PHOTO: Abramoff and Bush? (UPDATE: No)
By on Jan 19th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
PHOTO: Abramoff and Bush? (UPDATE: No)
This photo appears in a 2000 BBC article about the Bush transition team:
Jack Abramoff was a member of the Bush transition team:
After the 2000 election, Abramoff was named to the Bush transition team for the Interior Department, which regulates the Indian casinos that paid Abramoff his inflated fees.
Is that Jack Abramoff behind Bush? Compare the 2000 photo with two recent pictures of Abramoff:
We’ve contacted Agence France Press for more information about the photo. (HT: Canofun)
UPDATE: In the comment section, CTDem discovered another photo from the same event that suggests the person above with Bush is not Jack Abramoff. Great find.
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
That is not Abramamoff.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:46 pmFire storm now at the Post.
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/
January 19th, 2006 at 2:46 pmReminds me of the pictures of John Kerry and Jane Fonda at those anti-war rallies in the 1970s.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:48 pmWow – Chimpy and Theif.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:48 pmThat’s not Abramoff. The man behind Bush has a mustache, but all the Abramoff photos I’ve seen feature a mustache and beard, or Abramoff is clean-shaven.
Plus, the hair on the man behind Bush is too spiky to be Abramoff
January 19th, 2006 at 2:49 pmI’m not sure about this one, but you can bet that others are going to surface in the coming days. The WH is scrambling to find all the pix of the 2 thieves together, and McClellan’s stonewalling is just going to make things worse for them.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:50 pmSorry, but the hairline is wrong and the ear is too small. Keep trying, it’s out there, we all know it is.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:51 pmHere’s some further information about Chimpy and the Theif
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_8014.shtml
January 19th, 2006 at 3:02 pmCapitol Hill Blue is not a reliable news source. They just make stuff up.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:04 pmLook at the earlobes. Amrab’s are tight to the head / connected, the guy in the pic with the Chimp has larger, detached ones. Typically, you don’t gain / lose weight in your earlobes.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:04 pmAP WASHINGTON May 6, 2005
Lobbyist Had Close Contact with Bush Team
AP
January 19th, 2006 at 3:04 pmThe angles aren’t the same, it’s hard to be sure actually with the photos on each side, but I’d have to say the man behind bush is not Abramoff. His hairline at the temple doesn’t match Abramoff – which is much more angular. Not that it couldn’t be Abramoff – lighting does strange things to photos, but I’m skeptical of this picture as much as I don’t doubt there’s a picture lingering somewhere. Probably in Abramoff’s house, just waiting on an exchange for a political pardon. It is how Abramoff works :)
January 19th, 2006 at 3:09 pmHold on, isn’t the mere fact that Abramoff was a member of Bush’s transition team to the Interior Department damning enough? Or how about the 200 times that Abramoff met with members of the executive (2002?) in one calendar year? Seems that this race to dig up a picture is purely for sport at this point….
January 19th, 2006 at 3:16 pmIt’s either Jack or Joey Buttifuco?
January 19th, 2006 at 3:17 pmBesides, wouldn’t the Shrubinator be walking behind Abramamoff?
January 19th, 2006 at 3:17 pmLooks like him to me.
He seems a bit constipated.
I don’t know why anyone is surprised by his contacts with the White House. If he doesn’t meet with them, how is he supposed to give them his marching orders?
Is anyone shocked when Steinbrenner meets with the Yankee’s GM? NO WAY! Owners have a right to guide those people they’ve paid for.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:17 pmOn the hairline issue, that photo is 6 years old…so hairlines can change.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:20 pmNope, the guy looks to have a lot more fat then Abramoff. See how his cheek seems to have love handles? And how he kinda looks like he is about to cry? My money is on this just being the guy Laura Bush slaps instead of George when they have a fight.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:20 pm#9: I think you are confusing Capitol Hill Blue with Faux News.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:21 pmMaybe its Al Gore.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:23 pmIf it’s NOT Abramoff, then the Bush Administration can tell us the name of the man that it is… And we can put up his photo to compare as well.
Six years does a lot to someone… and with that kind of money even plastic surgery is a possibility. So, who knows. And as little people care about the photo of Rumsfield shaking hands with Saddam, I doubt this will matter much even if it is Abramoff.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:24 pmSorry, but the hairline is wrong and the ear is too small. Keep trying, it’s out there, we all know it is.
Comment by Zookeeper — January 19, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
Male pattern baldness :)
January 19th, 2006 at 3:25 pmWhen you prove the man with King George the Dumb is indeed Prince Jack the trolls will agree with you but claim the picture of KGtD was faked. You won’t beat the trolls but we are getting closer to KGtD and his court. Speaking of which that is where they all should be.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:26 pmOh yeah, you all did notice that Bin Laden was emboldened by the left’s efforts in this country and he offered a phony truce?
January 19th, 2006 at 3:27 pm“Oh yeah, you all did notice that Bin Laden was emboldened by the left’s efforts in this country and he offered a phony truce? Gary Ruppert”
You should go to work for the national enquirer. Your overly vivid and hysterically unbelievable quotes are best suited to grocery store checkout lines with the ‘alien baby’ stories.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:30 pmHi Gary,
January 19th, 2006 at 3:31 pmI couldn’t believe the Colts-Steelers game this weekend. Boy was Pittsburgh almost robbed…then they almost gave it away…the Vanderjagt missed that field goal. Do you think the Steelers can win in Denver? I’ve gotta go Broncos. What say you?
My girlfriend (at the time) snapped a picture of me standing nearly that close and in a similar position to President Clinton … I guess that means I’m good pals with him now. C’mon TP … if there’s a connection between Bush and Abramoff, it’ll surface … even you admit that you don’t know who the guy is behind Bush, so why even “post” this nonsense.
By the way, I saw a picture of Forrest Gump and Kennedy once (n fact, it was video) … maybe you should look into if he had something to do with Kennedy’s assasination.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:36 pmIt’s not Abramoff. Here’s a photo from the same event, taken right after:
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=1306344&cdi=0
January 19th, 2006 at 3:36 pmOkay, here’s what I got:
In the original picture Bush seemed to go ahead while the guy behind him is still crossing a door of sorts, which is why his ear seems angled in a different way. His hair does look differen’t but so does Bush’s.
One thing that couldn’t change (naturally, that is) over the course of six years is his overall bone structure. Look at the shape of the chin. Look at the deep cavity in his cranium formed by the eyebrow region and the cheek region, where is eyes are located.
They may not be the same person, but I’d say otherwise myself you you asked me.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:37 pmits amazing how many right wing hawks circle over this blog…..
January 19th, 2006 at 3:38 pmIt’s not Abramoff. Here’s a photo from the same event, taken right after
Darn … “and I would’ve gotten away with it, if not for you meddling kids” …
… we have some lovely parting gifts though.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:39 pmCTDem: That’s a good find. Best evidence I’ve seen that it’s not Jack.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:39 pm24
More likely he was emboldened by the fact that the US has thus far, failed to capture him or destroy his organisation.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:42 pmYeah… I wish it were him too, but photos don’t lie…
here’s the full BBC article photo, in case you’re interested…
http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=51570317&cdi=0
January 19th, 2006 at 3:42 pmCTDem verifing the ID of the person should be easy because if I’m not mistaken the person in the photo you provided is part of the protection detail.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:45 pmWe’ve updated the post to reflect CT’s research. Great work.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:46 pmIts Jack, same facial features.
Not that the picture matters, we know he was on the transition team now, we know Bush fired at least one prosecutor that was going after Jack, to try to stop the investigations. Money for photo op was being charged, etc. Bush is knee deep into Jack (Abrab)off’s sh*t
January 19th, 2006 at 3:47 pmClif– agreed… he appears in several other photos with Bush from that same time period– looks like he may just be a security guy.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:48 pmControversial lobbyist had close contact with Bush team
WASHINGTON (AP) — 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, a $100,000-plus fundraiser for Bush, is now under criminal investigation for some of his lobbying work. His firm boasted its lobbying team helped revise a section of the Republican Party’s 2000 platform to make it favorable to its island client.
In addition, two of Abramoff’s lobbying colleagues on the Marianas won political appointments inside federal agencies.
“Our standing with the new administration promises to be solid as several friends of the CNMI (islands) will soon be taking high-ranking positions in the Administration, including within the Interior Department,” Abramoff wrote in a January 2001 letter in which he persuaded the island government to follow him as a client to his new lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig.
The reception Abramoff’s team received from the Bush administration was in stark contrast to the chilly relations of the Clinton years. Abramoff, then at the Preston Gates firm, scored few meetings with Clinton aides and the lobbyist and the islands vehemently opposed White House attempts to extend U.S. labor laws to the territory’s clothing factories.
The records from Abramoff’s firm, obtained by The Associated Press from the Marianas under an open records request, chronicle Abramoff’s careful cultivation of relations with Bush’s political team as far back as 1997.
In that year, Abramoff charged the Marianas for getting then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush to write a letter expressing support for the Pacific territory’s school choice proposal, his billing records show.
“I hope you will keep my office informed on the progress of this initiative,” Bush wrote in a July 18, 1997, letter praising the islands’ school plan and copying in an Abramoff deputy.
White House spokeswoman Erin Healy said Thursday that Bush didn’t consider Abramoff a friend. “They may have met on occasion, but the president does not know him,” she said.
As for the number of Abramoff lobbying team contacts with Bush officials documented in the billing records, Healy said: “We do not know how he defines ‘contacts.’”
Andrew Blum, a spokesman for Abramoff, declined comment.
The Greenberg Traurig firm, where Abramoff worked between late 2000 and early 2004, is investigating Abramoff’s work and cooperating with government investigations.
“Greenberg Traurig accepted Jack Abramoff’s resignation from the firm, effective March 2, 2004, after Mr. Abramoff disclosed to the firm personal transactions and related conduct which are unacceptable to the firm and antithetical to the way we do business,” spokeswoman Jill Perry said.
Abramoff is now under federal investigation amid allegations he overcharged tribal clients by millions of dollars, and his ties to powerful lawmakers such as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay are under increasing scrutiny.
The documents show his team also had extensive access to Bush administration officials, meeting with Cheney policy advisers Ron Christie and Stephen Ruhlen, Ashcroft at the Justice Department, White House intergovernmental affairs chief Ruben Barrales, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, Deputy Interior Secretary Steven Griles and others.
Most of the contacts were handled by Abramoff’s subordinates, who then reported back to him on the meetings. Abramoff met several times personally with top Interior officials, whose Office of Insular Affairs oversees the Mariana Islands and other U.S. territories.
In all, the records show at least 195 contacts between Abramoff’s Marianas lobbying team and the Bush administration from February through November 2001.
At least two people who worked on Abramoff’s team at Preston Gates wound up with Bush administration jobs: Patrick Pizzella, named an assistant secretary of labor by Bush; and David Safavian, chosen by Bush to oversee federal procurement policy in the Office of Management and Budget.
“We have worked with WH Office of Presidential Personnel to ensure that CNMI-relevant positions at various agencies are not awarded to enemies of CNMI,” Abramoff’s team wrote the Marianas in an October 2001 report on its work for the year.
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.
In 2000, Abramoff and his team were connected enough to both political parties to boast of obtaining early drafts of the platforms each adopted at its presidential nominating convention.
“In the case of the Republican platform, the team reviewed and commented on sections dealing with insular territories to ensure appropriately positive treatment. This was successful,” the Preston Gates firm wrote to Marianas.
“In the case of the Democratic Party platform, the team assisted in drafting early versions of neutral language relating to the territories,” the firm wrote. “However, heavy intervention by the White House eventually deleted positive references to the CNMI.”
The access of Abramoff and his team to the administration came as the lobbyist was establishing himself as a GOP fundraiser.
Abramoff and his wife each gave $5,000 to Bush’s 2000 recount fund and the maximum $1,000 to his 2000 campaign. By mid-2003, Abramoff had raised at least $100,000 for Bush’s re-election campaign, becoming one of Bush’s famed “pioneers.”
Money also flowed from the Marianas to Bush’s re-election campaign: It took in at least $36,000 from island donors, much of it from members of the Tan family, whose clothing factories were a routine stop for lawmakers and their aides visiting the islands on Abramoff-organized trips.
Two Tan family companies gave $25,000 each to the National Republican Senatorial Committee for the 2002 elections. Greenberg Traurig, too, was a big GOP giver. Its donations included $20,000 to the Republican National Committee for the 2000 elections and $25,000 each to the GOP’s House and Senate fundraising committees in 2000 and again in 2002.
The Marianas’ lobbying paid off — it fended off proposals in 2001 to extend the U.S. minimum wage to island workers and gained at least $2 million more in federal aid from the administration.
Abramoff’s team bragged to the cash-strapped Marianas government that the taxpayer money would cover its lobbying bill: “We believe that this additional funding — along with other funds we expect to secure by the end of the year — will make clear to even our biggest critics that we pay for ourselves,” Abramoff teammate Kevin Ring wrote in October 2001, copying in Abramoff.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:50 pmThe man behind Bush is a Secret Service agent. Check out the lapel button in the Getty photo.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
January 19th, 2006 at 3:52 pmThat’s no SS agent.
January 19th, 2006 at 3:54 pmHey! Bubble Boy!
Are your pants on fire?
January 19th, 2006 at 3:57 pmShucks! I thought we had one!
January 19th, 2006 at 3:59 pmctm having worked with an element of the security detail, I was sure there would be other pics, damn shame though would have been easier to show the ties btwn bush and Abramoff if the pic was of jack, still Jacks former personal assistant Susan Ralston is a special assistant to the President, personal assistant to Karl Rove
January 19th, 2006 at 4:02 pmstill Jacks former personal assistant Susan Ralston is a special assistant to the President, personal assistant to Karl Rove
Sounds like a Spaceballs quote ….
January 19th, 2006 at 4:06 pmG. Gordon the man in Getty’s photo is, I’ve worked close enough to know.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:08 pmGiacomo spaceball or not …it is a fact. Go to the section of this site titled CIA leak list: The 23 admistration officials involved in exposing Plame, scroll down and you will see for your self including the photo of Geroge and Susan together.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:17 pmSo what? that’s not a real president of The United States standing in front either.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:19 pmGiacomo spaceball or not …it is a fact. Go to the section of this site titled CIA leak list: The 23 admistration officials involved in exposing Plame, scroll down and you will see for your self including the photo of Geroge and Susan together.
I’m not debating the veracity of your comment … just the style. It struck me as funny … that’s all.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:20 pmWell this thread is as to whether the photo was Jack and George or not, we now know it isn’t but the close association exists do I added something that will verify just how close. Much closer than the white house will admit now
January 19th, 2006 at 4:23 pmAnd then there is “reformist congressman” John Sweeney caught (and not liking it) talking reform and then heading off for fund raiser with pharma lobbyist. No picture of him and Abramoff but a lot of FEC records of him and Abramoff’s close and personal friends.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:23 pmThey all look alike.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:27 pmI’m not sure that’s Dishonest Abe, either… the hair jutting out above the sideburn area doesn’t look the same… if we’re wrong about this, Republicants will roast us about it… but they met for sure…
what I want to know is, who’s that chick behind Dishonest Abe in his Orthodox garb? Amy Carter?
January 19th, 2006 at 4:27 pmCome on guys this blog is starting to degenerate into another .. the repuglicans came to town to reform it and they have reformed it into the most corrupt state it has ever been.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:33 pmWrong. He was tired of hearing the right wing MSM saying that he was dead and that is why Zawahiri was doing the videos. Nice try though.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:36 pmTwo reasons.
First, because it is like trying to solve a murder mystery novel before the end of the book.
Second, because Bush lied when he said he didn’t know who Jack Abramoff was.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:38 pmG. Gordon the man in Getty’s photo is, I’ve worked close enough to know.
Comment by Clif
He’s not a secret service agent. He may be a state level security man of some kind. For one thing, I see no ear piece in either ear, the lapel pin is the wrong shape and he appears to be wearing something other than a button down shirt and tie. Bush had a SS proctective detail at that time, 11/28/2000 but they are not in that picture. I’m sure they are nearby. They don’t take pains to hide the ear piece, they aren’t undercover and it’s not in either picture which has both angles and both ears.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:10 pmOnly Bush hides the ear piece.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:12 pmFurthermore, an agent with that kind of “hair style” would probably be ordered to get a haircut, unless he was on an UC assigment doing counterfeit money.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:15 pmAnd if you doubt what I’m saying… consider…
January 19th, 2006 at 5:19 pmIsn’t the guy on the far left Mayor Carmine Dipasto from the movie “Animal House”, who threatens to break Dean Wormers legs?
January 19th, 2006 at 5:33 pmYou know in that second photo it is obvious who is behind Bush, but it is also obvious that Bush has his back to the man, so I’m guessing they never met and Bush had no idea who was behind him. Yea, that’s the ticket.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:38 pmThey still both look like douchebags.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:41 pmWrong. He was tired of hearing the right wing MSM saying that he was dead and that is why Zawahiri was doing the videos. Nice try though.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
He is dead. Do you want to know how I know?
“Al-Jazeera on Thursday aired an audiotape from Osama bin Laden, who says al-Qaida is making preparations for attacks in the United States but offers a truce on “fair” but undefined conditions. The CIA has authenticated the voice on the tape as that of bin Laden, an agency official said.”
January 19th, 2006 at 6:01 pmHow does this:
…mean he is dead?
I am asking you a serious question here. How does authenticating a voice mean he is dead?
January 19th, 2006 at 6:26 pmHow does authenticating a voice mean he is dead?
Comment by Spudge_Boy — January 19, 2006 @ 6:26 pm
I have been wondering the same exact thing since I read I-RIGHT-I’s nonsensical post…
But then I wonder a lot of things about him.
January 19th, 2006 at 7:24 pmNot only is that Abramoff … Dubya just ripped a nasty fart and Abramoff is trying not to die back there.
January 19th, 2006 at 7:38 pmI-RIGHT-I
Come on dude, just for once answer. Is there a secret code that you know that translates authenticating a voice into a person’s death.
January 19th, 2006 at 8:02 pmPot, kettle, black. Here’s an interesting excerpt from the AP on Harry Reid:
[BEGIN EXCERPT]
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday apologized to 33 Republican senators singled out for ethics criticism in a report from his office titled “Republican Abuse of Power.”
“The document released by my office yesterday went too far and I want to convey to you my personal regrets,” Reid said in a letter.
“I am writing to apologize for the tone of this document and the decision to single out individual senators for criticism in it.”
Reid came under attack Wednesday over the report, which was issued by his staff on Senate letterhead, even as he and fellow Democrats released ethics overhaul proposals.
“Researching, compiling and distributing what amounts to nothing more than a campaign ad on the taxpayers dime raises serious ethical questions,” said Sen. John Cornyn , R-Texas, one of the lawmakers named.
The 27-page report criticized Republican lawmakers over their ties to disgraced ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, questionable campaign contributions and other issues.
Meanwhile, the head of the Republican Party said GOP lawmakers who are guilty of wrongdoing should expect to be punished whatever their political affiliation.
“The public trust is more important than party,” said Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman. “Which is why the first solution to the problem is rooting out those who have done wrong, without regard to party or ideology.”
[END EXCERPT]
While he was at it, it’s too bad Reid didn’t see fit to return his $66,000.00 share of the Abramoff-tainted money.
January 19th, 2006 at 8:18 pmBSR…and your proof that Abramoff directed his clients to give to Reid is…what exactly?
January 19th, 2006 at 8:23 pm“BSR…and your proof that Abramoff directed his clients to give to Reid is…what exactly?”
The same guilt by association that the Left is currently applying to Republicans. See, for example, the side-by side photos of Abramoff and President Bush at the top of this thread.
January 19th, 2006 at 8:33 pm“While he was at it, it’s too bad Reid didn’t see fit to return his $66,000.00 share of the Abramoff-tainted money. Blue State Red”
You’re so silly. Making these wild accusations and outright lies against politicians that clearly didn’t change their votes, when it’s clear that Republicans like Hastert and Delay did. If you criticized everyone fairly, honestly and equally then you wouldn’t look like a partisan purveyor of hate and lies. But since your criticism is one sided, and based on an obvious lie – all it does is produce pity in those that read your postings. That you would be so partisan, biased and unpatriotics that you would put politics before honesty, integrity and fair politics. These values you demostrate are exactly why Republicans have a reputation for dishonesty and ‘winner take all’ politics of unfairness, unreasonableness and corruptness.
I feel pity for you and your party that you cannot recognize the sinfulness and dishonesty of your ways. I hope that you’ll be able to forgive yourself if you ever realize how dishonest you’ve been.
January 19th, 2006 at 8:36 pmWhat a fucking pussy. This is exactly what the problem is with the god damn democrats.
Still doesn’t prove any wrong doing by Reid. Just makes him a pussy.
January 19th, 2006 at 8:38 pmYou mean the guilt by association you were against yesterday, but are for now?
That’s a big old flaming flip flop.
January 19th, 2006 at 8:39 pm“The same guilt by association that the Left is currently applying to Republicans. See, for example, the side-by side photos of Abramoff and President Bush at the top of this thread. Blue State Red”
Actually it’s guilt by ‘donation’, not ‘association’. And since Abramoff donated to Bush, and not to a single democrat, then only Republicans can be guilty. Just because you wish to fabricate guilt to remove the stain of dishonesty and corruption of republican, doesn’t mean it’s the honest or patriotic thing to do. Just admit this is a republican only scandal, fix the problems, and grow up about it. Just because you’re a republican doesn’t mean you have a duty to fabricate evidence as you did for Iraq or the Abramoff case. It should be beneath you – but apparently you’ve not elevated your morals to that stage quite yet. There’s always time – I’m rooting for you to find a conscience somewhere in all of that irrational partisan hate! You can do it! Come on! Give it a try!
January 19th, 2006 at 8:40 pmBSR…go to this TP post from yesterday and look at the graphic I posted yesterday on comment #52. (I don’t want to post it again because it is big and slows down the dial-up folks).
Find me the (D) on that list and I will be happy to rebuke that Democrat.
Here’s a box of crackers to nibble on while you search.
January 19th, 2006 at 8:49 pmMLDB,
There you go again, posting facts and evidence…. when will you learn?
January 19th, 2006 at 8:51 pmBSR,
How come your Momma let you out of the house tonight? After the whopin’ you took last night and went home with your butt beat and your clothes torn and all muddy I am surprised you even crawled out from under the bed. Remember, if you want to play with the big boys you have to be nice and polite and tell the truth or you will get yet another spanking.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:09 pmI have a question…why doe sit matter other than for symbolic reasons, if anyone return Jacks Money? I know the dems have reaturned all of it already (it’s easy to retutn $0) But why should the republicans? Whatever dirt was attachedd to that cash has already been taken care of. If it was to buy access, that access has already been granted and delivered. If it was to buy votes, that too has occured. Giving the money to charity or what not will not wash away the stain.
BTW righties, I’m no dummy if the dems have anything to return that Jack arrainged for them, it is cash from his clients. Of course we all know how that worked out. Client gives $100,000 to a republican, buys a vote. To give political cover the client gives $1,000 to a dem. See they both got cash at Jack’s direction, both must be dirty. Riiiiight, face the reality wrong wwayward righties, you don’t buy influence and power from somone who has no ability to control an agenda, no ability to control a vote and no ability to grant you future rewards. The national review has it 100% correct.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:23 pmHere’s an appropriate picture of Bush and Abramoff together.
January 19th, 2006 at 11:44 pmBSR
Who are you voting for?
If you truly believe this is a issue that includes the Democrats, as well as a Republican party. Don’t vote for either party, vote for somebody else. Corruption is not acceptable and when caught those who are corrupt should go to jail, no matter who ends up sharing their cell.
So far, the available facts show that this is a Republican scandal right to the point of your own propagandists starting to turn over it. You cannot blame Bill Clinton, you cannot blame the Democrats, you cannot really blame anybody save those who took the bribes. That they are Republican senators of significant numbers should come second to the fact that these guys took bribes.
There is an aura of definite corruption that surrounds the Republican Government, a miasma-like stink which has been in place since year 1 and the Enron scandal. It is time for the Republican party to clean their house, and no amount of whining about Democrats is going to change that.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:25 amear-wrong-ear you get more stupid each day . what is your point? Is obl dead or alive? Did rooting tooting bushco smoke’em out? Your lord and savior bushco is going down in history as the hands down worst president of any country–bar none. suck it up fudge packer.
have a nice day.
January 20th, 2006 at 12:25 amWho knows if that is Jack Abramoff behind Bush? It could be or not? Keep searching for real pics of them together, but remember that Bush Senior is trying to collect them all and burn them, just like he did of Junior’s nude pics at a Gay bar near Yale University! He got drunk one night and took off his clothes, then danced nude on a bartop as guys cheered > lol.
January 20th, 2006 at 2:41 amWhy can’t the press just ask Scotty, How many pictures did you find of Bush and Abramoff?
Oh, yeah. They have no balls.
January 20th, 2006 at 9:27 amShould Think Progress be engaging in this kind of wild speculation? If you had no confirmation that it was him behind Bush, why post it?
January 20th, 2006 at 2:05 pmear-wrong-ear you get more stupid each day . what is your point? Is obl dead or alive? Did rooting tooting bushco smoke’em out? Your lord and savior bushco is going down in history as the hands down worst president of any country–bar none. suck it up fudge packer.
have a nice day.
Comment by Joefriday
Feeling a little brave today are you Joe?
Bush will go down in history as America’s greatest President (that is if he doesn’t let every frick’n Mexican in the world live here)Future history will prove that he and he alone saved our collective asses from the insane nuclear armed jihad of the Islamofascists, who by the way are funding Hillary.
As far as Ossama bin Deadman goes, I’ve always suspected we got him at Tora Bora and the CIA has been keeping him alive in spirit by falsely claiming the tapes that show up are his voice. CIA funding would drop drastically if Ossama were no longer around to be looked for. I could be wrong though, it’s just a hunch.
Now, about that fudgepacker business. You sound just a bit homophobic to me. I suggest you take something for it.
January 20th, 2006 at 5:43 pmAs far as Ossama bin Deadman goes, I’ve always suspected we got him at Tora Bora and the CIA has been keeping him alive in spirit by falsely claiming the tapes that show up are his voice. CIA funding would drop drastically if Ossama were no longer around to be looked for. I could be wrong though, it’s just a hunch.
I agree with you IRI on this, OBL is more valuable alive than dead.
January 20th, 2006 at 6:16 pm“Should Think Progress be engaging in this kind of wild speculation? If you had no confirmation that it was him behind Bush, why post it?”
January 20th, 2006 at 8:12 pmComment by Matt bors —
****Of course ThinkProgress should be engaging in this kind of wild speculation, Matt. Being a “NON-partisan” site, Judd, Nico, Faiz, and the gang always look for info to credit and dis-crdeit BOTH major parties. The fact that the critical stories on Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore are hard to find, is explained by the disappearing screen used to discredit the non-partisan TP. Wink-wink!!
IRI “he and he alone saved over collective asses” I know that the right likes to swiftboat veterans but please do not do that until they are home from the war that they are currently fighting.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:21 pmBush will go down in history as America’s greatest President (that is if he doesn’t let every frick’n Mexican in the world live here).
That’s back in that ‘not in 500,000 to 1.5 million years’ range…
You seem to be okay with cute Mexicans, though?
Comment by I-RIGHT-I — January 20, 2006 @ 5:43 pm
January 21st, 2006 at 9:19 amWhere does Jack Abram Off fit into the education of young Republican children?
How will Republicans explain to their children that Jack O created the building blocks of the modern Republican Party.
January 23rd, 2006 at 11:13 amThe cheek and forehead ridges do seem to match Abramoff.
The hairline matches when you angle his head the way it is in the with-Bush photo.
Felons and Ken Lay type crooks are the big contributors to the Washington Mafia.
We don’t allow the Chinese to contribute to campaigns, why should anyone but the voters of a given district be allowed to contribute to local and regional political campaigns?
ONLY voters of a district should be allowed to contribute to a political campaign,
Everything else is bribery.
Traditions of bribery do not make it acceptable.
We outlawed slavery even though the constitution supported it.
We enfranchised women and african americans with the vote even though the founding fathers didn’t see that as necessary.
We got the lead out of gasoline.
Let’s clean up the cesspit of Washington money and take the Government back for the people.
These politicians have been bought and paid for by criminal lobbyists.
Their actual job is supposed to be representing the actual voters of their districts,
NOT representing lobbyist’s wishes and demands.
When will Americans take back their government?
January 23rd, 2006 at 8:56 pm(Not holding my breath on that one)
Don’t worry, Karl Rove will make sure they get shredded.
January 24th, 2006 at 2:53 amBush has lied to the point that his own party doesn’t trust him, the american peoople don’t trust him either. I just can’t wait until he is out of office and we can start repairing the relationship damage he has done to the USA and the rest of the world. More countries hate us now than ever did before. So I say, yes Bush knows him, Bush has had dealings with him, Bush is trying to save what little face he has with the American people… For the american people out there who don’t believe everything you see on TV….you know the truth.
January 27th, 2006 at 3:49 pmBush’s cronies make Watergate look like a misdemeanor for jay-walking.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:58 amtest:
one
two
one
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:05 amtwo