Reply
Tue 17 Jan, 2006 07:48 pm
WASHINGTON - The White House is refusing to reveal details of tainted lobbyist Jack Abramoff's visits with President Bush's staff.
Abramoff had "a few staff-level meetings" at the Bush White House, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday. But he would not say with whom Abramoff met, which interests he was representing or how he got access to the White House.
Since Abramoff pleaded guilty two weeks ago to conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion charges in an influence-peddling scandal, McClellan has told reporters he was checking into Abramoff's meetings. "I'm making sure that I have a thorough report back to you on that," he said in his press briefing Jan. 5. "And I'll get that to you, hopefully very soon."
perhaps george could quote his predecessor
"i did not have staff-level meetings with that man, mr. abramoff"
on second thought maybe not
Always the stained dress..... always the stained dress.
<walks in with towel on head>
oh, sorry, I thought this was let's sit around and give each other manicures and eat choclate thread...
sorry.
<quitely slips out>
gustavratzenhofer wrote:Always the stained dress..... always the stained dress.
The dress is red this time though, and cut for a man's frame.
Chai Tea wrote:<walks in with towel on head>
If that's all, please pull up a chair and set a spell.
And so....Bush is in on Abramoff's crimes, and is now lying about it? What's the suggestion here? Bush is a Satan worshipper? He kills poor children for fun?
All crooked roads lead to Bush.
(Hey Chai, what color toe polish do you want?)
Green Witch wrote:All crooked roads lead to Bush.
(Hey Chai, what color toe polish do you want?)
Isn't it odd that not one single thing can be proven against him formally?
Brandon9000 wrote:Green Witch wrote:All crooked roads lead to Bush.
(Hey Chai, what color toe polish do you want?)
Isn't it odd that not one single thing can be proven against him formally?
What do YOU think, Brandon?
Do YOU think that GWB ever had any meetings with him? Do you honestly think that GWB is being truthful when he says he doesn't really know the guy?
Do you think it is possible for someone with Abramoff's talent, NOT to have wheedled himself into Bush's inner circle, with or without condoms?
Lord Ellpus wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Green Witch wrote:All crooked roads lead to Bush.
(Hey Chai, what color toe polish do you want?)
Isn't it odd that not one single thing can be proven against him formally?
What do YOU think, Brandon?
Do YOU think that GWB ever had any meetings with him? Do you honestly think that GWB is being truthful when he says he doesn't really know the guy?
Do you think it is possible for someone with Abramoff's talent, NOT to have wheedled himself into Bush's inner circle, with or without condoms?
Don't you think it's strange that this president who is in league with Lucifer and boils babies alive cannot have one solitary crime proved against him?
Brandon9000 wrote:Green Witch wrote:All crooked roads lead to Bush.
(Hey Chai, what color toe polish do you want?)
Isn't it odd that not one single thing can be proven against him formally?
Was there a trial I didn't hear about?
Brandon9000 wrote:Lord Ellpus wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Green Witch wrote:All crooked roads lead to Bush.
(Hey Chai, what color toe polish do you want?)
Isn't it odd that not one single thing can be proven against him formally?
What do YOU think, Brandon?
Do YOU think that GWB ever had any meetings with him? Do you honestly think that GWB is being truthful when he says he doesn't really know the guy?
Do you think it is possible for someone with Abramoff's talent, NOT to have wheedled himself into Bush's inner circle, with or without condoms?
Don't you think it's strange that this president who is in league with Lucifer and boils babies alive cannot have one solitary crime proved against him?
The word I would use is slick, actually.
BlaiseDaley wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Green Witch wrote:All crooked roads lead to Bush.
(Hey Chai, what color toe polish do you want?)
Isn't it odd that not one single thing can be proven against him formally?
Was there a trial I didn't hear about?
That's the point. No one has been able to prove anything against him that might lead to a trial.
<Tap....tap...tap.....>
Waiting for that rare moment when Brandon actually gives an opinion, as opposed to standing there at the gates of the White House, shouting "PROVE IT!".
Brandon9000 wrote:BlaiseDaley wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Green Witch wrote:All crooked roads lead to Bush.
(Hey Chai, what color toe polish do you want?)
Isn't it odd that not one single thing can be proven against him formally?
Was there a trial I didn't hear about?
If anything could have been proven against him, there would have been. In fact, though, it is all wishful thinking by the libs. Were it not, something would have been provable, if he is so corrupt.
As I recall it wasn't until Clinton's second term that his escapades fully caught up with him.
Lord Ellpus wrote:<Tap....tap...tap.....>
Waiting for that rare moment when Brandon actually gives an opinion, as opposed to standing there at the gates of the White House, shouting "PROVE IT!".
Lordy, lordy, lordy... you're made of sterner stuff than most, Lord.
Lord Ellpus wrote:<Tap....tap...tap.....>
Waiting for that rare moment when Brandon actually gives an opinion, as opposed to standing there at the gates of the White House, shouting "PROVE IT!".
I am saying that a person who is as hideously corrupt as many libs claim Bush is would have left some evidence of some crime at some point, and that is my opinion. It is ludicrous to act as though someone is immensely corrupt when not one single crime he is accused of has ever been provable, starting with going AWOL in the National Guard.
BlaiseDaley wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:BlaiseDaley wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Green Witch wrote:All crooked roads lead to Bush.
(Hey Chai, what color toe polish do you want?)
Isn't it odd that not one single thing can be proven against him formally?
Was there a trial I didn't hear about?
If anything could have been proven against him, there would have been. In fact, though, it is all wishful thinking by the libs. Were it not, something would have been provable, if he is so corrupt.
As I recall it wasn't until Clinton's second term that his escapades fully caught up with him.
But Bush is accused of being Satan incarnate.
Brandon9000 wrote:BlaiseDaley wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:BlaiseDaley wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Green Witch wrote:All crooked roads lead to Bush.
(Hey Chai, what color toe polish do you want?)
Isn't it odd that not one single thing can be proven against him formally?
Was there a trial I didn't hear about?
If anything could have been proven against him, there would have been. In fact, though, it is all wishful thinking by the libs. Were it not, something would have been provable, if he is so corrupt.
As I recall it wasn't until Clinton's second term that his escapades fully caught up with him.
But Bush is accused of being Satan incarnate.
And the suggestion is there is some sort of time limit for when what he's done comes to light?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace