More Bush WH lies

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by justbill_redux, Jan 22, 2006.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923
    Lou Lou Lou

    You know I didn't think the trading with Iran comment was germane to this so I left it off. But since we're now talking about it I guess Rich found himself in some good company. I seem to recall something called Iran-Contra

    From http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/execsum.htm

    In October and November 1986, two secret U.S. Government operations were publicly exposed, potentially implicating Reagan Administration officials in illegal activities. These operations were the provision of assistance to the military activities of the Nicaraguan contra rebels during an October 1984 to October 1986 prohibition on such aid, and the sale of U.S. arms to Iran in contravention of stated U.S. policy and in possible violation of arms-export controls. In late November 1986, Reagan Administration officials announced that some of the proceeds from the sale of U.S. arms to Iran had been diverted to the contras.

    Of course shit like that, trading with Iran, doesn't happen these days, or does it.

    From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6982444/site/newsweek/

    Updated: 6:10 p.m. ET Feb. 16, 2005

    Feb. 16 - Only weeks before Halliburton made headlines by announcing it was pulling out of Iran—a nation George W. Bush has labeled part of the “axis of evil”—the Texas-based oil services firm quietly signed a major new business deal to help develop Tehran’s natural gas fields.

    Halliburton’s new Iran contract, moreover, appears to suggest a far closer connection with the country’s hard-line government than the firm has ever acknowledged.

    [SNIP]

    Remind me again who the CEO of Halliburton was a few years ago.

    Funny thing, I just got finished watching the History Channels mini series called The Presidents on my DVR. Nice roundup of pertinent facts and accomplishments of the Presidents, as well as their scandals. The thing is that the Republic always rebounds, and I expect the same to happen once these cocksuckers are voted out. So dont you worry about me losing any sleep over the criminal misdeeds of the current administration, I laugh my ass off at each new indictment and disclosure of these scumbags and wait for history to repeat itself.
  2. lamont5123

    lamont5123

    Messages:
    2,415
    I really cannot see how some can believe that CBS News and Time Magazine are one and the same.

    Glory be.
  3. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923
    From the Washington Post

    Source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/24/AR2006012401532.html

    Mr. Abramoff's Meetings


    Wednesday, January 25, 2006; Page A18

    HERE ARE SOME things we know about Jack Abramoff and the White House: The disgraced lobbyist raised at least $100,000 for President Bush's reelection campaign. He had long-standing ties to Karl Rove, a key presidential adviser. He had extensive dealings with executive branch officials and departments -- one of whom, former procurement chief David H. Safavian, has been charged by federal prosecutors with lying to investigators about his involvement with Mr. Abramoff.

    We also know that Mr. Abramoff is an admitted crook who was willing to bribe members of Congress and their staffs to get what he (or his clients) wanted. In addition to attending a few White House Hanukkah parties and other events at which he had his picture snapped with the president, Mr. Abramoff had, according to the White House, "a few staff-level meetings" with White House aides.

    Here is what we don't know about Jack Abramoff and the White House: whom he met with and what was discussed. Nor, if the White House sticks to its current position, will we learn that anytime soon. Press secretary Scott McClellan told the White House press corps: "If you've got some specific issue that you need to bring to my attention, fine. But what we're not going to do is engage in a fishing expedition that has nothing to do with the investigation."

    This is not a tenable position. It's undisputed that Mr. Abramoff tried to use his influence, and his restaurant and his skyboxes and his chartered jets, to sway lawmakers and their staffs. Information uncovered by Mr. Bush's own Justice Department shows that Mr. Abramoff tried to do the same inside the executive branch.

    Under these circumstances, asking about Mr. Abramoff's White House meetings is no mere exercise in reportorial curiosity but a legitimate inquiry about what an admitted felon might have been seeking at the highest levels of government. Whatever White House officials did or didn't do, there is every reason to believe that Mr. Abramoff was up to no good and therefore every reason the public ought to know with whom he was meeting.

    Mr. McClellan dismisses requests for the information as an effort to play "partisan politics," and no doubt there is more than an element of partisanship in Democrats' efforts to extract this information. But Republicans wouldn't stand for this kind of stonewalling if the situation were reversed. We can say that with confidence because history proves it. During the 1996 scandal over foreign fundraising in the Clinton White House, Republicans demanded -- and obtained, though not without a fight -- extensive information about White House coffees and other meetings, including photos and videotapes.

    "Any suggestion by critics or anybody else to suggest that the president was doing something nefarious with Jack Abramoff is absolutely wrong, and it's absurd," presidential adviser Dan Bartlett said on NBC's "Today" show. The best way to refute such "absurd" suggestions is to get all of Mr. Abramoff's dealings with the Bush White House and the Bush administration out in the open -- now.
  4. while Scooter said that he didn't "admire" Rich he still took in $2 mill in fees and did proclaim the man's innocence while under oath
  5. Lou Grant

    Lou Grant

    Messages:
    1,439
    Point of fact, Marc Rich was a pardoned fugitive, who fled the country in the mid 1980's rather than face and refute the charges that were leveled against him. And his charges were not just limited to tax evasion, it was also doing business with a nation that was placed on the prohibited list, Iran.

    He got off because his wife raised all that money, and Clinton returning a political favor rather than grant it to a more deserving ex-felon. It's still another case of money influence peddling that exists, like I said in both parties, not just one.

    BTW, you neglected to post the ensuing paraggraph from the same article:
    "At a later point, Libby said he thought Rich was a traitor for his company engaging in trades with Iran at a time when that country was holding U.S. hostages. "I did not condone it, I didn't advise it, I don't admire it," he said".

    It must really eat you up that you have to deal with this WH (as a citizen) for the next 35 months.
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2006
  6. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923
    So rather then be outraged over a current scandal I should be bringing up a scandal of an administration that’s been out of power 5+ years. Na don’t think so, those issues have already been addressed. I do look forward to Bushs pardon of Abramoff and Libby for some more cries of moral outrage from his base, NOT.

    FYI, regarding Marc Richs pardon

    From http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/02/clinton.library/

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff testified Thursday he believes prosecutors of billionaire financier Marc Rich "misconstrued the facts and the law" when they went after Rich on tax evasion charges.
    The testimony from Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who represented Rich dating back to 1985 but stopped working for him in the spring of 2000, came during a contentious, hours-long House committee hearing into former President Bill Clinton's eleventh-hour pardons.

    [SNIP]

    "Did you represent a crook who stole money from the United States government, was a fugitive and should never have been given or granted a pardon by the facts that you know?" snapped Kanjorski.
    "No, sir," Libby responded. "There are no facts that I know of that support the criminality of the client based on the tax returns."
    Libby then said prosecutors from the Southern District of New York "misconstrued the facts and the law" when they prosecuted Rich.
    "(Rich) had not violated the tax laws," said Libby.

    [SNIP]



    Takes a crook to know a crook.
  7. Lou Grant

    Lou Grant

    Messages:
    1,439
    With all due respect, this type of behavior is prevalent in both parties. Politics is a corrupt business, whether Dem or Rep. , local level or national level. While your love of Bush cannot be questoned here by anyone, it is myopic of you and others to tar this WH with another money influence scandal that only this WH is capable of doing, and yet neglect similar scandals of WH's past (classic example of money influence buying - Marc Rich pardon: wife raises millions for Clinton's WH and in return gets pardon for fugitive ex, by-passing more deserving felons such as Mike Milken, who not only faced his justice, but has since used his power and influence to help various causes, not just ski the Alps. Also, who was that Chinese national who also used similar tactics in late 90's ((too tired to do web search))?)
  8. daengman

    daengman

    Messages:
    3,493
    With your betting instincts, you should be in vegas raking in tons of money.

    If I ever raised money for politicians or any other cause, they would never get it, because I would spend it all on providers.
  9. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
  10. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923
    I'm willing to bet that you're not a guy who raised $100,000.00 for Ws recent reelection or directed your clients to donate millions of dollars to the GOP nor a past President of the Young Republicans, or had your personal assistant go to work for Karl Rove in the same capacity at the White House or comped numerous GOP politicians like Tom Delay at your restaurant.
  11. redleg609

    redleg609

    Messages:
    2,098
    Gak! So obvious it's hard to see.
  12. lamont5123

    lamont5123

    Messages:
    2,415
    daengman,

    The White House had already admitted those photos exist.

    The sad truth is the White House lied about Abramhoff even showing up, then claimed the convicted lobbyist never got within five feet of Dubya.

    The stories prove differently.
  13. daengman

    daengman

    Messages:
    3,493


    The only thing that the three news story prove is that the writer for those organizations can read and quote Time magazine which is something that a sixth grader can do. Those stories do nothing to prove the existance or the authenticity of the purported photos. The writers of those stories only responsibility is to correctly cite the Time story. No matter whether there are 3, 30 or 30,000 stories like those by "reputable" news sources, there is only one claim (at least only one reported so far in the media)to have seen the photos (that by some individual(s) at Time), and as yet no proof to authenticity.

    Until the photos are revealed, they do nothing to disprove the White House staff contentions and if they are merely "click" photos they are worthless.
    I have personally met 2 Presidents, once in the OO and one visit from which I have a photo of me in the group with the Pres. These meetings were seperated by about 2 decades and several occupants of 1600 Penna. Ave.
    the meetings were nice but I had no illusions at the time that the Pres would remember me even one day later.

    If the photos are shopped and eventually sold, then their credibility is gone.
    Oh, and BTW, one does not have to have a very good imagination to realize that since the Abramoff scandle broke, that the folks on the left side of the aisle have spent both a huge amount of time and money trying to link George and Jack and so far no credible link.
  14. lamont5123

    lamont5123

    Messages:
    2,415
    daengman,

    Neither are we the professional journalists writing these news stories, nor do we have access to White House official photos.

    By offering three links to reputable news Web sites, I countered Odd's subtle claim that justbill's post was inaccurate.

    Besides, had we offered any photos, it might have resulted in a claim that the photos had been doctored.

    The three news stories prove justbill's contentions are right on the money:

    Bush's White House has been caught in another lie.
  15. daengman

    daengman

    Messages:
    3,493
    So where are the photo's???

    Not to take sides in this discussion but none of the articles cited show any of the purported photos. Do the photos exixt and are they real? There isn't a news media publisher or producer alive that wouldn't give his or her first born if he or she could be the first to reveal the photos if they were real. Or, did someone fabricate the story and/or the photos, hoping that the story would get legs and walk around a while before it dissappears.
    Given the ubiquity of photo editing software available and the fact that millions of americans can use it, it couldn't be too hard for someone to fabricate photos such as the ones written about. Also, any photos produced will be scrutinized thoroughly.
  16. lamont5123

    lamont5123

    Messages:
    2,415
  17. oddfellow4870

    oddfellow4870

    Messages:
    3,094
    I want press darlings with actual stories to appear, stories that can be validated, then I will entertain such a notion. So, far, NO evidence of this.
  18. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923
    http://www.republicansorthemafia.com/
  19. justbill_redux

    justbill_redux King Missile

    Messages:
    3,923
    The Nation it refers to is the section of Time magazine, not Nation magazine.
  20. redleg609

    redleg609

    Messages:
    2,098
    If you follow the link above, you will see that although this appears to be a Time article, it is actually from the magazine The Nation.