Bush and Abramhoff connected in face to face contact

cawacko said:
there are enough legitimate things you can hit Bush with why do you (or she in this case) need to misrepresent, exagerate or lie to try and make a negative point as Desh is doing here?
Click to expand...

must.....defend.....bravo.........must.....defend.....bravo......
 
bravo said:
"While the committee obtained no evidence Mr Abramoff ever personally lobbied the President or that the President personally directed an action in response to a request by Mr Abramoff, the committee did receive evidence that Mr Abramoff did meet the President and was photographed with him six times. Four of the six photographs occurred at political receptions"

You are a freekin' joke...I'v venture you have trouble blinking and breathing at the same time.....
And political receptions is evidence of access.....
do you shower in koolade?
Click to expand...


Did you read the conclusion you complete fucking idiot?
 
Desh said:
Go read the conclusion of the report.

It states that Abramoff had access to the President. Six of those times his picture was taken. How many times without pictures taken?
Click to expand...

Go to the point in the report that I highlighted Desh. They said quite clearly they have no evidence to suggest that Abramhoff ever lobbied Bush or that Bush ever acted on Abramhoffs suggestions. No evidence. So apparently this "access" you constantly reference was nothing consequential.
 
Desh said:
Go read the conclusion of the report.

It states that Abramoff had access to the President. Six of those times his picture was taken. How many times without pictures taken?
Click to expand...

Side note Desh... the conclusion of the report states quite clearly that Abramhoff had "personal contact" with Bush... it does not say he had access to him. There is a BIG difference.

"personal contact" means he met him... very likely referring to the photo ops.

"Access" denotes he has some type of influence with getting in to see the President to discuss issues etc... which the report clearly stated they had no evidence of.

Again, this does not mean nothing occurred given that many emails "disappeared", but you are clearly misstating what the report says. Either deliberately (which means you are lying) or by accident (which means you do not comprehend the difference).
 
Personal contact is access.

Access means he could have time with him to discuss whatever he wanted.

Bush said he did not even know him.

Its a lie.
 
Mr. Abramoff's Influence inside the WT. The documents show that Mr. Abramoff and his associates influenced some WH actions. In one instance , The Abramoff team persuaded WH officials to intervene to remove from office a State Dept. Official, Allen Staymen" who had advocated reforms in the Northern Mariannas Islands that Mr. Abramoff opposed. In one exchange, Mr Shalapp emailed Monica Kladakis, the deputy associate director of presidential personnel, to ask "how can we do this"? Ms Kladakis responded: " I think we can do something about it, but I'm trying to figure out the best way to go about it.I dont want a firing scandal on our hands". Both Karl Rove , the presidents top political advisor and Stephen Hadley, the deputy national Security Advisor, were informed of Mr. Abramoff's opposition to Mr. Stayman.
 
Desh said:
Personal contact is access.

Access means he could have time with him to discuss whatever he wanted.

Bush said he did not even know him.

Its a lie.
Click to expand...

Bullshit Desh. Personal contact does not mean access. Personal contact means they have met. While he could also have had access to the President that is clearly NOT what the report tells us. It quite clearly states that they have NO EVIDENCE Abramhoff ever lobbied Bush. Which means they have NO EVIDENCE that he ever spent time "discussing whatever he wanted with Bush".

You are the one lying to attempt to fit this report into your preconceived notions. Funny, because that makes you JUST LIKE BUSH.
 
Superfreak said:
Bullshit Desh. Personal contact does not mean access. Personal contact means they have met. While he could also have had access to the President that is clearly NOT what the report tells us. It quite clearly states that they have NO EVIDENCE Abramhoff ever lobbied Bush. Which means they have NO EVIDENCE that he ever spent time "discussing whatever he wanted with Bush".

You are the one lying to attempt to fit this report into your preconceived notions. Funny, because that makes you JUST LIKE BUSH.
Click to expand...

It's like saying the 20 or 30 million people who have shaken Obama's, McCain's or Hillary's hand during one of their campaign stops have 'personal access' to them.
 
cawacko said:
It's like saying the 20 or 30 million people who have shaken Obama's, McCain's or Hillary's hand during one of their campaign stops have 'personal access' to them.
Click to expand...

I know. Apparently personally pointing out in their report that they had no evidence Abramhoff lobbied Bush is not going to convince Desh. She is determined to believe he was doing just that and damn it if the report tells her she is wrong.

Ironic given that she is being so dishonest in her attempt to show how dishonest Bush is.

As you pointed out, there are many things to nail Bush on. Yet she is determined to make sure she convinces everyone that this occured, despite the report she posted stating directly that there was no evidence to support such a claim.
 
Desh said:
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080609101725.pdf

start at page 15 and read how they even sent resumes of potenial replacements so Abramoff could tell them if he approved of the candidate or not.

He was fucking picking the federal employees.
Click to expand...

You need to learn the difference bewteen WH officials and Bush. Yes, they showed that Abramhoff had ties with people who worked in the WH. They showed that they solicited Abramhoffs opinion.

The point I where I disagreed with you Desh was in your assertion that Abramhoff had access to the President. He didn't. Nor do they have any evidence (as they stated) that Bush made any decisions based on Abramhoffs requests (as the report stated).
 
Desh said:
do something different like read the god damned report you fools.
Click to expand...

I read the whole thing Desh. You apparently did not. Because you continue to pretend that the section I quoted to you does not exist. You continue to try to create a connection that did not exist (or at least not that they had evidence of).
 
So then you are familiar with page 34 on which the committee concludes that the white house said they investigated the Abramoff accesss and but failed to find almiost all of the contacts the investigation found?

Did you read the part where they said that they failed to find things a most basic inquiry would have turned up?
 
The real bitch of it is that it doesn't matter if Bush and Abramoff ever personally met. It's clear that Abramoff was able to get things done without personally lobbying Bush, which is all that matters and is really the best way to get these sorts of things done.

Plausible deniability is a beautiful thing.
 
Trying to cherry pick good things for Bush out of this report shows just how politically bankrupt you are SF.
 
Desh said:
Trying to cherry pick good things for Bush out of this report shows just how politically bankrupt you are SF.
Click to expand...

Desh there is nothing cherry picked or anything to make Bush look good. It's simply stating accurately what the report said. To state accurately what the report said does not mean one must like or dislike Bush.

It's obvious Abrahomff was in contact with administration officials. No one here is denying that. You then tried to state Abrahoff (sp) tried to lobby Bush personally which the report states there is no evidence of. You can read Dungheap's post for what they mean but your attempt to claim is wrong. That's a fact. It's not about supporting Bush or trying to make him look good. It's simply about what the facts are in the report.
 
cawacko said:
Desh there is nothing cherry picked or anything to make Bush look good. It's simply stating accurately what the report said. To state accurately what the report said does not mean one must like or dislike Bush.

It's obvious Abrahomff was in contact with administration officials. No one here is denying that. You then tried to state Abrahoff (sp) tried to lobby Bush personally which the report states there is no evidence of. You can read Dungheap's post for what they mean but your attempt to claim is wrong. That's a fact. It's not about supporting Bush or trying to make him look good. It's simply about what the facts are in the report.
Click to expand...

Are you SF’s new girlfriend? Is this why we haven’t seen Damo around today? Is there a broken heart in the offing here?

:kiss2: Sf & Cawacko!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top