« People Trust These Bozos? | Main | Downdowndown »
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Gannongate
I've been too busy sleeping to give any coverage to the quickly-growing story about "Jeff Gannon" and WH press briefings, but I got this in an e-mail today from Rep. Louise Slaughter's office:
In light of the mounting evidence that your Administration has, on several occasions, paid members of the media to advocate in favor of Administration policies, I feel compelled to ask you to address a matter brought to my attention by the Niagara Falls Reporter (article attached), a local newspaper in my district, regarding James "JD" Guckert (AKA Jeff Gannon) of Talon News. According to several credible reports, "Mr. Gannon" has been repeatedly credentialed as a member of the White House press corps by your office and has been regularly called upon in White House press briefings by your Press Secretary Scott McClellan, despite the fact evidence shows that "Mr. Gannon" is a Republican political operative, uses a false name, has phony or questionable journalistic credentials, is known for plagiarizing much of the "news" he reports, and according to several web reports, may have ties to the promotion of the prostitution of military personnel.
...
And just this morning we have learned that "Mr. Gannon" has resigned his post at the, so called, Talon News amid growing concerns over his controversial background and falsified qualifications. In fact, it appears that "Mr. Gannon's" presence in the White House press corps was merely as a tool of propaganda for your Administration.
...
I was already concerned about what appears to be an organized campaign to mask partisan propaganda as legitimate news by your Administration. That we have now learned this same type of deception is occurring inside the White House briefing room itself is even more disturbing.
...
Mr. President, your Administration has driven the so-called "values" debate in this country. But the most important value for those of us in public service should always be honesty and integrity, particularly when considering the manner in which we conduct our affairs of state.
As Droopy always said, cheaters never prosper. If a hummer led to Clinton's impeachment, and a third-rate burglary forced Nixon to resign, one would think that a military pimp being used by the administration as a propaganda plant might cause some heads to roll in the Bush administration. But I'm sure this will go the way of Enron, Plame, missing WMD...
Reagan had nothing on the true teflon presidency.
ntodd
February 9, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c525c53ef00d83457f1f769e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gannongate:
» Free Pass from Bark Bark Woof Woof
Eric Boehlert of Salon.com (subscription/Day Pass required) digs up the background on "Jeff Gannon" of "Talon News."
When President Bush bypassed dozens of eager reporters from nationally and internationally recognized news outlets and selected Jeff... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 10, 2005 7:49:07 AM
» J'accuse! from Musing's musings
I wholeheartedly endorse the judgements entered by NTodd on Dohiyi Mir: "Reagan had nothing on the true teflon presidency" and "We're pretty fucking sick of the worst, lyingest, stupidest president ever." Impeach the lying fuckers now: I think high t... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 10, 2005 10:12:42 AM
» Bullseye: NTodd from The Heretik
The Heretik applauds NTodd's aim in the archery. Nothing more need be said,
"If a hummer led to Clinton's impeachment, and a third-rate burglary forced Nixon to resign, one would think that a military pimp being used by the administration as a propa... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 12, 2005 3:31:16 PM
Comments
Unless a video surfaces, showing Shrub entering a blood-pact with the devil, I don't think the neocons have much to fear. Their supporters understand the meaning of loyalty to their leaders and will follow them like loyal sheep.
Posted by: Karlo | Feb 9, 2005 3:42:50 PM
I don't understand the connection to the Bush administration, other than McClellan calling on someone he knew from experience would ask soft questions (not very shocking). I'm not saying there isn't evidence, I'm just not aware of it. Is there any?
Is the theory really that the Bush administration deliberately recruited and planted a male prostitution pimp in the press corps?
Posted by: Hubris | Feb 9, 2005 4:12:44 PM
My Preznit is a Man of God who wouldn't allow an evil sinner to set foot on his doorstep.
Nor would Those Who Guard Him issue press credentials to a fake reporter from a fake news agency.
Shame on you!
(doubling over with sarcastic laughter)
Posted by: andante | Feb 9, 2005 4:43:48 PM
andante,
I appreciate sarcasm, but yours was ill-placed. Nice straw man, though.
I asked for evidence of wrongdoing and you gave me bullshit.
If the dude faked his credentials to get a job and a press pass, what did the administration do here that was scandalous?
Posted by: Hubris | Feb 9, 2005 4:47:53 PM
Hubris - look at the pattern.
BushCo has paid people to shill for its plans. Now you've got this guy who has been the "go to" for Scotty, who doesn't just lob softballs but inserts RNC talking points into his questions, who writes "articles" that are plagiarized from those talking points, who has fly-by-night press credentials, goes by a pseudonym when female reporters can't use their maiden names, and who somehow has access to an alleged CIA memo that no other media outlet has. Slaughter is rightly asking for an explanation and investigation.
Andante's sarcasm is not ill-placed. Those of us who have been paying attention have gotten to the point where sarcasm is a necessary release.
Most Bush voters didn't even know where he stood on the major issues of our day. He never campaigned on SocSec, and is now preparing to gut it--that's not spin, his own admission is that his plan will not help "strengthen" SocSec and will cost us trillions of dollars. He lied to his own party members about the costs of his drug plan. And while you may want to deny it, he clearly misled everybody about Iraq, and looks to be playing the same bellicose game with Iran.
So forgive us our sarcasm and snark. We're pretty fucking sick of the worst, lyingest, stupidest president ever.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 9, 2005 4:59:31 PM
Fortunately for Hubris, s/he limited the request for whatever the administration had done that was scandalous to the Gannon incident. And I think NTodd answered that question very nicely, though he had to rise from his sickbed to do it.
Otherwise, we could melt DM's server detailing all the scandalous shenanigans of "the worst, lyingest, stupidest president ever." (You should copyright that phrase, NTodd. I have a feeling people are going to be using it a lot in the next few years.)
Posted by: Musing Michael | Feb 9, 2005 5:12:24 PM
Here's why her sarcasm is ill-placed. She mockingly summed up my comment as:
My Preznit is a Man of God who wouldn't allow an evil sinner to set foot on his doorstep.
I happen to be for the legalization of prostitution and against the GMA, which shows the problems inherent to trying to read into someone's motivations.
Now, my comment was incredulous because I really want to understand this if this is the popular theory: That the Bush administration deliberately planted a propaganda shill that they researched and knew was into gay prostitution? I would hope you'd give Rove more credit as an evil mastermind.
Now you've got this guy who has been the "go to" for Scotty, who doesn't just lob softballs but inserts RNC talking points into his questions, who writes "articles" that are plagiarized from those talking points
Yeah, he's a hack from an organization with a decided and pronounced bias. And the press secretary calls on someone who seems to ask easy questions. SHOCKING! Explain to me how White House collusion is necessary for this series of events.
By the by, it's my understanding that this guy didn't even have a "hard" pass, he just got "day" passes.
I have no problem with an investigation, let it roll. We'll see if there's any evidence rather than only tenuous speculation.
So forgive us our sarcasm and snark. We're pretty fucking sick of the worst, lyingest, stupidest president ever.
Direct it at Bush if you like, but if andante wants to imply that I'm some dimwitted rube who unquestioningly accepts all things Bush, she can fuck off.
Musing Michael,
It's not fortunate that I limited my question, it's deliberate. I don't claim that Bush is perfect. If y'all want to debate the stereotypical extremist winger who takes that position, you're gonna have to do it with an imaginary one instead of me.
Posted by: Hubris | Feb 9, 2005 5:16:08 PM
Uh, maybe it's the NyQuil talking, but I'm not so sure andante's comment was directed at you Hubris.
As for collusion, we don't claim it's necessary. But given very recent history, it would seem much more likely than, oh...a couple weeks ago. Thus, it is time to find out just how much of a propaganda machine BushCo has put in place.
BTW, the beauty of a wireless laptop is that I can blog from the sick bed. When I get sleepy I just close up the computer, put it aside, and close my eyes. And while my laptop is wireless, I'm really wired right now--I think I've had too much sleep and too many Halls Defense lozenges.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 9, 2005 5:28:18 PM
NTodd,
As far as the practical effects, we're essentially the same since you want an investigation and I don't object to an investigation.
Those who are already drawing a definitive conclusion are drifting toward non causa pro causa (Gannon asked softball questions because he was a plant) and argumentum ad ignorantiam (we can't prove Bush administration is not involved, so they must be involved). All I'm saying is the available evidence to date (that I've seen) shows this guy is a fraud, but doesn't implicate the administration.
We'll just wait and see.
Posted by: Hubris | Feb 9, 2005 5:35:13 PM
You may be right, Hubris. (I don't want to admit it, but will concede you are logically right...darn it.)
But for an administration who obsessively stages all of Bush's and Cheney's appearances down to asking for signed loyality oaths, corralling protestors far out of sight, removing disagreeing members of the audience by force, and checking for slogans on t-shirts, letting someone anywhere near the White House press room unvetted is unbelievable.
His rather extensive and odd resume (which reminds me of Kerik) exposes hypocrisy if they knew about him and his gay life, exposes the extensive propaganda network set up to fake the news with paid off 'journalists', and shows that they are more interested in silencing true democratic resistance than following their own stated platform of pure living and holy crap.
I think we will see more and more of these 'journalists' breaking into a sweat and confessing how much they were paid, or suddenly finding their family needs them. I think I would mind it slightly less if they didn't blow their horn so loudly over being so much better than the rest of us heathens. So when they trip and do a face plant, I will cheer. I can remember a time when I wouldn't have done so. How sad.
Posted by: ellroon | Feb 9, 2005 7:24:35 PM
Those who are already drawing a definitive conclusion...
Who's drawing a definitive conclusion? People are discussing hypothesis based on a pattern of behavior, and that shit about the CIA memo is pretty damning. Can't have an investigation if we don't know what we're looking for. And since the media only has picked up this story because lefty bloggers have been amping it up (poor Howie Kurtz is clearly scared and said we're "stalking" this "Gannon" fella, who's just a "victim"), it's clear that we need to have some ducks in a row to get this going. Dan Rather was attacked for being sloppy regarding an allegedly fake memo that laid out what we already knew. A shill for an administration already caught propagandizing doesn't get a free pass.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 9, 2005 7:37:24 PM
The Keith Olberman piece on MSNBC was pretty interesting. Transcript's not posted yet.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 9, 2005 8:27:30 PM
He's the only person in the room allowed to have a "professional name" on his pass, everyone else is required to have their full legal name.
He attends Presidential press conferences, not simply the "gaggle" with Scotty.
He has access to CIA memos.
Unless the Secret Service has changed it policies to reduce the screening required to be in close proximity to the President, this all indicates that someone at the White House is providing him special treatment, which is why newspapers had started to complain.
Posted by: Bryan | Feb 9, 2005 11:36:28 PM
I think Ellroon is on point here. And of course we won't say "it's about the Gay porn/gay military prostitution website!" it is really about him getting a CIA classified document from the White House (see Americablog for more details on this) which was then used to suggest that the reason that Joe Wilson got the job was NOT because of his qualifications, but because his wife works for the CIA and put him in for the job.
1) The CIA said that was NOT the reason. Wilson was VERY qualified; in fact one of the MOST qualified guys to do the research.
2) "Jeff Gannon" is on the list of Plamegate witnesses because he got his supposed secret memo about Wilson from someone connected in the White House or CIA or someone pretending to be from the CIA. Where did this memo come from? Who gave it to him? This person is clearly part of the effort to discredit Wilson, which was pay back for Wilson not playing ball on WMDs and yellowcake. And that payback caused the outing of a CIA undercover agent. The Whitehouse got busted on outing Plame, they were doing damage control by giving this memo to Gannon as a way to get the story out there that Wilson has no credibility. The White House procedure in these matters is to destroy the source of any bad news. First they tried to destroy and punish Wilson by outing his wife. When they were caught doing a bad thing they tried to pretend "everyone knew she was really an Agent so we really didn't out anyone." When that didn't work, or concurrent to that, they tried to discredit Wilson in any way possible.
That is the problem. People can say:
"What about his fake name?" Really no big deal.
"He's not really a journalist!" Neither are the people at Fox and a bunch of other chicken shit corporate reporters.
"He's gay! He's behind some gay porn websites! He might have acted as a male prostitute!" Okay, now we are talking about the real distasteful stuff to the Republicans. WE don't have a problem with it, but they can't admit THEY if fact DO have a problem with it. They still have to please all their gay-hating Christian's. They preach "morals" and the whole anti-gay agenda. THEY are the ones who might get upset at this, but they can't ADMIT IT! Watch how Rush and Hannity will spin this. I know their tricks They will:
1) Minimize it and say:
2) "I don't see how the Democrats should have a PROBLEM with this--I thought they liked gays! It's the democrats who are being hypocritical!"
I happen to know the process to get credentialed for the White House press briefing. It requires your name your SSN and the organization you work for. Then to get into the White House Presidential briefing you also need to be admitted by the White House Press Correspondents Association. They are gatekeepers. THEY must also bear some responsibility for Gannon in the briefing. Now the SS might do background checks on the real SSN of Mr. Gannon. They would find some things, but I don't know how deep their research is. They are more concerned with nutballs with a history of violence. If he didn't show that, but in fact has a history of doing a bunch of gay porn, I don't think that would have shown up. Sloppy yes, a danger to Scotty or the President? No.
So. to sum up:
Just like during the Clinton thing when they SAID it was about "lying under oath" when it was really about sex. We should say, "It's about his roll in outing Valeria Plame, not his Gay Porn website or his fake name or his military gay escort service (which we don't even know if he ever did anything more than register the domains in an effort to sell them to someone else.)
“Gannon” caved, that is the problem. He is a weak link. The White House needs to get to him to shut him up. They should have told him: "Just tough it out Jeff. Don't roll on us and you will be fine. If you roll we will abandon you as fast as we abandoned O’Neill and all the other traitors. They haven't touched Cheney and others involved with Plame and they have done worse things. If you do roll we will make you the scapegoat for the whole thing.”
He should have toughed it out. By caving he draws more attention to himself and the issue. He has not learned that the way things work with bad stuff in this White House is just deny, diminish, delay and then re-position.
Posted by: spocko | Feb 9, 2005 11:59:16 PM
...coming back in to the party a bit late, however -
No, my comment was not directed at you personally, Hubris, and I do apologize for it coming out that way.
But no - I won't f*ck off. The Man of God defense is becoming so sickeningly ubiquitous, it's a satire of itself.
Bryan's point is well taken. I can't imagine the Secret Service didn't know something about this guy. It was a fairly simple process for average citizens to uncover quite a few interesting items. And yet they allowed him to receive press credentials? It strains credulity.
Something stinks really, really bad.
Posted by: andante | Feb 10, 2005 12:04:59 AM
Who's drawing a definitive conclusion?
Slaughter said:
In fact, it appears that "Mr. Gannon's" presence in the White House press corps was merely as a tool of propaganda for your Administration.
Sounds pretty definitive.
A shill for an administration already caught propagandizing doesn't get a free pass.
Who's asking for a free pass? I'm asking for evidence to back up Slaughter's assertion.
If details regarding the CIA memo provide such evidence, then we'll see. Slaughter's little e-mail jumps the gun, to say the least.
adante,
I apologize for my coarse response.
Posted by: Hubris | Feb 10, 2005 12:08:06 AM
Perhaps Gannon had to quit because he had a nanny problem...
Hubris, no offense, but in the future you might consider honoring yourself and your country by asking for a comparable level of "evidence" from the Bush Administration that you ask of its critics.
Posted by: Alex | Feb 10, 2005 4:57:04 AM
Alex,
How condescending...thanks!
And I know you from where?
Posted by: Hubris | Feb 10, 2005 7:20:55 AM
Don't make me stop this blog and come back there, kids.
As for Gannongate, I'd say pass the popcorn, but I shudder at the thought of eating anything right now...
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 10, 2005 8:45:51 AM
I would add:
- A good example of where I would demand more evidence of the Bush administration: How about where they're detaining what's-his-name, an American citizen arrested in Saudi Arabia, solely on the basis of secret evidence?
- Regardless what comes out vis-a-vis a connection (or lack thereof) to the Bush administration, this Gannon episode is a good moment for blogosphere triumphalism; the bloggers took the joker down.
Posted by: Hubris | Feb 10, 2005 9:05:39 AM
In fact, it appears that "Mr. Gannon's" presence in the White House press corps was merely as a tool of propaganda for your Administration.
Sounds pretty definitive.
Key words: "it appears". Hence, she's asking for more information.
And Hubris, don't worry, we know you're a reasonable fella. Just don't look at this instance in a vacuum. People have to put a stake in the ground to get an investigation going, so there has to be some sort of "definitive" statement. Consider this a charge made, and now the magnificent wheels of justice will roll along, crushing all in their way.
Sorry, but the DayQuil is kicking in and it always makes me spacier than normal. I feel like I'm walking on the moon, even when I'm lying in bed.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 10, 2005 9:17:30 AM
And another thing:
IOKIYAR!
Imagine the clamor if this sort of incident had occurred seven or eight years ago, and if the "journalist" in question had been a liberal Democrat -- especially one with an apparent interest in the gay military prostitute business -- who had a penchant for lobbing softballs at Bill Clinton.
We'd still be hearing about it today. Constantly.
Posted by: vaara | Feb 10, 2005 9:44:02 AM
I'll tell you one thing about the Gannon story - it really shows how seriously journalists take their profession. Particularly the White House journalists. Here's a guy who makes a complete mockery of the standards of reporting, of the skills and experience required to become a White House reporter, and do these professionals protest? Not really.
What would engineers do? They'd be kicking Gannon's ass from here to Havertown if he claimed to be something he wasn't that denigrated their profession. They'd sue. They'd make a ruckus. They would protect their career turf.
Not journalists.
Posted by: PSoTD | Feb 10, 2005 9:45:32 AM
maybe they would draw the line at chimps in suits doing the news? maybe then they would think, "you know, this really goes too far, if they think a monkey with a bow tie could do my job just as well or better...". seriously, w/ those stupid tickers, who the hell needs these people? they're useless in more ways than one.
whatever. i say, dissect the shit out of this gannon matter. i agree that it seems a bit unbelievable that someone (or plural someone), in this admin didn't know the whole deal on gannon. i mean seriously, can't people get detained indefinitely these days for something like using a fake identity to get into gov't places (nevermind the white house) which would make them a highly suspicious mark and cause for security concern?...so how did some guy using a fake moniker, working for a made-up news agency, get into the white house? are they really that slack? or did they know all about him so they had no cause for concern about some guy w/ illegitimate credentials?
i'm not savvy enough on all the details to pass any judgement other than, something smells rotten in DC.
Posted by: amy | Feb 10, 2005 2:00:47 PM
I'm thinking the same thing you're thinking - that the Guckert/Gannon scandal is going to be whitewashed and ignored by our "liberal" media. It pisses me off.
Posted by: Trish Wilson | Feb 10, 2005 3:03:43 PM
You're sick, Daddy; go back to bed!
I knew that "might consider" was a high threshold, but I was so confident that he could clear it.
Posted by: Alex | Feb 11, 2005 3:21:37 AM
Alex, keep talking to the imaginary opponent you've conjured up in your mind, I'm sure it's an interesting debate.
Posted by: Hubris | Feb 11, 2005 8:54:19 AM
Kids, keep it down. Daddy's trying to sleep.
Posted by: NTodd | Feb 11, 2005 2:02:47 PM
Hubris, at least I am not negotiatating with myself in latin, like some I could name.
Get over it, already, you pussy, and grab yourself a beer. If I could figure out a way to buy it for you in cyberspace, it would be on me.
Posted by: Alex | Feb 12, 2005 6:36:32 AM
K, my take on this brouhaha is that the right will blather about Easongate loudly (was it just the misstatement about journalists dying that took him down?) to try and equate it to Gannongate. ("See, both sides have been sloppy, so shut up").
I'm hoping that any real journalists in the press room will have sunk their teeth deeply into Gannon, his 'day' pass and Plame connection, and see if this is yet another example like Armstrong Williams and the 2 other talking heads who were spewing White House talking points for pay.
It would be nice if those who 'graduated' from the 3 day journalism academy with Guckert/Gannon would be getting extremely nervous about now. It should be easy to spot those who are robotically repeating the Rovian points and ask them if they would go on record as to whether or not any of them have received payment or other compensation for their connection to the Bush administration.
Keep the focus on the Plame connection, ignore the gay stuff unless it is to expose the utter hypocrisy of those politicians who use the anti-gay agenda, find out who gave Guckert/Gannon his pass. This man could not have been given the chance to address Bush in his bubble without Rove.
Posted by: ellroon | Feb 12, 2005 2:01:24 PM
What's the latest word on Jeffy Gannon and Fitpatrick investigation of the Valerie Plame "outing" ??. Did Jeffy get a "get out of jail free pass"?? Where is Scooter" Libby when you need him??very truly yours: F-YouCheney@warprofits.gov
Posted by: Wayne Smyer | Aug 24, 2005 7:41:58 AM
What part of "teflon" are you not understanding, Wayne?
Posted by: Charlie | Aug 24, 2005 8:47:22 AM
Buy me stuff off my 
