Why Are We Back In Iraq?

Ron... as I've pointed out numerous times already, although the document cited by Leen includes the names of three Democrats (Carnahan, Cleland, Daschle), only ONE of them received any money...that was Cleland, who got only $500 according to the FEC, and not the $2000 cited on the Leen document. But ALL of the GOP incumbents running for re-election got at least $1000, some got $2K, and Conrad Burns got $6,000 (5k for his "leadership PAC", $1K for his campaign). In other words, the document cited by Leen does not show DIRECTED contributions to Democrats. At most, its a "wish list" of some sort --- but it absolutely does not represent an effort by Abramoff to actually DIRECT contributions. and if you can't tell the difference between a "here's a bunch of people that you might want to give money to" list and a "here is a bunch of people that you NEED to give money to" list, then you really need to visit the Clue Bar for a refill.... p.lukasiak | Homepage | 01.20.06 - 12:18 am | #

Paul, speak of the devil..lol... first off...i have a ton of respect for you.. second off....you're wrong. On June 30, 2002 $5,000 was contributed by the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (as shown in the WaPo picture) to the nonfederal account of DASHPAC (link), Tom Daschle's 527 org. If you do a search for that date on that page you will see other Dems got money on that very same day from the tribe. As for Carnahan and Cleland (also listed on that WaPo excerpt)...I think there is an explanation for why those funds (except for 500 to Max) don't show up but I'm still working on proving that (I'll gladly talk about it in email with you). As for the source documents...there is at least one email on page 50 of the November 17 hearing evidence pdf which mentions Dems (though Abramoff does respond that getting money to CREE is more important)...but the majority of them haven't been publicly released yet (including the lists). Ron Brynaert | Homepage | 01.20.06 - 1:37 am | #

I copied most of that from a comment I left on a Press Think thread...but I should've added that there is information missing from the Capital Eye Website which you seem to be relying on. Ron Brynaert | Homepage | 01.20.06 - 1:39 am | #

Whoops. I guess you can't link directly to tray.com. But if you go to the main page and select "Donor Name Lookup" and enter Coushatta then select 2002 for the year you can see what I described for yourself. Ron Brynaert | Homepage | 01.20.06 - 1:43 am | #

I can not understand why what other bloggers write is so important to you. I do not know why writing, "no democrats took money from Jack", pisses you off. Did Cleland know Jack directed funds to his account? If he did, did he know about Jack's activities when he took the money? I first heard of jack on this blog, how would Cleland know anything about Jack at the time? He could not posssibly check out every source of funds. You wrote about misplaced hostility, I have been pissed at Bush for years and the cheerleading media. Why is it so important that one specific fact, that some Democrats received money from clients of Jack so important? Why should the liberal bloggers spread this? Are not the right wing bloggers and the MSM doing a good job at it? What next? What truth takes precedence over other truths? Bush pissing on the constitution is a truth that seems more urgent to me. alfdom | 01.20.06 - 4:02 am | #

I copied most of that from a comment I left on a Press Think thread...but I should've added that there is information missing from the Capital Eye Website which you seem to be relying on. thanks for the information on DASHPAC and the "tray" link, Ron. and thanx for the cite of the email. As I'm sure you are aware, it was described as a "wish list" -- and as I'm sure you are also aware, Abramoff put a great deal of pressure on the tribes to contribute to certain causes (notably, but not exclusively, CREA) that all seem to be GOP related. Maybe we will find evidence of Abramoff pressuring the tribes to contribute to Democrats --- "Directing" their contributions, rather than "suggesting" to whom they should contribute. And Ron, that is what is at issue here.... directed contributions and influence peddling. This is about Jack Abramoff, not the practices of the lobbying industry in general -- and in your effort to "bend over backwards" to be "non-partisan", you are feeding into the myth that Abramoff was "bi-partisan" in his corruption. He wasn't -- and we both know it. I'd like to hear your theory on Cleland and Carnahan.... I do know that the Cleland contribution that shows up on Open Secrets was not from the tribe itself, but from an officer of the tribe. I also saw something that suggested that the contribution to DASHPAC was used for Tim Johnson, Cleland, and Carnahan --- but that is irrelevant, insofar as there are separate listings for Cleland and Carnahan on the Coushatta site. p.lukasiak | Homepage | 01.20.06 - 8:19 am | #

I care about the truth...and the truth is being obscured, Ami, by nearly every single alist liberal blogger out there and their readers. And I believe in criticizing the press...not attacking it like a pack of angry wolves. P., My theory on Cleland and Carnahan...you're sort of on the right track...except it's another Dem PAC that I think the money went through. But I don't think I'm feeding into any myth since - as far as I know - no Democrat has done anything illegal and I'm not accusing them of that. Ron Brynaert | Homepage | 01.20.06 - 1:57 pm | #

Ron, the truth is not being obscured by A-list bloggers... the truth is that there is no evidence of any kind of quid pro quo involving democrats and Abramoff --- and every time someone says something like "Abramoff was corrupt, and gave money to both parties" they are implying that the Dems were just as crooked as the Republicans. I also think you should check out the Wampum blog post(http://wampum.wabanaki.net/vault/2006/01/ 002293.html ) that details all of the other lobbyists that worked for the "Abramoff tribes" at the same time they were employing Abramoff. The point being that these other lobbyists probably gave their Native American clients lists of politicians and PACs that supported Native American issues -- and just because a Democrat appears on a list of names compiled by Abramoff does not mean that Abramoff is responsible for the donation to the Democrat. Indeed, the Coushatta Tribe, which generated the contributions we are talking about here, employed not just Abramoff's firm in 2002, but had a much longer relationship with Johnson and Associates LLC, and paid that firm $80,000 during 2002 for services. http://sopr.senate.gov/cgi-win/o...564/ 000564080|4 Is it possible that the Coushatta donations to Democrats were "directed" not by Abramoff, by by Johnson & Associates? We don't know --- and for the Post to make it appear that the only possible source of "direction" of contributions for the Coushatta is, to say the least, disingenuous... p.lukasiak | Homepage | 01.20.06 - 6:15 pm | #

Why do I need to go to the Wampum blog when I can read the testimony of two of the tribe's leaders testifying instead? I'm not sure why you are dismissive of what they testified about or the lists they submitted to Congress (and Susan Schmidt and others at WaPo have seen those lists). I'm not sure why you are dismissive of the fact that Abramoff employed Democrat lobbyists, as well. And as for evidence of "any" quid pro quo...you're right..for now... i'm sorry...but it's hard for me to talk about stuff I'm still working on...plus the fact that I work for Raw Story so I have to withhold a lot of stuff that I can use to counter you. But as long as you acknowledge the evidence that I mentioned I have no problem if you disagree with me on the significance or if you think it's been manufactured somehow. But at least one email, testimony by two tribe spokesmen, and the partial list published in the Post are evidence that the alist bloggers have ignored and that's just plain wrong. Ron Brynaert | Homepage | 01.20.06 - 6:47 pm | #

But at least one email, testimony by two tribe spokesmen, and the partial list published in the Post are evidence that the alist bloggers have ignored and that's just plain wrong. Ron, I hope that the stuff you are "holding back" is a lot more significant than the "evidence" you say the A-listers are ignoring... because that evidence (as it concerns democrats) consists of a reference to a "wish list" in an email, "testimony" that references a list that included both the RNC and DNC (not specific democratic candidates), and a photoshopped excerpt of a "list" that "directs" $2000 each directly to the campaigns of Carnahan and Cleland -- and Carnahan's campaign got zip, and Cleland got $500. (and the "soft money" argument doesn't hold -- the list includes a reference to the Phil Crane PAC with a notation that $1000 each was supposed to go to four GOP congresscritters from the $5000 contribution made to the PAC). The information from Wampum certainly suggests the strong possibility that there were other sources of "direction" for campaign contributions besides Abramoff -- and to not explore that possibility -- and assume that Abramoff was the sole source of "direction" -- is simply bad reporting. paul lukasiak | 01.20.06 - 7:28 pm | #

I just looked at Wampum. What Wampum leaves out. Sonofsky earned 40,000 in 2002. Greenberg earned 300,000. Not sure what difference it makes whether Abramoff was lead lobbyist...He's listed as a lobbyist on Greenberg irs files along with usual suspects from his team. Ron Brynaert | Homepage | 01.20.06 - 9:55 pm | #

Richard Milanovich, chairman of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, testified that he donated to campaign committees for the House and Senate, both parties, to be precise. Ron Brynaert | Homepage | 01.20.06 - 10:01 pm | #

oh...and i guess...since i'm piling on bloggers I should add that that Washington Post graphic with the totals in Indian donations absolutely sucks and is worth criticizing. But from 1999 to before Greenberg took over as lobbyists the Pueblo of Sandia tribe only gave $5,500 in donations, according to fecinfo.com (but I'm not sure where WaPo got their total from since I come up with a different figure). Ron Brynaert | Homepage | 01.20.06 - 10:20 pm | #

Ron.... The idea that one firm was the "lead lobbyist" and others followed their lead is erroneous. Different lobbying firms often specialize in different aspects of the law and/or Federal bureaucracy, so an Native American tribe might hire one firm to deal with environmental issues on tribal lands, and a second lobbying firm to deal with gambling issues. One of the problems with the way that Native American tribes are being portrayed is the idea that their ONLY interests were their casinos --- because that's what Abramoff was lobbying about. That is COMPLETE bullshit --- and you are doing it here as well with your "lead lobbyist" nonsense. Abramoff may have been "lead lobbyist" on gambling issues --- but Native Americans tribes aren't a Las Vegas crime family running a casino, and their interests are far more varied than your EXCLUSIVE emphasis on gambling issues -- and your REFUSAL to consider other sources for "suggestions" for contributions to Democrats -- would imply. I'm not sure why you are dismissive of what they testified about or the lists they submitted to Congress (and Susan Schmidt and others at WaPo have seen those lists). I'm dismissive of it because from the one excerpt of a list that we have seen, the nature of these lists is being completely distorted when it comes to Democrats. BTW, how do you know what Steno Sue and "others at WaPo" have seen? If they have access to these lists, why haven't they published them? Or are Steno Sue "and others at WaPo" only being allowed to see what someone wants them to see? It sure as hell wouldn't be the first time that Steno Sue has transmitted GOP spin with disregarding all other relevant facts.... now would it? paul lukasiak | 01.21.06 - 10:29 am | #

Paul, You write about my "REFUSAL to consider other sources for "suggestions" for contributions to Democrats -- would imply. But that is bullshit. It's your refusal to acknoweldge that it's possible something is there. All I'm saying (and have been saying) is that it's wrong to completely disregard potentialities. I'm promoting this to post, by the way. Ron Brynaert | Homepage | 01.21.06 - 4:25 pm | #