Sandy Berger pleads guilty

[Rsak]

File a FOIA request in triplicate and I will get back to you....say.....in 20 years

Sorry but that is your job since you are the one asserting it was a security breach.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Your argument is only supported by a supposition of falsely supposed arguments! To deny this only shows the hyperbole of the validty to your tangent!

[Burz]

And to add nothing of substance..

[Trollbait]

Rsak,

Want a friendly hint? Do you want to know what the most compelling evidence is that I am right and you are wrong?

It is something that has NOT been stated.

Here it is............../drumroll

I am known by the frequent posters on this board as one of the most ardent Bush administration apologists ever. I would LOVE to be able to say that what happened with Ganon was not a security breach. I would love to say that he had every right to be there. In fact, I would LOVE to be able to shove his prescence in Beek's face and go "NEENER NEENER" for two whole pages of this thread.......but I cannot.

I could not do that and remain inetllectually honest with myself.

The simple facts are that Ganon was not properly cleared, he had no right to be there, the system failed to prevent him from being there, so there was a breach of security protocols. Said breach did not have an overly negative result............this time.............but we cannot afford such lapses..............even minor ones.

[Chants Evensong]

Security breach?

What's Gannon gonna do? Cum on the president?

I am sorry, but I do not see a security breach here.

[Trollbait]

Security breach?

What's Gannon gonna do? Cum on the president?

I am sorry, but I do not see a security breach here.

His ability to harm the president is not at issue and in fact is completely irrelevant to whether or not a breach occured. Please re-read my previous posts on the subject and you will see that it is a technical distinction. I am sure you will grasp it better than Rsak.

[Chants Evensong]

I understand what you are saying, Jecks. I just happen to disagree with it. You are operating under the false premise that Gannon was not properly vetted.

The fact of the matter is that Gannon had a proper background check for a day pass. He gave the White House his real name, social security number, and probably some other information, such as his date of birth. He first wrote for GOPUSA, then for Talon News, an off-shoot of GOPUSA, which checked out. He got the same background check everyone else applying for a day pass got.

If you have any evidence that proper day pass protocols were not observed in issuing Gannon his pass, I would like to see it. I am not perfect so I may have missed something. But I have followed this story pretty closely and I have seen it yet.

Of course, the argument can be made that day passes should be abolished or some changes need to be made. In fact, The White House Correspondents Association discussed whether there should be some change to the credentialing process several weeks ago at a board meeting. Noting they were not happy with Gannon's presence, they concluded that no change was warranted, favoring a policy of inclusion over exclusion.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp ... 1000818837

"The board felt like none of us were happy about Gannon being in the briefing room, but we all view it as the price we pay for a system that favors inclusion over keeping someone out," Hutcheson told E&P. "While not perfect, [the current system] is geared toward letting people in."

[Relbeek Einre]

Except Chants, the system was violated.

Day passes are supposed to be reserved for journalists who are in DC for the short term - like a few days - and who want access to the press room while they're there. Gannon was using day passes to get access to the White House press room for the better part of two years - and that was a violation of procedure.

[Rsak]

"blah blah blah.. I want to suck Bush's cock and admit so I must be right.. blah blah blah."

Answer the question Jecks. Where is the evidence that the vetting procedure was not followed.

Without that evidence all you have is assumptions which don't prove anything.

And Relbeek if that were the case you could simply point where in the rules fo the press room that it says that about Day passes.

[Harlowe]

"blah blah blah.. I want to suck Bush's cock and admit so I must be right.. blah blah blah."

Not that I am an advocate for the high-groud, just saying ...any chance you had of you coming out on top of this discussion just shot it's wad.

[Trollbait]

Answer the question Jecks. Where is the evidence that the vetting procedure was not followed.

Well.......thank you for painting yourself into a corner for me.......

Here is the evidence you request.......pay close attention.

It is stipulated that Gannon was allowed acces under "Day Pass Rules" for two years......

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/ ... ex_np.html

Feb. 11, 2005 | Before abruptly quitting his post this week as White House correspondent for the GOP-friendly group Talon News, Jeff Gannon enjoyed unfettered access to White House briefings. He gained that access not by going through the normal full background check most journalists face when obtaining a "hard pass," the ultimate White House credential, but rather by getting day passes, which require only an abbreviated background check. According to one current member of the White House press corps, Gannon was the only reporter to skirt the rules that way, obtaining daily passes month after month for nearly two years.

"Why did the White House circumvent the process for him?" asks the White House reporter.

http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=h ... 8D8E7Q2AOY

One of the most widely debated questions has been Mr. Guckert's access to the White House, which is usually limited to well-established news organizations and off limits to paid political workers. In an environment where the lines between advocacy journalism and partisan activity are blurred, Mr. Guckert appears to have gained access as a fringe participant who never sought entry through the usual channels but instead returned repeatedly for temporary passes.

The White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, said on Thursday night that Mr. Guckert had used his real name in applying for day passes. He never applied for a permanent pass, known as a "hard pass," which is granted after a thorough background check by the Secret Service and has much tighter restrictions, Mr. McClellan said.

Holders of hard passes are required to have permanent addresses in the Washington metropolitan region and hold accreditation from the Senate or House press galleries, among other requirements.

The standards for a one-day pass are less ironclad. After a visiting reporter has passed an instant background check - primarily using the name, Social Security number and date of birth to check against criminal records - it is up to lower-level White House press aides to decide whether a particular news organization can have access to the briefing room. In Mr. Guckert's case, after he had established himself as a reporter, he faced no further questions about his credentials when he called seeking access, former and current White House officials said.

Now I am probably being foolish in thinking that you may finally see the point here......but I do have hope even though you have thus far been impervious to simple logic.

[Relbeek Einre]

Red doggie! Red doggie!

[Embar Angylwrath]

"oook eeeek oook.. I want to suck Bush's banana and admit so I must be right.. eeeek ooook aaaaaah."

Answer the question Jecks. AAAHH AAAAAHH AAAAHHH EEEEEK Where is the banana that the vetting banana was not bananaed.

Without that banana all you have is a banana which don't prove bananas

EEEEEKKK OOOOK .

And Relbeek if that were the banana you could simply point where in the bananas fo the banana room that it says that about Day bananas. EEEEEK

[Chants Evensong]

Day passes are supposed to be reserved for journalists who are in DC for the short term - like a few days - and who want access to the press room while they're there. Gannon was using day passes to get access to the White House press room for the better part of two years - and that was a violation of procedure.

This is one of those false memes circulating around the Gannon Affair. It originated with Joe Lockhart, former press secretary to Bill Clinton, and it has been repeated without question by those desperate to find that Gannon was a plant.

Joe Lockhart can speak about the purpose of day passes under the Clinton Administration. And I have no reason to doubt his word that day passes under the Clinton Administration were indeed intended for out of town journalists.

However, Lockhart is not a member of the Bush White House. His statements only apply to the Clinton Administration. They do not apply to the Bush Administration. In other words, what may have been a violation under one administration may not be a violation of procedure under a subsequent administration.

Two different administrations, two different sets of procedures. What you have effectively done, Relbeek, is shown that issuing a day pass to Gannon may have been a violation of procedure under the Clinton Administration. Mildly interesting, but not quite on point.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that Gannon was not the only person issued a day pass on a regular basis. Russell Mokhiber, a hard left write with marginal credentials, was also issued a day pass for two years straight. If Joe Lockhart is to be beleived, that may have been a violation of procedure under the Clinton Adminsitration.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0714-10.htm

[Chants Evensong]

Jecks, Salon.com and the unnamed white house reporter quoted in the article are wrong.

Gannon was not the only person who applied for and received a day pass on an ongoing basis.

Several reporters pointed to Russell Mokhiber, editor of Corporate Crime Reporter, who has been attending press events through a daily press pass for several years. Some say he is as partisan as Gannon in his questions, but often with a left-leaning approach. One reporter called him "the ideological flip-side of Gannon."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp ... 1000798573

You have yet to show that proper procedures were not followed in issuing Gannon his day pass. You have shown that perhaps the procedures for issuing a day pass should be revisited; but that is a separate question.

[Relbeek Einre]

However, Lockhart is not a member of the Bush White House. His statements only apply to the Clinton Administration. They do not apply to the Bush Administration. In other words, what may have been a violation under one administration may not be a violation of procedure under a subsequent administration.

Yet McClellan says outright that the rules haven't changed- that everything was the same setup as the Clinton administration. This may be a false statement -- they may have changed the rules to get Gannon in -- or it may just be lazy language to blame-shift onto Clinton like they reflexively do. Either way, it seems the "false meme" had its origin with McClellan, not Lockhart.

And it seems to me that Mokhiber is far more credentialed than Gannon, after a cursory review of his credentials. But you did not link anything that showed he was being issued daily passes for two years straight.

[Relbeek Einre]

Actually, the Mokhiber thing is interesting.

Mokhiber HAS been denied a White House permanent pass.

DESPITE, unlike Gannon, working for a legitimate print news source.

DESPITE, unlike Gannon, being credentialed for the House and Senate.

He ALSO was barred from the White House press room for several months even using daily passes for "national security" reasons which were utterly bogus.

Actually, there's a lot to look at in the different treatment between Mokhiber and Gannon - even accepting that they are similarly partisan. A lot indeed.

[Chants Evensong]

Unlike Gannon, Mokhiber is still attenting White House briefings with his regularly issued day pass, and has been doing so for several years.

Whatever McClellan said, and if Lockhart is to be beleived, it is pretty clear that the policy regarding the issuance of a day pass has changed.

[Relbeek Einre]

Or, alternatively, someone found a loophole and the purpose of the day pass was never officially stated to be for Lockhart's purpose.

Still, again, the different treatment regarding Gannon and Mokhiber is highly interesting.

[Chants Evensong]

That could be, Relbeek. Or it could have been a deliberate change in policy favoring inclusiveness. But whether a loop-hole or a deliberate change in policy, it was "discovered" or "changed" long before Gannon arrived on the scene. Mokhiber has been regularly attenting white house briefings with a day pass since the infancy of the Bush Administration.

http://www.commondreams.org/ari.htm

Scroll down to the bottom and one will find that Mokhiber has been attending briefings since 4/4/01.