General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: G. W. Bush--Innocent of the Theft of the Presidency? [View all]Cliff Arnebeck
(305 posts)Scandal is written with the advice and assistance of a Washington insider. I think it is saying that Bush was not in on the illegal stuff. A friend of mine who was at Andover and Yale with G.W. Bush described him as not being intellectually curious--in either place. The criminal stuff in regard to both the 2000 and 2004 elections could have been going on in Bush's campaign, under the direction of Rove, without Bush's knowledge or involvement.
As long as we blame Bush, Rove gets away with it and retains the ability to try and try again and again. That's why I think we need to get to the bottom of these major election thefts--including what I think was the biggest of all in terms of the number of elections affected--the 2010 election cycle. The fact that Bush fired Rove in 2007 and unleashed two special counsel to undertake criminal investigations of him is the precedent Obama can cite for his pursuing Rove's criminality as not being an attack upon either his predecessor's administration or his opposition political party. Rove should be a target--he must be a target--if we want to put a stop to serial election theft in the United States of America.