Jim Guckert, an apparent former prostitute, had almost no journalistic experience when he started receiving daily press passes to enter the White House and participate in the daily press briefings. As far as the bloggeratti has revealed thus far, the organization he worked for before resigning last week (embarassed by revelations of his apparent sex practice), Talon News, had been in existence only days before he received his first White House pass, said to be April 3, 2003, or thereabouts.

 

But this post, in which someone brags about having asked a pro-war question at a February 28, 2003 White House press briefing, appears to have been made by Guckert under his psuedonym, Jeff Gannon. That would imply that Guckert was admitted into the White House even BEFORE his alleged news service existed. At that time, he done some "writing" over the preceding couple of months for what appears to be Talon's predecessor, Republican activist website GOPUSA.com News. "Writing" is to be used loosely in this case, however, as much of his reporting during that pre-Talon period consisted of cutting-and-pasting stories from other news outlets or GOP press releases.

 

(Would a "reporter" with almost no reporting experience, claiming he worked for a site called, oh, let's say, Democrats.com, be granted a pass to ask questions of the White House spokesman and President Bush himself?)

 

It is worth noting, though, that on March 10, 2003, he wrote an opinion article on the "other" case for overthrowing Saddam: torture. Which leads us to wonder whether Gannon, who seems to have first appeared at the White House just weeks before the war began, wasn't planted/permitted for the purpose of being the dedicated White House mouthpiece/interference-runner on the war.

 

Here are all of the press inquiries that were asked in that day's press conference, which appears to be one of Guckert's first White House appearances. Notice how Guckert's question, highlighted in red, differs in tone from almost every other question asked at the press conference.

***************************************************************************

 

Does the President think, though, to dissent against the war that he's planning are appeasers?

 

And he thinks we should bomb people?

 

So he thinks Saddam is the same as Hitler? Is he comparing him to Hitler, marching across Europe?

 

Hans Blix said today that Iraq's pledge to destroy the Al Samouds represents "significant piece of disarmament." How does the White House see it?

 

Is this going to complicate your efforts at the Security Council to get a second resolution passed? I mean, I can see that the resistant members of the Security Council to your position will say, inspections are working, Iraq is disarming, why stop something that's working?

 

I'm sorry, one more. What Foreign Minister Ivanov of Russia said today about Russia potentially using its [UN Security Council] veto [on an Iraq War resolution] if international stability is threatened. Do you see that as a statement for domestic consumption based on what President Putin told President Bush yesterday?

 

While you and the President have been consistent on the point that this is about total disarmament, there is some inconsistency with regard to the Al Samoud missiles. You said from this podium a couple of weeks ago that whether or not he destroys the missiles would be a "new test for Saddam Hussein." Now, if you look at that objectively, if he's promising, and if he actually carries through on destroying these missiles, then he would have passed that test. And now you and the President have gone out of your way to diminish and dismiss the importance of that step, when a couple of weeks ago, you were saying, no, this is an important test.

 

Right, but don't you see that there's no way to win here? I mean, you guys --

 

But on this issue, Ari, on this issue, there is no acceptable answer [from Saddam] to this administration. If you disarm, if you destroy the missiles, that's still not good enough. If you don't do it, that's not good enough, either.

 

On the Homeland Security Department announcement today, the President criticized Congress for not passing all of his spending. Why did the President fail to convince the Republican-led Congress to pass his money?

So it was the Republican-led Congress that gave the bill to President Bush, and President Bush signed it, and now he's criticizing them?

You might be able to find some leaders on the Hill, though, who wish he wasn't criticizing his own party leaders for a bill that he signed.

Just to follow-up on that, how much of the $3.5 billion that was in his plan actually came from existing spending for local law enforcement? In other words, are you just shifting the shares --

Critics say there was some money in his budget plan that was already earmarked for local law enforcement, he just shifted it over. Do you deny that? Is that wrong?

I'm sorry, he cut money. You guys cut money from other law enforcement funding and put it into this $3.5 billion.

Six opposition leaders from six Iraqi opposition groups have come together to name what they call an interim leadership group, which would apparently take power if and when Saddam is removed. Does the United States favor this? Would we recognize this group as the leadership after a war?

But does the United States approve or disapprove of this action? These people have set up their own interim leadership, and they want to take over.

So you don't care one way or the other about this interim leadership group that's been formed?

But is this a positive development, then?

Ari, consumer confidence has gone down for the third month in a row. Are you counting on the economy to rebound after war?

Ari, going back to David's question on Iraq. If he's looking at the glass half full, the White House is looking at the glass half-empty -- will there ever be a meeting of the minds or some middle ground to come up with some kind of compromise to the potential war?

But Mr. Blix is seeing a sign of hope that, yes, this is a turning point, he is planning to destroy tomorrow. Yet, the White House is once again, as you said, lies, deception, things of that nature. You don't see it as a positive step -- even though, yes, he did deny that he had them -- but you don't see this as a positive step forward to the destruction, to total disarmament that you're calling for?

A follow-up real quick on that. Do you think that this back-and-forth with the United Nations and the President has helped his poll numbers go down some?

So this situation with Blix right now doesn't matter? You gave a statement and I want to get a follow-up to it.

The President's interview with USA Today, his comment that Iraq will be disarmed, how is that not an indication that he has decided on military action?

But does he mean [Saddam will be disarmed] now? Does he mean now?

Ari, if I could follow up on April and David's question. You said before it was the destruction of the Al Samoud missiles would be just a piece of disarmament -- and you're looking at pieces. If you don't give any meaning to the pieces, I mean, how -- the pieces, if you add them up, would equal total disarmament. So if there's no value to the pieces, what is it that Saddam Hussein could possibly do --

But if you look at now -- not at history, but at now, if he says, okay, I'm going to disarm, I'm going to comply to this or that -- why not give any value or any weight to those pieces? Because if you look at those pieces, together they would fit a puzzle of the total, you might have a chance of seeing total disarmament. I mean, why would you negate any meaning at all to the pieces?

And a follow on Israel. Has the President spoken with Prime Minister Sharon recently? And is the administration still the position that Israel would not or should not retaliate if Iraq attacks?

Ari, the New York Times quotes you as telling them that Dan Rather conducted a, "Journalistically solid interview with Saddam Hussein, even though what he televised was," you said, "propaganda and lies from a dictator." And it was arranged with the help of Ramsey Clark, with CBS unable to use its own cameras, and having to wait for half a day while the Iraqis edited it. And my question is, since the Times also quotes an anonymous White House official asking how CBS might deal with a demand from the White House that they not use their own cameras, and since a Baltimore poll of 729 people on WCBM rated this appropriate 3 percent and propaganda 96 percent do you still really think that this was journalistically solid, Ari, really?

Ari, there is a new 30-second radio spot which was reported in its entirety by the Washington Times, which notes -- to summarize it -- in 1998, Pat Leahy said he opposed any filibuster against any judge, even somebody he opposed, and he said the Senate has a duty to give every judicial nominee a vote... Now that was 1998. Today, Pat Leahy is blocking a Senate vote on Miguel Estrada... The question, does the President -- the President doesn't disagree with this "shame on Leahy" spot by American Renewal, does he, Ari? He agrees with it, doesn't he?

And that[filibustering of judicial nominations]'s shameful, isn't it, Ari? Isn't that shameful?

Ari, two questions on Iraq. In response to an earlier question, you said the President still hopes to avoid war, and that Saddam Hussein could avoid it by completely and totally disarming, and by going into exile. I'm wondering, are you -- is that now the standard? Previously, you've obviously said disarmament. But is it now the combination of disarmament and exile?

So even though the United Nations would sign on to the first part of that [disarming], and not to the second [going into exile], when the President thinks about launching military action, he's going to think about the combination?

The second question is, it was notable in Wednesday's speech and in the comments yesterday, the President hasn't publicly gotten into, in the past week or so, the debate over what it is that Saddam needs to do to disarm, the specifics of it, the questions about Mr. Blix. He had almost moved beyond that in his speech, when he talked about the vision of a post-Saddam Iraq. At this point, has the President basically decided to suspend making public arguments about what it is Saddam needs to do, and basically in his own mind, moved the whole country and the world toward a vision of Iraq without him?

Ari, a second ago, you said that forecasts for growth in 2003 are going to be over 3 percent. Is the President at all worried that since nothing is really going to be done until the Iraq situation is resolved, that the tax package is going to come too little, too late? And, secondly, why is it now a stimulus and not a jobs and growth package?

[unintelligible] said, it's going to be 3 percent growth, so isn't that going to be too late?

Ari, some experts in the Senate are now saying the Miguel Estrada nomination is dead, that there is no way there will be sufficient votes for cloture. How long does the President intend to leave the nomination on the floor? And would he consider a recess appointment?

Ari, you just talked about the economy and the no timing of the tax cut being related to the war in Iraq. Yet, this coming at the same time with the tensions with Iraq and the situation in Venezuela is pushing oil to $40 a barrel, and you've got a frigid winter in the northeast driving up natural gas prices. Is the cost of energy going -- is the President concerned that the cost of energy for Americans is actually going to punch a hole, and kind of negate the effect any benefit you might get from the tax package? And is anybody in the administration giving new thought, perhaps, to taking steps to alleviate this in the near term?

If I could just follow. In the last 30 years, when oil hits $40 a barrel, it typically triggers a recession. Does the President believe that the tax package that he has before the Congress now will be enough to curtail a possible recession if oil stays at $40 a barrel?

The Pentagon yesterday delivered a rather strong warning to news organizations, that they should get their journalists out of Baghdad because it would be -- before a war starts, because it would be an unsafe place, a very unsafe place once a conflict begins. Some of the news organizations that received that warning said they suspected that at least one of the purposes of delivering it was that the administration doesn't want journalists in Baghdad to witness what goes on in the case of a war. Is there anything to that suspicion?

Would the administration prefer that, though, that journalists not be there to witness what is going on when war starts?

Ari, can you react to the action taken yesterday by the AFL-CIO's executive council? This is an entity that's been anything but anti-war throughout its history, but yesterday in Florida they passed a resolution that essentially says the President hasn't made a coherent case yet and that there should be no war without the U.N. backing.

You mentioned the fact that the President talked to the Dutch Prime Minister this morning. There's already a close cooperation between the Netherlands and the U.S., with Patriot missiles in Turkey, for example, U.S. transports going through the Netherlands. Have any additional requests been made by the President? And, secondly, you've seen quite a European leaders who are firmly on the U.S. side being invited to the White House to meet the President. Did the President invite Dutch Prime Minister to meet him here? And if not, can the Dutch Prime Minister expect such an invitation any time soon?

Did the President make any requests [of the Dutch]?

Is the President reconfiguring his prescription drug plan in face of opposition from Hill Republicans?

And may I have a follow-up? My recollection is that you have said up there that the President's plan does not hinge on people going into an HMO. But the people up on the Hill are saying that's exactly what it is that is being proposed. What is the --

Ari, will the administration call for a vote on a second resolution [to declare war on Iraq] only if it appears it has the support for it to pass, or --

So you're saying, regardless whether or not it appears the administration has the support --

But I'm just saying, bottom line, the administration will call for a vote or press for a vote regarding how the other countries appear to be lining up?

There have been reports out of Maine that the children of deployed service personnel are being harassed as a result of their elementary school teacher's expression of anti-war views in the classroom. Could you comment on that?

Ari, is the White House concerned about the highly negative reaction from European nations about the President's use of religious terms and themes as he makes his argument or explanation for war?

Ari, your answer to Don's question about the AFL-CIO implied that you view it as almost a matter of Democratic Party policy to oppose a war in Iraq. Your congressional resolution last fall passed with considerable Democratic support, and two rather prominent Democratic presidential candidates have been with the President on this. Why do you view this as a matter of --

Can we revisit your approach to how the press covers a war, if it happens? Are saying that U.S. will not censor anything that, you know, where the correspondents are embedded, so-called?

Knowledge is Power, so pass it on…

©2005 The Intelligence Squad

Intelligence Squad Reports HomePage