Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Tall_Texan
What was the reason given? Do you know?
38 posted on 03/04/2003 10:07:49 PM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: TLBSHOW
Mere speculation here:

Bush publicly wanted a "new tone in Washington" where he was going to try to get along with the Democrats and not be at each others' throats (you can see how well this played with his opponents). In the beginning, I think Bush really thought he could win them over, just as he did many Democrats in Texas.

Secondly, and more practically, Bush won the office by the thinnest of margins and any attempt to start out by "getting" a Democrat would have immediately been savaged as more partisan politics, etc. Bush decided he wouldn't be able to win any of his own fights if he was still fighting the battles over the previous administration.

Remember how they stayed mum about the trashing of the White House when the Clintons left? It was only when the Democrats accused them of lying about it that they brought out just enough evidence to get the Democrats to shut up about it.

It's obvious to me that Bush had decided to sweep all the Clinton crimes under the rug so it makes sense that he instructed his Attorney General, who had just survived a nasty and hateful confirmation process of his own, to sit on anything about the Clintons that came up.

Do some searches around here and I'm sure you'll dig up stories that support my opinion.
43 posted on 03/04/2003 10:23:54 PM PST by Tall_Texan (Where liberals lead, misery follows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson