« More From The 9/11 Commission | Main | Which Is It? »

Media Matters Gets Its Money's Worth

Who instigated the campaign against Talon News reporter Jeff Gannon?

David Brock's Media Matters For America, who kicked off their coverage January 26, 2005.

Who first identified Gannon's real name?

Media Matter's employee Duncan Black.

Who first linked to Gannon's alleged AOL homepage with the underwear picture?

Media Matter's employee Duncan Black.

Who is the first major blogger to list Gannon's 3 sexually oriented domains?

Media Matter's employee Duncan Black.

Black was the first major blogger to highlight those domains a scant 30 minutes after a Daily Kos diarist posted the details, and long before the rest of the Kos community caught on - somewhere around the time of the third comment. Even Kos credits Atrios (Black's pseudonym) with alerting him to the find.

(In a sign of how I've lost complete control over this site, I note, with great irony, that I found out about the domain thing from Atrios.)
If you're keeping score at home, that's Gannon's real name AND 100% of the information used to generate the gay prostitution angle to the story, courtesy of Media Matter's Duncan Black who, like Gannon, writes using a fictitious name even though his identity is fairly well known. Black was forced to abandon his anonymity last summer when he was credentialed to cover the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

Addendum: Two of those three post look like they occur during work hours. I'm sure that's just an inconsequential coincidence...


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Media Matters Gets Its Money's Worth:

» INDC Journal linked with More on Jeff Gannon

» Secure Liberty linked with Who is Jeff Gannon?

» Rooftop Report linked with It would be a Gate if it happened on the Left

» Classical Values linked with Who gets a pass?

» Jeff Blogworthy.com linked with 'Gannon' answers questions in interview

» Rip & Read Blogger Podcast linked with Rip & Read Blogger Podcast for February 12, 2005

» Croooow Blog linked with CJR contributing editor used fake name

» The Jawa Report linked with Outting Bloggers: Atrios' Gay Singles Ad Revealed

» The Liferaft of Love linked with Where's the howling mob?

Comments (43)

Ray Midge returns (he weeps... (Below threshold)
Ray Midge:

Ray Midge returns (he weeps soft, masculine tears.)

Gannon!!!!!!!!!!!!

They got GANNON!!!!!!

(Deep breath. A light glistens across his drying cheeks. A change has come over him)

"By the blood of my conservative forefathers, I will avenge those leftist bastards who've took you down Jeff. My precious, sweet, innocent Jeff."

(Calmly now, to the gathering crowd:) "We will not let your passing be without meaning.... Our conservative movement may perish this day, but your name will live on!"

"Our children will cry your name, Jeff, as they pick up the gun from our fallen hands, they will cry out: GANNONNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!"

"Your name will live on as our battlecry!"

"GANNONNNNN!!!!!!!!!!! GANNONNNNNN!!!!!"

(The crowd joins in, slowly at first) GANNONNNN!!!!!!!

(They are as one. United. A movement.)

What's your point?... (Below threshold)

What's your point?

By the way, not just anyone can get press creds at teh WH --- especially under an assumed name. You don't find that a wee bit suspicious there, Kev?

If W murdered someone on national TV, you would probably still stick up for him. . . .

Now go back to counting posts about the tsunami, you 'tard.

Ah Gannon, I remember him w... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Ah Gannon, I remember him well. He was impossible to find but once you did he was easy to kill. Just hit him with the silver arrow and the triforce is yours.

Hey, dorkus---um, I mean, C... (Below threshold)
mcg:

Hey, dorkus---um, I mean, Cincinnatus---Mr. Gannon used his real name (more specifically, his driver's license with his real name) to get his press creds.

You forgot one other detail... (Below threshold)

You forgot one other detail: the person who donned a skirt and picked up pom poms... O'cheerleader Willis, who is also a Media Matters employee.

Dude. If you can find some... (Below threshold)
s9:

Dude. If you can find some left-wing pseudonymous hippie in the White House press corps able to get the access that Guckert could get, including being able to lay hands on classified CIA memoranda, without ever working as a journalist for a publication that could at least break even selling ink/pixels to readers... then you can run all the smack about this you like.

In the meantime— suck it, 'cause you got owned.

Well, aren't the liberals a... (Below threshold)
mikem:

Well, aren't the liberals a bit defensive about their success at outing a POSSIBLE HOMOSEXUAL. I would have thought that they would have gotten used to feeling hypocritical by now.
PS Nice 'retard' reference. Always reassuring to hear such hateful remarks from the liberals. Looking forward to seeing all this stuff played out in '06, you whiny losers.
George Bush, leading America back to her place as the worlds best proponent of freedom and democracy.

I *still* am unclear on thi... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I *still* am unclear on this "shock and awe" value and campaign itself among liberals and the funding machine for this particularl liberal mania, Media Matters, as to the flaming of alleged homosexuals.

They DO tend to relish a "deary" level animosity among their, um, community, about one another, if this is, in fact, what it is that homosexuals do with and about one another's, um, alleged sexual behaviors.

Which is also comingled on the internet with the ever boring masquerede of identities, as in, uncover the covering, find the homosexual but you can't participate in that there community game unless you are first covered (bogus identity, website with covert identity/ies, however paid you may be by someone issuing salaries for that masquerede) and then later garnering yet more of that same game by playing along until you are either uncovered as or you uncover...a homosexual!

These are the reasons why a lot of people find the certain "community" "celebrations" of same to be suspect. To put it mildly. It's easy to see that Soros masquereds as one bent on democracy while masquereding as not being covert (that'd undermine the democracy theme) so instead it's MEDIA MATTERS that's doing all this (they are, but it's actually because Soros makes it possible) and then it's various masquereding identities on the internet doing the actual dirty deeds, perpetuating...UNMASKING HOMOSEXUALS!

So, is THAT what Soros means as to "democracy"? I mean, is THAT what it means to be both a Democrat and be involved in democracy?

No, it doesn't. But you'd never know it otherwise from actually following along with what the various Soros-funded internet masked players are engaged in. Other than that and writing nasties about Christians and, oh, yeah, the ever handy use of the word, "Satan" (I notice ATRIOS enjoys that a bit more than most, not that I read his website other than I did look it over yesterday for a few times going back over earlier entries, which overwhelmingly proved my overview point here).

Soros and his ever masquereding players of various internet causes and websites and newly inventing personalities through or by whatever employee (you're right about that company time issue, Kevin) have one thing and one thing on their mind: find the homosexual, make it appear to be a "Christian" and/or a "conservative" -- whether they are either or all or any in reality, as long as you can maintain a charade and profer the appearance of any/all of that -- and then laugh all the way to Satan.

At least, that's all I took away from reading yesterday's ATRIOS. Err, Mr. BLACK's website.

Question: isn't the expres... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Question: isn't the expression, "duuuude," over, like, well, like DEAN! Who, by the way, I found acutely interesting as he started off his DNC Chairmanship message talking about "a three piece suit" or not.

What's taking place and has been so also fomenting for a while now is that the entire uncovering masquerede movement by the left is tiresome. They're still working to embarass, not to invent. Working to detruct, not to create. You can only get so far on dated theories and after a while, you either retheorize or you get out of the way. Dean can wear or not wear a three-piece suit but it was nearly crying time for my view and ear to hear him use an opportunity to lead to decry clothing and wrinkle his face up about the choices others make in clothing. So, I guess that's what he means by him being 'the first gay president.'

Um, "president" of what?

And yet, whenever I've trie... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

And yet, whenever I've tried to sell out, it's been a complete and utter bust. No takers.

It's a buyer's market out there...

J.

I accessed the Media Matter... (Below threshold)
Steelskins:

I accessed the Media Matters for America website looking for David Brook, I found a David Brock. When I first read the post I thought you were referring to David Brooks from the NYT.

[Ed - Thank you for pointing out the error. The typo has been corrected]

Addendum: Two of those t... (Below threshold)

Addendum: Two of those three post look like they occur during work hours. I'm sure that's just an inconsequential coincidence...

I'm unsure why that's relevant? So do many of my posts, as well as Glenn Reynolds. Since Black is a paid media hack, your mention of this puzzles me ...

...without ever working ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

...without ever working as a journalist for a publication that could at least break even selling ink/pixels to readers...

So the threshold to ask questions, or gain access to a forum that asks questions, of a President includes one of ownership of or employment by profitable companies? Seems a bit exclusionary and undemocratic to me. It's good that you endorse capitalism but this seems a bit restrictive. By extension, do the employees of the most profitable companies get the front row, boxes and the rest the bleachers?

I can see it now. (Fade to Light)

WH Staffer (WHS): OK, everyone. Thank you for coming to the noon briefing. The President will arrive in half an hour and we all know how punctual he is. If you haven't yet checked credentials, please see Ms. Johnson. You understand... riff-raff and all.

WH Press Corp (WHPC): (much milling about) Murmur, murmer, murmer.

Staffer Johnson (SJ): Let's see, who do we have here. Ah, Mr. Jennings and Mr. Moran, did you bring your last quarterly P&L statement from '04 this time? And Terry, the "my dog ate it" won't fly this time. You just don't know how much flak I got from that one.

Moran - ABC (M): Sorry Ms. Johnson. I was doing double duty trying to raise my exposure and my priorities got messed up. Won't happen again. I'll speak for the both of us since, we all know, you are beneath Mr. Jennings and he doesn't covort with underlings. Here ya' go (handing paper to SJ). I wasn't sure we'd get in this time but the November '04 election coverage was surprisingly profitable.

SJ: Congratulations. I think you know where your seats are. Next!

David Gregory - NBC (DG): Hello again Ms. Johnson. My you look stunning today! The blue hues really set off your eyes!

SJ: Why thank you David, it was a Christmas gift from ... hey, wait a minute! Don't try that with me buddy. I wasn't born yesterday. Papers please.

DG: Heh, you don't even know how often that works.

SJ: Um, I think we have a little problem. You seem to have excluded the page of debits from MSNBC. Did you forget to staple it to the stack?

DG: Uh (sheepishly), no. But you can't blame me for Matthews and Olbermann! I mean, they're on a completely different channel? And we're all sick and tired of them dragging down our bottom line. Show some compassionate conservatism, SJ. For the love of What's-His-Name, open your heart!

SJ: Well (pensively), OK. But my compassion runs only so deep. You be sure to get those numbers up or dump Chris and Keith or there'll be heck to pay. Last row, corner. Next!

John Roberts - CBS (JR): Hello again, Ms. Johnson. About that Rather thing... don't you think we've suffered enough? I mean, look at these numbers! (shaking computer generated reports) Have you ever seen so much red?!

SJ: Why even bother John, seriously. Next!!

Carl Cameron - FNS (CC): Couldn't help overhearing John's plea. It's that well-honed ear thing some reporters have.

SJ: Yeah, reporting used to be the rage around here but that was well before my time.

CC: Mine too. Anyway, here's the P&L you...

SJ: (Interrupting) Of course Carl, I'm well aware of your company's condition. Front row, center. Where Helen used to sit. Guess what? It's also the magic seat today. You get first question.

CC: Thanks. See you on the floor. You'll be sure to have a footstool this time?

SJ: Of course, Carl, of course.

SJ: Ten more minutes, people! Let's move this thing along! Next.

Unwashed, Unprofitable Mass As Opposed To Unwashed, Profitable Mass (UUMAOTU): Hello.

SJ: Hi again, Mr. Gannon. Can I see Talon's P&L please?

(Fade to Dark)

Um, did you say that Mr. Bl... (Below threshold)
Just Don:

Um, did you say that Mr. Black blogs under a pseudonym? Isn't that kinda similar to what Mr. Gannon did?

Both s9 and Cincinnatus see... (Below threshold)
DavidB:

Both s9 and Cincinnatus seem to be self owned here . . . Cinc, he wasn't credentialed, but keep deluding yourself into that thinking.

He received a daily press pass, and not all the time. Quite a bit different then being a credentialed reporter inthe White House Press Corps.

s9, were is your proof that he had access to the CIA brief?

Look at the time line skippy, he reported on it months after it was released by someone else, and he never said he had looked at it himself. He alluded to it, but what he said could be taken any number of ways and, of course, you choose to think that he had some secret inside track. The real possibility is just what others have said, he snagged the story from someone else and reported it as his own, after the fact.

Zipper heads . . .

Jay, perhaps you should try... (Below threshold)

Jay, perhaps you should try the pic in your underwear thing....;-) I bet Gannon never dreamed that many people would ever look at it.
I figure he must be extremely young to have a link to his FRAT HOUSE!!!
But seriously, I don't get what the lefties are going for here? What is the implication that he got a press pass? Are they trying to say he was a Republican plant or what?

Bill from INDC: by that lo... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Bill from INDC: by that logic, then, Mr. Black is not a blogger? Which I agree with, by the way: that he's a "paid media hack" and that -- how I perceive and agree with the comments about as to Black doing his deeds on company time -- what he produces is the product of an organization beyond a man at a keyboard, opining.

It's one of those obvious points that has to be made: Black's hacking away as a blogger, an author of opinion, while, in fact, he's set to work and paid to do the hacking, "media" wise. It's not media, it's something else as long as it's in the realm so obfuscated as to who is creating what content for what purpose, just like, well, the very thing Black thinks he's discovered as if by magic about his current target o' hacking.

The only reason that homose... (Below threshold)
x:

The only reason that homosexuality is a tasty morsel in all of this is HYPOCRACY. Conservatives suposedly hate fags. So to find a gay paid shill in the middle of a bunch of people pretending to be god fearing Christians and upstanding members of the comunity is funny to the left. Since we accept homosexuals as equal members of our comunity there is no scandal when a person is outed (unless they have been pretending to be straight and having some unsavory side action - cough cough - new jersy governor - cough).

That is, fine, be an employ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

That is, fine, be an employee in some effort of communications and creating content, I have no problem with anyone earning a living in that capacity. With Black, however, you have someone posing under fictitious identity later discovered as to real identity, being paid to do so, later also discovered but not by, as I understand it, voluntarily so.

His site is posed to appear as one by an author, a blogger with single opinion. Which it isn't, which he isn't (otherwise, write on your own time and don't accept money for your leisure activities, or, if writing for profit, it seems reasonable to expect within any aspect of media that the source will identify who they represent, as in, one individual paid by whom for what, affiliated how to whom/what, etc.).

And, the entire point of Black's ongoing pressure about this issue is that he's "discovered" some guy who posed as a journalist (he didn't deflect that point, nor avoid making mention of any professional, paid affiliations) but who was using a fictitious name to do so.

I think Black believes his "discoveries" to be far more significant than they are (d'oh), and there's still not a clear coughing up by Black as to what, exactly, the point is other than he and his site are focused on someone else's assumed sexuality as a point of ridicule, without much regard for any professional (legal or otherwise) considerations.

x: the left misses entirel... (Below threshold)
-S-:

x: the left misses entirely the reality of who and what conservatives, much less Christians, feel and think.

I always find it interesting that many among the left (some among the right but mostly it's the liberal mindset) that conjectures and then tries to reason what Christians think, feel, opine and believe in, and all that from people who are the actual source of hate. Christians don't "hate homosexuals." Conservatives don't "hate homosexuals."

I read a lot written by people who write about their agnosticism, even atheism, many more who are cultists and occultists, all of whom have very negative opinions about "Christianity" and yet have no relationship to Christ or Christianity themselves. You know, it's like a person with color blindness lecturing other people on what red "looks like." They just have no idea what they're talking about, everyone else knows they don't, and yet they're convinced that red is yellow in appearance because that's what they imagine that it is through their own filtering, fears (yes, fears).

This whole "conservatives hate homosexuals" thing is among one of the false mantras by the left that is, to my view, intent on making "gay marriage" a reality in the U.S. (and elsewhere) and so ridiculing everyone else who doesn't share their mantra is now what they've reduced themselves to: harassing people inorder to attempt to shame them into conceding, whatever. It's called "bearing false witness" in Christianity, by the way, that behavior.


So, if there's "hypocrisy" anywhere, it's among the left. They project their own fears and bad deeds onto others, they attempt to shame others based upon those perceptions, but they are false perceptions. To deny "gay marriage" does not inherently communicate that "conservativs hate homosexuals," and isn't even a hateful act or decision.

Right on -S-...."gay marria... (Below threshold)
liberalstastelikechicken:

Right on -S-...."gay marriage" is an oxymoron because marriage is between one man and one woman as demonstrated by thousands of years of legacy. Gays are not denied the right to marry...but they must pass the test of marriage (one man and one woman). I liken it to a quadraplegic getting a driver's license....he/she has the right to a license, if he/she can pass the driving test.

You know - all this Jeff Da... (Below threshold)
Jewels:

You know - all this Jeff Dannon, Gannon, whatever his name is- all this stuff about this guy is just eliciting a great big "and...your point is...?" from everybody I know. (dem and conservative alike. Although- to be fair- the dems I've talked to are pretty middle of the road dems- not frothing at the mouth lefties)

So the guy had gall to ask a conservatively loaded question. He should have known that this would bring out shrieks of protest from the liberals among us who so strongly believe that the media belongs to *them* and *them alone* and HOW DARE THIS GUY ask a CONSERVATIVELY loaded question when everyone KNOWS only LIBERALS are allowed to speak at news conferences!

Sheesh. The nerve.

I don't know if the guy is ... (Below threshold)

I don't know if the guy is gay or not. I don't really care, but the fact that they would deride him for it is telling of the mentality we're dealing with.

And the remark,"...Republican political advocacy group than a media outlet..." so, what does that make any of these guys, Atrios, Kos, etc? Unbiased and professional "journalists"? No. They're "lunar flying mammals" doing their best to promote a facade of honesty and truth to the misled masses.

Gannon's remark about those who are "separated from reality" didn't have to come from any journalist to be true.

And talk about softballs, (I watched the video of Brock's interview on Court TV) when Brock talks about Gannon manipulating public opinion. Don't we have a double standard here?

Jewels,Exactly. Th... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Jewels,

Exactly. The only thing I'd add is that the more fringed want to invoke the "Plame conspiracy" and they think that Gannon serves as conduit. That they risk possibly defaming an individual or invading privacy is secondary and inconsequential to the grand plan.

Wow. Soros has sunk millio... (Below threshold)
Julia:

Wow. Soros has sunk millions into Media Matters. And they "got" someone most conservatives have never even heard of. I bet Soros feels like he's getting his money (millions) worth.

We got Rather -- they got G... (Below threshold)
Julia:

We got Rather -- they got Gannon..........

Think about it.

(snicker)

Wow, Julia. I guess Rush L... (Below threshold)
Joser:

Wow, Julia. I guess Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity talking about him on many occasions means that no conservatives didn't know about him.

Also, how did you guys "get... (Below threshold)
Joser:

Also, how did you guys "get" Rather? Oh, I guess you weren't aware that his resignation had already been planned months before the scandal.

DavidB writes: s9... (Below threshold)
s9:

DavidB writes: s9, were is your proof that he had access to the CIA brief?

Guckert, himself (writing once again under his Gannon pseudo), admits to having access to the document. The comedy, of course, is that he makes a pretty sorry try at claiming the document is a forgery in the comments in this Freeperville thread.

As the story link notes, there's a federal grand jury that doesn't seem so easily snowed as you.

Wow, Julia. I guess Rush... (Below threshold)

Wow, Julia. I guess Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity talking about him on many occasions means that no conservatives didn't know about him.

Gozer, that's not what she said. She said:

And they "got" someone most conservatives have never even heard of.

"Most" -- I think that's safe to say. I'd never heard of him, never seen Talon news cited anywhere that I can recall, and had no idea it existed until this story. I haven't listened to Rush or Hannity for about a year, so maybe they were talking about him constantly -- but I doubt it.

As for how we got Rather -- we exposed his willing use of forged documents. Oh, I guess you weren't aware of that -- or that his retirement date was moved up in response.

Guckert, himself (writin... (Below threshold)

Guckert, himself (writing once again under his Gannon pseudo), admits to having access to the document.

You're talking about the October interview, months after the Novak piece? Or something else?

The comedy, of course, is that he makes a pretty sorry try at claiming the document is a forgery

Actually, you have that 180 degrees around -- someone posting under the name "JohnGalt" says the papers are forgeries, then Gannon, in response, says: "I disagree with your characterization of the document itself".

(Hint: the name at the top of a comment is who it's ADDRESSED TO, not the author. The author is at the bottom of the comment.)

To answer you losers,... (Below threshold)

To answer you losers,

Today at the Press Gaggle they talk about Jeff Gannon, AKA Jim Guckert, AKA James Garner, AKA John Goodman, AKA Janeane Garafolo:

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.

Coming in for more than two years on a daily pass? Then he WASN'T just like anyone else who comes to the White House.

Per Salon:

Day passes, which are picked up every day at the press office, are intended to provide flexibility for out-of-town journalists who might need to cover the White House for a day or two, or to allow White House reporters to bring in visitors who want to see the press briefings. But the current day-pass system was not set up to give permanent access to reporters who, like Guckert, fail to qualify for a hard pass. [...]

Still, without any hope of Hill credentials, Guckert had no prospect of landing a White House hard pass, so he simply adopted the day-pass system and turned it into his personal revolving door. In doing so, he created his own variation on a now-defunct third category of White House press pass, called the card index, which once allowed journalists to gain access to press briefings for weeks or months a time. But this system is defunct for one simple reason: It's not secure enough. Following the Sept. 11 attacks, the Secret Service did away with the card index, according to Martha Kumar, a professor of political science at Towson State University and an expert on White House press operations.

Gee, and I guess nobody noticed that the same guy was coming in every day, flouting the system like this. And that seems a little odd, because like JimJeff has said, he was the only conservative reporter in the White House press corps.* I'd have thought he would have been more memorable.

Back to Scottie.

Q Under what name?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you have to get cleared. You have to -- just like anybody else that comes to the White House, you have to have your full name, your Social Security number and your birth date. So you have to be cleared just like anybody else.

Q So he was being cleared under James Guckert, or whatever his name is?

MR. McCLELLAN: My understanding, yes.

So, the story is that each day when he requested his pass, he provided his real name, James Guckert. And then he was issued a pass in the name of John Gannon, just like everybody else.

Makes a lot of sense, there guys.....

Also, how did you guys "get... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Also, how did you guys "get" Rather? Oh, I guess you weren't aware that his resignation had already been planned months before the scandal. (Joser - February 11, 2005 05:10 PM)

Joser, you know this answer already but I'll repeat.

Rather's inevitable resignation was nebulously defined and set by him in his own mind. He was setting himself up to retire on his own timetable to all of the accolades befitting a "real" journalist. He was "gotten" because his timetable was abbreviated significantly buy forces not under his control and in an expository, no, damning manner that will tarnish his legacy. By extension his position as a standard bearer of the MSM revealed in grand style the liberal bias so many have assumed but were having difficulty exposing. Dan Rather, media bias' now sine qua non moment, served up a curve, and sure-eyed bloggers hit it out of the park destroying both his credibility and much of the MSM's declarative that they are, to coin a phrase and apply liberally, "Fair and Balanced".

Rather will not revel in his candidate's Presidency. Rather will not enjoy trying to destroy another man's career unfairly. Rather will not be trusted again. Rather will not enjoy the legacy he thought he was constructing. Rather will leave under conditions not of his own making.

This is how D. Rather was "gotten".

Oops, typo. Buy to by.... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Oops, typo. Buy to by.

Robert Crawford writ... (Below threshold)
s9:

Robert Crawford writes: Actually, you have that 180 degrees around...

No, I don't. I assumed you could read— do me the courtesy of expecting me to be able to read.

Look closely, and you will see Guckert say, "If the memo is a forgery, then it becomes even less important." He spends the rest of the thread arguing with JohnGalt (who, for whatever reason, seems to have convinced himself that the CIA briefing document Guckert was claiming to possess was somehow equivalent to or connected with the forged Niger uranium reports), and never once offers a correction.

You could try to interpret his comment as if he had previously never considered whether the document he possessed was a forgery, but you'd be stretching it. Guckert lets JohnGalt go for several rounds asserting that the document is a forgery and passes on several opportunities to contradict him. That's why I said he was making "a pretty sorry try" at claiming the document was a forgery.

He's clinging to a really thin reed if he thinks he can escape the trouble he's facing by claiming that the document was a forgery, and that he was only pretending to believe it was authentic.

s9:"..Guckert say, "... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

s9:
"..Guckert say, "If the memo is a forgery, then it becomes even less important." He spends the rest of the thread arguing with JohnGalt ...and never once offers a correction."


THAT'S your proof that Guckert is claiming the document is a forgery?


You've made a really sorry try at accusing Guckert, s9.


From justoneminute.typepad.com, 11 Feb. post:

"My goodness! I tried to tell them (and even had a pleasant back-and-forth with a Kossite last night) - you have almost no evidence of anything at all! The Washington Post did not say that Jeff Gannon had "exclusive" access to the memos; in fact, the entire memo was described, in detail, in the Wall Street Journal several weeks before Gannon demonstrated any knowledge of it."


Ah. s9 gets his info from dailykos. Mystery solved.


Black was the first majo... (Below threshold)

Black was the first major blogger to highlight those domains a scant 30 minutes after a Daily Kos diarist posted the details.

Tin-foil hat time, eh? Hate to say it, but DailyKos is a major blog as well (at least that's what the RW was screaming while complaining about Markos being on the Dean payroll, no?).

Cheers,

gays are not denied the ... (Below threshold)

gays are not denied the right to marry...but they must pass the test of marriage (one man and one woman).

I guess you haven't read the fine defence that Virginia put forth for a similar distinction in the aptly named Loving v. Virginia case in 1967. No, probably not. . . . Go read it. What result?

Cheers,

"Almighty God created the r... (Below threshold)
mantis:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Circuit Court of Caroline County Judge Bazile in his court opinion on the conviction of Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter for their crime against "thousands of years of legacy". Nice tipe Arne.

Les Nessman writes: ... (Below threshold)
s9:

Les Nessman writes: THAT'S your proof that Guckert is claiming the document is a forgery?

p1. I never said Guckert is claiming the document was forged. I said he made "a pretty sorry try" at claiming the document was forged. Which is to say, by clear implication, that I think he failed to make the claim by stopping just short of it.

Les Nessman continues: You've made a really sorry try at accusing Guckert, s9. [...then going on to quote some blogger I've never heard of before:] The Washington Post did not say that Jeff Gannon had "exclusive" access to the memos; in fact, the entire memo was described, in detail, in the Wall Street Journal several weeks before Gannon demonstrated any knowledge of it."

p2. I never claimed Guckert had exclusive access to the memos. He did claim to have personal access to them, and they were not public or even widely available among the larger White House press corps. That's what I was challenged to show. It's an irrelevant point in that context that the memorandum in question is almost certainly a genuine classified CIA document and not a forgery.

Les Nessman concludes: [...] Mystery solved.

What mystery? There was no mystery. You are not Scooby-Doo. This is not The Mystery Machine. Ease down, Ripley— before you break the transaxle.

Don't start playing coy now... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

Don't start playing coy now, s9.

'Oh, uh, I didn't say Guckert was claiming the document was forged. I said he sorta kinda claimed the document was forged.'

Keep flogging that dead horse all you want. But you should know that the negativity and constant carping against 'the other side' is exactly why 'your side' keeps losing elections.

Cinci-whatever, s9, Amy Lan... (Below threshold)
capt joe:

Cinci-whatever, s9, Amy Langetsmo,

Tom Maguire owns your collective butts on the Plame story.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/02/gannon_plame_ke.html

Read it first. He absolutely multilates the Gannon Angle (pun intended).

You guys are sad. there isn't any there, there

Just a word to "s" - - as ... (Below threshold)
beetroot:

Just a word to "s" - - as long as the Republican party continues to make political hay by proposing anti-gay Constitutional amendments, yanking gay characters off of public TV, and opposing the so-called "homosexual agenda," it will officially stand as the fag-hating party.

Think of it this way: if you were a voter who DID hate fags, which party would you vote for? It'd be a no-brainer, right? And why is that?

No matter how you try to dress it up, the Republican policies regarding gays (deny them legal marriage rights; keep them off TV) is rooted in the notion that they are bad - bad people who make bad choices which good people should not subsidize or share with their children.

Take away the notion that gays are bad, and there's no reason whatsoever for any of the party's positions on gays.

I'm not asking you to love gay people or to not be a bigot or anything. Just be real about it.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy