Comments on: Yer Daily Guckert ! Getcher Daily Guckert !

Yer Daily Guckert ! Getcher Daily Guckert !

troutfishing — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:01:04 -0800

Latest tasty research treat from Propagannon Group : Guckert lied re military service. Whips 'n chains and web based military theme escort services ? Whatever. Hey, I'm a social libertarian. But lying about being in the marines? - Tacky.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:12:30 -0800

So a liar actually told more than one lie? I am very surprised. This changes everything. Shockwaves.

By: fake

fake — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:12:35 -0800

fake fake fake

By: graventy

graventy — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:17:56 -0800

Back when I was in 'Nam, people could get shot for lies like that. Yeah. 'Nam. Tough times. Don't get me started.

By: Devils Rancher

Devils Rancher — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:20:58 -0800

I'm shocked. Shocked to find gambling here.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:21:03 -0800

Marines don't tend to take that sort of thing lightly, I hear. xmutex - A friend of mine is probably the leading World expert on Soviet newspapers of the 20s and 30s - hence, propaganda of that period. He draws many parallels. There are differences too, of course.

By: matteo

matteo — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:21:44 -0800

the brave Citizen Journalists down at PowerLine and in the rest of the red-white-blue blogs will be all over this scandal

By: HuronBob

HuronBob — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:22:35 -0800

Ya know, guckert is such a worthless piece of crap I'm amazed that anyone even finds this interesting any more... Just something on the sidewalk that needs to be stepped over.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:24:34 -0800

I'm amazed that anyone even finds this interesting any more... Amazed anyone finds White House Security breaches and the Administration planting conmen in the press room interesting? You must lead a pretty exciting life, coz those things are interesting to me.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:25:20 -0800

Yeah, I know. Fake news, fake reality. Where's my brain shunt ?

By: PlusDistance

PlusDistance — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:25:35 -0800

the brave Citizen Journalists down at PowerLine and in the rest of the red-white-blue blogs will be all over this scandal. As will the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:27:08 -0800

Good to see you back, trout. But I'm waiting to hear the whining over the single-link nature of the post (even though the Kos entry has plenty of 'em).

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:28:46 -0800

the brave Citizen Journalists down at PowerLine and in the rest of the red-white-blue blogs will be all over this scandal The difference is that their readers don't coming running to MeFi with editorialized, one-link posts rehashing widely read partisan blogs. Thankfully. /"whine"

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:31:04 -0800

Constantly meet people lying about their military background. Surprised his he did not claim "ex-navay seal."

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:37:17 -0800

thomcatspike - I knew a guy once who had so many friggin' Navy Seal stories.... I never really find out for sure if he was or wasn't because the stories were so entertaining. I wonder if Guckert tells a good BS ? Somehow I doubt it. There was a teacher at my high school - a real SOB - who said he was a Green Beret in Vietnam. Later, it turned out he wasn't and - in fact - he was actually a psychopathic child molester. True story. GW's school, in fact.

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:39:36 -0800

I once invaded Britain..... nice find TF.

By: Wulfgar!

Wulfgar! — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:43:25 -0800

Nothing to add, except, welcome back troutfishing.

By: matteo

matteo — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:43:54 -0800

The difference is that their readers don't coming running to MeFi with editorialized, one-link posts rehashing widely read partisan blogs. Thankfully. /this is fun

By: teece

teece — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:44:09 -0800

Man, this Guckert character is a seriously f*cked up guy. Basically your street corner con-man. I would really, really like to know how a straight-up crook got his ass into the White House on a daily basis ... We're all wearing the blue dress now.

By: grateful

grateful — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:45:03 -0800

There was a teacher at my high school - a real SOB - who said he was a Green Beret in Vietnam. Later, it turned out he wasn't and - in fact - he was actually a psychopathic child molester. True story. I swear this was my 7th grade science teacher.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:48:07 -0800

I am not wearing the blue dress.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:52:38 -0800

/this is fun And yet every one of those posts is sourced & constructed better than this one.

By: teece

teece — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:52:40 -0800

I am not wearing the blue dress. No? 'Cause I always wear the blue dress while reading the blue sight. Just don't tell my wife. (OK, OK, I don't even own a blue dress).

By: Freen

Freen — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:53:29 -0800

Well, frankly, this scandal is different from the Monica Lewinsky scandal because Guckert could be gay, and we can't talk about gay people because that is an invasion of privacy. But we can talk at length about blowjobs. everybody likes blowjobs. White House press passes, paid journalist shills, Access to classified CIA documentation. Right wing response: Boring. Where did the sober, grown up republicans go? You know, the ones who were all about the facts, science, accountability, responsibility, balanced budgets, and against frivolous foreign invasions and nation building, anti-ideology, pro-practicality? Where'd they go? HuronBob, are you really saying this is irrelevant? that we shouldn't care that imposters are being paid by political organizations and given white house press passes to lob softball questions and release classified information?

By: madamjujujive

madamjujujive — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:56:37 -0800

yay - welcome back, troutfishing!

By: dances_with_sneetches

dances_with_sneetches — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:57:13 -0800

I think there needs to be a primer as to why Gannon/Guckert is so fascinating. For those who followed it from the beginning, there was a simple question, who is this Jeff Gannon guy who delivers these oddball questions? The first thing was that it was a fake name. Interesting. The second thing was the gay web-sites. It seemed to be too funny to be real - and he was denying it. Then they got the nuts on him, he engineered the web-sites not just hosted them. Then, WTF, he was a gay prostitute! It was just so much better a scandal than any blogger could have imagined. (Too bad he wasn't a heterosexual call-boy, I think the media is more comfortable in talking about that.) On top of that you had the press tossing him cheesball questions, and the entertainment of hearing such mealy-mouthed lies from such an ingrained hypocrite. Of course there was always the possibility that this could be the Monica Lewinsky of the Bush administration -- at least there was about as much against Clinton in the first few weeks of Lewinsky as there was in this. And then there was the virtual MSM blackout and ultimately the partyline vote to not look into anything. This has been entertaining shee-ot! It's sad we'll never get to the bottom of it -- at least not without having him under oath somewhere for something. So, is this the be-all, end-all of scandals? Nah. But then Monica Lewinsky was pretty much nothing.

By: Freen

Freen — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:02:04 -0800

Dhoyt and all republican apologists: Way to misdirect attention. So do you approve of guckert being in the white house press room? Should someone have been fired because of it? What about paying "journalists" to lob softball questions? When is too much? What will have to happen for you to come to the conclusion that something is really wrong with the current administration? It'd be nice to have something concrete to point to, like ParisParamus' famous quote about supporting indicting Bush if there were no WMD found in Iraq. So what would be your last straw? Treason? Lying to Congress? Supporting torture? Trading with the enemy? Deep frying live puppies? I've got four out of five on my play book. What would it take? On preview: Dances_with_sneetches: Guckert also had exclusive access to CIA documents pertaining to Valery Plame.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:19:20 -0800

Way to misdirect attention. If it was a one-link post to an LGF "update" on The Ward Churchill Situation, you'd all be shitting yourselves in 12 separate MetaTalk posts—at least be honest about it. So do you approve of guckert being in the white house press room? No Should someone have been fired because of it? If there's concrete evidence someone facilitated it for devious purposes. What about paying "journalists" to lob softball questions? Terrible idea. But why do you care if he lied about the military? He's clearly a troubled guy, but why should any of us care about his every lie except to wallow in the tedious "juicy" tidbits like a bunch of Springer fans? I don't care he's gay, I don't care he's a prostitute and I don't care he lied about the military. I care that he gained access to the pressroom under a false name, but that's a security issue. If anyone is guilty of "misdirecting attention" it's be those who prefer melodrama over evidence, with this story and all the others: Bush Wore a Wire, Wellstone's Planed was Shot Down, Bush Choked on a Pretzel Because He's A Drunk, Rove 'Planted' the Potsmoking Tapes, and so forth. It's noise, plain and simple. Deep frying live puppies? Good with a little garlic & Texas Pete.

By: slapshot57

slapshot57 — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:29:27 -0800

dhoyt, just so I'm clear, you're saying a male prostitute who was paid by republican activists and set up to ask softball questions to this administration is equal to a professor at University of Colorado with controversial opinions who may have lied about being a native american? cause that's pathetic on your part

By: Freen

Freen — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:32:23 -0800

Official policy of Torture( the Gonzales Torture memos), Treason (outing Valery Plame, the undercover director of operations for nuclear nonproliferation in the middle east), Lying to Congress (Nigerian Yellowcake), Trading with the enemy (halliburton). I hear those go well with a touch of cognitive dissonance.

By: fenriq

fenriq — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:32:33 -0800

Good to see you, troutfishing. I wonder if Guckert tells a good BS ? Somehow I doubt it. I don't know if he tells good BS but I've heard he gives a good BJ. If it does turn out he's a liar about being a Marine, then I wouldn't want to be in his shoes. They do take it seriously and liars are not dealt with lightly. The fact that more and more of his life is a farce just more ably demonstrates what a terrible plant he was. I bet the next softballer (cue the porn soundtrack) fake journalist gets a complete background check. Unless he's also balling Scotty McClellan.

By: Freen

Freen — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:36:03 -0800

"If there's concrete evidence someone facilitated it for devious purposes." Um, an imposter got past the secret service background checks. I hear those guys ain't hacks. They tend to be pretty serious about who gets within a stones throw President. Serious in the sense that they find out what your real name is. And the fact that you owe a couple 20 grand in back taxes.

By: Freen

Freen — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:36:43 -0800

er... owe 20 grand in back taxes.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:42:16 -0800

Is there anything about this guy that isn't fake? I noticed he even advertised his penis length in his web page solicitations. Probably a lie too, huh? Little teensy GOP weenie! :-)

By: nofundy

nofundy — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:42:31 -0800

IOKIYAR

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:43:22 -0800

Boy, I sure didn't have to wait long. Great job there, dhoyt.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:45:28 -0800

Probably a lie too, huh? Racist joke of the day: What's white and 8 inches long? Nothing.

By: Freen

Freen — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:48:21 -0800

I mean, these guys can't even plant a decent ringer! How hard can it be? I mean really? I bet there are a half a million people who would love to have had guckerts job and weren't such pathological liars. I wouldn't trust this administration with changing a lightbulb.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 12:49:05 -0800

This story just keeps giving, no? I can't believe the NYTimes actually interviewed him last wkend--how the mighty have fallen. So, i'm still waiting to hear about who paid him, how much, and how he supported himself while in DC as a "reporter". He's only said he got "a sort-of stipend". And of course--who slept with him in the white house. Mehlman, McClellan, Rove?

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:03:33 -0800

Oh please. I'm sure they didn't do it in the White House. You're crossin' the line there, amberglow.

By: norm

norm — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:10:10 -0800

Bush Wore a Wire Bush did, in fact, wear a wire, which makes him a damn dirty cheater in addition to a liar and an asshole. Not to put too fine a point on it, of course.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:16:28 -0800

Bush did, in fact, wear a wire In fact? As in, it's a verifiable fact. Do you have a link? Does anyone have a link with concrete details on who facilitated Gannon's pressroom access? Does anyone have a link detailing the Bush's administration's endorsement of Gannon? Anyone have a link as to how Karl Rove 'planted' the potsmoking tapes? Anyone?

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:19:06 -0800

You're the one that brought up the potsmoking tapes, dhoyt. Nobody has concrete details on who facilitated Gannon's pressroom access because the committee voted not to investigate, cowards and traitors that they are.

By: AlexReynolds

AlexReynolds — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:20:44 -0800

But why do you care if he lied about the military? He's clearly a troubled guy, but why should any of us care about his every lie except to wallow in the tedious "juicy" tidbits like a bunch of Springer fans? Because, dhoyt, it and every other lie underscores how ridiculous the right is about the following: • "leftist" agenda of so-called "mainstream media" • sanctity of laws regarding classified material • sanctity of laws regarding secure access to President • paying off media outlets to issue propaganda on policy no one wants What you call "wallowing" is what rational human beings wouldy call "ongoing concern that the mainstream press is not reporting the story and the White House is getting away with a lot, as usual".

By: norm

norm — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:21:57 -0800

Bush wore a wire also, I note that your painting it as a wacky conspiracy fits the administration's talking points very nicely.

By: jsavimbi

jsavimbi — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:22:32 -0800

I actually did serve in the USMC, I swear. When I first heard of ol' Jeff and the way he was marketing his studly services, I was too embarassed to wade in. Now, I do feel a little relief... Not that there aren't gays in the Marines, or that they may/might work as escorts, nor that there's anything wrong with that, per se, but I would hope that they would have the common sense NOT to pretend to be reporters. Gawd forbid. Not that.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:23:36 -0800

I'll bet he's not even really 8" cut! /rimshot

By: tkchrist

tkchrist — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:24:06 -0800

I don't care he's gay, I don't care he's a prostitute and I don't care he lied about the military. LOL. If that guy would have been working for Clinton's the GOP spin machine would be pumping out letters to every local editorial board every goddamned day and you know it. He was PAID by the Bush administration for Christ sake! How could they not know about his military record. Oh. That's right. They 'didn't" know about Bush's either, did they? If that paycheck had Clinton signature on it Rush Limbaugh would have a conniption drawing conclusions of the "Clinton Whitehouse Gay Sex Ring". No self respecting conservative should be defending this Gannon/Guckert guy. And fact is THEY (the establishment Media Righties) are! All of them! He has been on every fucking right wingnut shill's talking head show for three weeks and touted a fucking HERO. That piece of shit was on Tucker Carlson this weekend playing up that sad eyed embattled Ollie North Uber Patriot Marine BULLSHIT. And on top of that he was arguing the "sympathetic fag" card, too. What a fuck-tard. Send his "Marine" ass to Falujah.

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:27:36 -0800

Just a note: Republicans don't care when someone lies about military service.

By: fenriq

fenriq — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:28:54 -0800

soyjoy, would you mind explaining to me how you're so sure that Gannon/Guckert didn't have sex in the White House? If he's said he didn't then that's pretty much an admission that he did since everything else he says is a lie. Or did ShrubYa decree that there would be no icky gay sex in his White House? dhoyt, more lies just go to demonstrate how wholly ridiculous this story is and what a fucking moron whoever it was that selected him for the special duty. It helps show that these people had access to intelligence and failed to use it. It shows that they went with easy rather than finding the right plant. If this were the Clinton White House and this happened, I'd be just as outraged (though I'm sure my voice would be lost among the cacophony from the GOP). The double standard's being applied here are gross and wrong.

By: Cranberry

Cranberry — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:28:56 -0800

Check Doonesbury. Roland Hedley is the new softball pitcher.

By: AlexReynolds

AlexReynolds — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:29:08 -0800

/rimshot Sorry, but before you do any rimshots around Guckert, I'll need to see a credit card.

By: Freen

Freen — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:31:12 -0800

Most people nowadays think it was a pacemaker. There was something under his jacket. Something. Well, seeing as the President of the United States of America hasn't done diddly squat about the Gannon issue, i guess that means he tacitly supports either gannon himself, or the person responsible for facilitating gannons pressroom access. It's kinda easy to get to the bottom of things when you are the most powerful man in the world, no? Also, Weid was and is a good friend of Bush jr. Rove may not have planted those tapes, but they certainly didn't hurt the president in any significant way, and could be argued to have helped distract attention from a particularly juicy scandal that was brewing. Whether it was intentional, or not is somethign else altogether. AKA the Clinton bombings in afganistan during the lewinsky scandal. People assumed they were meant to be political misdirection. Similar situation. No hard evidence, just inklings. Look dhoyt, no one claims absolute knowledge on these things. Both sides has their lunatic fringe. Oxycontin Rush has his list of people the Clenis has "killed". The gannon scandal isn't ridiculous. It's important because it is the third paid administration shill, one with both highly illegitimate access to the pressroom, and exclusive access to CIA documentation. This is a history of paid shills, and gannon is the worst example. Also Dhoyt, I await your final straw, that thing that this administration would have to do to loose your faith in them. What is it? What is beyond the pail for you? I'd love for you to state it, because I'm quite sure that if they have not yet done somethign strickingly similar, they will. Soon.

By: AlexReynolds

AlexReynolds — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:31:14 -0800

Just a note: Republicans don't care when someone lies about military service. That's not even the worst of it. Get a couple Purple Hearts and apparently you're a traitor in Jesusland.

By: Freen

Freen — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:33:06 -0800

Just ask John McCain, and his "black baby" too!

By: clevershark

clevershark — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:35:01 -0800

Actually someone here made a good point -- shouldn't the Swift Boat Vets for the Truth(tm) be all over that story? Sometimes I crack me up.

By: Cyrano

Cyrano — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:36:03 -0800

LOL. If that guy would have been working for Clinton's the GOP spin machine would be pumping out letters to every local editorial board every goddamned day and you know it. I've always thought that condemning people for what you assume they would do is the bastard cousin of, "Yeah, we did something bad but they do it to!" Rhetorically speaking. Not that I doubt for a minute that you're right, mind you. I just don't think it add any strength to your argument.

By: Freen

Freen — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:40:55 -0800

No it doesn't but it might make those people who were frothing over Clinton's relatively minor indescretions slightly uncomfortable, and we all know what happens when you get uncormfortable, you start thinking about your positions on issues, and frankly, no "conservative" good can come of that.

By: amboy00

amboy00 — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:43:34 -0800

Hi. I'm Jeff Gannon, I'm not a military man but I play one depending which video you watch.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:47:32 -0800

Bush wore a wire--norm ROFLMAO But seriously, besides the totally-not-biased-at-all TruthOut, do you have a link confirming Bush "wore a wire"? Do you have a credible news source offering proof? Rove planted this, Rove planted that. Facts? Evidence? Anyone? You're the one that brought up the potsmoking tapes, dhoyt. No, actually, it was The Conspiracy King who first predictably made that leap: "once Guckert started getting major play (twice today on CNN, a NYT story, etc...), they trotted this out." So let me get this straight. Bush admin—who no one can prove helped Gannon gain pressroom access—somehow convinced a friend of Bush to trot out tapes which appear to characterize him as a potsmoker in order to improve his image and of course to bump Gannon from the front pages. All this from an adminstration supposedly comprised of idiots uncapable of orchestrating anything successfully. I wouldn't have believed an intelligent person could assert that theory if I hadn't just read it again. Actually someone here made a good point -- shouldn't the Swift Boat Vets for the Truth(tm) be all over that story? Maybe if Gannon were running for office, or alleged Vietnam war hero status, or claimed he was on a Swift Boat with them. Boy, I sure didn't have to wait long. Great job there, dhoyt. mathowie: that links sucks

By: gigawhat?

gigawhat? — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:50:51 -0800

AlexReynolds wrote: That's not even the worst of it. Get a couple Purple Hearts and apparently you're a traitor in Jesusland. Not to mention, PURPLE IS TEH GHEY!!!111

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:53:41 -0800

Your "arguments" are getting pretty tedious, dhoyt. You are the one who brought up pot when this thread is all about Guckert. You are also the one who brought up "the wire" and Wellstone. And then demanded explanations. Quit derailing.

By: mr.marx

mr.marx — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 13:53:50 -0800

mind the vertical space, dhoyt.

By: AlexReynolds

AlexReynolds — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:04:13 -0800

All this from an adminstration supposedly comprised of idiots uncapable of orchestrating anything successfully. That's a strawman, dhoyt. Let's give credit where credit is due: These people are incapable of orchestrating an empire through domination, but they're perfectly capable of dismantling equal protection under law, First Amendment and other individual rights (when it suits them), states rights (when it suits them), federal rights (when it suits them), and much of the goodwill extended to us after 9/11 (anytime it suits them). You're trying to derail, dhoyt, and I understand why, but I think one observation is that what they are doing well is hurting us as much as what they keep fucking up. To get back on track, though, you still haven't answered how Guckert has nothing to do with the following issues: • the demonstably incorrect assertion of the "leftist" agenda of the so-called "mainstream media" • the violation of laws regarding classified material • the violation of laws regarding secure access to POTUS • the paying off of media outlets to issue propaganda for policy no one wants (except for special interests) It has already been shown how Guckert is tied to these issues. Like you, I don't care about the gay angle and find it an annoying distraction from these issues. However, you continue to complain that we make these connections. So I would like to know how you intend to resolve these problems before rational people like me decide to leave this issue behind. I'm certain others are curious as well. So, go to it, dhoyt. We're waiting.

By: Freen

Freen — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:10:50 -0800

Dhoyt: Not Quite. Ummm... I beleive Mathowie actually said:"no, dhoyt, that links sucks too. Delete worthy? Not quite."

By: c13

c13 — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:13:02 -0800

So what would be your last straw? Treason? Lying to Congress? Supporting torture? Trading with the enemy? Deep frying live puppies? You reality-based guys just don't get it, do you?

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:13:25 -0800

mathowie: that links sucks Ha! I had no idea you'd not only whine in the thread but in an unrelated MeTa thread as well! Perfect! Thanks for highlighting it. fenriq, easy there. It was a joke. I am, in fact, not at all sure of that.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:21:20 -0800

• the demonstably incorrect assertion of the "leftist" agenda of the so-called "mainstream media" • the violation of laws regarding classified material • the violation of laws regarding secure access to POTUS • the paying off of media outlets to issue propaganda for policy no one wants (except for special interests) Having never made any loud, overdramatic conspiratorial claims about any of those things, I don't really owe you an answer, Alex. The burden of proof is not on me and on issues I've never commented on, it's on those who blurt out "Bush did, in fact, wear a wire!" or "Rove Planted X" without a shred of evidence. Regarding the supposedly 'leftist' MSM, that simply not an opinion I've ever shared—it's never struck me as a flagrantly 'leftist' institution. I don't have an answer for you. "Violation of laws regarding classified material" and "violation of laws regarding secure access to POTUS" are serious issues, but you know what? I feel like those aren't the issues lefty blogs (and MeFi contributors) are soberly discussing in regards to Gannon. In fact it's the opposite—it's the "juicy" crap that people so predictably cling to. ("And of course--who slept with him in the white house. Mehlman, McClellan, Rove?") Again, it's a security issue, one that was loudly exposed with stories in every major newspaper. Hopefully this will make it less likely to happen again. But don't act so shocked that not everyone thinks it's The Scandal Of The Century as much as you. So Gannon lied about his military service? No one has presented evidence why this matters one whit.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:27:03 -0800

The burden of proof is not on me and on issues I've never commented on, it's on those who blurt out "Bush did, in fact, wear a wire!" or "Rove Planted X" without a shred of evidence. Again, again, again, dhoyt, those are issues you brought up to bolstor your ridiculous strawman. So Gannon lied about his military service? No one has presented evidence why this matters one whit. It matters because either the Secret Service is incompetent or the administration is corrupt. There are no other options here.

By: AlexReynolds

AlexReynolds — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:31:40 -0800

Having never made any loud, overdramatic conspiratorial claims about any of those things, I don't really owe you an answer, Alex. The burden of proof is not on me and on issues I've never commented on, it's on those who blurt out "Bush did, in fact, wear a wire!" or "Rove Planted X" without a shred of evidence. But you keep changing the subject! You're incorrigible, really. You don't owe me an answer. You owe everyone an answer every time you complain about Guckert being on MeFi. I asked you simple questions and you have chosen not to answer them. So you do not have any cause to complain. Though this won't stop you, of course. "Violation of laws regarding classified material" and "violation of laws regarding secure access to POTUS" are serious issues, but you know what? I feel like those aren't the issues lefty blogs (and MeFi contributors) are soberly discussing in regards to Gannon. In fact it's the opposite—it's the "juicy" crap that people so predictably cling to. ("And of course--who slept with him in the white house. Mehlman, McClellan, Rove?") The "juiciness" boils down to the fact that an intimate — and secret — relationship with one of the inner circle within the White House machine would go a long way to explain: • How he got past security under a false name • How he was given access to classified material (his WSJ story did not hold up) • Why he of all people (such an obvious liability) was paid off to ask softball questions Instead, we get one diversion tactic after another (the pot story, the wire), both from the mainstream media and — even more damning — from you. Your style's so old, even Machiavelli is yawning in his grave. It is a scandal by all accounts, since we have no reasonable answers to these questions, despite the conservative media cover-up and your attempts to divert attention to ridiculous and unrelated issues.

By: nixerman

nixerman — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:34:21 -0800

Actually, Alex Reynolds did just that. Here are his arguments and I find them pretty convincing. I suspect it's even worse than it appears, in fact, I bet there's a deliberate effort by the Republicans to undermine the media in all its forms. So dhoyt, if you have nothing to contribute to the conversation please don't try to deliberately derail it.

By: fenriq

fenriq — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:34:31 -0800

soyjoy, just checking. Carry on then!

By: Freen

Freen — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:36:17 -0800

There is an outrageous quantity of photographic evidence that Bush wore something under his jacket that looked alot like a wire. Welcome to the reality based community. But we aren't talking about that now. You want to talk about it, but unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the current topic. Why don't You discuss the important issues? Who should take the blame? Why was an investigation cancelled by republicans? Should they have cancelled it? If anyone is guilty of "misdirecting attention" it's be those who prefer melodrama over evidence, with this story and all the others: Bush Wore a Wire, Wellstone's Planed was Shot Down, Bush Choked on a Pretzel Because He's A Drunk, Rove 'Planted' the Potsmoking Tapes, and so forth. It's noise, plain and simple. You seem to be engaging in precisly what you are decrying. Also, still waiting for a statement from you about what the Bush administration would have to do for you to loose faith in them.......

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:46:07 -0800

The "juiciness" boils down to the fact that an intimate — and secret — relationship with one of the inner circle within the White House machine would go a long way to explain: And yet—you. don't. have. a. shred. of. evidence. such a thing happened. I asked you simple questions and you have chosen not to answer them. Baloney. I acknowledged it is a security issue and that I don't believe in a 'leftist' media. I don't owe you answers on things which I never claimed to have strong opinions. For the nth time—the Gannon issue is interesting from a security issue and I hope sets a precedent for tighter security, but all the infantile BS about his prostitution & homosexuality has really sullied the issue for many people, and certain folks-who-know-who-they-are have no one to blame but themselves if the story isn't treated with respect. This was precisely the point of my supposed "derail": wallowing in the juiciest, tabloid angle of every story (The Wire, et al) is just another way you're making it easy for conservatives to pigeonhole you as loons. Don't complain next time an election is "stolen" from you by people who are embarassed by association to share an interest in your candidate. Who should take the blame? Security. Why was an investigation cancelled by republicans? None of us knows. Should they have cancelled it? Nope. still waiting for a statement from you about what the Bush administration would have to do for you to loose [sic] faith in them I voted against him twice and disagree with nearly all his policies if that tells you anything about my faith in him. But I know you don't like derails, so I'll stop there as it really has nothing to do with the topic.

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:03:10 -0800

dhoyt - regarding the Gannon/Guckert situation, there are many websites and blogs are focusing on the serious issues raised by the affair - e.g. the security aspect of how he had daily access to the White House; his access to classified CIA documentation regarding the Valerie Plame "outing" as a covert CIA agent, his role in a smear campaign against Senator Tom Daschle. The focus continues - and people want answers. As well, there have been so many contradictory remarks and outright lies which Gannon/Guckert has been caught in (e.g. I was subpoened by the Federal Grand Jury for the Plame Investigation || No, I wasn't subpoened, but was intereviewed by the FBI) The list goes on. Previous discussions here on MetaFilter about this situation highlight and focus concerns and issues which many have about the current administration's "handling" of the media, not to mention the potential of serious wrong doing (e.g. the outing of a convert CIA agent - a treasonous felony). I suggest you spend some time reviewing the facts and nuances of Gannon/Guckert in more detail. You might want to start here.

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:04:51 -0800

*...and blogs which are*

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:06:03 -0800

*a covert CIA agent*

By: matteo

matteo — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:16:37 -0800

Does anyone have a link with concrete details on who facilitated Gannon's pressroom access? Does anyone have a link detailing the Bush's administration's endorsement of Gannon? Anyone have a link as to how Karl Rove 'planted' the potsmoking tapes? Anyone? tell you what: let's bring back the Independent Counsel law that helped prosecute so successfully Clinton's spermatic crimes, and let's all have Independent Counsel Paul Krugman investigate it all, subpoena power and unlimited budget like Starr's. sounds good? I'll bet you that we'll find something at least as bad as the Monica cum stain. maybe, who knows, even worse. ps I could give a flying fuck about who you voted for. and I guess more than a few of my fellow commies here don't care either. your behavior speaks volumes. learn to embrace your crusade, and enjoy the ride.

By: Freen

Freen — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:16:49 -0800

Find out about a scandal before you declare it is useless and overblown. Good to know you didn't vote for him. Now stop trying to run intereference via willful ignorance. Just because you don't like the fack that Bush's paid shill happens to be a male prostitute doesn't mean that you can't take a deeper look into the story.

By: norm

norm — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:22:12 -0800

At times like this I find it's helpful to remember that history won't be as kind to this administration as the media has been. Loons indeed.

By: AlexReynolds

AlexReynolds — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:50:52 -0800

The "juiciness" boils down to the fact that an intimate — and secret — relationship with one of the inner circle within the White House machine would go a long way to explain: And yet—you. don't. have. a. shred. of. evidence. such a thing happened. We can't get straight and consistent answers out of Guckert or anyone in the White House press staff about why he was part of the press corps. So what other reasonable possible explanation exists at this juncture? It is a supposition or "hunch", yes, but the only reasonable one so far, and it is certainly one informed by prior history. No one is confusing it for truth, but when Guckert says he "lived on a stipend", the questions are obvious: who paid it and why? Put your common sense hat on and think. If these people were open and honest about what happened, there would be no controversy.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:14:48 -0800

At this point, given all the fake news fabricated pundits and prepackaged video from the white house, I'd think the burden of proof is on them to show they had nothing to do with this guy. I mean he didn't have a press pass, he picked up a daily pass by contacting the press office every morning. So every morning Gannon got approved by white house officials to come on in, if that isn't a relationship, I don't know what is. They have a track record of doing this. A current track record. They're still doing it. How that isn't any form of evidence I don't know. Perhaps we should ignore instances in a criminal's background where they have committed similar crimes.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:27:55 -0800

To get back on track: There are, by the way, lots of sites to track fake SEALs, and Marines. It is pretty serious to steal someones honor. I think it's worse than anything else he did. I'm fat, dumb, and happy now, but I'd at least TRY to kick Gannon's ass.

By: gesamtkunstwerk

gesamtkunstwerk — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:41:13 -0800

Well, of course he wasn't really a marine! A fine young consevative like Guckon wouldn't have waited to be asked, he would have told everyone that he's a big old gay boy. I am shocked that nobody has asked Guckon about his stance on gays in the military. To be honest, the best interview I've seen was with Anderson Cooper, which is a pretty sad state of affairs. The piece in the NYT was just depressing. What a loser. But as shocked as I am, I most happy that Troutfishing is back!

By: zardoz

zardoz — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:15:27 -0800

And yet—you. don't. have. a. shred. of. evidence. such a thing happened. Well, dhoyt, if you had taken a look at Freen's link, you would have seen loads of evidence. What we don't have is concrete proof, which in this case would be Bush or Rove saying, "Yeah, there was a wire, we fooled you guys!" And claiming a lack of "proof" is a lame strategy for those who can't refute the overwhelming evidence. People go to the electric chair for far less evidence than that. /can't believe I got sucked into this strawman

By: Pinback

Pinback — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:52:11 -0800

Hey guys, ever wonder how the word sideshow originated? Way back when, when the circus came to town the locals would set up their own stalls / displays / games just outside the main show. The idea was to sidetrack people on their way in, perhaps make a little money, and distract them while the real show was going on inside. Eventually the circus owners cottoned on to this, and started bringing their own sideshows with them, ensuring that they owned & reaped the takings from the whole market. Which is why these days you see sideshows at fairs and exhibitions everywhere. I'll get back to making my point as soon as I check out this guy with 3 cups and a pea over here...

By: jokeefe

jokeefe — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:53:02 -0800

*skips shouting* Great to see you back, trout.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 17:57:54 -0800

Well, dhoyt, if you had taken a look at Freen's link, you would have seen loads of evidence. That reminds me... Pet store owner: Satan's image on turtle's shell An Indiana pet store owner says he sees the image of Satan on the shell of a turtle that was the only survivor of a store fire in October. "The marking on the shell was like the devil wanted us to know he was down there," Bryan Dora said. "To me, it's too coincidental that the only thing to come out unscathed would have this image on it."

By: Space Coyote

Space Coyote — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:27:31 -0800

Wow, dhoyt, you prove your point excellently by mentioning something completely unrelated and not explaining the equivalence. Good job, there. PS. Are you trying to make republicans look bad and fooling us all?

By: mk1gti

mk1gti — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:34:56 -0800

I've got an Easter get-together with conservative step-relatives this weekend. I am *so* giving them hell over this dickweed. . . At least Clinton had sex with a woman, Bush has sex with . . . ?

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:39:59 -0800

You know, at one point I had a real respect for dhoyt. While I rarely agreed with his ideology, I thought that he made cogent arguments and didn't avoid inconvenient facts, unlike some other Rightwingers_at_Metafilter. Even though we disagreed about much, dhoyt seemed to me to be a serious and intellectually honest conservative. But all dhoyt seems to be doing in this thread is trying to derail it: distraction: "oh, look at all the other threads", arguments from authority, "and king mathowie doesn't like this thread", derision: "well weirdos see Satan on turtles shells, so whatever you saw must be as silly". The one thing dhoyt isn't doing is addressing the facts of allegations made against Gannon, and following that where it leads. And that disappoints me, because frankly, I thought dhoyt was better than that.

By: hank

hank — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:47:03 -0800

> I would really, really like to know how a straight-up crook > got his ass into the White House on a daily basis ... Um, by a 5 to 4 majority vote.

By: gesamtkunstwerk

gesamtkunstwerk — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:55:25 -0800

I like your sentiment, orthogonality, and I agree, we should be encouraging thoughtful input from conservatives. But dhoyt is refusing to look at this incident holistically. While we don't have a smoking gun-- a used condom with the seal of the White House on the tip full, there is too much circumstantial evidence to ignore. Guckon is idiot, not just a conservative zealot or opportunist, he's a freaking moron. We can't prove that he was a plant, but no reasonable person can defend his place at the White House. Sure, we have another moron in the White House, but he's well placed-- a skull and bones trust fund baby and scion of a president. But Guckon is an incoherent loser with no experience and no talent. He doesn't have the misplaced charisma of Coulter, and he doesn't even channel anger like Limbaugh. He's a semi-literate hack. The question we need to ask, is how did such a loser get such a prized position in the press core. Looks? Talent? Style? If there is a plausible alternative to connections, I'd like to hear it.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:26:56 -0800

Wow, dhoyt, you prove your point excellently by mentioning something completely unrelated and not explaining the equivalence. I thought it was obvious: we see what we want to see if it supports our ideologies. Bush -> wire Turtle -> Satan And orthogonality we're just going to have to agree to disagree this time. If it makes things more black & white to characterize me as a "Republican"—or One of Them—so be it, but you're way off. Like you, I'd like to hear some objective truths about the Gannon affair, but all I can really arrive at is: a very troubled, dishonest man posed as a reporter for awhile and it exposed a major flaw in pressroom security. I'm not as obsessed with his sexual preference or prostitution as some, and I've got no reason to think it's related to his security clearance. Has he actually got any goods on the Plame affair? Is there proof the administration 'planted' him? Like all the other conspiracy theories I mentioned above, these are just dots it feels good to connect out of a strong (often justifiable) suspicion for Bush—even if they don't really connect. I guess what you're perceiving as a Thread Derail amounts to a simple protest for me based on this: if we're going to encourage rehashed stories from political blogs involved rehashed subject matter, then jerks like me are sometimes going to point it out, just like with any other bad post. This is nothing new on MetaFilter, a self-policed environment. The fact that the very person who created the site's purpose characterized it as a post that "sucks" should tell you as much. Notice that the same five people post in every weekly Gannon thread. Can you imagine if there were Eason Jordan/Bill Clinton/Michael Moore/Ward Churchill posts every week with commentary by Steve, Paris & dios? I doubt you'd be urging anyone to take the posts/stories seriously or claiming that they were good posts at all. We don't need Kos-lite any more than we need LGF-lite.

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:35:05 -0800

And orthogonality, as far as over-the-top derails & sarcasm go, your record is not exactly spotless.

By: George_Spiggott

George_Spiggott — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:51:54 -0800

dhoyt, your insistence that the Gannon/Guckert press corps thing is a mere security issue rings utterly false. It's hardly a question merely of how he got in the door: it's how he got credentialed, on the seating chart and called upon by an administration that is -- to put it mildly -- rather choosy about such things. And you don't need to have this pointed out to you, you know it perfectly well. Consequently, your claims of not having any partiality on the subject also rings false. You know damn well it wasn't a security failure. The Bush administration makes mistakes, but that would constitute an succession of closely integrated mistakes of the kind they do not and would not make. It is impossible to believe that you don't know this perfectly well. And the fact that the entire chorus of right wing media spinners is providing running cover for him is pretty much of a giveaway all by itself. Taken together, the "security failure" line is stretched far beyond the breaking point -- only a half-wit or someone with an agenda is going to peddle it. You're clearly not the first and you insist you're not the second; so where on Earth are you coming from on this?

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:05:44 -0800

Maybe, just maybe, folks (previously unaware) are now starting to "connect-the-dots" on the Gannon/Guckert affair ... and are realizing that there is more to the story: that this may serve as a "tipping point" which exposes/reinforces questionable practices of the current administration to deceive, to manipulate...and, heaven, forbid - to obfuscate and propogandize. The fact that some of us (I proudly raise my hand as one of the five who dhoyt identifies as posting weekly ANALysis about Gannon/Gukert here on MetaFilter) choose to syntheize and aggregate reports from newspapers, websites and other MetaFilter discussions is indicative of a desire to "get to the bottom" (no pun intended) of the implications of the strategy and tactics of the current administration's alleged manipulation (which some deem "propagannon") of the media ... and in the long run a strategy to deceive the American citizenry. Many are not buying the "bllshit", the obfuscation, the "talking points" !!!

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:07:11 -0800

*bullshit*

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:16:43 -0800

*propagandize*

By: ericb

ericb — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:18:52 -0800

*to synthesize* Hon, that's the last glass of wine for you!

By: Eekacat

Eekacat — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:25:36 -0800

Seriously dhoyt. This thread is about Gannon/Guckert's lies about his military service. Instead you choose to talk about other things. It's pretty simple, don't you think? Yet you keep posting about other issues. Why are you trying to deflect attention from the issue at hand? I consider myself a conservative, and I haven't been represented by the republican party since Ronald Reagan sold his soul to the "Religious Right". I really wish the Republican fuckwits in power would actually stand for something and realize that the whole Guckert scandal is actually WORSE than Clinton getting a blowjob in the oval office (and then lying about it for which he was impeached), and act on their supposed moral high ground. What is the fear of an investigation if the President and his staff weren't involved? Don't they want to protect the President from such heinous breeches? I, quite frankly, don't know what you are defending here.

By: AlexReynolds

AlexReynolds — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:06:49 -0800

Has he actually got any goods on the Plame affair? Is there proof the administration 'planted' him? Like all the other conspiracy theories I mentioned above, these are just dots it feels good to connect out of a strong (often justifiable) suspicion for Bush—even if they don't really connect. A number of reasonable people who are now familiar with Guckert being admitted to the White House under an assumed name disagree with you, dhoyt. His own story regarding access to classified materials keeps changing. The excuses given for his presence under false identification are weak given how tightly the Bush administration controls media access. This sort of thing does not just "happen". If you claim you're not being a stooge for liars, and you're genuinely not trying to derail this thread with unrelated information, what exactly are you trying to defend by throwing common sense out of the window?

By: jonp72

jonp72 — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:08:31 -0800

Don't they want to protect the President from such heinous breeches? I think the point was that Gannon on the Internet wasn't wearing his breeches.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 23:17:17 -0800

dhoyt writes "And orthogonality we're just going to have to agree to disagree this time. " You know, I was almost convinced by this, and was about to compose a conciliatory comment to dhoyt -- when I saw that ten minutes later he followed up with " And orthogonality, as far as over-the-top derails & sarcasm go, your record is not exactly spotless." It's not that dhoyt choose to respond by taking out, ad hominem after me, or even merely that doing so was another attempt at a derail, "look, oh, shiny, let's discuss orthogonality and not Guckert, and ignore the man behind the curtain", it was that in the nine minutes -- from 9:26 when dhoyt made the first comment, to 9:35 when he made the second --, which dhoyt could have spent marshalling substantive arguments for why the Gannon affair isn't noteworthy, he spent looking for yet another way to derail this thread. Apparently, Guckert is important enough to dhoyt to spend another ten minutes looking for derail fodder, but not to look for substantive argument. which I think says much about the dhoyt's desire to derail, and, unfortunately for dhoyt, much about his tactics of argument. Again, compared to other who (apparently: dhoyt writes "If it makes things more black & white to characterize me as a 'Republican'—or One of Them—so be it, but you're way off.") share his ideology, I've found dhoyt to be more intellectually honest, and it saddens me to see his time and considerable talents spent on obfuscation rather than illumination.

By: schyler523

schyler523 — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 00:58:26 -0800

What Orthogonality said.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 06:37:03 -0800

Hey, thanks y'all, for the greetings. Those, alone, made my day. And, I'm not exactly the Troutfishing, anymore, that you all came to know and tolerate. I've lost the axe-grinding, for one thing. Matt and all those who gave me gentle admonishings and then light whuppings for my descent into axy shrillness were right. I just needed a breather, to step back and figure out why. I did. Heh. Plus, I no longer have time for a race to become the Metafilter comment king. Dan - or whoever - is more than welcome to that peculiar distinction. And Dan no longer has time as well, I reckon. Me, I've got other fish to fry. Plus, reality isn't dualistic. It's more complex. For example, there's Good ( however defined ) , there's Evil ( booga booga ) and then there's...... Annoyance. So - I have to apologize for behaving as the bandleader of annoyance. Religious Right, vote scams, whatever - If ya don't got fun, ya might as well hole up in a cave with a hairshirt and subsist on worms and dirt whilst self flagellating and whining to the heavens. Waaah! Waaaaah! Woe ! Gloom! Waaaaaaah! In any case, Metafilter doesn't need my puny contributions. Metafilter kicks ass and is quite fine without me or any individual member. ps - Matt : if you read this, can you get me a line to Rusty ? I have good reason. - T

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 06:45:28 -0800

Admonishings ? Admonitions ? Matteo writes and speaks better English than I, and English isn't his native language. Heh heh. Hey, where's Miguel ? Sulking or smirking atop a heap of novels and sipping a dry martini ? ;) Oops, sorry for the derail, but I thought things were winding down here anyway. Nonetheless : Guckert ! Guckert Guckert ! There. Now we're back on track.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:05:57 -0800

troutfishing writes "If ya don't got fun, ya might as well hole up in a cave with a hairshirt and subsist on worms and dirt whilst self flagellating and whining to the heavens." You mention this as if it's a bad thing. Having "fun" never fed a starving baby in Africa.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:51:39 -0800

I'm all about having fun. And so is Guckert's secret White House lover. Is it Rove that likes male dominant lovers for hire? Is it Scotty? I hear he always liked hanging out at the Austin gay bars. Wonder why? Would a FOIA to the White House SS garner the information of who ordered this access? Will he ever be confronted on TV or in the major papers about his lies? Don't hold your breath. Liberal media indeed. The same liberal media that couldn't shut up about President Clinton for 10 years. Concrete proof? Hah! The same kind of concrete proof that was absent and is still absent regarding Clinton and any illegal wrongdoing (minus one lie?)

By: amberglow

amberglow — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:58:58 -0800

They ran magazine cover stories on Clinton without concrete proof--Time, for one. It's Bush's boyfriend. ; >

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:03:54 -0800

ericb, I have hereby appointed myself to speak on behalf of the MeFi community and officially state here and now for all time: We get that you know how to spell. Either use Preview to proofread your comments before hitting "Post" or just let them go afterward. Correcting spelling errors afterward in multiple single-word comments, which you're doing more and more and more now, doesn't add anything but noise. Otherwise, keep up the great work.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:32:29 -0800

I'm kinda curious why the Bush administration - which is ostensibly pro-troops, pro-military service, isn't up this guys ass....er...investigating him intensely for posing as an ex-marine. It seems to be the track record though. All this "we love the troops" bullshit, then when someone who actually served disagrees one whit with the party line out come the purple heart band-aids (a travesty and utter disrespect for the wounded in combat) and the "he's crazy now" bullshit McCain got slapped with. In what way, exactly, has BushCo shown support for the troops? (concrete evidence those who put in military service have had a net benefit because of Bush being in office - overall Regan was good for the military, Bush the Greater was pretty good, Clinton boosted enlisted pay - good, etc.) I figured Gann...whatever-his-name-is... was posing as a Marine before I even read the source material because it ran so true to type. Also - while there are homosexuals in the service, flaming types are sometimes met with violence (not that I agree with it, but it's a fact). Surprising this hasn't happened yet. It's just one more clod of shit in the face, another tacit 'fuck you' from flyboy George to the military while everything on the surface is fine and dandy looking as fake turkey. we should be encouraging thoughtful input from conservatives I'd consider myself a conservative. (Of course, that term has been co-opted. I'm certainly not what liberal means today either though. Libertarian perhaps? Egalitarian? New Dealer? Bull Moose?) Thoughtful is something else.

By: ericb

ericb — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 10:40:34 -0800

soyjoy - point taken.

By: Enron Hubbard

Enron Hubbard — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 12:10:43 -0800

Most people nowadays think it was a pacemaker. There was something under his jacket. Something. I've always suspected one of those slug things from Heinlein's "Puppet Masters". But we can talk at length about blowjobs. everybody likes blowjobs. Now, if I could only convince my wife...

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:14:59 -0800

Smedleyman writes "In what way, exactly, has BushCo shown support for the troops?" They threw that parade for that Jessica Lynch who they said held out an Iraqi attack single-handedly, who it turned out didn't, and who they said was rescued from captivity, in a way she actually wasn't. BUT IT WAS A GREAT PARADE!!!11!

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 07:09:13 -0800

orthogonality - Big scary stories, or simply depressing ones, aren't especially effective at inspiring behavioral change. My point ? - If you really want to help that starving African baby, your program - to be optimally effective - had best pay attention to the very natural human love of fun, and of play. Many of the greatest conceptual breakthroughs have come about amidst creative play. To surrender play, and fun, and instead choose to yoke oneself to the impossibly heavy cart of the serious, or to roll that boulder up the hill, is to be far less than maximally effective. By "fun", I don't mean to imply soggy Bacchanalias : To forget play, fun, and joy is to forget that process through which truly brilliant, creative solutions emerge from our unconscious minds during those unguarded moments when we have forgotten the impossible task of unravelling the Gordian Knot of the serious, when we just muck around, when we let our mental maps of the possible unclench.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:48:29 -0800

troutfishing writes " My point ? - If you really want to help that starving African baby, your program - to be optimally effective - had best pay attention to the very natural human love of fun, and of play.

"Many of the greatest conceptual breakthroughs have come about amidst creative play. To surrender play, and fun, and instead choose to yoke oneself to the impossibly heavy cart of the serious, or to roll that boulder up the hill, is to be far less than maximally effective." Did you click my link? Admittedly, I was being a bit too clever by half. The link is to people having fun (well, using their leisure time), while sitting in a cave in Blomfos 80,000 years ago (sitting in caves being one of the things you warned against), making what was perhaps the earliest and greatest conceptual breakthrough ever, that is, starting the process of human culture while whittling beads and covering them with ocher. So I was (largely) agreeing with you.

By: ericb

ericb — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:23:38 -0800

GannonGuckert In Under Two Minutes. More at Agitprops.org.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:34:45 -0800

love that agitprop thing. maybe the comic format is best to get thru to some people? and then there's Rove at the Mid-Atlantic Leather thing held each year in DC. (MAL bear pics here,(NSFW?) but there's no such thing as a "Miss" Virginia Daddy Bear) ; >>

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 20:47:58 -0800

orthogonality - Sorry, I was on a slow connection and in a hurry. amberglow - that makes sense.

By: ericb

ericb — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:18:19 -0800

The National Press Club Welcomes ... Jeff Gannon? Gannon is back -- at the National Press Club? Yes, the same day that the prestigious Washington, D.C., journalism organization plans to present a lunch talk by former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee, it will also allow the former White House reporter/sex site operator to be on a panel discussing bloggers and online journalism....Gannon told E&P today that he always considered himself a legitimate journalist, and 'perhaps their invitation is recognition of that.' ...Gannon told E&P he 'thinks it is a good opportunity for me to speak to issues related to bloggers.' He also added that he was, 'trying to stay out there where people can see me.'" [Editor & Publisher | March 28, 2005]

By: ericb

ericb — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:27:09 -0800

A comprehensive background investigation and timeline of Gannon/Guckert posted today at DailyKos.

"Yes, it's true. Guckert's path to the president reads like a modern-day fairy tale on steroids. In less than twelve months, Guckert was catapulted from the position of office manager of family-owned and operated Karmak, Inc., in West Chester, Pennsylvania, to the White House briefing room, with a quick - but thus far unverified beyond Guckert's claim - two-day seminar at the Leadership Institute's Broadcast Journalism School. Meteoric doesn't begin to describe such a rise."

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 28 Mar 2005 16:20:34 -0800

it's insane...the National Press Club must be on drugs.

By: ericb

ericb — Wed, 30 Mar 2005 10:40:12 -0800

Call the National Press Club and reserve a spot at the GannonGuckert panel "Call the NPC's phone message hotline at (202) 662-7501 and leave a message saying: (1) You're a member of the public attending the "Who Is a Journalist?" event, open to the public, on April 8, 2005, (2) you want one ticket, (3) your name, and (4) your phone number. They won't call to confirm your reservation. In order to have them call to confirm you got the reservation, call this number: 202.662.7500 It helps if you're in the DC area, but even if you're not, it still could prove useful."

By: ericb

ericb — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 08:48:04 -0800

Reporter, editor say 'Jeff Gannon' plagiarized article Also see AMERICAblog.

By: ericb

ericb — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 14:36:18 -0800

National Press Clubs reinvites bloggers to watch GannonGuckert panel, so long as we promise to be good .

By: ericb

ericb — Sun, 03 Apr 2005 13:40:40 -0800

Former Talon News White House correspondent J.D. Guckert reportedly is implicated in falsely registering a political organization as a non-profit. [Washington Times | March 31, 2005]