ThinkProgress has obtained emails written by Jack Abramoff in which the fallen lobbyist personally describes his relationship with President Bush. They depict a relationship far more extensive than has been previously reported.
The emails written by Abramoff was addressed to Kim Eisler, the national editor of Washingtonian magazine. The Washingtonian recently reported on the existence of several photographs showing Abramoff and Bush together. Eisler is also the author of Revenge of the Pequots, a book about tribal politics for which Abramoff was interviewed.
In the emails, Abramoff describes meeting Bush “in almost a dozen settings,” and details how he was personally invited to President Bush’s private ranch in Crawford, Texas, for a gathering of Bush fundraisers in 2003. Abramoff did not attend, citing a religious observance.
Abramoff emailed Eisler about his invitation to Crawford and his decision not to attend:
NO, IT WAS THAT I WOULD HAVE HAD TO TRAVEL ON SATURDAY (SHABBOS). YES, I WAS INVITED, DURING THE 2004 CAMPAIGN. IT WAS SATURDAY AUGUST 9, 2003 AT THE RANCH IN CRAWFORD.
The White House has continually downplayed the relationship between Abramoff and President Bush. At a January 26 press conference, President Bush said “You know, I, frankly, don’t even remember having my picture taken with the guy. I don’t know him.”
But according to Eisler, Abramoff told him that the two have met almost a dozen times, shared jokes, and spoke about details of Abramoff’s family:
HE HAS ONE OF THE BEST MEMORIES OF ANY POLITICIAN I HAVE EVER MET. IT WAS ONE IF [sic] HIS TRADEMARKS, THOUGH OF COURSE HE CAN’T RECALL THAT HE HAS A GREAT MEMORY! THE GUY SAW ME IN ALMOST A DOZEN SETTINGS, AND JOKED WITH ME ABOUT A BUNCH OF THINGS, INCLUDING DETAILS OF MY KIDS. PERHAPS HE HAS FORGOTTEN EVERYTHING. WHO KNOWS.
Check back with ThinkProgress for more details about Abramoff’s relationship with Bush and other high-profile figures.
UPDATE: Mr. Eisler has informed us that he sent us two sections of one email he recieved from Jack Abramoff, rather than two seperate emails.
For the latest news, legal documents and timelines in the Abramoff scandal, visit the “Abramoff/Delay Scandal Resource Center.”
February 8th, 2006 at 2:56 pmDing, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding,
You are the winner of the $64,000 question!
February 8th, 2006 at 3:00 pmCertainly if the truth becomes known it will be bad skating for President Bush. President Bush is not the first president to practice lying but certainly he is refined down to a slate art. The man is playing his role in the unraveling of the greatest nation ever and what is his role to mislead through lies and deception the American people, while they furnish the money and the blood for his ill guided ignorant adventures.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:02 pmUh…wow? Am I watching the little-bit-faster part of a slow-motion explosion? Sure seems like it.
You rock. Keep on.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:03 pmStrangers indeed. President Bush and Jack Abramboff are Best Friends…till the end.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:03 pmLet me guess, the Washingtonian is a “Liberal, nut job, moonbat, fever swamp, rag” of a publication, right?
February 8th, 2006 at 3:08 pmAnd don’t forget about Karl Rove.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:11 pm#6 - For Truth,
Not at all. The Washingtonian is a Washington life magazine that focuses mostly on lifestyle issues. It is a nonpartisan magazine and not does lean to the left (and if anything, leans to the right).
February 8th, 2006 at 3:13 pmDoes anyone have a listing of all George Bush’s lies? I feel like I’ve gone down a rabbit hole and come up someplace strange
February 8th, 2006 at 3:14 pmYet another one of the endless lies that come from the mouth of the boy emperor exposed. When God made Bush, he must have placed his anus on his face because everything that comes out of his mouth/anus is nothing but lying shit.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:15 pmBe careful of forgeries here.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:17 pm#9
February 8th, 2006 at 3:18 pmSkeptic,
I don’t think my computer would handle the size of that file.
I love Abramoff’s Pious Jew act.
He’s a man of god!
February 8th, 2006 at 3:23 pmExactly! I haven’t even read the text of the e-mails, and I can already see numerous inconsistencies with the fonts, the types of electrons used to transmit the documents, etc. In fact, by amazing coincidence, Powerline has a refutation of these e-mails already written and ready to go.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:23 pmAssuming that ties with Abramoff indicate criminal activity of all second parties is incredibly presumptuous. Assuming that high up polititians remember $1K donations is ludicrous.
I fail to see how this is bigger news than the corrupt local Democratic government of Louisiana embezzling funds that should have gone towards the strengthening of the levees. Abramoff’s foulups didn’t cause people to die. Oh but this gets pushed aside because it’s negative of the Left.
Bipartisan site? I think not. (pulled from “Terms of Use” agreement)
February 8th, 2006 at 3:24 pmScotty’s going to go from saying “Bush doesn’t know Abramoff” to he can’t talk about an “ongoing investigation”
February 8th, 2006 at 3:24 pmand what kind of typewriter was used to produce these emails, hmmm?
(inspired by, and dedicated to the good gentleperson from #11)
February 8th, 2006 at 3:25 pmFilm at eleven.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:29 pmWhhhhhaaaaatttttt????
You can see electrons?
February 8th, 2006 at 3:30 pmimatt - you come here supposedly to debate, but you start attacking the people here.
No one here is saying the Democrats are great. But to say something without providing proof is not very smart either.
I will state these and should you provide evidence to your claim, I will provide evidence to mine.
How did LA embezzle money?
What I do know is that Bush was told by the Army Corp of Engineers that the levies needed to be beefed up. However, Bush cut funding to the Army Corp of Eng. for doing this.
Abramoff was on Bushes transition team. Don’t you think that Bush would have to know him for him to be on his transition team? Do you really believe that just anyone is going to be allowed to work on this team without being well known or by influence of money?
February 8th, 2006 at 3:31 pmI fail to see how the Bush administartion being corrupt isn’t the biggest story since Richard Nixon’s corruption.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:31 pm#21
February 8th, 2006 at 3:31 pmI know, I couldn’t even think of a response to that.
the types of electrons used to transmit the documents
Were they partisan electrons? Demoquarks or Republitrons?
February 8th, 2006 at 3:33 pmIt’s easier to spoof an email than a memo.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:34 pm#16
February 8th, 2006 at 3:34 pmmds,
I think someone dropped some acid in your kool-aid.
Just How Friendly was Bush and Abramoff?…
Think Progress gives us a hint…
February 8th, 2006 at 3:35 pmI think it’s funny Bush had this reputation of a great memory. He would remember people’s names after shaking hands, so the stories told.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:35 pmNo reason to spoof. These guys loved writing stupid e-mails thinking they were safe. You don’t remember the e-mails, that were not refuted, where Scanlon and Abramoff referred to Christians as “whackos”?
February 8th, 2006 at 3:36 pm#13 Fuck Condi “white-as-Rice” and the broom she rode in on.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:39 pmI don’t know what #11, 16, and 19 are reading but I see no descrepancies with font. Maybe your mind is led to believe something other than what your eyes see. True, until we see the full email/correspondence we can’t be sure if they are true unless we hear it straight from the horses mouth. But I’m sure some other scandal will come out to eclipse this and will all soon be back page news like Plame gate…what’s up with that? Every time we think we have Bush with a scandal to rock the White House another one pops up…this should be damning but it has allowed the administration to efectively ellude condemnation.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:40 pmI agree with you RemoveBush #22
imatt, please provide the facts that LA Democrates embezzled the levee funds.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:41 pmJust saying, if you know what you’re doing, you can dummy up an email that looks like it’s from one person, when in fact it’s not.
It’s in the headers. If you don’t know what to look for, you can’t tell the difference.
Take a look at this over at Carnegie-Mellon’s CERT Center to see what I mean.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:44 pm#34
The troll are just reading todays Republican talking points
February 8th, 2006 at 3:44 pmbush since oyu’ve got a great memory ..explain this…
February 8th, 2006 at 3:44 pmimatt,
Your website is probably getting more traffice now that you are blogging here. I’m not sure, but this blog likely gets a lot more traffic than any other political blog.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:45 pmI have been wrong all this time: the President does, in fact, know Jack. Learn something new every day.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:47 pmamazing that it could have such a flawless memory and at the same time be so illiterate, inarticualte, addled, inept, and otherwise crippled by years of alcohol and drug abuse. Or perhaps it is playing dumb, like prince hamlet, which would evince a horrifying level of cunning, and might explain practically the whole thing. How could it have such a keen memory??
February 8th, 2006 at 3:50 pmDoes anyone have a listing of all George Bush’s lies?
I don’t think we have enough letters to complete it.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:50 pmOh, my, who would assume such a tewwible, tewwible thing?
No, this information just points out that the Prez, as he did in re/Ken Lay, has–shall we say–stretched the truth. Or maybe shrunk it is a better way to put it.
As for the $1k donation? Abramoff was a Bush Pioneer–would you care to deny that public record, IMatt? He helped raise $100,000 for the campaign.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:52 pmBrokeback Capital “Jack- I just can’t quit you!”
February 8th, 2006 at 3:56 pmHere is a video of Bush using his iron trap memory.
Via Crooks and Liars
February 8th, 2006 at 3:59 pmhttp://movies.crooksandliars.com/ Funniest_Video_of_the_Year_1.wmv
Bush’s enablers will never admit the truth about their dear leader. They simply refuse to see it. They have to know these basic facts.
1). Karl Rove and Abramoff were founding members of the Young Republicans twenty years ago.
2). Their respective staffs moved from one to other almost seamlessly.
3). Bush doesn’t make a move without consulting Karl Rove.
Bush claiming he doesn’t know Jack Abramoff is just not credible. It’s a lie. But admitting their boy king tells lies leads to other uncomfortable questions so they snap and yelp and stomp their feet. It’s downright pavlovian.
February 8th, 2006 at 3:59 pmTry it. Say “Bush lies” in the comments of any blog that allows them and watch them come to his defense. They will question your mental health, your patriotism, your manhood but they will not debate the facts or merrits. They can’t.
They have nothing to show for their unending loyalty and yet they keep the faith. Odd really. Years from now, when the passions of this time and place fade and history has made it’s judgement, these same people will be telling their children how they never really liked that guy.
22: I don’t attack the people - I have no problem with the people. I respond to inaccurate information when I can. The Army Corp of Engineers spent 430 million in upgrading the levees, which apparently was not enough - the LA local government didn’t complain. Just last week the governor claimed to congress that she knew the levees were outdated an inadequate - but what did she do to fix them? Nothing. A cat5 hurricane hit in 1969, so the local gov’t had AMPLE time to raise their voices enough to get things fixed right.
Passing the buck seems to be a trend with the local government in Louisiana. No president would say “Screw LA, let’s use the money elsewhere” - if anyone believes that, they have other problems as well. I did not like Clinton, but I don’t believe he actively set out to cause destruction.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:00 pmHey, don’t you guys remember the staged videoconference that Bush had with some troops from Iraq? In that teleconference he wanted us to believe that he had a good enough memory to remember a random soldier on sight. It was great theater. This same man now wants me to believe that he can’t remember a member of his own transition team that charged $25,000 for a meeting with Bush and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Bush’s reelection? Say it with me folks…..give me a f*%&$ing break.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:01 pmYeah, you all are going to trust a convicted felon here?
February 8th, 2006 at 4:02 pm39: I didn’t post to generate traffic. I make no money off my site and it takes up time I really don’t have. Could care less if people read it or not, it’s just a ranting post so I don’t drive my wife crazy.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:02 pmIt’s easier to spoof an email than a memo.
Comment by knobboy — February 8, 2006 @ 3:34 pm
Is this the talking point du jour? All evidence pointing to the fact that Pres Bush knew Abramoff is fake?
Pray tell, is this some sort of a vast conspiracy?
February 8th, 2006 at 4:03 pmHow dare you call Dear Leader a liar, don’t you know this will only help the terrorists? Why do you love terrorists so much?
February 8th, 2006 at 4:04 pmNope. No conspiracy. Just an exhortation to be careful. And skeptical.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:09 pm#15. “I love Abramoff’s Pious Jew act.
He’s a man of god!”
Comment by The Liberal Avenger — February 8, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
The neo-con wingnuts are all pious religious hypocrites of one sect or other. It appears to be a REQUIREMENT to be a Republican.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:10 pmSo, now Gary Ruppert’s stance is that the number one lobbist for the republican party is a felon and can’t be trusted.
WE SAID HE CAN’T BE TRUSTED YEARS AGO, CATH UP.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:11 pm#34 & #37
We are referring to and joking about “scandal” from the election ‘04 in which Dan Rather got pwn3d by some douchebags.
ps Welcome to the club!
February 8th, 2006 at 4:11 pmCHIMPEACH!
February 8th, 2006 at 4:12 pmNo, it was not enough and there still isn’t being enough spent.
More time and energy is being spent on turning the poor neighborhoods into “green space”
February 8th, 2006 at 4:13 pmYeah, you all are going to trust a convicted felon here?
Comment by Gary Ruppert — February 8, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
As usual, Mr. Ruppert trails the facts by a long shot:
Why is it illegal for Jack Abramoff to give money to someone? He gave the legal limit, and he did it without strings.
Comment by Gary Ruppert — January 3, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
It took you almost a month, but you finally acknowledged Abramoff is crooked. We’ll talk about Abramoff friendship with Pres Bush next month. Deal?
February 8th, 2006 at 4:14 pmComment by imatt
“The Army Corp of Engineers spent 430 million in upgrading the levees, which apparently was not enough - the LA local government didn’t complain. Just last week the governor claimed to congress that she knew the levees were outdated an inadequate - but what did she do to fix them? Nothing. A cat5 hurricane hit in 1969, so the local gov’t had AMPLE time to raise their voices enough to get things fixed right.”
Thats true that there was 430 million spent, but the Corp also told Bush that the levees required more work and funding. Bush just scoffed and reduced the funding to the Army Corp of Engineers. This is a fact, just like him cutting funding for education while saying that we should support education.
Do you not see the double talk here?
February 8th, 2006 at 4:15 pmimatt, your logic is that local officials did not complain loudly enough. They did, in fact, complain. Just because you did not here it does not mean it did not happen. In fact, the Army Corp of Engineers was responsible for the levees and is controled by the federal govt.
I know facts don’t fit into your worldview but if you try them it might suit you:
http://www.factcheck.org/article344.html
Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, told the Times-Picayune:
Walter Maestri: It appears that the money has been moved in the president’s budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq , and I suppose that’s the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can’t be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:21 pmin typical republican fashion, they try to change the subject. I fell for it. I think it works better if they use outlandish claims.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:24 pmIt’s OK Jack, Dubya needs to spend some time away from you, OK? Just until the posse rides by, savvy? Remember when Enron broke, despite the fact that Enron was the single largest contributor to Dubya’s Texas governor campaign, despite revoking the California price caps almost as soon as he took office, when the brown stuff hit the fan, I went from ‘Kenny-Boy’ to ‘Kenny-Who?’. Stay cool, man, you’ll get your pardon.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:28 pmBush said “You know, I, frankly, don’t even remember having my picture taken with the guy. I don’t know him.â€
You will deny me thrice before the cock crows.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:29 pm.
#17, this is in the ‘we’re bastards, but not as big a bunch of bastards as these people’ category of troll misdirection. Let it go, people. Seen this before, ‘yes but what about Clinton/Carter/Kennedy(any Kennedy)?’.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:32 pmI think we all need to be cautious of info that “falls” into our hands. We don’t need another Memogate to allow the GOP to escape another scandal. Be careful and let’s not over play our hand here. The public has already bitten on the “Culture of Coruption” theme, don’t allow the GOP to reframe this important campaign issue!
February 8th, 2006 at 4:33 pmI think you will be interested in this email from Ralph Reed to Enron lobbyist Richard Shapiro that confirms the tight relationship between Jack Abramoff and Rep. Tom DeLay - and Susan Ralston, who has been Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove’s personal assistant since 2001. I would like to know what you think about this pair of Enron emails.
Dr. Gene Nelson http://www.AnAmericanScam.com website
http://orange.sims.berkeley.edu/~atf/enron/enron.cgi
The sender of the message to Richard Shapiro, who was Enron’s Vice-President of Regulatory Affairs and principal D.C. lobbyist, was Ralph Reed, president of Century Strategies, LLC of Washington, DC. Ralph’s firm’s website is http://censtrat.com
From: ralph@censtrat.com abramoff is arguably the most influential and
effective gop lobbyist in congress. i share several clients with him and
have yet to see him lose a battle. he also is very close to Delay and could
help enormously on that front. raised $ for bush. until december 31 he can
be reached at 202-661-3851. he assistant is Susan Ralston.
___________
http://orange.sims.berkeley.edu/~atf/enron/enron.cgi
Search for string “H-1B” in Enron Emails
From: Chris Long
To: jane.allen@enron.com, steven.kean@enron.com, Richard Shapiro , joe.hillings@enron.com, cynthia.sandherr@enron.com, Stephen Burns , tom.briggs@enron.com, Sue Nord , Carolyn Cooney , james.steffes@enron.com
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: 04 Oct 2000 02:02 PDT
Subject: House Passes H-1B Visas; Bill Now Awaits Clinton’s Signature
Finally, the H-1B visa increase has passed the House and Senate and is on its
way to the President for his signature. Jane Allen reviewed the provisions
of the legislation which meet Enron’s requirements. Enron has been a part of
the Americans Business for Legal Immigration (ABLI) which has championed this
legislation.
Thanks to Allison Navin and Amy Fabian for great support on this issue.
EMPLOYMENT
House Passes H-1B Visas; Bill Now Awaits Clinton’s Signature
In a strangely abrupt end to the protracted and often rocky debate on H-1B
visa increase legislation, the House late Tuesday approved a Senate-passed
bill by voice vote, and sent the measure to the White House for President Clinton’s signature.
The bill is largely designed to increase the number of skilled foreign
workers who can be hired by high technology companies, and Clinton has
pledged to sign it.
House Republican leaders made the decision late Tuesday to bring the H-1B
visa increase legislation up for debate and vote under a suspension of the
rules, just hours after the Senate had approved the identical legislation in
a 96-1 vote. House leadership made the call after most members already had
left for the day–a move that invited criticism from some Democratic
legislators who complained about being caught off guard.
Democratic leaders were informed about an hour beforehand that floor debate
on the measure would begin. After a brief debate, the bill was approved by
voice vote–even though House Republican leaders had initially said that they
intended to bring the measure for a roll call vote today. The decision to
press forward was reached amid a House Republican leadership meeting, and a
second private meeting held among Majority Leader Armey, Rules Chairman
Dreier and Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas.
“I don’t think there was much talk, if any, across the aisle,” said one high
tech lobbyist. “I think they [Republicans] felt they had to strike while the
iron was hot.” This lobbyist also noted that key House Democrats–including
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.–had signaled early in the day that they were
amenable to taking up the Senate-passed bill, which is similar to H-1B
legislation sponsored by Dreier and Lofgren.
A spokeswoman to Minority Leader Gephardt expressed disappointment in the
short notice Democrats were given, calling it an “infantile” way to
legislate. “Let us know what the schedule is, that’s common courtesy,” she
said.
Smith was likewise displeased, although for different reasons. The Senate
bill differs sharply from Smith’s own version of the legislation, which was
reported out of committee earlier this year. In his floor statement, Smith
congratulated Dreier, but insisted there was “no credible study” showing a
shortage of skilled American workers to fill the high tech jobs.
Said a Smith aide: “Time …has overtaken [efforts] to produce a balanced bill.”
Lofgren, who said she had to be summoned back to Capitol Hill for Tuesday’s
debate, called the Senate legislation “a very good bill that should become
law. I’m glad I was able to get into the carpool lane and get here in time
to talk about why this bill deserves our support,” she joked.
Dreier acknowledged that debate on the bill had taken the two parties down
a “bumpy” road, but said he was pleased at the bipartisan outcome.
House Republican leaders had been hesitant to bring the H-1B legislation up
earlier this year, out of concerns that Democrats would use it as a platform
from which to attack Republicans on their immigration stances–those relating
to Latinos in particular.
But while Democrats such as Lofgren and Judiciary ranking member John
Conyers, D-Mich., indicated they would continue to press for a package of
Hispanic immigration provisions backed by the White House, they did not dwell
on the subject.
Democrats were more vocal with their concerns that the Senate bill could not
include a revenue raising device included in the Dreier-Lofgren bill, which
doubled the fee that employers will have to pay to hire an H-1B visa workers.
Under the House bill, that money would go for education programs to ensure
that American workers earn the skills needed to fill these high tech jobs in
the future. Rather than amend the Senate bill, however, Dreier introduced a
stand alone bill designed to adjust the fee. The H-1B measure raises the visa
caps to 195,000 per year through FY2003.
By Pamela Barnett
February 8th, 2006 at 4:35 pmof National Journal’s CongressDaily
I know most of the posts about the e-mails being fake are jokes, but it seems to me like these are e-mails Abramoff has been sending recently. It sounds to me like if you ask him, he’ll tell you he knew Bush. I’m sure he’s a little pissed off that all his good friends who he raised so much money for are now denying they know him.
Assuming that ties with Abramoff indicate criminal activity of all second parties is incredibly presumptuous.
We are not making that assumption (a lot of Republicans *are* making that assumption when they say it is a bipartisan scandal). But what this shows is that Bush was likely lying about his relationship with Abramoff. I have a problem with the President lying no matter what, and I think the fact that he’s lying about his relationship makes it more likely that his hands are dirty here.
Assuming that high up polititians remember $1K donations is ludicrous.
Abramoff raised over $100k for Bush, and he was a strategist as much as a fundraiser.
I fail to see how this is bigger news than the corrupt local Democratic government of Louisiana embezzling funds that should have gone towards the strengthening of the levees. Abramoff’s foulups didn’t cause people to die. Oh but this gets pushed aside because it’s negative of the Left.
The corruption of politicians working in concert with lobbyists, and repeated dishonesty by politicians, threaten the very foundation of our government and nation. And the programs cut by Republican legislators in the pocket of lobbyists, the wars started and mishandled by Republicans who have increased their power by gaming K-street and abusing lobbyist/corporate contributions, do result in people dying.
But if Democrats really did embezzle funds in NO, I think that’s a big story too. I think this country is big enough for more than one news item at a time.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:36 pm#13
I would vote Yes if they included all the muslim countries. All those fundamentalists in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc… will got nuts every time their authority is questioned…sound like anyone else we know?
February 8th, 2006 at 4:37 pmJust a word about these pictures of Jack Abramoff and President Bush that Reflections deleted because they say they weren’t “relevantâ€. I want to see the pictures for myself in order to make my own judgment as to their “relevance.†That is for me and anyone looking at the pictures to decide, not the White house and not the president of Reflections. She had no business doing what she did.
I want to see ALL of the pictures taken that day with President Bush and all the people who got to have their picture taken with him. I want to see the body language the president uses when he’s pretending to shake the hand of somebody he doesn’t know and when he’s shaking the hand of someone he does know and likes a lot. I want to see if he puts his hand on the shoulder of people he doesn’t know and if he puts his elbow around the neck of those he does. I want to compare the level of personal intimacy exhibited in each picture.
If after looking at ALL the pictures taken that day, you couldn’t tell the difference between the people that the president didn’t know and those he did, then I would agree that the pictures have no “relevanceâ€. But I am not going to take the word of Reflections, and I am certainly not stupid or naive enough to believe the White House.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:40 pm59: (HOT! TIP!)
*sigh.
Resulting in trashing a site I plainly stated was nothing more than a ranting post. Name calling should be left in Middle School.
You know, I respect anyone’s opinions here that actually shows some intelligence. Most posts don’t - as they are nothing but name calling Bush bashing whitty comments. Those that DO think through your comments and post, you help show that not all Lefties or Righties are ignorant.
Bashing Bush does no one any good (except may make someone feel smart) without providing information as to why one thinks that way. Saying “Bush Lied” or some other whimsical quote is not providing evidence.
I figured this site was here to help argue the points, not to bash persons.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:42 pmBut was Bush at his ranch like place (pig farm)
February 8th, 2006 at 4:44 pm0n 9 August, 2003?
Yeah, he forgot Abramoff. Like he forgot that he’s supposed to obey the law. Like he forgot that Iraq really DIDN’T have WMDs. Like he forgot about his little awol period in the service, or about the warnings that Bin Laden was going to attack with planes. “UH FUHGOT”
February 8th, 2006 at 4:47 pmMy seven year old doesn’t get away with that crap.
Why Mr. Abranoff could not travel in Saturday to meet our commander in chief?
What the hell means SHABBOS? Is SHABBOS more important that the president?
February 8th, 2006 at 4:47 pmThis is background noise.
You lefties need to put up or shut up. Are you willing to support strong lobbying reform? What are your ideas on the budget? AND what is your plan for Iraq and the War On Terror.
You can talk Jack A all you want. Do you have a reform agenda other than fear and smear? Because if you don’t, you will be in for the shock of your life come November. You cannot compete with Republicans if all you do is attack. Have you learned nothing since 2000? You can’t beat Karl Rove with two bit scandals. He is SMARTER than you. AND he will take your hate and strangle you with it at the polls. AGAIN!
February 8th, 2006 at 4:48 pmimatt… evidence is given constantly on this site. Half the time I spend reading in the day is following links provided here.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:48 pm#83
There is no way to reform it, the WHOLE thing (both sides) is broken, it will take years or drastic measures.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:50 pmShabbos is a hebrew word for Sabbath. Orthodox Jews (and somehow Abramoff claims to be one) cannot work or travel on the Sabbath. Joe Lieberman is the same way.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:53 pmimatt,
If most of this doesn’t involve intelligent debate, then why do you stay? Are you trying to generate more traffic to your site, or have you been recruited? You are fighting an unwinnable battle here.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:54 pmHey imatt - At least people here do carry on a debate. You say name calling, and yes some does occur. But over all there is debate here until one person, generally the bush supporters, start calling people here names.
I tried going over to RedState.org to discuss the topics but was banned. You’ll notice that in none of my posts to you I have in any way called you a name, but I have held you to the facts. RedState considered this offensive and banned me. However, one of the Republican posters could call me a “moonbat”.
You see, the problem is that debate should discuss the facts. Let me demonstrate the facts to you.
1) Bush was not elected in the first election. The supreme court appointed him.
2) Bush did nothing before 9/11 to prevent it. Despite the PDB that stated “bin laden determined to strike the US”. Despite all of the intelligence community jumping up and down about the terrorists.
3) Bush forced the FBI to stop investigating the bin laden family
4) Bush did nothing when the country was under attack. He sat there even though he was supposedly told we were under attack. This is a great leader who just sits there.
5) Bush LET bin laden get away and states: “I really don’t think about him much” and “bin laden will be our number 1 priority and we will not rest until he is captured or killed”.
6) Bush falsifies intel to take us into war. He tells Blair that he is going in with or without the UN approval. (what did Sadam have to do with 9/11?).
7) Bush says that he supports education, but cuts 1.7 billion from education.
8) Bush says that only 400B will be cut from the budget for medicad, but in fact it’s 800B.
9) Bush says that he does not know Abramhoff, but he was on his transition team and raised over 120,000 dollars for his presidency.
I could go on, but I think you get the point. (I HOPE)
February 8th, 2006 at 4:55 pmWhat a sad, depressing cesspool these Republicans are wallowing in. How any Americans think the two parties are equally corrupt is beyond me.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:56 pm#90 - the Clintons, maybe. I doubt Bush’s personal lawyer could wind up dead in a corn field and get away with it on this site.
Here’s what we’ll say about corruption - “everybody does it” Sound familiar? Get a positive agenda or prepare to lose.
February 8th, 2006 at 4:58 pm87: Sometimes I need to reflect on what the opposing side really thinks. I really am interested in what both sides have to say. I’m no blind Bush follower, ie Illegal Immigration, just as I don’t believe Clinton was 100% bad.
I don’t expect anyone at all to post on my site, as it draws a different audience.
Just because I don’t agree with someone doesn’t mean I don’t hang out with them. I have plenty of friends that are polar opposites of me - call it “Friendly debate.”
February 8th, 2006 at 4:59 pm89: The “Terms of Use” of this site says it’s run by a non-partisan operation. That’s all I was mentioning earlier. Criticism of a site isn’t trashing it. You, sir, were trashing a site and a poster.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:02 pmBashing Bush does no one any good (except may make someone feel smart) without providing information as to why one thinks that way.(…)
I figured this site was here to help argue the points, not to bash persons.
Comment by imatt — February 8, 2006 @ 4:42 pm
Information is provided all the time in this blog. All you have to do is read it. Like this one for example: Bush Resurrects False Claim That Congress Had “Same Intelligence” On Iraq
Or this one: Abramoff: The House That Jack Built
You are new to this blog. Everytime someone new starts posting, we have to go over the same points over and over again: “Iraq had WMDs”, “Abramoff gave money to Democrats”… It gets old quickly and some of us don’t have the patience.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:03 pm#91
Clinton. Yeah, you get a cookie. What the heck does Clinton have to do with this Abramhoff thread?
Abramhoff is a Republican creation, solely. They stand alone in this corruption. And if I recall when the Dems were held accountable for their misdeeds they lost power. And those misdeeds were nothing like this. I think they were for borrowing money out of some Congressional fund and it was legal but still unethical in the minds of most. This Repub scandal should collapse this party. If it doesn’t well you’ll get away with fooling the public again. Hope yer proud.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:05 pmWalter: I told those fucks down at the league office a thousand times that I don’t roll on Shabbos!
Donny: What’s Shabbos?
Walter: Saturday, Donny, is Shabbos, the Jewish day of rest. That means that I don’t work, I don’t get in a car, I don’t ride in a car, I don’t pick up the phone, I don’t turn on the oven, and I sure as shit don’t fucking roll! Shomer shabbos!
February 8th, 2006 at 5:05 pm#91 Rightly so…
Who wound up dead in a corn field? And what were you implying by bringing it up?
February 8th, 2006 at 5:06 pm#96 - “everybody does it.”
February 8th, 2006 at 5:06 pm#98 - Vince Foster. Corruption is everywhere
February 8th, 2006 at 5:07 pm#83
Solutions have been provided from the left for years now. But just like with science you righties ignore anything not spoon fed to you.
Here is my spoon for you …but just a bite..if you want more go to your favorite search engine.
http://www.americanprogress.org/ site/ pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1376283
http://www.americanprogress.org/ atf/ cf/ %7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/ QDR.PDF
Or here is one of my personal suggestions.
A secret manhattan project for energy independance. Why secret? Because OPEC will go ape shit if they found out we are really going to cut them off in a couple years.
What would the secret program do? It would build many pebblebed nuclear reactors that will be used for 1) mass generation of hyrdogen from water by generating the electricity needed to split hydrogen from water. 2) generation of electricity that will be used to feed Americas powergrid. Finally setup the distribution system as part of the normal gas distribution system so that when the switch comes it will be able to be sudden. All of this would take around 10 years but it is far more doable than what we did with the nuclear bomb in secret. But to do it would require a will of iron from the top down to make it happen. If they can keep area 51 a secret there is nothing stoping them from doing this in secret.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:07 pm#99
February 8th, 2006 at 5:11 pmDoes what? Breathe, crap, eat?
#100 Rightly so…
I didn’t know that Fort Marcy Park was a “corn field”. I thought it was a park.
And Mr. Foster committed suicide, due in no small part to the fact that he suffered from depression. But I still would like to know what you’re implying.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:11 pm#90 - Yeah, sure, whatever … Hillary killed Vince Foster, with the candlestick, in the cornfield, after she gave him a blowjob … give it a rest. It’s your turn under the microscope, and this time the Petri dish actually has something growing in it. Let the impeachmene hearings commence!
February 8th, 2006 at 5:12 pm#99 so if everybody does it, shouldn’t we start by nailing this Abramoff nest of crooks to the wall first? Put them all away…right?
February 8th, 2006 at 5:13 pm88: I’ll address each one.
First, I visit this site because people like you choose to have intelligent debate. RedState.org is not a site I visit, and for that specific reason.
1) Bush was elected in accordance to the Electoral College. If popular vote should outweigh electoral college, then put forth legislation to your congressman to get it changed. This has been beat into the ground before.
2) How do we know what’s going on behind the scenes? What of programs like Able Danger and Eschelon? I guess they don’t exist.
3) Because he had all the intelligence he needed. They had been investigating since Clinton was in office.
4) If Bush jumped up and ran out, it would have caused mass hysteria - and you know it. How would YOU have reacted? I would have been stunned as well.
5) If Bush was to claim Bin Laden was still top priority, people would uproar saying Iraq was back burner. Lose-lose situation.
6) Bush did NOT falsify info. he passed on information he believed was reliable, and apologized when he found out it was not. Saddam is known to have supported the Taliban.
7) In which departments? The solution to the education problems in our country is not to simply throw money at it. The problem lies in the lack of enthusiasm of the students, and how the bar constantly gets lowered. I saw this first hand.
8) Where is that data? Ever consider 800B is being cut, but 400B is being created in new programs inside medicade? (I don’t think the government should subsidize medical treatment anyway.)
9) I cannot imagine the number of people that the president has met in the past 6 years. If he has said “I remember him” the media would expect Bush to remember intricate details, then criticize him for lying about remembering. It’s a vicious cycle.
I do get the point, that we disagree on many things. When i was referrring to people not backing their attacks up, it wasn’t directed at people like you.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:15 pmI love this idea that someone spoofed these emails from Abramoff to Eisler. Did it never occur to anyone that Eisler wrote first and Abramoff replied? So how in the fuck would anyone know to spoof a reply?
February 8th, 2006 at 5:17 pm#91 is right, we need a positive agenda. We need short simple sound bites that say “we believe in this and that strongly.” Hopefully, we will be right more often than this Administration’s abyssmal batting average. One good thing about these 5 years, is that some issues that I was unsure about have now become crystal clear. Whatever Bush’s stand, I take the opposite. Gay Marriage, I’m for it now. Life is so black and white now. Interracial Marriage: I’m for it! We survived Hitler and we will survive this crowd. Verifed voting paper trail and everything will be ok.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:19 pmWow, did he just say that?
February 8th, 2006 at 5:20 pm[…] Bush’s close relationship with Jackoff Abraham. […]
February 8th, 2006 at 5:22 pmI’m thinkin’ Jack wants to remind BushCo how much he has over them. His unpatriotic scandalous activities will be handled carefully and he will come out smelling like roses.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:23 pmEqual justice for all…… my ass!
If Bush’s lawyer showed up dead the way Foster did, I am sure you all would say he was murdered.
OK - corruption cuts both ways. We know the Clintons were liars. People are finding that out about Bush. Do yourself a favor and don’t run your campaign on a no-brainer. K? If you wanna win, you better have an agenda or you will get dragged through the mud like you have NEVER seen. Don’t make it personal. You won’t win - just ask John Kerry about that.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:24 pmCopy the e-mails and send them to the federal prosecutor.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:25 pm#17 imatt I fail to see how this is bigger news than the corrupt local Democratic government of Louisiana embezzling funds…
Don’t change the subject. You have to really work at it to miss the mountain of evidence of relationships between Abramoff and the White House. And, putting things in perspective, you can’t find another person, who has as many ties to the White House as Abramoff has, that the president can’t remember. Abramoff didn’t just give a $1000 contribution to Bush-Cheney. He was a Pioneer. That’s $100,000.
If you’ve convinced yourself that there’s no relationship between Bush and Abramoff, then you’re the only one. Nobody else here is buying it.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:26 pmI believe Bush. I know he doesn’t read, and sure as hell can’t type. therefore, he doesn’t use a computer.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:30 pmimatt,
Here are some facts for you regarding the fact that Alberto Gonzales lied at the hearings on Monday. I would like for you to comment without an attack. I am only posting facts here, backed up by links to the original sources, which are for the most part from the White House web site.
Russ Fiengold gave a speech in the Senate yesterday where he laid out the facts for Why Bush’s warrantless wiretapping is illegal. Let’s see if you truly want to have a debate or if you are blowing smoke.
Raw Story
Febraury 7, 2006
Amidst flurry of Bush attacks, Feingold hits Congress wiretaps: ‘Congress has lost its way’
Besides the already popular:
White House
April 20, 2004
President Bush: Information Sharing, Patriot Act Vital to Homeland Security
Feingold gave us a new one:
I went and got the whole thing for ya.
White House
July 14, 2004
President’s Remarks at Ask President Bush Event
Yesterday in his unsworn in “testimony” Alberto Gonzales said that when Bush was talking about getting court orders, he meant roving wiretaps only.
Washington Post
February 6, 2006
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Holds a Hearing on Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency’s Surveillance Authority
Clearly, the new quote that I have provided here states “In other words, the government can’t move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order.”
Then Russ had this quote:
White House
June 9, 2005
President Discusses Patriot Act
This would be why he wasn’t sworn in. He just lied.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:32 pmimatt - Fair enough.
1) Bush was elected in accordance to the Electoral College. If popular vote should outweigh electoral college, then put forth legislation to your congressman to get it changed. This has been beat into the ground before.
Fair enough, I think this issue has been beat into the ground as well, just pointing out some facts.
2) How do we know what’s going on behind the scenes? What of programs like Able Danger and Eschelon? I guess they don’t exist.
They do exist. In fact Eschelon is how Bush is wiretapping Americans. And Able Danger has been killed by Bush because it would show that he had plenty of evidence prior to 9/11 that shows he failed HORRIBLY.
3) Because he had all the intelligence he needed. They had been investigating since Clinton was in office.
Yes, but the PDB and the intelligance officers, CIA, and FBI, jumping up and down should have caused more attention to the facts.
4) If Bush jumped up and ran out, it would have caused mass hysteria - and you know it. How would YOU have reacted? I would have been stunned as well.
No one said he had to JUMP UP, but he should have gotten up calmly and said excuse me I have an important issue that just came up.
5) If Bush was to claim Bin Laden was still top priority, people would uproar saying Iraq was back burner. Lose-lose situation.
No! He is not even trying to capture him. This is the point. Also, without his terrorist of choice on the loose, how does he get the American public to cower in the corner. So there is not interrest in him catching/killing him.
6) Bush did NOT falsify info. he passed on information he believed was reliable, and apologized when he found out it was not. Saddam is known to have supported the Taliban.
No! He picked information that indicated what he wanted congress to know. Despite that the information stated the exact opposite of what he was passing as truth. There is a difference between cherry picking and passing valid information.
7) In which departments? The solution to the education problems in our country is not to simply throw money at it. The problem lies in the lack of enthusiasm of the students, and how the bar constantly gets lowered. I saw this first hand.
So now it matters what department? The bill is cutting educational benefits. Who cares if it’s in agricuture or science? We need students, and we need educated Americans.
8) Where is that data? Ever consider 800B is being cut, but 400B is being created in new programs inside medicade? (I don’t think the government should subsidize medical treatment anyway
Unfortunately, I don’t have time to read the budget, but the president originally told the American public that the cut was 440B, but I just heard on the radio that the cuts are actually 800B. Of course that does not make it true, but it came from a congressman being interviewed so I would bet that it is probably factual.
“9) I cannot imagine the number of people that the president has met in the past 6 years. If he has said “I remember him†the media would expect Bush to remember intricate details, then criticize him for lying about remembering. It’s a vicious cycle.”
No, but don’t you think that someone who was a “Pioneer” to raising over 120,000 dollars for a president, and being in the WH over 200 times in the first 10 months of the presidency that he had to of known him?
February 8th, 2006 at 5:33 pmYou lefties need to put up or shut up. Are you willing to support strong lobbying reform? What are your ideas on the budget? AND what is your plan for Iraq and the War On Terror.
The first reform is removing from office the people who created and abused the current system. You can’t reasonably discuss reforming the system when the people who are responsible for the reform, and the people governed by the reform, are the same people whose abuse of the system make reform necessary.
So let’s talk about lobbying reform, but let’s also talk about putting people in office who we can trust to act in the spirit of that reform.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:34 pm[…] Props to Think Progress for getting their hands on emails from Abramoff detailing his numerous meetings with President Bush. […]
February 8th, 2006 at 5:38 pmImpeachment time! Abramoff and illegal surveillance of American citizens are enough for me. Trouble is, then we get Cheney, who, it is hard to believe, could only be worse.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:39 pmUnfortunately this isnt enough.We have seen “smoking guns” from Downing street,the NYT,among other places and they werent enough to get him into any real trouble.
What is needed is an e-mail or other records from the White House that confirms their cozy relationship and they arent releasing it.They will claim that its just another lobbyist hyping his relationship with Bush.
They probably all have been destroyed like the ones from the plame investigation.
The good news is another republican is calling for a full investigation into the illegal wiretaps on her commitee.
Despite all the evidence,its amazing that people still try to defend him here.Its clear that it doesnt matter what he does no matter how heinous,dead enders will defend him rather than admit they were wrong about him.
It will always go back to the “librals”.Never mind the fact that many centrists and conservatives feel the same way about him.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:41 pm#106)
1) If the supreme court stayed out of it Florida supreme court was going to allow a full state wide recount. If that happend Gore won. If that happened the electoral collage would have been for Gore.
2) When you see that bush didnt take the warnings seriously and went on vacation and his neocon buddies were doing business deals with the Taliban then you can see that what was going on outside the doors not behind them were not right. Clinton took several actions against Saddam and terrorists. Bush didnt do squat until after 911.
3) There is nothing to respond here to. “He had all the evidence he needed” … really? Like those videos of the bin ladens at one of Osamas sons weddings WITH Osama? And then they get flown out of this country before the FBI can question them?
4) You must think Americans are all wussies like you. Mass hysteria? OMFG Look! Bush is going to take care of business what will we ever do?!?!?!
5) If Bush had made Osama #1 priority there would have been no Iraq. People are not going to get in an uproar BECAUSE you are going after Osama… what twillight zone are you living in?
6) Bush was told by the CIA before his State of the Union address that the Iraq yellow cake info was found to be forgeries. Then Bush went out and told the world about the yellow cake, but not the forgeries. People were talking about the faked Iraq info and the push for war despite IAEA findings BEFORE the war and they were ignored.
7) Throwing money is not the solution to anything that is besides the point. The solution is to hire scientists that study human learning and have them come up with what needs to be taught instead of people like the Intelligent Design prone state school commisions that are not human learning experts just people that got elected.
8) That money is being sent to Iraq dont kid yourself.
9) Bush knew this guy. Bush knows he knew him. But then again having met a guy 12 times doesnt make it a buddy buddy situation. It CAN make it a business relationship though. And we all know it was about money not friendship.
You conveniently leave out info so you can pretend you are not lieing or that you stand on solid ground. In the Internet age that trick dont work no more.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:41 pm#124 - No we don’t because Cheney will be in that impeachment. The evidence shows he’s just as guilty, so he would go down as well.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:42 pmI love people like “Rightly So” who are proud of the fact that Republicans will win despite their corruption and dishonesty.
“You can’t beat us with that because we’ll just lie about it” is basically what he’s saying. Proudly.
It’s just like the Republicans who acknowledege their party is wrong about gay marriage, but still proudly say things like “If the Democrats want to be the part of gay marriage, they’ll keep losing elections.”
It doesn’t matter what you do as long as you win. Your Republican party.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:43 pmLINKING!
LINKING!
LINKING!
Many thanks, ThinkProgress!
February 8th, 2006 at 5:43 pmThe “their all corrupt” soundbyte is a critical talking point, that Conservatives and the corporate, right-wing media, constantly try to push.
I know alot of people who don’t vote, because they believe that “their all corrupt”, and it doesn’t matter who they vote for.
These same people side with progressives on taxes, National Health Care, and raising the minimum wage. I’ts important, to make people think that “their all corrupt”, because it suppresses voter turnout.
A higher voter turnout would result in more progressive policies, that help the middle class and the poor. This is why that “their all corrupt” myth is propagated.
February 8th, 2006 at 5:48 pmbush also sneak in the privatizing of ssi in the current budget.
Bush’s Social Security Sleight of Hand
By Allan Sloan
The Washington Post
Wednesday, February 8, 2006; Page D02
If you read enough numbers, you never know what you’ll find. Take President Bush and private Social Security accounts.
Last year, even though Bush talked endlessly about the supposed joys of private accounts, he never proposed a specific plan to Congress and never put privatization costs in the budget. But this year, with no fanfare whatsoever, Bush stuck a big Social Security privatization plan in the federal budget proposal, which he sent to Congress on Monday.
His plan would let people set up private accounts starting in 2010 and would divert more than $700 billion of Social Security tax revenues to pay for them over the first seven years.
If this comes as a surprise to you, have no fear. You’re not alone. Bush didn’t pitch private Social Security accounts in his State of the Union message last week.
First, he drew a mocking standing ovation from Democrats by saying that “Congress did not act last year on my proposal to save Social Security,” even though, as I said, he’d never submitted specific legislation.
Then he seemed to be kicking the Social Security problem a few years down the road in typical Washington fashion when he asked Congress “to join me in creating a commission to examine the full impact of baby boom retirements on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,” adding that the commission would be bipartisan “and offer bipartisan solutions.”
But anyone who thought that Bush would wait for bipartisanship to deal with Social Security was wrong. Instead, he stuck his own privatization proposals into his proposed budget.
“The Democrats were laughing all the way to the funeral of Social Security modernization,” White House spokesman Trent Duffy told me in an interview Tuesday, but “the president still cares deeply about this. ” Duffy asserted that Bush would have been remiss not to include in the budget the cost of something that he feels so strongly about, and he seemed surprised at my surprise that Social Security privatization had been written into the budget without any advance fanfare.
Duffy said privatization costs were included in the midyear budget update that the Office of Management and Budget released last July 30, so it was logical for them to be in the 2007 budget proposals. But I sure didn’t see this coming — and I wonder how many people outside of the White House did.
Nevertheless, it’s here. Unlike Bush’s generalized privatization talk of last year, we’re now talking detailed numbers. On page 321 of the budget proposal, you see the privatization costs: $24.182 billion in fiscal 2010, $57.429 billion in fiscal 2011 and another $630.533 billion for the five years after that, for a seven-year total of $712.144 billion.
In the first year of private accounts, people would be allowed to divert up to 4 percent of their wages covered by Social Security into what Bush called “voluntary private accounts.” The maximum contribution to such accounts would start at $1,100 annually and rise by $100 a year through 2016.
It’s not clear how big a reduction in the basic benefit Social Security recipients would have to take in return for being able to set up these accounts, or precisely how the accounts would work.
Bush also wants to change the way Social Security benefits are calculated for most people by adopting so-called progressive indexing. Lower-income people would continue to have their Social Security benefits tied to wages, but the benefits paid to higher-paid people would be tied to inflation.
Wages have typically risen 1.1 percent a year more than inflation, so over time, that disparity would give lower-paid and higher-paid people essentially the same benefit. However, higher-paid workers would be paying substantially more into the system than lower-paid people would.
This means that although progressive indexing is an attractive idea from a social-justice point of view, it would reduce Social Security’s political support by making it seem more like welfare than an earned benefit.
Bush is right, of course, when he says in his budget proposal that Social Security in its current form is unsustainable. But there are plenty of ways to fix it besides offering private accounts as a substitute for part of the basic benefit.
Bush’s 2001 Social Security commission had members of both parties, but they had to agree in advance to support private accounts. Their report, which had some interesting ideas, went essentially nowhere.
What remains to be seen is whether this time around Bush follows through on forming a bipartisan commission and whether he can get credible Democrats to join it. Dropping numbers onto your opponents is a great way to stick your finger in their eye. But will it get the Social Security job done? That, my friends, is a whole other story.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
February 8th, 2006 at 5:49 pmCan we impeach him now? Huh, can we? Please?? Pretty please with sugar on it???
February 8th, 2006 at 5:51 pm#83:
YOUR politicians are completely in charge…
YOU guys are responsible for the ideas, etc, since YOU’RE the ones that were “elected”…
If THEY can’t do their JOB, then tell THEM to STFU and resign.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:10 pmSaddam is known to have supported the Taliban.
Do tell. Please. I think I would like to hear that one.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:10 pmPut yourself in Jack’s shoes, or in this case, his handcuffs. Would you go quietly and be the fall guy for everybody else? If you were him, who is going to be in the slammers for years to come, wouldn’t you want to be the star of as huge a story as possible? Mr. President, heeeeeer comes Jack!
February 8th, 2006 at 6:12 pmI think a lot of people feel their vote doesn’t count anyway, after seeing the last 2 elections in Florida and Ohio, my wife sure feels that way, she sees no point in voting.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:18 pmTong,
Exactly.
You can go down as the corrupt lobbiest or you can go down as the guy who brought down the most corrupt administration in history. What will sound better in the history books.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:19 pmI notice that the minute that I post hard facts showing Alberto Gonzales to be a liar, Mr “I only want to debate” imatt disappears.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:20 pm[…] ThinkProgress ThinkProgress has obtained emails written by Jack Abramoff in which the fallen lobbyist personally describes his relationship with President Bush. They depict a relationship far more extensive than has been previously reported. […]
February 8th, 2006 at 6:27 pmI have hypothocized before. You take a mass IQ average of the 75 million voting Liberals, and Mass IQ average of the 75 million voting conservatives, which one would be higher?
I use these estimates because it seems half of the entire public does not vote, and the other half that does, is evenly divided.
How many members of MENSA are Liberal vs. Conservative? (you know that club where people can join if they have an IQ of 130 or more).
Just wondering here.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:29 pmA lobbyist claimed to be closer friends with the president than he actually was? Stop the presses!
February 8th, 2006 at 6:29 pmImatt wrote Abramoff’s foulups didn’t cause people to die.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:33 pmHow do you know women in the sweatshops in
Saipan haven’t died. I wonder why Congress hasn’t taken care of DeLay and Abramoff’s mess there.
BEWARE OF FORGERIES? LET ME SET THIS RECORD STRAIGHT
The paperwork that Dan Rather got his hands on—WAS NOT FORGED, REPEAT, WAS NOT FORGED. Much of the information spewed out by a bunch of “alleged” computer experts was wrong. I can not only prove it, but I can point to references that definitively dispose of all that clap trap about proportional space etc. All that the various media outlets ever had to do on that case was THEIR JOBS and they would have discovered that there wasn’t every forgery. They were just too eager to go after Rather. Mary Mapes, the producer on that show, lays it all out as it occured and it is clear that the entire episode was master-managed by some group.
Additionally, if you search for the AWOL project then you will find out that the records are authentic and not forged. You will also discover that Bush went AWOL.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:33 pmHow this group of ugly actors can so buffalo a nation of people is beyond me. It is clear that they have lied over and over and the reason is simple. They wanted to be wealthy and rich beyond everybody’s wildest dreams so that they can punish the world for making them feel inferior. The fact is: they are all inferior for a variety of reasons that should be manifestly clear.
Dude, you call that trolling. We are used to a much higher caliber here. Please go to a red site and come back when you are better prepared.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:34 pm#138 For Truth,
Please, whatever you and your wife do, don’t skip voting!
We all agree that while we would like for the Democratic Party to be the answer to all our problems, we’re all realistic to know that it has problems.
I personally believe that the best thing for the country is to get rid of all Democratics and Republicans in Congress and start over with other parties. This will take several years to do, but we could do it within six years if we all stick together as a nation. (By then all Senators will have faced one re-election bid.)
The main obstacle is that the two major parties have set the system up to favor incumbents and their two parties in particular. What the people need to do is to vote for someone who isn’t from the two major parties. If a third party candidate is running for president, the best thing we can do is to vote for him or her (unless the person is a total whack job like Ross Perot.) If a candidate from a third party gets at least five percent of the national vote (no electoral votes), then that party can be eligible for federal matching funds in future elections. This is the goal we should be aiming for.
Once other political parties can start getting federal matching funds, you will begin to see the influence of the DEmocratic and Republican parties diminish. A two-party system is obviously better than a one-party system, but even more parties (and more views from which to draw a consensus) is even better.
So, even if it’s to vote for someone from a different party, it’s important for you and your wife to go vote.
Remember: If you don’t vote, the polticians win.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:35 pmFirst, I visit this site because people like you choose to have intelligent debate. RedState.org is not a site I visit, and for that specific reason.
Comment by imatt — February 8, 2006 @ 5:15 pm
Really? But you do watch FauxNews, yes?
6) Bush did NOT falsify info. he passed on information he believed was reliable, and apologized when he found out it was not. Saddam is known to have supported the Taliban.
He did not pass on information that was reliable. First Cheney et al set up their own intelligence operation that would pay people to tell them what they wanted to hear -Chalabi & the Iraqi Natinal Council- while disregarding anybody who told them Chalabi was unreliable.
Then, when passing the intelligence on to Congress, Pres Bush left out all the caveats in the information he had, presenting a scenario where Iraq was a greater threat than it actually was.
Saddam supported the Taliban? Do you have links? Evidence?
9) I cannot imagine the number of people that the president has met in the past 6 years. If he has said “I remember him” the media would expect Bush to remember intricate details, then criticize him for lying about remembering. It’s a vicious cycle.
Jack Abramoff was a Republican Pioneer twice: once in 2000 and again in 2004, for raising over $100,000 for George Bush’s presidential campaigns. Abramoff and his wife contributed towards George Bush’s recount fund. In 1997, Abramoff got then-Texas Gov. Bush to write a letter in support of the Mariana Islands’ school choice proposal. And Pres Bush cannot recall to “ever having met” Abramoff?
February 8th, 2006 at 6:37 pmHow many members of MENSA are Liberal vs. Conservative?
I was in MENSA. Count one for the Liberals.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:37 pmGary,
You totally got called out on this thread boy, you are proving to be just another hack that doesn’t have any principle, and says whatever he can at the time to justify his position, just like your leaders do. You have so many lies to cover, soon enough, the contradictions are easy to find. Remember adults telling us as children, “if you use another lie to cover up a lie, it just digs your hole deeper”. I am glad you went away for now, it shows how lame you are.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:41 pm147,
Don’t fret dude, we are gonna vote, my wife just gets emotional about it and has bad days. She was taught to vote as a young person, I wasn’t, but I learned to do it on my own.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:43 pmgeorgie know tell mommy the truth, did you cut down that cherry tree?
February 8th, 2006 at 6:46 pm“Dude, you call that trolling. We are used to a much higher caliber here. Please go to a red site and come back when you are better prepared.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — February 8, 2006 @ 6:34 pm”
Not trolling at all, just pointing out a rather obvious flaw in this story. Now, if you had a copy of Abramoff’s invitation to visit the president’s ranch….
February 8th, 2006 at 6:47 pm#151 For Truth,
Okay, I’ll relax. :)
Jane and I didn’t start voting until 1992 when, let’s see, I forget who it was, some really impressive, literate, intelligent young governor from one of the southern states who could speak extemporaneously about foreign policy without hemming and hawing and struggling to find words was running. Now what was his name? Oh, it will come to me. :)
We’ve been voting ever since (except for the local elections in which most of the candidates are unopposed.)
I voted for Grandpa Al Lewis for governor of New York (may he rest in peace.) I was trying to help a third party get enough votes to get matching funds the next time. Same thing when I voted for Nader. I knew that Al Gore would win New York State, so my not voting for him wouldn’t have mattered. You got to do what you can to get those other parties recognized.
Sometimes winning isn’t the only victory possible.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:50 pmSo, you are saying that you wouldn’t make friends with the republican “super lobbiest” that gave you $100,000 in campaign funding, in order to receive the title “pioneer”?
Wow, I make frineds with anybody that gives me $5.
February 8th, 2006 at 6:55 pmA lobbyist claimed to be closer friends with the president than he actually was? Stop the presses!
This reflects such a misunderstanding