Locomotive Mule

Records: Writer at White House 196 Times (Gannongate)

April 25, 2005

Scott McClellan
Assistant to the President and Press Secretary
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. McClellan,

We write to ask you to identify who in your office, or in the White House generally, gave Mr. James Guckert a.k.a. “Jeff Gannon” virtually unfettered access to the White House. In reviewing the response to our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to the Department of Homeland Security several of our specific concerns were validated. While your office and the White House have claimed Gannon was treated as just another reporter, the records we have obtained affirm that Gannon was granted access to the White House which appears to be unusual for any reporter. Out of concern for not only security, but also avoiding White House dissemination of propaganda, we request an explanation to the following:

1. The Department of Homeland Security’s records indicate that Mr. “Gannon” entered the White House Complex 196 times in the past two years. He attended 155 of the 196 press conferences held at the White House in the two year period. This is disconcerting considering that your office and “Mr. Gannon” have maintained that his access was sporadic. At what point is a “hard pass” required?

2. The records show that Mr. “Gannon” was allowed access to the White House 38 times when no public press events occurred. He also spent hours in the White House both before and after press events took place. With whom did he meet on those occasions and what was the subject matter of those meetings?

3. On 13 occasions there is a record where he checked in with security, but is never registered as leaving the White House complex. How do you explain this?

4. Your Media Assistant, Lois Cassano, requested a total of 48 day passes for Mr. “Gannon” which helped facilitate his access for nearly 200 times over the last two years. It is nearly impossible that she would have made Gannon such a priority without direction from a supervisor. Would you like to revise your claim that, “I don’t involve myself in that process, it’s handled at a staff level."[1]

These records appear to confirm our concern that Gannon was treated in a manner that deviated from standard White House procedure for determining who receives press credentials, and to what degree members of the press and public are granted access to the White House complex. In fact, these entry and exit records only raise more questions, as your office has issued conflicting statements about his activities and apparently abused the press pass policy to avoid a full-fledged background investigation and allow Republican propaganda to be disseminated through a counterfeit media operation and a fake reporter.

Mr. McClellan, we have yet to receive any direct communication from your office in response to our repeated requests for information. The American people deserve to know what is happening in the White House Briefing room. It is unacceptable that you continue to deny them this information.

Sincerely,

/s

Rep. Louise Slaughter
Ranking Member
House Rules Committee

Rep. John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
House Judiciary Committee

Well. I guess we’re gonna find out just how well Scotty can dance with his own problems. Can he dodge and deflect on his own behalf? Stay tuned…..

The Bush Administration punishes some Democrat backers

The Inter-American Telecommunication Commission meets three times a year in various cities across the Americas to discuss such dry but important issues as telecommunications standards and spectrum regulations. But for this week’s meeting in Guatemala City, politics has barged onto the agenda. At least four of the two dozen or so U.S. delegates selected for the meeting, sources tell TIME, have been bumped by the White House because they supported John Kerry’s 2004 campaign.

The State Department has traditionally put together a list of industry representatives for these meetings, and anyone in the U.S. telecom industry who had the requisite expertise and wanted to go was generally given a slot, say past participants. Only after the start of Bush’s second term did a political litmus test emerge, industry sources say.

The White House admits as much: “We wanted people who would represent the Administration positively, and–call us nutty–it seemed like those who wanted to kick this Administration out of town last November would have some difficulty doing that,” says White House spokesman Trent Duffy. Those barred from the trip include employees of Qualcomm and Nokia, two of the largest telecom firms operating in the U.S., as well as Ibiquity, a digital-radio-technology company in Columbia, Md. One nixed participant, who has been to many of these telecom meetings and who wants to remain anonymous, gave just $250 to the Democratic Party. Says Nokia vice president Bill Plummer: “We do not view sending experts to international meetings on telecom issues to be a partisan matter. We would welcome clarification from the White House.”

UN Investigator Who Exposed US Army Abuse Forced Out of His Job

The UN’s top human rights investigator in Afghanistan has been forced out under American pressure just days after he presented a report criticising the US military for detaining suspects without trial and holding them in secret prisons.

Cherif Bassiouni had needled the US military since his appointment a year ago, repeatedly trying, without success, to interview alleged Taliban and al-Qa’ida prisoners at the two biggest US bases in Afghanistan, Kandahar and Bagram.

Mr Bassiouni’s report had highlighted America’s policy of detaining prisoners without trial and lambasted coalition officials for barring independent human rights monitors from its bases.

Prisoners captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region are held at US bases, often before being shipped to Guantanamo Bay. Human Rights Watch called on Saturday for a US special prosecutor to investigate the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and Charles Tenet, the former-CIA director, for torture and abuse of detainees in jails around the world, including Abu Ghraib in Iraq. They should be held responsible under the doctrine of “command responsibility,” it said.

On Friday, the US army investigation into the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib cleared four out of five top officers of responsibility for the scandal which shocked the world when it broke a year ago. The only officer recommended for punishment is Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, who was in charge of Iraqi prisons at the time.

The UN eliminated Mr Bassiouni’s job last week after Washington had pressed for his mandate to be changed so that it would no longer cover the US military.

Just days earlier, the Egyptian-born law professor, now based in Chicago, had presented his criticisms in a 24-page report to the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.

The report, based on a year spent travelling around Afghanistan interviewing Afghans, international agency staff and the Afghan Human Rights Commission, estimated that around 1,000 Afghans had been detained and accused US troops of breaking into homes, arresting residents and abusing them.

In my many years on this planet I’ve learned that loyalty has its place, a very special place. Loyalty is one of those things that can’t be bought - it’s earned. On the other hand, a Golden Lab is loyal, stupidly loyal, and its loyalty is not deserving of respect because its given wothout respect.

Loyalty without respect is more degrading (to both parties) than a $2 blowjob. And those that equate purchased loyalty with earned loyalty are deserving of neither repsect not loyalty.

It’s obvious that Bush&Co. value loyalty above all else, but what they percieve as loyalty is the stupid, purchased kind. I doubt seriously whether they’d know real loyalty if it bit them in the ass.

Do you s’pose it’s a coincidence that Bush likes to give nick names to people? Just like he’s naming loyal dogs?

Press Briefing by Scott McClellan

Helen, go ahead.

Q In view of the Republican opposition to Bolton, is the President going to withdraw his nomination?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, the President, as he said earlier today, believes that John Bolton is the right person at the right time for this important position. There are many important priorities before the United Nations right now. And they are working to move forward on reforms, as well. John Bolton is someone who is committed, like the President, to making sure that the United Nations is an effective organization that gets things done. And John Bolton has a long, distinguished career of getting things done. He is someone who has been through the confirmation process before and been confirmed.

Q You don’t think his nomination is in peril, at all?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President believes he will be confirmed and he hopes that he will be confirmed as soon as possible. It is time for Senate Democrats to stop playing politics, and it is time for the Senate to confirm John Bolton so that he can get about doing the work of the United States at the United Nations.

Q You said the President was 100 percent in his backing of Bolton today. Can we infer from that, that the President simply doesn’t believe these allegations that have been made about Bolton, including the one from this woman who was an associate of Bolton? She claims he chased her around the hotel, was verbally abusive to her. Does the President simply not believe the allegations that are out there, or does he feel that whether they’re true or not, it’s so important to have Bolton at the U.N. that just – he should be confirmed?

MR. McCLELLAN: These are unsubstantiated accusations that Senate Democrats continue to bring up. They have been addressed by John Bolton in testimony before the Senate. He has testified for more than eight hours, including on issues of this nature. He has responded to a number of written questions that were in follow-up to that hearing, as well. It is time to move forward on his nomination, and the President wanted to make it clear today that the Senate needs to quit playing politics, and they need to move forward and confirm this person.

Q And the President simply does not believe the allegations.

MR. McCLELLAN: John, these are unsubstantiated accusations against John Bolton. John Bolton is a strong, effective diplomat who has a proven record of getting things done. If you look at his record, he has worked to help us move forward with Russia to agree to the Moscow Treaty, which will help us reduce our nuclear arsenal. He has worked on the efforts as the negotiator with Libya to get Libya to abandon its weapons of mass destruction program.

John Bolton is someone who has a long record of getting things done, and sometimes that’s going to make people mad when you are someone who gets things done. But the President believes he’s exactly the person we need at the United Nations. He has been an effective manager who has earned respect from many people that he has worked with.

One thing you can say for this bunch - they’re consistent: Deny the stuff you don’t like (true or not), or better yet, simply ignore it. Repeat frequently what you want to happen. And, most of all, slander those who oppose you.

The Crusaders

“Most people hear them talk about a ‘Christian nation’ and think, ‘Well, that sounds like a good, moral thing,’ says the Rev. Mel White, who ghostwrote Jerry Falwell’s autobiography before breaking with the evangelical movement. “What they don’t know – what even most conservative Christians who voted for Bush don’t know – is that ‘Christian nation’ means something else entirely to these Dominionist leaders. This movement is no more about following the example of Christ than Bush’s Clean Water Act is about clean water.”

“Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost,” Kennedy says. “As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors – in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.”

Scary? You betcha. Do most Christians believe and follow these people? I don’t think so, but they’ll allow them. The masses will tolerate and even support them because they’re “more pious” or “more devaout”. Yes, these anti-christs will grow in power and influence because they’ll prey on our guilt - our willingness to be lead by someone who “is closer to God than I”.

They’ll gain power because, they’re lying to us - flat out, bald faced lies. And the lies are just those that many people wanna hear. And no one will call ‘em on it because to do so is to be labeled ‘heretic’ - or worse.

It’s a two pronged attack: if you speak out against the political wing, you’re ‘unpatriotic’. Speak out against the religious wing and you’re ‘godless sodomite’.