Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BUSH 41': Overseeing The Soviet Nuke Takedown

Posted on 03/23/2018 5:52:31 AM PDT by DIRTYSECRET

OK-He lasted one term and blew it in 92'. Where would those nukes be if Obama or BJ were in charge? The deep state conservatives would have covered for them. As I see it no one notices when the government does it's job and nothing really bad happens. Preventing potential catastrophe is unappreciated and requires vigilance. Peoples memories are too short.


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: anotherstupidvanity

1 posted on 03/23/2018 5:52:31 AM PDT by DIRTYSECRET
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET

George H.W. Bush is the President who was supposed to implement the enforcement provisions of the 1986 amnesty.
It never happened.
He set in motion the illegal alien inundation that continued to accelerate through the next three Presidents following his bipartisan plan to force US into another amnesty.
George H. W. Bush is the reason we have 30 million illegal aliens and a Senate full of traitors hell bent of turning the USA into North Mexico.


2 posted on 03/23/2018 6:46:46 AM PDT by Lurkinanloomin (Natural Born Citizen Means Born Here of Citizen Parents__Know Islam, No Peace-No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurkinanloomin

Ya got me there. Government didn’t do its job in that one. The frog is unaware when it’s in the pot of cold water being boiled. It gets back to vigilance of the eternal kind. Gadflys. We need more of them. Left has them because their men are like women. They just can’t shut up.


3 posted on 03/23/2018 7:52:53 AM PDT by DIRTYSECRET (urope. Why do they put up with this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET
GHW Bush was a half-way decent foreign policy President - he and his foreign policy team had more sense than his son did and more respect for US interests than Clinton or Obama. Unfortunately, that was about the only good thing that could be said about the elder Bush - he was a liberal Rockefeller Republican on just about every domestic issue (from gun control to taxes). And as Lurkin said, he was an enthusiastic supporter of mass third world immigration.

I'd put him in the same category as Nixon - decent on foreign policy most of the time, a liberal disaster in just about everything else.

4 posted on 03/23/2018 7:57:28 AM PDT by ek_hornbeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET
George H.W. Bush deserves credit for mostly pulling the USSR's fangs at the end of the Cold War, but he proved to be singularly inept at domestic politics. This led to Bush's defeat for reelection and the frittering away of much of his accomplishment in contriving a peaceful end to the Cold War.

Unwilling to follow the Reagan formula and hostile toward Reagan's advisers and allies, Bush arrogantly scorned the potential to turn Reagan's coalition into an enduring GOP majority and lost to Bill Clinton. In office for eight dismal years, Clinton failed to secure a democratic regime in Russia or an international order to dissuade or contain the revanchism that emerged under Putin.

Perhaps worst of all, the extraordinary Bush family coziness with Prince Bandar and the Saudis facilitated the success of the 9/11 plot by fostering a blindness by US security officials toward Saudi support for terrorism. This had devastating consequences on 9/11.

5 posted on 03/23/2018 9:50:14 AM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham

My issue is with Cheney. The real conservative I thought at first. I’m grateful he was there to stand up for Bush when the lefties got cowardly in their criticism. Too quick to pull the trigger though. 41 was forced to respond to Kuwait and should have capitalized on it. Instead the voters treated him like Churchill being thrown out on his ear after victory.


6 posted on 03/23/2018 1:48:05 PM PDT by DIRTYSECRET (urope. Why do they put up with this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET

Will history be kind to 41?


7 posted on 03/23/2018 1:48:45 PM PDT by DIRTYSECRET (urope. Why do they put up with this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DIRTYSECRET

There is considerable merit to your analogy — including that in 1946, Churchill ran a weak campaign that lacked a vision for the country and assumed that he deserved reelection.


8 posted on 03/23/2018 10:15:57 PM PDT by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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