PROOF JEFF GANNON IS AN ESCORT

More lies exposed. He still has active ads on Stud Files, meetlocalmen, etc. Gosh, I love AmericaBLOG. Go there to see the pics and proof:

http://americablog.org/

And check out these HOT photos of Jeff from his own escort website.

http://web.archive.org/web/20011104104331/www.usmcpt.com/photogallery.html

He does have a really nice cock...I wonder if Rove was able to deep throat without gagging on it. And who took his piss?? }(

I'm so proud that one of our own made it so far. Now that we know they are accepting gay escorts into Bush's White House Press Corps, I wonder if I should go apply for a pass. "I represent HooBoy's Message Center, and The Munroe Monument." :7

RE: PROOF JEFF GANNON IS AN ESCORT!

The fact that a White House may have conspired to get some friendly press is not particularly shocking to me. The fact that it's this White House -- with its seeming penchant for control -- makes it even less shocking. The fact that the "journalist" in question turns out to be a male escort is simply an amusing twist.

Instead, what I'm enjoying, is the relative silence on this story from the media, particularly the right-wing media. Had this happened during Clinton's watch, the Republicans would have made it a central part of their impeachment efforts and the news media would have been trumpeting details from the rooftops.

It will be fascinating to watch them continue to spin the story as it continues to unfold.

BG

RE: PROOF JEFF GANNON IS AN ESCORT!

>The fact that the

>"journalist" in question turns out to be a male escort is

>simply an amusing twist.

The fact that Jeff Gannon supposedly wrote anti-gay stories for Talon (which have now been deleted from Talon's site), such as the one about gay marriage leading to legalized man-on-dog sex, and the fact that the Bush administration and the GOP have been less-than-gay-friendly make it more than just amusing, IMO.

RE: PROOF JEFF GANNON IS AN ESCORT!

> The fact that the

>"journalist" in question turns out to be a male escort is

>simply an amusing twist.

So what has happened to Jeff Gannon - having his private Internet activities researched by a hateful lynch-mob who disagree with his political views and being driven out of his job because he owns sites promoting escorting and, it seems, he himself is a male escort - is, to you, "an amusing twist"?

Statements like this are convincing me that the Left in this country have irreovcably lost their fucking minds.

Let's review a couple of facts, shall we:

You, BG, have, for years, posted regularly on this website - a website devoted to gathering and exchanging information about male prostitutes around the world to enable those who use such prostitutes to make the best choices.

You, BG, have written many, many posts in which you have recounted multiple experiences you have had hiring different prostitutes around the country.

Let's say that someone here read some political posts that you wrote and disagreed strongly with them. So they and a bunch of their friends went on a crusade to find out your real identity, where you work, where your family lives, etc.

They contact young prostitutes you have hired (I believe you refer to them as "young men"), show them pictures of you, get affidavits from them detailing the sex you asked them to have with you in exchange for money.

Then they found out your AOL screen names, got guys you've hooked up with to tell them what your profiles said - got screen shots of IMs you had about sex - got some XXX pics of you.

They then put together the entire dossier and sent it to your employer and your family and, if anyone cared enough, some local papers, which then printed it all in gory detail.

You then get fired, driven out of your profession, and thoroughly and publicly humiliated. Whenever anyone asks the people who did this what their justification is, they say: "He's a radical liberal who holds really dangerous political views."

Would you then consider all of THAT to be "an amusing twist"?

Of all places that one would think the Jeff Gannon story -- the story being that he got driven out of his job because it was uncovered that he's involved in GAY ESCORTING - would be condemend, rather than celebrated, is on a site comprised of people who THEMSELVES are devotees of male escorting.

And yet, here so many of you are- including escorts themselves(!) - celebrating the fact that his escorting has been "uncovered" and used to drive him out of his fucking job!!!

Dante needs to create a new, fundamentally lower level of hell for people who are doing this. I swear I hope that those of you who are doing this finally get the dream job you are seeking - or reach the level of achievement you want in your careers - only for it to all come crashing down because of your activities in escorting.

For those of you celebrating the downfall of Jeff Gannon over THIS, such misery would be richly fucking deserved!

RE: PROOF JEFF GANNON IS AN ESCORT!

>The fact that Jeff Gannon supposedly wrote anti-gay stories

>for Talon (which have now been deleted from Talon's site),

>such as the one about gay marriage leading to legalized

>man-on-dog sex, and the fact that the Bush administration and

>the GOP have been less-than-gay-friendly make it more than

>just amusing, IMO.

For someone who has been involved quite aggressively as an escort for several years and yet who refuses to show their face (presumably out of a desire to keep your escorting a secret from family members, perspective employers and others), it sure is fucking amazing to watch you endorse this disgusting spectacle of privacy-invasion and job-loss because someone got "revealed" as an escort.

Read what I just wrote to BG. Imagine that happens to you. Given your endoresment over this witch hunt being conducted towards Jeff Gannon's escorting activities - which has caused him to lose his job and his livelihood - what fucking right would you have to complain if someone decided that YOUR political views were dangerous and therefore did that to YOU?

RE: PROOF JEFF GANNON IS AN ESCORT!

>it sure is fucking amazing to watch you endorse this

>disgusting spectacle of privacy-invasion and job-loss because

>someone got "revealed" as an escort.

Doug, what job did he "lose" as a result of these photos being found today? That makes no sense. Also, Jeff himself taunted bloggers to find out whatever they could about him (he said, "I'm hiding in plain sight.") And the issue is not that he was/is an escort, but how this non-journalist was granted access to the White House and (possibly) to confidential CIA memos.

>what fucking right

>would you have to complain if someone decided that YOUR

>political views were dangerous and therefore did that to YOU?

That's how the right-wing media is spinning it, but nobody who has been investigating has a problem with Jeff Gannon's political views (I don't either). There should and always will be conservatives and liberals in the press corps. This is not about his political views.

RE: PROOF JEFF GANNON IS AN ESCORT!

>Doug, what job did he "lose" as a result of these photos being

>found today?

He was forced out of his job once it was uncovered by bitter, hateful, privacy-invading leftists like you that he was associated with websites which (GASP!) promoted prostitution.

The fact that he has already left his job - and that there is no more excuse, even a shitty excuse - for invading his privacy - and yet liberal websites are still digging up dirt on him and posting these pictures, and liberals PROSTITUTES like you are still spreading them gleefully around the Internet, makes it even more disgusting.

>And the issue is not that he was/is an

>escort, but how the non-journalist was granted access to the

>White House and possibly to confidential CIA memos. You know

>that; nice try, though.

If the issue is his credentials as a non-journalist, and not his escorting, why did websites like Daily Kos spend hours and hours and hours researching and revealing his affiliation with escorting websites, and why did he not get driven out of his job UNTIL his association with prostitution was revealed?

Keep defending this witch hunt - all it will do is make it more likely that the same thing will happen to people like you - people who are themselves involved in prostitution but don't want anyone to know that.

RE: PROOF JEFF GANNON IS AN ESCORT!

Doug,

I respect you and your opinion, as always.

However, I think you've either lost sight of some parts of this story or are conveniently neglecting them.

(1) I'm a private individual. I am not a public person, have not claimed to be a public person, make no statements to or for the media, and post only on this and other websites of interest to me. On the other hand, "Jeff Gannon", through choices of his own, placed himself at the very center of the world's most political place: the White House Press Room. When there, he chose to play a visible and, to some eyes, intensely partisan role.

(2) "Jeff Gannon", unbelievably, is a pseudonym. Yes, I do understand that other writers throughout history have used pseudonyms. However, it's my belief that one would be hard-pressed to find another reporter in the national media -- and, most especially, in the White House Press Room -- who is identified only by a pseudonym. Forgetting for a moment the irony of a national "journalist" hiding behind a pseudonym, how in the world did this get by the White House's security policies? If by accident, that raises concerns about the security of the White House. If by permission of the White House, that raises rather uglier questions about honesty at the White House.

(3) "Jeff Gannon" has evidently been a male escort. I have no information about whether he is gay or not. But the Bush White House's policies regarding the rights of gay people would, indeed, make it extremely ironical if -- emphasis on if, because I haven't seen anything that supports this conjecture -- he was there with the approval of one or more people in the White House. That's where the irony comes from.

You're right: I've posted here for years. I make no judgment about people simply on the basis of the fact that they escort or hire escorts. I've met too many people, good and bad, to draw conclusions about them on the basis of something so superficial. And I support privacy rights for all private people and I'd love to see a return to more respect for the private lives of political figures (and others), because I believe we've gotten distracted countless times by unimportant details and, consequently, neglected important issues.

That notwithstanding, it IS amusing that this particular White House, which prides itself on tight control, somehow approved a press pass for a male escort using a pseudonym and then allowed the President to call on him regularly for softball questions. I will repeat that if this had happened during the Clinton years, the press would have been all over it.

My take on this? I believe this will turn out to be a case where "Jeff Gannon" was hired by someone to do this job and, eventually, it came out as we have seen. I'm open to finding out that's not the case but right now my bets are on that. We'll just have to wait and see.

Finally, you're a very smart guy. But I think you're purposefully trying to turn this back on those of use who are expressing opinions about the story itself ("Dante..."). I haven't heard anyone here say "Boy, I'm glad that Jeff Gannon got his come-uppance!" I certainly don't have any malice toward him and don't wish him ill will. You seem to think everything is targeted at "Jeff Gannon" rather than at a White House that many of us don't trust one bit. It's almost as if you're trying to avoid discussing the actual issue and are instead continuing to turn the conversation to attacking those who are discussing it.

What I haven't heard is your outrage that this occurred at the White House? Why? You seem to have a lot of outrage for those of us who comment on the story (even though freedom of opinion was still, for the time being, at least, the law of the land). Why don't you have any outrage that this was allowed to happen -- or that, perhaps, the White House was behind the whole thing? Why doesn't that seem to bother you? Instead of railing against us, why don't you rail against the so-far-anonymous somebodies who may have used "Jeff Gannon" as a pawn for political purposes?

To end, if this does turn out to be a ploy by the White House to hire a fake journalist to lob easy questions to the President then, yes, I'm glad it's been found out.

BG

RE: PROOF JEFF GANNON IS AN ESCORT!

BG;

Thanks. I agree with what you say! Doug is all wet on this one. Gannon was not driven from his "job" because he was gay or an escort, he was driven from this fake job because HE lied about who he is. It's not like some journalistic career was ruined, as he never was a real journalist. He had no qualifications and no job history as a journalist other than as a schill for a right-wing website. So he was driven from his job as a schill because he lied. Good.

I am also surprised that the mainstream media has downplayed this story. I have seen press reports, but not big deals. Maybe the "real" press is doing its research before they print all of the juicy details of this story. The real scandal is who hired this guy at Talon and for what reasons.

and McClellan is a poofter?

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=73

RE: PROOF JEFF GANNON IS AN ESCORT!

>Maybe the "real" press is doing its research before they print

>all of the juicy details of this story.

The "real" press no longer does its job. They sat next to this guy for 2 years at WH press briefings and did nothing, while regular folk with no journalism background did the research and uncovered the whole thing. I think, more and more, we need to rely on blogs for the truth. Maybe someday that in itself will force the mainstream media to do its job once again...

Oh, and thanks BG for such a clear, well-formed response above.

RE: PROOF JEFF GANNON IS AN ESCORT!

>(1) I'm a private individual. I am not a public person, have

>not claimed to be a public person, make no statements to or

>for the media, and post only on this and other websites of

>interest to me.

I would be willing to bet that your job has public ramifications. Most people's jobs do. If it's relevant to know that Jeff Gannon is an escort, isn't it relevant to know that you hire escorts?

On the other hand, "Jeff Gannon", through

>choices of his own, placed himself at the very center of the

>world's most political place: the White House Press Room.

>When there, he chose to play a visible and, to some eyes,

>intensely partisan role.

So does this mean that you think it's permissible to reserach the private sex lives of all White House reporters and then publicize what is found? Or is it just OK to do it to the White House reporters who write things and believe things that you don't like?

>(2) "Jeff Gannon", unbelievably, is a pseudonym. Yes, I do

>understand that other writers throughout history have used

>pseudonyms. However, it's my belief that one would be

>hard-pressed to find another reporter in the national media --

>and, most especially, in the White House Press Room -- who is

>identified only by a pseudonym.

This is the part I do not understand. If - as people like you keep insisting - the important part of the story is that he used a pseudonym and was a White House "plant" - and NOT that he is an escort - HOW COME LIBERALS KEEP SAYING OVER AND OVER THAT HE'S AN ESCORT???

Look at the title of the thread. Look at the hours and hours that were poured into uncovering his connection to these websites and obtaining his AOL homepage and escort activities. IF, as it is continuously claimed, it doesn't matter that he's an escort, WHY THE FUCK DO I KEEP READING MORE AND MORE ABOUT HIS ESCORTING ACTIVITIES FROM THE VERY PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THAT THEY DON'T MATTER????

>(3) "Jeff Gannon" has evidently been a male escort. I have no

>information about whether he is gay or not. But the Bush

>White House's policies regarding the rights of gay people

>would, indeed, make it extremely ironical if -- emphasis on

>if, because I haven't seen anything that supports this

>conjecture -- he was there with the approval of one or more

>people in the White House. That's where the irony comes from.

There are lots of gay people who work in the Bush Administration. Mary Cheney is openly gay and she does. As you can tell from this Board, lots and lots of gay people support the Republican position more than the Democratic position. There's nothing fucking "ironical" (sic) about it, unless you're one of those people who believe that one's sexual orientation somehow compels a person to adopt a particular political ideology.

When John Kerry ran for President, he said that his views on gay marriage were EXACTLY THE SAME as George Bush's. The most anti-gay piece of federal legislation EVER, DOMA, was signed into law by Bill CLinton. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, et al are all against gay marriage.

If you think that what has happened to Jeff Gannon is OK because he's a Republican, then, as I said, you have no grounds to complain when people do it to you because you're a liberal.

>What I haven't heard is your outrage that this occurred at the

>White House? Why? You seem to have a lot of outrage for

>those of us who comment on the story (even though freedom of

>opinion was still, for the time being, at least, the law of

>the land). Why don't you have any outrage that this was

>allowed to happen -- or that, perhaps, the White House was

>behind the whole thing?

Outrage about WHAT??? I'm outraged that liberals who pretend to believe in gay rights just destroyed someone by digging up private information about his sex life and escorting activities.

What else is there to be bothered by? There is NO PROOF AT ALL - NONE - ZERO- that he was a White House "plant" there to ask Scott McClellan easy questions. That's just liberals spewing speculation without any regard for facts - again. And if it turned out that it were the case, then I would condemn that practice. I don't think the White House should be credentialiing fake journalists to ask easy questions.

BUT WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH JEFF GANNON BEING AN ESCORT? AND IF THE ANSWER IS "NOTHING," WHY DO SO MANY LIBERALS KEEP POSTING MORE AND MORE EVERY DAY ABOUT JEFF GANNON'S SECRET LIFE AS A GAY ESCORT?

You will all reap what you are sowing. And I can't fucking wait!!!!

RE: PROOF JEFF GANNON IS AN ESCORT!

>BUT WHAT THE FUCK DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH JEFF GANNON BEING

>AN ESCORT? AND IF THE ANSWER IS "NOTHING," WHY DO SO MANY

>LIBERALS KEEP POSTING MORE AND MORE EVERY DAY ABOUT JEFF

>GANNON'S SECRET LIFE AS A GAY ESCORT?

>

Because the story keeps growing and each day seems to bring a new twist. Tomorrow it may be something else. The story started, evidently, because people were suspicious of him and his "reporting". It's grown since then to include false credentials -- approved, somehow, for some reason (if not just plain ignorance or lack of checking), by the White House, after the Congress refused to approve the same credentials. It includes the use of a pseudonym at the White House. And, yes, now it includes the fact that this guy was evidently an escort.

You're right: that shouldn't matter at all. But it does matter to a lot of people and one of reasons it matters is that this White House has made a point of making a big deal about their stand on moral issues. If it turns out that they knowingly hired a guy who happened to be a gay escort to pose as a journalist and lob softball questions in the White House Press Room, that will be a Very Big Deal, I think, and one a lot of people on the right will have to condemn or risk looking rather hypocritical.

>You will all reap what you are sowing. And I can't fucking

>wait!!!!

I honestly don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about here. What people are condemning is the White House approval of false credentials by a non-journalist hired by a fake news organization and the use of those credentials by a person who used a false name when he stood up repeatedly over two years to lob extremely partisan questions at the President. That's what people are condemning. As for what you are suggesting people will reap, I haven't the slightest idea.

Further, I have always seen you as someone who stood up for the truth, no matter where that truth lay. I have often disagreed with you but never failed to respect you or your opinion. I simply cannot understand why, in this case, you have chosen to attack people who think this situation is outrageous -- and possibly orchestrated by the White House itself, given that they went around the normal credentialling process to approve "Jeff Gannon's" credentials -- instead of adding your voice to that choir.

Claiming that everyone is a hypocrit because it's come out that he was an escort is being disingenuous and is beneath you. Not one person here (at least that I've seen) has condemned him for being an escort. The fact that he is or was an escort is ironical (a perfectly valid word, by the way) solely because of the heavy-handed way the White House has used moral stances as a political club.

BG

RE: PROOF JEFF GANNON IS AN ESCORT!

Hey Dougie baby!

It's hard to see clearly when your head is engulfed in a bucket of caw caw up to your neck.

Take it out, shake the shit from your eyes and read the articles again. Can you see it more clearly now?

His pictures are very interesting!

I wonder if his fellow reporters who would have been sitting next to him in the press room, knew just how much they were missing!

RE: PROOF JEFF GANNON IS AN ESCORT!

>And,

>yes, now it includes the fact that this guy was evidently an

>escort.

>

>You're right: that shouldn't matter at all.

But it not only matters, it's the whole reason he was driven out of his job. If you think that his escorting shoudln't matter, why aren't you criticizing the Daily Kos's and Rick Munroes of the world who keep posting more and more privacy-invasive material that has no purpose other than to show that he is an escort?

>>You will all reap what you are sowing. And I can't fucking

>>wait!!!!

>

>I honestly don't have the slightest idea what you are talking

>about here.

Let me make it clear, then. What liberal websites like Daily Kos did was they began researching the private sexual activities of this individual because he was an ideological enemy. And when the found embarrassing and humiliating information about what this person did in his private sexual life, they smeared it all over the Internet in order to humiliate him and destroy him. And even now that he has been driven from his job, they still are not stopping.

THAT is what you are sowing - legitimizing the idea that if you disagree with someone's political views, then it's permissible to research their private sexual activities and publicize it and use it to destroy them.

The only "ironical" thing about this whole disgusting spectacle is that what was used to destroy Jeff Gannon - his secret life as an escort - is something that can be used (and, I genuinely hope, will be used) to destroy many of the very people in this thread who are celebrating what has happened to him.

That is what you are sowing - using someone's private sexual activities to destroy them because you disagree with them politically - don't you see that???

What people are condemning is the White House

>approval of false credentials by a non-journalist hired by a

>fake news organization and the use of those credentials by a

>person who used a false name when he stood up repeatedly over

>two years to lob extremely partisan questions at the

>President. That's what people are condemning.

That would be true - if if weren't for the fact that what they keep talking about is that he's an escort, and that he has links to these websites, which has nothing to do with what you claim the issue is.

>Further, I have always seen you as someone who stood up for

>the truth, no matter where that truth lay. I have often

>disagreed with you but never failed to respect you or your

>opinion. I simply cannot understand why, in this case, you

>have chosen to attack people who think this situation is

>outrageous -- and possibly orchestrated by the White House

>itself, given that they went around the normal credentialling

>process to approve "Jeff Gannon's" credentials -- instead of

>adding your voice to that choir.

Like I said, if it turned out that the White House deliberately put him there as a plant in order to ask easy questions - if there is actual EVIDENCE of that rather than the idle speculation of hte usual roster of wild-eye Bush-haters willing to say anything - then I will condemn that. Do you know of any such evidence?

But even if that turns out to be true, it will never mitigate the evil of digging into someone's online private sexual activities in order to discredit the person and destroy their reputation. And I really would have thought that of all places, I'd not need point that out HERE, among online prostitutes and their buyers.

>His pictures are very interesting!

>

>I wonder if his fellow reporters who would have been sitting

>next to him in the press room, knew just how much they were

>missing!

I wonder if your co-workers who sit next to you every day know about your propensity for hiring hookers (as well as all of the other "unusual" sexual activities which your idiotic posts strongly suggest you engage in).

Why don't you post the address where you work so we can find out? If it's hilarious when it happens to Jeff Gannon, it should be equally funny when it happens to you, right?

RE: PROOF JEFF GANNON IS AN ESCORT!

>What liberal websites like Daily

>Kos did was they began researching the private sexual

>activities of this individual because he was an ideological

>enemy.

No, they began researching and googling to try to figure out who this person was because they suspected a link between Gannon and the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. That's been very clearly stated from Day One. What they found along the way was not the reason they were investigating, nor does it have anything to do with the ongoing research (they are far from finished).

RE: Hookers and White House officials??...Oh my!!

Reporter with prostitution links and false name got access to Bush; Questions surface on relationship with White House staff

Questions fly on Guckert’s relationship with White House

RAW STORY http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=73

The former White House reporter for the conservative website Talon News, who resigned after his links to military escort domains appeared on the Web, is said to have paid two individuals to set up a site on which he intended to prostitute himself, RAW STORY has learned.

These individuals claim to have invoices which show the name of the reporter Jim Guckert’s personal business as paying for the website’s development.

AmericaBLOG’s John Aravosis has discovered previous images of the site through an Internet service which keeps records of sites that have been taken down. The images of the site seem to definitively show Guckert in various indiscrete poses. The images also match with images of Guckert that have appeared in the press, down to personal accoutrements, such as his watch.

Aravosis’ discovery finds particular resonance in a unfolding scandal which involves a White House reporter getting press credentials under a false identity. Guckert had used the name Jeff Gannon in his reporting.

Some question whether Gannon may have leveraged a personal intimate relationship with someone at the White House to gain access to President Bush. Guckert also says he was given access to an internal memorandum which named then-covert CIA operative Valerie Plame.

Such leveraging of personal relationships have seen increased scrutiny after the resignation of former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey, who admitted to having an affair with a male staff member.

Sources have intimated possible relationships with members of the White House staff.

RAW STORY has been told that the White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan visited a gay bar in Austin, Texas, on March 19, 1995. The date was placed exactly as a local memorial service was held on the same day.

The source, who would only comment on condition of anonymity, reserved comment on whether McClellan was actually gay, but said he was frequently seen at gay clubs. Another source also confirmed this account.

“He was often seen in gay clubs in Austin, Texas and was comfortable being there,” the Texan said. “He’s been seen in places that normal people who are looking for heterosexual relationships are not seen alone.”

According to a White House transcripts, McClellan is married, and Gannon sent the press secretary a wedding card. The White House, however, declined to comment.

“He was the mayor’s son in town, everybody knew who he was,” the source added, referring to McClellan’s mother Carole Keeton Strayhorn.

At press time, a message for Strayhorn, controller for the state of Texas has gone unanswered. Strayhorn is considered a hot future prospect for the Texas governor’s mansion.

Guckert joined the White House press corps under former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. McClellan was Fleischer’s deputy at the time.

Several calls placed to the White House and McClellan’s office today were not returned. The White House transferred the call to various offices and took detailed accounts of the information in this story, but refused to comment.

The White House has been aware of the allegations about McClellan’s sexuality since at least September.

BlogACTIVE.com’s Mike Rogers, who outed and forced Congressman Ed Schrock to retire from his Virginia House seat after publishing tapes in which he solicited gay sex, placed several calls to the White House press office in September. Rogers is editor of RawStoryQ.com, Raw Story Media’s queer news site.

On Sept. 3, 2004, Rogers says he spoke with a woman in the White House Press Office who asked him to fax any documentation.

“She says, would you like to fax it to us?” he said.

Rogers then asked if the press office felt it appropriate to fax such information to a White House fax machine. The woman he spoke with then took down his information, but said nothing further about faxing documentation.

Rogers has audiotapes of his conversations with the White House, which RAW STORY has heard.

He left another message on Sept. 9 “giving him an opportunity to yank the story if he called me back,” he says. “I’m sure he received it.” A third message was left Sept. 17.

The Republican National Committee also declined comment on whether Guckert had any relationship with Chairman Ken Mehlman, who was outed on Air America last year, and who has refused to answer questions about his sexuality.

RE: PROOF JEFF GANNON IS AN ESCORT!

>Let me make it clear, then. What liberal websites like Daily

>Kos did was they began researching the private sexual

>activities of this individual because he was an ideological

>enemy. And when the found embarrassing and humiliating

>information about what this person did in his private sexual

>life, they smeared it all over the Internet in order to

>humiliate him and destroy him. And even now that he has been

>driven from his job, they still are not stopping.

>

That is not my understanding of what happened. I don't claim to be an expert on this story and wasn't even really much aware of it until a few days ago. But it's my understanding that people were suspicious of him as a reporter and of the "news organization" that employed him. I understand that suspicion, coupled with the rather aggressively partisan questions he seemed to be asking, to be what drove people to find out who he really was. That he has or had a past tied to porn or escorting was just something that came out of the investigations.

If someone started investigating someone's sexual activities because they disagreed with their political statements, I'd happily join you in denouncing that activity. As I've already posted, I think private people deserve private lives and even think public figures should be able to have more private lives than now seems possible.

However, if someone holds themselves up as something in the public eye -- in this case, a journalist on the White House beat -- and people begin to believe that is a false identify, they're going to start to investigate. That's what reporters do. My guess is that people just started wanting to know who this man was and started looking for whatever they could find and, after they discovered his real identify, the rest of it started coming out in the wash.

>THAT is what you are sowing - legitimizing the idea that if

>you disagree with someone's political views, then it's

>permissible to research their private sexual activities and

>publicize it and use it to destroy them.

>

I don't agree with George Bush's political views and yet I don't think it's permissable for people to research his private sexual activities. Unlike a lot of the Republicans who condemned Clinton for what I felt was pure political gain, I don't care who George Bush is sleeping with in the White House. I don't think it's any of my business.

However, "Jeff Gannon" publicly stated he was someone he isn't, and did so every day for a couple of years, in just about the most public setting there was, amongst a group of reporters who are naturally curious individuals. It's not surprising that this stuff has come out; it's honestly surprising that it took so long.

In today's climate, anyone who runs for political office or otherwise puts themselves in the public eye had better be willing to have their past examined very closely. It's what people do. I don't care for it, but it's what people do today.

Once again, for the record, I couldn't care less that "Jeff Gannon" was or is an escort. I don't care if he's gay or straight. But I find it ironic (and ironical) that this White House, with its strident moral values campaign, has approved the fraudulent press credentials of a man who used a false name to stand up and question the President. That the President continued to choose him -- only to have the questioner turn out to be an escort, much, one would think, to the horror of most of the President's most ardent supporters -- is an amusing twist.

It's not amusing, as you claim I said before, when someone gets hurt. But this man does not seem to me to be an innocent in this affair; quite the contrary. As more facts unfold, we'll have a better handle on this story.

>The only "ironical" thing about this whole disgusting

>spectacle is that what was used to destroy Jeff Gannon - his

>secret life as an escort - is something that can be used (and,

>I genuinely hope, will be used) to destroy many of the very

>people in this thread who are celebrating what has happened to

>him.

I don't think that's what was used to destroy him, if being exposed is tantamount to being destroyed. I would think, instead, that the lies that he used to support his activities in the White House are what brought him down.

>

>That is what you are sowing - using someone's private sexual

>activities to destroy them because you disagree with them

>politically - don't you see that???

>

No, I don't see that and I wouldn't agree with that. If, for example, I had information that Peter Jennings was an escort on the side (an interesting concept), I wouldn't reveal that. It wouldn't seem germane to anything the public should know. But the false persona "Jeff Gannon" was constructed out of whole cloth and based on lies, which are now coming out. Don't you think that if someone is walking around the White House on a daily basis, over a period of a couple of years, and interacting with the President and the White House doesn't know who that person really is, that the public has a right to know what's going on?

At the very least, one would think this would raise all sorts of questions about the effectiveness of the Secret Service. I don't care for George Bush, but I wouldn't like to see him assaulted by some person who managed to get into the White House on false pretenses.

>What people are condemning is the White House

>>approval of false credentials by a non-journalist hired by a

>>fake news organization and the use of those credentials by a

>>person who used a false name when he stood up repeatedly

>over

>>two years to lob extremely partisan questions at the

>>President. That's what people are condemning.

>

>That would be true - if if weren't for the fact that what they

>keep talking about is that he's an escort, and that he has

>links to these websites, which has nothing to do with what you

>claim the issue is.

>

Oh, I think that's just human nature playing out right now, sort of like looking at the car accident as you pass by. It's a lurid angle to a developing story that has some odd twists to it. It would be hard to imagine that if, in the process of discovering who this guy really is, people discovered that he was an escort and nothing was made of that. You and I could imagine a perfect world where that might be the case, but that's not the world we live in.

>Like I said, if it turned out that the White House

>deliberately put him there as a plant in order to ask easy

>questions - if there is actual EVIDENCE of that rather than

>the idle speculation of hte usual roster of wild-eye

>Bush-haters willing to say anything - then I will condemn

>that. Do you know of any such evidence?

>

No, I don't, as I've tried hard to say at each turn. It's a developing story and might turn out to be nothing at all. The fact that someone was walking around the White House with false credentials is a fact; how much more will come of it I don't know. We'll just have to be patient and see what develops.

I did see a story online today that speculated that "Jeff Gannon" had gotten where he was by blackmailing someone in the White House and it went on to talk about the White House Press Secretary (who is married) being seen at gay bars over the last ten years. The story struck me as irresponsible because it was based mostly on speculation (except for the part about being seen in gay bars; evidently that's been a pretty well-known "secret" for a long time). But it's the kind of thing that people are looking for. We live in intensely political times and people use whatever they can find as weapons.

>But even if that turns out to be true, it will never mitigate

>the evil of digging into someone's online private sexual

>activities in order to discredit the person and destroy their

>reputation. And I really would have thought that of all

>places, I'd not need point that out HERE, among online

>prostitutes and their buyers.

>

I don't think that's what happened. I think they were researching his name and found the websites he had owned through a domain search. I don't think anyone tried to search his online private sexual activities. If people did do that, I'd condemn it. But domain names and ownership, by definition, are matters of public record.

BG

RE: Hookers and White House officials??...Oh my!!

IMHO..UNTIL I hear this story from either CNN "Hotties".. Bill Hemmer or Anderson Cooper.. I doubt that I will take it as a "National Disaster" as apparently "someone" has...Who got this guy his clearance to even get into the press room? I am sure there is even more to this story to come...We all know things "we do" can always come back to bite us in the Ass.. somewhere along the line..So NO sympathy from me... :+ :+ :+

RE: Hookers and White House officials??...Oh my!!

I just realized why I never come down here and read this thread.....so I will just return my comfort zone on Male Strip Bars....lol :7 :7

Jeff Gannon's reviews on this site

These were both delisted 11/2004, but here's the link:

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/bulldogphilly.html

http://www.male4malescorts.com/reviews/bulldogdc.html

And yes, if this had happened during a Clinton or Kerry Administration, Doug would be singing a different tune altogether.

>I wonder if your co-workers who sit next to you every day know

>about your propensity for hiring hookers (as well as all of

>the other "unusual" sexual activities which your idiotic posts

>strongly suggest you engage in).

Still got your head stuck in that bucket of shit eh? And the only thing "unusual" about my implied sexual activities is that I wouldn't engage in any of them with a rabid dog like you.

>

>Why don't you post the address where you work so we can find

>out? If it's hilarious when it happens to Jeff Gannon, it

>should be equally funny when it happens to you, right?

The actual fact of the matter is I don't hold down a job - I don't have to - I'm self employed.

RE: PROOF JEFF GANNON IS AN ESCORT!

I can't help but be amused at the reaction of someone like Doug, who I understand is a staunch Republican, is gay, and hires escorts, to this whole issue of the "outing" of a White House journalist who is, in fact, no journalist at all.

The fact that a "Mr. Gannon" (not a legal name) was able to parade for two years around the White House is the real story here. Where was the Secret Service? Who was in charge of clearing journalists to question the President? How does the media itself regulate those who claim to represent it?

The fact that "Mr. Gannon" was a gay escort in his past did not as I understand, lead to his dismissal directly. He had no legitimate credentials as a journalist, plain and simple. Even if he had been nothing other than a Sunday school teacher in his other life, he would not have been permitted to remain in the White House, given his fake credentials.

The interesting part is, how did he get his job there? It seems he was brought on board when the current White House spokesman, Mr. McClellan, was deputy spokesman. He, it turns out, was known to frequent gay bars in Austin, Texas. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, unless you happen to work in the Bush White House (Mary Cheney apart, please).

So what gives here? Why the media disinterest? I can't but agree that if this had happened in the Clinton White House, the Republicans would have been howling for an inquiry. But here, even the Democrats are strangely silent. Unless I've missed something. :o