Bush doesn't know Jack

Convicted felon, Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff is ****ED OFF at his
former friends, and he's SQUEALING:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/08/...f-vanity-fair/

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 23:33:33 GMT, rw
wrote:

Convicted felon, Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff is ****ED OFF at his
former friends, and he's SQUEALING:

hmmm.... "...like a pig," perhaps...

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/08/...f-vanity-fair/

WOW!! What an expose! He claims Bush talked...well, one short sentence
anyway...about weight-lifting. Obviously, something so politically
sensitive would only be discussed between long-time bestest buddies.

And if I tell Vanity Fair that I saw you giving Wolfgang virtual hand
jobs, are you finally going to come out of the closet? I mean, I've
never even been convicted or anything, so ya know everything I say has
just GOT to be absolutely true...

Here's the thing. If you intend to downplay the significance of one
isolated Abramoff sentence by sarcastically pretending that's all
there is to the scandal, you're simply being dishonest. RW's
point, I believe, is that our president, George W. Bush lied when he
said he didn't know Abramoff. Now I know that presidents who lie to
us are nothing new, but the right's hypocritical denial of GWB's
lies is a bit hard to swallow.

The Abramoff corruption scandal of influence peddling in the Republican
party cannot be dismissed by a little snarky humor, especially when it
clearly reaches the Oval Office. Bush said he didn't know the guy.
That is a bold-faced lie. There is more than one instance of friendly
conversation between him and Bush, there are photographs of them
together at events that go well beyond mere photo ops, and there's no
doubt that Abramoff was selling access to the President either directly
or through Rove. While Clinton may have sold the Lincoln bedroom,
George Bush is selling the Oval Office. Oh yeah, and he's lying
about it.

As I've said on many occasions, I understand and share many political
positions of my Republican friends and acquaintances. What I cannot
understand is why they are so willing to deny the reality that George
W. Bush is a liar. Because it will hurt the Republican Party to
acknowledge it? The Abramoff scandal stinks all the way to the top.
Where does party loyalty end and patriotism begin?

......and no one died, when Clinton lied.

On 9 Mar 2006 08:06:07 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

Here's the thing. If you intend to downplay the significance of one
isolated Abramoff sentence by sarcastically pretending that's all
there is to the scandal, you're simply being dishonest.

Here's another thing. I intended to make fun of RW and Vanity Fair and
the stupidity of using the such as an "AHA!"

RW's point, I believe, is that our president, George W. Bush lied when he
said he didn't know Abramoff.

And that's why there's chocolate and vanilla - I believe RW's point is
under his hat. And if the claim is that Bush actually _knew_ Abramoff
or anyone else on the basis of a few exchanged pleasantries, then Bush
"knows" thousands of people from all over the world.

For just a moment, forget the discussion is of Bush and Abramoff. I
won't speak for you, but there have been hundreds of people over the
years that I've exchanged little bits of conversation with, and many on
more than one occasion; for example, I regularly get gas at a particular
station and chit-chat with the manager if he's there. For the life of
me, I can't think of his name, and am not 100% sure I've ever known it,
but he has at least two kids, a boy and girl, and got divorced last
year. Other than that, I can't really think of anything else I _know_
about him. Anybody like that in your life? Either way, in your
opinion, do I "know" him? And if someone asked me if I know "John Doe"
or whatever his name is (i.e., by name), I would say, perfectly
honestly, "No." Would you accuse me of being a liar? If they then
asked me what my connection might be to the manager at the service
station, I would most likely say none because I don't know him. Would
you accuse me of being a liar?

Now I know that presidents who lie to
us are nothing new, but the right's hypocritical denial of GWB's
lies is a bit hard to swallow.

The Abramoff corruption scandal of influence peddling in the Republican
party cannot be dismissed by a little snarky humor,

Um, I spend a lot of my time in LA, TX, and MS and have had family ties
here for generations...if you think this is REAL corruption, you don't
know jack...oh, sure, it's a bunch of punks with their hands in the
cookie jar, alright, but so far, it ain't real, **** 'em all, downhome
_corruption_. Abramoff is capable of it, but with few exceptions, the
pols involved just don't have the stones to get REALLY
nasty-crooked-dirty.

especially when it clearly reaches the Oval Office.
Bush said he didn't know the guy.
That is a bold-faced lie. There is more than one instance of friendly
conversation between him and Bush, there are photographs of them
together at events that go well beyond mere photo ops, and there's no
doubt that Abramoff was selling access to the President either directly
or through Rove.

And you know all of this how? You've stated a lot of things as facts
that might not be as cut and dried as you might think. And do you
really think that Bush would risk what he'd be risking to sell (or even
allow to be sold) access to the Oval Office using a crooked little punk
like Abramoff as the broker and do so on a few ****ant Indian bingo
games or some cruise ship BS? And for money he doesn't even need.

To guys like Abramoff and Rove (yeah, IMO, at the end of the day, he's a
little ****ant punk, too), a coupla hundred thou might be real big
money, but to Bush, Cheney, etc., it wouldn't even be a week's interest
on real money. And until something more is _known_, I don't see
Abramoff as having been any more truly "known" to Bush or the Oval
Office than the service station guy whose name I can't remember...

While Clinton may have sold the Lincoln bedroom,
George Bush is selling the Oval Office. Oh yeah, and he's lying
about it.

As I've said on many occasions, I understand and share many political
positions of my Republican friends and acquaintances. What I cannot
understand is why they are so willing to deny the reality that George
W. Bush is a liar.

Again, just because you think it is reality doesn't make it so, even if
you honestly believe it with all your heart and soul.

TC,
R

rb608 wrote:
Here's the thing. If you intend to downplay the significance of one
isolated Abramoff sentence by sarcastically pretending that's all
there is to the scandal, you're simply being dishonest. RW's
point, I believe, is that our president, George W. Bush lied when he
said he didn't know Abramoff. Now I know that presidents who lie to
us are nothing new, but the right's hypocritical denial of GWB's
lies is a bit hard to swallow.

The Abramoff corruption scandal of influence peddling in the Republican
party cannot be dismissed by a little snarky humor, especially when it
clearly reaches the Oval Office. Bush said he didn't know the guy.
That is a bold-faced lie. There is more than one instance of friendly
conversation between him and Bush, there are photographs of them
together at events that go well beyond mere photo ops, and there's no
doubt that Abramoff was selling access to the President either directly
or through Rove. While Clinton may have sold the Lincoln bedroom,
George Bush is selling the Oval Office. Oh yeah, and he's lying
about it.

As I've said on many occasions, I understand and share many political
positions of my Republican friends and acquaintances. What I cannot
understand is why they are so willing to deny the reality that George
W. Bush is a liar. Because it will hurt the Republican Party to
acknowledge it? The Abramoff scandal stinks all the way to the top.
Where does party loyalty end and patriotism begin?

Dicky is a paid RNC operative. Some of them run blogs, some are paid
to post on various news groups and other websites. Some get paid
money, some get their pickles sold to KBR. It's intermingling of the
goverment and business in the finest fascist tradition. Was Karl Rove
born after Goebbels was dead? It would add creedance to the
reincarnation theory if he was.

BJ Conner wrote:

Dicky is a paid RNC operative.

And he's doing a really ****ty job.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

While I don't readily accept this theory as to rdean's motivation, I
also don't much care if he's Rove's illegitimate spawn. Despite the
large degree to which I disagree with his right wing politics, I would
not question his right to espouse them here within the same guidelines
of reason and courtesy as anyone else. While he does on occasion IMO
step back over the line between sensible discussion and simple
repetition of GOP talking points, that provides an opportunity to
highlight fallacies, weaknesses, and hypocrisies of the right's
arguments and policies. YMMV.

rb608 typed:
While I don't readily accept this theory as to rdean's motivation, I
also don't much care if he's Rove's illegitimate spawn. Despite the
large degree to which I disagree with his right wing politics, I would
not question his right to espouse them here within the same guidelines
of reason and courtesy as anyone else. While he does on occasion IMO
step back over the line between sensible discussion and simple
repetition of GOP talking points, that provides an opportunity to
highlight fallacies, weaknesses, and hypocrisies of the right's
arguments and policies. YMMV.

As he sometimes (and in this case) does with the fallacies and weaknesses of
the left's, eh? ;-) Damn, it's good to have you back, Joe, even if you are
a communist. G
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

wrote in message
For just a moment, forget the discussion is of Bush and Abramoff. I
won't speak for you, but there have been hundreds of people over the
years that I've exchanged little bits of conversation with, and many on
more than one occasion; for example, I regularly get gas at a particular
station and chit-chat with the manager if he's there.

Oh puhleese. This is nothing but a straw man. The President is *not* the
manager of a gas station, and access to the White House and his company is
anything but casual chit chat. Nobody gets in that building or near him
without proper authorization. You must be joking with that analogy. He's
not the manager of a gas station, he's the CEO of the largest entity on
earth, and it's ridiculous to assert that he would not "know" a person who
delivers millions of dollars to his firm or not know his name. Your analogy
is utter bull**** and nothing more than framing the question inaccurately.

Other than that, I can't really think of anything else I _know_
about him. Anybody like that in your life?

Anecdotally, yes; but anecdotes selected to fit pre-established conclusion
are hardly persuasive. As a matter of fact, I was once a field sales rep
for a manufacturing company. I had one particular customer with whom I
became friendly. His name was Dave D. In the course of several years, I
met him and/or spoke with him probably ten times or less; but we connected
well and I knew he was married, had kids, and played ice hockey. Even now,
though I haven't seen or spoken to him in more than ten years, if you asked
me if I knew Dave D., I'd have to say yes.

Would you accuse me of being a liar?

In your particular case, I'd say "liar" might be too strong; but I would say
you were less than honest. In Bush's case, I'd call him a liar.

Um, I spend a lot of my time in LA, TX, and MS and have had family ties
here for generations...if you think this is REAL corruption, you don't
know jack...

Oh, well that makes it okay then.

oh, sure, it's a bunch of punks with their hands in the
cookie jar, alright, but so far, it ain't real, **** 'em all, downhome
_corruption_. Abramoff is capable of it, but with few exceptions, the
pols involved just don't have the stones to get REALLY
nasty-crooked-dirty.

I'd postulate that bribing Congresspeople to benefit special interest
clients and fundamentally corrupting the democratic process is about as
nasty-crooked-dirty as it gets. Trying to paint it as a minor little
indiscretion is just putting lipstick on a pig.

And you know all of this how?

Oh, I don't know; it migh have been the Presidential press conferences and
FBI testimony. Oh yeah, and the occasional felony indictment. That sort of
thing. Nothing you'd consider authoritative.

And do you
really think that Bush would risk what he'd be risking to sell (or even
allow to be sold) access to the Oval Office using a crooked little punk
like Abramoff as the broker and do so on a few ****ant Indian bingo
games or some cruise ship BS? And for money he doesn't even need.

Yes, I do think so. Again, you try to downplay a multi-million-dollar
Indian gaming industry as "****ant Indian bingo games". Bull****. There is
serious money involved and serious political influence for sale. To portray
it as otherwise is dishonesty.

To guys like Abramoff and Rove (yeah, IMO, at the end of the day, he's a
little ****ant punk, too), a coupla hundred thou might be real big
money, but to Bush, Cheney, etc., it wouldn't even be a week's interest
on real money.

If it were simply about Bush or Cheney's personal fortunes, I'd agree; but
you know damned well it's not. It's about control of US policies and
pursestrings. It's about abusing the public trust to enrich supporters.
It's about billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to connected cronies;
and that's worth a whole lot more than a "coupla hundred thou".

Again, just because you think it is reality doesn't make it so, even if
you honestly believe it with all your heart and soul.

I do not operate on heart and soul. I believe it because the known facts
support it.

Joe F.