I thought Bush didn't know "pioneer" Abramoff. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/23/AR2006012300333.html Bush Aide Says Abramoff Photos Coincidence WASHINGTON -- An adviser to President Bush said Monday that Bush's photographs in the company of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff amount to a coincidence and shouldn't be interpreted any more seriously than that. "He doesn't have a personal relationship with him," White House counselor Dan Bartlett said of Bush and Abramoff, who recently pleaded guilty to federal charges stemming from his lobbying practices and has pledged to cooperate with government prosecutors. "We acknowledge he (Abramaoff) attended some Hannukuah celebrations," Bartlett said in an appearance on NBC's "Today" show. "Any suggestions by critics or anyone else to suggest the president is doing something nefarious with Abramoff is absurd." Bush himself has said that he doesn't recall meeting Abramoff. Both Washingtonian and Time magazines have reported the existence of about a half-dozen photos showing the two together, however. Time reported on its Web site Sunday that its staff members have seen at least six photos featuring Bush and Abramoff. They appeared to have been taken at White House functions, according to the reports. On ABC's "Good Morning America" Monday, Bartlett said, "I don't think it's a surprise to anybody that there's probably widely-gathered events where the president does photo-line opportunities." The White House has not released any photos featuring the president and Abramoff, who was declared a Bush "pioneer" for raising at least $100,000 for the Bush-Cheney '04 re-election campaign. Contributions that came directly from Abramoff, his wife and one of the American Indian tribes he represented _ a total of $6,000 _ were donated to the American Heart Association by the campaign just days after Abramoff entered his guilty pleas. The White House, after playing down the Bush-Abramoff photos and the lobbyist's ties to the president, criticized Abramoff for breaking the law. "Mr. Abramoff admitted being involved in outrageous wrongdoing," spokeswoman Dana Perino said Sunday.
On a more serious note, I don't understand this. If the photos were taken at the WH, then there probably exists a set taken by official WH photographers, as they are always around and snapping just these kind of photos. If there are any by a WH photographer, they are public record and not covered by any exemption (say National Security) that would preclude them from being released to the public. So where are they?
i'm surprised those photos haven't surfaced yet; i've been trying to find them off and on all day i'm curious as to why bush & co would sit on those after everyone new they existed; they're just creating a frenzy...
Hopefully someone is sitting on them until..oh..I don't know...about October. Or a trial, whichever comes first...
This obviously sucks. Without 51 votes, you can't have accountability. Without accountability, the most obvious thing for the other side to do is assume the worst. The Dems need a change in their response tactics.
photos were confirmed today, i wonder why bush & co. won't release them? http://smh.com.au/news/world/white-house-wont-release-abramoff-photos/2006/01/24/1138066792963.html White House won't release Abramoff photos WASHINGTON: White House officials have acknowledged that pictures of President George Bush and the disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff do exist, but say they will not release them on the grounds they are not relevant to the money-for-favours investigation. "Trying to say there's more to it than … taking a picture [of the President] in a photo line is just absurd," a White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said on Monday. Mr Bush, he said, did not recall meeting Abramoff and did not do any favours for the lobbyist. Abramoff, who pleaded guilty in the growing bribery and corruption scandal, was with Mr Bush about a dozen times when pictures were taken, according to a source familiar with Abramoff's defence. The source said Abramoff had more than half a dozen photos showing himself with Mr Bush, including one of the two men shaking hands, but had no intention of releasing them. The existence of the Bush-Abramoff photos was first reported in The Washingtonian magazine, which said it was not permitted to publish them. Photographs could damage Mr Bush's efforts to insulate himself from a scandal that has scorched other Republicans. An image of Mr Bush shaking hands with Abramoff would fuel commentary, even if such "grip-and-grin" shots are commonplace for most politicians.
Because someone has already sold them to the highest bidder? Abramoff shopped Bush photos, Newsweek reporter says Appearing on MSNBC, Newsweek correspondent Michael Isikoff reported that it was indeed Abramoff who floated the photographs to Washingtonian. Over the weekend, Time magazine and the Washingtonian both reported on five photos of President Bush with Jack Abramoff, but neither publication revealed its source. Yesterday, ThinkProgress laid out the case for why the source for the photos was likely Abramoff himself. Last night, our hunch was confirmed. Appearing on MSNBC, Newsweek correspondent Michael Isikoff reported that it was indeed Abramoff who floated the photographs to Washingtonian. ISIKOFF: As a general rule, if you’re the president … you don’t like pictures out there of you with convicted felons. It sounds like … there’s at least one picture of him with at least one convicted felon and another indicted, so it’s probably not a picture the White House is eager to have out there. The other interesting aspect of this is, while the White House hasn’t put these out, Jack Abramoff has clearly shown them to people. I don’t know anything about Time sources, but I do know that he showed them to Washingtonian magazine, which suggests he may be playing a little bit of a game here. He has, of course, pled guilty already to the Justice Department. But it does raise a question in my mind at least as to whether Abramoff is maybe sort of sending some sort of signal out here: “Hey, I’ve got this stuff.” Maybe he wants something from somebody at the White House, or he wants someone at the White House not to do something, and just sort of subtly playing with people here. http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Abramoff_shopped_Bush_photos_Newsweek_reporter_0124.html
Who cares if there are photos of Bush with Abramoff? It doesn't mean anything, really. If there's evidence of a tighter relationship or wrongdoing, great, let's hear it in trial. But there's a lot more important stuff to be pursuing on the president other than who he posed in a photo with.
Because his constituency is stupid and easily misled. The Bushies waiting for the piercing shrills of his opposition to make his believers def and mute, so when he does bring out the photos months later, it won't be that bad a hit. Make the non-issue an issue while claiming innocence during the dragnet on his Republican brethren
well I care, because bush said he didn't know him and if he took several photos with him after he became a pioneer $100,000 + donor obviously he knows the man.
speaking of bush photos, here's a funny one <img src="http://www.antiwar.com/photos/bush-intel.jpg" width="280" height="469" border="0">
President Bush shaking hands in 2001 with Chief Raul Garza of the Kickapoo tribe of Texas. In the background at left is the lobbyist Jack Abramoff; Karl Rove, the president's top adviser, is at the right. WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 — After weeks in which the White House has declined to release pictures of President Bush with Jack Abramoff, the disgraced lobbyist, the first photograph to be published of the two men shows a small, partly obscured image of Mr. Abramoff looking on from the background as Mr. Bush greets a Texas Indian chief in May 2001. By itself, the picture hardly seems worthy of the White House's efforts to keep it out of the public eye. Mr. Abramoff, a leading Republican fund-raiser who pleaded guilty last month to conspiring to corrupt public officials, is little more than a blurry, bearded figure in the background at a gathering of about two dozen people. But it provides a window, albeit an opaque one, into Mr. Abramoff's efforts to sell himself to Indian tribes as a man of influence who could open the most secure doors in Washington to them. And it leaves unanswered questions about how Mr. Abramoff and the tribal leader, whom he was trying to sign as a client, gained access to a meeting with the president on the White House grounds that was ostensibly for a group of state legislators who were supporting Mr. Bush's 2001 tax cut plan. The White House confirmed the authenticity of the photograph. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/politics/12lobby.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
abramoff has claimed that bush asked him how his kids were doing obviously meaning that bush knew him. that being said just because bush knew someone doesn't mean they are best friends. of course i as a anti-bush person wanna take every advantage of this.
