Posted on 01/23/2006 4:06:26 AM PST by saveliberty
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.