It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Jeff Gannon the "Journalist" involved in Scandal, Resigns.

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Somebody put together a list of the facts.

As I said earlier, only part of the accusations are valid.

[edit on 2/18/2005 by BeefotronX]




posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   
ww.bushisgod.com? Good choice to get your info from.......(sarcasm)



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
What Are The Facts?

I'm having a hard time trying to sort all this out, because there's so much opinion and name-calling mixed into the thread.

Is there anyone here who is capable and willing to lay out the current known facts in this case?

I can wait until later, if that's what it takes, but I am curious as to just what exactly all this is really supposed to be about.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can present this coherently.


Edit: BeefotronX, I read that link before posting this question, but I'm still confused about just what the actual scandal is in all of this.

So to those out there making a big deal out of all this, what exactly is this about, and what are the facts supporting whatever this scandal is?


[edit on 2/18/2005 by Majic]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Where I live, this comes up all the time. MP's resign for writing letters to the editor praising themselves under nom de plumes, they get staff members to flood the lines on call-in shows and generally try every trick they can to avoid real questions.

I think the reason you might be having problems seeing a scandal is evidenced in your signature. You are familiar with the long-standing use of these practices by both sides, and understand that it is actually to be expected, though not accepted. Most Americans I have met don't realize how common these kinds of tactics are.

Other than that the only real opinion I will offer on the subject is this: I really, really wished I hadn't clicked on the americablog link while at work.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Wrong Table


Originally posted by Duzey
I think the reason you might be having problems seeing a scandal is evidenced in your signature. You are familiar with the long-standing use of these practices by both sides, and understand that it is actually to be expected, though not accepted. Most Americans I have met don't realize how common these kinds of tactics are.

I requested information regarding the scandal, not mindless insults and senseless bigotry.

Please refrain from further posting in this manner.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Actually, it was not meant as such, and I am usaully impressed with your perception on most matters such as this topic.

Of course, I am usually repulsed my your bigotry and hatred.

I apologize if I have hurt your feelings and you have projected emotions into my statements that were not there.

Please be assured that I will never respond to anything you post again, and as such you will not have to be bothered with my bigotry and insults in the future.

Have a nice weekend.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
It is a scandal for the GOP wants gays taken to death camps and gassed, yet are using a gay prostitute to ask softball questions/suck up to Bush under the lies that he is a reporter.

Still, the only excuses I have gotten are lax security. So I could walk in with a crate that says Danger-Ebola Contained Packages and they would let me go in and ask Bush questions.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Still, the only excuses I have gotten are lax security. So I could walk in with a crate that says Danger-Ebola Contained Packages and they would let me go in and ask Bush questions.


Not exactly. They would let you go in and ask Bush the RIGHT questions, in both a figurative and literal sense.

Maureen Dowd's NYTimes Op/Ed last Thursday mentioned how she was initially denied a White House press pass when Bush took office in 2000, but then when Scott McClellan replaced Ari Fleischer, she was told that she would be granted a new pass, that is after a Secret Service background check that would take months.

How does a homosexual engaging in illegal prosititution, advertising all over the internet, delinquent in back taxes, posing for naked pictures, not only clear a Secret Service background check, but get face time with the family values, anti-gay marriage President himself? Since when does Talon News/GOPUSA rate a pass over the New York Times???

The hypocrisy is mind-boggling--on the one hand, you have Al Gonzales waging a jihad against porn and on the other, an internet pornographer being granted access to the White House press corps--AND being fed information and given a pass on his security clearance. I can't wait to see how this story is going to be spun...

www.nytimes.com...



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   
How Not To Impress


Originally posted by Duzey
Actually, it was not meant as such, and I am usaully impressed with your perception on most matters such as this topic.

You never answered my question, except with derision and the implication that I am "morally challenged" based on your apparent misinterpretation of my signature block and for my admitting not understanding the nature of this scandal.

Then you threw a childish tantrum when I responded to your slander. I am not the topic of this thread, and your false assumptions about me are completely and utterly off-topic. No thanks.

Ironically, I suppose that means you don't know what this scandal is about either, but used far too many words in saying it -- and nothing worth reading.

If you know what this is about and I don't, why can't you just tell me?

The Question Restated

So, aside from that unpleasant and unnecessary digression, can anyone here explain what the substance of this scandal actually is?

I'm not interested in opinions about me, Americans or anything else other than the actual topic of this thread, so please save those for somewhere else if they are all you have.

I am still not understanding what is going on here, and I have yet to see a post in this thread that lays this all out in a manner which makes sense.

Seriously, if you know, please tell me. If you don't, at least don't do something pathetic like suggesting I am morally blind for not seeing it -- then stomping off in a huff when I call attention to the insult.

Is my question really that difficult to answer?



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   
If the Armstrong Williams scandel is any clue, the Gop will either ignore the story, or try to make a feeble attempt to implicate a democrat doing the same thing.

as a last resort they will say "It is just people with a vendetta going after us" and decline to comment anymore.

Only hard nosed reporters who stand firm and refuse to ask softball question will anyhting get done.. we hope



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
[You never answered my question, except with derision and the implication that I am "morally challenged" based on your apparent misinterpretation of my signature block and for my admitting not understanding the nature of this scandal.


Actually, I love your signature, and think it is one of the best ones of any on this board. Very good advice offered free to all.

What I meant was that this 'scandal', might not be any more than politics as usual, and your signature shows that this is precisely the kind of thing that you are aware of. Hence, no 'scandal', just what all politicians do, at least where I live.

In short, a compliment on your ability to see through the 'BS' the press and politicians throw around. I know those are few and far between on ATS and so no one really knows what to think of them. However, after your response, I didn't feel very complimentary towards you anymore.

I think there may have been misunderstandings on both sides. I never in anyway meant to insinuate that you were challenged, but that you had a better understanding of these tactics than most people I have met, as you have obviously made it a 'study' of yours.

No more, no less.

I just wanted to clear this up, because nobody here at ATS likes to have their words twisted around, to something they never said.

And now, I will bow out of this conversation gracefully, and leave it to the Americans.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Jeff gannon = Bush's lover in the whitehouse, Jeff Gannon = Person with help of karl rove to leak the name of vallery plame out of the white house, Jeff Gannon = The new york time's and time magazine's sorces they wont disclose. Because it will lead back to the white house but more importantly the 9-11 connection.

Keep digging ats your almost there


Falcon



posted on Feb, 22 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Keep a eye out for news artical's on this people the story is starting to breakwide open. Here's one of them.

White House's loyal reporter once worked as gay hooker

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk...

Falcon



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic

So, aside from that unpleasant and unnecessary digression, can anyone here explain what the substance of this scandal actually is?


Been a couple of days since I viewed this thread: in a nutshell, this was a major and unprecedented breach of White House security. Someone--with no journalistic background or credentials and not employed (at that time) in any manner by a news source--somehow managed to bypass both FBI and Secret Service background checks and security clearances for almost two years. There's simply no way this could have happened without White House involvement.

Gannon/Guckert was a plant; no way to spin it.

For anyone who missed Bill Maher's take on Friday, here's the video.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Well, Since You Put It That Way...


Originally posted by Duzey
I think there may have been misunderstandings on both sides. I never in anyway meant to insinuate that you were challenged, but that you had a better understanding of these tactics than most people I have met, as you have obviously made it a 'study' of yours.

Reviewing this thread and our exchange, I wish to (try at least to) correct some errors on my part:

1. I can see how we could take different meanings from the post I found offensive. Rereading it with this in mind, I can see how I could have either taken it as offensive or complimentary.

2. Naturally, I saw the negative possibility, and responded in a way that was rude. Americans take a lot of abuse on this board and thus we tend to be defensive, but that still doesn't excuse my misbehavior in this case.

3. I sincerely apologize for both misinterpreting your post and being rude about it. Overall, I'm doing my best to improve my behavior at ATS. My performance here was obviously the wrong way for me to go, and the disgrace for it is mine alone.

4. I am truly sorry about that, and for the resulting unnecessary unpleasantness that resulted.

5. This apology extends to everyone who reads this thread and had to sit through that as well.

6. Finally, thanks and thumbs-up to Duzey for having the class to straighten me out and for teaching me a much-needed lesson in patience.

I am grateful, and if I had any WATS votes left, you would get one.

Way above.


Very sincerely,

Majic



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Congress and the House of Representatives just got involved in the case the story is starting to spread.

news.yahoo.com.../ep/20050223/en_bpiep/bothhousesofcongressgetinvolvedinguckertgannoncase



Falcon



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   
This is hilarious, watching the DU website and this thread. Bush haters: take a deep breath-

Here's my question: What federal statute has been violated here? Where's the crime.

And if there is no crime committed, how can it be a scandal?



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Realist05

You obviosly don't care about the Presidents security and how a person with a fake name, no jounralistic experiance, ties to a fake news orginization, dubious history and lifestyle, and possibly preferential treament was admited access to the president and even the white house.

For all we know a Mr H. Oswald type person could make it into the press room with a derreinger and off the president.

isn't that a concern?



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Good one. Yeah, I lay awake at night worrying. I'd think the SS would be more concerned with Helen Thomas (Imagine that body search1)



posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Whew, am I ever glad that's straightened out.

Sometimes it is very easy to misinterpret things here. I understand that. I'm sure I have misunderstood things here at times too.

For my part, I could have chosen to clarify my statement right away, here or via u2u, as it should have been obvious to me right from the start that there was a misunderstanding. That or counted to 10 before hitting post. But I didn't, so I am not without fault in this, either.

As for my writing style, it is a result of my education, not that it was great or anything, I just took a lot of English, Composition etc. because it was my strong point and I didn't have to put any effort into it. As a result of years of worrying about word count; I have learned to use five words where one will suffice.

It also benefits me in my work life. I have to prepare a lot of correspondence and reports, and the longer they are; the more work other people think they took to do. I have to work on paring it down a little now though, I have to issue press releases and I get charged by the word. Not a good thing for me.


And as a Canadian, I also understand how it feels sometimes it can seem like everyone's against you. It can be a little overwhelming at times. Really, I do know exactly how you must have felt. Sometimes I have to try really hard to remember that these are the just the thoughts of individuals, and the kind that post on conspiracy boards, to boot.


Next time I say something nice to you, I'll either be clearer, or issue a disclaimer at the top of my post to advise you of my intentions.


No hard feelings on my side.

Move along folks, nothing more to see here.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join