Well .. if rude and arrogant is your method of communicating .. you're on the wrong website. To come on this website and after reading all the information available to you here and you can still ask such an ignorant question .. then you're not a conservative and I have no idea why you're here except to launch your bombs at Bush.
Your question had no substance! Before Bush could cover up any "malfeasance by Clinton" - he would first have to know about it - and as Gov of Texas - I doubt he knew any more than we did. And .. after becoming President, why would Bush want to keep Clinton's face on the TV by brining up all that garbage .. Bush wanted to start with HIS own agenda, not continue with the Clinton stuff.
Bush did not become President so he could act like the Police Commissioner and go after Clinton. To assume that is the primary goal for Bush is just ignorant!!
Rude and arrogant was only what I responded to being treated as I was by you. If that is not what you intended, then I apologize.
Second, I am fully behind the President, have been and need not prove my crednentials here.
Third, if President Bush did not want to keep Clinton in the limelight, why would he appoint him a point person for Tsunami relief? Why would the President take Clinton to Pope John Paul II's funeral, knowing that space was limited? Why would his father, granted not GWB himself, continue to be seen with this guy in public. I think it is a legitimate question to raise here and discuss.
While not having to act like a police commissioner, as you say, it is inherent that the President distance himself from Clinton and clean house of the individuals who Clinton appointed. As we have seen, keeping them around has only caused the President problems in the perception of the public when these useful idiots have launched their conspiracy theories and book signings afterward.
This is important, the stronger the President appears to the public, the stronger message he projects to the people that he is the right man for this crucial time in our history (which I agree that he is), the more leeway he will have to deal with foreign policy and do the right thing abroad without dealing with the anti-war, leftists here at home who are constantly banging the drum of "it's all Bush's fault." Hence, the importance of showing the public what really happened.
Finally, why use the word ignorance again? Because I can read the same information here and come to a different conclusion than you makes me ignorant? That, my friend, is not conservative or constructive.
Different strokes for different folks. But, in the end, its us against them is what I say.