Kurtz is wrong, by the way, that Gannon's nude pictures are what is keeping this story going. What is important is the revelation that the "leaker" in the White House pushed the Valerie Plame story on Gannon.

As an example, David Brock used to work for the more thuggish wing of the Republican right, and came around of his own accord. He now runs "Media Matters" and seems to be doing a great job.

Perhaps those who want to get to the bottom of the Plame scandal should try and turn Gannon. If he said what he knew, he'd become a star -- on every talk show and reality sitcom -- and probably make a fortune. That may be incentive enough.

Maybe rather than villifying this guy, we who want to know who undermined American national security and divulged the CIA identity of Joe Wilson's wife should help him repent and reform and help him get on a better path.

You see, for all the carnage in President Bush's budget, one program is being showered with additional cash - almost three times as much as it got in 2001. It's "abstinence only" sex education, and the best research suggests that it will cost far more lives than the Clinton administration's much more notorious sex scandal.

Mr. Bush means well. But "abstinence only" is a misnomer that in practice is an assault on sex education itself. There's a good deal of evidence that the result will not be more young rosy-cheeked virgins - it will be more pregnancies, abortions, gonorrhea and deaths from AIDS.

Look, I'm all for abstinence education. I support the booming abstinence industry as it peddles panties and boxers decorated with stop signs (at www.abstinence.net), and "Pet Your Dog, Not Your Date" T-shirts.

Abstinence education is great because it helps counteract the peer pressure that often leaves teenagers with broken hearts - and broken health.

For that reason, almost all sex-ed classes in America already encourage abstinence. But abstinence-only education isn't primarily about promoting abstinence - it's about blindly refusing to teach contraception.

To get federal funds, for example, abstinence-only programs are typically barred by law from discussing condoms or other forms of contraception - except to describe how they can fail. So kids in these programs go all through high school without learning anything but abstinence, even though more than 60 percent of American teenagers have sex before age 18.

In the old days, social conservatives simply fought any mention of sex. In 1906, The Ladies' Home Journal published articles about venereal disease - and 75,000 readers canceled their subscriptions. Congress banned the mailing of family planning information, and Margaret Sanger was jailed in 1916 for selling a birth control pamphlet to an undercover policewoman.

But silence about sex only nurtured venereal diseases (one New York doctor, probably exaggerating, claimed in 1904 that 60 percent of American men had syphilis or gonorrhea), so sex education gradually gained ground. Then social conservatives had a brilliant idea: instead of fighting sex ed directly, they campaigned for abstinence-only programs that eviscerated any discussion of contraception.

[snip]

Perhaps the most careful study of the issue involved 12,000 young people. It found that those taking virginity pledges had sex 18 months later, on average, than those who had not taken the pledge. But even 88 percent of the pledgers had sex before marriage.

More troubling, the pledgers were much less likely to use contraception when they did have sex - only 40 percent of the males used condoms, compared with 59 percent of those who did not take the pledge.

Bush might as well be proposing legislation that two plus two is five. And if that happened, there would be no shortage of Republicans prepared to endorse this view, experts on arithmetic to declare that it is a very difficult question, research to indicate that the answer may lie anywhere between 2.3 and 7.09, moderate Washington sages to urge caution, media to report both sides of the question, and media critics to accuse the media of a subtle bias in favor of two plus two is four.

...if this were 1998, we'd be knee deep in congressional investigations into the gay hooker ring in the White House. Every news crew in the DC area would be camped out on JimJeff's front lawn. A wild-eyed Victoria Toensing and panting Kelly Ann Fitzpatrick would be crawling up on the Hardball desk rending their silk teddies and speaking in tongues while Matthews'exploding head spun around on his shoulders.

But, it isn't 1998 and it will probably not even be mentioned. And I'm not a Republican so I don't think, as they would, that it's necessary to dig into every single White House staffer's sex life to find out who leaked a confidential memo to a gay hooker.

As a Democrat, however, if gay hookers are running around the White House I do find it somewhat frustrating that we have to put up with this shock and horror bullshit from the right wing about average Joe and Jane gay person wanting to get married and have a family. Please.

And yes, I do think that Patrick Fitzgerald's boys will probably be paying JimJeff another visit. Sadly, I think it's entirely likely that they didn't know about this until today. It is impossible to believe that the secret service and the FBI would allow a known prostitute to have access to the White House after 9/11. If they did, then our national security is in very deep shit. Come to think of it, it's also pretty scary that they didn't know. What's up with that?

We're changing the culture of this country from one that has said, if it feels good, do it, and, if you've got a problem, blame somebody else, to one in which each of us understands that we are responsible for the decisions we make. ---

Mary K. Letourneau, the former Burien elementary school teacher who had an illegal intimate relationship with one of her sixth-grade students, plans to wed the man she was convicted of raping.Letourneau, 43, and Vili Fualaau, 22, plan to wed April 16, according to an online bridal registry.

When the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq two years ago, it envisioned a quick handover to handpicked allies in a secular government that would be the antithesis of Iran's theocracy -- potentially even a foil to Tehran's regional ambitions.

But, in one of the greatest ironies of the U.S. intervention, Iraqis instead went to the polls and elected a government with a strong religious base -- and very close ties to the Islamic republic next door. It is the last thing the administration expected from its costly Iraq policy -- $300 billion and counting, U.S. and regional analysts say.

Yesterday, the White House heralded the election and credited the U.S. role. In a statement, President Bush praised Iraqis "for defying terrorist threats and setting their country on the path of democracy and freedom. And I congratulate every candidate who stood for election and those who will take office once the results are certified."

Yet the top two winning parties -- which together won more than 70 percent of the vote and are expected to name Iraq's new prime minister and president -- are Iran's closest allies in Iraq.

Thousands of members of the United Iraqi Alliance, a Shiite-dominated slate that won almost half of the 8.5 million votes and will name the prime minister, spent decades in exile in Iran. Most of the militia members in its largest faction were trained in Shiite-dominated Iran.

And the winning Kurdish alliance, whose co-leader Jalal Talabani is the top nominee for president, has roots in a province abutting Iran, which long served as its economic and political lifeline.

"This is a government that will have very good relations with Iran. The Kurdish victory reinforces this conclusion. Talabani is very close to Tehran," said Juan Cole, a University of Michigan expert on Iraq. "In terms of regional geopolitics, this is not the outcome that the United States was hoping for."

Added Rami Khouri, Arab analyst and editor of Beirut's Daily Star: "The idea that the United States would get a quick, stable, prosperous, pro-American and pro-Israel Iraq has not happened. Most of the neoconservative assumptions about what would happen have proven false."

If you flip through the magazines aimed at moms this month, you'd be hard pressed to find much talk of romance, unless you count all the articles on modern marriage's lack of romance, which are legion: Working Mother pleads, "Make Time for Your Valentine." Good Housekeeping insists, "Men can be romantic." Child magazine offers tips on "Staying Lovers While Raising Kids." And Parents, acknowledging that marriage with children often feels "about as romantic as changing a dirty diaper," offers advice for getting "back in the groove," like establishing "no-sex nights." (Absence makes the heart grow fonder?)

In many marriages, erotic love has been supplanted by what The New Yorker once called "the eros of parenthood." Up to 20 percent of couples now report having sex no more than 10 times a year, qualifying them for what the experts call "sexless marriages." Many mothers freely admit to preferring their children's touch to their husband's, without regret or shame.

Where did our love go? Look no further than the adorable little girl on the cover of this month's Parents, clutching a huge, red-sequined heart in her chubby little hands. According to a recent report by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University, children are a "growing impediment" to a happy marriage.

That's a sobering thought. And it raises an important question: Is our national romance with our children sucking the emotional life out of our marriages?

It may well be. After all, in an era when Parents magazine can suggest, in its love issue, a "Second Honeymoon with Kids" under the rubric "Fun Time," it's clear that something is very much askew. In many households, the distinctions between married life and family life have all but disappeared.

With the widespread acceptance of "attachment parenting" - family beds, long-term breast feeding and all the rest - the physical boundaries between parents and children have worn away. Marital romance has dried up. Real intimacy has gone the way of bottle-feeding and playpens. In fact, the whole ideal of marriage as a union of soul mates, friends and lovers that's as essential to a happy family life as, say, unconditional love for the children, has taken a direct hit. And in its place has come the reality of a utilitarian relationship dedicated to staying afloat financially and child-rearing of a sort we tend to associate with frontier marriages, arranged marriages, marriages of convenience - marriages far removed, in time and place, from our lives, our parents' lives and even our grandparents' lives.

Some would say that's not a bad thing. After all, hard work and commitment are much better indicators of marital stability than are passion and that fickle thing, romantic love. The divorce rate is slightly down, to about 50 percent from a high of 52 percent in the early 1980's. Virtually no one believes anymore that the potential "self-fulfillment" that might come from leaving a less-than-satisfying marriage could in any way outweigh the harm that divorce does to children. Indeed, for many couples these days, staying married is not so much the definitive sign of their love for each other but the ultimate expression of their love for their children.

But does this virtuous child-centeredness equal family happiness? Apparently not. For although the divorce rate has gone down, the percentage of couples saying they're in less-than-happy marriages has gone up. According to the National Marriage Project, fewer children are growing up with happily married parents today than a generation ago. From 1973 to 1976, 51 percent of children under the age of 18 were living in a household in which the parents' marriage was rated as "very happy," the study found. From 1997 to 2002, only 37 percent were so fortunate.

RWCM: "Al Gore has a crappy, unlikable personality and must reinvent himself if he expects to be elected."
Response: Gore re-invents himself
RWCM: "Al Gore has re-invented himself in order to get elected President. What a fake, two-faced, dishonest guy he obviously is. People should vote for Bush instead because he is so real. Whether you like his policies or not, you should vote for him because at least you know what you are getting."

RWCM: "The Democrats should support Bush and his policies after 9/11 because we need to be united and they need to prove to those real, non-elitist, patriotic Americans that they are willing to put party politics aside and be patriotic in a time of crisis."
Response: Dem congressional compliance and lack of alternate vision, followed by losses to Repubs in 2002 election.
RWCM: "Those Democrats lost because never articulated an alternative to what Bush had to offer. What a weak, namby-pamby, confused, pandering party!"

RWCM: "Dean is out-of-touch and unelectable. The Democrats should never nominate him. Anybody is better than Dean. Kerry, for example, is electable."
Response: Primary voters pick Kerry over Dean, allowing the media to (they thought!) permanently destroy Dean by making him out to be SUCH a pathetic loser because he went from front-runner to far behind so quickly and gave a speech that could be easily misportrayed on TV. The media beats up enough on Kerry that he becomes beatable (at least when you include GOP cheating), which would have arguably been harder to do against Dean because he would have fought back harder and would have (if he hadn't been demonized during the primary season) been able to continue his record of inspiring people to convert to our side. The RWCM knew they had to get rid of Dean, because (whether he was easier or harder to defeat than Kerry) he was the one who would further the reframing that needed to take place and would be the lightning rod for a strong, long term progressive movement.

RWCM: "The Dems better have a positive, upbeat convention because mainstream America just sees them as too negative and fanatically anti-Bush."
Response: Party holds what PR Week snidely termed the "Shiny Happy" Dem National Convention, with not much Bush bashing and lots of optimism and hamster stories.
RWCM: "Those Dems got up there and had this vapidly positive convention despite the fact that they are an angry opposition party who disagree with so much of the status quo. How insincere, lame, and strategically disastrous!"

I am against them [private accounts as part of Social Security...While everyone wants to think they can invest better than the government, all of these people screaming to keep government out of Social Security and invest on their own will be the first on line to cry to the government to bail them out when they lose their money through their own investing mistakes or fraud. ... Having this much money up for grabs on Wall Street is scary. ... Private accounts seem to have all the makings of a breeding ground for massive fraud, followed by a government bailout that would make the savings and loan bailout look like a mere warm-up....

NASHVILLE, Tennessee (AP) -- Johnnie Chennault has no regrets about joining the Navy Reserve, even though it means he's going to Iraq later this month.

But he does worry about not being around to help take care of his house full of 11 kids.

"Leaving my children, leaving my wife for so long -- you're going to miss all the little things as the kids grow up," he said.

Chennault and his wife, Ronda, have a full range of children of all ages growing up at their home in Springfield, a small town about 30 miles north of Nashville: Terr'i, 17; Stephen, 15; Jobie, 14; Joshua, 12; Zakari, 8; Johnnie IV, 7; Mikal, 6; Syerra, 4; Gracee, 3; Jakob, 1; and Nikalus, 8 months.

If I am a Republican shill, wouldn’t you think I am the least amount of a threat to the president?

If you told me one year ago that I'd be standing here today, as your choice for Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, I wouldn't have believed you. And neither would have a lot of other people.

But let me say that standing here with the opportunity to lead this Party, is a great honor.

I am thankful.

I am humbled.

And I'm ready to get to work.

This was the first race for DNC chairman truly driven by the grassroots of this Party. And so, I want you to know this is not my chairmanship, this is our chairmanship.

You have given me an enormous responsibility. But it is a responsibility we share.

We can change this Party… but only by working together and competing in all 50 states. We can change this Party… but only by working together and becoming a national party again. We can change this Party… but only by working together at thelocal level.

If we want to win nationally, we have to win locally.

With your help, I am certain that today will not mark the end of the process of selecting a DNC chair. Today will be the beginning of the reemergence of the Democratic Party.

We have a lot of work to do.

But we have a bright future… exemplified by the other candidates who joined me in this race. They are all great Democrats.

I want to thank Terry McAuliffe. He has given this party so much. Not to mention every waking day of the past four years as our Chairman.

He has also given us something else — a Party in strong financial shape, with the infrastructure to meet the challenges of the future. That is no small gift. Thank you, Terry McAuliffe.

I also want to thank my family. I wouldn't be here without their support, or their belief in a more fair and just America.

I especially want to thank my wife, Judy, for her patience and her love. She's here with me today.

We all know that we're the party of the big tent and new ideas.

We know that we're the party for young Americans looking for a government that speaks to them… we know that we're the party for working Americans desperate for a government that looks out for them… and we know that we're the party for older Americans and veterans and members of the Armed Services expecting and deserving a government that honors them.

And we know that no matter where you live or who you are, what you look like or how you worship, ours is the diverse party that welcomes you.

But right now, as important as all of that is… it is not enough. We have to move forward. We cannot win if all we are is against the current President.

Republicans wandered around in the political wilderness for 40 years before they took back Congress. But the reason we lost control is that we forgot why we were entrusted with control to begin with.

The American people can't afford to wait for 40 years for us to put Washington back to work for them.

It can't take us that long.

And it won't take us that long… not if we stand up for what we believe in… organize at the local level… and recognize that this Party's strength doesn't come from the consultants down, it comes from grassroots up.

II. STANDING UP FOR WHAT WE BELIEVE IN
The first thing we have to do is stand up for what we believe in.

This week, the Republicans introduced a $2.5 trillion budget that deliberately conceals the cost of their fiscal recklessness.

Their budget doesn't account for the cost of the war in Iraq, or privatizing Social Security. It cuts education, children's health, veterans benefits, and community policing.

As far as I'm concerned, this budget does only two things:

It brings Enron-style accounting to our nation's capital.

And it demonstrates what Americans are beginning to see: Republicans cannot be trusted with your money.

The Republicans know the America they want… and they are not afraid to use any means to get there.

But there is something that this Administration and the Republican Party are very afraid of. It is that we may actually begin fighting for what we believe — the fiscally responsible, socially progressive values for which Democrats have always stood and fought.

Because we are what we believe.

We Democrats believe in fiscal responsibility and we're the only ones who have delivered it.

The first time our nation balanced its budget, it was Andrew Jackson, father of the Democratic Party, who did it. The last time our nation balanced its budget, it was Bill Clinton who did it. Democratic governors do it every single year.

Not one Republican President has balanced the budget in almost 40 years. Borrow and spend. Borrow and spend. Borrow and spend. Americans cannot trust the Republicans with their money.

Americans want a strong and smart national security.

It was Democrats who pushed to create a Department of Homeland Security. It was Democrats who pushed to make our airlinessafer. It is Democrats who are now working to make sure we close the remaining gaps in our security. It was Democrats who demanded reform of the intelligence community.

And it is Democrats who are pushing for a foreign policy that honestly deals with the threats of today, and the threats of tomorrow — like securing the nuclear materials around the world.

Republicans had to be dragged kicking and screaming to our side on all of these issues. There is no reason for Democrats to be defensive on national defense.

We believe that a good job is the foundation of a strong family, a strong community, and a strong country. We're going towork to create good high-paying jobs here in America, and we're going to keep good high paying jobs here in America.

And there is no reason for us to apologize for being willing to stand up for our belief that Americans who get up and go to work everyday have the right to join a union.

We believe every American should have access to affordable health care. It is wrong that we remain the only industrialized nation in the world that does not assure health care for all of its citizens, particularly our children

We believe the path to a better future goes directly through our public schools.

We believe that every single American has a voice and that it should be heard in the halls of power every day. And most importantly, it ought to be heard by guaranteeing an open and fair vote on Election Day.

And finally, we believe that a lifetime of work earns you a retirement of dignity. We won't let that be put at risk by leaders who continually invent false crises to justify policies that don't work… in this case, borrowing from our children and shredding our country's social safety net in the process.

The President's plan for Social Security does nothing to guarantee Social Security's future. But it will cut benefits andcost an estimated 2 trillion dollars. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, we will have to borrow 4.5 trillion dollars to finance the privatization of Social Security in the first 20 years alone.

Let me give you a sense of how much money that is. There are 118 million people under the age of 30 in America today. That means borrowing nearly $45,000 in each of their names.

That's a legacy of debt our children don't deserve.

Social Security is one of the proudest achievements of the Democratic Party, and we don't intend to let it fall victim toa dishonest scheme that only serves to heap greater debt on America's young people.

We need to set the agenda. And we're going to work with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and our Democratic governors and local elected officials to do just that.

I met with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid this past week, and we are looking forward to standing together in the battles ahead.

We're all going to need to be united. And we're going to need to be organized.

Really organized.

III. ORGANIZE
That means we frame the issues; Republicans will not tell America what our agenda is. We will do that.

Organizing means raising money not only from big donors but small contributors, not only through dinners and telephone solicitations and direct mail, but also through the Internet and person-to-person outreach.

Organizing means transforming us into a Party that can communicate with its supporters and with all Americans.

Politics is at its best when we create and inspire a sense of community. The tools that were in part pioneered in my campaign — like blogs and Meetups and most importantly, community building — are just a start.

We are going to use all of the power and potential of technology as part of an aggressive outreach to meet and include voters, to work with your state parties, and to get our message out.

We cannot run 18 state presidential campaigns and expect to win.

You all know we have a strategy for every state and territory. It's very simple. Show up.

People will vote for Democratic candidates in Texas, and Utah, and West Virginia if we knock on their door, introduce ourselves and tell them what we believe. That's what organization allows us to do.

IV. GRASSROOTS
But all of the ideas and organization in the world won't matter if people don't see our ideas as relevant to them, or thepolitical process as connected to them.

So, third, we are going to recognize that our strength lies at the grassroots.

If we are to take our country back for everyday working Americans, Democrats will have to match or exceed the Republicansability to motivate voters.

You might find this hard to believe… but I'm not much of a zen person. But I've found that the path to power, oddly enough, is to trust others with it. That means putting the power where the voters are.

That is something Republicans will never understand.

But we do.

V. CONCLUSION
Standing up for our beliefs… organizing… and transforming our party into a grassroots organization that can win in all 50 states: That's how we will rebuild the Democratic Party.

We will rebuild our Party because only we are the party of reform. Republicans can stop progress, but only Democrats can start it again.

And we will rebuild our Party because our greatest strength is something the Republicans can and will never match — the diversity represented in this room.

Look around — we look like America. We are America. Republicans stop progress, but only Democrats start it.

It's going to take a lot of work. And I'm going to be asking a lot of all of you. It is not my chairmanship; it is ours.

Election by election… State by state… Precinct by precinct… Door by door… Vote by vote…

We're going to take this country back for the people who built it.

Attached is the year-end 2000 stategy on al Qida developed by the last Administration to give to you. Also attached is the 1998 strategy. Neither is a "covert-only" approach. Both incorporated diplomatic, economic, military, public diplomacy and intelligence tools. Using the 2000 paper as background, we could prepare a decision paper/guide for a PC review.

Dear Mr. McClellan,

I am writing to request that you immediately release documents to my office relating to the White House press credentials of James D. Guckert, a.k.a. "Jeff Gannon." Specifically, I am seeking documentation related to the question of which name Mr. Guckert/Gannon used when applying for credentials, and which name was on the official White House press credentials he received. Additionally, I am seeking documents indicating whether Mr. Guckert/Gannon received a "hard pass" or daily passes from your office. Despite your assertions to the contrary, at least one White House reporter has revealed that Mr. Guckert/Gannon appeared to have "hard pass" credentials.

As you may know, Mr. Guckert/Gannon was denied a Congressional press pass because he could not show that he wrote for a valid news organization. Given the fact that he was denied Congressional credentials, I seek your explanation of how Mr. Guckert/Gannon passed muster for White House press credentials.

I have led the effort in the Senate to investigate a number of instances of troubling propaganda efforts by the Administration. The Government Accountability Office has agreed to my requests to investigate various attempts at media manipulation: fake television news stories touting both the new Medicare law and the "No Child Left Behind" education program; a study rating individual journalists on their "favorability" to Republican education policies; and the payment to journalist Armstrong Williams.

Since the Armstrong Williams controversy became public, Administration payments to two other journalists, Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus, have come to light. Given the backdrop of these scandals, coupled with Mr. Guckert/Gannon's role in recent White House press briefings and press conferences, it is understandable that the circumstances of Mr. Guckert/Gannon's credentialing have raised suspicion.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely, Frank R. Lautenberg

Having worked in the White House, I can assure everyone that not only would it be impossible to get a White House pass using an alias, it is impossible even to get past the gate for an appointment using an alias. Thorough FBI background checks are required for the former and a picture ID is necessary for the latter. Therefore, if Gannon was using an alias, White House staff had to be involved in maintaining his cover.

The situation "begs further investigation," says James Pinkerton, a media critic for Fox News who has worked for two Republican White Houses. "In the six years I worked for Reagan and Bush I, I remember the White House being strict about who got in. It's inconceivable to me that the White House, especially after 9/11, gives credentials to people without doing a background check."

I submit personal information to the Whtie House and they do the background check and they let me in. And I'm fully in compliance, I don't get any special treatment....as far as the credentialing process, those who are responsible for doing that credentialing...see, the WH doesn't do that, it rests with the Congressional press galleries and their criteria doesn't reflect the changes in the media and that's a discussion that's a little beyond me because I don't control...I'm in full compliance with their reqs for a reporter; they have questions about our news service that need to be dealt with and they will be in due course.

Mark Smith, vice president of the White House Correspondents Association, says it's up to White House officials to decide whom they want to wave in each day. "They don't consult us." If they had, Smith says, he would have been "very uncomfortable" granting Gannon the same access as professional journalists.

And the association never would have backed a reporter using an alias. Says Pinkerton: "If [Gannon] was walking around the White House with a pass that had a different name on it than his real name, that's pretty remarkable." Smith, who covers the White House for Associated Press radio, says he "could have sworn" that he saw credentials around Gannon's neck with the name "Jeff Gannon" on them.

Talon's unusual access to the White House has upset journalists at other small outlets who don't enjoy the same privileged connections. "We're a weekly newspaper with a circulation of 22,000 and I'm pretty sure we couldn't get a White House press pass," says Mike Hudson, editor of the Niagara Falls Reporter in Niagara Falls, N.Y. "How does Gannon, which isn't even his real name, get past security?" Hudson wrote to Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., asking her office "to look into how a partisan political organization and an individual with no credentials as a reporter -- and apparently operating under an assumed name -- landed a coveted spot in the White House press corps."

Just one day after U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton decided not to run for a second term, comedian Al Franken may be throwing his hat into the ring.

Last year, Franken said he wanted to run for the Senate in 2008. But last night he told 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS that he is now considering his candidacy for next year.

Franken, a Minnesota native, plans to make an announcement live on his national radio show in Washington D.C. 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS will be in the studio with Franken for that announcement.

In the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission.

But aviation officials were "lulled into a false sense of security," and "intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures," the commission report concluded.

The report discloses that the Federal Aviation Administration, despite being focused on risks of hijackings overseas, warned airports in the spring of 2001 that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable."

The report takes the F.A.A. to task for failing to pursue domestic security measures that could conceivably have altered the events of Sept. 11, 2001, like toughening airport screening procedures for weapons or expanding the use of on-flight air marshals. The report, completed last August, said officials appeared more concerned with reducing airline congestion, lessening delays, and easing airlines' financial woes than deterring a terrorist attack.

The Bush administration has blocked the public release of the full, classified version of the report for more than five months, officials said, much to the frustration of former commission members who say it provides a critical understanding of the failures of the civil aviation system. The administration provided both the classified report and a declassified, 120-page version to the National Archives two weeks ago and, even with heavy redactions in some areas, the declassified version provides the firmest evidence to date about the warnings that aviation officials received concerning the threat of an attack on airliners and the failure to take steps to deter it.

Among other things, the report says that leaders of the F.A.A. received 52 intelligence reports from their security branch that mentioned Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda from April to Sept. 10, 2001. That represented half of all the intelligence summaries in that time.

Five of the intelligence reports specifically mentioned Al Qaeda's training or capability to conduct hijackings, the report said. Two mentioned suicide operations, although not connected to aviation, the report said.

A spokeswoman for the F.A.A., the agency that bears the brunt of the commission's criticism, said Wednesday that the agency was well aware of the threat posed by terrorists before Sept. 11 and took substantive steps to counter it, including the expanded use of explosives detection units.

"We had a lot of information about threats," said the spokeswoman, Laura J. Brown. "But we didn't have specific information about means or methods that would have enabled us to tailor any countermeasures."

Gannon's resignation highlights the no-holds-barred atmosphere of the Web, which both enabled him to function as a reporter -- his stories appeared on a site founded by Texas Republican activist Bobby Eberle -- and produced a swarm of critics determined to expose him.

Among the domain names registered by Gannon's company several years ago, but never launched, were Hotmilitarystud.com, Militaryescorts.com and Militaryescortsm4m.com, along with Exposejessejackson.com. The bloggers also have linked to a since-withdrawn America Online photo of a man who appears to be Gannon, posing in his underwear, with a screen name bearing the initials "JDG."

Markos Moulitsas, a San Francisco liberal who writes the popular Kos site, said of Gannon: "He has been extremely anti-gay in his writings. He's been a shill for the Christian right. So there's a certain level of hypocrisy there that I thought was fair game and needed to be called out."

Asked if digging into someone's personal and business activities was proper retaliation, Moulitsas said: "If that's what it took to really bring attention to him, it's one of those unfortunate facts of reality in the way we operate today. It's sex that really draws attention to these things."

Gannon, whose past postings have been removed from his site and by Talon and GOPUSA, denied taking positions against gays. "I have not written any anti-gay articles," he said. "I have written stories on the White House position on the gay marriage amendment."

In 2003, when Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told the Associated Press that legalizing gay sex could lead to judicial approval of "man on dog" activities, Gannon wrote a Talon article headlined "Santorum Won't Apologize; AP Reporter Has Kerry Ties." Gannon quoted gay activists offering what he said were "predictable responses," then questioned the role of the AP reporter, who was married to John Kerry's then-campaign manager.

In a story last year, Gannon wrote that Kerry "might someday be known as 'the first gay president.' . . . The Massachusetts liberal has enjoyed a 100% rating from the homosexual advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), since 1995 in recognition of his support for the pro-gay agenda."

Glenn Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor who writes on InstaPundit.com, said the tactics used against Gannon "seem to me to be despicable.

"If I were a member of the White House press corps, I'd be really worried," Reynolds said. "If working for a biased news organization disqualifies you, a lot of people have a lot to be worried about. If being involved in a dubious business venture is disqualifying, I suspect a lot of people have a lot to be worried about. I guess I don't see what all this has to do with his job."

First, it should be noted that all information obtained about "Jeff Gannon" (Jim Guckert) was public domain. Liberal bloggers gathered this information and put two and two together.

Second, Mr. Guckert obtained White House press credentials while using a pseudonym and being involved in potentially illegal activity (prostitution). As a government employee, I am well aware of the fact that background checks specifically look for that sort of thing. If he were involved in prostitution, he should not have received a press pass, or a clearance of any kind.

Third, since the information gathered was easily found by using public domain searches, since Guckert basically served as a "lifeline" during White House press conferences whenever questioning became too intense, and since at other times Guckert was little more than a conduit for White House propaganda, it is worthwhile to ask whether the White House knew about Guckert's questionable activities and looked the other way. After the recent Bernard Kerik affair, I would think this question would be especially relevant.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, this White House has been caught numerous times recently conducting underhanded propaganda campaigns using journalists. This would seem to be yet another instance in the same vein, and it implicates both the White House and the media in general. "Jeff Gannon" is a fraud. He is not a journalist; he's a shill for the administration, whose job was to take White House/RNC propaganda and give it an air of journalistic integrity and independent validity, and to save Scott McClellan from having to answer difficult questions. Yet few in the mainstream media felt any urge to inform the American people of the fact that one of their number was serving in a propagandistic capacity for the White House. Why?

Gannon: I have spent a lifetime of writing -- none for pay, unfortunately -- and I spent 2 years reporting at the white house, and I have written a story every day 5 days a week for two years, and I think my journalism credentials are very well established as a result of that......

"I've done a great many things in my lifetime; I've worked for others, I've owned my own business, I've been a truck driver, I've had wholesale experience, retail experience, I've been out in the world, and I have a great background to have a critical outlook at the news."

Well, there's still unconfirmed reports whether I use a pseud or not, and probably I would have addressed this question differently a week ago, until I have become the target of threats against myself and my family. And I'm reluctant to reveal any personal information ... the hate mail I've gotten and some of the web site postings I've brought to the attn of federal officials to look into and it's disturbing that the same people who are allegedly proponents of free speech have decided that I don't have the right to my free speech; and furthermore these people have the right to deny the president to call on anyone he wants to."

I submit personal information to the Whtie House and they do the background check and they let me in. And I'm fully in compliance, I don't get any special treatment....as far as the credentialing process, those who are responsible for doing that credentialing...see, the WH doesn't do that, it rests with the Congressional press galleries and their criteria doesn't reflect the changes in the media and that's a discussion that's a little beyond me because I don't control...I'm in full compliance with their reqs for a reporter; they have questions about our news service that need to be dealt with and they will be in due course.

Folkenflik: I've been told that the name that you applied for credentials with had been Jam--

Gannon: Would you stop for a moment?

Folkenflik: Yes. Look, we're not broadcasting this as a live interview, so if you want to --

Gannon: I'm not going to answer that no matter what name you throw at me, and there's been like a half dozen names that have been put out there, and I'm not going to confirm or deny that...whether this is for broadcast or not because, frankly..

Folkenflik: No, I'm just saying that my saying aloud doesn't mean it gets on the air. It just...I'm asking you, you can decide whether you want to respond, that's totally your right. I'm not going to badger you, I'm just gonna ask.

Gannon: All right.

Folkenflik: The name that I was told you had applied for credentials under was James Guckert...that may be a slight mispronunciation...but I believe it's G-U-C-K-E-R-T...is that your name?

Gannon: I wouldn't...again, I'm going to decline to discuss that. If that information is coming from the Sentate Press gallery, they've...in telling you those kinds of details, they've already broken a confidentiality clause in the application process and I'll deal with them accordingly.

Folkenflik: I'm not saying they did.

Gannon: I'm just telling you, if they did tell you something like that, they had no right to do that.

Folkenflik: Secondly, I understand what you said in terms of you feel you've gotten a lot of unwanted, very hostile attention over the last five days...so I understand over the last 4 days why you might want your privacy. Prior to that, why use a pseudonym?

Gannon: Well, there's many people in this business who do that. Folks who were not all born with a name that's commercial or...people in Hollywood do it. On-air personalities do it, radio people do it, a lot of print people use their own name, but there are reasons to do such a thing besides being part of a CIA conspiracy or having something to hide. It could be very innocent.

Folkenflik: I'm asking yours.

A: It could be...

Folkenflik: I understand what it could be, I'm asking what it is.

A: I'm not even going to acknowledge that it is a pseudonym.

Folkenflik: Well, you're an international man of mystery.

A: There are reasons people would do it, and it's nothing to hide any to hide anything. It's...It probably is just a commercial consideration, frankly.

Folkenflik: Well, if we're talking hypothetically, help me understand what a commercial consideration might be.

Gannon: Well, if you have a name that's difficult to pronounce, difficult to remember, difficult to spell, it doesn't have great commercial appeal, and if you have the oppty to make it more appealing and more memorable, then what would one do then? There's ntohgin wrong with that. And the ... someone's ...Batman's true identity really doesn't have anything to do with the story. I've been very forthcoming about the fact that...I...you know...what my ideological background is, and the fact that I've never supported a campaign, that is given money to a campaign, worked for a campaign, worked for anyone who was elected, anyone who was running for election, I've never been a candidate for anything myself, I've never worked --

Folkenflik: Sure. You understand that--I've had to write about -- any number of times about...covered political journalists before, and one of the things about knowing the person's actual name is you can verify that what they say is true, and you can say so. On the air or in print. there ARE no donations listed under Mr. Gannon's name or--

Gannon: Well, you can be sure well...this is one of those things you'll have to take my word for...I'm not affiliated, I don't have any political affiliations, and those who want to attrib those kinds of things to me, they're mistaken, and of course it's all on the basis of some kind of character assassination. Look, I confess, I'm a conservative. I think that's certainly more than my colleagues will admit, that they have ideological leanings that are reflected in their questions and their stories... I've been up front about how I pursue a story, the angle I take, and my colleagues haven't been. And they criticize me for it, which doesn't reflect well on them.

[snip]

Folkenflik: Very briefly: In terms of Talon News, my under is that it's supported at least logistically by GOPUSA.

Gannon: There exists two entities. One is GOPUSA which is an online discussion board,they do opinion stuff -- very conservative, obviously, with initials like GOPUSA, I'd say what people are discussing are Republicans. Talon News is owned by the same person who owns and operates GOPUSA. Talon News is an independent organization that really does news. Now...are we conservative? Absolutely. I have nothing to do with GOPUSA. I report for Talon News, I don't write anything for GOPUSA. My news content finds itself onto their web site as it does on Men's News Daily, as it does Hawaiian reporter, as it does a half a dozen more whose names I can't remember.

Folkenflik: It has the link of the owner, but it doesn't otherwise it's not...

Gannon: There's a degree of separation between me and Talon News and GOPUSA. I'm very comfortable with that and I defend that.

Folkenflik: I don't know that's under attack, I just want to understand--

Gannon: Well, there has been accusations that it's funded by the Repub party, it's a kind of activist wing of the Repub party

Folkenflik: And your feeling is that they are linked at the top but otherwise separately run institutions.

A: Absolutely. Bobby Eberle is the key in that he owns both and he's the editor and he'll write stories for Talon in his role as editor but I have no links to GOPUSA except through him and that common ownership. I'm really comfortable with what I do and the linkage that these others are trying to emphasize, is well, they're mistaken. And certainly in the GOPUSA web site isn't supported by the Republican party or these big Republican donors standing somehow in the background...that just isn't happening.

Folkenflik: One last attempt to get a little clarity here: You've been doing this White House as I understand for 2 years, right?

Gannon: Right.

Folkenflik: Prior to that, were you serving in a journalistic function in life? I know you were writing in sort of your private realm, but...

Gannon: I was doing independent writing. No, I was not a journalist quote unquote.

Folkenflik: So we wouldn't have seen or heard you and stuff earlier...so this was...you learned on the job, in terms of the rigors of this particular endeavor.

Gannon: Journalism isn't all that rigorous. If you know how to write, you have your basic story construction. Gee, I guess I shouldn't say these things about journalism, since people spend thousands and thousands of dollars to go to journalism school, but the truth of the matter is there's a basic story structure and certainly standards you set, and you go about presenting information to people. I think it's a straightfoward thing to do.

Yesterday was both Groundhog Day and the day for the State of the Union Address. As one person pointed out, it was an ironic juxtaposition:

One involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a creature of little intelligence for prognostication and the other involves a groundhog.

Now, I'm not one to judge how folks like to get their jollies (assuming no children are involved and it's consensual), but then again, I don't suck up to the family values agenda like Mr. Gannon does. I've been through Gannon's archives, and it's a horrendous accumulation of religious right suck-up pieces on gay issues. Some are concerned that perhaps it's not fair to hit him with the gay card, if he is gay. Well, take a look at some of the stories from Gannon's Talon News Service: here, here, here Talon is promoting "ex-gays," defending Bush on gay marriage, and Gannon himself writing a story defending Santorum on his man-dog-sex commments about gays.

Dear Mr. President:

In light of the mounting evidence that your Administration has, on several occasions, paid members of the media to advocate in favor of Administration policies, I feel compelled to ask you to address a matter brought to my attention by the Niagara Falls Reporter (article attached), a local newspaper in my district, regarding James "JD" Guckert (AKA Jeff Gannon) of Talon News.

According to several credible reports, "Mr. Gannon" has been repeatedly credentialed as a member of the White House press corps by your office and has been regularly called upon in White House press briefings by your Press Secretary Scott McClellan, despite the fact evidence shows that "Mr. Gannon" is a Republican political operative, uses a false name, has phony or questionable journalistic credentials, is known for plagiarizing much of the "news" he reports, and according to several web reports, may have ties to the promotion of the prostitution of military personnel.

Several weeks ago when it was revealed that radio/TV host Armstrong Williams had received payment from your Administration in exchange for his vocal support of the 'No Child Left Behind' initiative, I was stunned. For years now I have been leading the fight in Congress for fairness and accountability in the media; the Williams revelation only underscored the need for a media that has integrity, is balanced and expresses the local interests and concerns of its consumers.

Since that time, two more members of the media have been found to have received money from your Administration in exchange for their vocal, yet undisclosed support of Administration policies.

And just this morning we have learned that "Mr. Gannon" has resigned his post at the, so called, Talon News amid growing concerns over his controversial background and falsified qualifications. In fact, it appears that "Mr. Gannon's" presence in the White House press corps was merely as a tool of propaganda for your Administration.

I was already concerned about what appears to be an organized campaign to mask partisan propaganda as legitimate news by your Administration. That we have now learned this same type of deception is occurring inside the White House briefing room itself is even more disturbing.

That is why I am asking you to please explain to the Congress and to the American people how and why the individual known as "Mr. Gannon" was repeatedly cleared by your staff to join the legitimate White House press corps?

Mr. President, your Administration has driven the so-called "values" debate in this country. But the most important value for those of us in public service should always be honesty and integrity, particularly when considering the manner in which we conduct our affairs of state.

Dean's Plan for the DNC

By popular demand, as things should work in the Democratic Party and in our country, here is Governor Dean's plan for the DNC should he become the next chairman:

Show up! Never concede a single state, county, district or even a single voter to the Republicans. We must be active and compete in all 50 states and work with the state parties to build a truly national party.

Recruit, train, and encourage candidates to run for office at every level -- building tomorrow's farm team from the ground up. This was the founding principle behind Democracy for America.

[Note from me: Heh. Baseball metaphor. Great minds think alike. Here's what I said about Dean in December:}

If the Democratic Party is going to survive, it's going to have to do what the hapless New York Mets SHOULD be doing if they weren't owned by the hopelessly inept Wilpon family -- building a farm team. You don't trade for washed-up sluggers. You trade washed-up players for young pitchers. You grow your own team. The fact of the matter is that the Democratic Party doesn't even have washed-up sluggers; they have overpaid washed-up journeyman ballplayers that no one wants (Kerry), overhyped prospects (Evan Bayh), an attractive kid who hits great during the season and then chokes in the playoffs (Edwards) and the team owner's nephew (Hillary Clinton). So this is going to take time. You have to scout these players in the town halls and state houses across the country. We have one of them in Barack Obama, but let's not turn him into Darryl Strawberry circa 1983. We can't ask him to carry an entire team. Give people candidates at the local, county, and state levels, and candidates for Congressional seats who will STAND for something.

Actively grow local Democratic committees in local communities. Local neighborhood advocates are our best spokespeople -- helping them reach out in their own communities will better articulate our message and enable the grassroots to support state and local candidates.

Better integrate national and state party operations. Specifically, that means: providing the state party the means to pay for its executive director in every state; building and sharing lists between the national and state parties; and creating an ongoing active presence -- a permanent campaign in every state that does not have to be recreated for only four months every four years.

Develop and articulate core Democratic principles that we all can agree on, that will let people know what our party stands for. We will not win elections or build a lasting majority solely by changing our rhetoric, nor will we win by adopting the other side's positions. We must say what we mean -- and mean real change when we say it.

Make Democrats the party of reform -- reforming America's financial situation, reforming our electoral process, reforming health care, reforming education and putting morality back in our foreign policy.

Utilize cutting edge Internet technology, not only to fundraise, but also as an effective organizing tool to recruit more supporters, communicate with them, and empower them to lead in their local communities.

Strengthen the party institutions and leadership institutes so that they rival the Republican machine that currently exists. These institutions must work together in a coordinated way to recruit new talent, develop leaders, articulate our values and elect Democrats at every level.

Warren Bell in The National Review Online offers an observation I can get behind: Women aren't as funny as men. Or, at least, most funny people are men, which lets us avoid trying to calculate average humorousness across large populations. Phoebe Maltz protests that she's funny so Bell is full of shit. But one counterexample does not a statistical irregularity prove. Lisa Leslie is a better basketball player than most men (obviously I could take her, but most...) , but that doesn't change the fact that men are better at basketball on the whole. I can't tell what causal mechanism Bell is trying to argue for here. My friend Dave thinks it's because women are too nice. I think the culprit is, pretty clearly, the tendency of magazines to print photographs of attracted women accompanied by commentary from the women in question asserting that she's looking to meet someone funny. This creates incentives all out of proportion to reality for men to try and funnify themselves.

Speaking as someone who considers himself to be pretty funny (people who know me from real life can weigh in on the accuracy of this assertion), a good sense of humor seems to me to be an irrationally overvalued personality trait. Thanks to television, The Onion, etc., a small number of professionally funny people can meet the entire world's humor demand. Something like kindness or personal warmth you need to know actual people to get. Nevertheless, nobody (myself included) actually sees it that way.