When George Met Jack
January 22, 2006 12:42 PM   Subscribe

When George Met Jack As details poured out about the illegal and unseemly activities of Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, White House officials sought to portray the scandal as a Capitol Hill affair with little relevance to them..."The President does not know him, nor does the President recall ever meeting him," McClellan said....The President's memory may soon be unhappily refreshed. TIME has seen five photographs of Abramoff and the President that suggest a level of contact between them that Bush's aides have downplayed.
posted by Postroad (42 comments total)
who has the photos? if they are in the whitehouse... they are public property - not whitehouse property. cough 'em up.
posted by specialk420 at 12:56 PM on January 22, 2006

Yeah, kinda lame that an article about some photos doesn't actually deliver the goods.
posted by mathowie at 1:39 PM on January 22, 2006

let's see 'em
posted by caddis at 1:45 PM on January 22, 2006

Well, when those photos do show up, you can be sure they will be good photos. With lots of man on boy action, hot, sexy midgets and dogs in people clothing. . .
posted by mk1gti at 1:46 PM on January 22, 2006

This will surely be the scandal that brings down this administration.
posted by S.C. at 1:49 PM on January 22, 2006

Jackie is doing a heck of a job.
posted by tapeguy at 1:50 PM on January 22, 2006

S.C., all it took was a blowjob to get Clinton impeached. Maybe it will be a small lie that brings Bush down, rather than the enormous whoppers he's famous for.
posted by Malor at 1:54 PM on January 22, 2006

Malor: I wish I had your optimism.
posted by S.C. at 1:55 PM on January 22, 2006

Quite frankly God descending from the heavens and throwing lightening bolts at the White House while appearing on FOX news and christian broadcasting stations simultaneously and denouncing him as the spawn of Satan would not be enough to bring down this guy.
posted by mk1gti at 1:58 PM on January 22, 2006

mk1gti: I wish I had your optimism
posted by arialblack at 2:01 PM on January 22, 2006

What, that God will stop by and have a little chat or that sexy midgets will be revealed on the White House lawn and confess all?
posted by mk1gti at 2:07 PM on January 22, 2006

mk1gti, I wish that would fucking happen already. God used to be so into smiting people and getting himself on TV wrecking shit up good. But these last few (thousand) years, he's really been pretty hands off...
posted by zpousman at 2:08 PM on January 22, 2006

Wait, I thought he just smited (smote? smit?) Ariel Sharon.
posted by scody at 2:11 PM on January 22, 2006

Yeah God, are you out there, it's me mk1gti. . .
posted by mk1gti at 2:12 PM on January 22, 2006

Malor: I wish I had your optimism.

and questionable recollection of recent history...
posted by shmegegge at 2:20 PM on January 22, 2006

More claims, still no photos
posted by rxrfrx at 2:22 PM on January 22, 2006

Wait, I think i've seen the photos in question...
posted by tpl1212 at 2:38 PM on January 22, 2006

Paris Hilton doesn't remember her friends' names either.
posted by keli at 3:07 PM on January 22, 2006

If you know a better way to exchange long protein strands, I'd like to hear it.
posted by picea at 3:36 PM on January 22, 2006

I think it is reasonable to say that when an organization as big and reputable as Time Mag goes on the line and asserts it has seen the photos,then they are to be believed, and that the implication is that some tabloid will pay a heft price to buy the photos and sell them. If some blogger or tabloid paper claimed to have seen such photos, I would not have posted or thought much of it. Time Magazine is hardly a bastion of Left or Right-wing articles.
posted by Postroad at 3:54 PM on January 22, 2006

Countdown to challenge of Time Mag's "fairness" by an ideologue who believes that the only Fair medium is a Pro-Bush medium in five... four... three...
posted by wendell at 4:02 PM on January 22, 2006

You can't trust Time. Buncha liberals.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:04 PM on January 22, 2006

I don't understand why people keep holding onto this silly and naive notion that this administration can be brought down.
posted by nightchrome at 4:13 PM on January 22, 2006

In related news, Deborah Howell (WaPo ombudsman) had this to say re: the Republicans and Abramoff.

(FYI, Howell was taken to task by hundreds of readers when she said that the Abramoff scandal was a bipartisan one--that Abramoff had given money to Democrats as well, which was a lie.)

The only thing I can say nice about Bush is that he's probably had his picture taken with lots of douchebags. Of course, Clinton did too, and I'll happily await the Republicans apologizing for the way they treated him for photo-ops that couldn't be avoided. Right Bushco apologists? Right?
posted by bardic at 4:27 PM on January 22, 2006

Fck the Bush/Abrramoff photos, I want the racy photos of Jeff Gannon/Guckert during his late night visits to the White House. :-)
Has everyone heard about Abramoff's DC "hospitality house" yet? Yup, eat a free dinner at Signatures, get a discreet mistress at the Watergate. It's all good but shush, the media might report it. NOT!!

[off the tracks]
Was it Scotty?
Was it Georgie?
Inquiring minds want to know who loves Jimmy/Jeffie inside the White House.
Wonkette is really missing the best stuff in DC.
And speaking of Wonkette, did we ever find out who the esteemed GOP Senator was who liked it anal with his intern? Her new book doesn't say but dammit someone has to know who she worked for!!
Rumor is that David Drier knows first hand about Gannon ... err ... gave word of mouth ... wait ... maybe it was bareback Sullivan instead, no, no, man on dog Santorum it was!
Or maybe Mr. "my first girlfriend was a mule?"
Anyways there are multiple juicy sex stories around the GOP White House and the humping hill.
But Bill Clinton got a bj so who cares about kinky GOP sex?
Or outright criminal enterprises for that matter.
If it ain't the Big Dog, it ain't news!
posted by nofundy at 4:49 PM on January 22, 2006

Yeah, they're stacked right next to the pentagon photos.
posted by furtive at 4:54 PM on January 22, 2006

It's not Bush, it's Delay!

posted by ericb at 5:07 PM on January 22, 2006

nofundy, re the Gannon/Guckert photos, ever since I found out about this and 'the pretzel incident' I've wondered about how Guckert's advertised himself as a 'rough top' on his male prostitution website.
So if Jeff Gannon's a 'rough top' what does that make those who are under him? Inquiring minds want to know. And they want the photos, dammit! With sexy midgets!
posted by mk1gti at 5:17 PM on January 22, 2006

If Abram helped jack you off, would you help Jack Abramoff?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:29 PM on January 22, 2006


I've got to think about that one. . . Real hard. . . Perhaps if we could just talk about this . . .
posted by mk1gti at 6:51 PM on January 22, 2006

Tom Delay looks so soft and vulnerable in that picture, Abramoff like such a. . . top.

Perhaps if Tom was just to give in, let himself go, accept his fate, perhaps this would cause Jack to accept him and treat him as an equal. Both of them running naked through the fields together, hand in hand. . .
posted by mk1gti at 7:06 PM on January 22, 2006

*masturbates imperiously*
posted by spiderwire at 7:35 PM on January 22, 2006

why haven't the photos been released? are they waiting for monday, not wanting to drop the bomb on a friday? what would delay the relase of these photos?
posted by willns at 8:04 PM on January 22, 2006

What an odd story. "OMG, we saw pictures! Five pictures!" But then it continues:
"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."

That's not exactly a smoking gun, is it?
posted by Cassford at 8:08 PM on January 22, 2006

Is it me, or wasn't Jack on the 2000 Bush transition team?
posted by whozyerdaddy at 8:47 PM on January 22, 2006


That's not the Jack Abramoff you're looking for. Move along. move along.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 9:30 PM on January 22, 2006

this is one of my favorite comments in metafilter history.
posted by shmegegge at 9:42 PM on January 22, 2006

That's not exactly a smoking gun, is it?

Yeah, they're walking a fine line. They reporting on the photos that will be big news when they're released. But Time is reputable enough that they know they're not actually news.
posted by smackfu at 8:25 AM on January 23, 2006

That's not exactly a smoking gun, is it?

Jan Frel hit it well: Must... see... scandal porn
posted by mrgrimm at 5:07 PM on January 24, 2006

Mr. Abramoff's Meetings
"It's undisputed that Mr. Abramoff tried to use his influence, and his restaurant and his skyboxes and his chartered jets, to sway lawmakers and their staffs. Information uncovered by Mr. Bush's own Justice Department shows that Mr. Abramoff tried to do the same inside the executive branch.

Under these circumstances, asking about Mr. Abramoff's White House meetings is no mere exercise in reportorial curiosity but a legitimate inquiry about what an admitted felon might have been seeking at the highest levels of government. Whatever White House officials did or didn't do, there is every reason to believe that Mr. Abramoff was up to no good and therefore every reason the public ought to know with whom he was meeting."

[Washington Post | January 25, 2006]
posted by ericb at 11:08 AM on January 25, 2006

« Older Racing a clockwork orange   |   Clay Cops Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments