Posted on 07/23/2002 6:53:22 PM PDT by rdavis84
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:08:00 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
You nor any of the others are going to convince the majority of folks that "there's nothing there" by running the issue around in circles. So, it'll keep up, you'll lose big time in the coming elections, and then you'll be trying to displace the new crooks and scum in office (otherwise know as Democrats).
Q Can I ask one more question? The President's accountant said yesterday that a Texas bank freed up $130,000 -- 130,000 shares of Harken stock that were being pledged for the loan the President took out for the Texas Rangers. Do you happen to know what the President did to get the collateral free?
MR. FLEISCHER: No, Ron, I'm not the President's accountant.
The Road to Perdition
"The president's self-contradictory defense of his past is to say he was "fully vetted" by the S.E.C. even though he still hasn't "figured it out completely" himself. But the S.E.C. never interviewed Mr. Bush during its investigation. The agency was then run by an appointee of his father, Richard Breeden, who recused himself from the case. Last Sunday, Mr. Breeden turned up on Fox News as a George W. defender. Yet when Tony Snow asked him twice if he could give the president "a clean bill of health, yes or no," Mr. Breeden pleaded ignorance and ducked. Perhaps that's why the White House has not asked the S.E.C. to release its Harken papers, even though Harvey Pitt last weekend said he would if it did. The president has also told the press that "you need to look back on the director's minutes" to answer questions about Harken — and then refused to provide those minutes or to instruct Harken to release them either. But yesterday Mr. Lewis's organization posted a pile of them at www.publicintegrity.org, and says that more documents are yet to come."
A tip - people who are interested in the truth don't call him Bush Jr. He isn't a jr. It's a small thing but a telling one.
Now if there's overwhelming information, I have missed it. I have seen hints and innuendo like what you've posted here, but I've missed anything like overwhelming information. There's also been a complete investigation which turned up nothing. You may call that a technicality, but that won't wash when you use the lack of an indictment as proof that Bill Clinton never did anything wrong in Whitewater. It's either one or the other (except for a liberal).
But I have a different question for you. There has been an allegation of wrongdoing in W.'s sale of Harken stock. Because of that reasonable allegation there was an SEC investigation. The issue has been reviewed in at least two election campaigns since then, and each time it was taken seriously. A serious allegation raised meant a serious allegation investigated, which is how it should be.
Given this, why do you suppose the very serious and very credible allegation that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Brodderick was swept under the table as "something that may have happened a long time ago so it doesn't matter now?" W. was even pressed about his cocaine use when nobody ever alleged he did cocaine, at least that I heard. But the Clinton rape was ignored. While you're out here on FR whining about a double standard, do you have any explanation for that?
Shalom.
Very telling on you. Over the past few years there have been very numerous posts that explained that before the campaign all of the family intimates/friends, close associates, called him "Jr."
He asked that they stop for appearance considerations.
And considering the negatives left over from his daddy's reign in the WH, he needed some distancing.
Of course many are seeing that he truly is "his father's son" in the worst aspects, so I guess the name has become a sensitive issue again.
How's about we call him "Mini-Me" after his daddy instead? :-)
BTW, the American Spectator covered this in great detail in about '97.
Yeah, I saw that Mini-me cartoon yesterday and I thought it was pretty funny.
Now, about that rapist...
Shalom.
Clinton has rendered himself to be a pathetic Joke. All that remains is for him to try his Rapist routine again and on the wrong person. Somebody like Lorena Bobbitt. :-)
Or one that's married to a good ol' boy...............
Correct.
As at CPAC (particularly last year), conservatives interested in the truth called him "Bush II" and his father "Bush I".
That's not quite correct either but it seemed to satisfy their sense of continuity or "picking up where they left off" which, as a bonus, allowed them to argue in favor of Bush II's wrapping up Bush I's unfinished business in places like Iraq.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.