Shrub/Abramoff photos doesn't seem like such a big deal to me.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

Let me explain where I'm coming from. I think the essential facts of the scandal aren't changed substantially by publishing some shrub photos with Abramoff. Bottom line, Abramoff is a criminal sleaze and fraud who was an integral player in the Repub money machine, completely in bed with DeLay and by extension shrubco. I have no doubt he was a direct player with shrubco also, these guys aren't that clever or careful, they're just ruthless.

I don't doubt for a moment that shrub probably knows every Ranger and Pioneer pretty well, also, and no doubt has photos with all of them. I'm sure a guy like Jack, who was such a key player and instrumental in funneling so much money the GOP's way was much better known to all of shrubco than most of the other Rangers and Pioneers.

The way I see it, when such photos are found and published, it is of small political usefulness to us. The only signficance really is that it's yet another lie shrubco and Scotty would be exposed for. I don't think it changes the important facts of the case, it's just a cherry on top.

I find the recent articles I see describing the existence of photos, but ones that haven't been published, to be a bit fishy to me. It just has a bit of the smell of some Rovian 60 minutes memogate distraction thing, i.e. if they can "poison the well" with some fake photos or whatever and their RW dingbats can then say, "see how the media was wrong" without ever considering the actual implications of all the undisputable facts about the Abramoff case, when the whole issue of photos is not really that big a thing in the first place.

It's just my cynicism coming through. I don't know if I successfully explained my position at all.

[Catch22Dem]

1. Yeah, I've never seen it as a big deal either

But pictures of criminals w/ criminals can't hurt. I agree...cherry on top.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

5. But my point is, if Dems and media make a big to-do over photos that

no one has seen, and could be of dubious origin, it could set the stage for some crappy "photo gate" distraction.

Don't get me wrong... I think the Rovian tricks still work but they can only get so much mileage since Katrina, people are really starting to see these clowns for what they are, and no amount of "planting a bug in your own office and announcing it to the media" type of stunts can erase the fact of one of America's great cities drowned in a sea of uncaring incompetence... But these stunts do create media noise and buy them a little time and cover though...

[Tom Joad]

2. The photo shows Bush hugging Jack at a White House function,

Jack is wearing a weird beret.

Is that an impeachable offense?

[zippy890]

23. LOL - this IS getting fun

weird beret + hugging just might be the final straw -

can't wait to see it

:rofl:

[leftstreet]

3. Agree. Lying us into Iraq should be the big story.

Lying about knowing Abramoff - who cares.

[Brundle_Fly]

4. if we had not passed...

throught the looking glass so long ago it would be a big deal.

but lies are okay, and a lack of memory is a standard in the GOP for anything that sticks a taints on them.

Imagine if we found 5 photos of Clinton with monica, let alone a signed by the president image.

this world is twisted, and it is saddening.

I plan to put as much anger as I can muster into the mix upon the photo's publication.

[quinnox]

6. me neither

Maybe it will have some symbolic value if nothing else but I'm not holding my breath.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

8. I can see where it would be useful in campaign ads, even though shrub will

not be running in 06 or 08, since shrub IS the Repub Party now (the situation they have embraced), it would have some campaign ad value.

[Fridays Child]

7. For the vast majority, pictures, soundbites, and headlines...

...constitute the news. B*shco knows this and understands how damning pictures can be.

[sandnsea]

9. Bush transition team

Abramoff was named to the Bush transition team for the Interior Department which regulates the Indian casinos. Between pioneer status, the transition team, and the photos, there's enough to start asking questions. I believe there's also meetings between Bush and tribal leaders. What did Abramoff's campaign donations buy from Bush?

[0rganism]

12. All it would take is a handful of forged documents to kill the questions

MM has a very good point about that.

[sandnsea]

15. So do nothing?

Not everything is going to end up being a Rather set up. Besides, I was answering why the pictures are important and they're important because they provide a visual setup to the real story, and the real story of the pioneer donations and the transition team are well documented.

[0rganism]

24. No, just don't base anything substantial on those pictures

Like you say, "the real story of the pioneer donations and the transition team are well documented." Well then, we don't need extra photographs. If there's anything indictable or tainted regarding the Abramoff presence at the whitehouse, it will come out in the legal discovery.

Remember how the "Rather set up" unfolded. The story behind those memos was real, the contents were accurate, and the presentation not only destroyed the careers of several TV journalists but also discredited all critics of bush's ANG desertion.

I agree that not everything is like this, but some things are. Ask yourself, if you were Karl Rove, why wouldn't you do the same thing now?

[0rganism]

10. Even a handful of faked photos would be a disaster for truth-seekers

Just look at how the press was used by Rove in the 2004 campaign, to first produce accurate documents of questionable authenticity, then tear them down and by extension their contents.

Scenario: shrub says he didn't have anything to do with Abramoff. Investigative journalist finds a dozen or so photos of Abramoff and shrub, partying together, talking with Delay over dinner, and publishes them along with a scathing expose' of bushco corruption. Problem is, they're all discernable forgeries, but he didn't look closely enough. Then... blammo. Suddenly, it all comes down, and the public is told by the corporate media that because those pictures were fake, it proves that shrub didn't know Abramoff, let alone work with him. And because the public is incapable of understanding the difference between valid reasoning and false syllogism, it becomes a widely-accepted exoneration of shrub's ethics. All critics are instantly discredited, regardless of source material, which is suddenly all deemed fictitious.

Too bad for us, Bill Clinton didn't think of doing this before he signed off on media deregulation.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

11. Yes, you understand the Rove "poisoning the well" method so commonly

used... I also call this "increasing the noise to signal ratio".

[0rganism]

13. It's been a remarkably effective tactic

I have to admit, I hadn't thought that they might apply that strategy to the Abramoff problem until reading your post.

Now that you raise the possibility, I suddenly find myself wanting people here to settle down a bit and wait for the prosecutor to finish handing out the indictments...

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

14. Seriously. Why talk about photos and not publish them? Very fishy to me.

[0rganism]

25. Same thing with those documents the WP claims to have, IMHO

Their ombudswoman and others from the Post are saying they have records which implicate Democrats in the scandal, but they aren't publishing. Why not? What are they waiting for? Is it leverage? Are they afraid of tainting the jury pools? Maybe they're just not checking out in the vetting process.

Yeah, something's definitely up. Some things are not as they seem.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. If those pictures exist

They prove dubya is a liar. That's why they are important.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

17. Yes but what do you think about news stories being published about

pics no one can see?

I feel, if you have access to the pics, publish them. If you don't, then keep quiet about it while you work a deal or dig further.

To trumpet this without pictures is asking for a setup.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. I agree

It reminds me of Rathergate.

[Erika]

19. The Bush WH said there were no ties. They are the liars.

Abramoff and every $100,000 donor was given special access to W. Why are you trying to put this back on the dems? W lied, not the dems.

[MoJoWorkin]

21. Bingo!!! Once again, the proof is in, W is a liar ----

Not that it seems to make any difference. The media ONLY care about Clinton lying about a private sexual encounter. Bushyboy can lie about getting us into war and killing so many innocents, destroying a whole county, squandering billions of dollars, leaving the poor and black in NOLA to die, the list goes on and on.

If a lie about NOT "knowing" Jack------off will tip the scales, then "bring it on."
Not that I think it will, but maybe the cumulative effect will awaken the sheeple.
I am sure that is wishful thinking.:banghead: :shrug:

[fujiyama]

20. Yeah, people won't care

After all, Abramoff didn't give him a blow job! (as far as we know).

Is there any video of them together? I somehow doubt the corporate media will play it like they did with that Clinton and Monica Lewinsky video where they were hugging.

[Libby2]

22. I agree.

But I would love to see the pictures of them together.
You know, like the millions of times they posted the Clinton/Lewinsky pictures.