Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I could swear I saw a more detailed WaPo article on Gannon here

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
freeplessinseattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-05 05:19 PM
Original message
I could swear I saw a more detailed WaPo article on Gannon here
Edited on Wed Apr-27-05 05:21 PM by freeplessinseattle
the other day that actually credited rawstory with breaking the story, and had more detailed info than the WaPo article I found from yesterday. does anyone remember this, too, or am I have I finally lost my mind? I really wanted this particular article to show to some certain people, all the other mainstreamish papers just have the little AP blurb that doesn't mention the sign-in/out discrepencies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dbeach Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-05 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Gannongate should be a huge story...Clinton impeached for much less...
"Gannon cannon " visted White House 196 times and sometimess did not sign out which is big security breach..

Like Rep. Cynthia McKinney
" Elementary my dear Watson....elementary"

http://www.rense.com/
http://www.rense.com/general64/gannonvisitsraiseissues.htm

"And that was before this bombshell from the Secret Service, which establishes Gannongate as, at worst, a massive national security scandal, at least a stunning propaganda scandal, and quite possibly--as The Advocate has been speculating longer than just about anyone, since February 16th--a homosexual sex scandal involving top members of the Bush Administration.

Only the light of inquiry will uncover the filth, graft, media manipulation, and possible criminal activity which undergirds this story.

So, any bets on whether the Moral Majority in Congress will be willing to investigate a gay hooker with a false name traipsing through the maximum-security White House without A) a care in the world, or B) any reason whatsoever to be there, particularly since he's claimed publicly (which we now know to be a lie) that no one in the Bush Administration did him any special favors? "



Too bad that the Main media is MIA {Missing in Action }on this huge story...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freeplessinseattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-05 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I just don't get, it's such a juicy story
you'd think even mainstream media would be chomping at the bit. I am so frustrated, if I had the money I 'd take out a TV ad or hire a skywriter! this sucks, maybe if Clinton gets po'd enough at the hypocrisy he'll push for coverage, he should be livid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbeach Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-05 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. OOPS..
Cannot find quote from Mc Kinney but she said WH had been penetrated..

Potential for sex scandal is large BUT what if gannon is soviet agent or chinese paid sabatoer..

gannon is a disgusting story of politics,favoritism, and possible much worse including blackmail and worse..I can't back my spin BUT this is being swept out of discussion when is should be discussed..
no one can ddirty the great baby bush and their american dynasty..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 20th 2024, 01:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC