I and others have been having a little debate with a blogger named “Another perspective” an avowed Neocon and he has brought up issues in another post that I think we would all like to discuss with him and he is willing to engage in this debate. He has given me permission to post his comment.
This was lifted from the Gannon Gukert diary yesterday :
and several other posters had engaged with him on these issues and then this morning I wrote a post and he responded. So I am just going to post my comment, then his response and invite you all to discuss and inform each other.
I think you have this all wrong though it may appear to be the way you are assessing.
We just came off a long and frustrating presidential campaign, that was filled with all kinds of problems from voter fraud to Swift Boat veterans for untruth.
Our candidate (and candidates) was pounded relentlessly in the media all during that period, with the most emphasis paid to Swift Boat stories, flip, flopping, he said this, and he said that reg.Kerry, etc. Purple band aids were even handed out at the Rep. Campaign. You know the story.
This pounding and smearing continued after the election and then we had to deal with a fraudulent election, yes a fraudulent election, see Black Box voting for details.
Everywhere we turned Republicans were gloating, said you lost, your done, get over it you lost, and continued smearing our representative and us.
We could not even feel truly safe from attack even in the white house press conference, and we noticed when this guy got to ask his loaded question.
We took notice and sought to find out about this guy and why he was able to even ask such a question with such a biased premise. “Divorced from reality,” was the last straw in a long series of unfair misrepresentations of the Dem side.
Because we feel that Bush and Co. are the ones divorced from reality and cannot for one second understand how everyone does not see that. Yet here someone in the press conference with the President is asking this most unprofessional question, that is once again casting Dems in a bad light and this is the Presidents Press Conference.
I don’t think anyone following this story ever expected that the story would turn out this way, but it did. WE did not go looking for a sex connection, it was already there.
We found this pretty suspicious that someone with such a checkered past, and no history of journalism, no established newspaper or outlet behind him, could in these times of greatest security surrounding the President and every move he makes, even be within 10 miles of the Pres.
We mobilized in the effort to turn the stone over on the story and find the bugs beneath, many of us did endless hours of research to find the truth. We organized and formed a group just to deal with this issue. Thousands and thousands of hours of research went into this. and a new blog was born.
So this story is not about Jeff Gannon and sex, this story is about what the hell is going on in the White House that could even allow this man to have access to the President. Especially in light of the fact that Dems. could not even get into Bush town Hall meetings, during campaign.
We think we are fighting to save this country (and the world)and the american people from the gross ineptitude of this whole administration. We cannot understand why Republicans do not see these things as problems and continue to support a President who clearly in his public representation has no clue. Sure he can read prepared speeches, but can he speak without a written speech, we have found over and over that he cannot.
So I ask you, how you can support such a man.”
Another Perspective’s response:
“”We cannot understand why Republicans do not see these things as problems and continue to support a President who clearly in his public representation has no clue. Sure he can read prepared speeches, but can he speak without a written speech, we have found over and over that he cannot.””
(So I ask you, how you can support such a man.), my comment in post.(editor note)
Quite simply: because I’ve met the man, I’ve had a discussion with him about his stand on some issues, and he expressed it just fine for me. He’s not dumb, he just doesn’t know how to handle himself in front of a camera for some reason.
Now, on the Gannon thing, yeah, I did follow a lot of it as it was unfolding. And again, I think you’ve shown a lot of smoke, but no fire aside from personal attacks on the guy. I still want to know what qualifies someone for a job in journalism.
I want to know how you think the media was attacking Kerry by reporting on the Swift Boat Veterans, but not once asking him why he would not sign a form 180, and allowing him to say “my military records have been released,” when to this very day they still have not been.
I want to know what you think of that in comparison with a 60 minutes report that released FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS and then had its anchor say “well, that’s ok because we were getting at the truth anyway.” Whatever you think of the Swifties, they didn’t falsify evidence, or reproduce the falsified evidence created by others.
You were upset by the fact that someone in the White House Press Room asked a biased question–that’s fine. So where was the outrage when the same thing happened again a few weeks later? What am I talking about? Read this.
You see, the Kossacks (and apparently a lot of people on this site) don’t care about the principle of it, as you made clear with the direction of your questions for me. You care about bringing down the President, and anyone who isn’t working for that is an enemy.
I want to know, why aren’t you bothered that Kerry had his discharge status changed by Carter, after he was elected to the Senate? And that he promised to sign that form, and still hasn’t done so, despite the fact that every single Swiftie who served in Vietnam has done so?
Because, whether you want to face it or not, you’re partisans. You won’t criticize your guy, because Bush is the prime enemy. I understand that—a unified line is a strong thing. But don’t try to pretend this is about principle.
When you find some evidence of a White House patron, then we’ll talk. Until then, this is a guy who had a shady past, and made a concerted effort to clean it up. He was very successful, and went far quickly. And your only objection is that he’s on the opposite side of the aisle.
One more thing, and then I have to run to class: what would have happened if a liberal had asked a tough question of the President (something like Elizabeth’s in the link above), the Right had investigated and found out that he was gay and used to be an escort, and the White House had banned him from the Press Room?
Quite simply: the ACLU would be all over it, and Kossacks would use it as evidence of a bias against homosexuals. But when the kossacks do it, it’s principled, right?”
So debate away.