Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Story that the mainstream media refuses to cover

  1. #1
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    295
    Post Thanks / Like
    Rep. Slaughter Calls on Special Prosecutor to Investigate Gannon's Role in Plame CIA Document Leak Scandal


    Reps. Slaughter & Conyers Call on Special Prosecutor and
    Secret Service to Investigate Growing Gannon Scandal


    Washington, DC - Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (NY-28), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Rules, and Rep. John Conyers (MI-14), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, called on Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the leaking of a classified Central Intelligence Agency memo containing the identity of undercover agent Valerie Plame to a man at the center of the White House Press Briefing Room scandal, "Jeff Gannon."

    Rep. Slaughter, a long-time advocate for media reform and accountability, brought this story into the national spotlight days ago when she wrote President Bush asking for an investigation into the issue.

    [b]"This matter is growing more serious by the day. We now know that 'Jeff Gannon' had access to classified CIA documents that contained the identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. This is more than an issue of media manipulation by the White House... this is now an issue of national security," said Rep. Slaughter. "What is the White House hiding? This man, Mr. Gannon, should never have been admitted into the White House briefing room in the first place. Someone let him in day after day. Someone gave him access to classified CIA documents. Someone must answer for this. It is critical that we uncover the exact nature of the relationship between Gannon and this White House," added Slaughter."[/b]

    In addition, Reps. Slaughter and Conyers wrote W. Ralph Basham, Director of the Secret Service, calling on his office to provide details on the security clearance of day pass holders in the White House briefing room as well as any and all information they can provide on Mr. Gannon.

    "White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was unable to answer these important questions in yesterday's briefing so we hope the Secret Service will be able to fill in the blanks," said Slaughter. "Since the White House has denied any role or responsibility in this matter I hope the Secret Service can shed some light on their procedures for clearing day pass holders to the White House briefing room," continued Slaughter.

    The letters follow:

    February 10, 2005
    Mr. Patrick J. Fitzgerald
    United States Attorney
    US Attorney's Office
    219 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 5000
    Chicago, IL 60656

    Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:

    We write to ask that you investigate the leak of a classified Central Intelligence Agency memo containing the identity of undercover agent Valerie Plame to James D. Guckert, a member of the White House press corps. It appears that the White House was so focused on smearing the reputation of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, that it knowingly leaked his wife's identity to a [u]Republican activist posing as a journalist. [/u]
    [b]James D. Guckert, who operated under the false name "Jeff Gannon," and may have engaged in criminal activity, had been attending press events at the White House for up to three years. Mr. Guckert reportedly received an internal and classified CIA memo that revealed the identity of Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife. Because of the extremely sensitive nature of this leak, and its relation to the investigation you are conducting, we believe that you as special counsel are the most appropriate person to conduct the inquiry. [/b]
    Under Department of Justice regulations, a special counsel should investigate when (1) a "criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted," (2) the investigation "by a United States Attorney Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department," and (3) "it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter."1 In the present case all three factors have been met.

    As has been long discussed, revealing the identity of an undercover agent violates myriad laws. Whoever in the Administration gave Mr. Guckert the memo risked Ms. Plame's very life and must be punished to the full extent of the law.

    There is a clear conflict of interest in the Administration investigating Mr. Guckert's role in this crime. Mr. Guckert and the White House press operation work together closely to forward the President's policies.

    First, Mr. Guckert would not be considered a bona fide journalist by his peers in the press corps, as most of his claims to legitimacy have already been discredited. Access to the President and his press corps is highly competitive, and many seasoned journalists have not had the honor of attending the events or enjoying the access Mr. Guckert has. That a person of these dubious qualifications was given such close contact to the President, perhaps in violation of standard security procedures, demonstrates the Administration's affinity for and bias towards Mr. Guckert.

    Second, Mr. Guckert's questions clearly reiterated the White House's policy, and simply asked for concurrence. Finally, Mr. Guckert's "articles," published by a news front for GOPUSA, track White House talking points word for word.

    Clearly, Mr. Guckert returned the White House's favor by advancing the President's policies with gusto. With such a close relationship between Mr. Guckert and the White House, the conflict of an administration-led investigation is all too apparent.

    Finally, the public interest has been thwarted far too long over the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. It has been over a year and a half since Robert Novak published Plame's identity and we are no closer to finding who in the Administration illegally leaked her status as an undercover agent. Having a special counsel immediately follow up this lead is necessary to ensure that those who risk their lives for our country to gather intelligence are fully protected.

    We look forward to hearing whether you will be following up on this new information, or if you have, what progress you have made.

    Sincerely,

    Louise Slaughter John Conyers, Jr.


    Ranking Member, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Rules Committee on Judiciary




    February 10, 2005

    W. Ralph Basham, Director
    United States Secret Service
    950 H Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20223

    Dear Director Basham:

    We write to inquire about the process you employ to clear individuals for attendance at events within a close proximity of the President. [b]We have recently become aware that a Republican activist, with a potential criminal past, gained access to the White House press briefing room and Presidential press conferences and was allowed to work under an assumed name. This appears to contradict the strict standards you have set for protecting the President in the past and have applied to others seeking access to the White House or the President.

    It has recently been revealed that James D. Guckert has been repeatedly cleared by your office to attend White House press briefings over the last several years. He was, however, allowed to operate under an assumed name, which we understand to be contrary to your usual policies. That he may be engaged in illegal activity only heightens our concern.

    We are concerned that such an individual was allowed within a few feet of the President when the public is routinely disallowed any possible contact with either the President or the White House. We understand that your security policies are developed in conjunction with the White House and want to ascertain your respective roles in this decision as it appears to deviate significantly from heightened security measures you have employed recently. [/b]
    While we appreciate the extremely difficult task you are assigned to, we are concerned about these discrepancies. For this reason, we ask the following questions:

    * What standards do you impose on those who are granted access to the President and the White House Briefing Room? [i]Do you routinely allow guests to use false names?[/i]
    * Were those standards applied to Mr. Guckert? If not, why, and at whose request?

    * This afternoon, the White House Press Secretary denied any responsibility for determining who is granted clearance into the White House Briefing Room. What individual or agency is responsible for requesting that the Secret Service conduct a security clearance for individuals or members of the media who wish to enter the White House Briefing Room?

    * What are the security qualifications for granting "permanent" White House press corps credentials and how do they differ from those of a simple day pass?

    * When someone is cleared for a daily pass, are they required to be cleared each time they return on subsequent visits to the White House Briefing Room, as in the case of Mr. Guckert, who returned frequently for up to two years?

    * How many daily passes are issued for White House briefings and Presidential press conferences at one time? Is there a limit in place for security or other reasons?

    * Who has the authority, if at all, to exempt an individual or member of the media from security clearance by the Secret Service in order to gain access to the White House Briefing Room?

    * How many times and on what days was Mr. Guckert cleared by the Secret Service into the White House, and at whose request?

    Thank you in advance your prompt attention and response to this matter.

    Sincerely,



    Louise Slaughter John Conyers, Jr.


    Ranking Member, Ranking Member,
    Committee on Rules Committee on Judiciary

  2. #2
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    why isn't the MSM talking about Heil Howard's remarks insinuating that blacks are nothing more then hotel workers?

  3. #3
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 04:43 PM
    [b] why isn't the MSM talking about Heil Howard's remarks insinuating that blacks are nothing more then hotel workers? [/b][/quote]
    Oddly, I don't see the Howard Dean report on FOXNews.com today, usually a staunch advocate of Conservative News. :blink:

    CBTNY, can you please post some link to his quoted comments (in their entirety, please, no strategic soundbites if you please) so those of us who have not heard them can judge them ourselves.

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish+Feb 16 2005, 04:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Warfish @ Feb 16 2005, 04:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Come Back to NY[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 04:43 PM
    [b] why isn&#39;t the MSM talking about Heil Howard&#39;s remarks insinuating that blacks are nothing more then hotel workers? [/b][/quote]
    Oddly, I don&#39;t see the Howard Dean report on FOXNews.com today, usually a staunch advocate of Conservative News. :blink:

    CBTNY, can you please post some link to his quoted comments (in their entirety, please, no strategic soundbites if you please) so those of us who have not heard them can judge them ourselves. [/b][/quote]
    [url=http://www.jetsinsider.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=43659]http://www.jetsinsider.com/forums/index.ph...showtopic=43659[/url]

  5. #5
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    295
    Post Thanks / Like
    Apparently no one wants to deal with story....

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by NYJet94[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 05:46 PM
    [b] Apparently no one wants to deal with story.... [/b][/quote]
    No one ever does when it&#39;s a Democrat. (See ex-Kleagle Sen. Byrd of W. Virginia, Democrat - referred to &#39;White Niggers&#39; in a speech on the floor. Nice touch.)

    In Dean&#39;s defense, the black population in Vermont is miniscule. You do not &#39;blame&#39; the governor for that. Or anyone.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    please have some dam respect for the forum&#33;

    before anyone will waste their time reading any article -

    we all need a link to the source so we can bash the crap out of whatever they have printed for the last 30 years -

    also we need to know who wrote it, what their military history is, a credit check, 2 forms of ID, plus a hand written recommendation from my religious leader of choice before i will read anything

    if this is not provided in the very first post the right wing has no choice but to change the subject&#33; maybe talk about Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton&#39;s cigars or even howard Dean&#33;

    this is common knowledge&#33;&#33;

  8. #8
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    295
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by sackdance+Feb 16 2005, 08:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (sackdance @ Feb 16 2005, 08:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-NYJet94[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 05:46 PM
    [b] Apparently no one wants to deal with story.... [/b][/quote]
    No one ever does when it&#39;s a Democrat. (See ex-Kleagle Sen. Byrd of W. Virginia, Democrat - referred to &#39;White Niggers&#39; in a speech on the floor. Nice touch.)

    In Dean&#39;s defense, the black population in Vermont is miniscule. You do not &#39;blame&#39; the governor for that. Or anyone. [/b][/quote]
    Do you even understand what this story is about?

    For one second forget labels, forget what party you are with. READ THE FREAKING STORY FOR CHRISSAKES&#33;&#33;

    Don&#39;t try to confuse the issue by bringing up irrelevant issues. I am not talking about someone making outrageous statements. I am talking about at the least serious ethical breach and at worst criminal behavior.

    Simply read the article and ask youself this question? How the hell did this guy get "favored status" in the White House Press Corp.

    For the love of God just think for yourself&#33;

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by NYJet94+Feb 16 2005, 06:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (NYJet94 @ Feb 16 2005, 06:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by sackdance@Feb 16 2005, 08:12 PM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin-NYJet94[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 05:46 PM
    [b] Apparently no one wants to deal with story.... [/b][/quote]
    No one ever does when it&#39;s a Democrat. (See ex-Kleagle Sen. Byrd of W. Virginia, Democrat - referred to &#39;White Niggers&#39; in a speech on the floor. Nice touch.)

    In Dean&#39;s defense, the black population in Vermont is miniscule. You do not &#39;blame&#39; the governor for that. Or anyone. [/b][/quote]
    Do you even understand what this story is about?

    For one second forget labels, forget what party you are with. READ THE FREAKING STORY FOR CHRISSAKES&#33;&#33;

    Don&#39;t try to confuse the issue by bringing up irrelevant issues. I am not talking about someone making outrageous statements. I am talking about at the least serious ethical breach and at worst criminal behavior.

    Simply read the article and ask youself this question? How the hell did this guy get "favored status" in the White House Press Corp.

    For the love of God just think for yourself&#33; [/b][/quote]
    Of course I do. The Guckert/Gannon fiasco. It&#39;s the new Vietnam.

    Your issues to impeach Bush wane monthly.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    461
    Post Thanks / Like
    Never trust a Republican

  11. #11
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    295
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by sackdance+Feb 16 2005, 08:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (sackdance @ Feb 16 2005, 08:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by NYJet94@Feb 16 2005, 06:22 PM
    [b] [quote]Originally posted by sackdance@Feb 16 2005, 08:12 PM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin-NYJet94[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 05:46 PM
    [b] Apparently no one wants to deal with story.... [/b][/quote]
    No one ever does when it&#39;s a Democrat. (See ex-Kleagle Sen. Byrd of W. Virginia, Democrat - referred to &#39;White Niggers&#39; in a speech on the floor. Nice touch.)

    In Dean&#39;s defense, the black population in Vermont is miniscule. You do not &#39;blame&#39; the governor for that. Or anyone. [/b][/quote]
    Do you even understand what this story is about?

    For one second forget labels, forget what party you are with. READ THE FREAKING STORY FOR CHRISSAKES&#33;&#33;

    Don&#39;t try to confuse the issue by bringing up irrelevant issues. I am not talking about someone making outrageous statements. I am talking about at the least serious ethical breach and at worst criminal behavior.

    Simply read the article and ask youself this question? How the hell did this guy get "favored status" in the White House Press Corp.

    For the love of God just think for yourself&#33; [/b][/quote]
    Of course I do. The Guckert/Gannon fiasco. It&#39;s the new Vietnam.

    Your issues to impeach Bush wane monthly. [/b][/quote]
    What ever Dude. No one has brought up impeachment but you. As long as the house and senate are controlled by Republicans that will not happen.

    That doesn&#39;t mean this isn&#39;t scandal in the making. Of course, judging by the mainstream media reaction (including the so-called liberal media) it may never get the exposure it deserves. [b]There definitely needs to be an investigation as to how someone using a fake name, with no real credentials, could become a member of the white house press corp. especially one who gets called on repeating by Press Secy McCellan and Bush himself, to ask softball questions while bashing Democrats. [/b]
    [u] (The fact that he is a Gay prostitute who ran three different gay porn sites is another matter considering the holier the tho attitude of the Bush Adminstration.)[/u]

  12. #12
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,159
    Post Thanks / Like
    George Bush must be so thankful that you&#39;re so concerned with his safety&#33;


    But what about that Iraq war thing, you know with Abu Gharib and all? Have liberals switched tactics from quagmire to gay reporters? Sounds like another winning Democratic strategy to me.

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by JetsMetsIsles[/i]@Feb 16 2005, 06:42 PM
    [b] Never trust a Republican [/b][/quote]
    [SIZE=3][b]HEIL HOWARD&#33;[/b][/SIZE]

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,281
    Post Thanks / Like
    What&#39;s going on with Sandy Berger? Why is this guy not sharing a cell with John Walker Lindh?

    They could play dingle dangle dingle with each other&#39;s meat puppet.

  15. #15
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    295
    Post Thanks / Like
    As I said, NO ONE wants to deal with the substance of this thread...

  16. #16
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by NYJet94[/i]@Feb 17 2005, 12:28 PM
    [b] As I said, NO ONE wants to deal with the substance of this thread... [/b][/quote]
    I have....you just fail to see the hypocrisy of your party as, while they want to call a special committee because a journalist may have had access to CIA documents, (not a crime) they become deaf, blind and eternally dumb when a federal offense is committed by one of their own...in this case Sandy Berger trying to steal classified memos.

    When you can come with more then pure speculation that a crime was committed then it is time to debate.

    Wasting time on liberal rhetoric who turn away from obvious infractions of the law and coperate with liberal media outlets such as Viacom, using false documents to impune the President of the Unite States is ridiculous.

  17. #17
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    295
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY+Feb 17 2005, 02:42 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Come Back to NY @ Feb 17 2005, 02:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-NYJet94[/i]@Feb 17 2005, 12:28 PM
    [b] As I said, NO ONE wants to deal with the substance of this thread... [/b][/quote]
    I have....you just fail to see the hypocrisy of your party as, while they want to call a special committee because a journalist may have had access to CIA documents, (not a crime) they become deaf, blind and eternally dumb when a federal offense is committed by one of their own...in this case Sandy Berger trying to steal classified memos.

    When you can come with more then pure speculation that a crime was committed then it is time to debate.

    Wasting time on liberal rhetoric who turn away from obvious infractions of the law and coperate with liberal media outlets such as Viacom, using false documents to impune the President of the Unite States is ridiculous. [/b][/quote]
    Sorry but the outing of Valerie Plame is crime and we are getting closer and closer to just who was responsible. If you want to debate Sandy Berger then start another thread. I refuse to be hi-jacked into another discussion.

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by NYJet94+Feb 17 2005, 12:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (NYJet94 &#064; Feb 17 2005, 12:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by Come Back to NY@Feb 17 2005, 02:42 PM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin-NYJet94[/i]@Feb 17 2005, 12:28 PM
    [b] As I said, NO ONE wants to deal with the substance of this thread... [/b][/quote]
    I have....you just fail to see the hypocrisy of your party as, while they want to call a special committee because a journalist may have had access to CIA documents, (not a crime) they become deaf, blind and eternally dumb when a federal offense is committed by one of their own...in this case Sandy Berger trying to steal classified memos.

    When you can come with more then pure speculation that a crime was committed then it is time to debate.

    Wasting time on liberal rhetoric who turn away from obvious infractions of the law and coperate with liberal media outlets such as Viacom, using false documents to impune the President of the Unite States is ridiculous. [/b][/quote]
    Sorry but the outing of Valerie Plame is crime and we are getting closer and closer to just who was responsible. If you want to debate Sandy Berger then start another thread. I refuse to be hi-jacked into another discussion. [/b][/quote]
    hijacked into another discussion or unwilling to face the truth?

    again- it is nothing more then mere speculation on the part of liberals that this guy was the one who "outed" Plume "this man MAY have committed a crime" to quote from your post)...it is a known fact that she being a CIA agent was the worst kept secret in DC.

    When you have more then mere speculation and rhetoric that this guy is guilty of a crime, or for that matter the WH has broken the law, then your posts will hold water- until then the stories you post are nothing more then pissing in the wind and pure bullsh&#33;t.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    94 - They did cover this story, back when Plame&#39;s husband was an ostensibly credible person and back when they thought this story could damage Bush&#39;s chances for re-election. Since her husband&#39;s story has been soundly rebutted by the 9-11 comission itself, and his credibility is completely shot due to his testimony therein, and the fact that the election is over, all produce a climate in which no one really cares anymore - coupled with the fact that Plame is hardly a field operative who is in danger now that her identity is known. The story just isn&#39;t as sexy as it once was.

    You are right, however, that it needs to be investigated and is a crime. Those reasons above may or may or may not be valid reasons for this story to be on the backburner. However, you appear to be cherry-picking your outrage over crimes that are not covered. Bringing up Sandy Berger is relevant. You would have more credibility if you had agreed also that his conduct should be investigated and covered by the MSM and that it was a crime and all. You did not - you simply want to stay on this narrow topic. One could easily accuse you of failing to deal with the substance of the Berger issue. Round and round we go.

    Tons of stories are not covered that [i]should[/i] be. Ones that damage the GOP, ones that damage the Dems. You are right that the Plame crime should be investigated and is serious and there should be consequences for the people involved, however. I cannot argue with that.

  20. #20
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    295
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Feb 17 2005, 03:15 PM
    [b] 94 - They did cover this story, back when Plame&#39;s husband was an ostensibly credible person and back when they thought this story could damage Bush&#39;s chances for re-election. Since her husband&#39;s story has been soundly rebutted by the 9-11 comission itself, and his credibility is completely shot due to his testimony therein, and the fact that the election is over, all produce a climate in which no one really cares anymore - coupled with the fact that Plame is hardly a field operative who is in danger now that her identity is known. The story just isn&#39;t as sexy as it once was.

    You are right, however, that it needs to be investigated and is a crime. Those reasons above may or may or may not be valid reasons for this story to be on the backburner. However, you appear to be cherry-picking your outrage over crimes that are not covered. Bringing up Sandy Berger is relevant. You would have more credibility if you had agreed also that his conduct should be investigated and covered by the MSM and that it was a crime and all. You did not - you simply want to stay on this narrow topic. One could easily accuse you of failing to deal with the substance of the Berger issue. Round and round we go.

    Tons of stories are not covered that [i]should[/i] be. Ones that damage the GOP, ones that damage the Dems. You are right that the Plame crime should be investigated and is serious and there should be consequences for the people involved, however. I cannot argue with that. [/b][/quote]
    I am not talking about just the Plame affair, but the ethics and legality behind having someone like Gannon or whatever his real name is receive white house
    press passes day after day. How did even rate such access in the first place?
    Who authorized it and why? It is bad enough this administration is trying to buy favorable coverage if it&#39;s policies (Armstrong Williams and two other journalists received what amounts to payola.) but this takes media minipulation to an entirely new level and those who say it is just business as usual don&#39;t seem to get it.

    Oh and by the way, Berger should also be investigated.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us