Replies

And you voted for Clinton. Sort of a misnomer statement of yours if I ever heard of one.

Based on the info I had in 1992, I would for Clinton over Bush 10 times out of 10.

I -knew- Bush had stumbled into a totally avooidable ar in the Gulf. I knew he had falsely bucked up the Iraqi opposition forces and then left them hanging. I knew he had a challenge with the "vision" thing. I -know- that a desire for revenge on the part of Hussein drove him to attmpt to kill Bush in 1993 and attempt to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. It's widely thought that Iraq helped with both the Murrah building bombing in OKC and the destruction of the WTC last year. All that because Bush maladroitly stumbled into a war in the Gulf.

I --know-- that some of the people we need to help us topple Hussein don't trust us and that will make the coming war more difficult -- because of George Bush Sr.

I -know- that American credibilty was dragged through the mud because of the way we abandoned the Iraqi opposition back '91.

You must just have a penchant for picking losers. First the so-called CSA and now Bush Sr.

Because George Bush Sr. was a bid time loser.

I'd also say its still up in the air whether Bush Jr. handlers can bring him safely through the second Gulf war.

Walt

It's widely thought that Iraq helped with both the Murrah building bombing in OKC and the destruction of the WTC last year.

It is also widely thought that Clinton intentionally covered up the Iraq connection in Murrah so he could blame it on the 'right wing'. Which he did, no doubt with your blessings, judging by your comments past and present.

All that because Bush maladroitly stumbled into a war in the Gulf.

Maybe your memory is a little better than mine. Did Bush have Congressional approval? Did Bush have UN approval? Was the United States the only country to send troops into that war?

Based on the info I had in 1992, I would for Clinton over Bush 10 times out of 10.

I held my nose and voted for Bush-I in 92 based on what I knew at the time. I was P.O.ed over the "read my lips" tax increase that the spineless Bush allowed the Dems to box him in to. I realized that Clinton was nothing but a two-bit corrupt southern governor when I watched his Super Bowl "60 Minute" lip-biting act but had still not totally written him off. It was the information I got afterward on both him and more importantly, the Hilda-beast, that made me see them as a potentially dangerous pair. Her involvement with "Neighborhood Legal Services", Elenor Holmes Norton's "Children Defense Fund," AND The Institute of Policy Studies made me see that she at least was a Marxist biding time in a corrupt little backwater like Arkansas in an effort to bring all her 1960s Radical Left dreams to reality. Anyone who has a Stalinist like Michael Lerner as a personal 'guru' is a clear and present danger to the republic. When she became the darling of the media and the "co-presidency" stuff started, every alarm in my body pegged at 10.

I also never bought in the little-lop eared hustler from Texas. Call it a 'gift' but I think growing up in the neighborhood that I did, I have an innate ability to pick hustlers out of a crowd. I am convinced to this day that the only reason Perot was in race was a promise by the Clinton's to give him a big cut of their Socialized Medicine scam. (Same as he did with Medicare). The intention of the Perot candidacy was not to win anything, but to divide those of us who could see through Clinton's hustle and who couldn't bring ourselves into voting for a two-bit draft dodger to allow Clinton to win with just the hard Democrat vote. It worked like a charm. Clinton only got 43% of the vote but won in a walk. Minus Perot, Bush would have won easily.

Your concern at the time was how Bush handled the aftermath of the Gulf war. Mine wasn't. The Iraqi opposition at the time was not a crowd that would have been any better for US interests than Sadam was. The Kurds couldn't hold power for a month without cutting each other's throats while at the same time driving Turkey away from the Western Camp. And the Marsh Arabs would have been sucked-up by the Iranian fundamentalists in a Tehran minute and accomplished the same damn thing through the mosques in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia that we went to war with Sadam over. IMHO, Bush-I's decision not to move on Baghdad and to simply attempt to isolate Sadam and allow time for some secular, Sunni based opposition to develop inside Iraq was the best of several distasteful options. The Clinton foreign policy team is the one who fell short on that strategy. They allowed the sanctions to become a joke because they were more interested in UN wine and cheese parties than they were in geo-politics or American interests.

Just my thoughts.