It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Bush Voters: How You Were Suckered

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 04:07 PM
So your religious crusade to reveal Bush's evil motives and discredit his every decision has expanded into saving the fragile American mind from 'corporate brainwashing'?

Most of the people posting here are countering your ridiculously biased posts with good information. You should pay heed to their arguments, because once again, yours have been decimated.

Now, I realize that by posting an opinion contrary to yours I run the risk of being labled a Bush Baby, or a Bush lover, due to your narrow mindedness, and belief that those who don't share your opinion are under discrete government control. Thats what politics is all about is it not? Maybe YOU are the one who is brainwahed...

Good luck exposing the corruption of the Neo Nazi bush party... one day the word will chant your name as the savior of the Constitution and the American Dream.

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Rain King
So your religious crusade to reveal Bush's evil motives and discredit his every decision

If that's how you see it, then yes. I prefer truth to fiction. If you fear/dislike that, feel free not to take part in my threads.

Most of the people posting here are countering your ridiculously biased posts with good information.

Really? Please share with us what that good information is.

Now, I realize that by posting an opinion contrary to yours I run the risk of being labled a Bush Baby, or a Bush lover

Gee, you're awful sensitive.
I don't believe I've ever used those particular terms.. could you please provide a quote of me doing so? Now, I have used the term SYCOPHANT on occassion.

due to your narrow mindedness, and belief that those who don't share your opinion are under discrete government control. Thats what politics is all about is it not?

Lemme get this straight.. you're saying that politics is about.. us being controlled discreetly by government forces? Your statement's a little on the Bushian side. It doesn't really make sense. Would you like to take another crack at it?

To me, politics should be about alot of things, like implementing positive change for our citizenry; definitely not controlling the dissemination of information and smearing those you disagree with.

Maybe YOU are the one who is brainwahed...

Maybe YOU are.

Good luck exposing the corruption of the Neo Nazi bush party... one day the word will chant your name as the savior of the Constitution and the American Dream.

You never know.

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 08:14 AM
It's just keeps getting better.. Not only are print media hacks taking money to promote the views of the Bush administration, but now we learn that a man by the name of Jeff Gannon (fake name) was added to the White House press pool, fronting for a FAKE news organization (TAlon news) that was supported by a GOP group. GOPUSA. He was strategically placed in the press pool to ask the president and press rep. softball questions.

Bloggers caught wind of this and begin looking into Gannon's background. What they found was not surprising. Look at who gave him access.
Not only did they learn that Gannon was not his real name and that Talon news is a farce, they also discovered that the newsfaker's journalistic background was made up of having graduated from a two-day SEMINAR. I wonder if the GOP covered his tuition.

It would be one thing for a guy to run around covering events on his own, for his own little project or website. No harm in that. But this guy was given a coveted spot in the WHITE HOUSE press pool! He is one thing and one thing only: A PROPAGANDIST for this administration. A plant. In journalistic terms, it is beyond UNETHICAL.

And the mainstream media wonders why their credibilty is almost shot, and why fewer and fewer people are reading them?

Here's the kicker.. Jim Guckert, aka GANNON is allegedly also involved in gay-military escorts styled websites. THis doesn't surprise me at all. It only reinforces things I've come to belive with regard to the personal in-the-closet tastes of this ruling clique.

Here's an article on it:

The Power of the New Media, Jeff Gannon Dispatched Into Irrelevancy


February 10, 2005

Never before has the new media flexed its muscles collectively, so well, as in the recent case of a liar named Jeff Gannon. Well, Jeff Gannon wasn’t actually his real name. That was a lie too.

It is becoming all too obvious that the myth of a liberal mainstream media is quite dead. This fantasy is held onto so dearly by right-wingers because it is part of their talking points. The reality is far easier to spot though. Talk radio is dominated completely by the right wing machine, with such shrill voices as Limbaugh and Hannity leading the pack. Then you look at cable news see that if a man named Colmes is the only voice of reason, then we are not in Kansas any more Dorothy. It is a matter of story selection, panel composition, and host personalities.

Fox News is nothing more than an extension of the White House and any fair evaluation of them must conclude that. A FAIR study done last year found an overwhelming majority of the prime time guests on the Brit Hume show, were right wing, while the tiny minority of alleged democrats, were actually middle of the road moderates. If it was only Fox we had to worry about, we would still be ok. The real damage Fox News perpetrates on the collective journalistic soul of this country is to make other news, appear mainstream. Next to Fox, the other big networks appear lefty, when in reality they also are lilting far to the right.

The next big cable giant is MSNBC with its flagship show, “Softball, with Chris Matthews”. Chris pretends to ask the tough questions, but a mere glance at his panels will tell the truth of the leanings of his show. In the run-up to the election, Ben Ginsberg was a regular panelist offering analysis. Ben Ginsberg is a republican election lawyer. On the democratic side, Mathews may have Ron Reagan Jr., who is more moderate than democratic or Andrea Mitchell, who is married to Alan Greenspan. This is the mold of the shows that displays its inherent bias. The people on the left are not strong lefty personalities, but rather are moderates who approach topics, fairly. The people on the right however, have an agenda, and that is to push the GOP talking points at all costs. Last night Matthews had on Susan Molinari, who could not stop gushing about the bold social security plan of the president. Her counterpart tried to play fairly, and have a rational discussion. The result was Molinari often shouting over her opponent to get the GOP message through, while Matthews stands by grinning. This is what media and reporting has come to in latter day America. As if this was not bad enough, MSNBC will not even portray equal amounts, of the disproportionate pundits. Following the State of the Union, MSNBC had 11 republican guests to only 2 democratic guests. One of those two democratic guests was the aforementioned Reagan, the moderate. On the GOP side were such strong personalities as Orrin Hatch, Rick Santorum and Pat Buchanan. This is how they stack the shows.
Following the Fox model, MSNBC went out and got themselves a loud voice for their prime time PM slot. Joe Scarborough headlines for MSNBC at ten o’clock. What did Mr. Scarborough do prior to pretending to be a journalist? He was a member of Congress, for the GOP. Offering no apology, Mr. Scarborough was also spotted in the election run-up at a Pro-Bush rally, as a fan, not a journalist. Hmm, I guess objectivity is not on the MSNBC agenda. Joe routinely has on such vitriolic guests as Anne Coulter, to fairly discuss the state of affairs in this country. Please.

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 10:22 AM
Here's more on how the presstitutes and government go hand-in-hand.

Global Eye

Mother Lode

By Chris Floyd
Published: February 11, 2005

The hoary adage that "there are none so blind as those who will not see" should be carved in stone at the National Press Club in Washington. Surely there can be no better motto for the cozy clubhouse of America's media mavens, who seem preternaturally incapable of recognizing the truth -- even when it stands before them, monstrous and unavoidable, like a giant Cyclops smeared with blood.

For just as they botched the most important story of our time -- the Bush Administration's transparently deceptive campaign to launch a war of aggression against Iraq -- the clubby mavens are now missing the crowning achievement of this vast crime: the mother of all backroom deals, a cynical pact sealed by murder, unfolding before our eyes.

The Administration's true objective in Iraq is brutally simple: U.S. domination of Middle East oil. This is no secret. Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz began writing about this "strategic necessity" in 1992, as Alternet reminds us; and in September 2000, a group led by Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld openly called for a U.S. military takeover of Iraq -- even if the regime of Saddam Hussein was no longer in power. At every point in their savaging of Iraq, the Bushists have pressed relentlessly toward this oily goal.

The objective was revealed -- yet again -- in a recent Washington appearance by Iraqi Finance Minister Adil Abdel-Mahdi. Standing alongside a top State Department official, Abdel-Mahdi announced that Iraq's government wants to open the nation's oil fields to foreign investment -- not only the pumped product flowing through the pipes, but the very oil in the ground, the common patrimony of the Iraqi people. The minister said plainly that this sweet deal -- placing the world's second-largest oil reserves in a few private hands -- would be "very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies," InterPress reports. These are the spoils for which George W. Bush has killed more than 100,000 human beings.

The American media completely ignored Abdel-Mahdi's declaration, but this is not surprising. After all, it occurred in the most obscure venue imaginable: an appearance before oil barons and journalists at the, er, National Press Club. Where better to hide open confessions of war crimes than in the very midst of the Washington hack pack? Yet here was a story of immense importance. For Abdel-Mahdi is not only a functionary in the discredited collaborationist government now in its last days. He is also one of the leading figures in the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), the Shiite faction that has been swept to somewhat more legitimate power by the national election that was forced on George W. Bush by Islamic fundamentalist Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In fact, Abdel-Mahdi is frequently mentioned as a leading choice for prime minister in the new government; whatever happens, he will certainly play a primary role.

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 10:58 AM
I like you ECK but so many of your posts are about the same thing.

Bush voters and Kerry voters alike are part of the problem with the political arena, I can't stress that enough. However, since we have enemies right now (whether we made them or not isn't the important factor here) we need someone who is willing to take them out without any bs.

From what I hear Clinton was more then able to on a couple of occasions but didn't.

From what I hear, CIA and pentagon documents were released before 911 saying that Al Qaeda had a big hard on for commercial aircraft.

From what I hear, terrorists were plotting way before the US military moved into Iraq.

From what I hear, terrorists were bombing US embassies around the world before 1998.

From what I hear the US helped Bin Laden with funding so they could help beat the soviets out of their country.

From what I hear Bin Laden turned on the US after that.

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 11:28 AM

Originally posted by TrueLies
From what I hear Bin Laden turned on the US after that.

Pretty much accurate down to that last one. And that one's debateable.

What is your point, though, with regard to this thread? It's about how the Bush administration feels the need to pay people (posing as journalists) to write in support of their positions. I've never covered this issue before (at ATS).

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 11:35 AM
Point being ( did this again in another thread, I need to be more direct)
that the Bush administration maybe grabbing at straws, apparantly the facts have hit us over the head time after time, even before he got into office and people still aren't getting it.

So, perhaps their paying journalists (since they have a phd the spindoctor program) off, since they seem to have the biggest impact on how people think.

Day in day out, all the major national networks are asking their so called experts 'what should we make out of all of this" or "how should we think about this"

It's always those questions posed to the 'experts' by the 'journalists' and throughout the programming key words are subtly repeated so they sink into our heads.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by TrueLies]

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 11:47 AM

Originally posted by TrueLies
Day in day out, all the major national networks are asking their so called experts 'what should we make out of all of this" or "how should we think about this"

Many of those so-called experts are nothing more than well-dressed hacks. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them. Best bet is to see them for what they are: ENTERTAINERS and PROPAGANDISTS. We'd all be better off to turn the TV off and get real analysis and data from more credible sources. I know.. I know.. that would entail actually having to do (GASP!) RESEARCH! It's not as fun.. but worth every bit of time it takes.

It's always those questions posed the 'experts' and throughout the programming key words are subtly repeated so we get them banged into our heads.

Message of the day. Rhetoric. KEEP WATCHING TV.. DO NOT TURN YOUR TV OFF... DON'T TOUCH THAT DIAL! This is how you will think about this issue.. these are your buzz words.. TRUST US..

I had a poli-sci prof once lament to me privately that he disdained reading most of the papers his students wrote. "Why?" I asked. He said b/c most of what they wrote was simply regurgitation of what they had read. Not the slightest trace of original thought. I now see that and hear it myself constantly. It's so elementary and ridiculous. When people are busy spewing out the partisan rhetoric they've been brainwashed to repeat, they are the last ones on earth to even understand what they're doing.
It's as hilarious as it can be maddening.

so maybe subjective wording and repitition through journalism is the last resort?

This is not journalism we are talking about. It is propaganda.

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 11:50 AM
The Kid actually voted for Bush, before he voted against him.

It was Churchill (Winston, not the phoney Indian professor) who once said that the truth was so precious that it had to be protected with a bodyguard of lies.
Denying ignorance would seem to me to be a mindset where one questions the prejudices and motives of anyone telling you how to think.
"Conciousness raising" and telling people they are stupid and have been decieved is not way to persuade or bring them over to your point of view, as correct and enlighted as that OPINION may be.

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Realist05
"Conciousness raising" and telling people they are stupid and have been decieved is not way to persuade or bring them over to your point of view, as correct and enlighted as that OPINION may be.

Who called someone stupid?

Would you prefer people stay in the darkness of deceit? Or do you encourage pursuing truth wherever that leads?

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 12:15 PM
Forgive me, I just assume that if you tell people they are brainwashed and willfully ignorant, that it amounts to calling them stupid. My bad.

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Realist05
Forgive me, I just assume that if you tell people they are brainwashed and willfully ignorant, that it amounts to calling them stupid. My bad.

Can you not see it all around you? Why do you think people get so angry when someone points it out?

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 01:26 PM
I've just been reading several more articles on the JEff Gannon and Sinclair Broadcasting scandals. These people are wolves in sheep's clothing. Sinclair is especially repugnant.

Beyond 'Fair and Balanced'

Sinclair, the pro-Bush broadcaster, is waging war on the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys"


Last year, when conservative commentator Armstrong Williams took $240,000 in payoffs from the Bush administration to promote its education policies in the media, he needed to reach a national television audience to satisfy the terms of his lucrative deal. Fortunately for Williams, he was good friends with David Smith, the CEO of Sinclair Broadcast Group, the nation's largest owner of television stations.
Although Smith says he didn't know Williams was on the take, he liked the pundit's pro-Bush views and was eager to hand him plum assignments at Sinclair. While on the Bush payroll, Williams did an interview for Sinclair with then Education Secretary Rod Paige, the man responsible for funneling him taxpayer money to secure such prime-time exposure. He also interviewed Majority Whip Tom DeLay, and even got an hour on camera with Vice President Dick Cheney, who rarely speaks to the media. "Sinclair brought me stuff that I did not have -- real numbers, where you can get the speaker of the house or the VP," Williams tells ROLLING STONE. "On Sinclair, I was talking to millions of viewers a night."

Even before the payoffs became public, the news staff at Sinclair was horrified. The producer who edited the interview Williams did with Paige calls it "the worst piece of TV I've ever been associated with. You've seen softballs from Larry King? Well, this was softer. I told my boss it didn't even deserve to be broadcast, but they kept pushing me to put more of it on tape. In retrospect, it was so clearly propaganda."

Loose 'Gannon'
By Greg Mitchell and Joe Strupp, Editor & Publisher
Posted on February 10, 2005, Printed on February 11, 2005
Jeff Gannon, the controversial White House correspondent for the obscure, conservative web site Talon News who resigned from his job Tuesday, confirmed late Wednesday, in a phone interview with National Public Radio, that he has been using a false name. A few hours later, Howard Kurtz, writing in The Washington Post, confirmed earlier tips, arising from liberal blogs, that the reporter's real name is indeed James D. Guckert.

Despite the ruse, "Gannon" still managed to gain access to many White House briefings and was one of the few reporters allowed to ask President Bush a (very friendly) question at a press conference two weeks ago.

NPR reported Wednesday that when Gannon was turned down for Capitol Hill credentials – a move first reported by E&P last week – he had used the name James Guckert. He admitted to NPR that Gannon was not his real name, and left it at that.

Hannity on Gannon: "a terrific Washington bureau chief and White House correspondent for Talon News"

Conservative radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have cited Talon News, the online "news" organization that appears to be more of a Republican political advocacy group than a media outlet, and its former Washington bureau chief and White House correspondent, Jeff Gannon, as sources on their radio broadcasts.

In addition to citing both Talon News and Gannon on ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show, Hannity has referred to Gannon as "a terrific Washington bureau chief and White House correspondent for Talon News," and according to a program summary on the website for San Francisco radio station KSFO, which carries Hannity's show, Gannon was a guest on the February 10, 2004, edition of the program. The program summary for that broadcast states: "Sean spends a moment with Jeff Gannon, Washington Bureau Chief for Talon Jeff talks about his daily meetings with White House Press Secretary Scott McCellan [sic]." Media Matters for America demonstrated that Gannon has served as a lifeline for White House press secretary Scott McClellan at press briefings and that Gannon copied GOP documents and releases verbatim and without attribution for use in his articles.

Here are three other instances in which Hannity cited Gannon or Talon News as a source on his radio show:

HANNITY: He's [radio host Mike Webb] apparently a liberal talk show host known for his disdain of the president and the Bush administration. And a report says that he called for the death penalty for the president and the Secretary of State [sic: Defense] Donald Rumsfeld for war crimes. He apparently denied a report last week by Talon News, but the Internet site -- and said yesterday that they have a tape that proves that this host, Mike Webb, made the statements on the air. [The Sean Hannity Show, 5/27/04]

HANNITY: And apparently they're also, according to Jeff Gannon, the -- Talon News -- this woman, Mary Mapes, this Dallas producer [involved in the controversy over memos about President Bush's National Guard service], is under pressure for the [CBS] network, and now there's doubts about their authenticity has taken place. Let me tell you what that means. That means everything's going downhill. And you watch. There's going to be somebody that has to take the fall here, and it's not going to be uh, it's not going to be [CBS anchor] Dan Rather. [The Sean Hannity Show, 9/7/04]

HANNITY: Now, Jeff Gannon, who is a terrific Washington bureau chief and White House correspondent for Talon News, actually shot me an e-mail today, and he's about to break a story in an exclusive about these CBS documents. [The Sean Hannity Show, 9/10/04]

The only place to find REAL, uncensored news is on the internet. If you want to know the truth about what's really going on.. turn off TV "news." You'll be doing yourselves a HUGE favor.

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 04:02 PM
You want to know why I am so passionate about this issue of newsfakers feeding us disinformation? Because people are mislead, they make bad choices based on bogus information and then people get killed - or support the killing of innocent people.

I realize that there are times when disinfo is truly needed. Don't think for a moment I am so naive. But the wanton abuse of the practice is rampant in this adminstration. And look what we have gotten. Over 1400 dead US troops. Why? Because they told us Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. If Americans had known the truth, I highly doubt we'd be stuck now fighting this unjustified, illegal and unwinnable war.

Read this article. It's from the parents of a soldier who died in Iraq. They deserve to be heard by all, regardless one's position.

Published on Wednesday, February 9, 2005 by
At What Cost?
by Jorge & Vickie E. Castro

War kills people, real people. Sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers. These people are dying, dying everyday. We watch the reports on the television and think we know what's going on. I have had countless discussions (arguments) with people that are so supportive of this war that it scares me. I keep trying to tell them that they aren't getting the whole picture. Some because they just choose not to, others because they believe all the propaganda that is presented to us as facts. So many are so set in their beliefs that America is 'right', and that there is actually some justification to this war. I tell them that they would look at it differently if it were their son/daughter, husband/wife that was being sent to Iraq. Of course, that doesn't really even penetrate their thought process because they bought into all the pre war rhetoric after 9/11. They watch the news at night, see the body count of our soldiers ever increasing and it still doesn't sink in. These are real people dying and these are real families being destroyed. They watch the news, may express some form of regret about the loss of life, then turn the channel to watch American Idol.
What makes the war real is when your doorbell rings at 8:00 pm and you open it to see an Army soldier standing there in his dress uniform, with all his medals on display. And then you know, you know that it is all too real. You know that REAL people die; you know that they have come to rip your heart out. They regretfully inform you that your only child, the center of your universe, is gone. Dead! The word screams in your head over and over. DEAD, DEAD, DEAD!! That is exactly what happened, Dec. 21, here in our own community. Another soldier died, another family was destroyed, I know because he was my soldier, my son and it was my family that was destroyed. He was a 2001 Centennial graduate that had already served the three years that he had signed for, but was kept in the Army under the stop loss program.

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 08:12 PM
So ABC, CNN, CBS, NPR are shooting straight with you? Dammit, if you can not question the sources you quote and demand ATS members accept it as "the truth" your rant makes no sense at all. Only bullies insist that thier point of view is without ambiguity and the whole truth.

posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 08:39 AM
I believe the experts and analysts on that show may have some knowledge but they speak like they know it all..

There is no doubt in my mind that they are coached before they on the set...

What did bill clinton pass in 1994 or 6... It was som e kind of bill to give more centralised power to a select group before it goes out on air.

There has been anotherb ill passed not too long ago to make the power even more centralised so now the news sources get there information from that small select group.

[edit on 12-2-2005 by TrueLies]

posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 08:08 AM
President George now sez they will no longer pay journalists...

I feel SO much better..

Bush's Covert Propaganda Machine
By Jim Hightower, AlterNet
Posted on February 12, 2005, Printed on February 14, 2005
The media payola scandal keeps growing. First it was Armstrong Williams, the right-wing commentator who got caught taking $240,000 from the department of education to shill for George W.'s "No Child Left Behind" education law.

"Just a bad apple," said the Powers That Be, "an aberration" in an otherwise honest system. But now comes news that Maggie Gallagher, another right-wing commentator, has pocketed some $40,000 from the government to shill for Bush's "strengthening marriage" program. Both Williams and Gallagher have been roundly castigated for so crassly thumbing their noses at journalistic ethics.

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 12:44 PM
Here's the latest on the Gannon/Guckert story. Seems there is now speculation that WH spokesman Scott McClellan might be.. a little light in his shoes, as they say.
I've been saying for quite some time, I wouldn't doubt it if these Bush goons were all closet homos. (Apologies to anyone who is gay & reading this. My problem with them is that they are such raging HYPOCRITS.)

Reporter with prostitution links and false name got access to Bush; Questions surface on relationship with White House staff
Filed under: General— site admin @ 2:08 pm Email This

Questions fly on Guckert’s relationship with White House


The former White House reporter for the conservative website Talon News, who resigned after his links to military escort domains appeared on the Web, is said to have paid two individuals to set up a site on which he intended to prostitute himself, RAW STORY has learned.

These individuals claim to have invoices which show the name of the reporter Jim Guckert’s personal business as paying for the website’s development.

AmericaBLOG’s John Aravosis has discovered previous images of the site through an Internet service which keeps records of sites that have been taken down. The images of the site seem to definitively show Guckert in various indiscrete poses. The images also match with images of Guckert that have appeared in the press, down to personal accoutrements, such as his watch.

Aravosis’ discovery finds particular resonance in a unfolding scandal which involves a White House reporter getting press credentials under a false identity. Guckert had used the name Jeff Gannon in his reporting.

Some question whether Gannon may have leveraged a personal intimate relationship with someone at the White House to gain access to President Bush. Guckert also says he was given access to an internal memorandum which named then-covert CIA operative Valerie Plame

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 02:42 PM

Right, right. Propaganda is very evil. America rarely ever uses it.

I bet the GOP was in control of the government during each of these time periods. Bad, bad GOP.
In all seriousness, leaders of individuals will always require their support, and if the GOP happens to be doing a good job, and the DNC isn''t, then again, the DNC will need some help surviving in a democracy. At least previous democrats knew that they needed some media 'umfph' to keep the public's mind at easy.

posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 07:53 AM
Democrats. Republicans. Republicrats. Two sides of the same coin.

Here's more on the fake journalist who was bounced from the WH press Corps.

Independent Media TV
Under Reported
February 15, 2005

The Smoking Gun in the White House
By: Melissa Carr
Independent Media TV


I rarely like to dwell in liberal vs. conservative arguments, as I don’t think simplifying our nation as two distinct groups serves a valid purpose. But the latest media scandal to rock those who pride themselves as conservatives is too tantalizing to simply ignore. First, we had Armstrong Williams quietly taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in government money to push the No Child Left Behind initiative on his televised broadcasts. Next came Maggie Gallagher’s admission that she was paid to promote Bush’s marriage initiative, though she insisted that contract didn’t influence her op/ed column. Sure it didn’t, Maggie. This time around the exposed conservative sycophant in question is Jeff Gannon. Or should I say James Guckert? For all intense purposes, I’ll refer to him as Gannon.
Gannon resigned this week from his position in the elite White House press corps. An Associated Press article suggested that his resignation was fueled by a recent “pointed” conservative question for President Bush. It also hinted at his link to several gay pornography websites. The real news story is not what the Associated Press said, but rather what they left out.

First and foremost, online bloggers are to thank for exposing this entire scandal. The White House failed to realize Gannon was using a phony name as it gave him top access, and corporate media journalists seemed to turn the other cheek while this shady character was sitting in their midst. Yet a few observant bloggers on the website DailyKos persevered in their online Mystery Machine and ultimately exposed Gannon as a fraud.

Congressmembers file Freedom of Information Act request with Homeland Security, White House on discredited ‘Gannon’
Filed under: General— site admin @ 11:24 am Email This

Two Democratic congressmembers filed a Freedom of Information Act request with Homeland Security and the White House seeking records on the discredited conservative reporter with ties to prostitution and apparent access to confidential CIA information, RAW STORY has learned.

The letter, which is to current Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge (Chertoff is being voted on today and will not yet be sworn in any event), does not mention activist Jim Guckert’s efforts at prostitution, which was revealed by a progressive blog Monday.

Congressmen John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and congresswoman Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) signed the request.

“News reports also indicate that Mr. Guckert would not be considered a bona fide journalist by his peers in the press corps, as most of his claims to legitimacy have already been discredited,” the members write in the final version prepared for signature and released to RAW STORY. “Access to the President and his press corps is highly competitive, and many seasoned journalists have not had the honor of attending the events or enjoying the access Mr. Guckert has.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in