Conservative Voice gets it
Yesterday I was wondering when both sides would view corruption as corruption and not a set of situational ethics with which one can beat the other side bloody. Ask and you shall recieve:
The Conservative Voice on Gannon:
The bigger question is how did “Gannon” gain inside access to the White House only five days after Talon News Service was established? Was that long enough to run a background check? Did he have inside help? Did an earlier background check only turn up the problem that it would not look good if he were reporting for GOPUSA?
Finally there are the blackmail questions which exist for gays who are not “out of the closet”. Was Guckert blackmailing someone associated with the White House? Was somebody blackmailing Guckert or using Guckert’s services to blackmail someone else?
posted by Chris Dykstra @ 5:33 PM |
| 
5 Comments:
Its simply absurd to equate someone asking easy questions with someone that uses obviously false evidence in persecuting a president during an election cycle and someone that accuses the government of multiple and ongoing homicides, targeting the free press.
Everyone agrees the first is lame, but its really just that. Lame.
The later two are very serious, and your implication that these are comparable is nonsense.
Your idea that blackmail was involved is completely without basis.
The bottom line is that all ethics are situational. Attempting to argue parity of any infraction is an arguement of desperation.
How about persecuting a presidential candidate during an election cycle, as Gannon/Guckert did in a press briefing:
"Q Since there have been so many questions about what the President was doing over 30 years ago, what is it that he did after his honorable discharge from the National Guard? Did he make speeches alongside Jane Fonda, denouncing America's racist war in Vietnam? Did he testify before Congress that American troops committed war crimes in Vietnam? And did he throw somebody else's medals at the White House to protest a war America was still fighting?"
Or how about attributing a totally false statement to the brand new Senate minority leader as Gannon/Guckert did recently?
Beyond that, Gannon/Guckert routinely plagarized White House and RNC documents in his "reporting". He lifted whole segments word for word. That's not just bad journalism, it's illegal.
I keep mentioning these points, because apparently they don't sink in to you male prostitue appologists. The guy's a criminal and he was granted incredible access to the president. What is so hard to understand about that?
John, for the record, no one cares where you put your dick. So you can just stop with the self-loathing homo-erotic rhetoric.
Now on to spelling out the difference. Did he use obviously false documents or charges to support his assertions? No. While Rather and Jordan did. Kind a makes a difference.
Regardless, no one is protecting the guy's reporting skills. What's being contested is that somehow his actions are as significant or agregious as those of Rather and Jordan. They simply are not.
You are right, the travails of Eason Jordan and Dan Rather aren't on the same level as JimJeff.
JimJeff is far worse.
Independent reporters and business men making bad decisions are one thing. The market pretty much takes care of them. As I said in the original post, I do not mourn their passing at all. They deserved what they got.
A government that consistently attempts to replace an independent media with its own paid, corrupt messengers is a symptom of a government seeking to destroy the principles on which this country is founded.
My point in posting the conservative voice piece wasn't to support their ideas - it was to point out that their are some on the right that recognize corruption for what it is - corruption. It doesn't matter who is in the White House, hiring reporters is wrong. Setting aside basic security concerns is wrong. They are totally right to wonder aloud about what is behind the curtain.
Regarding blackmail and gay prostitution and a Bush White House - It has happened before.
http://billmon.org/archives/001692.html
Anonymous, since you started your post with such blatant douchebaggery, I almost didn’t bother to continue reading it. But then I remembered that douchebags are often simpletons as well. I was correct in my assumption about you.
Here’s the simpleton part: in response to my post you said, “Did he use obviously false documents or charges to support his assertions? No. While Rather and Jordan did.” You might want to brush up on your reading comp. In fact Gannon/Guckert did exactly that. That’s what started this whole scandal in the first place. As I wrote before (right above your post in fact), while lobbing a softball to Bush, Gannon falsely claimed that Senate Minority Leader Reid used “soup line” rhetoric to describe the Social Security system. Reid has of course never said such a thing.
Now back to the douchebag part: it’s clear where your mind is, since there’s nothing in my post that could be described as “homo-erotic rhetoric” self-loathing or otherwise. Sorry, it takes a lot more than a two-bit prostie like Gannon to get me worked up. Obviously, the same cannot be said for you, Anonymous.
Post a Comment
<< Home