Daily Kos

Guckert had a hard pass before Talon News existed

by Categorically Imperative

Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 09:53:28 AM PDT

I personally can take no credit for this catch (props go to ladydawg), but it got lost at the bottom of the "Gannon was in the WH before April 2003" diary, it doesn't look like it's been diaried, and it exposes McClellan and the White House in a rather inexplicable lie:  

Photographic evidence that Guckert had a 'hard pass' before Talon News even existed.

Scotty and friends have thus far attempted to justify Guckert's presence at press briefings by noting that the latter "only" received so-called "day passes," which are allegedly issued to a variety of individuals without the more thorough clearing process (and assigned seat) that come with a "hard pass."  

One might wonder, indeed, how someone who doesn't work for a news organization at all, but instead a (to put it charitably) right-wing think tank, whose journalistic qualifications consist of a $50, 2-day seminar with the right-wing leadership institute, and who hadn't even published any "news" article until about one month beforehand, can manage to get a hard pass to the WH Press Room, while NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd cannot.  

In any case, C-SPAN's video from the March 3, 2003 press briefing (from which the above stills are taken) proves that Guckert was in the Press Room, with a hard pass, before Talon News was created as a "spinoff" to GOPUSA, Guckert's original employer.  Watch the video from the 35:10 mark onward, as it zooms in on the French female reporter.  Guckert is visible behind her left shoulder, and as the zoom to her continues, his hard pass is captured in the frame.

For those who would argue that we can't be sure it's Guckert, I commend C-SPAN's February 25, 2003 video of the briefing to you.  Watch from the 30:11 point onward, as the video zooms in on the same French female reporter.  You'll notice, not so coincidentally, that Guckert is visible in the same seat over her left shoulder.  

UPDATE: The direct links to the videos are apparently not working. They can be accessed from this page on C-SPAN's site (just scroll down till you find the right dates; March 3 and February 25, respectively).

UPDATE II: Both AMERICAblog and Raw Story are citing sources who doubt (with varying degrees of skepticism) that what is shown in the photo capture is a WH hard pass. Personally, I'll wait to hear what the analysis of C-SPAN's DVD comes up with. But, as several posters on this thread have suggested, Guckert's M.O. as a serial poseur certainly leaves room for him to have crafted a hard pass-esque pass for himself, or perhaps GOPUSA attempted to boster its "news" cred by creating a pass. Only time will tell...

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 387 comments

  •  Note, for those who don't know (4.00 / 52)

    The most obvious difference between a "hard pass" and a "day pass" is that the former has the reporter's name and picture on it, whereas the latter merely says "press."  In the still captured and sharpened by ladydawg, it's apparent that Guckert's pass has a photo and name, and is therefore a hard pass.

    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

    by Categorically Imperative on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 09:49:45 AM PDT

    •  Which Brings Us Back to "Patronage" (4.00 / 7)

      I just posted this question onSusanG's Dana Milbank Diary but I think it's worth repeating here:

      Who Is Guckert's Patron?

      It seems pretty clear that Gannon/Guckert didn't just show up one day with a big grin and a shiny head and get a press pass and create a new day-time identity for himself in the gaggle while continuing to advertise his nighttime services on porn websites.  He had to have a sponsor -- a patron.

      There are two possibilities:

      1.  Maybe this patron just wanted someone in the gaggle to pose the softball questions and funnel "news" to Talon and then to GOPUSA and its 500,000 "readers".  In other words maybe this is strictly about "covert propaganda";

      or

      2.  Maybe this patron "knew" Guckert in the intimate sense and wanted to keep him close and help him and maybe get some secret giggles out of the fact that no one knew the real connection.

      The two possibilities are not mutually exclusive, but I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that anyone who has seen the Guckert "character" day after day -- interacting with everyone in the gaggle and with White House staff -- would have some interesting thoughts on who his patron is and what the motive for the patronage is.

      I asked Mr. Milbank if he would share his thoughts -- at least privately as a Deep Throat to SusanG.  

      Finding Guckert's patron is the KEY!

      Fuzzy only works for pets.

      by NotFuzzy on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:04:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's more than the key (4.00 / 15)

        finding out who the patron is is the holy grail.

        And frankly, I think #2 is more plausible.  Propaganda activities are something people generally have good judgement about.  Sex, however, is something otherwise intelligent people can have extremely bad judgement about.

        And this is a case of astonishingly bad judgement.  So I think the sex came first and the softballs were an afterthought.  There aren't that many ways to get someone into the West Wing everyday.  But Press pool is one of them.

        by blue florida on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:24:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not, "Who is his patron?" (4.00 / 11)

        It's, "Who is his John?"

        He (literally) got that pass by fucking someone very senior.

        It could be worse. I could still be living in Texas.

        by msaroff on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:26:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Where Is Kenneth Starr? (4.00 / 5)

          I think we need someone with subpoena power and an unlimited budget to get to the bottom of this!

          If we learned anything from the Clinton Administration, it is that consensual sex between adults in the West Wing cannot, and will not, be tolerated!

          Let's see W look into the camera and say, "I did not have sex with that young gay man, Mr. Guckert."

          "A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

          by proudtinfoilhat on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:45:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Occam's razor leads to the top (4.00 / 2)

          See space's diary of yesterday. Me likey (even if only for sheer entertainment value!).

          http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/16/235342/576

          Reality - Humanity - Sustainability

          by Em on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:03:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not so sure about your take on this (4.00 / 3)

          You suggest Guckert fucked someone to get the press pass which implies that Guckert was the one with a specific agenda; ie seduce someone in the white house with specific intent of getting the pass.

          From Guckert's long internet trail, I don't think he was smart enough to figure this out on his own.

          It seems more likely to me that someone who had a preexisting connection to Guckert decided Guckert would be of use added to the press pool.  Whether or not this was to cover his comings and goings at the white house is another matter...

          by brighton on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:11:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Am I the only one thinking of spies? (4.00 / 3)

            Why couldn't the scheme have been suggested to Jeff/Jim by someone else?  Another john with a beef, or even someone's intelligence operatives?  Getting a gay prostitute close to someone in the White House, where a bit of pillow talk might reveal something useful, and putting Jeff/Jim smack in this person's face everyday (and on CSPAN) so that the leaker would not be inclined to confess that he might have revealed too much?

            Thought is only a flash in the middle of a long night, but the flash that means everything - Henri Poincaré

            by milton333 on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 12:33:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  No blackmail or planning necessary. (4.00 / 2)

            What do we know about Guckert?  That he ran a male escort service catering to the military/political establishment; and that he was given a press pass, which he used to ask ideologically friendly questions of the White House.

            It follows that through the escort service, he met members of the military/political establishment, and that in the course of those meetings (and from the slant of his web pages), it became clear to those whom he met that Guckert was a pro-military, pro-Bush type conservative.  It also follows that his usefulness as a loyal operative occurred to one or more of those people, and that one or more of them had connections to Bobby Eberle and GOPUSA/Talon News-to-be.

            Did it happen via pillow talk?  Maybe, maybe not; but either way there's no planning or prior intent required on Guckert's part.  It didn't even have to involve Guckert having a sexual relationship with the person who actually got him the clearance.  There could have been two or three, or more, degrees of separation between Guckert and the person who put him in the White House.

            It's also possible that this all came about in a way unconnected with Guckert's escort service--though that would actually be a pretty remarkable coincidence, and one I find unlikely.  As many have pointed out, there were plenty of right-leaning journalist types around who would have been more than happy to be Scotty's softball go-to, and it seems pretty clear that Guckert got his "job" for reasons that had little or nothing to do with his journalistic background and ability.  But no matter how it happened, no prior calculation is required on Guckert's part.  All he had to do was be opportunistic when the chance came.

            We seek not rest but transformation. - Marge Piercy

            by Leslie in CA on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 01:25:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  beyond softball (none / 1)

              As many have pointed out, there were plenty of right-leaning journalist types around who would have been more than happy to be Scotty's softball go-to ...

              JimJeff went beyond the softball questions asked by Fox, et al. I think we should start referring to what JimJeff did -- and in fact all the pap that comes out of things like Bush's carefully-vetted Social InSecurity tour appearances -- as "T-Ball questioning".

              "All progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw

              by Bearpaw on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:19:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  It doesn't look to me like (none / 1)

              he's catering to the "military/political establishment."  Unless I missed something, he's just trying to appeal to guys who are turned on either by military-type guys, guys in uniforms, or both.

              by yatdave on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 03:13:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  don't make that leap (none / 1)

          It matters not a whit if a sexual relationship existed, on a professional or a personal basis and besides - you're just guessing. The story is that this man got access and preferential treatment for WHATEVER REASON.

          If we speculate about sexual relationship that may or may not exist, we get nowhere.  If we stick to the facts as they are known, we get serious attention to a serious problem.

          I beg of you, please do not add to what Kos critics are saying, that we're small-minded people prone to mean-spirited, rumor mongering titillation.

          by debraz on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:16:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Secret sexual relationships are security risks (3.50 / 4)

            Secret sexual relationships of any kind are security threats. A person in a secret sexual relationship is an obvious potential target of blackmail.

            by rebellingboxer on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:26:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Facts not speculation (none / 1)

              You have no evidence of secret sexual relationships of any kind let alone as a security threat.  Stick to the facts here.

              by debraz on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:39:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This is a brainstorming session (4.00 / 3)

                Your comment would be correct for a dairy but this is a comment thread where people have every right to speculate. Detectives certainly sit around and speculate as to the motive of a crime, we are doing the same thing.  Thinks about it, the wingnut ranks are full of educated and articulate people who would be much better suited to pose as a reporter.  JimJeff has nothing that would lead someone to give him this propaganda job except for -- his cock.  

                by SoLeft on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:48:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Brainstorming? (none / 0)

                  What does your comment above have to do with the topic of this diary?  Gannon had a hard pass which means he got it with his cock.  Move over Mark Furman, there's a new kid in town.

                  by debraz on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 12:04:22 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Scientific Method (none / 0)

                    The way to gain knowledge of complex phenomena is through a process called the scientific method.

                    First one observes.  In this case Gannon is both a gay prostitute and has a hard pass for White House press conferences.  

                    Next one makes a hypothesis.  Gannon got his pass through expert use of his cock.

                    After that try to use the hypothesis to predict other phenomena.  Someone in the White House allowed Gannon in because they were biting pillows in his presense.

                    Finally test the hypothesis.  Is there any evidence for this?  Investigate but remain skeptical.

                    So no, people are not saying that Gannon fucked his way into the gaggle as a fact, only as a possibility.  This way future investigations can be focused, on this and other hypotheses.

                    by SoLeft on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:59:38 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Secret sex is going on, though (none / 0)

                I think the point is valid - secret sex is ripe for blackmail.  And while it may be pure speculation if someone in the White House was having secret sex with Jeff/Jim, Jeff/Jim himself was keeping secret his identity as a gay prostitute, no?  Self-identifying as a gay-bashing conservative in his Talon pieces, suggesting that Kerry was gay or pro-gay.  Using a pseudonym.  Maybe Jeff/Jim was so enamored of his role as journalist, he was pressured by his secret sex past to keep quiet.

                Here's an angle that's intrigued me - let's presume that, at some point in the future, Gannon is going to pop up, say the prostitution thing was all in his past, and that he accepted Jesus as his savior and put it all behind him.  He'd probably even say he "chose," with Jesus's help, to be straight.  If Jim/Jeff's secret sex wasn't such a big secret, why not go this route from the start?  Breaking news from Talon News - even a former gay prostitute can go straight and find Jesus, and we've got him, speaking truth about the conservative agenda.  

                He used a pseudonym to distance himself from illegal activities and his sexual orientation, suggesting he thought it was a big secret to keep.  Maybe his new Republican friends didn't know, and clearly wouldn't be happy, and he wanted to avoid exposure.  That would make him vulnerable to blackmail.

                Thought is only a flash in the middle of a long night, but the flash that means everything - Henri Poincaré

                by milton333 on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 12:42:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  unlike the republicans (4.00 / 2)

            who had so much concern for people and their families, while they were tearing up Bill and Hillary and everyone associated with them before and during the time when they were in office.  And the way they were so concerned about John Kerry and his family when they tried to attack him on everything from his service to his marriage.

            by LimosineLiberal on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:55:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  but all Gannon revelations (none / 1)

            started with a guess, and look at everything our researchers have managed to uncover so far.

            "You're just guessing" indeed. That's where discovery starts, isn't it? With a hunch, a question, a gut feeling? A guess is the starting place of all invention and discovery (as I'm sure you know; I don't mean to condescend).

            I understand your concern, but if this guy was the lover of a WH official who broke the rules to get his friend within proximity of the prez--for whatever reasons, under whatever circumstances--for starters that's a grave professional misstep that needs to come out. Would James Guckert, on his merits, be your first pick for the job? His background is a mess, he's not bright, he's a terrible writer, his business practices are dubious at best, he evades his taxes, he a (albeit poor) liar. It makes perfect sense that some folks are positing the lover/benefactor theory; somebody's judgment had to be vastly, vastly muddled to allow this fellow into the briefing room. Love and/or blackmail would explain a lot. Why not pursue the angle? From my perspective it's too obvious to ignore. Somebody was sweet on the guy. Or scared of him.

            Cheers

            God bless our tinfoil hearts.

            by aitchdee on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 12:58:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I agree (none / 0)

            Sorry people, but I came to read this diary to find out about discrepancies in Guckert's WH pass status and these comments about who he might have been sleeping with are just so uneccesarily crude and are not based on any facts. And, let's not forget, we have some young, teen kossacks among us. As a mom and grandmom, I cringe.

            Now - point me to the facts.

            "I have lived with several Zen masters -- all of them cats." - Eckhart Tolle

            by catnip on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 01:49:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  But We Have to Find the "Patron" (none / 1)

            and you can't just ignore the possibility that the reason for the patronage was sex.  I started this particular sub-thread simply saying that there were two -- not necessarily exclusive -- possibilities: 1)covert propaganda; 2) sexually based promotion of a lover (and/or blackmailer).  Yes, we don't want to wallow in the pure salaciousness of the second possibility, but it would be stupid to ignore the second possibility just because we don't want to be perceived as appealing only to prurient interest.

            Fuzzy only works for pets.

            by NotFuzzy on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:09:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I really don't care what the republicans (none / 0)

            think of us....

            Will the elite be happy living behind gated communities in the potential meltdown? Peace now. -7.00, -2.92

            by mattes on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:41:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You got that one right... (none / 1)

          I keep wondering, whose ho is he?

          I keep hoping that it is "Bush's brain."  So much suppressed sexuality in that bunch, I'd laugh out loud if it is proven.

          Keep digging, you guys.  Keep digging.

          An untypical Negro...since 1954.

          by blksista on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:40:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  A Third (4.00 / 5)

        After reading your comment, I think there's an obvious number 3.

        Maybe this patron "knew" Guckert in the intimate sense, and was blackmailed into...well, let's say giving Guckert a career opportunity he wouldn't otherwise have had. Perhaps Guckert promised to stay friendly to the administration, thus making the offer mutually beneficial.

        This is pure speculation, of course, and I haven't been following this as closely as many of you seem to have been. So, anyone's welcome to tell me why it's impossible. If no one can, however -- if it is a realistic possibility that Guckert blackmailed his way out of (or around, at least) the background check needed to get access to the freaking White House -- well, does that strike anyone else as truly, deeply, frightening?

        Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. - Frank Herbert

        by Severian on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:59:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Great sig. line! (none / 0)

          Have a 4, and I don't even appreciate Herbert's books.

          Might and Right are always fighting In our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning. Might can hardly keep from grinning. -Clarence D

          by Myrkury on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:21:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you like that... (none / 1)

            You'll love this one. Both are from the same book, Chapterhouse: Dune. It's slightly edited, because it's part of a conversation, and I'm removing some of the back-and-forth to make them more statement-like.

            It's demagogue-prone. That's a disease to which electoral systems are vulnerable. Yet demagogues are easy to identify. They gesture a lot and speak with pulpit rhythems, using words that ring of religious fervor and god-fearing sincerity...Sincerity with nothing behind it takes so much practice...The practice can always be detected...by anyone who leanrs the signs: Repitition. Great attempts to keep your attention on words. You must pay no attention to words. Watch what the person does. That way you learn the motives.

            That's from a book published, I believe, in 1985. Remind you of anyone?

            Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. - Frank Herbert

            by Severian on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 03:19:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hunh- (none / 1)

              That's what I learned in my trial advocacy program.  No wonder BushCo hates lawyers, we know the art of "Sincerity with nothing behind it" and can spot it in others.

              Might and Right are always fighting In our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning. Might can hardly keep from grinning. -Clarence D

              by Myrkury on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 04:39:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Unlikely (none / 0)

          Someone powerful enough to get Guckert/Gannon wisked past All of the normal, rigorous Secret Service and FBI background check protocols is ,

          Also is powerful enought to have a lowlife gay prostitute blackmailer taken care of efficiently, quietly and without a trace of taint to the WH.

          No. Whoever got Guckert/Gannon his cushy situation in the WH, likely did it out of affection for him, or some other reason unrelated to blackmail.

          by shumard on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:16:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Guckert's background (none / 0)

          Has anyone done an NCIC check on Guckert? That's National Crime Information Center.

          "Why can't we all... just get along?" -Rodney King

          by Skylor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 07:12:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  'Gaydar' anyone? Also what about Abu Ghraib? (3.16 / 6)

        I mean - can anyone read the touchy-feely side of this? Is Commander Codpiece gay?? Is Laura mere window-dressing? Any confirmatory evidence? Has JimJeff followed Bushco to Crawford? Any other evidence of Bushco gay history? It would be most interesting.

        Moreover (warning, extremely icky thoughts), is the whole Abu Ghraib thing somehow tied in to a repressed gay White House? More than just coercion and abuse, there was something gratuitously homoerotic about it all. And beyond that, there seemed to be an excessive, again gratuitous, thing about photography...maybe some people wanted some kinky photos? And the Abu Ghraib orders came from the top - SecDef at least, maybe CoC?

        Reality - Humanity - Sustainability

        by Em on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:13:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  umm... (none / 1)

          I have not been following this story as closely as most people here.  However, I really resent the implication that homosexuality, closeted or otherwise, is by nature linked to submission or abusiveness.  

          This was probably not your intention, but by suggesting that pictures of people being tortured were somehow homoerotic the implication is there.

          by Chicago Lulu on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:54:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Apologies -- They're not linked, (none / 1)

            and I in no way meant to impugn or malign any or all ordinary homosexuality (which is alive and well and happy and healthy in my own extended family). Apologies for implication, not intended as such. I can see your perspective. (And perhaps whoever's who gave me a 2.) Using prostitution, let alone sexuality-related torture, is obviously not indicative of everyday, commonplace sexuality of any orientation and I wasn't meaning to touch upon such or make any generalization about such. IMHO the Rethugs have mulifarous unhealthy weirdnesses about sex - favoring 'abstinence', vilifying homosexuality, putting gag orders on family planning information, vilifying choice, etc etc.  

            Reality - Humanity - Sustainability

            by Em on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 12:46:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  among virulently homophobic, (4.00 / 2)

            ostensibly straight males I often notice a preoccupation with the seedier side of gay sex; the fetishy, clandestine, BDSM side (which of course has its seedy straight counterpart). It's pretty clearly a case of "the lady dost protest too much;" years of denial & self-loathing could plausibly lead to abuse and punishment fantasies. Repressed gay homophobes can't allow themselves to fantasize too much about being tender with another man, can they?

            Guys that are continually, relentlessly outraged about homosexuality and that focus their outrage on sexual positions (under the guise of "Jaysus, JoeBob, how sick is that?) in my experience can invariably be seen sweating to maintain a compensatory ultra-hetero facade (forgive me if I am stating the screamingly obvious): the unfunny, axiomatic jokes about female body parts; the feigned nausea at the thought of "feminine" interests and items (tampons, makeup, fashion, decor); the telltale sexual moralism and overcontrol; the military/militia themed fascinations such as Hummers, guns, explosives, war and the icons of and allusions to violent oppression (as exemplified by blogs called "Boot to the Scull.") Add to it a sex-position obsession (homophobic women don't usually fixate on bed specifics) and you know, the hyper masculine homosexual hater can't help but evince an erotica of pain and degradation in his interactions with other men--in other words, with his ostensibly straight buddies.

            Whether a man is gay, straight, bi or bi-curious or anywhere else along the continuum, those who bond with other men over a shared loathing of homosexuality and homosexual acts, but who can't seem to go a day without talking about it, I think can safely be said to have a certain unwholesome (read: repressed, self-deceived, psychologically explosive and potentially abusive) homoerotic dynamic going on. That is not to say homoerotica is in itself unwholesome. Not at all. Context is everything.

            As for Bush, to me (and probably to most of us) he's a thoroughgoing neuter, but if I had to guess I'd say he's a cloddish vanilla hetero: witness his recent ogling of Ms. Spellings' cleavage. Cheney and Rove are in every respect as twisted as twisted gets, but gosh knows which twist does it for them in bed. I'm sure it's something, erm, novel.

            Barf. That's enough of that.

            God bless our tinfoil hearts.

            by aitchdee on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:45:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You've got to be kidding! (none / 1)

            Sorry to disagree but there are plenty of gays who are into submission and abusiveness. Try reading something about it. I can recommend "The Stranger". It's a weekly free tabloid in the Seattle area that has homosexuality as its base.

            "Why can't we all... just get along?" -Rodney King

            by Skylor on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 07:20:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Well, Duhbya was in a frat... (none / 0)

          ... lots of homoerotic memories of his school days, no doubt... paddling... soggy biscuit parties... and so on.

          --- Read Dear Leader's Daily Thought

          by grytpype on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 01:25:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Pennsylvania prison scandal (none / 1)

          The ringleader of the Abu Ghraib soldiers was a prison guard in Pennsylvania where similar acts occdurred and were brought to light.  His name shows up in some documents.  The guards, or some of them, raised the defense of acting under orders(same as in Abu Ghraib).  Hence this guy's stunned surprise when he was convicted by the Army in his court marshal of bhevaior excused in Pennsylvania.

          Of interest in Abue Ghraib analysis is current New Yorker's article on rendition which describes the CIA's abandonment of pirnciple and best interrogation practices after 9/11.

          Finally, recall our President is not personally opposed to torture--he branded pledges with hot coat hangers during frat rush weeks.

          by maebe on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 01:31:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Abu Ghraib & homoerotica (3.00 / 2)

          The strategy of sexual humiliation used in Abu Ghraib developed out of intelligence meetings inside the Pentagon, where a racist and stereotyped book called The Arab Mind [by Patai] was studied for insight into how to most effectively break muslim men.  A chapter devoted to sexuality informed them about the morbid shame associated with all matters sexual, which is how this set of behaviors found its way into the interragation strategy book.  

          On the other hand, I would not be at all surprised if there was in fact a coterie of closeted gays in the White House who demonize homosexuality while extolling Christian virtue.  This 'nub' of hypocrisy is a widespread phenomenon with deeply primitive psychological roots.  

          by kkmickleson on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 01:36:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  say now hold on there, (none / 1)

            that sounds like "ev'lution". i don' believe innit. snort.

            ----- most politicians couldn't care less how you vote every four years... but they pay very close attention to where you spend four years' worth of money.

            by n step on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:06:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  but actually, (none / 1)

            maybe it's not as much a joke as i thought - after all, they've kinda managed to demonize psychology along with everything else mr. science is into. after all, the pharmaceuticals can't make money from their 'psychology pills' if we actually start talking about our problems. what, are you crazy man?

            ----- most politicians couldn't care less how you vote every four years... but they pay very close attention to where you spend four years' worth of money.

            by n step on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:10:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yesterday (none / 0)

          Here

          by shumard on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:23:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely right ... follow the sex (3.50 / 4)

        I posted on the Milbank diary about this, too.  The sex is the key to how JG2 got into this position of privilege.  It makes a lot of sense if some closeted WH heavyweight whose face isn't a household image contracted via the internet for the JG2's "services", and then, because JG2 is a Rightie, got recognized by him and as the price of confidentiality, arranged for JG2 to make a career change (maybe an important step for a male hooker in his mid-40s) by living out his fantasies of becoming a conservative "journalist".  Admittance to the crash LI course on propaganda, then connections made with mid-rank Texas wingnut mafiosi at GOPUSA.  JG2 says he "moved to DC in response to 9/11" (no evidence, though), so if the "date" was in the months afterwards, it works out for JG2 to start posting blurbs in wingnut sources in November 2002, and start showing up at the WH in early 2003.  Talon News was fabricated as a cover, and strings were pulled and waivers issued to get him around the FBI background checks.  Who would have the connections to those mid-level Texas wingnuts, who would have the power to pull those strings, and who would have the authority to issue those waivers?

        The important and too overlooked aspect of this is the warp-speed internet coverup of JG2's web presence that dKos researchers have reported.  Somebody with the clout to arrange it has been flushing everything about him down the memory hole, and they've been doing it FAST.  It looks like they're scared that something might be on one of those pages that might point to them.  Who has that kind of clout to make so many things vanish like that?  I'm not web-savvy enough to know what authority is needed to eliminate stuff, but there's no doubt that the WH has that kind of clout.  And why do all of this for a male hooker working for a faux news service?  Unless, of course, it's to protect somebody very important.  Would it be a McClellan?  JG2 started working the WH under Ari, so Scottie inherited him.  Besides, why not just get Scottie to 'fess up and get saved like JG2 says he was?  Or quit to spend time with the family?  This sort of cover-up, like the Watergate one, has that high-up and close-in feel.  Someone who's so important that confession and repentance won't do and quitting to get quality time with the family would cripple the WH operation.  Who's that high up, that close in, and that indispensable?

        Yo, Karlyboy ...

        by dricey on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 12:16:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe... (4.00 / 2)

          could be Gannon was part of a back-channel redux of the Office of Strategic Influence.

          Could be he was falling through the cracks of the WH as a friendly useful volunteer.

          We don't know and I think it is a bit dodgy to jump through those hoops at this point.

          cheers,

          Mitch Gore

          Wanna win in '08...?

          Put your money where your mouth is.

          by Lestatdelc on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 12:18:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  because JG2 is a Rightie (none / 1)

          Is he?

          Y'all please excuse me... but since these fascists came into the White House I have struggled with "Republican Gays" --- is that not an oxymoron? I heard about the Log Cabin Republicans and wondered how in the world can this be... how can one associate with those very people who despise one? Then I'm reminded of the scandal in 1989, again Republicans were in office, and there was the so-called Franklin Coverup and Craig Spence was murdered or committed suicide... (depending on how gullible you are)

          The guys who came into the WH in Jan 2001 are  retreads from previous Rep admins, mostly Reagan... did they merely pick up where they left off in 1989?  

          Does JimJeff have ANY political agenda at all? From his own comments about what he was doing (auto repair, etc.)... where is that verified?

          So, is it possible his 'politics' or lack thereof (he was a 'spokesperson' reading a script) did not have anything to do with his going to the gaggles? That what he was doing was... participating in a fraud... a deception --

          then the question becomes... why? money? what?

          And if he had a 'pass' before Talon, the question becomes --- why? To repair cars? His 'articles' were regurgitated press releases. Heck anyone could send those in? Why JimJeff?

          An unexamined life is not worth living - Socrates

          by crone on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 12:58:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Franklin Coverup and Craig Spence (none / 1)

            I wondered if I was nuts to see a connection there as well.  I don't remember any of the story from the time.  I'm sure that I was shielded from it as I lived in Oklahoma then.  But in looking around the net, I've found some old newspaper articles from UGH the Washington Times.  It seems that this wouldn't be the first time that preferential treatment was given to male prostitutes or more importantly their "johns".  That was particularly disgusting given the underage "rent boys" involved.  

            As noted earlier in the thread, the problem with secret sex is that it makes you a ready target for blackmail.  It's almost like he's being used by someone with an axe to grind AGAINST the administration.  It's such a sophisticated backdoor (no pun intended) kind of set up that it smells like a Democrat Rove - Lord help us, do we have one.  

            Gannon's moronic soft ball questions were likely to be served up by some Fox or MSNBC reporter so why did they need a Gannon?  In the end his dumb questions "outed" him as a fake.  Then again, the Elite Republican Guard believes that the Great Unwashed Masses are dumb as rocks so...

            I'm an American I can handle the truth!

            by stas61690 on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:49:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Military = DOD = Feith, Pentagon, Poindexter, etc. (none / 0)

          I like this above line of thinking --

          Sex partner gets a favor of a real press conference visit (on or before Kosovars' first spotting him?) maybe as a lark or present, but then the potential of the plant becomes obvious -- why not get some softball thrower in there....  No blackmail, no real plan, just an evolution of a favor for his great job as military man escort.

          But if you prefer the master-planner-baters, then: Although a number of the Bush fake news stuff was on soft policy, the people who really want to mess with the truth are the military.  And considering both Guckert's past and his proclivities, wouldn't the DOD be a likely place for his first important hook-up?

          And my tin foil hat tingling -- who in the DOD has just resigned, and had a previous relationship with Scoop Jackson (whose documents were scrubbed) and likes to control all sorts of information (including passing it on to other countries)?  Who is the stupidest F'ing man on the planet?  And of course, maybe likes men on top?

          Someone posted on another thread spme comments that Gx2's first question did not sound like prime Guckert.  I disagree -- his attempt to get Ari to complain about the poor treatment of military families in schools in Maine while their brave military spouses were in harms way stikes me as exactly the type of thing Gx2 would ask.  His professed "disappointment" in freepland was based on the fact that Ari didn't go off on an anti-liberal, northern teacher tirade.  (The question was simply weak compared to his later clearly partisan jabs.)

          Question:  Did someone post that Guckert's first gaggle (pre-Talon) was in Crawford?  Is that correct?  If so, why was a Delaware boy there -- at whose invitation?

          Is there some way to get this question on the research list?

          Save your tears for the living

          by immanentize on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 01:11:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Guckert Patron (none / 1)

        My money's on Karl Rove.  Never provable, but likely.

        by kkmickleson on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 01:20:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  How about... (none / 1)

        Option 3.  He's actually McClellan's little "friend" and he's in the press room everyday for moral support.  

        I wouldn't be surprised if he started out as an "aide" to someone in the WH.  And maybe that is filed under a different name?

        by djb on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:03:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The importance of 'hard pass' vs. 'day pass' (none / 1)

      Courtesy of Truthout:

      "So what?" his defenders cry. It isn't as if one has to be anointed by the saints to get a pass into the briefing room. On this, "Gannon's" allies have a point. There are two kinds of passes for that room. To get a hard pass, one has to attend the press gaggle four or five times a week over the course of at least a month. In other words, you have to work at it. To get a day pass, however, one has only to call the Media Affairs Office, give them your social security number and whatever credentials you can offer, and more often than not you can get in. You don't need to be a saint to get in, or even a professional, apparently. What you do once you get there is what matters.

      This is how "Gannon" got in, and so long as he followed the protocols with the media office, he had as much of a right to be in there as any of the left-wing opinion writers who follow that same procedure many times a year. One may question his ethics - his reports were little more than cut-and-paste jobs from GOP press releases - but it is hard to argue that he didn't belong in the room with the rest of the day-passers.

      Ah, but it seems Guckert didn't have a day pass, and that he got his hard pass before his supposedly widely-circulated "news" outfit was ginned up to create an extra degree of separation from GOPUSA.  Which makes McClellan's February 10 gaggle all the more peculiar:

      Q Jeff Gannon. How did he get a White House pass, or what kind of credentials did he have?

      MR. McCLELLAN: Just like anyone else who comes to the White House.

      Q Hard pass?

      MR. McCLELLAN: No, he had never applied for a hard pass. He had a daily pass. I think he's been coming for --

      Q Was he coming for --

      MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on. I think he's been coming for more than two years now.

      Hmmm...was McClellan telling the truth, in which case Guckert got a hard pass without even applying for one?  Or was he just lying and assuming no one would bother to watch C-SPAN archives?

      The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

      by Categorically Imperative on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:14:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is probably true -- (none / 0)

        No, he had never applied for a hard pass.

        Guckert/Gannon never applied for a hard pass.  They just let him fill out the papers on a daily basis for a daily pass, but made up a hard pass for him to wear.

        What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

        by Marie on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:26:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  He had a hard pass. (3.33 / 6)

          It was just a different kind of hard pass.

          I feel so dirty now.

          Signature Impaired.

          by gttim on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:38:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  So.... (4.00 / 3)

          They let him run around with a fake hard pass?

          "Will we be known to history as the leading proponents of rule of law and individual rights, or as the perpetrators of Abu Graib." Fmr. Amb. Joseph Wilson

          by Arrow on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:40:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! (4.00 / 4)

            "SECURITY!"

            Sorry. To me, from a security standpoint, the non-partisan Secret Service agents would have something of a minor cardiac arrythmia if they found out that someone went around making fake press passes that allow someone access to a room where they're no more than 50 feet from the President.

            Unless, of course, they've been bought off. Damn.

            "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." - MLK

            by amayernx on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:18:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Faking hard pass is still illegal (none / 0)

            Falsifying government security documents is hard time. Felony counts. Federal prison sentences.

            If you want to find out how illegal it is, set up a little shop on e-bay to sell those little Secret Service lapel pins they give people to wear who have cleared a Secret Service check and are cleared to be in secure areas.

            My bet is they would hit you with about 10 charges, about half felonies.... for each occasion in which it happened. Gunkert did it daily since 2003. Daily felony counts for 2 full years? Now you're looking at real hard time.

            Those photo IDs are there for security personnel to control access to the White House. You have a person with a false identity that has not been cleared that can pass on said false ID papers to others with even more hostile intentions.

            by rebellingboxer on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 05:12:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  He never APPLIED (4.00 / 2)

          He easily may have been given the hard pass without ever applying for it.  That makes the quote not a lie...as far as Republican's are concerned.

          by boyhowdy on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:06:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's what I said. (3.83 / 6)

            Let's see now, we have:

            A faux journalist
            A faux job
            A faux news service
            A faux WH press pass

            (Somewhat fitting for a WH inhabited by a faux POTUS.)

            What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

            by Marie on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:15:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Right (none / 1)

              My point was that if he was given a hard pass, it wasn't fake. It's a real hard pass, that was aquired by circumventing the system.  Who circumvented the system for him?  What we really need in this case is a Linda Tripp. Someone with an inside track on info, who is willing to spill the beans.  Someone knows.

              by boyhowdy on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 12:32:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Only if we can get a clear (none / 0)

                image of what that pass he sported looked like.  At this point we only know that it appears to have been laminated and included his picture.  He could have gotten something like this made up (or someone could have had it made up for him) that he slipped on everyday after receiving his daily pass.

                We do want to be careful not to make a claim that can be debunked and incriminate nobody but Gannon.

                What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

                by Marie on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:30:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  We're working on it (4.00 / 4)

                  Silence ordered the DVD's of the briefings and conferences we need to get better images.

                  I have a DVD editor on my pc. So I should be able to get better resoluion out of it and fo frame by frame without worrying about blurring from the camera pans.

                  by ladydawg on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:57:23 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  good research (3.66 / 3)

        And also.

        How did he get a Hard Pass when Maureen Dowd, who has been covering the WH for decades was denied one under the Bush administration.

        In her oped in the nyt she says:

        ...when I tried to complain about not getting my pass renewed, even though I'd been covering presidents and first ladies since 1986, no one called me back. Finally, when Mr. McClellan replaced Ari Fleischer, he said he'd renew the pass - after a new Secret Service background check that would last several months.

        If the WH press office did subject JG to a "several month long" secret service background check like Dowd, then however did he get thru with his tax-evasion and prostitution history? Is the SS going to have to be the fall guy here? likely.

        If they didnt then why is the office apparently "picking and choosing" who gets a press pass via a political litmus... which McClellan said was a no-no....

        If you love Bush, Vote John McCain '08

        by biscobosco on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:22:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  months??? (none / 1)

          "a new Secret Service background check that would last several months."

          They check you out for "months", and yet they still didn't know he was a tax-evading hooker.

          Wow.

          by georgia10 on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:27:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Heh (4.00 / 5)

            Methinks that the real story is that Scotty was telling half the truth on Feb. 10: Guckert never applied for a hard pass.  They just gave him one.  Which, in turn, means that someone probably already knew he was a tax-evading hooker.

            The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

            by Categorically Imperative on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:31:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Dowd (none / 0)

          was in trouble. The Texas WH was still pretty annoyed with her coverage of 41. She's acknowledged that. Memories are pretty long.

          Mariachi Mama Candidate Bickering Moratorium! Signatory to the Carnacki Petition

          by kredwyn on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:35:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Despite that... (none / 0)

            I don't know what her coverage of 41 was, but she claims now that she and 41 are apparently fond of each other and get along quite well.

            by yatdave on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 03:37:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes there was a fond banter... (none / 0)

              between the two of them. In one interview she mentioned that there were times that she and 41 took pot shots at each other that were less than popular with 43 and First Lady Barbra. She talked about how she was on the receiving end of a future 43 glare during some golf outing or other.

              Didn't he nickname her The Cobra or something along that lines?

              Mariachi Mama Candidate Bickering Moratorium! Signatory to the Carnacki Petition

              by kredwyn on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 03:42:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Another salient part of the same Dowd NYT (none / 0)

          piece:

          With the Bushies, if you're their friend, anything goes. If you're their critic, nothing goes. They're waging a jihad against journalists - buying them off so they'll promote administration programs, trying to put them in jail for doing their jobs and replacing them with ringers.

          by shumard on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:38:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  trick question (4.00 / 2)

        the question here was about "Gannon".  Maybe McClellan knew that the pass was requested by "Guckert", thereby making his statement technically true.

        by AKTup on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 12:06:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  So WHY Would Scotty Cover for Jeffy? (none / 0)

        Two possibilities:

        1.  Scotty is the patron

        2.  Scotty knows who the patron is

        And remember, Scotty's mom, the Texas Comptroller with gubenatorial aspirations, knows the Richard Powell who is a GOPUSA Board member.

        Fuzzy only works for pets.

        by NotFuzzy on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 02:14:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  A day pass (4.00 / 7)

      is visable a couple of times from minutes 26 through 27 (or abouts - streaming sucks over a dialup) om the 2/25/03 clip. They have thick black and white diagonal bars that run from upper right to lower left along the pass's edges. Gannon's pass was obviously not one of these.

      So there are 2 lies for Scotty to try and spin his way out of. Gannon had a hard pass. Gannon did not represent an established news agency.
      Try again Scotty.

      by JoeWPgh on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 10:47:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Great catch (4.00 / 2)

        And the day pass that's on the video there confirms Milbank's description of a day pass:

        A hard pass has your photo and news org and name on it. A daily pass is just a brown and white striped pass that says, "Press," on it and comes on a dog-tag style chain. Note that the one Gannon wears in the footage on TV is a blue lanyard - not the sort of thing a day pass comes on.

        The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

        by Categorically Imperative on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 11:33:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The lanyard (none / 0)

          didn't mean much to me. Gannon is a man of such self-importance, that I could easily see him stuffing his day pass into a universal lanyard.

          I tried to nab a screen capture, but it didn't take. Maybe someone with a better connection and software could grab caps of the two different passes for the gallery.

          by JoeWPgh on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 12:05:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  How appropriate (none / 1)

        that a White House press pass would have stripes "bar sinister" denoting bastardry.

        The lone and level sands stretch far away. -Shelley

        by justme on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 12:48:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Do we have hard evidence of the... (none / 1)

      ...visual differences?

      Not saying you are wrong, but want to have the slam-dunk on this.

      As the old saying goes, measure twice, cut once.

      cheers,

      Mitch Gore

      Wanna win in '08...?

      Put your money where your mouth is.

      by Lestatdelc on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 12:01:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, (none / 1)

        We've got Milbank's comments on what a day pass looks like (brown and white striped with "Press" on it), and if you go to about 26:12 or so of the Feb. 25 clip, you'll see a day pass pretty clearly.  That clip also squares with Milbank's comments re: day passes hanging on a dogtag-like chain, while hard passes hang on a blue lanyard.  Even with the grainy photos we've got, Guckert's pass is obviously not a day pass like the one seen on the 2/25 clip and described by Milbank.  

        Really, the only way that this doesn't prove that Guckert had a hard pass is if the guy in the 3/3/03 video isn't Guckert (which seems enormously unlikely to me) or if the pass that's visible isn't a press pass, but some other pass Guckert just happened to be wearing.  Apparently someone has volunteered to use hi-tech equipment to get a better view, so we should know the truth about the pass soon enough.

        The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. --George Bernard Shaw

        by Categorically Imperative on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 12:10:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Gotcha... (4.00 / 2)

          ....just trying to keep us rock-solid, and we should really make sure we have this one, because this is a lynch-pin to a ton of lies by the WH on these issues, and opens up massive cans of worms, and points to possibilities that Gannon was in fact part of a back-channel version of the "defunked" Office of Strategic Influence over at the Pentagon.

          cheers,

          Mitch Gore

          Wanna win in '08...?

          Put your money where your mouth is.

          by Lestatdelc on Thu Feb 17, 2005 at 12:16:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're absolutely right (none / 0)

            And right now, it's not 100% solid.  It just looks p