Is Abramoff in the White House photo album?
By on Jan 18th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
Is Abramoff in the White House photo album?
McClellan today: “I said if you have a specific issue of concern, then we’ll be glad to take a look into that.” Knight-Ridder has a specific issue: “McClellan has ducked whether there are any pictures of Bush with Abramoff, saying only that he’d look into the question.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Doesn’t Abramoff have a little room under the podium next to Jeff Gannon’s?
January 18th, 2006 at 7:36 pm:0
January 18th, 2006 at 7:39 pmThursday, 011906 @ 1100 EST
Washington Post White House Reporter Michael Fletcher discusses on-line the latest in political news.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/01/13/DI2006011301042.html
Come on down. Ask him about McClellan.
January 18th, 2006 at 7:42 pmYou know there is a picture. Otherwise, they’d just say no.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:28 pmAbramoff raised big bucks for Bush. You know he’s got a signed photo of them together in his office, to impress his clients.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:54 pmThe pettiness. My goodness, no wonder you guys can’t win elections.
January 18th, 2006 at 11:14 pmI’m sure ol Jack-off went down on Bubble boy a few times.
Impeach!
January 18th, 2006 at 11:34 pm#7 The Moronic Left: Actually the democratic candidate has won 3 of the last 4 presidential elections, ‘92, ‘96, ‘00 (yes Al Gore won the popular vote by 1.5 million votes). Republicans win by corrupting the system, the voting machines and by gerrymandering.
Being a republican today means that you are only concerned about winning elections like it’s just a football game. You could care less about your fellow citizens or human beings in general or especially the constitution and bill of rights.
January 18th, 2006 at 11:45 pmI must agree with you Mr. Evil, if the left is so moronic you have to wonder why it’s the righties that are going to jail. I guess in retardland going to jail is a good thing.
January 19th, 2006 at 12:08 amThis being a “story” is testimony to the pointlessness of this partisan bullshit.
The existance of a photo would be proof of the involvement of a photographer. Apart from that it serves only as a distraction from what you could write on the topic.
Kind of like that prize photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand. Without that to focus on you might have to hold people’s attention with what you write. But thankfully that’s not the case. Everyone knows the scandal is that they were friendly with the Saddam regime rather than having to read about the approval of WMD sales and continuing relations following their use.
You want a little sneak peak at how this turns out ? Here it is… photo proves Abramoffmet with Bush… other photo proves the South Korean under 18s table tennis champion team did too. Way to reduce the issue to something meaningless.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:12 amI think the ‘everyone of them in Congress’ mantra will mute somewhat the ‘party of corruption’. It will play out however it does and let the guilty pay.
I’d much prefer Democrats gain popular flavor with ideas that market to the electorate why those ideas are better for families, education, the environment and veterans.
a spring and summer of Bush bashing alone won’t carry the day
January 19th, 2006 at 5:25 am#11 – Tank: You miss the point. The mere existance of a photo proves nothing. However, in the context of White House declarations that President Bush had never met Abramoff, such a photo provides physical evidence of deception. Thus, this gains significance.
If the Administration had said at the beginning something like “President Bush has met with Abramoff, just as he meets with any Pioneer fundraiser who requests such a meeting and photo opportunity”, the entire issue of Bush meeting with Abramoff would have been defused. However, they chose the line of outright denial. Any evidence to the contrary now will be gladly put forth as evidence that (1) this Administration is full of liars, and (2) they must have something to hide.
It won’t take long for this to mushroom into a crisis. Some Conservative pundits, noting that only ~18% of Americans are paying attention to the Abramoff matter, are making comments about the matter being of little concern. However, anyone who feels that to be the case should look into public interest into the Watergate affair – Interest was low for a fair amount of time before the incident became “topic #1″ for public commentary. This could also play out that way, at least for Congress. The White House’s flat refusal to comment on Abramoff’s meetings only increase the eventual possibilty that this could blow up in their faces.
January 19th, 2006 at 6:51 amTank.
Oh wise one, please tell us the proper focus of our attention. Ah yes, Bush’s greatness.
From henceforth I declare that this blog shall be devoted to the greaty greatness of the greatest president of this or any country ever, George Walker Bush, and to the further illumination and understanding of his greatness.
Happy?
January 19th, 2006 at 7:34 amIf anyone has photos, Spudge must know where to find them…
Though, if the photos of Bush with the various Saudi rebels and Rumsfeld with Saddam haven’t inflamed people, then I doubt they’d care about Abramoff and Bush either…
January 19th, 2006 at 7:53 amDoesn’t Abramoff have a little room under the podium next to Jeff Gannon’s?
Comment by :0 #1
Oh :O
hahahahahaha!!!!
January 19th, 2006 at 8:25 amTank: You miss the point…
Comment by Brendt #13
Brendt,
That’s not by accident…
It’s called “willful ignorance”…
January 19th, 2006 at 8:28 amWith 200 plus visits, you know there are pictures.
January 19th, 2006 at 8:37 amProbably holding hands, maybe even a little kissing, ala Leiberman, depending on how much money is involved.
#10 – who has gone to jail in the GOP? Can you name someone? NO – you can’t.
The left’s refusal to deal with the country’s real problems like Iran and energy will continue their downfall. George Bush will be gone in 3 years, unfortunately so will liberalism as we know it.
January 19th, 2006 at 8:46 amGeorge Bush will be gone in 2009, but his legacy will live on forever.
Meanwhile in other news, here’s another view on Abramoff:
The fact is that Abramoff is only involved with a few lawmakers (like Harry Reid, for example).
I do disagree with the claim that the Democrats would need to present a big agenda to win, because their true agenda is extremely unappealing and they would have to present some other agenda, which would be rejected out of insincerity.
January 19th, 2006 at 8:51 amSpeaking of missing from the Whitehouse – and more than a little off topic – but where’s turdblossom?
Someone needs to get his name back on the front page again. We can’t just let him slither out of the picture.
Someone stir up some news about Karl Rove – Please.
January 19th, 2006 at 8:52 am#19, just give it some time…. There are so many court cases going, and investigations, with the GOP that I doubt that 60% of the GOP will be the same members within 1 1/2 years.
January 19th, 2006 at 8:52 amUh, Innocent Lite: Duke Cunningham! And since the legal process takes time, there will be others; especially those who swim in the Republican Party trough.
January 19th, 2006 at 8:56 am“because their true agenda is extremely unappealing” Comment by Gary Ruppert
What having an HONEST and OPEN government that follows the laws of the constitution is unappealing? Yeah, that’s it!. Get a clue Gary.
This is the most corrupt government in American History. And the corrupt government is going to fix its self? Thats like asking the cat to watch the bird without eating it.
January 19th, 2006 at 8:57 amThat’s not the Democrat agenda.
The Democrat agenda is support for homosexual marriage, banning guns, banning Christianity in public life, raising taxes, and surrendering in the War on Terror
January 19th, 2006 at 8:58 amActually, the 109th Congress is one of the most honest Congresses in recent memory. The Republican Revolution has drastically cleaned up Washington
The fact is that one Congressman was sent to jail in the 107th Congress (DEMOCRAT Jim Traficant), and another went to jail in the 108th Congress (DEMOCRAT Frank Ballance), and another is probably almost on his way to jail (DEMOCRAT Bill Jefferson).
January 19th, 2006 at 9:01 amI think a question that would help in getting the GOPers involved in this situation is to start spreading a rumor that Jack Abramoff has a stain on his suit and we want to see all of the photos of Jack-Bush-off that would prove/disprove this allegation. You know how improtant stained clothing is to the Repugs.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:03 amGary you need to get a clue… Let me enlighten you a little, and I’ll address your comment one by one.
1) homosexual marriage – Who cares! Who am I or you to tell someone how they have to live their lives?
2) banning guns – There is no proof of this.
3) banning Christianity in public life – Why do we need to have christianity forced upon us in public life? What banning are you refering too?
4) raising taxes – For the rich. The current tax cuts are only for the rich and causes the poor to suffer. If you mean that burdening the rich is better than the poor, then I guess your right and we should not raise taxes for them.
5) surrendering in the War on Terror – Nobody is talking about surrender. They are talking reality and with some common sense. Rather than staying the course, which is leading us off a cliff. Just because someone says we should re-deply does not me pull out. Perhaps you should learn some vocabulary before you speak of something you obviously know nothing about?
January 19th, 2006 at 9:06 amjingling right (wrong) wing talking points, Gary. Talk about spewing unappealing crap. And who raised taxes, Gary? Republicans. War on Terror? You can’t win a war against an ideology/tactic. You prefer to having our men and women killed, Gary? That’s mighty white of you. Oh yeah, Gary, in case you forgot, Iraq had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11! That makes the justification for this ‘war’, invalid and illegal!
Banning assault rifles and trying to keep guns out of criminals hands doesn’t equate to “banning guns”, Gary. Its part of our Bill of Rights; only George and his thugs want the Constitution abolished because, you know, George thinks it’s “just a goddamned piece of paper”. So much for his oath to uphold it.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:06 amCorrrection to #27 item 4.
that burdening the rich is better than the poor – should read -
January 19th, 2006 at 9:08 amthat burdening the poor is better than the rich
I would argue there is more Democratic corruption than Republican. Case in point – New Jersey. McGreevey, the Torch and now Corzine.
You also have Dem corruption in New York with Spitzer threatening his enemies and don’t forget LA.
I think the “culture of corruption” charge the left is lobbing puts too many eggs in one basket. The American people know it’s bipartisan. Look at the last President.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:09 amI just hope McClellan can be charged as an accessory.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:13 am#31 – There will always be corruption. No one is saying that the Democrats are streaky clean. What we ARE saying is that the corruption of placing big buisness over the American people, and outright destruction of the Constitution is largely if not > 80% Republican related.
The issue of this corruption is to such a level that the criminals are allowing corporations the right to write laws in their favor. This is CRIMINAL.
The policies of the Republicans are to steal as much as they can, and when they get caught they say “well the Democrats did it”. This is rediculous.
So if I run a red light behind another car and I get pulled over by the police, do you think that I will get out of the ticket by saying “well the guy before me did it”? NO. This mentality is utterly rediculous.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:15 amRemoveBush – but, it’s disingenuous to place the blame soley on the Republicans. They all do it. Will the GOP pay more? Of course they will because they are the majority. But, their faults do not translate into Democrats dodging any kind of positive agenda for 2006.
The left’s sole focus of 2006 is to impeach Bush, indict Congress and now, apparently incite race every five minutes. It’s not a winning strategy no matter how corrupt you think Congress is.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:19 amI prefer that the Government not allow homosexuals to undergo their “new kind of marriage”
Assault Weapons Ban, Waiting periods to buy guns. All a way to make people more supportive of banning all firearms, like the Soviets and the Chinese Communists did.
The banning includes banning expressions of Christian faith in public.
As well, the fact that you consider homosexuals getting married to be good and Christians to be bad shows your bigotry.
The Poor got a significant refund, and if you raise taxes, you will cause millions to become unemployed, as wealthier people are forced to close businesses due to repressive taxes.
The fact is that low taxes create prosperity. Look at Hong Kong for example.
John Murtha’s plan is a plan of surrender to the barbarian terrorists who are about to kill another American in Iraq.
The only cliff that Iraq has been lead off of is a cliff of tyranny, and now they are soaring towards freedom.
So “let’s remove our troops from Iraq by re-deploying them” ISN’T pulling out?
In what world?
January 19th, 2006 at 9:19 amThe Democrat strategy of inciting racial hatred against the Republican Party is a disgusting KKK-esque tactic.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:20 amSpend alot of time on that, Gary? Do you think your energies would be better spent IN Iraq?
January 19th, 2006 at 9:22 amWe’re making a lot of progress in Iraq, despite the wishes of you leftists.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:23 am36
January 19th, 2006 at 9:24 amThe “I’m not a racist because I like uppity Uncle Tom Blacks” is what’s disgusting. Big southern dummy negro-lovin’. What a hoot!
The articulate, well-spoken ones are acceptable.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:26 amDave Chappelle described it best. In the south, racism and seperatism has been perfected to an art form:
White person: “Why, hello N*igger!”
January 19th, 2006 at 9:28 amBlack person: “Well how you doin’, massa cracka!”
The Democrat Party, from 1865 until today, has been the most racist of the two major parties.
The Democrat Party supports racial discrimination, though affirmative action
January 19th, 2006 at 9:30 amOK Gary lets see….
1) “I prefer that the Government not allow homosexuals to undergo their “new kind of marriage—
That’s your preference… I prefer not to have the government intruding in my life. This is a opinion and like A**holes – everyone has one.
2) “Assault Weapons Ban, Waiting periods to buy guns. All a way to make people more supportive of banning all firearms, like the Soviets and the Chinese Communists did.”
This is a good thing and if you think otherwise you are insane. You talk about being hypocritical. You want to fight terror, but you don’t want to take steps to do that leagally. This method provides a way to run a background check so we are not giving guns to ex-cons or people who MIGHT be connected to terrorist organizations. You can’t have it both ways bozo.
3) “The banning includes banning expressions of Christian faith in public.
As well, the fact that you consider homosexuals getting married to be good and Christians to be bad shows your bigotry.”
Who said I think that Christians are bad? Where in my statements did I say one bad thing about Christians? I just don’t believe that this should be forced upon me or anyone else. I bet that if pegans wanted to do the same thing that the Christians are, that you would be against that – RIGHT? This is a form of religion as well, just not your type of religion.
4) “The Poor got a significant refund, and if you raise taxes, you will cause millions to become unemployed, as wealthier people are forced to close businesses due to repressive taxes.
The fact is that low taxes create prosperity. Look at Hong Kong for example.”
That garbage you are spewing is completely false and has been debunked. There is at least one state in the US that has raised it’s minimum wage law and there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to what you say. In fact there has been no decline in employment or companies due to a higher minimum wage. I challenge you to research it.
5) “John Murtha’s plan is a plan of surrender to the barbarian terrorists who are about to kill another American in Iraq.”
What freeking document are you reading? The plan Murtha proposed was redeploying to the boarders to allow the Iraqis to stand up for themselfs and force them to take the leadership role.
“The only cliff that Iraq has been lead off of is a cliff of tyranny, and now they are soaring towards freedom.”
You consider what they have now better? You are TRUELY INSANE. They are worse off for basic needs, (water, electric, jobs) then they were before we came in.
“So “let’s remove our troops from Iraq by re-deploying them†ISN’T pulling out?
In what world? ”
No it’s not you moron. Redeployment means to move the troops to a different location. LOOK THE WORD UP! No where in any of the documents did the word pull out of Iraq come in to play. The term has always been, redeploy. But the Republicans, who have not understanding of the word, term it as abandoning Iraq. IDIOTS!
January 19th, 2006 at 9:37 amYou’re right, Gary. After thinking about you make good sense on the racism issue. Affirmative action. I never thought of it that way.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:40 amThe only cliff that Iraq has been lead off of is a cliff of tyranny, and now they are soaring towards freedom.
Comment by Gary Ruppert #35
“Let the Eagle soaaarrrr”…
Lyrics and Music by
Scary Pookbutt and John Ashcroft
January 19th, 2006 at 9:46 amGary, if Delay is found guilty in court will you still support him?
Duke Cunnigham has already plead guilty and Frist is under investigation. Don’t forget about Libby either.
Why do you think members of Congress are pushing for “ethics reform” and why was Ney asked to step down?
The American people are tired of the corruption. With Jack Abramoff providing a list of names and favors we will see how this plays out.
Regardless of the left vs right name calling and petty insults…some of us want the guilty to go to jail (I don’t care what party they are in).
January 19th, 2006 at 9:49 amwho has gone to jail in the GOP? Can you name someone? NO – you can’t.
Comment by Innocent Lite #19
These Republiscum are at the ticket window:
Ney, DeLay, Cunningham…
Should’ve gone to jail but had a “get out of jail free Congress:
Nixon, Reagan, North (didn’t he go?),
January 19th, 2006 at 9:50 amBig Papa,
The only person who did jail time for the entire Iran-Contra scandal was the private citizen who stole a street sign named after some congressman or the other and held it hostage for the millions the government got from the the sale of the weapons… No politicos did any time at all.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:01 amArguing over whether Dems or Repubs are more corrupt is a hair-splitting exercise and a waste of time. They both suck. Why we trust these bozos to take our money and redistribute it effectively is beyond me…
January 19th, 2006 at 10:04 amHowell has posted. You decide.
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/
January 19th, 2006 at 11:46 amNo politicos did any time at all.
Comment by unbelievable #48
unbelievable,
Don’t Mitchell and what’s that psycopath’s name …G. Gordon Liddy count as “politicos”?
January 19th, 2006 at 12:07 pmThey both suck. Why we trust these bozos to take our money and redistribute it effectively is beyond me…
Comment by Concerned Conservative #49
Cornered Conservascum,
This Abramoff thing is YOUR Party’s albatross, stop trying to “deflect” the culture of corruption, mendacity, and malfeasance surrounding YOUR president to Dems…
You won, remember?
Get over it, and bend over…
January 19th, 2006 at 12:10 pmBush/Abramoff will be good, but a photo of Santorum/Abramoff? Priceless.
January 19th, 2006 at 12:22 pmFrom the KR piece: He gave only to fellow Republicans, but his clients contributed large donations to Republicans and Democrats.
Props to Knight Ridder- they seem to be the only news service out there that can chew gum and walk at the same time.
January 19th, 2006 at 12:58 pmTry this link for one photo of Bush with Abramoff from CanoFun
January 19th, 2006 at 2:19 pmhttp://www.canofun.com/
I just checked in here so if someone else posted this, sorry for the duplicate.
Don’t Mitchell and what’s that psycopath’s name …G. Gordon Liddy count as “politicos�
Comment by big papa — January 19, 2006 @ 12:07 pm
Depends on whether or not you consider Ronald Reagan the beginning of the Evangelical take-over of the White House… :)
I’m not old enough to really remember Watergate. But the fact that Nixon resigned when confronted with teh idea of Impeachment seems like a good indication that our political system was still effective on some level at that time. Reagan effectively changed that… and now George freely and arrogantly admits law violations on camera before an international audience without fear of recourse.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:27 pm@ Comment by Brendt — January 19, 2006 @ 6:51 am
Tank: You miss the point. The mere existance of a photo proves nothing. However, in the context of White House declarations that President Bush had never met Abramoff, such a photo provides physical evidence of deception. Thus, this gains significance.
Or that there is a difference between “met someone” and “met with someone to discuss huge amounts of money changing hands”
You couldn’t bet against Bush shaking the hands of pedophiles in his crowd greetings all around the country during his campaigns. Means nothing. Having a meeting with pedophiles to discuss common agenda on the other hand… well you get the point as to the issue of substance.
I’m not missing the point, you are. If you need clarification on what that point is take a look at the subsequent story about the great photo hunt of 2006. I guess that doesn’t look a little desperate and inept to you either, all for a pointless graphic to break up the text.
Like I said, regular nobodies get to meet the President. Proving that an influential hardcore-Republican did isn’t really something that is going to come as a revelation.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:23 pmTank,
Apparently Bush charged Abramoff 25,000 per visit with his staff. Do you aprove of this kind of irresponsible abuse of his position? I know that I’m disappointed at how cheaply he’s willing to sell out :)
January 20th, 2006 at 1:47 amI’m surprised that Scotty did’nt just run right out and open up his own little investigation, then he could use his old “won’t comment on an open investigation” line of crap. Too bad, he blew it. No pun intended.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:27 amTank,Apparently Bush charged Abramoff 25,000 per visit with his staff. Do you aprove of this kind of irresponsible abuse of his position? I know that I’m disappointed at how cheaply he’s willing to sell out :)
Comment by RightPunch — January 20, 2006 @ 1:47 am
I don’t approve of his life in general. That is to say, if JFK qualifies for assassination because of his policies… well c’mon.
Bit pointless asking random people whether they approve of random shit though. What would the difference be between me approving and not ?
January 20th, 2006 at 4:35 amYou still just talking about meetings and photos while you have two wars ongoing, renewed threats of terrorist attacks on US soil and rated as the world’s worst human rights violator ? Yep ? Okay… just checking.
BTW while posts critical of the pointless issues sites like this choose to distract themselves with are eligible for deletion for use of the word “fuckwit” in the context of describing what the entire world thinks of the US due to it’s ongoing policies which don’t involve meetings or photographs of US citizens, it’s notable that gems like this remain unmoderated…
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/09/29/delays-case-against-delay/
“Fuck the Arabs and the Jews unless they vote Republican, that’s what I say.”
Can you spot the difference ? Yes that’s right, its the “wit” in “fuckwit” that makes all the difference.
January 20th, 2006 at 4:42 amHardcore Sex Sex Hardcore Hardcore Porn Videos
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 7:45 amHardcore Sex Gay Hardcore Sex Hardcore Blowjob
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 8:26 pm