Bush's Barberini Faun
 

WASHINGTON

I am very impressed with James Guckert, a k a Jeff Gannon.

How often does an enterprising young man, heralded in press reports as both a reporter and a contributor to such sites as Hotmilitarystud.com, Workingboys.net, Militaryescorts .com, MilitaryescortsM4M.com and Meetlocalmen.com, get to question the president of the United States?

Who knew that a hotmilitarystud wanting to meetlocalmen could so easily get to be face2face with the commander in chief?

It's hard to believe the White House could hit rock bottom on credibility again, but it has, in a bizarre maelstrom that plays like a dark comedy. How does it credential a man with a double life and a secret past?

"Jeff Gannon" was waved into the press room nearly every day for two years as the conservative correspondent for two political Web sites operated by a wealthy Texas Republican. Scott McClellan often called on the pseudoreporter for softball questions.

Howard Kurtz reported in The Washington Post yesterday that although Mr. Guckert had denied launching the provocative Web sites - one described him as " 'military, muscular, masculine and discrete' (sic)" - a Web designer in California said "that he had designed a gay escort site for Gannon and had posted naked pictures of Gannon at the client's request."

And The Wilmington News-Journal in Delaware reported that Mr. Guckert was delinquent in $20,700 in personal income tax from 1991 to 1994.

I'm still mystified by this story. I was rejected for a White House press pass at the start of the Bush administration, but someone with an alias, a tax evasion problem and Internet pictures where he posed like the "Barberini Faun" is credentialed to cover a White House that won a second term by mining homophobia and preaching family values?

At first 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.

In an era when security concerns are paramount, what kind of Secret Service background check did James Guckert get so he could saunter into the West Wing every day under an assumed name while he was doing full-frontal advertising for stud services for $1,200 a weekend? He used a driver's license that said James Guckert to get into the White House, then, once inside, switched to his alter ego, asking questions as Jeff Gannon.

Mr. McClellan shrugged this off to Editor & Publisher magazine, oddly noting, "People use aliases all the time in life, from journalists to actors."

I know the F.B.I. computers don't work, but this is ridiculous. After getting gobsmacked by the louche sagas of Mr. Guckert and Bernard Kerik, the White House vetters should consider adding someone with some blogging experience.

Does the Bush team love everything military so much that even a military-stud Web site is a recommendation?

Or maybe Gannon/Guckert's willingness to shill free for the White House, even on gay issues, was endearing. One of his stories mocked John Kerry's "pro-homosexual platform" with the headline "Kerry Could Become First Gay President."

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.

At last month's press conference, Jeff Gannon asked Mr. Bush how he could work with Democrats "who seem to have divorced themselves from reality." But Bush officials have divorced themselves from reality.

They flipped TV's in the West Wing and Air Force One to Fox News. They paid conservative columnists handsomely to promote administration programs. Federal agencies distributed packaged "news" video releases with faux anchors so local news outlets would run them. As CNN reported, the Pentagon produces Web sites with "news" articles intended to influence opinion abroad and at home, but you have to look hard for the disclaimer: "Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense." The agencies spent a whopping $88 million spinning reality in 2004, splurging on P.R. contracts.

Even the Nixon White House didn't do anything this creepy. It's worse than hating the press. It's an attempt to reinvent it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/op...17dowd.html?hp

I actually saw this on the Today show this morning. Up until now I'd only see it talked about on MSNBC... I hope the press doesn't let go of this one, another screw up for the administration in the midst of trying to push their agenda on the American people by any means necessary.

ooooooooo more shenanigans in the oval office!
 

wouldnt it be de-LISH if this Jeff Gannon person were Bush's downfall like Monica was for Clinton? Bush, the ultimate Poseur!

Not to mention he is mixed up the the Plame business. :nod:

poor Judith Miller :rolleyes:

Oh cool, glad to see they covered it. Stephanie Miller and the Morning Sedition guys have too. I can't believe this idiot got in there. You know what else? He is the one who gave the "fake memo" story about Rather to Hannity.

Male hookers working for The White House ... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I actually was reading about this last night, and found this page (linked off of Wonkette.com). It's the best synopsis I've seen so far of the whole thing:

WARNING: EXPLICIT CONTENT - SOME OF THE LINKS FROM THIS PAGE ARE TO GANNON'S ACTUAL X-RATED WEBSITE POSTINGS, OR TO ARCHIVES OF THE WEBSITES... (But the main page & story has been censored.)

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005...lled-jeff.html

Nothing new. Same old ****. Bush has had many scandals that should have been his so-called downfall. Yet he's still here. Instead, what is the scandal of all scandals in the press? ****ing Rathergate! And that shouldn't have really been a scandal to take Dan Rather down. It should have exposed Karl Rove and his dirty tricks. My, times have changed. Where the hell is today's Woodward and Bernstein?

This will fade into black like everything else about his administration does..I never got how he and his administration always get a free pass in the press. Lying about a sexual relationship was newsworthy for years, but lying to Americans about a war that actually cost lives is nothing...I guarantee this will do nothing to Bush---he's a saint, he does no wrong


Chris

I am a little torn on this one.

I truly think what someone does outside of work ought not to effect their job unless it afect their ability to do their job. I ger that this was a public position, a political plum, etc. But, what if say a popular newswoman (or even female member of the WH press) posted in a public chatroom that she had had an abortion because she could not be bothered with a child and then openly counselled on a public website for woman to use abortion as a birth control method - what if the right wingers picked this up and ran with it and she got fired. That would not be fair would it? In a very real way, what this guy did was similar because it was his own business and it angers me that he is all of a sudden a dirty person for it. I mean the liberal status quo party line is being gay is not dirty, it is no one's business what people do in private, if society is horrified at the leather dykes in the gay pride parade then society needs to get over itself, consenual sex is A OK, and so on and so on :shrug: So, the question is whether posing as a male hustler transcends all of the foregoing examples? I personally do not know the answer to that.

I do know, however, that I am glad that the self-righteous R's have to deal with this because it makes them look silly. But, even there I am ashamed of myself for the glee because the argument still comes back to being gay is worse than say a female who had done this and that being gay is dirty.

If anything, I think I should encourage the WH to keep him because firing him for being gay and what he does in his private life is unacceptable in any instance :shrug:

That my friends is a hard pill to swallow but I have to apply the same standards to everyone right? lest I be a hypocrite - which I have already admitted to being (everyone is) so what is the point :laugh:

Also, I have not really thought this one out to a conclusion - so I am thinking out loud and welcoming suggestions :cool:

Yep. That's about to blow.

America Blog kicks ass. :thumbsup:

I dont think this is about him being fired for what he does in his private life...I just think that the lifestyle he has lived is so contradictory to everything the Bush White House stands for it just yet again, makes them look stupid...I could care less that someone posted pics of themselves on gay websites---the simple fact that Bush has to HIRE reporters to agree with him and promote his worthless policies is the funniest of the whole thing...and it's just great that you know deep down they are so embarassed about this--how does their evangelical base feel about this?
They probably would say it's lies made up by angry liberals I'm sure

Chris

What I haven't heard is if he's actually gay or not -- at the least he's gay-for-pay.

But still -- he's a prostitue. How could firing him 'for what he does in his private life' be wrong? ;) :laugh:

There are also lotsa rumours going around about Scott McClelland (sp?) being gay. And something about Cheney and his 10-inch first name ... There's Something About Cheney!!! (Now we know why Bush keeps him around. :eek: )

Is this all just payback?

Watergate was a third rate burglary that was first reported on the back pages of the Washington Post.