Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Who did you support for president in 1992? 1996?

There's no way Kramer can answer that question without looking
foolish....again.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Who did you support for president in 1992? 1996?

There's no way Kramer can answer that question without looking
foolish....again.


He's in the same boat as many that condemn Bush, and they all look mighty
foolish.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote;

He's in the same boat as many that condemn Bush, and they all look mighty
foolish.

I don't know, some who oppose Bush just have different views on certain issues,
but these far left wackos who fully supported Clinton for 8 years and defended
his actions during the Vietnam era look like fools attacking Bush on his
actions. Kramer is one of them. He voted for Clinton in '92 over Bush, a WW II
aviator and again in '96 by voting for Clinton over Bob Dole, a decorated 10th
Mountain Division soldier in Italy during WW II. Kramer doesn't care about
combat, he cares about social security and the democrats long ago convinced the
older generation that Republicans are out to steal their SS.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

He voted for Clinton in '92 over Bush, a WW II
aviator

As president, Bush 41 stumbled into an unneccesary war in the Gulf that cost @
300 US servicemen their lives. He needed to go.

What I can't figure is how many veterans of combat who post here are oblivious
to the fact that both Bush presidencies have cost us hundreds of dead service
people to no good purpose whatsoever.

The roots of this war can be traced easily back to 1990-91. And we now have
7,000 + casualties in Iraq and we are less safer here at home, we're
bankrupting ourselves, the intellgence community is in a shambles, and we've
distanced ourselves from our best allies.

Bush is the worst president ever and he has to go.

Walt

"WalterM140" wrote
He voted for Clinton in '92 over Bush, a WW II
aviator

As president, Bush 41 stumbled into an unneccesary war in the Gulf that cost @
300 US servicemen their lives. He needed to go.

What I can't figure is how many veterans of combat who post here are oblivious
to the fact that both Bush presidencies have cost us hundreds of dead service
people to no good purpose whatsoever.

The roots of this war can be traced easily back to 1990-91. And we now have
7,000 + casualties in Iraq and we are less safer here at home, we're
bankrupting ourselves, the intellgence community is in a shambles, and we've
distanced ourselves from our best allies.

Bush is the worst president ever and he has to go.

The war in Iraq has been going on since 1980. The United States has been on the
ground in that region since Iraq invaded Iran. We tried to work it diplomatically,
but the world had other interests. The United States and the United Kingdom
invaded Iraq to end the 20 plus years of war.

It is and was a necessary war. We are a fossil fuel economy, and the oil fields of
Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia will be protected until this country finds an
alternative fuel. Men and Women will die to keep the freedom and the economy
we enjoy.

As a veteran of two major wars, I can say that I support the wars we have in the
Middle East, the far East, and in South America. These wars are important, and
people die in wars. The number of dead are a fraction of those killed on the
highways, and those killed from HIV.

Bush is no worse than any other President.

From: (WalterM140)

the intellgence community is in a shambles,

Bush certainly deserves some blame for that, but the real problem set in long
ago, during the Carter administration, with the "Hallowe'en Massacre" under
Carter's CIA chief Stansfield Turner. He executed a purge of almost 3,000
intelligence officers, some 2,000 of them covert agents and paramilitary
specialists. Since then, the CIA has been gelded, involved mostly in
intelligence gathering and analysis.
We really do need a thorough examination of our intelligence services
effectiveness and then decide what we want them to do. A powerful covert
operations program in the OSS/early CIA mode (think Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy;
you know, _real_ Democrats), although anathema to the far left, might be just
what we need in the kind of war we find ourselves in today: Let the damned
terrorists and terrorist-supporting nations be afraid of _our_ terrorists, who
should be a million times better trained, equipped and supported than theirs
ever could be.
We've had an intelligence disaster brewing since Carter (actually probably from
Ford) and we really need to take a look at what we are doing. We used to be
pretty good at influencing foreign events without outright invasions, getting
rid of foreign leaders we didn't like, fomenting coups...whatever it took, from
Iran to Chile. But then we decided that was A Bad Thing. So now, the only
option we have when we want a regime change is a full-scale military invasion,
from Panama to Iraq.
We need to rethink this. That doesn't mean we should just go back to what we
did before with the CIA, et al. We made some stupid mistakes then, from Greece
to the Bay of Pigs. We know what they were and why they happened. We ought to
be able to do it better this time around. In any case, we need a wider range
of options, and greater latitude to act pre-emptively when we see a bad
situation developing.


Chris Mark

from Greece
to the Bay of Pigs. We know what they were and why they happened. We ought
to
be able to do it better this time around. In any case, we need a wider range
of options, and greater latitude to act pre-emptively when we see a bad
situation developing.


Chris Mark







Well put Chris. I agree completely.

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

What I can't figure is how many veterans of combat who post here are
oblivious
to the fact that both Bush presidencies have cost us hundreds of dead
service
people to no good purpose whatsoever.


Actually, there is far more than that that you cannot figure!

WalterM140 wrote:

...Bush 41 stumbled into an unneccesary war in the Gulf....

That's even wider of the mark than the usual newsgroup drivel. The "Gulf
War" was more necessary than the great majority of the military actions
in which the US has engaged since 1953.


...we're bankrupting ourselves....

But not because of the Iraq war, that's for sure.


...the intellgence community is in a shambles....

The Intelligence Community has _been_ in a shambles for decades. It's a
well known fact, and the problems of entrenched influence and lack of
leadership on the issue are widely recognized. It takes a big, big push
to make such changes, and that historically happens only after some
major debacle.

We've simply gotten the "leadership" we deserve.



Jack