• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

When George Met Jack

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
President Bush, caught, in another lie?

Of course he was only does not believe it (lie) will amount to much since he is "protecting" us. As I said before, President Bush does not have to play by the "rules" anymore, you know, 9/11 and all.

But thank God for the main-stream media and their Kodak moments.










http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1151784,00.html?cnn=yes

White House aides deny the President knew lobbyist Abramoff, but unpublished photos shown to TIME suggest there's more to the story

As details poured out about the illegal and unseemly activities of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, White House officials sought to portray the scandal as a Capitol Hill affair with little relevance to them. Peppered for days with questions about Abramoff's visits to the White House, press secretary Scott McClellan said the now disgraced lobbyist had attended two huge holiday receptions and a few "staff-level meetings" that were not worth describing further. "The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever meeting him," McClellan said.

The President's memory may soon be unhappily refreshed. TIME has seen five photographs of Abramoff and the President that suggest a level of contact between them that Bush's aides have downplayed. While TIME's source refused to provide the pictures for publication, they are likely to see the light of day eventually because celebrity tabloids are on the prowl for them. And that has been a fear of the Bush team's for the past several months: that a picture of the President with the admitted felon could become the iconic image of direct presidential involvement in a burgeoning corruption scandal like the shots of President Bill Clinton at White House coffees for campaign contributors in the mid-1990s.

In one shot that TIME saw, Bush appears with Abramoff, several unidentified people and Raul Garza Sr., a Texan Abramoff represented who was then chairman of the Kickapoo Indians, which owned a casino in southern Texas. Garza, who is wearing jeans and a bolo tie in the picture, told TIME that Bush greeted him as "Jefe," or "chief" in Spanish. Another photo shows Bush shaking hands with Abramoff in front of a window and a blue drape. The shot bears Bush's signature, perhaps made by a machine. Three other photos are of Bush, Abramoff and, in each view, one of the lobbyist's sons (three of his five children are boys). A sixth picture shows several Abramoff children with Bush and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who is now pushing to tighten lobbying laws after declining to do so last year when the scandal was in its early stages.

Most of the pictures have the formal look of photos taken at presidential receptions. The images of Bush, Abramoff and one of his sons appear to be the rapid-fire shots--known in White House parlance as clicks-- that the President snaps with top supporters before taking the podium at fund-raising receptions...
 

Paladin

Active member
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
380
Reaction score
36
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I'm a dem/lib, I don't approve of Bush's handling of our Iraqi involvement, I have paid more in taxes each year since Bush was ushered into office, and I have real issues with Bush supporters who feel Georgie drops gold turds, but --- even I think this is reaching.
I doubt Bush remembers everyone who has been photographed with him. I know of several rep/cons who would wet themselves for a photo op with him (several at this forum :D ).
I wish the media would get out of the attack mode and find something that matters.
ted
 

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Paladin said:
I'm a dem/lib, I don't approve of Bush's handling of our Iraqi involvement, I have paid more in taxes each year since Bush was ushered into office, and I have real issues with Bush supporters who feel Georgie drops gold turds, but --- even I think this is reaching.
I doubt Bush remembers everyone who has been photographed with him. I know of several rep/cons who would wet themselves for a photo op with him (several at this forum :D ).
I wish the media would get out of the attack mode and find something that matters.
ted

Well then don't you think Bush's handlers (Rove) should of researched and found out if Bush had ever appeared with Abramoff in a photo-op?

Seems a little suspicious doesn't it?
 

Paladin

Active member
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
380
Reaction score
36
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
KidRocks said:
Well then don't you think Bush's handlers (Rove) should of researched and found out if Bush had ever appeared with Abramoff in a photo-op?
And do what? Delete the photos? O, yea, that would be above reproach! :roll:

KidRocks said:
Seems a little suspicious doesn't it?
Why? If this is suspicious, then Pres. Clinton being photographed with Pres. Bush I should raise suspicions among rep/cons about their hatred of the Clintons. And among the dem/libs about whether Clinton was the savior they proclaim him to be.

It was a photograph. No big deal. :mrgreen:
ted
 

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Paladin said:
And do what? Delete the photos? O, yea, that would be above reproach! :roll:



Why? If this is suspicious, then Pres. Clinton being photographed with Pres. Bush I should raise suspicions among rep/cons about their hatred of the Clintons. And among the dem/libs about whether Clinton was the savior they proclaim him to be.

It was a photograph. No big deal. :mrgreen:

ted
It's not the photo's it's about how the President's memory may soon be "unhappily refreshed"!

Can't wait to see those pic's! :cool:
 

Paladin

Active member
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
380
Reaction score
36
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
KidRocks said:
It's not the photo's it's about how the President's memory may soon be "unhappily refreshed"!
I still don't see how it's a bad thing? :confused:
I'd rather see an issue made out his appointing Gonzalez as AG. Or his original SecEd Rod Paige.
It is this sort of crap that makes the current dem party look foolish.
Let's find some issues that have substance, back them, and pound Georgie with them. Not this bs.
ted
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So what do you think will happen when he finally remembers that meeting? Is that proof Bush was involved in the whole Abramof scandal? Something tells me you want it to be, but that argument is missing a few key ingredients. I'm sure you can think of at least one.
 

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Paladin said:
I still don't see how it's a bad thing? :confused:
I'd rather see an issue made out his appointing Gonzalez as AG. Or his original SecEd Rod Paige.
It is this sort of crap that makes the current dem party look foolish.
Let's find some issues that have substance, back them, and pound Georgie with them. Not this bs.
ted


Nope, I don't think so, it doesn't work.

But issues like "swift-boat liars" does so I say fight fire with fire and damn the substance, let's attack the Repubs with their own medicine.

Keep up the "Culture of Corruption" theme, hit em with their own incompetent policies!
 

Paladin

Active member
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
380
Reaction score
36
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
KidRocks said:
Nope, I don't think so, it doesn't work.

But issues like "swift-boat liars" does so I say fight fire with fire and damn the substance, let's attack the Repubs with their own medicine.

Keep up the "Culture of Corruption" theme, hit em with their own incompetent policies!
It's wrong. Period.
I'd rather stay above it. And I'd really like my party to stay above it.
Fighting dirty may be fun, but so is masturbating, and both end up being non-productive.
ted
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,145
Reaction score
1,638
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
KidRocks said:
But issues like "swift-boat liars" does so I say fight fire with fire and damn the substance, let's attack the Repubs with their own medicine.

Keep up the "Culture of Corruption" theme, hit em with their own incompetent policies!
Ugh, don't stoop. No matter who wins the stupid partisan game, America loses in the end.
 

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Binary_Digit said:
Ugh, don't stoop. No matter who wins the stupid partisan game, America loses in the end.

We've already "lost" America, we're trying to win her back!
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Paladin said:
And do what? Delete the photos? O, yea, that would be above reproach! :roll:



Why? If this is suspicious, then Pres. Clinton being photographed with Pres. Bush I should raise suspicions among rep/cons about their hatred of the Clintons. And among the dem/libs about whether Clinton was the savior they proclaim him to be.

It was a photograph. No big deal. :mrgreen:
ted
No, but I posted something a few weeks ago about how the White House was attempting to gather up all the photos. Looks like they didnt get them all. Not only that, but

1) Bush has met with some of Abramoff's clients too.

2) Bush met with Beningo Repeki Fitial, who was speaker of the house in the Marianas Islands. Fitial is also vice president of Tan Holdings, a company which owns sweat shops in the Marianas Islands. Fitial is also an Abramoff Client, and a big Bush contributor.

3) Abramoff, along with members of his lobbying team, met senior members of the Bush administration 195 times during Bush's first 10 months in office.

4) Abramoff raised over 100 million for the Bush campaign, and was a Bush Pioneer.

5) Bush appointed Patrick Pizella and David Safavian, both members of the Abramoff team to positions in his cabinet. David Safavian, of course, is under indictment for obstruction of justice, stemming from his efforts to quash the Abramoff investigation.

6) Bush knows the first names of Abramoff's kids.

What does Bush say about all of this? Actually, he says nothing, hoping that it will all go away, but it wont. He will eventually have to resort to some variation of "the dog ate my homework" excuse.

From this article.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Paladin said:
It's wrong. Period.
I'd rather stay above it. And I'd really like my party to stay above it.
Fighting dirty may be fun, but so is masturbating, and both end up being non-productive.
ted
Paladin, first, the White House said that Bush didn't know Abramoff, but pictures show that he must have known something about Abramoff. This does not mean that Bush did anything illegal. Abramoff was present at staff meetings at the White House. Also, are you aware that Abramoff raised $100,000 for the Bush campaign? Do you think that Bush wouldn't know someone who raised $100,000 for him?

I think it would have been fine had Bush said, "Well, I know him to some extent, but there was no money traded between us for any favors." That would be an honest statement. His denying that he even knew Abramoff appears dishonest. Also, McClellan refused to elaborate on what type of staff meetings Abramoff attended at the White House. What the hell are they hiding?

Something is not right.

White House Silent on Abramoff Meetings

Abramoff had "a few staff-level meetings" at the Bush White House, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday. But he would not say with whom Abramoff met, which interests he was representing or how he got access to the White House.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060118/ap_on_go_pr_wh/white_house_abramoff
And who says that masterbation isn't productive? Your technique may need to be changed.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aps said:
Paladin, first, the White House said that Bush didn't know Abramoff, but pictures show that he must have known something about Abramoff. This does not mean that Bush did anything illegal. Abramoff was present at staff meetings at the White House. Also, are you aware that Abramoff raised $100,000 for the Bush campaign? Do you think that Bush wouldn't know someone who raised $100,000 for him?

I think it would have been fine had Bush said, "Well, I know him to some extent, but there was no money traded between us for any favors." That would be an honest statement. His denying that he even knew Abramoff appears dishonest. Also, McClellan refused to elaborate on what type of staff meetings Abramoff attended at the White House. What the hell are they hiding?
Hey, I have an idea. Since the fake turkey scandal didn't failed, let's make this into one. One of these days, we're bound to find something to impeach him on.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
KCConservative said:
Hey, I have an idea. Since the fake turkey scandal didn't failed, let's make this into one. One of these days, we're bound to find something to impeach him on.
Yawn. I wasn't saying he should be impeached over this, KC. I was saying that I find it odd that they are being so secretive about Abramoff. If there is nothing to hide, why not be open? If I saw pictures of Bush with Abramoff, I wouldn't think that it meant anything, and we know how much I dislike this president.
 
Top Bottom