View Full Version : Final Days of Bush 41
It sounds like he will soon pass. He has been in the hospital for the past month with bronchitis or pneumonia and took a turn for the worse in the past couple of days. Reports now have him in intensive care and family gathering by his side. While he made his share of mistakes (such as Bush 43), I suspect that he is a decent man at heart.
Belmont31R
12-26-12, 22:39
Didn't think it was looking to good for him, either, from what I saw reported today.
Seems like people that age, once they get into a bad swing like this, rarely make it out the other side as they were before.
Yes, it sounds like this is it.
I suspect that he is a decent man at heart.
I wasn't a fan.
1989 Import Ban by EO at the request of Bob Martinez who claimed only "drug dealers" used these weapons.
Resigned NRA membership because they called ATF "jack booted thugs" following WACO.
Trashed our relationship with Iraq, the closest thing we had to a secular democracy in the Middle East, after refusing to get involved in the Kuwait / Iraq "lateral drilling" dispute and then suggested the US would not get involved in "Arab / Arab affairs" and then acted shocked when Saddam invaded Kuwait and delivered an ultimatum.
Claimed no knowledge "out of the loop" concerning Iran Contra and then revealed he was "one of the few people that know fully the details" after his election and then pardoned all who were indicted or convicted.
Had the nerve to complain that reporters were ruining his vacation when his golf game was interrupted with questions about the war.
And lastly, when MIA activists disrupted an event with chants of "tell us the truth" Bush responded insultingly with "Will you people be quiet."
What SteyrAUG said.
Especially about the Iraq business.
When people lament we have no friends in the Middle East besides Israel I always point out that we hanged the other one. Iraq was a sewer and Saddam was the manhole cover.
What he did to Ross Perot was terrible, gave us eight years of Clinton.
They did the same thing to Herman. No leaders need apply to the two party dictatorship.
I wasn't a fan.
1989 Import Ban by EO at the request of Bob Martinez who claimed only "drug dealers" used these weapons.
Resigned NRA membership because they called ATF "jack booted thugs" following WACO.
Trashed our relationship with Iraq, the closest thing we had to a secular democracy in the Middle East, after refusing to get involved in the Kuwait / Iraq "lateral drilling" dispute and then suggested the US would not get involved in "Arab / Arab affairs" and then acted shocked when Saddam invaded Kuwait and delivered an ultimatum.
Claimed no knowledge "out of the loop" concerning Iran Contra and then revealed he was "one of the few people that know fully the details" after his election and then pardoned all who were indicted or convicted.
Had the nerve to complain that reporters were ruining his vacation when his golf game was interrupted with questions about the war.
And lastly, when MIA activists disrupted an event with chants of "tell us the truth" Bush responded insultingly with "Will you people be quiet."
Which is why my endorsement was luke-warm and qualified with noting his share of mistakes.
Which is why my endorsement was luke-warm and qualified with noting his share of mistakes.
Understood.
Sadly I "should" have liked Bush 41.
Besides being a Republican he was a WWII aviator and carrier pilot which is no easy job. I respect his service, but it mostly ends there. His son was likeable enough even if a bit of a dullard.
But Bush 41 ended up being most of what I despise about politicians in general and most Presidents in particular. If I had to decide who was worse, him or Clinton I'd actually have to sit down and do the math. Clintons ban actually went away, unlike the 89 ban but we ended up with his bitch whore of a wife as a senator and then SOS.
Understood.
Sadly I "should" have liked Bush 41.
Besides being a Republican he was a WWII aviator and carrier pilot which is no easy job. I respect his service, but it mostly ends there. His son was likeable enough even if a bit of a dullard.
But Bush 41 ended up being most of what I despise about politicians in general and most Presidents in particular. If I had to decide who was worse, him or Clinton I'd actually have to sit down and do the math. Clintons ban actually went away, unlike the 89 ban but we ended up with his bitch whore of a wife as a senator and then SOS.
I agree with you on his '89 ban, the ATF/NRA debacle, Iran-Contra, and many of his "senior moments" during speeches and debates.
I'm not so hard on him for his treatment of Sadam. While the lead-up could have been handled better, I suspect that he was an itch that we were eventually going to have to scratch - one way or the other.
platoonDaddy
12-27-12, 00:07
As stated, I wasn't a fan of his presidency, but I salute him for his service to the USA.
The left wing blogs are proudly stating they wish his death. How friggin sad!
As stated, I wasn't a fan of his presidency, but I salute him for his service to the USA.
The left wing blogs are proudly stating they wish his death. How friggin sad!
That shows how they view those who aren't 100% pure international communists.
I'm not so hard on him for his treatment of Sadam. While the lead-up could have been handled better, I suspect that he was an itch that we were eventually going to have to scratch - one way or the other.
For years under Reagan we cultivated a relationship with Iraq. Make no mistake Saddam was a brutal, shitbag dictator but in the Middle East you have two choices: An Ayatolla or an Assahola
Saddam fought an almost decade long war with Iran saving us the trouble of having to deal with them. Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil, problem is they were selling it to us so cheap the last thing we were gonna do is say they were the bad guy.
We really did kind of **** Saddam over in the grand scheme of things. His war fought with Iran benefited the US greatly and that combined with low Kuwaiti oil prices (some of it stolen from Iraq) put an enormous economic hardship on his country. This was obviously compounded by Saddam living a lavish lifestyle but that is hardly unique in the Middle East.
Rather than help our "ally in the region" with any meaningful assistance or at a minimum just keep our nose out of it, we betrayed him in favor of Kuwait. And in doing so all that "cheap oil" was offset by the cost of dealing with a now belligerent Saddam who would create crisis after crisis and take us to the brink and ramped up for action and then back off.
He finally became enough of a viable threat we were forced to invade his country and remove him from power. Sadly the entire thing could have been avoidable with just a little foresight in 1990. As it stands now Iraq has a government that is viewed very much like the Shah of Iran and considered by most in the region to be a Western installed puppet. Sooner or later Iraq will probably have a government led by the Muslim brotherhood and we will wish he had Saddam back.
The left wing blogs are proudly stating they wish his death. How friggin sad!
As enemies of the United States why should they be any other way?
And I feel exactly the same about their socialist leaders, including those who may have an "R" after their name.
bondmid003
12-27-12, 01:13
As stated, I wasn't a fan of his presidency, but I salute him for his service to the USA.
The left wing blogs are proudly stating they wish his death. How friggin sad!
Link??
platoonDaddy
12-27-12, 04:41
Link?
Sample:
BertD72 @terror66613
DIE YOU BASTARD-----> Former US President Bush on liquids-only diet after fever worsens itv.co/WHgVEx
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2012/12/26/41st-president-george-h-w-bush-has-rising-fever-leftists-on-twitter-hope-he-dies/#more-42295
I wasn't a fan.
1989 Import Ban by EO at the request of Bob Martinez who claimed only "drug dealers" used these weapons.
Resigned NRA membership because they called ATF "jack booted thugs" following WACO.
Trashed our relationship with Iraq, the closest thing we had to a secular democracy in the Middle East, after refusing to get involved in the Kuwait / Iraq "lateral drilling" dispute and then suggested the US would not get involved in "Arab / Arab affairs" and then acted shocked when Saddam invaded Kuwait and delivered an ultimatum.
Claimed no knowledge "out of the loop" concerning Iran Contra and then revealed he was "one of the few people that know fully the details" after his election and then pardoned all who were indicted or convicted.
Had the nerve to complain that reporters were ruining his vacation when his golf game was interrupted with questions about the war.
And lastly, when MIA activists disrupted an event with chants of "tell us the truth" Bush responded insultingly with "Will you people be quiet."
I tend to agree. Perhaps in death, he can serve a useful purpose if his passing takes away from the gun banners face time on TV. It wouldn't fully make up for his betrayal on the 1989 inport ban, but it would be better than nothing...
He finally became enough of a viable threat we were forced to invade his country and remove him from power.
But we had to remove the WMDs! :rolleyes:
But we had to remove the WMDs! :rolleyes:
We didn't KNOW that.
We KNEW he once had chemical weapons and used them (ask the Kurds). We KNEW he had the capacity to produce them.
9-11 taught us that he didn't need a missile delivery system to employ them against the US, he simply had to provide them to any of the terrorist organizations he had known ties to.
The UN was sent in to determine what, if any, stocks of NBC type weapons Saddam still possessed and he played shell games. When it was learned that some UN inspectors were bribed by Saddam we lost confidence in any of their findings.
That left us with two options:
1. Trust that Saddam will not delivery such weapons to terrorist groups willing to use them against the US.
2. Determine the status of his weapons ourselves.
Smuckatelli
12-27-12, 11:56
Rather than help our "ally in the region" with any meaningful assistance or at a minimum just keep our nose out of it, we betrayed him in favor of Kuwait. And in doing so all that "cheap oil" was offset by the cost of dealing with a now belligerent Saddam who would create crisis after crisis and take us to the brink and ramped up for action and then back off.
Providing tanker escort, taking out Iranian goplats, providing intel and arms were all part of our cultivating Iraq. Iraq claiming that the USS Stark was inside the War Zone, firing 2 Exocet missiles and killing 37 Sailors in 1987 was pretty much a wake up call. The cultivation did not succeed.
Providing tanker escort, taking out Iranian goplats, providing intel and arms were all part of our cultivating Iraq. Iraq claiming that the USS Stark was inside the War Zone, firing 2 Exocet missiles and killing 37 Sailors in 1987 was pretty much a wake up call. The cultivation did not succeed.
Yep, and there was zero chance of the US ever siding with Sadam after his chemical attack on the Kurds in 1988. Basically, he wrote his obituary with that action.
brickboy240
12-27-12, 13:13
The 9-11 terrorists were Saudis.
Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia and go nation-building THERE?
When The Japanese hit Pearl Harbor...we did not declare war on China...did we?
-brickboy240
PS: I wish we'd drill and refine HERE and leave these crap holes alone.
Providing tanker escort, taking out Iranian goplats, providing intel and arms were all part of our cultivating Iraq. Iraq claiming that the USS Stark was inside the War Zone, firing 2 Exocet missiles and killing 37 Sailors in 1987 was pretty much a wake up call. The cultivation did not succeed.
I knew about the Stark. It's kinda a Liberty where you don't know if it was an honest **** up of being ****ed with. And sure we helped with Iran, but he carried the load and probably expected much more in terms of compensation for his efforts.
Didn't want to say they were our "good ally" and rank them with the UK or anything, but they were as good as we were gonna get in the region. Certainly they did bear watching like some of our "other" allies where the relationship is questionable at best.
But if we had to choose between Saddams Iraq (pre Persian Gulf War), Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, I think Saddam might have been the closest to somebody who hates us the least.
And of course if we didn't turn on Saddam in 1990 we might not be dealing with this nuclear Iran horseshit today. Saddam also played a critical role in Sunni / Shia balance in the region.
Yep, and there was zero chance of the US ever siding with Sadam after his chemical attack on the Kurds in 1988. Basically, he wrote his obituary with that action.
Why not?
We got in bed with Stalin after the Red Purges.
We got in bed with China after Tienanmen Square.
We are fine with Yemen after they used them in 1963-67.
We are fine with Vietnam after they gassed Cambodians in 1984-85.
And we seem to be ok with Russia and they used them in Afghanistan.
The left wing blogs are proudly stating they wish his death. How friggin sad!
Which are those?
Why not?
We got in bed with Stalin after the Red Purges.
We got in bed with China after Tienanmen Square.
We are fine with Yemen after they used them in 1963-67.
We are fine with Vietnam after they gassed Cambodians in 1984-85.
And we seem to be ok with Russia and they used them in Afghanistan.
Every attrocity is viewed through a moral lens that is shaped by the geoploitical circumstances of the time. Sadam gassing thousands of his own people solidified his image as a modern Hitler.
Suwannee Tim
12-27-12, 18:25
But we had to remove the WMDs! :rolleyes:
We invaded Iraq for five reasons, possession of chemical weapons was half of one of them, the other half being the continued ability to manufacture chemical weapons which Sadam retained. The anti-war liars would like to re-write history to show possesion of WMD was the only reason we went to war. Another reason we invaded was human rights violations of his people which we discovered was far worse than we knew before the war. Regarding WMD what we really feared was nerve gas. What we found, in the form of a single artillery shell made into a IED was a binary nerve gas capability, very sophisticated technology which we did not even suspect Sadam had. Weaponized, that is, a production chemical for military use versus a laboratory product, weaponized binary nerve gas is one of the two terrorist weapons most feared, the other being nuclear weapons. Sadam had it, weaponized binary nerve gas, the terrorist dream weapon.
I recall we did not court Sadam, he was a loyal Soviet client, a state sponsor of terrorism and implacable enemy of our ally Israel. We helped Iraq a bit during the Iran-Iraq war, giving them bits and pieces of intelligence to prevent them from being defeated in certain battles. We also helped Iran a bit for different reasons. Kuwait did not steal oil from Iraq and offered to participate in an impartial investigation and negotiations. The theft accusation was simply a rationale for Sadam's invasion. Even if they had stolen oil the amount would have been minor in the big scheme of things. What Sadam wanted, what we were determined to stop him from getting was not Kuwait but Saudi Arabia. Had we not kicked him out of Kuwait, an invasion of Saudi was just a matter of time.
A lot of the things people believe about world events are revised history, revised to fit a leftist, anti-American and anti-Republican agenda.
Every attrocity is viewed through a moral lens that is shaped by the geoploitical circumstances of the time. Sadam gassing thousands of his own people solidified his image as a modern Hitler.
Fully understand that.
But if we had to choose: Saddam or Ahmadinejad?
I think we chose correctly when Reagan was in office (although it was Khomeni back then) and Bush 41 was shortsighted as a result.
Magic_Salad0892
12-27-12, 18:39
I love threads like this. I always learn a lot.
Can I get some more information on the Stark though? (I know I could google it, but I'd rather learn it from you guys.)
Cagemonkey
12-27-12, 18:45
I wasn't a fan.
1989 Import Ban by EO at the request of Bob Martinez who claimed only "drug dealers" used these weapons.
Resigned NRA membership because they called ATF "jack booted thugs" following WACO.
Trashed our relationship with Iraq, the closest thing we had to a secular democracy in the Middle East, after refusing to get involved in the Kuwait / Iraq "lateral drilling" dispute and then suggested the US would not get involved in "Arab / Arab affairs" and then acted shocked when Saddam invaded Kuwait and delivered an ultimatum.
Claimed no knowledge "out of the loop" concerning Iran Contra and then revealed he was "one of the few people that know fully the details" after his election and then pardoned all who were indicted or convicted.
Had the nerve to complain that reporters were ruining his vacation when his golf game was interrupted with questions about the war.
And lastly, when MIA activists disrupted an event with chants of "tell us the truth" Bush responded insultingly with "Will you people be quiet."As director of the CIA he was involved in all kinds of stuff we'll never know, never mind his dealings with Noriega and the CIA's covert drug trafficking. Noriega was laundering the CIA's money and that of major drug kingpins. The invasion of Panama was supposedly Bush's/CIA's way of getting their assets and records.
Moose-Knuckle
12-27-12, 19:21
The 9-11 terrorists were Saudis.
Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia and go nation-building THERE?
When The Japanese hit Pearl Harbor...we did not declare war on China...did we?
-brickboy240
PS: I wish we'd drill and refine HERE and leave these crap holes alone.
Well our .gov "offical" report tells We the People that fifteen were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon. Makes perfect since we invaded Iraq right . . .
If you want to know more fun facts about George Herbert Walker Bush (#41) use your Google-fu and start reading up on the Franklin cover up, Johnny Gosch, and FBI memos/photos of him being in Dallas, TX on 22 November 1963. Keep in mind he was in the CIA for a very long time and was the agency's director for a spell. Their headquarters in Langley was even re-named George Bush Center for Intelligence.
Moose-Knuckle
12-27-12, 19:26
double tap.
Suwannee Tim
12-27-12, 19:59
Well our .gov "offical" report tells We the People that fifteen were from Saudi Arabia, two were from the United Arab Emirates, one was from Egypt, and one was from Lebanon. Makes perfect since we invaded Iraq right .......
The problem was larger than Saudi Arabia and Wahabism. The strategy was make a list, knock off the top two or three on the list to get the attention of the rest. Afghanistan was target number 1. Iraq was in the top three as was Libya. We picked Iraq to be number two and Libya sued for peace which we granted. Iran should have been number three and we should have done it in the same fashion as Poland, from inside. A couple of things went wrong. Bush The Younger failed to defend his policies against a media and political onslaught and he failed to address Iran.
I love threads like this. I always learn a lot.
Can I get some more information on the Stark though? (I know I could google it, but I'd rather learn it from you guys.)
Actually wiki is pretty concise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uss_stark#Missile_attack
Basically claimed to be an "oops" and supposedly the guy who gave the order was executed. As with the Liberty, many things that just don't quite add up and lots of suspicion and sideways looks but no real opportunity for meaningful resolution.
Moose-Knuckle
12-27-12, 20:27
The problem was larger than Saudi Arabia and Wahabism. The strategy was make a list, knock off the top two or three on the list to get the attention of the rest. Afghanistan was target number 1. Iraq was in the top three as was Libya. We picked Iraq to be number two and Libya sued for peace which we granted. Iran should have been number three and we should have done it in the same fashion as Poland, from inside. A couple of things went wrong. Bush The Younger failed to defend his policies against a media and political onslaught and he failed to address Iran.
Watch it:
General Wesley Clark, seven countries in five years (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjd3bGQjN9U)
Magic_Salad0892
12-28-12, 04:24
Actually wiki is pretty concise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uss_stark#Missile_attack
Basically claimed to be an "oops" and supposedly the guy who gave the order was executed. As with the Liberty, many things that just don't quite add up and lots of suspicion and sideways looks but no real opportunity for meaningful resolution.
Thanks.
"Reports of my impending death are greatly exaggerated!" :D
http://news.yahoo.com/former-president-bush-moved-intensive-care-210408456.html
montanadave
12-29-12, 21:08
"Reports of my impending death are greatly exaggerated!" :D
http://news.yahoo.com/former-president-bush-moved-intensive-care-210408456.html
"I'm feeling much better, I am"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh8mNjeuyV4
"I'm feeling much better, I am"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh8mNjeuyV4
Now that right there was hilarious! Great find montanadave. :lol:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.