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.
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.