Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 11, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

GEORGE AND JACK....Here it is! Finally! The long awaited picture of George Bush and Jack Abramoff in the same room. You can just feel the tension, can't you?

The New York Times reports that it got the photo from Raul Garza of the Kickapoo tribe of southwest Texas, the guy shaking hands with Bush. It's in black and white because Garza insisted "without explanation" that it run that way. As for what Abramoff was doing there, everybody involved claims to be clueless:

Mr. McClellan said that Mr. Abramoff's name had not appeared on the invitation list of the May 2001 meeting and that it was unclear how the lobbyist had entered the White House grounds.

....It is not clear how Mr. Abramoff might have gotten Mr. Garza included in the president's meeting. White House records show the meeting was also attended by Grover Norquist, a friend of Mr. Abramoff's who is a leading conservative strategist and president of the group Americans for Tax Reform, which was helping to rally support for Mr. Bush's tax cuts, the issue that was the reason for the meeting.

So apparently Abramoff had no trouble waltzing into the White House whether he was invited or not. It's almost like he was a regular visitor or something.

UPDATE: Time has the picture in glorious color here.

Kevin Drum 3:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (82)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Mr. McClellan said that Mr. Abramoff's name had not appeared on the invitation list of the May 2001 meeting and that it was unclear how the lobbyist had entered the White House grounds.

Couldn't he have just used his key?

Posted by: shortstop on February 11, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you had to know how lame this was the second you hit the "post" button. You forgot the little circle around Abramoff's head so he wasn't totally lost in the background.

Brings to mind the ridiculous issue that some Republicans were trying to make of a shot of Jane Fonda with a tiny blurry Kerry sitting about thirty seats away.

As someone who works graphics for a living, I can think of one good reason such a photo would need to be published only in black-and-white. But that's just speculation. Would like to know if it was provided in black-and-white to the paper.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 11, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps Mr. Abramoff came in as a guest of Jeff Gannon, who had a lot of access to the White House during that time. That would explain why his name wasn't on the list -- the invitation just said "Jeff Gannon and Guest".

Posted by: Emily on February 11, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Tbrosz: I didn't forget. You just read the post too fast!

And apparently you missed the attempt at humor in the first paragraph of the post. My fault, I suppose.

But hey -- speculate away on the black and white issue. If you can't speculate idly in a comment on a blog, where can you speculate idly?

Posted by: Kevin Drum on February 11, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking as somebody who'd very much like to see a photo of Jack and George embracing like long-lost brothers, this pic left me wanting. The black-and-white thing is definitely suspicious; watch that you don't get Burketted.

Posted by: Tim F on February 11, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

NYT says that Mr Garza insisted that it be published in B/W. I guess by inferrence, the photo is in color, but he wanted it circulated otherwise. Maybe he wants the only color print available for himself. (That is speculation on my part).

Posted by: jcricket on February 11, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

Tim F: The White House confirmed the photo was taken by the White House photographer. It's legit.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on February 11, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

This is about as lame as it gets!

Poor Kevin Drum and the other Bush-haters! Back to the medication, guys!

Posted by: BigRiver on February 11, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

The article says that the WH has confirmed the authenticity of the photo....so clue me in, guys: what is the speculation with publishing in B/W. This sounds interesting...really.

Posted by: jcricket on February 11, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, we need all our graphics people to weigh in on this.

Posted by: shortstop on February 11, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Oy. Maybe not the backboard-shattering slam dunk that we were hoping for, but a nice reminder that Bush occasionally, um, lies.

Posted by: Tim F on February 11, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

I'm still laughing at the picture!

"Long awaited" !!

Abramoff was so central that he is standing against the wall in the back of the room. You can barely see his head. And Bush? He is having an animated conversation with a Native American, who appears to be enjoying his meeting with the President.

"long awaited"

BWHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!

Posted by: Monkey See on February 11, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, Monkey See, this pretty much defeats the Democratic lie that they were Siamese twins.

Why, just about _anybody_ can get into the White House! I was just there last afternoon..

Posted by: neil on February 11, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

L A M E ! ! !

Posted by: ctm on February 11, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

If this was the only pic of Abramoff and Bush, THEY'D have published it.

Posted by: theAmericanist on February 11, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

The Fog of War, both deliberate and accidental, often precludes even the principals from knowing exactly where they stand at any one moment (something, incidentally, which Bush is discovering in his War). I reserve judgment entirely on this picture, which much like the "faked" Dan Rather document may serve to derail discussion on an important topic, if it is found out to be forged. The issue was not whether the document was forged, incidentally, but whether or not George W. Bush lied in his recollection of his National Guard Duty. Funny how that story went away, merely because of one forged document. Similarly, the story here is about influence and power and money, not about whether or not Abramoff was frequently in pictures with Bush!!!

Posted by: Chris on February 11, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

If you arrange for a meeting for a client in the WH, where would you stand? In the front shaking hands with the President?

In any case, the past history of this crowd is enough evidence for any sentient being that there was a strong relationship between the felon and the other person, photograph or not. They can deny it all they want, and the media will most probably buy their lies too, but the truth of the unholy alliance between Abramoff and high GOP officials cannot be altered after the fact.

Posted by: lib on February 11, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Abramoff was a regular visitor, huh? Kinda like J.D. Guckert, a.k.a. "Jeff Gannon," the famous gay newswhore.

Birds of a feather, I guess.

Posted by: RT on February 11, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Whaddya talkin' about b&w?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1158908,00.html

Posted by: jayarbee on February 11, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Oy. Maybe not the backboard-shattering slam dunk that we were hoping for, but a nice reminder that Bush occasionally, um, lies.
Posted by: Tim F on February 11, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK


Glad you opened the door on that one. At that suggestion, I would repeat his Harvard Professor Tsurumi when speaking of Bush: " "He showed pathological lying habits and was in denial when challenged on his prejudices and biases. He would even deny saying something he just said 30 seconds ago. He was famous for that. Students jumped on him; I challenged him."

http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/articles/art_thedunce.html

So yeah, the lies go back a long way, and unless it is possible for a pathological liar to be cured, I'd say anything out of the mouth of Bush is suspect. Even about his relationship with Abramoff.

Just my humble thoughts on that matter. Sorry to go slightly off topic...but only slightly.

Posted by: jcricket on February 11, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

I despise GWB as much as the next guy, but this is beyond weak. It makes an Abramoff-Bush connection look like a conspiracy theory.

Posted by: MikeS. on February 11, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the link to the color version, jayarbee.

Posted by: shortstop on February 11, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Given the following info from Kim Eisler at the Washingtonian, all arguments from absence by tbrosz and others are rendered moot:

Abramoff would tell prosecutors, if asked, that not only did he know the President, but the President knew the names of Abramoffs children and asked about them during their meetings. At one such photo session, Bush discussed the fact that both he and Abramoff were fathers of twins.

Posted by: MarkC on February 11, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Like Gannon, he had a "special" pass.

Posted by: Ben Merc on February 11, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

Y'alls are missing the point, much like republicans missed the point when they crusaded against Clinton. Of course Bush knows Abramoff. Of course he will deny it. Of course Clinton had sex. Of course he denied it. The issue is that politics in this country are all about money, power and influence of a few, at the expense of the country as a whole. The issue crosses all political spectra. This country is ripe for a political revolution, but jsut getting rid of one group only ensures the other will do the same

Posted by: Chris on February 11, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, the tell-tale sign of Democrat Derangement Syndrome: The same people who yelled 'MARC RICH' and 'WHITEWATER' at the top of their lungs are quick to play Sergeant Schultz ("I saw nothink!") at the first sign of their guy assosciating with a felon.

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on February 11, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

How's the wife today, Tbrosz?

Posted by: Judy on February 11, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

Tbrosz -- the black and white 20 pixel high head could have been photoshoped, but the splendid color 20 pixel high head is clearly authentic :)

If they had no record of him being there, I don't know why they were convinced of the fact by this photo. It could be a clean shaven Bin Laden using hair dye.

That they agree that it is Abramoff clearly indicates that they have better records or memories than they have so far admitted.

How did the Gannon secret service records become public?

Posted by: ranaaurora on February 11, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Aha! Look again! This explains the mystery lump on Bush's back!!!

Posted by: jerry on February 11, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

It wasn't Rove, it was Jack!

Posted by: jerry on February 11, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

ranaurora:

Since I wrote that first post, others have shown a link to a color picture (this one DOES have the circle), so my initial suspicion that someone may have Photoshopped a black-and-white image into a color photo was apparently groundless. Maybe Garza gave exclusive color rights to Time? Beats me.

How's the wife today, Tbrosz?

Posted by: Judy

Like to know what the meaning of that is supposed to be. Second time I've seen it, and I don't like the tone or implications.

Posted by: tbrosz on February 11, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

Oh. Tone and implication? i read the question, but merely assumed Judy knew you. Perhaps there is more to this than meets the eye. We msut investigate...oh..wait....that would be Whitewater all over again. funny how what is good for the goose often angers the gander, or vice versa.

Posted by: chris on February 11, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

Just wondering how the wife is today, Tom. Nothing more. Why on earth would you read anything into it?
I'm just a well wisher, hoping everything is ok.

Posted by: Judy on February 11, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

so they were once in the same room together, about a zillion feet apart. BFD...

Posted by: coffeequeen on February 11, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

Only a bit OT since it involves Bush's doings and their effects: Time's cover story is "Are We Losing Our Edge?" [in Science] - We've heard a lot about the politicization of science by BullshCo. Note the subtitle in Time: Nation: "The Political Science Test"

Hey - Bush's defenders often complain about the "criminalization of politics" re things like Plame. Well, maybe we should start complaining about his Administration's criminalization of science!

Posted by: Neil' on February 11, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz, it continues to bother me how you can get so agitated about Democrats-- claiming that they're "rooting for the other side" in Iraq, whereas you're balls-out in favor of mass corruption and criminality among the republican party.

Posted by: Constantine on February 11, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. Pretty lame. Good for Kevin being up-front about it. My inner conspiracy nut has all the "other" pictures much more damning--compromising positions & what not. But this...*sigh*, pretty lame.

Posted by: Stoffel on February 11, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

Sounds like tbrosz has a wandering wife.

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on February 11, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

1. The photo is probably real and there are a lot of others that will trickle out.
2. If it is real, and I suspect it is, it seems to me that the White House has no record of him being there because he wasn't required to check in. Is it possible frequent guests who everyoone knows don't have to "sign in", as it were?

Posted by: William Jensen on February 11, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

you guys seem to be missing the obvious:

THIS PICTURE WAS RELEASED TO DIMINISH THE IMPACT OF ANY FUTURE PICTURES THAT MIGHT COME OUT!!!

that's why it's so lame -- and why black and white was insisted upon (to make it even lamer)

the press will make far less deal over the *second* picture of the two together

Posted by: Ruttiger on February 11, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

Y'know, I really don't get all that excited that "Abramoff visited the WH." It really doesn't matter when, if, or how many times Abramoff visited the WH. I don't even care if he slept in the Lincoln Bedroom.

Sure, Bush lied about knowing him. Bush lies about everything. Bush and Truth are two ships that not only don't pass in the night, they're not even in the same ocean of the same planet in the same universe.

What matters is the quid pro quo. Find something Abramoff got Bush to do for his clients, or for himself, and then the connection means something. Watch the sales of US public land, the mineral and gambling rights on Indian land, the labor and environmental sections of trade agreements - stuff like that.

Meanwhile, I'll be content with Abramoff taking down every GOP legislator he's done a handwash with.

Posted by: CaseyL on February 11, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

ya know, the political viewpoint/substantiation debate is more than valid here. The personal 'wife' stuff is below the belt. Unless someone puts their personal life on the table to be dissected, i think it is beneath the quality of this site to go there.

JMHO.

Posted by: jcricket on February 11, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

CaseyL: What you said. Right on track.

Posted by: jcricket on February 11, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

"I despise GWB as much as the next guy, but this is beyond weak. It makes an Abramoff-Bush connection look like a conspiracy theory."

Really? Perhaps, but it certainly appears that George and Jack were both in on the conspiracy:

"After the 2000 election, Abramoff was named to the Bush transition team for the Interior Department, which regulates the Indian casinos that paid Abramoff his inflated fees."

http://tinyurl.com/cuunk

That might also explain how Jack was able to get an Indian tribal chief in to see his good friend George.


Posted by: Newton Minnow on February 11, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

This picture, with the 20 pixel head circled red in the far background is PRECISELY the picture the White House wants published - so that a certain class of idiots can point to it & say:

L A M E !!!

"See!! This PROVES the President didn't know Abramoff, otherwise he'd be front & center!!"

yadda

yadda

yadda

Posted by: sidewinder on February 11, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks, jcricket.

So I guess for Bush it is "Once a pathological liar, always a pathological liar."

Posted by: Bob M on February 11, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

As it's been stated here already, nobody really believes that Bush never met Abramoff. Of course they know each other. Abramoff was the most powerful Rebublican operative in Washington. The fact is that everyone who pays attention knows that Bush is a liar. Nobody cares whether they knew each other, or whether there is a picture that contradicts Bush's lie. Hell if there was a photo of them naked in bed together with a 12" Jeff Stryker dildo it wouldn't matter, uh, maybe that would throw us into a real scandle-but seriously if there was a picture of them playing golf it wouldn't matter until there was any evidence of Bush doing deals to benefit Abramoff. I'm sure they are trying to jam that evidence down the memory hole right now.

Posted by: virgil on February 11, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

"This picture, with the 20 pixel head circled red in the far background is PRECISELY the picture the White House wants published - so that a certain class of idiots can point to it & say:

L A M E !!!"

Exactly. And when the rest of them come out they too will be deemed lame unless they show full penetration.

And if it's by Bush, he will be hailed for his firmness.

Posted by: Newton Minnow on February 11, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

I feel like Jack is probably the Top in this relationship. This could all tie up the mystery of the lump on Bush's back though.

Posted by: virgil on February 11, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

Bob,
To understand how this would not be the case today, we would have to have expertise in the treatment of mental/psychological pathologies. Perhaps you are so ...fortunate--- alas, I am not. However, what I do recall of the Bush history is that he never has had the benefit of any treatment (the reports are that he 'quit drinking' on his own). Having not been subjected to the stigmatization of being a mental case aka being under the care of "help", how could he possibly understand the depth of his inability to integrate with the truth?

I realize that your response might have been a bit tongue in cheek, or simply an affirmative nod; however, I am so bothered by the fact that we have a mental case at the helm, that I can't stand it.

Posted by: jcricket on February 11, 2006 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

It's beyond the pale to mention someone's wife, family, or other personal circumstances that they choose to keep personal on this site. If you want to ask after someone's family, why not try emailing them?

Posted by: Stefan on February 11, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING!!!!

How can the NYTimes say "It is not clear how Mr. Abramoff might have gotten Mr. Garza included in the president's meeting" when the Abramoff docs released by the Senate show that Norquist was selling entry through Abramoff for $25,000 donations to Americans for Tax Reform!!

Posted by: jfxgillis on February 11, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK
When asked about Abramoff, who raised more than $100,000 for the Bush re-election campaign, the president said, "I don't know him."

"The guy saw me in almost a dozen settings and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids." Abramoff wrote in an e-mail. "Perhaps he has forgotten everything, who knows?"


Posted by: Windhorse on February 11, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

"The guy saw me in almost a dozen settings and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids." Abramoff wrote in an e-mail. "Perhaps he has forgotten everything, who knows?"
Posted by: Windhorse on February 11, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINK

Bush Forgetting??? Behind Door #2!!" How about....

P-A-T-H-O-L-O-G-I-C-A-L

L-I-A-R


Lifetime themes running through every story....every newsclip......every talking heads show......

Posted by: jcricket on February 11, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

"The guy saw me in almost a dozen settings and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids." Abramoff wrote in an e-mail. "Perhaps he has forgotten everything, who knows?"

Hey, years of massive cocaine and alcohol abuse must have done a number on Bush's short- and long-term memory....

Posted by: Stefan on February 11, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

Count me among those who think this "How's the wife" person is really creepy. Knock it off.

Normally, I'd agree with people who say that this photo looks so inconsequential as to backfire. However, a lot has changed since the Rather memo incident, and I don't believe people are as willing to dismiss this stuff as petty partisanship now. Bush's record is one of lies compounding lies, and he is not getting high marks in the polls for his honesty, from former supporters as well as opponents.

So this may have the effect of simply solidifying the growing public opinion that Fibber McGee-Golly is not to be trusted any time his mouth is moving.

I do enjoy the constantly moving troll goalposts, though. From staunchly asserting that no one would go down in Plamegate, DeLay would continue to rule the world and Bush is a model of probity, they're now playing the, "Well, it's not as bad as you said it was going to be!" game. Nice standards, peeps.

Posted by: shortstop on February 11, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

"Poor Kevin Drum and the other Bush-haters!"

Yes, without us, things would be going soooo perfectly for the prez.

Posted by: Kenji on February 11, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

Black Buffalo meet White Weasel - Sly Fox in background - More news at 11.

Posted by: stupid git on February 11, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK


I despise GWB as much as the next guy, but this is beyond weak. It makes an Abramoff-Bush connection look like a conspiracy theory.

Does this make the theory any stronger?

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7952/484/1600/NeverMetHim.3.jpg


Posted by: jayarbee on February 11, 2006 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK

And Abramoff is so annoyed that Bush keeps denying him that he sent an email to a Washingtonian Magazine reporter saying that Bush had a great memory and that he'd seen Abramoff "in almost a dozen settings, and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids."

Posted by: LaPopessa on February 11, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

Well, how can the Secret Service be responsible for keeping track of everyone in a small room???

They had to count over 21 Representatives, Black Buffalo and Benigno Feital of the Mariannas, as well as Norquist and Rove - Now, how many fingers and toes do they have to count and keep track? They don't have any Frank Drebins with them because of budget cuts.

Perhaps White Weasel was trying to recommend a good trial lawyer to Black Buffalo - being prescient, he should have known that BB would be federally indicted for embezzling 300 Grand from his band. Nice photo of them at BB's web site.

Geez, how were they supposed to keep track of Abramoff, just because two of his clients were having their photos snapped with the Prez? You really think they are Tommie Lee Jones and Will Smith?

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 11, 2006 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps Abramoff now no longer appears on any invite list?

Posted by: drinkof on February 11, 2006 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

perhaps the various people who say what's the big deal about this photo should remember: a.) first Mclellan said that they'd detail all of abramoff's meetings with bush, then backed away; b.) there was a scrubbing of photos that josh marhsall reported on a couple weeks ago.

so the people who made the issue of "photos" a big deal are not those of us who are (as some others noted) concerned about the power abramoff wielded and how corruptly it was used but rather those who wanted to pretend that there was no connection between bush and abramoff (just like they pretended that bush had no connection to ken lay).

Posted by: howard on February 11, 2006 at 8:53 PM | PERMALINK

I think most people expect their politicians to be corrupt.

Partisians will always excuse the behavior of their pick and then hypocritically attack the same behavior in their opponent. A good example of this from the left would be Sen. Russ Feingold who commited 50 felonies (plead guilty to one count) in the 1998 election.

Posted by: mark on February 11, 2006 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

Theory-schmeory.

The number-one Republican lobbyist of this era and number-one Republican tool -- we need photos to put them together? And their best defense is: "bet you can't prove it". Yeah, and Hitler never met Himmler, either. He was just some chicken farmer who liked killing Jews.

Posted by: Kenji on February 11, 2006 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

Onbe of those times: I gotta agree with tbrosz - and I'm no fan of Bush. Unless a more compelling photo comes out - this is certainly the equivilent of Kerry sitting 6 rows behind Fonda.

And Tbro ain't rerrring to the photoshopped pic of Kerry, but the real one I allude to above.

But hey - maybe the reason they released this one is precisely because it's the least harmful? That would be the obvious thing to do right? Throw out some meat, however meager, and hope the dogs are satisfied with it?

Posted by: Bob on February 11, 2006 at 11:20 PM | PERMALINK

I think the real story here is always going to be the Bush people desperately trying to cover up every such photo -- next to the hype they've created about them by doing that, any actual picture is going to be anti-climatic and spun endlessly. That said, I'm sure there exist photos of them much more friendly than they are there.

Posted by: Chris O. on February 11, 2006 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

I have to say I love this line in the Time article:
"Garza, who is also known by his Indian name, Makateonenodua.com, meaning "black buffalo,"..."

(from http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1158908,00.html )

Posted by: Julie on February 11, 2006 at 11:54 PM | PERMALINK

Think of the picture as a rare glimpse of the props that uphold this administration; rampant corruption to left of George Bush and an unquenchable desire for power at any price to his right. Kind of says it all.

Posted by: after the flood on February 12, 2006 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINK

See this post above for more pictures of Sly Fox & White Weasel alone in the tax payer`s mansion

Lots more to come

Thanks to stupid git & jayarbee

It is certainly possible that all those drugs did something to GWB`s "memory" but then, SO WHAT ?

The behavior is STILL criminal; to bad it wasn`t a blow job so the ReThugs would GET IT

"Proof depends on who you are. We're looking for a preponderance of evidence, and some people need more of a preponderance than other people." - John Kantner

Posted by: daCascadian on February 12, 2006 at 1:26 AM | PERMALINK

So if this was the picture... why try to hide it?

Posted by: MNPundit on February 12, 2006 at 2:38 AM | PERMALINK

笔记本电脑维修
sony笔记本维修
ibm笔记本维修
dell笔记本维修
笔记本维修
联想笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修 南京笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修-笔记本电脑维修
南京笔记本回收|南京二手笔记本
南京笔记本电脑维修
东芝TOSHIBA笔记本维修
南京租房
东海水晶网
东海水晶
联想笔记本维修
康柏笔记本维修
三星笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
南京租房
南京笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
IBM笔记本维修-南京笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本电脑维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修|笔记本电脑维修|南京万力泰科技
笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
IMB笔记本维修|南京笔记本维修
南京租房
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修|
东芝笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修|IBM笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修|笔记本电脑维修
南京笔记本维修中心
南京笔记本维修|专业维修笔记本电脑
SONY笔记本维修
笔记本维修
SONY笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本电脑维修配件|东芝笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修|TOSHIBA笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修|TOSHIBA笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修|南京万力泰
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
 南京笔记本维修欢迎你
IBM笔记本维修
笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修|TOSHIBA笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修|IBM笔记本维修|DELL笔记本维修
笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修|IBM笔记本维修|DELL笔记本维修
笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修
笔记本维修|东芝笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修
笔记本维修
SONY笔记本维修
IBM笔记本维修
笔记本维修
东芝笔记本维修
IBM笔记本维修
笔记本维修
联想笔记本维修
IBM笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修中心
IBM笔记本维修
IBM笔记本维修
IBM笔记本维修
南京租房
笔记本维修
南京笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修
笔记本维修

Posted by: 12376544 on February 12, 2006 at 5:37 AM | PERMALINK

Look, i would try and get a better photo. All that build up and this!

Please. Even by Kevin's standards this is pathetic.

Posted by: McA on February 12, 2006 at 8:37 AM | PERMALINK

I for one DO work with graphics a great deal and would like to inform the know it all rocket scientist that "black and white" is A LOT harder to pull off convincingly. PHHHBT
slack to all

Posted by: slackdaemon on February 12, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Even by Kevin's standards this is pathetic.

Nah, your entire posting history is pathetic.

This is just underwhelming. And deliberately so, to divert attention when the grip-and-grin pics finally emerge. As they will, in spite of Reflections' best attempts to purge the archives.

Posted by: ahem on February 12, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

Hay, all. Are people looking at this link? Is that Jackoff with, well, the other Jackoff?

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7952/484/1600/NeverMetHim.3.jpg

Posted by: Kenji on February 12, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, Kenji, those photos of Jackie and George pawing each other were the ones pulled by DC Republican-serving photo studio Reflections. Thanks to whomever had the good sense to cache them. Now it would be nice if the MSM could catch up.

Posted by: shortstop on February 12, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

So, why aren't we seeing these grope-and-grin pics everywhere, awready?

Sure, there's no Gap dress in sight, but you can practically see the cum stains anyway.

Posted by: Kenji on February 13, 2006 at 2:57 AM | PERMALINK

propecia cheap propecia and proscar http://pidorovtut.net/propecia/propecia_tablet.html propecia side-effects hair propecia vitamin http://pidorovtut.net/propecia/propecia_tablet.html and .... proscar or propecia propecia and pregnancy http://pidorovtut.net/propecia/propecia_online_prescription.html propecia alternative propecia canada http://pidorovtut.net/propecia/propecia_and_rogaine.html ordering propecia online propecia side effects breast http://pidorovtut.net/propecia/hair_loss_propecia.html .Thanks.

Posted by: propecia sexual dysfunction is not permanent on February 13, 2006 at 7:40 AM | PERMALINK

And isn't that Karl Rove on the far right?

I can't tell 100%. All Republicans look the same to me.

Posted by: sohei on February 13, 2006 at 9:51 AM | PERMALINK

So, the White House caught in yet another lie.

Well, it doesn't approach the level of importance as the lies about WMDs and Iraq-terrorist links, but it does show that the White House must lie every bit as much as it's denizens must breathe.

Nothing is too small to lie about.

Indeed, it has become clear that even when the truth would be a better tactic, the White House will still lie.

That's the problem when you suffer from a fundamental character flaw, as conservatives do, that makes lying a reflex.

Posted by: Advocate for God on February 13, 2006 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

shortstop >"...Now it would be nice if the MSM could catch up."

The (so called) MSM can not publish those photos

If they were to do so, can you say Copyright violation law suit (since they are "owned" by Reflections) ?

Nice game these folks are playing eah ?

"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." - Ansel Adams

Posted by: daCascadian on February 13, 2006 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly