The Freepers are wondering why the Gannon story is a big deal

[CatWoman]

They are all over the place over here.

I've read a couple Free Republic threads -- they just don't get it.

So I want to post Americablog's explanation, in big type:

Why does this matter?

So in the end, why does this matter? Why does it matter that Jeff Gannon may have been a gay hooker named James Guckert with a $20,000 defaulted court judgment against him? So he somehow got a job lobbing softball questions to the White House. Big deal. If he was already a prostitute, why not be one in the White House briefing room as well?

This is the Conservative Republican Bush White House we're talking about. It's looking increasingly like they made a decision to allow a hooker to ask the President of the United States questions. They made a decision to give a man with an alias and no journalistic experience access to the West Wing of the White House on a "daily basis." They reportedly made a decision to give him - one of only six - access to documents, or information in those documents, that exposed a clandestine CIA operative. Say what you will about Monika Lewinsky - a tasteless episode, "inappropriate," whatever. Monika wasn't a gay prostitute running around the West Wing. What kind of leadership would let prostitutes roam the halls of the West Wing? What kind of war-time leadership can't find the same information that took bloggers only days to find?

None of this is by accident.

Someone had to make a decision to let all this happen. Who? Someone committed a crime in exposing Valerie Plame and now it appears a gay hooker may be right in the middle of all of it? Who?

Ultimately, it is the hypocrisy that is such a challenge to grasp in this story. This is the same White House that ran for office on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. While they are surrounded by gay hookers? While they use a gay hooker to write articles for their gay hating political base? While they use a gay hooker to destroy a political enemy?

Who in the White House is at the center of all of this? Who allowed this to go on in the People's House? Who committed the crime of exposing Valerie Plame? Jeff Gannon has the answers to these questions, and boy we know he loves to talk.

Let him talk to Patrick Fitzgerald.

Hopefully they can read and understand. It is a big deal. And theyu are all a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

http://www.americablog.org/

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

1. I can't stand this story, but AmericaBlog made clear its importance

The question that connects the Gay sex prostitution, Reporter, and Plame investigation is very very simple:

Who was Gannon blowing off in the White House to get the access/promotion he did? Or, to not be so sexual about it, who was Gannon Blackmailing to get put in the cushy job of lobbing softballs?

This is much bigger then we seem to think. The sex, the CIA documents, the job itself are all tightly connected. I think its clear Gannon was doing Double Duty in the White House, but the question is with WHOM. and that is the smoking gun.

[Walt Starr]

2. John should have posted that first

and in that font size, so the morans (sic) would read it.

[Lex]

7. I emailed John and urged him to put that part FIRST

and the smut AFTER THAT.

[LondonAmerican]

3. why is it so important

that he is gay?

the term 'gay hooker' reads like it's being spat out. :(

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. no, it is not the gay part as I keep explaining

it is that he was shown an above Top Secret document and he would have never been given a Clearance due to that past. He is oh so bribable and black mailable it ain't even funny.

[LondonAmerican]

8. so why is that phrase repeated over and over?

it sounds like fred phelps or someone.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. American sexual mores come to the fore

but serious... somethng like that past prevent you from getting any kind of clearance becuase you are now a target for black mail operations, see above, about american sexual mores

Peronally I don't give a damn about his sexual partners, just practice safe sex, I hate to pay for his AIDS... or that of others that he should spread.

Was a medic for ten years... so this does not shock me... shall we say some of my patients were adresses as she, but were truly he...

[RaleighNCDUer]

37. It's the hypocrisy of this stridently anti-gay administration

using him as a propaganda tool.

It brings up whole reams of questions about pressure and blackmail, and who is using who. This guy with no qualifications had almost unparalleled access to some of the top players in the WH. How could that happen? Who knew who to get him that access?

[pelagius]

6. I'm uncomfortable with that, too. n/t

[Dhalgren]

16. I think that in this instance there is no other way to describe

who and what Gannon/Guckert is. He is a hired hack - ok. But wait, he is actually a gay prostitute who was hired to be a hack and shill for the President of the United States. Now, tell me, where and when in the history of this country, if a President had hired a prostitute (of whatever persuasion) to use in a publicly exposed propaganda ploy would it not have been railed against and exposed by every reporter on the planet? No, this is legitimate - more so than the Monica thing. It has to be exposed completely and excruciatingly - no stone left unturned...

[ICantBelieve]

29. I think "unvetted" works well

So does unqualified. But I like "unvetted." Hammer that point home. Hammer home that he used a false name. That certainly says "unvetted" more plainly and less prejudically than "gay hooker."

[ICantBelieve]

10. Doesn't matter to me...

I don't care if he's gay or he's a hooker. I don't see a big deal in any of this, unless he's being paid by the White House to keep his mouth shut about Valerie Plame. Then that itself is the issue, not that he's gay or that he's a hooker. But, the fact that a right wing anti-gay White House approved a gay hooker does point to the fact that there might be some other reason he was approved. He's not black, poor, and a Muslim too, is he? Now that would be REALLY suspicious!!! The White House is full of bigots. If they approved someone who bigots would normally hate, then it's evidence that there's some other reason for the approval. That's all.

I agree, however, that while it may be a signal that something else is up, it should not be our focus. We should not use these facts against the guy with his own people. Yes, it's hypocritical. But, I really think we should be above that nonsense. There are better ways to win. And we haven't tried them yet.

[Walt Starr]

12. So it's okay with you if a male prostitute has access to classified CIA

documents?

:wtf:

[ICantBelieve]

22. That is correct -- I don't care...

No, I don't care if a male prostitute has access. I don't think that fact alone precludes him. I don't believe all that blackmail shit.

Not properly vetted? Yes, that's a problem. If proving that he's a male prostitute proves that he was not properly vetted, then, yes, THAT is the problem--that he wasn't properly vetted.

Or even that he's being paid off for something. That's even worse.

But I most certainly do NOT care if he's a "gay hooker" per se. Many Republicans would, and I think that's wrong. I don't think we should take advantage of their prejudices. I think there are better ways to win, namely by showing that our LACK of prejudice is more "American" or "Christian" or whatever your favorite word for "good and right" is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. He is black mailable because of Amerian Sexual mores

and it does not matter whether you believe in this or not.

When americans stop giving a flying rats ass about sexual orientation then it will stop being a potencial black mail situtaion.

As to repukes, you hit the nail on the head.. that is WHY he is subject to black mail, becuase they care.

This is why usually people wiht this past are NOT given a TS clearance or ACCESS to these documents or are vetted to have access to these documents.

This is why it matters, he was NOT vetted... and the SS failed to find these sundry details on a background check... or they found them, and he was given access anyway... and you should be asking WHY?

[ICantBelieve]

32. I've heard those arguments before...

You sound like someone who thinks gay people shouldn't be able to be in the military.

I'm not going to give into that prejudice even if it means a bit of a risk. It's just not right.

If you use the fact that he was gay to prove that he's not vetted, that's one thing. But if that's what you are really doing, then you should be saying "unvetted" not "gay hooker." Otherwise, you come off looking very much like you're trying to use the prejudice of the right wing against this guy. We can't do that if we want to show Americans that our values are the right ones. We can't stoop to their level.

[Walt Starr]

42. Prostitutes are EXTREME security risks!

Shit, in the military if you are caught seeing a prostitute, it could end your career because you will never again have a security clearance!

Prostitutes have been used since intelligence services began to use blackmail to get what they want!

So saying it's okay for a prostitute to have that sort of security clearance is to compromise national security in the most blatant and horrifying fashion!

[LondonAmerican]

15. exactly

better put than i could do!

[Dhalgren]

20. I'm sorry, but if you don't see the "beauty" of the Bush WH

hiring a gay, male hooker to pose as a reporter and be called on by name (his fake/stage name) by the President to ask his ridiculously propagandistic questions, then I am sorry for you. The gods are actually working for us, here! This is bigger than any "scandal" that "rocked" the Clinton WH - it has got to be hammered at relentlessly!

[ICantBelieve]

25. I think we're better than that...

I don't think we should play on their prejudice. I think that makes us no better than them. I'm also afraid it will come back to bite us in the ass.

We need to prove to the American people that there are no greater values than our values. That if you really READ and UNDERSTOOD the bible, you'd be on our side. We can't win that battle if we don't live those values. And our values don't permit prejudice.

[Old and In the Way]

31. I disagree.

A key platform Republicans win on is their willingness to gay bash as official policy. They use this to dupe the religious, single-issue voters to vote for them. Of course, they never get the legislation passed, but we get all the other stuff no one wants. It's the hypocrisy that needs to be exposed.

That said, I think there's still many avenues in this story that need exploration. The prostitution part is a big deal. Is he the blackmailer or the blackmailee? Is he a national security issue? Is he the tip of the iceberg as far as what is really happening behind the scenes?

We need to put this in a historical context. Check out Minstral Boy's ruminations on how this scandal might parallel one in GHWB's administration. The Washington (Moonie) Times made a big stink about that...but suddenly, poof, the story's gone. In theat story, it appears there were well known journalists who might be caught up in this.

Today, GHWB is doing PR work of Rev. Moon, The Rev. is getting crowned the Lord Jesus Christ - IN OUR CAPIOL BUILDING!, and I never hear anymore stories from the MSM about the Moonie threat to our country....

I have always been afraid that Dimson's past has lots of stuff that could make him easily blackmailed. If that's the case, we, as a country, have a real national security issue that could be our downfall.

[ICantBelieve]

34. We won't win exposing that hypocrisy

We will win by showing that our way isn't hypocritical. If we play on their prejudices, then we are just as bad as they are.

Fight this battle for what it is. The man was apparently not properly vetted and may have blackmailed his way into the job. Nothing else is worthy of discussion.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. There seems to be a bit of disconnect here.

The appearance is that the source of potential blackmail is that fact that he is a gay male hooker. Did he threaten 'Scooter' with exposure unless he was granted access? Or KKKarl? Of course, if he did he was playing a dangerous game, cause that stuff can get you suicided. But we can't separate the fact that he was unvetted from tha fact that he is a gay male hooker. One leads to the other, and the connection is blackmail.

The whole purpose of vetting is to prevent people who can be compromised from getting access. When the compromise leads to access without vetting, there is a very serious security failure.

[ICantBelieve]

40. There is a disconnect...

And a subtlty, but an important one. We need to be banging on the fact that he's not vetted. Not on the hypocrisy of at right wing White House approving a gay hooker. Too many of our headlines are focussing on "gay hooker" and not getting across the "unvetted" or "potentially blackmailing" point.

I also do not agree that we should push on the fact that he should not have been vetted because he was a gay hooker. There are less prejudicial things we can go after as to why he SHOULD not have been vetted. The gay hooker thing, though, is fine if what we're trying to demonstrate is that he WAS not vetted. In other words, regardless of whether he SHOULD or COULD have been properly vetted can be downplayed while the fact that he WAS NOT properly vetted can be played up. I'm sure I COULD be properly vetted, but since I have not been, I should not be shown CIA documents.

It's a fine line, but I think it will pay off well for us in the end if we stick to the correct side of it. He WAS not vetted. We know this because this White House would never approve of a gay hooker. End of story. Headline should be "Unvetted reporter gets access to CIA documents" not "Gay Hooker gets access to CIA documents."

[Old and In the Way]

41. You make an unproved assertion.

"We know this because this White House would never approve of a gay hooker."

How do you know that? How do you know:

(1) They may have wanted a guy prostitute in the WH pool to compromise other reporters who may have been targets?
(2) How do you know Karl Rove or Scotty McClellan didn't partake of his services...and used that to get his assignment?
(3) How do you know that this isn't a sweethart deal?

We know that he's working in cahoots with this WH that is not typical for a WH reporter. I happen to think that this WH is certainly predisposed to using anyone, even gay hookers. Nothing is beneath these criminals. Nothing.

Let's put it this way. What if Gurhery was getting paid by Iran to 'penetrate' the WH. Would that matter? What if he was a child molester, would that be pertinent? I think so. It's not that he's gay, but that he's now a known prostitute. It most certainly matters. What we need to know now is, was the WH aware of this....and, if so, why did they allow him his credentials?

[ICantBelieve]

44. You missed the point...

But I'm tired of this discussion. Go ahead an be bigots for all I care.

[gollygee]

24. The only reason it would matter

is if a man at the white house got him the job because a) they had a relationship or b) jeff gannon blackmailed him.

Otherwise, there's the hypocrisy angle I guess. But the only substantive reason would be if a relationship with someone at the white hosue is how he got in.

[K-W]

27. It isnt important, its just what the truth turned out to be.

I think perhaps you might just be reading it that way.

[Walt Starr]

4. The REAL story in all of this is the coverup by the MSM

One group of whores protecting another whore!

[brainshrub]

9. To the trolls:

Either Gannon was covert Whitehouse propaganda.

Or:

There was a MAJOR breach of security. An under-qualified man was able to pose as a reporter, under an assumed name, and get within 20 feet of the President.

Do you still think this isn't a big deal?

[spanone]

11. Imagine if the left had $70 million dollars to investigate him...

no telling WTF we would find.

[Swamp Rat]

13. Happy Valentine's Day!

[beam me up scottie]

17. You are sooooooooooo bad!

nt
:evilgrin:

[brainshrub]

18. Now that's just evil.

Great work.

I would have used Rove.

[Swamp Rat]

21. I'm GW "uses" Rove all the time... he's kinda bald isn't he?

:D

[CatWoman]

43. *SNARF*

:D

[K-W]

19. It's a bit deal because there are still peices in this puzzle

that we havent found yet. And some of those pieces are in the whitehouse.

[Arkana]

23. Exactly. People need to realize that Gannon/Guckert's sexual prefs

are irrelevant. It's the fact that a guy with NO credentials and a fake name was given so much inside stuff from the White House that needs to be investigated.

[K-W]

26. They knew who he was and didnt care because someone wanted a stooge

to ask softball questions. That is the story. Who in the whitehouse is placing fake reporters in the whitehouse presscorp and since none of this was terribly secret, how many people knew about it.

That is the story.

[Kansas Wyatt]

30. You have a point, but...

Freepers and Bushbots need to be fully aware that the George W. Bush Administration was playing hide the weenie with a homosexual and loving every moment of it.

[Bouncy Ball]

33. Here's my answer as to why it's a big deal.

A man with no journalistic credentials, operating under a psuedonym, running and participating in male prostitute sex rings, becomes a republican operative (party with serious anti-gay hatred and the proposed legislation to prove it), gets a press pass to join the White House press corps, has PROBABLE links to the Valerie Plame (undercover CIA agent) outing (hello, treason?), and has MET WITH THE PRESIDENT TWICE.

Now, have the more HONEST freepers ask themselves whether they would be making a big deal out of this had it happened while Clinton was in office.

If they are honest, you would hear a resounding YES!!!! from every single one of them.

[NewJeffCT]

36. It should be a big deal, but it will be spun

1) The MSM has ignored Plame in this so far, and will continue to do so. No change here.

2) If brought up again, WH will just claim that sometimes one slips through the cracks and that, thankfully, nothing bad came of it. Maybe (but, highly unlikely), some mid level schmuck will be fired for not running a complete background check.

3) Liberals only like gays when they agree with them.

4) Anything a Republican did bad before today can be written off as a youthful indescretion.

[medeak]

35. They are all over Helen Thomas....here we go

someone forcasted it....Helen will have to go.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1343037/posts

[CatWoman]

38. pardon my "ignorance"

but isn't Helen a "real" journalist?