Abramoff paid to set up presidential meetings and other Republican corruption
Jack Abramoff received $1.2 million to set up a 2002 meeting between the Malaysian Prime Minister and Bush, but the strange thing is, the Malaysian Prime Minister....
Doesn't that seem a very odd arrangement, the implication obviously being that the Heritage foundation "arranged" the $1.2 million for Abramoff? I would be very curious to know which crazy right winger set this all up and why.
Also, appreciate that despite all the administration's denials of Abramoff having no contacts and influence in the White House, that when some rich right winger, who certainly knew the field of play, had $1.2 million to set up a meeting with the president, they went through Abramoff.
I want to know a whole lot more about the "two decade" Abramoff/Rove relationship.
(By the way, makes that Clinton "Lincoln bedroom" thing look not so bad, eh?)
This has gotten around a little, but Bush is scheduled to make an appearance today at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo. Funny thing, bad news disappears, when the president needs a backdrop.
Also, if you haven't seen it, somebody's gunning for Santorum on ethics charges. Not only is he being connected with an elitist private bank financing his home, but somebody's been digging into and leaking his PAC spending including expenditures at Starbucks, Target, Walmart, etc. It may be legitimate, but the story is spun so that it appears he's crooked.
It would be interesting to know the genesis of this piece. (I'm not a fan and he may be crooked, but I just find the charges of impropriety in this article are mostly insinuation. And it's getting outsized play coming from Prospect.)
"told reporters he was aware a payment was made to Abramoff, but he didn't know who made it. He said he had been persuaded by the U.S. think tank Heritage Foundation to meet with Bush at the time."
Doesn't that seem a very odd arrangement, the implication obviously being that the Heritage foundation "arranged" the $1.2 million for Abramoff? I would be very curious to know which crazy right winger set this all up and why.
Also, appreciate that despite all the administration's denials of Abramoff having no contacts and influence in the White House, that when some rich right winger, who certainly knew the field of play, had $1.2 million to set up a meeting with the president, they went through Abramoff.
I want to know a whole lot more about the "two decade" Abramoff/Rove relationship.
(By the way, makes that Clinton "Lincoln bedroom" thing look not so bad, eh?)
This has gotten around a little, but Bush is scheduled to make an appearance today at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo. Funny thing, bad news disappears, when the president needs a backdrop.
The lab, with a looming $28 million budget shortfall, had announced it was cutting its staff by 32 people, including eight researchers. But in advance of Bush's visit, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman over the weekend directed the transfer of $5 million to the private contractor that runs the lab, so the jobs can be saved.
Also, if you haven't seen it, somebody's gunning for Santorum on ethics charges. Not only is he being connected with an elitist private bank financing his home, but somebody's been digging into and leaking his PAC spending including expenditures at Starbucks, Target, Walmart, etc. It may be legitimate, but the story is spun so that it appears he's crooked.
It would be interesting to know the genesis of this piece. (I'm not a fan and he may be crooked, but I just find the charges of impropriety in this article are mostly insinuation. And it's getting outsized play coming from Prospect.)
posted by mikevotes at
8:19 AM
4 Comments:
one for you mike
this
By
Anonymous, at 8:54 AM
I read the full Santorum artical. Of course preferencial treatment isnt explicitly illegal, but when your a Senator and you get special finanicing on your house from a bank that only lends to big time investors. makes you wonder. Of course the spending by his PAC is abit suspect when compared to other PACs. He may not be a crook, but he's not an upright guy either.
By
Yukkione, at 9:28 AM
I agree completely that none of this is squeaky clean. I wouldn't doubt that, for instance, the homeloan deal was a "special favor" which deserves more scrutiny as to whether the bank has interests Santorum can impact.
But this just seemed like somebody went out to dig up dirt on Santorum and portray whatever they found in the worst light.
I'm not a Santorum fan, I would put him right up ther5e with my state's shame Sen Cornyn as Senate/ as to the who administration wingnuts I want to get out of there, but from a detached political spectator point of view, whenever I see an article like this, I get really curious as to the who, how, and why on vague no charge allegation articles like this. Mostly, they're a political opponent, but sometimes they're same party, and sometimes they're a payoff for an earlier leak to the reporter or organization.
Usually the payoffs are puff pieces, like that one recently in the WaPo about Bob Barr's independence from the administration after apparently sourced an article on the closed door CPAC conference.
I just find this sort of inside the beltway tit for tat interesting and when I see something suspect, I keep my eyes open for the other half. So, Prospect/this reporter did somebody a favor, what did that somebody do to earn it?
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:45 AM
And, anonymous,
I saw that in a different version, but I don't really know what to make of it. It's not the first time this has been done, in 2002, large amounts of long time public scientific data, biotech, nuclear, even some computer and electronics info was reclassified after, in some cases 40 years in public record. Somewhat obvious motives, but pretty useless as the data is already spread pretty widely.
The interesting thing about this one is that it apparently largely references oooollllddd intel operations. Things that could not possibly have a direct bearing on today's world, unless they have started to reach back to reuse methods, Iran '54, Guatemala in the fifties, United Fruit, etc.
It is quite strange, but I don't really see what they're trying to hide.
Mike
By
mikevotes, at 9:51 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home