The Bush White House knows the value of a good photo-op. That’s probably why the administration is refusing to release pictures taken by the White House photographer of Jack Abramoff and President Bush together, saying they are irrelevant to the investigation. It’s true that a few pictures of the two rubbing elbows or shaking hands do not prove that they had a close relationship or that Bush did any favors for the lobbyist. But they would look bad — especially considering Bush has said repeatedly that he doesn’t recall meeting Abramoff.
Posted by Melissa Cooley
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
64 Comments
Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to lead the Republican party.
Of course Bush doesn’t want those images out in public! They say more about him and his party than any commentator could!
On May 2001 Abramoff and his indian client attended an event at the whitehouse. This event also included 21 state legislatures, the Kickapoos and the Coushattas.
The official list of guests doesn’t include Abramoff and his indian client. One of the 5 pictures that Washingtonian and Time have discussed was taken at the event.
Isn’t that a hoot?
Yeah! Actually the president has his picture taken by thousands and thousands of people every year. It’s part of their job to do photo-ops.
A radio talk show host who recently had his picture taken with Bush explain the whole process, as if almost that Bush is much like a Shopping Mall Santa Claus. He said you get a ticket and wait in line with dozens of other people, when it’s your turn, you shake his hand and they snap a picture. Takes less than 10 seconds.
Presidents, movie stars, celebrities of all stripes, they all do the same thing. You will never know everybody that you are taking pictures with.
If Bush says he didn’t know who he is, I believe it. Yes! Abramoff was an influential and powerful lobbyist, but he is small potatoes in the lobbyist field, there are lobbyist firms and individuals that are much more powerful and well known than he ever would be.
So ya need to lobby for something, say, replacing those worn out widgets congress uses with those new all-in-one super widgets you invented. Where do you start?
Well, here: http://www.eyeonwashington.com/lobbying/index.php
Or here: http://www.cassidy.com/ (They claim they’re Washingtons most powerful lobbying firm.)
Just two from a list that has to be phone book size. Think something needs to change? You wont get it from the current group populating congress.
Joe is right on and factual, but that won’t make a hoot of difference to a lot of people. “a PICTURE proves it..”
Right. Sorta like the picture taken of me at an event with three Oakland Raiders cheerleaders. Yep..they all remember me, uh huh. And they call me EVERY day. A yep..uh huh. (not even in my dreams..)
Ray! You have proof that you know Raiders Cheerleaders. :) That’s all you need. The picture proves it. ;)
To believe that Bush didnt know Abramoff and know him well, you would have to be like the queen in Alice who could believe six impossible things before breakfast. (That is a skill that comes in handy in kansas.)
“If Bush says he didn’t know who he is, I believe it. Yes! Abramoff was an influential and powerful lobbyist, but he is small potatoes in the lobbyist field,”
Joe, this means you. Wanna back up that statement with facts or just admit it is your opinion?
“Joe is right on and factual,”. Ray, can you show us those facts?
Geez, and both of these guys claimed to be moderates last week. If that is true, looks like moderates in Kansas live somewhere left of Phil Kline and right of Derek Schmidt. And Sebelius must be a waaaaayyyyy left wing nut.
Grlll..
All we are saying is that a photo op with the prez doesn’t mean they are best buddies. A photo op proves absolutely nothing. That is the fact of the matter, no spin, no misinformation at all. My comparison of a picture with some cheerleaders simply illustrates that–people of celebrity status have their pictures taken with thousands and thousands of people. That doesn’t prove any ongoing relationship, doesn’t prove anything except the two were standing together for a picture.
Not everything involving GW is 100% evil, Grrl. No matter how much you want to paint it that way. A simple photo op is just that. I have a picture of myself with Richard Nixon. Does that mean I was an adviser to him? Does that mean he listened to anything I said? Does that mean he was swayed by my advice? Absolutely not..it meant I was in DC for Boys Nation in high school.
I don’t think the pictures prove some sort of close relationship between the two. However, why does Bush have to say repeatedly that he never meet the guy, when he probably did? Do I really want a president with such faulty memory? Bush always wants to stand further away from any problem than he actually is, and then he gets burned by that stance. How this guy got elected on integrity is beyond me.
Right on Allie. I agree pics dont mean anything. I have one of me with governor leadership too. But…I only have ONE pic. Ray, do you have FIVE pics with nixon? (why am I afraid he does?) Allie is right. It isnt the pics, it is the lie that he didnt know the guy.
I am still waiting on backup that Abramoff was a “small potato” lobbyist. You guys say stuff like that and then cant prove it.
This blog is on the opinion page, so opinions are ok, just dont pass them off as fact guys.
IF Jack is such a small potato, why not release the pics?
Because releasing them would make people scream “HE KNOWS THE GUY” when he most likely doesn’t. As in my analogy..did Nixon know me? Do the cheerleaders know me? Just because pictures exist is not proof of acquaintence.
Give the poor guy the benefit of the doubt for once, would that be painful? I mean, GW has shot himself in the foot so many times that he creates enough real problems.
And no, Grrl…I just have the one of Nixon…. maybe I could sell it on ebay??
“Because releasing them would make people scream “HE KNOWS THE GUY” when he most likely doesn’t.”
Ray, we already have proof he knows the guy without the pictures. Still waiting on that factual backup.
News to me. What proof that he knows him? Not challenging you, just very curious. Transcripts of meetings? Log books of Oval Office visitors? I am really curious what proof there is that the GW personally and closely knew this scumbag lobbyist.
What about THIS picture?
http://www.thismodernworld.com/blog/bushab.jpg
How’s this Ray? It is from the Associated Press.
In President Bush’s first 10 months, GOP fundraiser Jack Abramoff and his lobbying team logged nearly 200 contacts with the new administration as they pressed for friendly hires at federal agencies and sought to keep the Northern Mariana Islands exempt from the minimum wage and other laws, records show.
The meetings between Abramoff’s lobbying team and the administration ranged from Attorney General John Ashcroft to policy advisers in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, according to his lobbying firm billing records.
Abramoff’s team didn’t neglect party politics either: There were at least two meetings with Republican National Committee officials, including then-finance chief Jack Oliver, as well as attendance at GOP fundraisers. Oliver served as the top fundraiser in both Bush campaigns.”
Ray, he was a pioneer, he claims he raised over $120,000 for Bush, and you think Bush didnt know him? What about the WaPo story that he knew the details about Jack’s family?
ksfarmgrrl, nice catch.
It’s the usual GOP ‘defense’ when caught with their hand in the cookie jar:
Who are you gonna believe–W or your lyin’ eyes?
The problem is that this administration tossed away any benefit of the doubt months ago with its perpetual obfuscation of the facts surrounding ANYTHING.
Only the ideologues who can’t stand to admit they’re wrong about anything trust Bush. The rest of us figured the lies out a long time ago.
ROFLMAO CF. “Who are you gonna believe–W or your lyin’ eyes?” You know I heard that “lyin’ eyes” line all the time when I lived in Texas. It was usually used in the context of some marital infidelity.
Of course Bush doesn’t know Abramoff! He quit knowing him just as soon as it was clear Abramoff was going down.
Where’s the link kfg? My fairness bias (you all don’t seem to worry about that) makes me ask questions like:
How many are there on Abramoff’s lobbying “team”?
What consitutues a “contact” (a phone call to try to schedule an appt etc..?)
In proper context, is 200 “contacts” a lot of a little?
Did the lobbyists identify themselves as such?
Is there any evidence of improper conduct?
You lefists are always coming up with these so-called “gotcha” moments that never amount to a hill of beans. It must be frustrating.
No proof. Let’s see what we have,
“…his lobbying team logged nearly 200 contacts…” Does that say that Abramoff met with GW? No, it does not. What is a contact? There are over 2,000 people working just in the White House. Does this mean that everytime someone calls a staffer in the White House that the President knows the caller? No.
“…Abramoff’s lobbying team and the administration ranged …” Did I read Abramoff, or his lobbying team? Did that prove that Abramoff met with GW? No.
“…he claims he raised over $120,000 for Bush,…” Claims? Did he or didn’t he? He is already proven to be a liar and a thief, but NOW you want to believe him?
Sorry, you missed the mark. You have some inuendo, rumor, and maybe some associative possibles. Again, I ask for proof. Your opinion doesn’t count as proof, either.
Please. Provide some actual proof.
I got it from google by searching bush + abramhoff.
You’d have to ask Jack how many were on “Team Abramhoff” as he liked to call it. Would it matter if it was 200 calls by one person or one call by 200?
What constitutes a contact? Um…call, email, letter, etc. Sounds like you are worrying about the meaning of “is”. Are you now looking for “meaningful contact” instead of just contact? How fine can you split that hair?
Is 200 a lot or a little? Compared to what? How many times laura or the girls called him at work? How many times the RNC called? You are really reaching here.
“Did the lobbyists identify themselves as such?” I am roflmao here. I dunno, do you think they called in and pretended to be Terry and Joe so the prez would take their calls? Do you think they pretended to be those all powerful dems? How many calls do you think they let through to the white house where the caller is unidentified? Or misidentified? Now I am scared of domestic spying if that is the best they can do.
“Is there any evidence of improper conduct?” Hmmm…if the president didnt do anything improper, he should release all the records and photos. If he didnt do anything wrong, he has nothing to hide. Isnt that what he says to us all the time?
I think the “improper conduct” is what we would all like to know outlander. Kinda hard with the “truthiness” in the way.
And BTW, there was no gotcha here. I was responding to a direct request from Ray for evidence, and I supplied it, and so did Rage. We are still waiting for Ray to do the same.
p.s. outlander. Go to the AP website. The story ran on January 9, 2006.
Do you think they called 200 times because they couldnt get an appointment? Or maybe because they could….lolololol.
Ray, I still havent gotten your proof of facts yet. No matter how much proof you are shown, you wont believe it, moderate that you are.
Uh…the bush campaign itself acknowledged he raised $100,000 or more. That is what you have to do to be a pioneer. What, you dont believe the bushies themselves? Ya wanna quibble about the extra $20,000?
Even your boy Drudge agrees!!!!
http://www.drudge.com/user/vernon
If you really want to make your head explode, search bush + lies.
I was born in the ’show me’ state. I need to see evidence, not hearsay and inuendo. Nothing you have provided is proof of anything.
I will believe facts. Being moderate or communist or whatever has no bearing on facts. Undisputed facts. Such as visitor logs in the Oval Office..that would be proof. Or documented transcripts of meetings. Or eyewitness testimony of meetings.
If you can provide such, I will believe that Bush knew Abramoff. But, all you have provided is hearsay, inuendo and rumor. There is not one shred of evidence that the two men knew each other in anything you have written. For example, you make a giant leap from the lobbyist’s claim of raising funds to saying “and you think Bush didn’t know him”. That type of assertion is not fact. What I think or don’t think is not evidence of anything.
You have no actual proof…you are convinced that Bush is evil, and that has clouded your ability to think rationally.
This is the best one yet. Search abramhoff + small potatoes
hee hee
“I will believe facts. Being moderate or communist or whatever has no bearing on facts. Undisputed facts. Such as visitor logs in the Oval Office..that would be proof. Or documented transcripts of meetings. Or eyewitness testimony of meetings.”
Yes, if the white house would only release these we would know wouldnt we? But since you know the devil will ice skate before that happens, by all means, require that as the only proof you need. Sheesh.
Ray, you can whiz on me all you want, but we are still waiting for your proof. Dont change the subject anymore. We are waiting for your tadpole brain to back up that alligator mouth.
kfg–
I have no idea what proof you are waiting for from me. I am not the one claiming that I have proof of anything.
My earlier post of “fact” was in reference to the fact that a photo op does not prove much of anything, and I provided two examples of that. A photo op is not evidence of an ongoing (or any type) of relationship.
The burden of proof is on you to actually demonstrate that Bush and Abramoff were acquaintences. You cannot do it with rumor, claims, thoughts or opinions.
Right on Ray, could not have said it much better myself.
And, I have been asking civilly, without resorting to insults or juvenile phrases.
You have no proof of your claim, so you turn to insults. Yep, real mature ‘discussion’.
This has degenerated from a possible intelligent quest for facts to a ridiculous smear that I will not participate in further.
Of course they will only say they won the discussion now… LOL
I love it when you abandon the playing field by saying “yo mama”.
Ray do you not remember saying this: “Joe is right on and factual, but that won’t make a hoot of difference to a lot of people. “a PICTURE proves it..”
Joe said bush didnt know abramhoff. You said that was a fact. Facts can be proven.
Prove it Ray.
“Being moderate or communist or whatever has no bearing on facts”
I consider that an insult as well as this: “that has clouded your ability to think rationally.” You must think you have cornered the market on rationality.
Rational=agrees with Ray in Ray’s world.
I guess it is only an insult when directed at you. When you say such things, it is fact, not insult.
Admit it Ray, your mouth overloaded your brain and now you want to go away in a huff. There is no proof that will satisfy you short of white house records that they will never release.
That’s called circle logic Ray.
I deeply apologize for not pointing out the obvious. My statement of fact was referring to (and ONLY to) the FACT that a photo op proves nothing..something you agreed with.
I will not continue this any discussion with someone who is juvenile, insulting, and so immature that they cannot discuss like adults.
“The burden of proof is on you to actually demonstrate that Bush and Abramoff were acquaintences.”
Now you think they arent even aquaintences? Do you remember this?
I never had sex with that woman.
ksframgrrl,
Do you or do you not have anything to offer in the way of proof that Bush was anything with Abramoff?
Now you wanna know if Abramhoff was anything to bush? Um….big fundraiser….um pioneer…
Geez, we went from proving that Bush and Jack were pals, to proving that they knew each other to proving that they were aquaintences to now proving that they were “anything” to each other?What is the next degree nathan? That they lived in the same city at the same time?
Did you do any of the recommended searches or does Jesus not love google either? Damned evil athiest search engines.
What would you accept as proof nathan?
Still waiting…
kfg:
“Do you think they called 200 times because they couldnt get an appointment? Or maybe because they could….lolololol.”
You can slip the questions all you want. But you haven’t answered them, because you can’t. The point is that you throw out information and numbers from an old AP story, yet you don’t have a clue as to what it means when put into context. Hardly convincing stuff.
Outlander, old story? From January 9? What changed since then? Just the spin I think.
And at least I provided numbers, even if they are two weeks old.
I am not dodging questions, in fact I answered them all, even the outrageous ones like the context of 200 calls. Outlander, when is 200 calls not significant?
I know you want me to do your research for you, so how about checking out Bush’s transition team for his first term of appointment.
“In 2001, Bush tapped the lobbyist as a member of his Presidential Transition Team, advising the administration on policy and hiring at the Interior Department, which oversees Native American issues.” This was also reported by the AP, so I guess it isnt valid either. LOL he sure did advise on Native American issues didnt he? Cha ching cha ching.
Do you all want a personalized christmas card from bush? An invite from Jack to a bar mitzvah? Proof that he had dinner at the white house? What constitutes proof for you guys?
Oh, hannity and rush havent said it yet so it must not be true. And god hasnt spoken directly to nathan on the subject yet.
I guess news reports will just have to do.
What fun…
KSFRMGRRL posts:
“Ray, we already have proof he knows the guy without the pictures.”
When asked for this proof, she lists activities of his lobbying firm, none of which ever claims that the lobbyist and the president actually knew each other. When challenged for actual proof, she makes reptilian comparisons.
Entertainment on a Thursday afternoon.
kfg: I agree that you attempted to answer the questions. However,the questions weren’t meant to be answered. They were simply examples of what important information is not available and which a reasonable person would want to know before making a decision on relevance. However, relying on incomplete information is not a problem with the left, when it comes to bashing George Bush.
hehehe, Mr. Bush doesn’t know Ken Lay either, they guy he nicknamed “Kenny Boy.”
He doesn’t know the name of the administration officials who leaked Valerie Plame’s name to the press. And he can’t possibly find out, even though they work for him.
This guy doesn’t know much, does he?
kfg: I agree that you attempted to answer the questions. However,the questions weren’t meant to be answered.
I think that says it all.
Ray, I am asking you again, what proof would you accept? Did you do any of the searches? Lets see, if pictures wont do, we have AP reports about the presidential transition team, we have the president quoted in the Washington Post about knowing detailed information about Jack’s family. He asked him personal questions and called his kids by name. What the “f” else do you need?
Maybe if bush would quit going from “i never met him” to “i dont recall meeting him” to “i really dont know him” to “i dont know him that well” we might not have so much trouble believing him.
Nothing short of a recording of him moaning in bed with Jack is gonna satisfy you guys.
Seriously, do you all know how to use search engines and then click on the little blue words to get the full story? Can you search the Washington Post? Where is waldo? Do I have to use up all the bandwidth here to repeat the articles?
You best slow down kfg. I notice that you’re keeping up with about 4 topics. I can see the smoke coming from your computer from here!
” However, relying on incomplete information is not a problem with the left, when it comes to bashing George Bush.”
Incomplete info, like what context is 200 calls? How did the caller identify themselves? How many people are on team Jack? What constitutes a contact? Oh yeah I forgot, these are not real questions, just examples of what you need to know in order to believe the truth. How complete does the info need to be? Does it need to be carried down by Moses?
“I will believe facts. Being moderate or communist or whatever has no bearing on facts. Undisputed facts. Such as visitor logs in the Oval Office..that would be proof. Or documented transcripts of meetings. Or eyewitness testimony of meetings.”
I think I would rather be called a reptile than a communist, but enough about insults. Lets see, we know Scotty has told the press corp that Jack himself was present at a number of “staff level” meetings, and he promised two weeks ago to get back to the press with a list of those meetings. Can you find that list for me? Never issued, right?
Would those meetings be “fact” since Scotty said it or do you need the actual logs from the white house? Scotty also refused to say who the “staff” was that attended those “staff level” meetings. Could it be the prez himself? I guess we will never know unless the white house releases the logs.
Documented transcripts of the meetings would have to be released by the white house. Donkeys will fly before that happens, but that is the only proof that matters to you right? Once again, if he has nothing to hide, release the records. Only terrorists have something to hide, right?
Eyewitness testimony? If you read the WaPo story, that is what it is. Eyewitness testimony that the preznit knew Jack well enough to ask detailed questions about his family.
What else do you guys want, and I will do your work for you and find it. Still waiting to hear what you thought of the articles found by searching bush + abramoff and then search abramoff + small potatoes as Ray said this morning.
ksfarmgrrrl,
Welcome to Nathan’s game: insist on proof, and then deny it when it’s presented. This takes us back to ‘who are you gonna believe…’ once again. But since it’s his one trick, who are we to deny it to him?
Nathan is fun to toy with every now and then. A chew toy, if you will, since he doesn’t engage in honest discourse and doesn’t expect real answers anyway.
Lol outlander :) You guys are everywhere like roaches and me with just one broom. It is a full time job to swat the bugs refute the lies and misstatements made here. I wish the second shift of liberals would come home from work. Where are the 101st Fighting Keyboarders when you need them! :)
ksfarmgrrrl,
As one who often does so myself, I can say that you’re currently engaging in asymmetrical warfare: you have all the facts and arguments, while your opponents boast a smarmy refusal to acknowledge their own bankruptcy. Even though their reasoning remains at the ‘I know you are but what am I’ level, they’ll always declare victory.
So, screw ‘em. They know their President is up to his gonads with Abramhoff money, but they’ll cynically go on acting innocent as newborns in order not to admit it.
Rather than argue, I’m in the mood for denouncing. Hey, Repukes! Your ‘President’ is a money whore who’s been whoring around with other indicted money whores! And there are pictures, too!
So, hit ‘em with the chair, ksfarmgrrrl! Both barrels!
Lol CF, asymetrical warfare. That must be why I feel so off balance. BTW, do you know the definition of a whore? Anyone who is getting more than you. I bet that holds true for money whores too.
I am going to see if I can find the article about how being “nice” has worked against the democrats. Reference swift boats. I agree, hit ‘em with both barrels. You need a shotgun to hit a moving target, and they just keep squirming off the bullseye.
If Bush et al has nothing to hide, why don’t they release the pictures, logs, and documents (If he has nothing to hide)? Isn’t that the republican justification for wiretapping? If there’s nothing to hide, what’s the problem? And what ever happened to transparent government?
Transparancy went out of fashion when we began to see the enemies of freedom within the government. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
For me the picture at the white house with Abramoff, his clients with Bush show a closer relationship than would warrant the Abramoff who? stance bush has taken.
The Texas Observer carries a pretty good history on the story behind that particular meeting.
http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle_new.asp?ArticleID=13here’s a another link that shows a few more connections.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=ai1hC39cvMns&refer=us
The thing about these current republicans….If it’s not one damn thing, it’s another.
“WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 — The investigation of Jack Abramoff, the disgraced Republican lobbyist, took a surprising new turn on Thursday when the Justice Department said the chief prosecutor in the inquiry would step down next week because he had been nominated to a federal judgeship by President Bush.”
Way to buy off a prosecutor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/27judge.html