Not even guilt by association, but guilt by physical proximity
by Jack GrantI don’t particularly care for President George W. Bush as a man or as a politician, but even I find this a bit of a reach:
White House confirms Bush-Abramoff photo
Acknowledges 2001 photograph, saying it does not imply a relationship
The photo shows a bearded man in the background that merely proves that Abramoff was within 20 yards of Bush. If that’s all that is involved in establishing a relationship, then I have a LOT more relationships than I ever thought possible!
Yes, Bush has a growing credibility problem that is not helped when he says he does not remember any photos taken with Abramoff, but this photo shows nothing other than the idiotic nature of some of the tactics used in politics today.
Technorati Tags: commentary, Abramoff
Trackback URL (right-click and choose the copy shortcut/link option)
But the man with whom Bush is shaking hands is Raul Garza, chief of the Kickapoo Indian tribe of Texas, an Abramoff client. So there is an association.
By Harry on 02.13.06 15:59
Hmmmm. If I am passing through East Nowhere and the constable writes me a ticket for traveling at 27mph in a zone having a speed limit of 25mph, does that mean I have an association with the mayor?
By BillT on 02.13.06 21:56
Sorry Harry, even if he shook the man’s hand in a photo it doesn’t mean he knows him or has any dealings with him.
This reminds me of the election and some photos that surfaced of John Kerry in a crowd at a rally that included Jane Fonda. While I’m not a Kerry fan and dislike the man intensely, I can’t see how being at a rally attended by a large number of people, makes him intimate friends with Fonda…
Now, in either case, if it had been a picture of them having dinner together and having an intimate conversation… then I think you have a case for acquaintance, not even friendship or business dealings.
Photos are funny things - they can be used to imply all manner of things that aren’t true at all.
By Teresa on 02.13.06 22:08
Hmmm, so shaking the hand of a client means that there’s a tie in to Abramahoff. But taking money from clients of Abramahoff doesn’t constitute a tie in to the man? So the loud and roudy part of the left blogosphere should issue that lady an appology because of the mean and nasty comments they left in the WaPo comments sections because there actually is a tie to Abramahoff and the Loud and Rowdy’s heroes?
Jack’s right. This doesn’t mean much of anything other than politics isn’t about doing anything other than trying to defame an opponent anymore(and that ain’t good for the Republic). It came up during the Murtha flap on the right side too(politics of destruction).
By ry on 02.14.06 19:15
I’m not saying or implying that there is anything sinister involved. I was merely commenting on the fact that it wasn’t just a random occurrence of Bush and Abramoff being in the same room at the same time, which for instance was the case with the Kerry-Fonda photo. The man shaking hands with the President was a client (actually potential client - Abramoff went with him hoping to sign him as a client) of Abramoff; they were at a meeting between state legislators and Bush. So the analogy of a traffic stop between a constable and a driver doesn’t apply at all, unless the mayor is standing there taking one side or the other.
Do I think the photo means anything other than that? No.
By Harry on 02.14.06 22:15