OP/ED: When will White House take Plame Affair Seriously?

Today Scott McClellan told reporters that "I don't know of any changes" with regard to preventing another breach of national security like Valerie Plame. This White House has made no changes to how it does business despite a clandestine CIA operative's outing and the resulting diminishing of our nation's intelligence gathering at a time of war. From today's White House Briefing (video available at link):

STARTS ABOUT 19 MINUTES INTO BRIEFING
Q Scott, on the CIA leak situation, a judge has ruled that the two reporters have to testify before the grand jury. Does the White House agree with this, or have any thoughts on it? And can you tell us, do you know whether Robert Novak has been divulging the source of the person who leaked the name originally?

MR. McCLELLAN: First of all, on the first part of your question, that's a matter that's before the courts. I don't know the facts surrounding that matter, so I think we'll leave it to the courts to address that matter.

Q Anything on Robert Novak?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I don't.

Q So the President thinks that they should testify or go to jail?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President has made it very clear that when it comes to this matter that anybody who has information ought to come forward and present that information so that the people investigating this can get to the bottom of it. That's what the President's views are. I don't know the facts about these individual reporters and what they may or may not know that would be helpful. That's a matter that the courts are working to address. But the President has made it clear that he wants to get to the bottom of this matter, and that anyone who has information that relates to this that can help the prosecutors move forward and get to the bottom of it should provide that information to the prosecutors.

Q But just to be clear -- because you're suggesting that the President believes there's no First Amendment privilege, is that what he believes?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, that's not what I said. I said I don't know the facts regarding the circumstances of these two reporters. That's a matter before the courts. I don't know the facts regarding it, that's not what I'm saying at all.
...
(STARTS ABOUT 23 MINUTES INTO BRIEFING)
Q Scott, back on the leak-gate situation. What has changed here at the White House as it relates to your office and other offices here as it relates to us? How has -- how have things changed?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know of any changes. I hope that our relationship has continued to improve.

Q I mean, is there any more kind of a filing system, of sorts, of emails? Is there a filing system of phone calls? What has changed since leak-gate?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know of any changes that have occurred in recent months.

Q All right, well, and a follow-up question on this. Some are saying that it's curious that the White House, all the documentation that is out there now in the hands of the courts, that there is no information as to who gave the reporter the information. What do you say to that?

MR. McCLELLAN: What do I say to that? The same thing that the President has said previously and what I said to Norah earlier.

Sarah, go ahead.

Q Thank you. Scott --

Q What did the President say earlier? Can you reiterate that?

MR. McCLELLAN: I did. I addressed it to Norah in response to her question. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States, and that's why he's urged anyone who has information that can help prosecutors get to the bottom of it to provide that information to those officials.

Q So the paper trail has ended here at the White House --

And that's exactly how it ended. Scott simply stopped answering the question and moved on. And he didn't look all that comfortable.

Each time this topic came up, you could see him get frustrated with the question. And yet, he admits that since the Valerie Plame leak the White House has done NOTHING to prevent it from happening again.

Let's be clear what happened. Someone exposed Valerie Plame's name because Joe Wilson dared to speak out against the administration. As a result of trying to get back at their enemies, they diminished the CIA's ability to gather intelligence at a time of war.

Which enemies matter more? White House enemies, or enemies of our nation? This White House has made it clear that they are more concerned about political power and destroying those who dare speak out against them, that they are willing to sacrifice our nation's security.

Republicans love to say "at a time of war, you put your country first" whenever anyone disagrees with them. With Valerie Plame, they put their political enemies first and our nation last. And today Scott McClellan told us they have no intention of that ever changing.

-- Rob in Baltimore Read the rest of this post...

Pay no attention to the naked gay conservative male prostitute sitting in the middle of the family values White House living room

From Digby - I highly recommend you click and read his entire post. I haven't paid nearly enough attention to Digby's blog. He's good:

We have a man whose biggest cheers on the campaign trail in 2000 were when he would solemnly swear that he would "bring honor and integrity back to the White House" --- and everybody knew very well that he was talking about fellatio in the oval office. After his recent reelection in 2004, stories abounded about how the issues of moral values, the impact of evangelical Christians and, most importantly, the movement to allow gays to marry had tipped the balance in what was a very close election. Now we find out that a conservative gay male prostitute was given highly unusual access to that same family values white house. There isn't a story there?

I hear endless braying about how the Democrats have to "fight back." And yet... we just don't seem to to have the heart to play the raw political game they play.

A Republican's political instincts would tell them instantly that this Manchurion Beefcake story presents an amazingly fertile opportunity to take the Bush White House off message in a way that they clearly despise, sow dissension within the GOP coalition, mitigate a growing moral hazard and most of all, make Republicans around the country examine once again whether their attitudes about gays are really what they think they are.

Read the rest of this post...

Late evening open thread

Anything up? Read the rest of this post...

I'll say it again. Democrats suck

His private life? HIS PRIVATE LIFE? He's apparently part-timing as a hooker while receiving classified information from the family-values White House and pretending to be a family-values journalist, and you think this is his private life?

Not that a reporter that reaches the pinnacle of his career by covering the White House on a daily basis 6 DAYS INTO HIS CAREER AS A JOURNALIST couldn't be high-priced whore. I mean, anything is possible. But we're to believe that this has nothing to do with the story? It's just, oh, a coincidence that he's getting this kind of access and he has a secret that can be held over a lot of previous customers' heads.

Democrats = spineless jello monsters. Read the rest of this post...

More proof that invoice to Gannon for hustler Web site is real

I have more proof the invoices that Paul Leddy claims to have sent Jeff Gannon are in fact real.

Read my logic below, points 1 through 6 were posted on my site a while back, before I had the invoices. Note that the invoices from Leddy for constructing the male escort Web site are addressed to "Centreville, DE," not to "Wilmington, DE." None of us knew about Centreville, we were all writing about Wilmington. The WhoIs directly only shows Wilmington. If Paul were faking the invoices, he'd have written them to Wilmington, not to Centreville (which I now know is right on the city limits of Wilmington).

1. JeffGannon.com is Jeff Gannon's web site

2. JeffGannon.com is owned by Bedrock Corp of Wilmington DE, address 4001 Kennett Pike, 19807. Phone 302-547-8825. Also, the name J. Daniels (JD? As in JD Guckert?) is listed as the administrative contact for this web site, and J Daniels has the same address on Kennett Pike.

This is the link to the WhoIs

3. MilitaryEscortsM4m.com is owned by the same Bedrock Corp, exact same address and phone. J Danikels is again listed as the administrative contact for this site, and J Daniels has the same address on Kennett Pike.

This is the link to the WhoIs

4. So we know for an absolute fact that Jeff Gannon's web address and the military escort web address are owned by the same person. And Gannon has already admitted this on TV.

5. There is another Bedrock Corp address in Wilmington, interestingly also on Kennett Pike:
Bedrock Corp.
5721 Kennett Pike, Wilmington DE 19807 - Map

6. Jim Guckert lives at the same address as the other Bedrock Corp (is Jim Guckert the same person as JD Guckert, our poster boy in the AOL profile below?)
GUCKERT JIM 5721 KENNETT PIKE WILMINGTON, DE

7. BELDesigns sends their invoices for the USMCPT Web site to:

Bedrock Corp
5721 Kennett Pike
Centreville, DE 19807

8. All of the above information was posted on my web site, americablog. Note that I said nothing about Centreville, DE on my site, yet the invoices are to Centreville, DE (which is right outside of the Wilmington city limits. If Leddy were faking the invoices, he'd have used the city that we've all been using online, and the city that's in the actually WhoIs directory - Wilmington Read the rest of this post...

I love it when far-right Republicans defend hookers

Not that there's anything wrong with that. But I still like it when some far-right organization like Accuracy in Media says that being a practicing gay prostitute isn't inconsistent with being a right-wing icon.

And who says the GOP doesn't welcome gays? Read the rest of this post...

Martin Frost smells like bacon

Glad this loser didn't make it as DNC chair. Read the rest of this post...

Democratic Senators cooling to pushing inquiry of Gannon/Plame affair

Oh, this is choice. Democrats in the US Senate are reportedly cooling to the notion of pushing for an investigation of the entire Gannon/Plame link. Why are the Democratic Senators backing off the idea of investigating this mess? Because now it appears Gannon was a hooker too, on top of everything else.

Yes, you got that right. Because we've uncovered even MORE damaging information about this guy and this White House, the Dems in the Senate are now getting cold feet. What? Do Democratic Senators have a soft-spot for hookers? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) Did they never intend to really push for an inquiry, and now that we've given them reason for one they're getting scared they might actually have to do their job?

Yes, God forbid that someone actually asked a Democratic Senator to step up to the plate and do his God damn job. God forbid someone actually expected the Democratic party to take a swipe at this president. Think about it. Gannon is fair game when we think he might be involved with prostitution, but when we pretty much prove it, then the Dems scurry like rats.

As we've said before on this blog, and elsewhere (Digby said it best in a blog post further down), just imagine if this were 1998 and the president were named Bill Clinton. Just imagine that it was discovered that a prostitute was given regular access to the White House, circumventing normal security procedures, given access to the president and access to classified information about weapons of mass destruction.

Would the Republicans do?

A. Run in fear.
B. Jump for joy and beat the crap out of us with it.

Answer: There would be a TV commercial with the president and the prostitute.

I'm telling you, folks. Keep an eye on these supposed allies we have on the Hill. They were wimps last year, along with the liberal non-profits and the liberal establishment, and it's not like they suddenly grew a set of balls in the past six weeks. We hand them this issue on a plate and they run in fear, just like the mainstream media.

And in this case, I take back what I said in the post below about being nice. With politicians, it's a whole other matter. With journalists, logic will get you far. With politicians, even of your own party, sometimes you need to give them a swift kick in the balls. If the Dems don't jump on this issue, then we need to throw their asses out of office. I am growing increasingly sick of this party.

PS I would say, however, that Senator Lautenberg, who is the only Senator who's taken any lead on this issue, deserves our praise. Please email Senator Lautenberg, thanking him for taking on the Gannon/Plame issue, and urge him to continue to take the lead in the Senate.

Use Lautenberg's web contact form.
Phone: (202) 224-3224
TTY: (202) 224-2087
Fax: (202) 228-4054 Read the rest of this post...

The Nation on Gannon/Guckert

I had heard this was only a so-so story by David Corn, but actually, I don't really disagree with his analysis. I think, if you read the entire piece, Corn makes clear that the hooker-turned-reporter angle is important. True, Corn doesn't agree that the issue on its face of "how this guy got into the White House" is a real issue, or at least a very big issue. But he does agree that the linkage to Valerie Plame makes all of this much more troubling. And while he says that this may be much ado about nothing - and it might - that doesn't mean we shouldn't be investigating and demanding answers, and he agrees.

I think, also, he raises another important point about blog-o-mania, or whatever he calls it. There always is a danger that in the midst of the hunt you get taken away by the fervor of the moment. And that is a bad thing, I would agree. In going after the bad guys, you don't want to BECOME one of the bad guys. You want to keep a clear head, and analyze the facts based on where they logically lead, and not where you'd like them to lead. Even people like Jeff Gannon, be he hooker, right-wing plant, or just someone we really don't like, deserves a fair shake. Let the facts hang him, but only if its merited.

Which brings me to another point. We ought to be nicer to some of the journalists. Nicer doesn't mean letting them get away with shit. It means not responding to them like Freepers every time we get ticked at something they write our don't write. I recently traded emails with one well-known journalist who has gotten a lot of emails from lefties criticizing him. Not that the criticism wasn't deserved - I think some of it was, in terms of how he handled the issue in question - but the criticism, and he sent me copies of the emails, were pure freeper. They were nasty, they were vulgar, they were uncalled for. Especially with this journalist. I'd rather not name names, but he wasn't exactly Ann Coulter.

All I'm saying is that, oddly enough, a lot of these journalists do actually read their email. They get your messages. I get your messages. Don't assume that just because you email someone "famous" or whatever that he or she isn't reading what you write. A lot of times they are. And at least in the case of journalists who tick us off, short of Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, the soft touch can still win the day with these guys. Hell, even Bill O'Reilly likes me, and I like him too (don't get on my case), and as a result, there have been times when he was downright good on gay issues (he said he wouldn't object if gay marriage were legalized, he supports non-discrimination laws including gays, etc.)

My point is that you'd be surprised that journalists are people too, and a lot of time a lot of thoughtful emails might just get them thinking twice about something they've written or said or done. Telling them to fuck off may feel good, but it doesn't really achieve anything, other than convincing them that we're as bad as the freepers.

Just food for thought. Read the rest of this post...

From my friend Sean

Read the rest of this post...

Reps. Slaughter and Conyers file FOIA request re Gannon and White House

Yes! Read the letter here. Read the rest of this post...

Appeals Court Rules Plame Case Reporters Must Testify

The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled today that Judith Miller from the New York Times and Matthew Cooper from Time Magazine have to testify about their sources in the Valerie Plame outing scandal.

The Washington Post reports:

A New York Times reporter and a Time magazine reporter can be jailed if they continue to refuse to answer questions before a grand jury about their confidential conversations with government sources, a federal appeals court decided this morning.

Maybe now Fitzgerald will get some answers. Of course, President Bush could tell whoever on his staff leaked the information to fess up. What a concept. Enforce the law in the White House. Then, this thing wouldn't keep dragging on. Then, we wouldn't have court cases about reporters trying to hide confidential sources.

But it does say something about the press. They were apparently used by the Administration to break the law. And, now, they are facing the consequences.

The only real justice here would be for whoever outed the spy (and in doing so undermined national security) to get a very long jail term. Well, it would be great too for them to share a cell with Bob Novak who was the first reporter to print Plame's name. That smug bastard put all of our lives in danger given the extremely sensitive nature of Plame's work.

And, lest we forget our favorite White House fake, remember, Gannon/Guckert was "reporting" on the Plame memo, too. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Hey gang, at a client demonstrating blogs - go to it. Read the rest of this post...

Guckert speaks

Yeah, every time you speak a new conspiracy theory is born. Let's revisit those conspiracy theories:

1. You use a pseudonym.
2. That your real names is James Guckert.
3. That we found your AOL profile.
4. You never got a hard White House pass.
5. You have no background in journalism.
6. You own male hustler URLs.
7. You owe $20k to the state of Delaware in back taxes and defaulted on a court judgment.
8. You appear to own and run several male escort sites and profiles.

So tell us, Jeff, which of those conspiracy theories has been out of line? Just name one. Read the rest of this post...

Bush To American POWs Who Were Tortured: Tough

This story abounds with so many ironies, I couldn't add them up with a calculator. During the 1991 Gulf War, some American soldiers -- pilots whose planes were downed -- were beaten and abused by Iraqis. It took place, of course, mainly in Abu Ghraib. Congress passed a law in 1996 saying any country that sponsors terrorism loses its sovereign immunity and can be sued. The quaint Geneva Convetion states that no country who signs on must ever absolve a country of any liability for torturing POWs. The soldiers banded together, sued Saddam Hussein's murderous regime and were awarded nearly $1 billion. Hurrah!

But according to the LA Times, Bush is now standing in the way of those 17 victims of torture to keep them from collecting, saying that the Iraqis are now the good guys and need the money. Of course, they're already well experienced on doing end-runs around the Geneva Convention. But really, trying to stop American soldiers who fought bravely for their country and suffered torture under Saddam Hussein from being compensated? Here's the money quote from Bush spokesperson Scott McClellan.

"No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of this very brutal regime and at the hands of Saddam Hussein," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan told reporters when asked about the case in November 2003, according to the LA Times.

And now that's exactly what Bush insists they receive: absolutely no money.

Maybe they're being prudent and thinking about the future? After all, how much money would the US lose if all those innnocent people we tortured could sue us? Read the rest of this post...

Black Bush

Hysterical. Read the rest of this post...

Gannon's greatest hits

From Froomkin at the Wash Post:

Gannon's Greatest Hits

Some of Gannon's greatest hits, as featured in a video montage on Olberman's show last night:

May 10, 2004: "Q In your denunciations of the Abu Ghraib photos, you've used words like 'sickening,' 'disgusting' and 'reprehensible.' Will you have any adjectives left to adequately describe the pictures from Saddam's rape rooms and torture chambers? And will Americans ever see those images?

"MR. McCLELLAN: I'm glad you brought that up, Jeff, because the President talks about that often."

July 15, 2004: "Q Last Friday, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report that shows that Ambassador Joe Wilson lied when he said his wife didn't put him up for the mission to Niger. The British inquiry into their own prewar intelligence yesterday concluded that the President's 16 words were 'well-founded.' Doesn't Joe Wilson owe the President and America an apology for his deception and his own intelligence failure?"

April 1, 2004: "Q I'd like to comment on the angry mob that surrounded Karl Rove's house on Sunday. They chanted and pounded on the windows until the D.C. police and Secret Service were called in. The protest was organized by the National People's Action Coalition, whose members receive taxpayer funds, as well as financial support from groups including Theresa Heinz Kerry's Tides Foundation.

"MR. McCLELLAN: I would just say that, one, we appreciate and understand concerns that people may have. I would certainly hope that people would respect the families of White House staff."

Feb. 10, 2004: "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?"

Read the rest of this post...

Why does Halliburton want to help terrorists?

We can all feel confident knowing that this quality organization is running the show in Iraq. For reasons beyond me, Halliburton somehow did not think that it was worth notifying the proper authorities right away when a shipment of radioactive material went missing en route from Houston to Boston. "Gosh, what's the worry?" seems to be the response of Halliburton. Surely there would never be a chance of such material falling into the wrong hands, right? Read the rest of this post...

Excellent Salt Talk commentary on Gannon-gate

Excellent Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Got the info I needed, thanks guys. Read the rest of this post...

Escort Jeff's Clients Easily Found?

One interesting item that I've picked up from yesterday's post is that Escort Bulldog had a pager. From the Male4MaleEscorts.com profile:

Contacted Bulldog 2 days before and got a short but positive reply. Further e-mails were short and to the point. He provided a pager number to use once I arrived at my hotel. A quick call to confirm got a quick response.

I would imagine that someone with subpoena power might be able to find who was paging Bulldog. One would also imagine that if you were a "reporter" in the White House, it would be a lot easier for you to have cover for your "calls" to a cell phone. Read the rest of this post...

EARLY AM OPEN THREAD

Welcome viewers from C-SPAN who might be joining us for the first time. Otherwise, open thread -- how did yesterday's events make you feel in the morning?

You can find yesterday's "escort" story here. (NOTE - NOT an office environment friendly link.)

Not intending to make light of this story, but if you're a fan of dumb movies and looking for a laugh, check out this movie trailer. Read the rest of this post...

Late night open thread

Finally off to bed. Say gnite, Ken.

Read the rest of this post...