Whereas some reporters who've spent countless hours studying and training in journalism during college and a few real-life situations, have beaten serious pavement and driven into the middle of God-knows-where to cover an event, who DO care about turning in an objective, honest and well-written story to their editor, would not only NOT get within a half-mile of this same press room, but get called an "asshole" by that very President, who then orders the same staff that let Gannon in to tell this reporter to "GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!"... some consistency, huh?
Or maybe it's just that I didn't have all the bases covered. I mean, I've never posted a photo anywhere of myself wearing anything less than shorts and a t-shirt. And I've only had one girlfriend in my entire life: the girl who's now my wife. Obviously I haven't been "playing the field" enough to hack it as a REAL reporter per the standards of President George W. Bush and his staff.
Well, time to fix that. Ladies, remember that I'm already a happily taken man: I'm only doing this because of career demands. Wish it hadn't come to this, but I've got a wife and some Sea Monkeys(tm) to keep fed. Seeing as how I've got much more training and experience (as a journalist, mind ya) than Jeff Gannon/James Guckert ever had...
19 comments:
OMG!!! Chris you stud-muffin you!! :)
Would I look that good if I started going to the Y too?
"apparently whether he was distributing gay pornography and prostituting himself over the Internet"
Boy are you out of the loop. Those charges turned out to be bogus. That'll teach the Daily News to use Daily Kos as a source.
This was definitely my favorite news story of the week. Who cares if the allegations that he's a gay pimp are false? There's still thousands of people out there who believe Clinton killed Vince Foster. Time to rip a page out of the GOP playbook, boys. They asked for it.
"Boy are you out of the loop. Those charges turned out to be bogus. That'll teach the Daily News to use Daily Kos as a source."
Are you BLIND man?? Pics of Gannon in his underwear from his online 'proposition' are all over the place. Friends in Iceland told me they're laughing hard at Bush letting this creep in. Or has it entered into your mind that it's not whether he's a HOMOSEXUAL that's the problem. The problem is HOW or WHY did the Bush staff give Gannon all the access he desired without any of the standard scrutiny that all members of the White House press pool get. Don't you think that would be a moderately stupid thing to do in respect to presidential security?? If he's gay and posing as a Republican conservative that's laughable but not illegal. Giving false information to get close to the President is highly illegal. If it's ever proven that Gannon was passed information and instructions to "out" Valerie Plame as a deep-cover CIA agent by White House staff in retaliation against her husband Joe Wilson ...
... well boy, can you spell "RICO"?
"Are you BLIND man?? Pics of Gannon in his underwear from his online 'proposition' are all over the place."
Wrong again. I've seen the pic and that isnt him. A good look alike, but it isnt him. Another bogus charge that originated on DU (and this isn't the first time they've mistaken someone in a photo for someone else). I know that the pic is all over the place. DUers, among other lefties,
tend to run with what they choose to believe, thereby spreading false rumors, rather than wait for some sort of better confirmation about the truth. The story on Bush and the AFOUA ribbon that originated on DU comes to mind.
"The problem is HOW or WHY did the Bush staff give Gannon all the access he desired without any of the standard scrutiny that all members of the White House press pool get. Don't you think that would be a moderately stupid thing to do in respect to presidential security??"
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000799182
"Giving false information to get close to the President is highly illegal."
True. It is. Which Gannon didn't do. Not only are you out of the loop, but you also haven't a clue about what you are talking about.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000799182
"If it's ever proven that Gannon was passed information and instructions to "out" Valerie Plame as a deep-cover CIA agent by White House staff in retaliation against her husband Joe Wilson"
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000799182
... well boy, can you spell "RICO"?
Can you spell DELUIONAL, MISINFORMED, OUT OF THE LOOP, RUNNING WITH SCISSORS?
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000799182
"Can you spell DELUIONAL, "
Whoops Typo: DELUSIONAL
"Who cares if the allegations that he's a gay pimp are false? There's still thousands of people out there who believe Clinton killed Vince Foster. Time to rip a page out of the GOP playbook, boys. They asked for it."
Typical. Typical. That's an ignorant rationalization.
Imagine yourself getting a ticket: "but officers - other people do it too!" - how offen does it work?
I once heard or read that the definition of a conservative was a liberal that outgrew adolescence. I am becoming convinced this is axiomatic.
Past examples of sophomoric behavior of the democratic party include the outgoing kids of the Clinton whitehouse removing the 'W' key from the computer keyboards, the George Bush floor mat at the Democratic Hq in D.C., and in general any response in a debate from a democrat where their defense is 'well the Republicans do it too'. It reminds me of my schoolmates when they were 7 or 8 and into trouble.
Hey, lets go rob a bank! Republicans do it too! Hey, lets go tell a bunch of lies! Republicans do it too! Hey, lets go bomb a country and kill innocent people! Republicans do it too!
I'm unbelievably tired of hearing the canned and cliche refrain "Well, Republicans do it too," which is striking in that only liberals and "moderates" are even in a position to have to use such stupid language to justify themselves.
I don't believe 'everyone' does it, but even if it did, can you, in your own heart, condone it regardless of who it is that is doing it? If so, I have to say I'm disappointed in you. You should have more ethics than that. We have to stand against this kind of lawlessness when we see it. Regardless of what political party we belong to, we are--or should be--Americans first and foremost. These people are killing the system that has made this country great. Are you going to aid and abet them in this operation, or stand against it?
No wonder this post attracted so many responses:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3092769
Hey Knighshift, is that you? PresidentErnestTBass? Or is it someone you know?
It ain't me (but I'm in North Carolina so that strikes me as a *darned* scary screenname LOL!! :-) There's a fella on DU who writes in every now and then asking if he can quote my stuff there and I always tell him "sure". Apparently they have a policy against fully quoting something without the author's permission. I don't have a problem with anyone fully quoting me anywhere. If someone wants to post in its entirety anything that they find here, they're more than welcome to do so. Even if it's on a site that I don't necessarily agree with philosophically.
Maybe I should put a note to that effect somewhere on here...?
"I don't believe 'everyone' does it, but even if it did, can you, in your own heart, condone it regardless of who it is that is doing it? If so, I have to say I'm disappointed in you. You should have more ethics than that. We have to stand against this kind of lawlessness when we see it. Regardless of what political party we belong to, we are--or should be--Americans first and foremost. These people are killing the system that has made this country great. Are you going to aid and abet them in this operation, or stand against it?"Should be shouted from the rooftops. Great job anonymous (whoever you are :-)
Wow. I'm blown away by the fact that the one anonymous poster claimed that the various details of the Gannon scandal were false based only upon Gannon's own denial in an Editor & Publisher interview. Oh well, so much for common sense.
Exactly. Sorta like acquitting Charles Manson because he'd deny ever listening to the Beatles' White Album.
"Wow. I'm blown away by the fact that the one anonymous poster claimed that the various details of the Gannon scandal"
What scandal? There is no scandal.
"were false based only upon Gannon's own denial in an Editor & Publisher interview."
Since Gannon is in the middle of all this, I'd say that he has a better idea than you of what is true and not about this entire "scandal."
What Gannon has said in his defense is pretty plausible. So far no one has provided any proof how Gannon's explanations could be false. Not even you. I don't see you disproving one word of what he has said. All the "various details" (gay prostitute, promoting prostitution, using false name to get credentials, etc.) have fallen flat on it's face. And all you can do about it is complain that the anonymous poster relying on Gannon's explanations is contrary to "common sense". Got anything better than that? Didn't think so.
"Oh well, so much for common sense."
Right. "Common sense" dictates that we must run with all of the rumors, regardless of the facts. "Common sense" dictates that we must ignore the words of the man in the center of all this as opposed to everyone else who isn't in a position to know. "Common sense" dictates that those bloviating on the internet in their blogs about this, but were never there would know better about Gannon than Gannon.
Sorry, but your definition of "common sense" isn't common sense.
"Exactly. Sorta like acquitting Charles Manson because he'd deny ever listening to the Beatles' White Album."
Face it, Peter Brady. You got sucked in by the phony leftist spin on this story and even though you realize that NOW, you just don't want to admit it
You sound just like Susan Estrich when the Lewinsky thing broke. "Scandal, what scandal? He just lied about sex, that's all."
"You sound just like Susan Estrich when the Lewinsky thing broke. "Scandal, what scandal? He just lied about sex, that's all."
Apples and oranges. There is no scandal here. Gannon lied about nothing. My defense of Gannon is NOT "he lied about sex, thats all", or anything like that.
Clinton lied about sex.
Gannon lied about his identity.
Moreover it looks like Gannon had willing accomplices in the White House that allowed him to lie about his identity.
One is a gross violation of personal ethics. The other is a gross violation of security and a gross violation of professional ethics.
You tell me which one is worse.
There was no "scandal" at the beginning regarding Lewinsky either, come to think of it. It was just Drudge Report and Free Republic and Rush Limbaugh pounding on the idea that this HAD to be a scandal, because they said it was.
Watergate wasn't supposed to be a scandal either. Just a "third-rate burglary".
Come to think of it, I never used the word "scandal" at all in describing this. You saw that in this by yourself, dreamed that up on your own, from whatever delirium is wracking away at your brain.
In other words, you are a fool. And a liar. Get help.
"There is no scandal here."There is now.
X-rated material at link though.
Post a Comment