Reply With Quote
^^A link to nowhere, but junk. Come on SA210, you can do better than
this junk, can't you?
does it surprise anyone?
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002800.html
^^A link to nowhere, but junk. Come on SA210, you can do better than
this junk, can't you?
It's humor with truth, yes.
Does Bush know Abramoff or ever meet him? Yes or No?
I did not have......
Dim's are gonna be even more broke ass if they keep up with all this ...
They had fundraising problems already.. not it will only be worse. While us Pugs will keep building our warchest up...
Um, the question still remains...
Did Bush know Abramoff or ever meet him? Yes or No?
Who gives a ? Meeting a lobbyist is no crime... they are all over the ing 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.
<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/ head 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/ head 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/ head are ing guilty of all that and they know it. They're abusing executive privilige to hide their crimes, corruption, and incompetence.
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.......
Bush says he doesn't know him. A picture taken, maybe, he has hisIt's humor with truth, yes.
Does Bush know Abramoff or ever meet him? Yes or No?
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?
"Clinton pulled the scandal"
What scandal did Clinton pull?
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?
But here's the thing Xray, Bush said henever knew him, And most importantly NEVER even met him.
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 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?
^^"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............
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.
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.
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?
^^^
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.
I don't see how you haven't died of blood loss from typing on top a seatless stool bar all this time.
But it is, however, another post of yours that focuses on sexuality. Noticing anything about yourself yet?
"I don't recall.......
Bush lied!?!?! So what's new?
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.
Who says he hasn't?
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 do ents 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 do ents 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/ head ship in droves.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
