Gannonfire

The Jeff Gannon/Jim Guckert business continues to unravel.

Are you among those who wanted to believe Guckert's lame story that he merely provided web design services for gay prostitutes? Well, think twice before you take Guckert's word for anything.

According to Raw Story, Guckert hired someone else to do his designing. Americablog identifies the designer as one Paul Leddy. And those web sites came into existence because Guckert wanted to whore himself out to military types.

All of which leads credibility to the theory that extortion forced Guckert to become a robot for Republicanism. I mean -- just how does one get away with so public an attempt to make a living as a gay prostitute for Marines?

In his web pages, Jim (a.k.a. Jeff, a.k.a. "Bulldog") advertises himself as a Top. I wonder how he feels, now that the neocons have used him as their bitch?

I can't help quoting the remarkable Americablog:

Someone had to make a decision to let all this happen. Who? Someone committed a crime in exposing Valerie Plame and now it appears a gay hooker may be right in the middle of all of it? Who?

Ultimately, it is the hypocrisy that is such a challenge to grasp in this story. This is the same White House that ran for office on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. While they are surrounded by gay hookers? While they use a gay hooker to write articles for their gay hating political base? While they use a gay hooker to destroy a political enemy?

About that CIA memo:

The right-wing JustOneMinute blog argues that Gannon probably did not have access to the document itself, which had been described by the Wall Street Journal. But if Guckert got his info from the papers, why didn't he simply say so? And why was he subpoenaed?

Or did he receive a subpoena? Actually, this key point has yet to be determined. Newsday says he did. "Gannon" has told Editor and Publisher that he did not; he says he merely answered the questions posed to him by two FBI agents. You may chose whether to believe the word of a man caught "with his pants down" (literally!) when he told his lies about the military prostitution sites.

Around the time of Abu Ghraib, I reminded readers that homosexuality has long been the ultimate military secret -- in every army of every nation in every era. Which brings us to a question that both right and left would prefer to avoid:

Could the Nationalist Right be any gayer?

Most gays in this country understand that moderate left-wingers are more likely to support their freedoms. And yet -- as long as modern right-wing nationalist movements have existed, those movements have always relied on the efforts of a certain type of gay man who felt weirdly compelled to help his natural enemies.

One wag has suggested a new term to describe this personality type: "Roehmosexual."

The Nazis murdered many homosexuals. Yet their movement was aided by such figures as Ernst Roehm (of course), George Sylvester Viereck, and Rudolf Hess -- who was given the nickname "Faulein Anna," even though he was married. There is at least one story of Adolf himself "sleeping with soldiers" during WWI.

The anti-Communist witch-hunts in America brought to the fore such figures as Whittaker Chambers, General Edwin Walker, Roy Cohn, and Cohn's aide David Schine. Perhaps the list should include Tailgunner Joe McCarthy himself. (Sorry, Ann! But this page makes a good case.) I've also wondered about Harvey Matusow, notorious for providing false witness to HUAC.

And how can we neglect to mention the epic romance of J. Edgar and his beloved Clyde?

Speaking of Walker: Researchers into the JFK assassination have long been genuinely puzzled by the number of right-wing gays who kept figuring into their research. Dave Ferrie, of course. Clay Shaw. Perry Russo. Jack Ruby, almost certainly. Ray Broshears, I am told, once bragged about sleeping with a man calling himself Lee Harvey Oswald. Buffs can list quite a few more names. Warren Commission defenders sometimes accuse assassination researchers of concocting tales about a "gay conspiracy," even though no writer on the assassination known to me has ever posited such a thing. The buffs have felt bewildered by the entire phenomenon, and almost never discuss it in print.

As Christian Reconstructionists have ascended within the Republican party, the number of David Brockish Rhoemosexuals has also risen. The manager of Bush's reelection campaign was Ken Mehlman, widely rumored to be gay. (He's 37 years old, unmarried, and unlinked to any girlfriend.) David Dreier, head of Californians for Bush, does not deny being homosexual. Jay Banning and Dan Gurley of the Republican National Committee are openly gay.

And now Raw Story reports the following about White House Press secretary Scott McClellan:

RAW STORY has been told that the White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan visited a gay bar in Austin, Texas, on March 19, 1995. The date was placed exactly as a local memorial service was held on the same day.

The source, who would only comment on condition of anonymity, reserved comment on whether McClellan was actually gay, but said he was frequently seen at gay clubs. Another source also confirmed this account.

"He was often seen in gay clubs in Austin, Texas and was comfortable being there," the Texan said. "He's been seen in places that normal people who are looking for heterosexual relationships are not seen alone."

According to a White House transcript, McClellan is married, and Gannon sent the press secretary a wedding card. The White House, however, declined to comment.

As a Cannonfire correspondent reminds us, there are persistent allegations surrounding George W. Bush himself:

Why is Bush so hostile to the idea of gay marriage? Perhaps because until 1977, George W. Bush was gay. According to a group of 29 Yale classmates who comprise "Gay Ivy Leaguers for Truth," Bush was "known to be at least sexually experimental throughout his time in college." One of Bush's alleged former boyfriends, Anthony Berusca (class of '70), told The Dallas Morning News that Bush was "deeply conflicted about being gay, even somewhat self-hating." Berusca is convinced that this conflict led to Bush's drinking problems, but describes the President as a "gentle, caring lover." In 1976, the Bush family arranged for George to join "Worthy Creations," a church group in El Paso that focuses on converting homosexuals through faith. A year later, Bush was straight, born again, and engaged to Laura Welch (Bush).

Bush's name has also been linked to one Victor Ashe, a "special" friend ever since he and W were roommates and male cheerleaders (!) at Yale. Ashe, the former mayor of Knoxville, Tennessee, is now the U.S. Ambassador to Poland.

While mayor, Ashe made several unscheduled visits to the White House and, according to US Secret Service sources, Bush made at least 8 unscheduled and unannounced trips to Knoxville while he has been President.

Ashe is suspected of two arrests. One was in Washington DC and the other was in Atlanta, while he was a Tennessee state legislator. They allegedly involved arrests while he was picking up male transvestite prostitutes in public restrooms.

I haven't been able to confirm either of these two allegations.

Neither can I confirm the allegations arising out of what has been called the "Franklin Case," in which a Nebraska Republican allegedly provided boys to prominent figures within the GOP -- including the elder Bush.

But I can accurately quote W himself:

"We're a country based on fabulous values... And we'll prevail, because we're a fabulous nation, and we're a fabulous nation because we're a nation full of fabulous people."

Why is all this important?

Because gay Republicanism functions as a wedge issue, one that will help to divide the Jesusmaniacs from the Bush forces. Moreover, I consider it perfectly fair to ask a gay rightist "How can you support a party that won't support you?" -- especially in light of the fundamentalist determination to convert or kill all homosexuals.

Forcing a public debate over this issue will force the Republican party either to accept or reject the presence of gays within their leadership. If they accept, then the Christian base will stay home on election day. If they reject, then they will lose much of their best talent, and three percent of the male population will have even greater qualms about voting Republican.

Either way, our side wins.