Bush: "I don't know Jack Abramoff"

[tristano's ghost]

Whatever... more bs from our Liar-in-Chief. Funny to read the accounts of how the GOP is frantically removing all pictures of W. with Abramoff from websites, etc., and going to great lengths to prevent the media from getting their hands on any:

Sometimes the symbols of reality obscure reality. Whether there are one or five or a hundred pictures of President Bush and Jack Abramoff is really beside the point. What is the point is this line from President Bush from yesterday's press conference: "You know, I, frankly, don't even remember having my picture taken with the guy. I don't know him."

Even discounting for the inherent squishiness of the language, that's just a lie.

Doesn't know him? Please. Like most successful politicians President Bush has a knack for remembering names and faces. On top of that, well ... let's set aside the fact that Abramoff was apparently a frequent attendee at White House staff planning meetings, seeded the administration with a bunch of his former employees, and so forth.

Let's just focus on a few key facts.

For the first three years of Bush's presidency Abramoff was arguably the most wired Republican lobbyist in Washington.

Bush doesn't know him?

Abramoff was a long time associate of one of the president's top political advisors, Grover Norquist and his chief political guru Karl Rove.

Bush never made his acquaintance?

Every Republican power player in Washington knew Jack Abramoff. Many of them knew him very, very well. But President Bush never knew him? Their paths never crossed?

That is simply ridiculous.

What's more, everyone asking the questions knows it's ridiculous. The problem is that absent a 2+2=5 type statement they fon't feel comfortable calling the president out as a liar.

Pictures in themselves don't mean much. There are pictures of the president with people he knew far less well than Jack Abramoff, people he really never knew at all. But when those pictures of Abramoff and the president slip into public view, the lie will simply become unsustainable. They know that.

And that's why the White House is turning the city upside down doing everything in its power to insure they never see the light of day.

-- Josh Marshall

[Gary Sisco]

They behave more like Stalinists every day. Won't be long before they get the airbrush out.

[patricia]

Bush all of a sudden also didn't know Kenneth Lay, to whom he had given the nickname "Kenny Boy" either, after the Enron shit hit the fan.
He, like many in his administration, has a selective memory.

[Scott Dolan]

I don't know whether he knew the cat, or not. But I was just discussing the Worldcom thing with Cappz yesterday and remembered the one thing that really pissed me off the most about that entire debacle was when President Bush dismissed the fraud allegations against the company as "outrageous".

The guy is almost as bad as I am when it comes to opening ones mouth before the thought has been fully processed in the brain.

[Tanager]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

The guy is almost as bad as I am when it comes to opening ones mouth before the thought has been fully processed in the brain.

I don't know whether it's that so much, Scott (although Bush is certainly a shoot-from-the-hip kind of guy), as his "circle the wagons" mentality - that can be a strength or a liability, depending on your point of view, but I think it ties into the strong emphasis Bush places on personal relationships (or purports to) - the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the enemy of my friend is my enemy. Combine those two, and I honestly wouldn't have imagined Bush reacting any other way. Having said that, I think the difference here is that with Abramoff having already cut a deal with prosecutors, the time to stand by his side (if there ever was such a time, which I doubt) is long past, and noone in the Administration is too stupid to see that, whether Bush knew the guy or not.

[tristano's ghost]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

They behave more like Stalinists every day. Won't be long before they get the airbrush out.

Yep. James Ridgeway in the Village Voice online:

The Bush-Abramoff Photo Scrub
Blogger goes searching for missing pics

By James Ridgeway with Michael Roston
January 27th, 2006 12:22 PM

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The Jack Abramoff picture scrub has taken a new turn. Yesterday President Bush said photos of himself with the lobbyist Abramoff, who pleaded guilty to charges involving public corruption in a scandal that’s ensnaring a wider and wider circle of lawmakers, were no big deal.
Bush was just doing what a president does, he said: "Shake hands with people and smile."

"I had my picture taken with him evidently," Bush told a White House press conference yesterday. "I've had my picture taken with a lot of people. Having my picture taken with someone doesn't mean that I'm a friend with them or know them very well." Bush also noted, "Those pictures will be used for pure political purposes and they're not relevant to the investigation."

However, Joshua Micah Marshall of Talking Points Memo found a 2003 photo of Abramoff and Bush on the site of a company called Reflections Photography, among numerous archived Republican political photos. Marshall identified the URL where the pic was supposed to be, but found it gone. All the other pics were there, numbered in sequence, but the Bush-Abramoff photo was missing.

When Marshall called Reflections, the helpful woman answering the phone set out to find the photo for him, but to no avail. Because certain photos can only be obtained on a CD, Marshall asked if it was possible to get the Bush-Abramoff photo that way. Most obligingly, the woman pulled the CD, and then, according to Marshall, with a note o astonishment in her voice, said the photo of Bush and Abramoff "was deleted.'' Marshall asked why, and the woman said sometimes that happened because the White House wanted a certain photo removed from the file.

Marshall then called Abramoff's office. No comment.

The White House didn't return his calls.

Marshall phoned Joanne Amos, the company president, who explained that photographs—plural—had been removed because they showed Abramoff and President Bush together. Why? Because they are "not relevant," Amos told him. Marhsall asked who told her to scrub the pics, and Amos further explained it was her "business decision."

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

The guy is almost as bad as I am when it comes to opening ones mouth before the thought has been fully processed in the brain.

If you were running against Bush I'd vote for you, with a heavy heart.

[Scott Dolan]

Well, alright!!!

And I would crush all that opposed your decision with heavy boot.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

What's whacked is if Bush had said he does photo-ops with tons of cats he didn't remember I'd half believe him. The problem is Abramoff was a heavy hitter in Republican national politics. Not knowing him is like not knowing who Grover Nordquist or Ralph Reed were.

[Scott Dolan]

I agree, Darryl. It just doesn't wash. If he had said that he didn't remember taking a picture with the White House janitor and his daughter on bring your kid to work day, that would be one thing, but................

[Gary Sisco]

Maybe he's just stupid.

That's what nearly everyone had to say, Repubs included, pre-911.

I think he's both stupid to the point of mild retardation *and* a liar.

[Dr Dave]

Whether Bush is stupid or not, he shows a lot of contempt for the rest of us by his actions in this case. He can't even be bothered to formulate a lie.

[Gary Sisco]

If there's no mediation between one's brain and one's tongue, there's either something miswired or the guy's just a moron. Everything he says is news. If that's still news to him, I can only conclude that he's an idiot or organically damaged, somehow.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

If there's no mediation between one's brain and one's tongue, there's either something miswired or the guy's just a moron. Everything he says is news. If that's still news to him, I can only conclude that he's an idiot or organically damaged, somehow.

Dr Dave, when I suggested that George W Bush was somewhat intellectually challenged, back when he was first running for President, my best friend scoffed at the idea. Even now, my friend, usually very intuitive, is reluctant to admit that he was reading some unrealized genius onto a man who was stretched and molded into something he wasn't, isn't and never will be. George W Bush is a person who has admitted, more than once, almost proudly, that he doesn't read and doesn't do nuance.
Those are not positive qualities in a person, much less a President.
Did anyone actually expect more from him, given his history of failure?

[jesus marion joseph]

I think he's been misquoted. What he was saying was "I don't know jack.", which has obviously been misinterpreted by left-leaning bastards to mean he was referring to Abramoff.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Maybe he's just stupid.

That's what nearly everyone had to say, Repubs included, pre-911.

I think he's both stupid to the point of mild retardation *and* a liar.

Oddly enough, I was just having a conversation about assumptions and not knowing ones enemy, and what it had done to the Democratic party.

This is yet another fine example. If you're saying this for effect, and just goofing around, that's cool.

But if you truly believe this, that's a shame.

Originally Posted by Doc D

Whether Bush is stupid or not, he shows a lot of contempt for the rest of us by his actions in this case. He can't even be bothered to formulate a lie.

An interesting point. Think about what you're saying here. Why wouldn't he lie to cover his tracks? You know, perhaps he is telling the truth.

It's all very odd. But it's also all very boring.

Originally Posted by jmj

I think he's been misquoted. What he was saying was "I don't know jack.", which has obviously been misinterpreted by left-leaning bastards to mean he was referring to Abramoff.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

An interesting point. Think about what you're saying here. Why wouldn't he lie to cover his tracks? You know, perhaps he is telling the truth.

Oy. Here we go: He's telling the truth when he admits he had his picture taken with Jack Abramoff. He's lying when he says he doesn't remember it. Jack Abramoff is in trouble in part because he has been incredibly influential in Washington. There is no way Bush didn't remember or didn't pay attention. My point is that he can't come up with a better lie, not necessarily because he's dumb but because he just can't be bothered. Which suggests, to me, that he is contemptuous of the American public.

I have no expectation one way or the other regarding your acceptance of my premise. My ambition is limited to making myself clear. Okay?

[Scott Dolan]

Dave, I don't disagree with you at all that he is lying.

But, all I was saying basically is that just because you and I share the same opinion regarding this matter, it doesn't make it a fact.

I'd be shocked if we were wrong, but crazier shit has happened.

[patricia]

I think that the more interesting question would be whether Abramoff had any influence on decisions made by the legislators by virtue of his having raised so much money for the Republicans. If there is, that would be the more serious offence, indicating influence peddling.
I still think that there was something obscene about the boasting that was going on during the run-up to the election about how much money was being raised by the Bush campaign. Surely nobody thinks that millions of dollars are given politicians, in this case the Republicans, with no expectation of favourable treatment, once they are in office?? That, IMO, would be the height of naivete.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

But, all I was saying basically is that just because you and I share the same opinion regarding this matter, it doesn't make it a fact.

That's outrageous!

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Patricia,

Abramhoff is just a bit player in a bigger problem. His mistake is he got too greedy.

The biggest problem is this: non-elected officials (lobbyists) are basically writing legislation. The problems with the new prescription drug policy for those on Medicaid and Medicare is a prime example. Lobbyists for industry are now becoming the heads of governmental agencies which were created to regulate those same industries. We're talking about foxes guarding hen-houses.

Eisenhower warned about a military-industrial complex. What Gingrich/DeLay/Abramhoff/Nordquist/Reed have created is an governmental-industrial complex where the profits of business trump those of environmental protection and worker rights.

Now what we, the people, have to decide is if this philosophy is good for society as a whole.

America is going through and interesting transition. I may be wrong, but the New Deal began an era where the middle class blossomed and each succeeding generation's expectations were greater than the one before. Is this era over? Will the policies put forth by the Bush Administration hurt or harmed the middle class and its hope and asperations?

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Darryl G. Thomas

Patricia,

Abramhoff is just a bit player in a bigger problem. His mistake is he got too greedy.

I agree. But, my real question, I guess, is whether legislation being presented and passed is connected to whoever lobbied for the legislation's inclusion for consideration? If it was, there seems to be the possibility that the clients for which lobbyists work are in fact, by their obscenely large politicial contributions, actually influencing the law of the land. Or, alternately, are lobbyists' clients being considered for special treatment, in return for their contributions? In my experience, admittedly not extensive, nobody gives anybody millions of dollars without expecting something in return.
So, are the contributers toward a politician's run for an office later a pass into the priviledged group who is given special treatment, other than the dinner they ate or the picture they had taken of themselves with the candidate?

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Patricia,

To answer your question: yes. The money influences legislation in the US. I guess technically bribery is not involved. Whoever, if a certain industry contributes millions of dollars to your party you will listen. You cannot get elected and re-elected without money. It's that simple.

Again, if you want to go through the trouble, examine the process in which the new drug program passed by Congress came about. Basically it became a pork barrel give away for the drug companies. For example, I believe Medicare is barred from negotiating pricing. You know, the free market where you go out and choose the cheapest supplier. How about the big hullabaloo about Americans buying Canadian drugs? In a true free market Americans would be allowed to buy prescriptions drugs from anyone, especially our good neighbors from the north.

Let's see. It's OK for corporations to go to countries in search of cheaper labor, but not for citizens to go to other countries in search of cheaper drugs.

But that's the way it flows down here ( and in a lot of other places). Money buys you access. The CEO from Lockheed Martin, based in Bethesda, Maryland would have a hell of an easier time getting into seeing my Congressman Steny Hoyer than me or my Senator Babara Mikulski (both Democrats by the way).

[patricia]

But, through all of it, should any inpropriety be uncovered, there is an unspoken agreement, it seems, that the politician who also benefitted, will deny any association with the business interests who paid so much to help him/her get his powerful position, in return for his ear.
For example Abramoff, and earlier, Ken Lay, were thisclose to the politicians they supported with money. But, when they got into trouble, Bush and Co. walked away from them, holding up their pantlegs, like city boys exiting a barnyard.
The government seems to avoid any collusion by arranging layers and layers of operatives, protecting themselves from any responsibility, a lot like THE MOB.
Many of the decisions made by government don't involve only money. People die because the drug companies have patent rights on their name-brand drugs, which are too costly for the poor. So, those who require drugs to control a chronic condition are forced to use brand-name drugs, rather than the much less costly generics.
And, speaking of drugs, life-saving treatment for the people in Africa, suffering from AIDS is withheld from clinics which also perform abortions or counsel patients on abortion as an alternative.
This totally ignores the fact that most clinics are the only healthcare facility available to these people. Not only that, but, abstinance is the birth control method most recommended by those clinics which do receive funding.
So, it would seem that the Religious Right has retained a lot of influence on the government, through their financial support of the Bush Administration.
And, the examples go on.
How many pieces of unrelated legislation are slipped into bills which were supposed to be for funding for equipment for soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and passed, in conjuction with them, as payback for funds provided to the Republicans by single issue lobbyists' clients?