[malvolio]

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Bush's Barberini Faun
By MAUREEN DOWD

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.

If George Bush said the sky was blue, I'd start to wonder...

[Mac Guru]

I can't help but notice you're propensity for posting nothing but OP-ED Columns... You do know that it's NOT NEWS but someone's Opinion

[malvolio]

I am deliberately including that line for accuracy's sake. OP-ED commentary offers an particular outlook upon news.
Do you have any dispute with the factual content of the posts?
(BTW, it's "your", not "you're" in that context. )

[Mac Guru]

Well rather than simply posting a column, what's YOUR outlook on the article? Or am I simply supposed to insert your name into the article and assume you're lacking the skill to add to the opinions from the article with your wit and whimsy? It's rather boring to simply post an article for us to read without any insight on the part of the poster.

[malvolio]

I agree with the point of the article. If I didn't, I would have made some comment indicating that I didn't.
I'm curious to hear how the Bushies attempt to deny, explain away, or justify the cr@p that their "leader" is inflicting upon America and the world.

[olePigeon]

Did you know Iraq has biological labs and is creating thousands of tons of anthrax? We've seen them, we know they're there.

[chalk_outline]

Um, dudes. Bush smoked WEED. MoveOn.org.... Jeff Gannon is yesterdays news. Just like they wanted.

[Timo]

Originally posted by Mac Guru:
Well rather than simply posting a column, what's YOUR outlook on the article? Or am I simply supposed to insert your name into the article and assume you're lacking the skill to add to the opinions from the article with your wit and whimsy? It's rather boring to simply post an article for us to read without any insight on the part of the poster.

One could ask you the same question.

I think the op-ed is pretty clear, but I think the reasons why it happened are less so. In my estimation this shows that the Press, far from being a tool of the Left, is so cowered and kowtowing to the current Administration that it takes them two years to ferret out this fraud. As for the current Administration, they are not above any trick to keep "on message."