| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Sergeant America" |
| Date: |
24 Feb 2005 07:38:55 PM |
| Object: |
Liberal hypocrisy, lying on Gannon issue |
Ann Coulter nails 'em with the facts again!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43011
[...]
Now the media is hot on the trail of a gay escort service that Gannon
may have run some years ago. Are we supposed to like gay people now, or
hate them? Is there a website where I can go to and find out how the
Democrats want me to feel about gay people on a moment-to-moment basis?
[...]
On the op-ed page of the New York Times, Maureen Dowd openly lied about
the press pass, saying: "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?"
[...]
But Dowd was talking about two different passes without telling her
readers (a process now known in journalism schools as "Dowdification").
Gannon didn't have a permanent pass; he had only a daily pass. Almost
anyone can get a daily pass – even famed Times fantasist Maureen Dowd
could have gotten one of those. A daily pass and a permanent pass are
altogether different animals. The entire linchpin of Dowd's column was a
lie.
[...]
Finally, liberals expressed shock and dismay that Gannon's real name is
"James Guckert." On MSNBC's "Hardball," Chris Matthews introduced the
Gannon scandal this way: "Coming up, how did a fake news reporter from a
right-wing website get inside the White House press briefings and
presidential news conferences?"
Reporter David Shuster then gave a report on "the phony alias Guckert
used to play journalist" – as opposed to the real name Shuster uses to
play journalist. (You can tell Schuster is a crackerjack journalist
because he uses phrases like "phony alias.") With all the subtlety of a
gay-bashing skinhead, Matthews spent the rest of the segment seeing how
many times he could smear Gannon by mentioning "HotMilitaryStuds.com"
and laughing.
Any day now, Matthews will devote entire shows to exposing Larry
Zeigler, Gerald Riviera and Michael Weiner – aka Larry King, Geraldo
Rivera and Matthews' former MSNBC colleague Michael Savage. As a
newspaper reporter, Wolf Blitzer has written under the names Ze'ev
Blitzer and Ze'ev Barak."
[...]
Liberals keep telling us the media isn't liberal, but in order to
retaliate for the decimation of major news organizations like the New
York Times, CBS News and CNN, all they can do is produce the scalp of an
obscure writer for an unknown conservative Web page.
-----
Hahaha. Go get 'em, Ann!
.
|
|
| User: "Lazarus" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal hypocrisy, lying on Gannon issue |
25 Feb 2005 08:39:31 AM |
|
|
"Sergeant America" <sergeant_america@yahoo.com> wrote...
Ann Coulter nails 'em with the facts again!
[--Coulter sez that libberuls are bad, bad peeple for demanding answers over
why a rent boy with an assumed name was given press passes to the White
House despite having no journalism background, no job with a bona fide press
organization, and no discernible experience, other than fucking men in the
***** for money and shillling for a right wing propaganda site fronting for
GOPUSA--]
Ann Coulter is a *****, and anyone who takes her seriously should be
involuntarily institutionalized for degenerative bat-***** insanity.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal hypocrisy, lying on Gannon issue |
25 Feb 2005 11:14:54 AM |
|
|
Back to this story | Home
http://mediamatters.org/
Coulter lied and distorted to defend "Gannon," falsely attack Democrats
and "liberal" media
Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter presented a raft of lies and distortions
to defend former Talon News Washington bureau chief and White House
correspondent Jeff Gannon (aka James D. Guckert) from Democrats and the
"liberal media." Among the accusations in Coulter's February 24
nationally syndicated column were that the "liberal media" resorted to
probing Gannon's private life after failing to "get Gannon for
incompetence on the job"; that former Democratic presidential candidate
Gary Hart, former President Bill Clinton, and Senator John Kerry all
ran for office under "invented names"; and that New York Times
columnist Maureen Dowd "openly lied" when writing about Gannon's White
House press passes.
"Liberals keep rolling out a series of attacks on Gannon for their Two
Minutes of Hate, but all their other charges against him fall apart
after three seconds of scrutiny. Gannon's only offense is that he may
be gay," Coulter wrote.
In a broadside against the "liberal media," Coulter falsely claimed
that "they can't even get Gannon for incompetence on the job":
Liberals keep telling us the media isn't liberal, but in order to
retaliate for the decimation of major news organizations like the New
York Times, CBS News and CNN, all they can do is produce the scalp of
an obscure writer for an unknown conservative Web page. And unlike
[former New York Times executive editor Howell] Raines, [CBS News
anchor Dan] Rather and [former CNN chief news executive Eason] Jordan,
they can't even get Gannon for incompetence on the job.
In fact, Media Matters for America has documented numerous instances of
Gannon's incompetence: He lifted large portions of White House and
Republican materials verbatim for his "news reports"; he reported a
baseless, thoroughly disproven rumor of an extramarital affair between
Kerry and an unnamed woman; and he used a fabricated quotation
attributed to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to ask a
softball question of George W. Bush.
Coulter proceeded to attack congressional Democrats for "demand[ing]
that an independent prosecutor investigate how Gannon got into the
White House under an invented name" and conflated Guckert/Gannon's use
of a pseudonym to the "invented names" of various Democratic
presidential candidates, asking: "How did Gary Hartpence, Billy Blythe
and John Kohn (Gary Hart, Bill Clinton and John Kerry) run for
president under invented names?" The truth is that neither Hart nor
Clinton "invented" their names, and Kerry's name was never Kohn.
Hart's parents changed the family's last name from Hartpence to Hart in
the late 1950s because, Hart said, it had been their original family
name. Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe IV after his deceased
father, but in high school he assumed the last name of his stepfather,
Roger Clinton, who had married his mother when Bill Clinton was 4 years
old. The Associated Press reported on March 10, 1992, that Clinton's
mother said that Roger Clinton loved Bill like a son. Kerry was born
"John Forbes Kerry" and has never held the surname Kohn; his
grandfather changed his name from Fritz Kohn to Frederick Kerry in
1901.
By contrast, James D. Guckert's name appears as such on his driver's
license. He claims he uses "Jeff Gannon" because it is easier to spell
and pronounce. He has provided no other reason for adopting the
pseudonym.
Coulter also claimed that Dowd lied when the latter wrote in her
February 17 column that "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?" Coulter
insisted that Dowd "openly lied" by "talking about two different press
passes without telling her readers." But regardless of what kind of
pass Gannon used, the fact remains, as Dowd noted, that "[i]n an era
when security concerns are paramount," Gannon "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."
=E2=80" S.S.M.
Posted to the web on Friday February 25, 2005 at 11:02 AM EST
Copyright =C2=A9 2004-2005 Media Matters for America. All rights
reserved.
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy
Subscribe to Media Matters Email Updates
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal hypocrisy, lying on Gannon issue |
25 Feb 2005 09:13:15 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:38:55 +1300, Sergeant America
<sergeant_america@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ann Coulter nails 'em with the facts again!
This is the lady who was positive Canada had forces in Vietnam?
Hal
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal hypocrisy, lying on Gannon issue |
24 Feb 2005 07:44:44 PM |
|
|
Sergeant America <sergeant_america@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:421E81AF.6AB73761@yahoo.com:
Ann Coulter nails 'em with the facts again!
at least you have a sense of humor. crazy annie is as much at home with
facts as the bush administration is with truth.
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greg Bernath" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal hypocrisy, lying on Gannon issue |
25 Feb 2005 04:22:52 PM |
|
|
Sergeant America <sergeant_america@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ann Coulter nails 'em with the facts again!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43011
Now the media is hot on the trail of a gay escort service that Gannon
may have run some years ago. Are we supposed to like gay people now, or
hate them? Is there a website where I can go to and find out how the
Democrats want me to feel about gay people on a moment-to-moment basis?
Given that the liberals pounced on this story long before the gayness
angle broke, it appears that, as usual, Coulter is lying her skanky
***** off.
Remember, Sergeant America, that just because you won't pay attention
unless gay sex is mentioned, it doesn't mean liberals share your
proclivities. It was the treason against America that got our
interest, when Guckert/Gannon leaked classified data to the enemy.
But you guys don't care about the treason. You only care about the gay
sex. Are there any conservatives out there who aren't homophobic
self-hating closet queens?
It's too bad that our rabidly conservative media is still trying to
bury this story. Anyone want to imagine the media's reaction if this
had happened under Clinton? They'd be screaming for impeachment and
execution 24/7. You have to have a room-temperature IQ to believe
there's a liberal media in this country.
Greg Bernath
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal hypocrisy, lying on Gannon issue |
28 Feb 2005 10:14:13 AM |
|
|
Greg Bernath wrote:
Sergeant America <sergeant_america@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ann Coulter nails 'em with the facts again!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43011
Now the media is hot on the trail of a gay escort service that
Gannon
may have run some years ago. Are we supposed to like gay people now,
or
hate them? Is there a website where I can go to and find out how the
Democrats want me to feel about gay people on a moment-to-moment
basis?
Given that the liberals pounced on this story long before the gayness
angle broke, it appears that, as usual, Coulter is lying her skanky
***** off.
Oh Baby
by Ann Coulter
Well can you believe the latest tizzy the left has gotten itself into
since it was discovered recently, that the President was discovered to
have allegedly feasted on the flesh of an infant? The liberal press has
attempted once again to create a firestorm of controversy by taking
facts out of context and twisting the story to suit its own devious
purposes. All of this comes as no surprise, but it is still hard to
stomach the manufactured outrage coming from a democrat party that we
all know has no love lost between itself and infants. These advocates
of on-demand abortion and second chance contraception have suddenly, in
light of recent events, decided that miraculously, they now wish to
(gasp) defend children from those who would wish to dine on their
tender young carcasses. Where were they when the battle over the Lacy
Peterson law (making the willful destruction of a fetus equal to the
crime of murder) was being fought in the trenches? I'll
tell you where they were. Right smack dab in the center of the pity
pot, as the federal courts decided that democrats would finally be
forced to remove their filthy child-murdering hands from the money
pot of abortion clinics and women's health advocate groups that council
women to murder their babies. Make no mistake, they are hypocrites, one
and all. It is amazing how indignant the left has now become, now that
they have realized what a political windfall they can reap from this
overblown, overhyped controversy.
The fact is, that liberal pundits like C. Everett Koop and Howard Dean,
Socialist movements such as the A.M.A and the Department of Children
and Family Services, and all the other liberal scum who have
conveniently decided to blatantly grandstand, distorting the facts in
this case so shamelessly, are all just further proof that the left will
stop at nothing in their scurrilous and desperate attempt to reclaim
lost power.
The President ate a baby. So what? If my President decides he has
developed a taste for baby food, who am I to judge? So conveniently we
forget how many children have been saved by the policies of George
Bush. If the Democrats had been in power, surely the child that the
president ate would have been left behind, caught up in the twisted
maze of bureaucracy and red tape of the Democrats tax and spend reality
that would be our school system were it left to them to destroy.
In the Op-Ed page of the liberal New York Times, Maureen Dowd brazenly
lied, saying that "George Bush has taken away a life filled with
unbound potential". As we are all aware of by now, the President has
made it clear that he went to great pains to eat a baby that was
already terminally ill. That baby was officially diagnosed to have no
more than three years left in it's life. There was no unbound potential
there, a fact that when the light is shone upon it, suddenly makes Ms.
Dowd's house of cards collapse like Max Cleland without a wheelchair.
It has also been reported on Fox News's Hannity and Colmes, that the
infant now known as 'Baby P', was a distant cousin of none other than
Sheik Mohummed Ali Karzakistan, which is a very terrorist sounding
name, wouldn't you agree?
In fact, it does not take a very big stretch of the imagination to
realize that it is quite possible that the baby the President found fit
for consumption, had it lived, could have one day grown up to become
the most horrible dictator known to mankind. Whoever can prove to me
that it wouldn't have been, I'll spend three weeks on my knees with
showing my undying gratitude to. No, folks. Sorry. Nothing to see here.
I know that Al Franken, Michael Moore and those pajama-clad losers at
Daily Kos will be disappointed to once again come up short, but it is
time for the left to finally realize that they are all but mere mortals
in the presence of George Bush, who is himself of the flesh of the holy
and the almighty. I sure know that I would be honored to be eaten by a
man of such faith. George Bush truly works in mysterious ways, but we
must never forget that he is always motivated by his vision for the
betterment of mankind. To his critics I say to you, If eating a baby is
what it's going to take to improve mankind and reclaim this land from
the liberal fascists of the world who wish to destroy her, I say, "pass
the butter Mr. President".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lazarus" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal hypocrisy, lying on Gannon issue |
28 Feb 2005 10:19:21 AM |
|
|
<gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote...
Greg Bernath wrote:
Sergeant America <sergeant_america@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ann Coulter nails 'em with the facts again!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43011
Now the media is hot on the trail of a gay escort service that
Gannon may have run some years ago. Are we supposed to like
gay people now, or hate them? Is there a website where I can go
to and find out how the Democrats want me to feel about gay
people on a moment-to-moment basis?
Given that the liberals pounced on this story long before the gayness
angle broke, it appears that, as usual, Coulter is lying her skanky
***** off.
Oh Baby
by Ann Coulter
Well can you believe the latest tizzy the left has gotten itself into
since it was discovered recently, that the President was discovered to
have allegedly feasted on the flesh of an infant?
Ann Coulter is a lying *****. Anyone who takes her seriously should be
involuntarily committed to a maximum security psychiatric hospital and not
allowed access to anything sharper than oatmeal.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: Liberal hypocrisy, lying on Gannon issue |
25 Feb 2005 12:14:02 PM |
|
|
Sergeant America wrote:
Ann Coulter nails 'em with the facts again!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43011
[...]
Now the media is hot on the trail of a gay escort service that Gannon
may have run some years ago. Are we supposed to like gay people now,
or
hate them? Is there a website where I can go to and find out how the
Democrats want me to feel about gay people on a moment-to-moment
basis?
Well, maybe Ann should just assume that the gayness of an individual is
something that Democrats feel is irrelevant to whether you are supposed
to like him or her. I'd be interested to see where 'the media is hot on
the trail', though. Strangely silent in the media world. Not like when
the soldier asking embarrassing questions was 'outed' on the front
pages of all the papers as having talked with the media beforehand.
But Dowd was talking about two different passes without telling her
readers (a process now known in journalism schools as
"Dowdification").
Gannon didn't have a permanent pass; he had only a daily pass. Almost
anyone can get a daily pass - even famed Times fantasist Maureen
Dowd
could have gotten one of those. A daily pass and a permanent pass are
altogether different animals. The entire linchpin of Dowd's column
was a
lie.
So, Osama might be hiding in the press room right now, with a daily
pass. Wow. And, if you can't get a permanent pass with your fake name
(Gannon was rejected for a permanent press pass last year by the
Standing Committee of Correspondents who oversee such things. You'd
think the White House security would have noticed.), you can just keep
getting daily passes one after another after another after another, for
two years. Anybody else doing that? And not only that, your daily pass
gets you access to documents that expose a CIA operative's identity.
Seems like the White House War On Terror security could be improved. Of
course, there is also the slight inconsistency, in that Gannon's first
recorded question was on Feb. 28, 2003, and his 'employer' Talon News
wasn't created until March 2003. Aren't you supposed to actually at
least pretend to be be employed by a news organization that actually at
least pretends to exist, even to get just a daily pass? Could it be
that somebody in the White House decided to bend the security rules and
give Gannon **special** access for some reason?
Finally, liberals expressed shock and dismay that Gannon's real name
is
"James Guckert." On MSNBC's "Hardball," Chris Matthews introduced the
Gannon scandal this way: "Coming up, how did a fake news reporter
from a
right-wing website get inside the White House press briefings and
presidential news conferences?"
Not catching on that letting folks get into the White House by giving
false names and claiming to work for nonexistent organizations might be
problematic?
Reporter David Shuster then gave a report on "the phony alias Guckert
used to play journalist" - as opposed to the real name Shuster uses
to
play journalist. (You can tell Schuster is a crackerjack journalist
because he uses phrases like "phony alias.") With all the subtlety of
a
gay-bashing skinhead, Matthews spent the rest of the segment seeing
how
many times he could smear Gannon by mentioning "HotMilitaryStuds.com"
and laughing.
As distinct to Coulter 'joking' (so her supporters claim, can't tell
from her aberrant body language) that the military should target
journalists, or that McVeigh should have targeted the NYTimes. I guess
you can tell the right from the left by the body count of their jokes.
Liberals keep telling us the media isn't liberal, but in order to
retaliate for the decimation of major news organizations like the New
York Times, CBS News and CNN, all they can do is produce the scalp of
an
obscure writer for an unknown conservative Web page.
Missing the entire point: that somebody in the White House decided it
was OK to allow a gay hooker to pose as a reporter, in order to lob
softball proadministration questions at press conferences, in order to
make the administration look good and to accuse real reporters of
parroting the Democrat line 'divorced from reality', while he just
piped GOP documents directly into his 'column'. Certainly Ann wouldn't
find any ethical problems, but it's amazing that she can't even muster
up a thought that there might just possibly be the slightest security
problem with allowing prostitutes who lie about their identity access
to classified documents during wartime, at least without even
attempting to check their security clearance.
Not to mention how the 'Cheney's sources must be kept secret' 'gay
marriage is a threat to the family' party has no problem hiring gay
prostitutes to push their agenda, let alone punish an opponent by
disclosing that their spouse works for the CIA.
Of course, the White House with its faith in the goodness of people was
pretty much just relying on the trustworthiness and integrity of a gay
prostitute who would, for cash, write articles as a born again
christian about how homosexuality is immoral and homosexuals do not
deserve any leniency or acceptance of their immoral lifestyle (while
still keeping his night job). Hey, free enterprise, right? If he's
selling, they're buying. Hell of a lot cheaper than buying Armstrong
Williams, Maggie Gallagher, Michael McManus, all those real
journalists. See, it's just the administration Saving Your Tax
Dollars!!
And of course, Ann already has said that the liberals hate hypocrisy
too much, so she doesn't have to waste time defending hypocrisy any
further.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
