GG writes today on his blog:
March 16, 2005Then follows up with this:
Congress takes up Gannongate today in a House Judiciary Committee markup of H. Res. 136. Democrats are demanding in effect, that the White House be required to more thoroughly investigate ANY AND ALL journalists who request access to the White House briefing room. TUNE IN
March 16, 2005James, you were a paid whore. I don't have a problem with you being a paid whore, but in this country, because of people with your arch-puritanical political beliefs, it's a crime. You were committing a crime, running a criminal enterprise, and expected to be granted access to the president of the United States in war time (well, and got that access). Had a gay hooker been found in the Clinton White House, crack journalist James Guckert would be all over the story, quoting 6 religious right news sources and calling the whore a "homosexual."
"Does the White House want greater powers to more thoroughly investigate any and all journalists that ask to attend press briefings?"
The second point you fail to grasp is that no one is asking the White House to run STRICTER background checks on journalists. We're simply asking that they apply the same security standard for all journalists who want regular access to the White House. Currently, male prostitute republican journalists get to have regular access to the White House without undergoing a 3-month FBI background check. While non-male-prostitute non-conservative journalists DO have to undergo the 3-month background check. We'd like to know why the discrepancy? Did the male prostitute know people on the inside who let him in without the necessary security check, or what?
Until you can explain how you got regular access to the White House for 2 years and NEVER had to undergo the kind of 3-month FBI background check that OTHER regular-access-for-two-years journalists had to go through, we're going to keep asking why you got special favors that enabled you to circumvent White House security during wartime. Did someone in the White House choose to let the male prostitute regularly circumvent security for two yeaers during wartime, or was it a major screw up that went on for two years and was never caught? Either way, it's a problem.
Perhaps some day, some real journalist in the mainstream media will do the obvious story:
1. How does the White House decide which journalists can get access with a day pass and which journalists need to apply for a hard pass? What's the standard for determining who has to apply for which pass, and what's the rationale for requiring a much higher level of scrutiny (i.e., a 3-month FBI background check) for journalists who want a hard pass, as compared to the much lesser scrutiny required of journalists requesting a day pass (which only requires a quick on-the-spot Secret Service social security number check to make sure you're not a criminal)?
2. How does the White House justify giving Guckert de facto hard-pass access to the White House even though he simply had a day-pass? The question is hardly esoteric. Day-pass access requires little more than a quick Secret Service check to make sure you're not a criminal. Hard-pass access requires a 3-month FBI background check. There is clearly a different threat perception of hard-pass journalists vs. day-pass journalists.
3. Why did the White House let Guckert essentially get around security? Did someone choose to let him in, and if so, why? Or was it a major security screw up?
