Posted on 01/23/2006 4:06:26 AM PST by saveliberty
| THE BUSH-ABRAMOFF PHOTOS: A MONEY MOTIVE? [Byron York] There appears to be a game of hide-and-seek going on with pictures of the president and Jack Abramoff. Time magazine reports that it has seen five such pictures that "suggest a level of contact between [Bush and Abramoff] that Bush's aides have downplayed." Democrats jumped on the news, sending out e-mails yesterday calling the photos "further evidence of the White House's involvement in the Abramoff scandal." But at the same time, Time suggests that the photos might not be a very big deal: Most of the pictures have the formal look of photos taken at presidential receptions. The images of Bush, Abramoff and one of his sons appear to be the rapid-fire shots--known in White House parlance as clicks-- that the President snaps with top supporters before taking the podium at fund-raising receptions. Over five years, Bush has posed for tens of thousands of such shots--many with people he does not know. It would be nice to see the pictures to judge for ourselves. But for the moment, we'll have to take Time's word for it, because the magazine reports it was shown the photos by a "source" who "refused to provide the pictures are publication." Why? Time doesn't say. One might guess that whoever has the photos is holding them until a time when their publication might have even more political impact than it would now. That's one possibility. But the Time story hints at another motive. The photos, it says, "are likely to see the light of day eventually because celebrity tabloids are on the prowl for them." Now, everyone knows that celebrity tabloids pay a lot of money for hot pictures. Is Time suggesting that its source is looking for cash before parting with the photos? That wouldn't look very good for the source -- after all, the entire Abramoff scandal is about greed -- and, given that the photos exist and are going to come out anyway, would probably be the best possible outcome for the White House. Posted at 05:32 AM |
The Dems are such fools. It is quite clear that they do not have clean hands with this. Personally, I don't care one way or the other. This is more campaign finance BS. It will make no difference to me in the end. Dems-clueless with no ideas of their own- are pretending Pres. Bush is Richard Nixon. The Dems are stuck in a time warp.
What's glorious is that the Dems acknowledge that they did take indirect money. Back when they thought that the real problem was having accepted contributions directly from Abramoff.
Abramoff is the least of it.
I agree. I'd like to know more about what's behind the contributions from the Iranian mullahs and whether contributions have been accepted from suspect organizations in the GWOT
If any of the photos showed Abramoff giving W a thick white envelope, Time would have paid for it by making the purveyor of the photos a "contributing editor" for a day.
Maybe. Perhaps they are advertising that they are looking for someone with photoshop skills.
How about the pics of the Clintons with cocaine traffickers, PLA agents, and terrorists?
Under the Clinton/Clinton (remember the 2 for 1) and Gore Administration, the sleep-overs and tea parties in the Lincoln bedroon had to be scheduled around the many frequent (flyer miles...?) visits of Yassar Arafat and a couple of Clinton friends, who happenad to make a living as DRUG DEALERS.
The MSM has never made it so obviously THEY are pro bono "lobbiests" for the Dems.
The GOP can prove it.
Good luck with that
Another poster indicated that it's hard to believe that the Times would sit on an actual photo
Absolutely. But not only would the pictures be destroyed, but somehow no one would know where the perps were anymore either.
Yes they can
"may" be sitting on the photo or photographs because of what they actually show, or don't show.
The 24 hour news 'cyle' will have every lib newspaper and TV / cable news show talking about the "Jack & George" photo's ..... maxamize the damage,
Then show typical jack and Jill on the hill photographs.
Photos with the President? That's nothing. I know for a fact that he spent an entire evening including a movie in the WH screening room with a murderer...Ted Kennedy.
Could be. Or someone wants money and will go to the National Enquirer.
Having your picture taken with the President doesn't prove anything...just ask Cindy Sheehan.
Oh no, to think that someone can get their picture taken with a head of state!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.