Bush Lies about meeting or knowing Abramoff

[SA210]

does it surprise anyone?:lmao

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002800.html

[xrayzebra]

^^A link to nowhere, but junk. Come on SA210, you can do better than
this junk, can't you?

[SA210]

It's humor with truth, yes.

Does Bush know Abramoff or ever meet him? Yes or No? :lol

[CharlieMac]

I did not have......

[Vashner]

Dim's are gonna be even more broke ass if they keep up with all this shit...

They had fundraising problems already.. not it will only be worse. While us Pugs will keep building our warchest up...

[SA210]

Um, the question still remains...

Did Bush know Abramoff or ever meet him? Yes or No? :lol

[Vashner]

Who gives a fuck? Meeting a lobbyist is no crime... they are all over the fucking place.

When Dubya first got into Texas politics he drove around an old car begging for money.

There is not a single politician that has not greased or been greased. It's part of the business.

And Dubya's daddy gave him great grease lessons.

[boutons_]

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012700335.html>Richard Morin writes for washingtonpost.com this morning: "A strong bipartisan majority of the public believes President Bush should release records of meetings between disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and White House staffers despite administration claims that media requests for details about those contacts amount to a 'fishing expedition,' according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

"The survey found that three in four--76 percent--of all Americans said Bush should disclose contacts between aides and Abramoff while 18 percent disagreed. Two in three Republicans joined with eight in 10 Democrats and political independents in favoring disclosure, according to the poll. . . .

"The new poll found that 56 percent of the public disapproved of the way that Bush is handling ethics in government, up seven percentage points in the past five weeks."
Executive Power

==================

dubya loves fishin when it's his NSA/CIA/FBI boyz fishin for US citizens.

But when dubya/dickhead think they Exec is getting fished, the claim executive privilege.

So you right-wing jerks say to US citizens: "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be bothered with NSA/CIA/FBI snooping your communications"

So we anti-Repugs say to you right-wingers:

"if dubya/dickhead have nothing to hide (Plamegate, Abramoff, Katrina mgmt), why are they claiming executive privilege and refusing to co-operate with prosecutors and Congress, refusing to show photos of dubya+Abramoff"

Why? Because dubya/dickhead are fucking guilty of all that shit and they know it. They're abusing executive privilige to hide their crimes, corruption, and incompetence.

[td4mvp21]

I'm sure all the Democrats in here were doing the same thing when Clinton pulled the scandal he did and then lied about it.......

[xrayzebra]

It's humor with truth, yes.

Does Bush know Abramoff or ever meet him? Yes or No? :lol

Bush says he doesn't know him. A picture taken, maybe, he has his
picture taken with thousands of people. Doesn't mean he knows them.

And you point being? You don't know if Bush knew him or not. But you
will still make your accusations, wont you?

I could just as easily accuse Reid of knowing him. I really don't know.
I am sure we will find out in time who all did know and take his money.
Don't you?

[boutons_]

"Clinton pulled the scandal"

What scandal did Clinton pull?

[SA210]

"The survey found that three in four--76 percent--of all Americans said Bush should disclose contacts between aides and Abramoff while 18 percent disagreed. Two in three Republicans joined with eight in 10 Democrats and political independents in favoring disclosure, according to the poll. . . .

"The new poll found that 56 percent of the public disapproved of the way that Bush is handling ethics in government, up seven percentage points in the past five weeks."
Executive Power

==================

dubya loves fishin when it's his NSA/CIA/FBI boyz fishin for US citizens.

But when dubya/dickhead think they Exec is getting fished, the claim executive privilege.

So you right-wing jerks say to US citizens: "if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't be bothered with NSA/CIA/FBI snooping your communications"

So we anti-Repugs say to you right-wingers:

"if dubya/dickhead have nothing to hide (Plamegate, Abramoff, Katrina mgmt), why are they claiming executive privilege and refusing to co-operate with prosecutors and Congress, refusing to show photos of dubya+Abramoff"

Why? Because dubya/dickhead are fucking guilty of all that shit and they know it. They're abusing executive privilige to hide their crimes, corruption, and incompetence.
Exactly Boutons. Funny how the question is still ignored. Vashner says, "Who gives a f*@* if he knew him?"

The American citizens care, because the point is Bush said he never knew him and doesn't even remember EVER meeting Abramoff. So the right wing hypocrits continue to call BS when we say how much of a liar Bush is.

Again,

Bush says NO,

But, did, does, Bush know, or ever meet Abramoff? Yes or No?

[SA210]

Bush says he doesn't know him. A picture taken, maybe, he has his
picture taken with thousands of people. Doesn't mean he knows them.

And you point being? You don't know if Bush knew him or not. But you
will still make your accusations, wont you?

I could just as easily accuse Reid of knowing him. I really don't know.
I am sure we will find out in time who all did know and take his money.
Don't you?
But here's the thing Xray, Bush said henever knew him, And most importantly NEVER even met him. :lol Come on, stop the nonsense already and admit that was stupid of him to go as far as saying he never even met him. Now I know you right wing hypocrits will continue with the baloney of "the prez meets with thousands of people".

Sure, keep telling yourself that bull. You klnow he lied again, we all know it. He won't even release pictures of them together. Just like when Dick Cheney lied about ever meeting John Edwards.

Funny how the Republicans can always use that excuse "I didn't remember".

And you could just as easily have said Reid met him, or Clinton this or Clinton that, but the truth is we're talking about The President that promised to bring integrity to the White House. Aren't we?

Again, Bush says NO.

But, did Bush know or ever meet Abramoff? Yes or No? Why is this so hard? :lol

[xrayzebra]

^^"But here's the thing Xray, Bush said henever knew him, And most importantly NEVER even met him. "

Have you ever been a reception line? Does that count like: never met him, well I
shook hands with at a reception. And had a picture taken with him at a reception.
If you can count that as meeting, guess I might concede he met Abramoff, met
with him is an entirely different matter. I don't think he ever did that.

About you little statement:

"Funny how the Republicans can always use that excuse "I didn't remember"

We learned that from Hillary Rodham Clinton: I don't recall. Like you know
Ms. Ginsburg: I cant discuss that, because............

[SA210]

:lol Xray, your attempts are amusing.

You say, "I don't think he did."

Just like I said before, wishing it doesn't make it so. Funny how Vashner is tongue tied on the issue. Funny how you resort to explaining the definition of what "ever meeting him" actually means. :lol That says alot.

3 of 4 Americans want the President to release the photos that show him with the man he claims he never knew and never met.

Like Boutons said, Dumbya always wants to spy on Americans and abuse his power in doing so, and you guys say we shouldn't worry if we have nothing to hide, well it seems the tables are reversed, Bush won't relese it even though 3 of 4 Americans want to know.:lol It's pathetic really, he can't even tell a believable lie that he can't get busted on.

Admit it. He lied and he's busted. He wanted to distance himself from Abramoff, and said an extreme lie that exploded in his face as it always does. How many circles do you want to run in?

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b381/livindeadboi/bush_lies_pez.jpg

[exstatic]

^^^:lol @ that pic.

[xrayzebra]

SA210 happy to oblige and amuse you. The really pitiful thing is that there is
no way anyone could convince you of anything about Bush, except he is out
to spy on Americans and kill for big oil.

Live a good life, I wish you well.

[SA210]

:lol ^^^ I don't see how your post changes the fact that Bush lied about ever knowing or meeting Abramoff. :lol

[gtownspur]

:lol ^^^ I don't see how your post changes the fact that Bush lied about ever knowing or meeting Abramoff. :lol


I don't see how you haven't died of blood loss from typing on top a seatless stool bar all this time.

[SA210]

:lol ^^^I don't see how your post changes the fact that Bush lied about ever knowing or meeting Abramoff either :lol

But it is, however, another post of yours that focuses on homosexuality. Noticing anything about yourself yet?

[JoeChalupa]

"I don't recall.......

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Bush lied!?!?! So what's new?

[JoePublic]

I'm glad some GOP members have some sense.



GOP lawmakers: Bush should disclose Abramoff contacts

Sunday, January 29, 2006; Posted: 11:25 a.m. EST (16:25 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican lawmakers said Sunday that President Bush should publicly disclose White House contacts with Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who has pleaded guilty to felony charges in an influence-peddling case.

[Yonivore]

Republican lawmakers said Sunday that President Bush should publicly disclose White House contacts with Jack Abramoff,...
Who says he hasn't?

[boutons_]

January 29, 2006

Lawmakers Urge Bush to Make Abramoff Information Public

By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — Republican legislators urged President Bush today to make public photographs and information about contacts that he or his top aides had with the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to felony charges of conspiracy and fraud in an influence-peddling scandal.

Speaking on the Sunday morning television programs, the lawmakers also called for greater White House cooperation with a Senate inquiry into the federal response to Hurricane Katrina.

"Get it out, get it out," Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said of the Abramoff material. He suggested on ABC television that photos of Mr. Abramoff with Mr. Bush were likely to emerge anyway and that "disclosure is the best and most effective way to deal with all of these things."

Senator John Thune of South Dakota and Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, both Republicans, echoed that thought. "More is better, in terms of disclosure and transparency," Mr. Thune said on Fox.

President Bush discussed the photos — and his reluctance to release them —at his news conference last week, after White House officials acknowledged their existence. He said they were among thousands of such souvenir "grip and grin" pictures taken of visitors of varying importance, and were essentially meaningless.

"I've had my picture taken with a lot of people," he said. "Having my picture taken with someone doesn't mean that, you know, I'm a friend with them or know them very well."

"I'm also mindful," he added, seeking to justify the White House decision not to release the pictures, "that we live in a world in which those pictures will be used for pure political purposes."

( ... just like the Repugs did with Bill+Monica images in Starr's insanely vicious witchhunt? "If you can't stand the heat,....

The difference is that a consensual sex between adults isn't a crime. Political corruption and financial fraud are federal crimes. )

White House officials have acknowledged that Mr. Abramoff had met with members of the president's staff, though without identifying them. Mr. Bush emphatically denied that he personally knows Mr. Abramoff. "I've never sat down with him and had a discussion with the guy," he said on Thursday.

Republicans have also questioned the Bush administration's refusal to release various documents on its reaction to Hurricane Katrina.

Congressional investigators examining the government's widely criticized response to the powerful storm have collected thousands of pages of documents and testimony from local, state and federal officials; the White House and some top Republican lawmakers say this should be sufficient.

But Democrats and some Republicans want to know more about the role of the White House, and have criticized its refusal to provide e-mail and other correspondence among officials involved, including the White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., and the homeland security adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend.

At his news conference on Thursday, President Bush said he feared that opening the files too wide would inhibit candor among his advisers. "If people give me advice and they're forced to disclose that advice, it means the next time an issue comes up, I might not be able to get unvarnished advice from my advisers, and that's just the way it works," he said.

( Executive branch operates in totlal secrecy, a shining example of Repug democracy in action. )

Today, the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, was asked on NBC whether the White House should be more forthcoming. "Yes," he replied, while adding that there were problems in dealing with Katrina at every level of government.

Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, who is the chairwoman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, has said that it was "completely inappropriate" for the White House to limit what areas of the federal response to Katrina that presidential aides could discuss with investigators. Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, has been similarly critical.

Asked whether his Republican colleagues were right, Senator Frist replied, "Yes."

"We have this -- always have this tension — between my branch of government, the legislative branch, and the executive branch," he said. "And our job is to demand accountability, to provide that appropriate oversight."

* Copyright 2006The New York Times Company

=================================

The Repug Congress-rats are deserting the sinking dubya/dickhead ship in droves.

[Yonivore]

The difference is that a consensual sex between adults isn't a crime. Political corruption and financial fraud are federal crimes.
Lying about it, under oath, in front of a federal grand jury is.

And, being in the presence of a criminal doesn't make you one. Just ask Hillary Clinton...who was photographed shaking the hand of a drug runner. Or, Roselynn Carter who posed for a photo with John Wayne Gacy.

I think the photos are only important if there are other circumstances that indicate the photos were more than reception line handshakes or huge events where the president probably didn't know 90% of the people in the room.

So, I agree with releasing any White House information that demostrates a relationship beyond what I described above. But, barring that, the photographs are insignificant and shouldn't have to be released just so the left can have a new toy.

[boutons_]

January 29, 2006
Editorial


Spies, Lies and Wiretaps

A bit over a week ago, President Bush and his men promised to provide the legal, constitutional and moral justifications for the sort of warrantless spying on Americans that has been illegal for nearly 30 years. Instead, we got the familiar mix of political spin, clumsy historical misinformation, contemptuous dismissals of civil liberties concerns, cynical attempts to paint dissents as anti-American and pro-terrorist, and a couple of big, dangerous lies.

The first (big, dangerous lie) was that the domestic spying program is carefully aimed only at people who are actively working with Al Qaeda, when actually it has violated the rights of countless innocent Americans. A

And the second (big, dangerous lie) was that the Bush team could have prevented the 9/11 attacks if only they had thought of eavesdropping without a warrant.


Sept. 11 could have been prevented.

This is breathtakingly cynical. The nation's guardians did not miss the 9/11 plot because it takes a few hours to get a warrant to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mail messages. They missed the plot because they were not looking. The same officials who now say 9/11 could have been prevented said at the time that no one could possibly have foreseen the attacks. We keep hoping that Mr. Bush will finally lay down the bloody banner of 9/11, but Karl Rove, who emerged from hiding recently to talk about domestic spying, made it clear that will not happen * because the White House thinks it can make Democrats look as though they do not want to defend America. "President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why," he told Republican officials. "Some important Democrats clearly disagree."

Mr. Rove knows perfectly well that no Democrat has ever said any such thing * and that nothing prevented American intelligence from listening to a call from Al Qaeda to the United States, or a call from the United States to Al Qaeda, before Sept. 11, 2001, or since. The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act simply required the government to obey the Constitution in doing so. And FISA was amended after 9/11 to make the job much easier.

Only bad guys are spied on.

Bush officials have said the surveillance is tightly focused only on contacts between people in this country and Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Vice President Dick Cheney claimed it saved thousands of lives by preventing attacks. But reporting in this paper has shown that the National Security Agency swept up vast quantities of e-mail messages and telephone calls and used computer searches to generate thousands of leads. F.B.I. officials said virtually all of these led to dead ends or to innocent Americans. The biggest fish the administration has claimed so far has been a crackpot who wanted to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch * a case that F.B.I. officials said was not connected to the spying operation anyway.

The spying is legal.

The secret program violates the law as currently written. It's that simple. In fact, FISA was enacted in 1978 to avoid just this sort of abuse. It said that the government could not spy on Americans by reading their mail (or now their e-mail) or listening to their telephone conversations without obtaining a warrant from a special court created for this purpose. The court has approved tens of thousands of warrants over the years and rejected a handful.

As amended after 9/11, the law says the government needs probable cause, the constitutional gold standard, to believe the subject of the surveillance works for a foreign power or a terrorist group, or is a lone-wolf terrorist. The attorney general can authorize electronic snooping on his own for 72 hours and seek a warrant later. But that was not good enough for Mr. Bush, who lowered the standard for spying on Americans from "probable cause" to "reasonable belief" and then cast aside the bedrock democratic principle of judicial review.

Just trust us.

Mr. Bush made himself the judge of the proper balance between national security and Americans' rights, between the law and presidential power. He wants Americans to accept, on faith, that he is doing it right. But even if the United States had a government based on the good character of elected officials rather than law, Mr. Bush would not have earned that kind of trust. The domestic spying program is part of a well-established pattern: when Mr. Bush doesn't like the rules, he just changes them, as he has done for the detention and treatment of prisoners and has threatened to do in other areas, like the confirmation of his judicial nominees. He has consistently shown a lack of regard for privacy, civil liberties and judicial due process in claiming his sweeping powers. The founders of our country created the system of checks and balances to avert just this sort of imperial arrogance.

The rules needed to be changed.

In 2002, a Republican senator * Mike DeWine of Ohio * introduced a bill that would have done just that, by lowering the standard for issuing a warrant from probable cause to "reasonable suspicion" for a "non-United States person." But the Justice Department opposed it, saying the change raised "both significant legal and practical issues" and may have been unconstitutional. Now, the president and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales are telling Americans that reasonable suspicion is a perfectly fine standard for spying on Americans as well as non-Americans * and they are the sole judges of what is reasonable.

So why oppose the DeWine bill? Perhaps because Mr. Bush had already secretly lowered the standard of proof * and dispensed with judges and warrants * for Americans and non-Americans alike, and did not want anyone to know.

War changes everything.

Mr. Bush says Congress gave him the authority to do anything he wanted when it authorized the invasion of Afghanistan. There is simply nothing in the record to support this ridiculous argument.

The administration also says that the vote was the start of a war against terrorism and that the spying operation is what Mr. Cheney calls a "wartime measure." That just doesn't hold up. The Constitution does suggest expanded presidential powers in a time of war. But the men who wrote it had in mind wars with a beginning and an end. The war Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney keep trying to sell to Americans goes on forever and excuses everything.

Other presidents did it.

Mr. Gonzales, who had the incredible bad taste to begin his defense of the spying operation by talking of those who plunged to their deaths from the flaming twin towers, claimed historic precedent for a president to authorize warrantless surveillance. He mentioned George Washington, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. These precedents have no bearing on the current situation, and Mr. Gonzales's timeline conveniently ended with F.D.R., rather than including (Repug) Richard Nixon, whose surveillance of antiwar groups and other political opponents inspired FISA in the first place. Like Mr. Nixon, Mr. Bush is waging an unpopular war, and his administration has abused its powers against antiwar groups and even those that are just anti-Republican.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is about to start hearings on the domestic spying. Congress has failed, tragically, on several occasions in the last five years to rein in Mr. Bush and restore the checks and balances that are the genius of American constitutional democracy. It is critical that it not betray the public once again on this score.

*Copyright 2006 Te New York Times Company

[boutons_]

"Lying about it, under oath, in front of a federal grand jury is."

Total Bullshit. Why was adult being asked about consensual adult sex in the first place? The question was completely out of order.

Was detailed, prurient investigation of Clintion's sex life in the charter of the S/P Ken Starr?

Starr was a politicized Repug scumbag on a fucking fishing expedition with the sole objective to destroy Clinton. He came up empty handed.

[jochhejaam]

"Lying about it, under oath, in front of a federal grand jury is."

Total Bullshit. Why was adult being asked about consensual adult sex in the first place? The question was completely out of order.
Ancient Chinese Proverb say:

One should be more careful about having harMonica and flute auditions in the Oval Office.

[Nbadan]

"Lying about it, under oath, in front of a federal grand jury is."

Total Bullshit. Why was adult being asked about consensual adult sex in the first place? The question was completely out of order.

Was detailed, prurient investigation of Clintion's sex life in the charter of the S/P Ken Starr?

Starr was a politicized Repug scumbag on a fucking fishing expedition with the sole objective to destroy Clinton. He came up empty handed.

Wingers will say that 'the question' was pertanant to the Paula Jones case, another right-wing hatchet job to try and attack President Clinton, but your right, it was a total invasion of the President's privacy.

[jochhejaam]

Wingers will say that 'the question' was pertanant to the Paula Jones case, another right-wing hatchet job to try and attack President Clinton, but your right, it was a total invasion of the President's privacy.

Privates

[Yonivore]

"Lying about it, under oath, in front of a federal grand jury is."

Total Bullshit. Why was adult being asked about consensual adult sex in the first place? The question was completely out of order.
No, he was being asked because his consensual adult sex was relevant to a court proceeding in which he was a party. His lie was crafted to deny a litigant her due process rights.


Was detailed, prurient investigation of Clintion's sex life in the charter of the S/P Ken Starr?
When the three judge panel, appointed by Janet Reno, said it was, it was. They approved that tack in the investigation because it presented the possibility that a sitting President had lied, under oath, and that the lie obstructed a court proceeding.

You really didn't pay attention during the 90's, did you?

Starr was a politicized Repug scumbag on a fucking fishing expedition with the sole objective to destroy Clinton. He came up empty handed.
Starr did nothing without the approval of the three-judge panel appointed by Janet Reno. Check your history.

[SA210]

Back to the topic, yea, he Bush lied, again.

Whatcha hidin' there dubya?

[boutons_]

"Paula Jones case"

case dismissed.

[xrayzebra]

60000 and losing your leadership position. Think about it. And it ant a
Republican.

[Yonivore]

"Paula Jones case"

case dismissed.
Not before he lied under oath...and probably because he lied.

After he was caught lying, there was a settlement.

[RandomGuy]

Lying about it, under oath, in front of a federal grand jury is.



Good idea, perhaps we could subpeana Bush and get the REAL truth for a change.

It would take a hardened ideologe to actually believe that Bush wouldn't be as much of a weasel under oath as Clinton was.

Clinton was impeached for lying under oath.

Where is the movement to impeach Bush for unconstitutionally usurping power, and bypassing our laws? Surely that falls under "high crimes and misdemeanors", yes?

[RandomGuy]

So, I agree with releasing any White House information that demostrates a relationship beyond what I described above. But, barring that, the photographs are insignificant and shouldn't have to be released just so the left can have a new toy.

I'm sure you said the same when the photos of Clinton hugging Monica were run up on fox news...
:rolleyes

Methinks the stench of hypocrisy is getting stronger...

[SA210]

It shouldn't be a problem. Of course, unless, Bush has something to hide.