Do you expect anything less from the left? Don’t worry about the pics, after the 30,000 layoff announcement from Ford this morning, the libs will quickly abandon this crusade to blame the layoffs on Bush. It's almost comical; they are so desperate and paralyzed with fear to the point of almost total ineffectiveness. Bush always has and always will run circles around the Dems.

It is one thing to donate cash within legal bounds; and later get time to bend a politician's ear on something that concerns your client. Donations get you access. All politicians know who their donors are, and make nice to them.

It's another thing to donate money and know you'll get something more substantive than a listen in return. That is a bribe. That is a "quid pro quo". That is illegal.

Gotta be able to show the quid pro quo if they want this to go beyond another "Bush is Evil" smear.

Hmmmm... Seems like old times...

"..Ken Who?"

Then again, to accuse someone of lying you first have to prove that the accused knows what they are actually saying..

Let's not forget all the fun we had 10 years ago, over sex not corruption

http://www.ishipress.com/lew-1995.htm

I guess I am just completely fucked, then.

I gotta tell you. I'd be much more inclined to believe the photos are benign if I didn't know Gambonese President Bongo gave Abramoff $9-million to get him an audience with President Bush. Amazingly enough, Bongo--who has never been mentioned, much less feted by any previous American president--ended up visting the White House. Go figure.

Regards...

You actually believe that we are supposed to just chalk this up to BUSH and Abramoff meeting because they are in the same circles? And that the "Lefties" are just making a big deal of it? It IS a big deal! That corrupt idiot had his hands in BUSH's pocket we all know that. With all the indictments and corruption in the White House how can we think otherwise? Not to mention BUSH denying he met Abramoff but it is a fact that he knows personal things about Abramoff - like the names of his kids.. Yes, us lefties will make a big deal of it becuase it is... corruption obviously goes all the way to the top!

A person is innocent until he is proven guilty.
I am sure the President and the Whitehouse have something to say about this connection.
I would let him talk if he wishes to. Would he?

"I am sure the President and the Whitehouse have something to say about this connection.
I would let him talk if he wishes to. Would he?"

Nnnnope:

White House Silent on Abramoff Meetings

Nothing to see here. Move along...

With all the indictments and corruption in the White House how can we think otherwise?

I thought we were talking about the Bush administration, not the Clinton indictment parade...did I miss a memo? How many indictments has the Bush administration racked up? One by an idiot that tried to cover up something that didn't need to be covered up? Heck the Clinton crew is still getting in trouble...although Sandy Burglar got off pretty light considering he stole top-secret documents.

Hmmmm.

1.

Franklin Roosevelt in cahoots with Stalin? The photo evidence says yes

Funny enough there's actually historical evidence that Roosevelt admired Stalin and so gave away eastern Europe without even a whimper.

2.

Gambonese President Bongo

Is this before or after Secretary of State Colin Powell went to Gabon for a visit in 2002? I.e. was Abramoff paid after 2002 or not? Or was he paid for this at all?

Funny thing about this here web & internet thing. Generally when you make an assertion, a link would be nice.

3.

Amazingly enough, Bongo--who has never been mentioned, much less feted by any previous American president

That is so amazing. Particularly since Bongo is the 2nd President of Gabon in it's history and has been ruling for about 30 years. What? Not even one single visit in 30 years? Got proof of this or are you just pulling this out of your arse?

Um, are you going to prove that Abramoff gave to both parties? Or just keep repeating it until it becomes true simply by sheer number of people who repeat it.

I could actually be impressed if you actually...oh, I don't know...backed it up. Maybe with something more than the op-ed of some loony hen. Even if her readers are taking it as gospel and running with it.

I think he contracted the job of democratic donations out to the Indians, but they didn't do it either. They hedged their bets with Abramoff. More donations to republicans...

I wouldn't be taunting the powder keg right now if I were you...

Unless you can show a quid pro quo, there is nothing there. Allegations are fun and all, but you really need evidence of actual wrongdoing, i.e., a crime and that all of the elements of the crime are met.

A donor meeting a politician he has donated to isn't exactly illegal. And not all donations to politicians are illegal. You have to show something more than he met the man and listened to him.

Hmmm.

@ LoadTheMule

I gotta tell you. I'd be much more inclined to believe the photos are benign if I didn't know Gambonese President Bongo gave Abramoff $9-million to get him an audience with President Bush. Amazingly enough, Bongo--who has never been mentioned, much less feted by any previous American president--ended up visting the White House. Go figure.

Oh the frigging horrors! Pity it took about 2 minutes with Google to find out that President Jimmy Carter met with President Bongo of Gabon in 1977.

link

You jackhole.

President Bongo probably wasted the 9 million he gave Abramhoff to arrange the meeting to receive Bush's advice or imprimatur. Bush, on the other hand, despite his well-publized trumpeting of democracies, might have been consulting Bongo on how he has retained executive power so easily in Bongoland or Gabon, for so long.

Didn't Bush dine with a porn star? (Yes)
He also drove while drunk.

Just because people pose for pictures together, does not imply a real relationship.

Well, no its not the left or right on this. It is all of us. Abramoff, now a known criminal, had a great deal more personal interaction than most Americans. We were told that the President never met the man.

Then we found out he was a Bush Pioneer. How many Bush Pioneers are there. That means Abramoff raised, through various means, at least $100,000.00 in campaign funds for Bush. When the White House was asked about this, we were told Bush never met Abramoff and the $6,000.00 Abramoff gave was returned. How nice! What happened to the other $94,000.00.

Now we see pictures, lots of pictures of Bush and Abramoff. By the way Clinton was impeached for lying, not sex!

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. (Samuel Johnson)

You're right. Bush posing for a picture with Abramoff means nothing. That's not the issue. Bush claiming not to know one of his big findraisers whom he has met several times means the President is lying to the American people. I thought you guys took that seriously. And no, it hasbn't been proven yet, but it's early in the game. Bush is a man of weak character, and his reflex reaction was to lie.

Wasn't Abramoff a member of the Bush White House transition team? Didn't Abramoff's business partnership in the SunCruz casino scam end with a bullet for the other guy a few months later? Doesn't the White House staff read the newspapers? If so, what was Jack'off doing anywhere NEAR the oval office?

Indiangiver,
I don't think that you will consider as proof all of the Democrats who have received money from Abramoff clients publicly announcing that they will not give back one red cent. Harry Reid comes to mind, as does Pelosi, etc., etc., etc.

Then we found out he was a Bush Pioneer. How many Bush Pioneers are there.(?)

285, It is entirely feasible Bush would not know everyone personally.

That means Abramoff raised, through various means, at least $100,000.00 in campaign funds for Bush. When the White House was asked about this, we were told Bush never met Abramoff and the $6,000.00 Abramoff gave was returned. How nice! What happened to the other $94,000.00.

The other money was not donated by Abramoff personally, like you said.

Bush claiming not to know one of his big findraisers whom he has met several times means the President is lying to the American people.

No, it means the President was busy being President and members of his campaign team were managing the campaign.

Wasn't Abramoff a member of the Bush White House transition team?

Not that I can find, cites?

Didn't Abramoff's business partnership in the SunCruz casino scam end with a bullet for the other guy a few months later? Doesn't the White House staff read the newspapers? If so, what was Jack'off doing anywhere NEAR the oval office?

Isn't hind sight and wild speclulation a wonderful political tool if you have no platform?

"when the republicans stop lying about democrats; democrats can stop telling the truth about republicans" adlai stevenson

I would tend to think this was no "big deal" if the right wing wasn't protesting so much ... makes me wonder ... if itsn't such a big deal, why protest so much?

Furthermore, Why do BUSH and his people always respond so hysterically ... good god, you would think by now they would have grown up and figured it out ... it comes with the office. Get over it george!

Why do BUSH and his people always respond so hysterically ... good god, you would think by now they would have grown up and figured it out ... it comes with the office. Get over it george!

Where?

They understand the situation for what it is.

The only people that are getting hysterical are those that can't fit their brains around the truth.
That members of both parties are tainted.

Good riddance to bad rubbish for whoever gets caught in this no matter what party they are from. I don't want them representing me.

I don't hear that concept from anyone on the left.

I guess it just depends on the definition of what the word "is" is.

B Moe

You obviously did enough research to find out how many Bush Pioneers there were, but then you stopped. This Washington Post story might answer somne of your questions

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/05/AR2006010501903.html

If you look at the second to last paragraph you'll see that Abramoff was indeed on the Interior Department transition team. Gee, the Interior Department. I'm sure they have nothing to do with Indian tribes.

You'll also note that Abramoff raised $100,000 for Bush in 20000. But I guess Bush probably didn't meet him then, either because he was too busy doing what? Being Governor of Texas? Yeah, cause those candidates always stay a million miles away from their biggest fundraisers.

And mesablue, since you seem to think saying members of both parties are tainted constitutes some sort of argument, perhaps you could point out which Democrats fit that description. And remmember, no fair trying the old "anyone who took Indian money is tainted" ruse. I mean actual indications of wrongdoing. You name some Democrats, and I'll name some Republicans. Bet you finish first.

Hmmmm.

I would tend to think this was no "big deal" if the right wing wasn't protesting so much ... makes me wonder ... if itsn't such a big deal, why protest so much?

If you read carefully you'll see we're not spending much time defending Bush. We're mostly spending our time countering the bullshit being spread by uninformed liberals.

ed

It's funny to hear you talk about uninformed liberals. I've posted a boatload of information on this topic and have yet to see anyone dispute any of it. It's all just unsupported assertions and claims that it's a "bipartisan scandal." If we're so uninformed, how about a smidgen of facts?

uninformed liberals -

Present some ideological diversity and intellectual honesty besides bloviating that "Republicans are BAD Democrats are ANGELIC" and maybe we can all have a serious discussion. Until then, prepare to have your propaganda spanked around like the BS it is.

Did anyone read the Barrett Report, by the way? 447 page report with 120 pages of redacted materials ordered that way by a three-judge panel (and hindered for 10 years by the Reno team at the DoJ). Part of the Clinton Culture of Corruption. Nary a mention by you "corruption crusaders."

Where are all you outraged lefties on this stinking incident of Nixonian corruption?

Exactly.

Hmmm.

1.

Bush claiming not to know one of his big findraisers whom he has met several times means the President is lying to the American people.

You're misrepresenting the facts yet again. Bush has stated he doesn't remember meeting him, not that he doesn't know who he is. Get your facts right.

2.

Bush is a man of weak character, and his reflex reaction was to lie.

You liberals always trying to get back for Clinton. You just cannot accept that Clinton was as dirty as the day is long. But you go right ahead and push this cart as much as you like. It'll go down the tubes just like the RatherGate.

And quite frankly anyone who seriously tries to claim that Bush is a man of "weak character" has a screw loose. If anything he's got too much character. Personally I'd prefer him to give up this guest worker program but that doesn't seem likely.

3.

If you look at the second to last paragraph you'll see that Abramoff was indeed on the Interior Department transition team. Gee, the Interior Department. I'm sure they have nothing to do with Indian tribes.

So what? All you've done is insinuated that Abramoff was interested in being connected to the people who regulated his clients. You know. Like a lobbyist is supposed to? If you actually have an allegation to make rather than an extremely weak assertion then let's hear it. All you've done is parrot a few facts but you haven't actually done anything with them.

4.

You'll also note that Abramoff raised $100,000 for Bush in 20000.

If Bush were a Congressman then that might mean something. But the 2000 election cost in the tens of millions. So the guy convinced his clients to pony up $100,000. So frigging what?

Again you post a factoid without anything else and you try and insinuate that there's something corrupt. You try and get the reader to use his imagination to fill in the massive holes in your logic. It doesn't wash. Either you have something or you don't.

And yet again you don't.

5.

But I guess Bush probably didn't meet him then, either because he was too busy doing what?

And again Bush says he doesn't remember meeting him, not that he doesn't know who he is. Consider the thousands of people Bush meets every month since he started campaigning in 2000. If Bush stated that he has never met Abramoff then you might have something. But Bush hasn't said that has he?

So yet more liberal bullshit.

6.

I mean actual indications of wrongdoing. You name some Democrats, and I'll name some Republicans.

Unlike you I'm waiting to see what falls out of this investigation.

....

So you posted a lot of facts eh? Congratulations! You still haven't accomplished anything more than man vague random insinuations with nothing more than a wink and a nod.

Thank you for wasting my time.

Why won't you just acknowledge that Bush is so retarded he is a genius? Him and Rove do deep background checks on EVERYBODY that work for them. They know EVERYTHING about EVERYBODY and NOTHING is done without their approval. They thought up EVERYTHING EVIL IN THE WHOLE WORLD. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THAT IS WRONG.

Why not name names? The Wash. Post did. For instance:

"Because of the makeup of his team and the composition of Congress, the Abramoff lobbyists channeled most of their clients' giving to GOP legislators, according to a review of public records. Sen. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.), chairman of an Appropriations subcommittee that frequently deals with Indian matters, received the largest amount from the tribes as well as from the Greenberg Traurig lobbyists who helped direct those donations: $141,590 from 1999 to 2004, the study showed.

But Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.) ran second, with $128,000 in the same period. From 1999 to 2001, Kennedy chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which solicited campaign donations for House candidates."

There's a lot more in the article (including a 'giving' breakdown: 2/3 Republican, 1/3 Democrat), but let's not pretend that Democrats haven't been getting similar donations from Abramoff's group and tribes under his direction.

Not that any of it proves anything at this point (I'm pretty sure that's what trials are for), but let's stop the BS about how no Democrats have even received any money.

Falze

This is exactly my point. Patrick Kennedy has been receiving significant donations from Indian tribes since before Abramoff came on the scene, because he's active in Indian affairs. Now Abramoff's on the scene, and suddenly the money is being given at "Abramoff's direction?" That's pure assumption that is not borne out by the facts. Please read the Bloomberg article and then tell me I'm wrong. Abramoff directed money away from Democrats, not to them. Just because Ken Mehlman says something doesn't make it true. And the Republicans can yell about the liberal media all they want, but this kind of reporting by the Post and others is a perfect example of how the media repeats Republican spin.

And ed, I find it interesting that you choose to refute the parts where I offered an opinion, and ignore the facts I presented. I think Bush is a man of weak character, you think he's not. Those aren't facts to be refuted. I point out how Abramoff directed money away from Democrats, you're strangely silent.

And it's amusing how you can assert that Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans, and when I ask you to name names you insist that you're "waiting to see what falls out of this investigation." How noble of you. But it doesn't seem to have stopped you from declaring the Democrats equally guilty. Which is it?

As for some specifics, I pointed out that Abramoff raised $100,000 in 2000, making him a Bush Pioneer, because B Moe tried to make the argument that Bush was too busy being President in 2004 to meet his major donors. My point was that he wasn't too busy being President in 2000. And I find it hard to beleive you're so naive as to think that a sitting President running for re-election just worries about governing and leaves the campaign up to his managers. Do you really think that the candidates don't spend an incredible amount of time with their major donors? And yes, $100,000 is a major donor. Does someone sit with you while you're watching TV to explain everything that's going on?

As for the Interior Department, another commenter said he was on the transition team, B Moe asked for a cite. I provided it. Then you say "All you've done is insinuated that Abramoff was interested in being connected to the people who regulated his clients. You know. Like a lobbyist is supposed to?" Since when (other than under the current Administration) do lobbyists put themselves on transition teams because it helps thei clients? The Bush administration put a lobbyist for Indian tribes on the Interior Department transition team. Of course that's what a lobbyist's supposed to do. I wasn't blaming Abramoff, for God's sake. I keep forgetting you need everything spelled out.

And this one kills me. "Bush has stated he doesn't remember meeting him, not that he doesn't know who he is." Here's the quote from Scott McClellan: "The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever meeting him." A distinction without a difference.

And please refute the fact that Abramoff directed money away from Democrats.