will be some heads rolling at the WH before this is over because Bush is not going to be tarnished by this gay guy. His base wouldn't like it.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 07:21:52 AM EST
    DonS - You saying so doesn't make it true. He defines what he did to get a pass. Can you prove him wrong? From the article, which you might be able to read since it requires subscription and password: "Dismissing speculation that he had a permanent White House press pass, which requires a full-blown FBI background check that usually takes months, Gannon said he could not get one because he was required to first get a pass from the Senate press gallery, which did not consider him to be working for a legitimate news organization. Instead, he said he was admitted on a day-to-day basis after supplying his real name, date of birth and Social Security number. He said he did not use a pseudonym to hide his past but because his real last name is hard to spell and pronounce." et al - It is exceedingly clear, that just as it is not acceptable to be a conservative black, it is also not acceptable to be a conservative homosexual.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 07:30:10 AM EST
    I can't believe Gannon had the nerve to say "People criticize me for being a Christian." People critize you because you are a plant that lobbed softball questions to the administration. Lies, lies and more lies keep drinking it up PPJ.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#18)
    by DonS on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 07:31:12 AM EST
    You ladies indeed protest too much. Why, why, why, why, why would you even watse your time defending a wastrel like this? Civil rights? Gay rights? Make me laugh. And y'll know, or should, the issue isn't about homosexuality, it just so happens that along with the rest of the stinky mess there's a lot of sex involved. I think there have been enough hypocritical gays outed amongst the conservative "family values" types to put to rest any notion that its a librul phenom. Why indeed is the WH letting him out in public to speak? Trying to get thee own spin out there to protect the insiders? But don't worry, with a few minor quakes I imagine the MSM will bury the real story here.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 07:36:07 AM EST
    Who cares if he use an alias, so does Jon Stewart!! So he's an idiot, what's the big deal? I don't see a real story here.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#20)
    by DonS on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 07:46:20 AM EST
    You too huh Angelica? Just imagine this had occurred under a dem WH. Still no story here? No gay cabal infiltrating the WH press operation (because how else did joker get inside)? No outrage that security had been compromised? Say it with a straight face?

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#21)
    by Peaches on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 07:48:34 AM EST
    I know of no set of rules that defines the credentials that a person must have to be at a White House press briefing. If you have a copy of the rules, please provide same. ppj, Are you saying there are no such rules. Or are you just pointing out that I don't know these rules, so I should refrain from commenting. I think the onus is on you to provide the rules or evidence that the White house does not have rules that define the credentials. I am making an obvoious and reasonable assumption that the White House has always been cautious about who it allows into the same room as the President. ANd Post-9/11, these rules have been made stricter. Although, I doubt there are any rules about individuals who were male escorts in their past or current lives, I would be willing to bet that there are strict requirements about what constitutes a news organization and that Talon News does not meet that requirement.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#22)
    by DonS on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 08:27:21 AM EST
    PPJ say "DonS - You saying so doesn't make it true.", i.e., inside assistance. If I'm wrong, then the WH has a bigger(or at least as big) problem than corruption, like massive incompetence.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 08:31:05 AM EST
    DonS writes - "Why indeed is the WH letting him out in public to speak?" Well, since he doesn't work for the WH, and since this is a free country.... Does that answer your question? As for "ladies protesting too much.." Ladies have hissy fits. Men invite you to kiss a certain part of the human anatomy. Take your pick. ;-) Peaches - I am saying that if such rules exist they must be in favor of Gannon or else the Left wing bloggers would have whipped them out long ago. My guess he said what the rules are. And since you folks are saying he violated the "rules," you are the rightful ones to prove your assertion, not the dude back in the corner laughing so hard he can't stand up. In the meantime Bush is completing his agenda. Some of, BTW, that I disagree with. But, of course, Gannon is so very much more important than Gay Marriage. Cheers to the guys and gals down at the Muddy Pig!

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#24)
    by DonS on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 08:35:27 AM EST
    I could go on all day about this being a WH problem, because I believe in Occam's razor; easy, like shooting fish in a barrel. Y'all are twisting yourself like pretzels. Whistling past the graveyard and all that.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 08:40:05 AM EST
    It's a very interersting story and I think it has legs. Sadly, part of the story's legs has to do with the media and public's fascination with the salacious details, but the real story is the outright manipulation of the news. I think the Nazis were also very good at this. It takes a lot of effort to get the masses worked up into a wartime frenzy and to keep them there. It's very profitable, so it's money well spent to hire guys like Gannon/Guckert to protect the administration in the press briefings and to payoff journalists who can be bought easily like Armstrong Williams to do a little shilling. Luckily, the administration also has fools who will do their bidding without payment. You know who you are.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#26)
    by Peaches on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:02:26 AM EST
    Cheers to the guys and gals down at the Muddy Pig! Actually, last night I was hanging at the Tavern on Grand and tonight I will be tipping a few at Sweeney's, but I'll give everyone your regards, regardless. Shame on me for trying to engage you in civil discourse. I should have known you would only laugh at me. So, now I will resort to insults. $%&@-off A#$hole! WHile, I'm at it - since I'm in such a tither - I'll just throw out a Piggy is a DumbF$%^ and Cliff Sucks eggs too. And the rest of you, neocons, Bush-supporters, warmongers, etc. know what you can do with yourself too. Meanwhile, I'm off to work. Check back with you in a week or two. Cheers

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:15:06 AM EST
    PPJ: The organization that vets journalists for passes for congress turned down Gannon/Guckert. This pass is a prerequisite for a hard pass for the WH. This fact has been mentioned several times in various media. Do you ever read/hear anything but right-wing media?

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#28)
    by Adept Havelock on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:27:03 AM EST
    Funny bit on the Gannon situation. http://www.unitedmedia.com/editoons/luckovich/archive/luckovich-20050212.html

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:34:20 AM EST
    This is just the tip of the iceburg.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 09:43:47 AM EST
    "Read my lips. I did not have se**al relations with that man." Karma

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 11:01:23 AM EST
    et al - It is exceedingly clear, that just as it is not acceptable to be a conservative black, it is also not acceptable to be a conservative homosexual.
    Well, according to many conservatives, including certain well-known conservative blacks, it's not acceptable to be a homosexual at all. Hence the quandary faced by gays who are otherwise conservative.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 12:07:00 PM EST
    Funny, so much growling over this guy, but not a word about Eason Jordan... Why?

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 12:34:14 PM EST
    Peaches, look dude, if you adopt humorous positions, don't get all knotted up when someone pokes fun at you. Remember, laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and you cry alone. In the meantime, what rules? Dearest No Name - And your point is? Look, if the fact that he is gay and conservative has nothing to do with anything, why bring it up? Dearest No Name - Do you bother to read comments before you jump in and make yourself look dumb? I direct your attention to my 8:21AM comment. Note that he says, Senate, not Congress. And do you have proof that a Senate, or Congress, pass is required for a WH pass? Last time I checked both sides were as jealous over turf issues as a hungry dog with a fresh bone. But maybe you can help us. I await your evidence. BTW - He had a day pass. But don't let facts slow you down. DonS - If you want to accept the Occam's Razor answer: He wanted to be a reporter so he went to work for the dude that founded Talon and got a day pass because he couldn't get a hard pass. He asked softball questions because his bias is towards the Repubs and wanted to curry favor. Next? BurgerBoy - No one wants to talk aboutEason Jordan because he had a job in which he could actually influence the news.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#34)
    by nolo on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 12:40:58 PM EST
    no name was me, ppj. The point of bringing up Guckert's history of being gay for pay is that it (a) makes a mockery of the white house vetting process and (b) makes a mockery of Guckert, who will apparently gay-bash for pay as well. By characterizing these valid criticisms as an attack on Guckert for being both conservative and gay, you've missed the point.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 01:23:26 PM EST
    nolo - Speaking of reporters and journalists being on the payroll you are invited to check out this article. You may note that, unlike Gannon, there is no question about whether or not he was on the payroll.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 01:23:41 PM EST
    John Aravosis is reporting that on a fairly large scale commenters on his web site who use their real names are getting calls from people pretending to be him, asking them not to post on his web site anymore.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#37)
    by nolo on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 01:32:14 PM EST
    Nice nonsequitur, ppj. My reference to gaybashing for pay was to Guckert's affiliation with Talon/GOPUSA, upon whose payroll Guckert unquestionably was, at least until he became somewhat of an embarrassment.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 01:47:49 PM EST
    Your right PPJ Noone, not even the liberals want to be exposed for their hatred and continual denial of the facts along with their attempted subversion of American public opinion... Their outlandish accusations continue to plummet their credibility. Did you hear about the Submarine that is being named after President Dhimmi Carter, I hear it only turns left...

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#39)
    by DonS on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 02:04:08 PM EST
    PPJ: "If you want to accept the Occam's Razor answer: He wanted to be a reporter so he went to work for the dude that founded Talon and got a day pass because he couldn't get a hard pass." . . . one more time . . . ergo, if not malfeasance than massive incompetence in the WH vetting process to the point of being a security problem if someone like Gannon can slip through.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 02:16:27 PM EST
    nolo - The fact that he worked for Talon - GOPUSA has never, to my knowledge, been disputed. Biased reporting has a long and distingushed history populated by such luminaries as Dan Rather. If you are say he was gay bashing, I haven't seen an example. The central claim has been that he worked for the WH, something that hasn't been proven, and the credential strawhorse has been just that. A strawhorse. Again, no proof just claims. But when we have someone working for a very well known MSM magazine as the Nation also being paid to write for and consult for the UN, you have nothing to say. As Gannon is gone, so should Ian Williams. Hypocritical is as hypocritical does.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#41)
    by nolo on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 02:25:13 PM EST
    Nice of you to call The Nation a mainstream magazine when most of the folks going on about the Williams "scandal" are calling it a far left rag.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 02:36:27 PM EST
    DonS - Can you show that Gannon, or someone like him is a "security problem?" I thought Lefties welcomed diversity. I know I do. And what malfeasance? How is giving someone you don't approve of, "malfesance?" Look DonS, the Left is not in power. They don't get to control things like this, which is really the core of your/their complaints. BB - True.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#43)
    by Adept Havelock on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 02:39:16 PM EST
    Where's the outrage here about Eason, you ask? Probably the same place the outrage on the right was when the Good Old Poobahs of the religous reich, Falwell and Robertson, made comments that like Ward Churchill, suggested that America had some culpability in the attacks of 9/11. Of course, Falwell and Robertson blamed it on the perennial boogeymen of the Right, the Gays, the Secularists, etc. Other than Bush's press release, that was the ONLY condemnation I heard about it. Nothing from the usual GOP talking heads even pretended to be upset about it. So, where's the outrage about the right-wingers who "blamed America"? Something about Motes and Beams...for the "christians" out there.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 02:40:46 PM EST
    nolo - Thanks for catching my mistake.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#45)
    by Adept Havelock on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 02:43:51 PM EST
    PPJ- You ask "where's the security problem"? If security is sloppy enough someone with that many issues in their background could get access to the WH press room and the president during a press conference- who says an AQ "mole" couldn't? That's the security issue. Not with G/G, but with what it says about the standards for security. If the security was fine though, then who inside the WH gave him his pass before Talon news even existed?

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 02:55:22 PM EST
    PPJ, you are fond of calling people obtuse, but if your reply isn't misdirection I don't know what is. I mean, why not concede some logical points; this is not winning $1M buck we're arguing over. " Can you show that Gannon, or someone like him is a "security problem?" " See response immediately above. res ipsa loqitor", i.e., slam dunk. "I thought Lefties welcomed diversity. I know I do." Good one. You got me there. Actually, your shifitng ground on arguments, even in the same post, is dizzying. "And what malfeasance? How is giving someone you don't approve of, "malfesance?" " No, you silly goose. The disapproval isn't the point; try to follow the logical line. The malfeasance (could/would have been" the trading this for that, quid pro quo and all . . . potentially. " the Left is not in power. They don't get to control things like this, which is really the core of your/their complaints." There you go again, hurting my feelings. Actually I'm against scumbags without prejudice to political label. And to use one of your patented comebacks: you don't know the core or my complaints beyond what I say or you imagine.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 02:55:58 PM EST
    Adept - You fail to grasp the difference in the actors. Fallwell and Robertson are members/owners/whatever of a private group/organization. Just as Churchill had the right to say what he did, so did they. The difference is that they are not feeding from the public trough, as is Chruchill. So they can say what they please, and suffer the consquences of whatever the members of their groups want to levy upon them, with absolutely no interference from the government. They have no tenure. No claim of academic freedom. So no one in government had a valid claim to criticize. On the other hand, Churchill is said to not only have the right, but no one can exact punishment upon him, even though a vast number of his employers, the taxpayers of Colorado and the US in general, want him sanctioned, because he has tenure, academic freedom, etc. You will also find that preachers saying that God's will is being done will always be tolerated better than Left Wing professors calling people Little Eichmans, and wishing that the country didn't exist. Call it a matter of taste. We remain a nation of meat and potatoes.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#48)
    by DonS on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 02:58:12 PM EST
    at 3:55

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#49)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 03:10:27 PM EST
    What would have happened if a woman had been exposed as someone who had never published an article before becoming essentially a permanent member of the WH press corps, and then was discovered to be an active prostitute. What would have happened if this had taken place when Clinton was in office? I believe the theme would have been, "Who is sneaking a prostitute into the White House?" My question then is this: "Who is sneaking a prostitute into the White House, and has the juice to get him a press pass to cover his presence?"

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 03:14:25 PM EST
    Is that you DonS?? and for sure Adept - How do you know they didn't investigate him enough to know that he wasn't a threat? You don't know. I think you are starting to slip back to a homophobic position. i.e. He's gay so he can be controlled by threatening to "out" him. And he worked for GOPUSA before Talon. You may not think of it as a news organization, but beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. And besides, they didn't have to satisfy you, or the Left. "quid pro quo and all...potentially." That's a woulda, coulda. Shakesphere said it better...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. And since there isn't a hint of malfeasance, your, and the Left's, disapproval is based on politics alone. Always a shaky position. Glad to know you have high ideals and are non-partisian in your complaints, If you have been around for a while, you have seen me comment that I'm a social liberal, Independent, ex-Democrat who supports Bush for his foreign policy and his tax cuts. I have called for medical care reform, education reform, tax policy reform, pro choice and pro Gay Marriage. That is, there really are people who would vote for a Democrat if the candidate wasn't totally beholden to the anti-war faction.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 03:15:53 PM EST
    RePack - Of course. And it would make no more sense than what we see about Gannon.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#52)
    by DonS on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 03:23:35 PM EST
    "If you have been around for a while, you have seen me comment that I'm a social liberal" Yeah, I've been here, before you, and have yet to see you say anything specifically that backed up you general claims to be a "liberal" You're picking nits. No way a toy boy like "Gannon" can't be a security threat. Stop playing coy. It's not the gay; its the slimy porn underworld. Surely you get that. "Quid pro quo". A guy can hope can't he? Maybe ifwe had a "fair and balanced media".

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 06:16:01 PM EST
    "Posted by Gerry Owen: "I've yet to see much "academic" about Churchill, either." OK, let's hear YOUR appraisal of Hanna Arendt's discussion of Eichmann, and then your assessment of the anti-democratic actions of the CIA, and your discussion of the rank immorality of the condition of native American locales like Rosebud, SD, the poorest county in the US. Ward Churchill is has an educated point of view on all three of those issues, including the factual knowledge needed to discuss them in detail. He's demonstrated that sufficiently for CSPAN viewers, so if you can't see the intellectual ('academic') content, you're just blinded by the right. Since your comments have no intellectual content, shall we put you down as yet another troll? I thought so. Every other troll with their 'nothing to see here' protestations/apologia, eat me. We could find out that Bush has sex with a pair of kangaroos, and you would be wondering aloud why it's an issue. 1,475 dead GIs. Not one gram of WMD in Iraq. More than 100,000 civilians killed, and one town (at least) leveled. A gay hooker who dances with Donald Rumsfeld at parties and wears Bush on his bald head as a succubus with a pimp's hat...where's the story in that?

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 06:27:10 PM EST
    DA - So now we have a picture? Come on. Can you tell us what the difference is between the two? Paul In LA - Nice to see you back making wild claims. As for Churchill, it has been said that his work is not acceptable. We shall wait and see. We know that he claimed that the white man used germ warfare against indians, about 50 years before the concept of germs was even known. As for WMD's, you should read the Kay Report. Especially the latter sections that cover in great detail the on going attempts by Saddam to build WMD's and re-start the programs to do so.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 08:10:15 PM EST
    DA - I guess youu've never had a plastic ID made. It takes abour 3 minutes, picture taking included. But keep on grasping at straws. You may need the excercise.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#59)
    by Peaches on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 08:37:03 PM EST
    ,i>Peaches, look dude, if you adopt humorous positions, don't get all knotted up when someone pokes fun at you. Remember, laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry, and you cry alone. ppj, You know thats what all f#$%ed up about internet communications. You have no idea whether I'm laughing or crying. And that cracks me up.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Feb 19, 2005 at 10:55:26 PM EST
    "Paul In LA - Nice to see you back making wild claims." "Wild claims," Jim? Find one in my post. Oh, I forgot, you don't do facts, you just play supercilious ass-kisser for Bush. "As for Churchill, it has been said that his work is not acceptable. We shall wait and see." Meaning exactly NOTHING. His work is unacceptable? Since when? He has passed all his reviews to date. Maybe he is hiding WMD in his drawers, eh Jim? " We know that he claimed that the white man used germ warfare against indians, about 50 years before the concept of germs was even known." You really are as ignorant as you seem. Germ theory goes back millenia. The Chinese were variolating as early as 900 CE. Military efforts to spread plague date back at least to 1347. The supply of smallpox blankets to natives in an intentional campaign of genocide is documented: "Trent's entry for May 24, 1763, includes the following statement: '... we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect.'" The actual argument of facts would at best put this professor into a controversy. How shocking! But since there is easily obtained evidence on his side of the argument, you clearly have just repeated a lie told to you, and not your own independent research. Therefore, in Churchill's class or any other, you get an F. Why am I not surprised.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:13:12 AM EST
    Peaches - What's better yet, I don't care. Here's to laughing with you, at you, or about you. ;-) Say hello to the gang down at the Muddy Pig. Paul In LA - I note you continue to not link. Why not? I remember that some distinguished professor wrote a book about the number of guns in pre-revolutionary war America. Turns out he made the information up. That claim I noted Churchill made is said to be incorrect. Given the time frame, I have to agree. As for the time frame involved, the Chinese had gunpowder and printing centuries before Europe. Problem is, Europe didn't, so what does your claim mean? In the 18th century and early 19th century one in six women in Europe were dying after childbirth of the "fever." Transmitted by doctors who didn't wash their hands. This was in eductated Europe. Do you want to tell us that germ theory was understood well enough to kill indians, but not enough to save patients? Paul, your problem is that you read a little and accept the current dogma. Try a little independent thought. DA - Well, here I was thinking you were a business owner running an acconting/tax firm that wouldn't need a ID card. Now you have burst my bubble. As to what you have heard about day passes, and how they are made, I really don't know. I do know that some systems store the picture, and can later print/manufacture an ID badge very, very quickly. And why should you care? He is there. He writes, he cuts, he pastes, whatever. Who reads them? And why is that any of your business? Have you heard of freedom of the press? Shall we let the Right shut down all the Left's alternative newspapers? Freedom of the press. Freedom of speech. It works for all of us.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 09:11:50 AM EST
    DA - Of course the MSM want to control who can get a pass. After all, Leslie Stahl makes big bucks doing for the Left side what Gannon supposedly did for the Right, for almost nothing. She should be concerned. Especially if her boss is looking and is worried about his budget. As for "real journalist:" " a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience 2 : a person who keeps a journal" I think you must mean reporter. Two different animals. But either way, it is obvious that you, and other members of the Left, want to control who get a pass. You remind me of that line from "Animal Farm." "All animals are equal, but pigs are more equal that other animals."

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#64)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 09:36:27 AM EST
    Dearest No Name - Do you bother to read comments before you jump in and make yourself look dumb? I direct your attention to my 8:21AM comment. Note that he says, Senate, not Congress. And do you have proof that a Senate, or Congress, pass is required for a WH pass? Do you understand that the term Congress stands for both houses and not just the House of Representatives (as in a joint session of Congress)? The requirements for a hard pass have been stated by the press committee that issues those passes for congressional reporters. You just proved that you don't read traditional news sources like newspapers.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 10:09:59 AM EST
    Dearest No Name - Get a grip and read what I said. I am quoting Gannon, although I confess I didn't know if both the House and the Senate used the same committee. What no one has said is this. Is there another group that vets and issues passess for the WH? I suspect there this. And is it a requirement for a person to pass one to get the other? I suspect not. Perhaps you reading newspapers and being such an expert you can link us to a site that answers these questions. As for proving anything, where do you get such a dumb comment? That is just an attempt to make a snarky comment, which is okay, I am here to please. BTW - One of the more amazing things about all this is how, about 7 years ago, we had a guy working in the WH with 1100 or so FBI files of Repubs. What was amazing about it was this. Not only did no one know how he got the files or how he got the clearance, he didn't even know who hired him. Guess what goes around comes around.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:17:32 PM EST
    What's better yet, I don't care. ppj, Oh yeah, kind of like you don't really cares about the Gannon story. he-he! You funny, old man!

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#67)
    by Peaches on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:17:55 PM EST
    Oops, above post your's truly

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:20:18 PM EST
    Jim: "Paul In LA - I note you continue to not link." You didn't link; why should I? These are easily found materials. "As for the time frame involved, the Chinese had gunpowder and printing centuries before Europe. Problem is, Europe didn't, so what does your claim mean?" The point about China was that smallpox was a well-known illness very early on. People knew it was contagious. You confuse microbiological germ theory for the knowledge of contagion. That's the basis of this supposed falsehood that Churchill said; which isn't either false nor a LINKED QUOTE to what he said. "In the 18th century and early 19th century one in six women in Europe were dying after childbirth of the "fever." Transmitted by doctors who didn't wash their hands. This was in eductated Europe. Do you want to tell us that germ theory was understood well enough to kill indians, but not enough to save patients?" Exactly. The contagion of germs on a doctors hands have NOTHING to do with smallpox, which is a goopy, disgusting illness which puts off blood and pus like a bacon factory. The idea that germ theory was needed is directly disproved by the evidence I gave. You can find the same material in YOUR ten second Google search. "Paul, your problem is that you read a little and accept the current dogma. Try a little independent thought." More slanders from the nonresponsive Jim. "Trent's entry for May 24, 1763, includes the following statement: '... we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect.'" link Your false statement was just disproved. Just keep waving your arms around and maybe no one will notice.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#69)
    by Adept Havelock on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:26:26 PM EST
    I seem to recall that the besieging forces launched plague-ridden corpses over the walls during the seige of Constantinople (not Istanbul.......) Biological Warfare in Europe, 14-15th century style. Let's not forget the act of biowarfare conducted by our own govt. against the Cherokee in the Oklahoma Terr. Someone probably got a medal for the idea of giving smallpox infected Army blankets to the natives.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 03:51:23 PM EST
    Peaches - I googled it and it looks like it is about 6 to 1 Left vs Right in web comments. BTW - You're still invited to laugh with me, or at me or at yourself. It'll do you a world of good, Paul In LA - A link! Looks bad for the home team, yet there still is that charge that this didn't happen. I'll wait and see. Adept - Didn't know you were that old.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#71)
    by Peaches on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 04:05:29 PM EST
    BTW - You're still invited to laugh with me, or at me or at yourself. It'll do you a world of good, Cmon, you're old, but you can't be that daft yet. I've been laughing at you for over six months. You're latest google search is only the most recent bellylaugh I've gotten from your contributions here. (just for clarification, where do your posts fall under--left or right)lol But, if I must be honest, I've been laughing at myself my whole life.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:02:09 PM EST
    Paul In LA – BTW – Just for grins, read the complete link. "May] 24th [1763] The Turtles Heart a principal Warrior of the Delawares and Mamaltee a Chief came within a small distance of the Fort Mr. McKee went out to them and they made a Speech letting us know that all our [POSTS] as Ligonier was destroyed, that great numbers of Indians [were coming and] that out of regard to us, they had prevailed on 6 Nations [not to] attack us but give us time to go down the Country and they desired we would set of immediately. The Commanding Officer thanked them, let them know that we had everything we wanted, that we could defend it against all the Indians in the Woods, that we had three large Armys marching to Chastise those Indians that had struck us, told them to take care of their Women and Children, but not to tell any other Natives, they said they would go and speak to their Chiefs and come and tell us what they said, they returned and said they would hold fast of the Chain of friendship. Out of our regard to them we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect. They then told us that Ligonier had been attacked, but that the Enemy were beat off..." Note that what we have here is an Indian telling them that they will remain friends. We then have the statement “Out of our regard for them, we gave them…..” That is not a statement of anger. Now, the sentence, “I hope it will have the desired effect.” What effect? Why the retention of the friendship by giving them gifts. And if you will do some more Google work you will see that there are those who do not agree with your position. So don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. Peaches - Old? But you just told me that no can tell over the Internet... ;-) Alas though, you are correct. My days grow shorter. As for my positions, they fall to the liberal side on almost all domestic issues, but solidly to the right on defense and foreign policy. I am an Indpendent when it comes to voting. I do insist that there is a difference between the Left and Liberals.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#73)
    by Peaches on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 05:50:57 PM EST
    As for my positions, they fall to the liberal side on almost all domestic issues, but solidly to the right on defense and foreign policy. I am an Indpendent when it comes to voting. I have decided to take pity on you because of your age. I won't laugh at your expense for your characterization of your liberal positions. I have been around long enough to hear you tell this tale before. I asked for clarification, however for your google search. Jokes are not funny when you have to explain them, but then again you are old. See, you said 6 to 1 left versus right on your google search. I asked where your posts fell under on the google search. Get it? He-he.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#75)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 07:50:26 PM EST
    DA - That's the worst LV story I've heard since I first heard Henny Youngman do it. ;-) And you really need to look up reporter and journalist. The differences exist, and they are not trivial. The Gannon story is now drifting off into the sunset while the right is chanting "Jordon, Rather. Jordan, Rather." Peaches - You are just so sweet. Say hello for me to all the guys and gals down at the Muddy Pig. And yeah, that's a giggle you're hearing. ... Do you remember the lawyer in "True Grit?"

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 20, 2005 at 10:50:08 PM EST
    Jim, you don't read, or you won't read, who cares which. But for the edification of others, here is what I wrote above: "The actual argument of facts would at best put this professor into a controversy. How shocking! " Your thesis, that ignorance of germ theory (as you understand that) inherently counters the statement that intentional contagion was intentional policy is PROVEN false. As AH notes, the other example I gave was European military attempts to spread plague as a method of war, which dates back at least to 1347. Now you want to pick at a piece of the evidence, but I'm not Ward Churchill, and you haven't made a cogent attack on him yet. This idea you got from somewhere that ignorance of microbiology means that people were unable to conceive of contagion is flat out ridiculous. So at best you are pointing at a controversy, a dispute at facts, as I noted. Since I'm fairly sure that WC has written books on the subject, go there and fight with his references, which I'm sure are plentiful. But your statement that he should be fired 'for an obvious falsehood' simply doesn't wash. You want to stiffle his speech because you don't like what he says. You haven't disproved what he says, and you aren't even qualified to, in most likelihood. You get an F. Your thesis is disproved, and is silly in the first place. As for genocide through smallpox blankets, or scalping laws, or dispossession through alcohol, or abrogation of legally-binding treaties, or forced marches in the middle of winter, or the slaughter of the bison, or any of the other obvious examples of this racist policy of extermination carried out TO OUR GREAT SHAME, that just isn't the issue. I'm pretty sure WC could whip your butt on the evidence any day of the week. Your attempt to spread a lie has failed.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#78)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 12:18:29 AM EST
    Since you bring up syphillis, let it be known that scientists have PROVEN that syphillis is an old world contagion going back into Roman times at least. The old lie that it was carried back from the new world has been proven false. Invaders/explorers from the old world brought a viciously contagious illness to the new world, killing much of the native population. The new world had syphillis as well, but not in the virulent form. Their constant contact and communal living had allowed them to develop a low-grade skin form of the illness as a general benign contagion, a natural process similar to vaccination. Consequently, they had no defense to the virulent form, and died in droves. Blaming the new worlders for syphillis was a classic defense of racism. Too bad, Jim, another piece of your superstitious anti-factualism shot down. Not a single WMD found in Iraq. USPNAC have committed grave warcrimes, and terrorism, in complete violation of the law.

    Re: Gannon Speaks (none / 0) (#79)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Feb 21, 2005 at 12:27:51 AM EST
    I challenge any winger here to tell me what qualifications Guckert had to be issued his pass. What qualified Jim Guckert to receive his passes into the WH press room?

    Gannon Speaks | 73 comments (73 topical)