From Yahoo News:

Although President Bush says he doesn't recall meeting convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the two have reportedly turned up in photos together.

Both Washingtonian and Time magazines have reported the existence of about a half-dozen photos showing the two together.

Time reported on its Web site Sunday that its staff members have seen at least six photos featuring Bush and Abramoff, who has pleaded guilty to federal charges stemming from his lobbying practices and has pledged to cooperate with investigators. They appeared to have been taken at White House functions, according to the reports.

The White House has acknowledged that Abramoff attended some events at the Executive Mansion, and spokeswoman Dana Perino said Sunday it's not surprising that the two would have met.

"The president has taken tens upon thousands of pictures at such events," Perino said.

Hmmmm, not exactly news since from the moment Bush denied knowing Abramoff, there have been reports of a mad scramble in the White House to do damage control, including identifying photos and, "reasons," for his numerous appearances at the White House.

Response from one of my Favorite Bush Die Hards, Rob....

This is going to get a ton of attention from the media and the left. The contributions made by Abramoff to Bush have already been the subject of much scrutiny and criticism. But before Howard Dean and his ilk begin talking about perp-walking the President out of the White House I'd like to remind everybody, once again, that it is not Abramoff's personal donations to politicians that has him in trouble. Rather, it is the contributions he directed his clients to make to politicians in return for special favors.

This is how it worked: Abramoff would approach a politician to find out if they would be willing to "play ball" for his clients. If yes, Abramoff would direct his clients to contribute the appropriate amount to the politician in question. He did not, as far as we know, route any of this money through his personal accounts or contributions to politicians. And he would be stupid to have done that. Abramoff, as a private individual, faced the same contribution limits under campaign finance law as everybody else. Once he reached those limits he could donate no more in his name. Indian tribes, however, are exempted from that law and can contribute unlimited amounts of money.

Of course, if it comes out that Bush did engaged in some quid pro quo with Abramoff for these contributions the President should have to face the music like everybody else. But that's highly unlikely. Given what we know about Abramoff's other dealings he did not arrange for political favors based on his personal contributions.

Can I call Bullshit now?

First off, no lobbyist, especially Abramoff, makes donations without some expectation. This is not to say that Bush is on par with DeLay, but it is also not to say that it was perfectly okay for Bush or any other representative to dirty their hands with this man.

Rob goes on to make the spurious claim that Abramoff directed his clients to make "hundreds of thousands of dollars," in donations to Democrats... Nice talking point, mostly bullshit.

I am not saying Bush is guilty of corruption because he had now pretty conclussively been tied to the Abramoff scandal. I am also NOT saying that there were ZERO Democrats who accepted money as part of this scandal. Whitewashing Bush involvemen, while implying broader Democratic involvement is just plain BS, and should be called as such.

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.grupo-utopia.com/blog/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1345