Scary thought

redsfann

ale connoisseur
Forum Member
Aug 3, 1999
9,193
362
83
60
Somewhere in Corn Country
was thinking Hammer must be a bit young as well. Having lived through the Nixon, Ford and Reagan years there are plenty of clowns to compare to the current one, but the shrub does win in a landslide...

On a side note, I saw where John Dean has written a new book. Anyone read the reviews of it yet?

Should be a good read from one of Nixon's top aides...
 

hammer1

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 17, 2002
7,791
127
63
Wisconsin and Dorado Puerto Rico
Nope wish I was younger

Nope wish I was younger

But Nixon Reagan and Ford i could live with...
none of them made as glaringly poor decisions as our current President that literally may change the future for the worse.
And none of them in my opinion were downright stupid and illiterate as the Dumya is.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
shockingly... to most on this board,i`m sure......i could throw out a decent laundry list of issues i have problems with bush on.......

but,i have to differentiate on the things that he does that i agree with....

the patriot act...any gov`t initiative that keeps us safe....the rationale for trying to keep wmd`s out of the hands of those that could bring us to our knees...either by blackmailing us regarding the oil issue....or starting ww3 by wiping out a close ally and fellow democracy (take your pick,japan or israel)....

the dems,with the exception of a few(hillary and joe liebermann come to mind) "miss no opportunity" to give our enemies a leg up "at every opportunity"....in the interest of scoring political points....under the cover of the civil liberties straw man....or the demonization of "dumya"....

bush will be gone in a few years..that`s a fact......i`m worried that if the dems have their way,so may new york,los angeles and/or d.c......

i can`t even imagine...a country...with the n.y.times and the msm....liberal academia....and a howard dean as president.....

i can`t even imagine it...no grown-ups to watch over them....shaping public opinion and policy on theory and "feelings"and fairness....instead of the cold,hard analytical fact that we are in the cross hairs of religious fanatics that want us all dead....

and yes,that fact existed long before bushitler ever got a whiff of the presidency....
 
Last edited:

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
G W it took us a long time to help breed some of the hate pointed our direction. Carter doing nothing was real sad. On other hand because Of folks long memories with Nam We Were Not ready for a war with Iran. And our military came with a plan that failed so bad they just stopped trying. By the way if were not careful can still happen to us in Iraq. Our Plying In Iran's Politics way back in 50,s under Ike for you young guys that were born after the 60"s was a start. How many here remember in either 53 or 54 our CIA helped bring the Shaw back to Power In Iran. How many here remember the same Shaw jacking up Iran's oil Prices in 73 and gave more of the Arabs the same idea. Help cause first oil/gas crises. WE kept backing this ass in to the late 70's and help bring the hard line clerics to get the power. And boy did they hate us going back to the 50's. So what do we do we feed there hate with the helping of Iraq in there war with Iran. And then we still cant stay out of there way. We have the great Oli North Iran Contra dealings. So we just could not stay away and it now cost us more trouble. Just thought when we lay it all on Carter we are totally fair. So much started way before him. He didn't help. And still after him we still never learned. So Bush came along and made it all better by calling them names. And they deserve those maybe so. But It didn't help.
 

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
Bush is just the guy to lead the christian crusades of the new millenium...god spoke to him, as he often does, and told him to finish the infidels once and for all...nothing to be concerned about, look at what a great success Iraq is. Iran, Syria, and the rest of those Islamic fanatics will be no problem. He will straighten the whole mess out, rest assured.
 
Last edited:

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
StevieD said:
Big difference GW is that the Russians really did have missiles and Saddam didn't.


when i hear somebody say this it makes me think that this person does not get what's going on in iran & n. korea....and don't give me this stuff that saddam wasn't a threat to the u.s.....the answer is that in a post 9/11 world you get rid of these militant leaders before they get nukes & avoid them from holding the world hostage like what's going on now....

there are more things that i disagree with bush on than agree with him on (the way the u.s. is fighting in iraq,immigration, stem cell research, abortion,trade deficit)...but imo he gets what's going on in the biggest problem we face....too bad others don't.
 
Last edited:

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
buddy said:
It's October 1962...

The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest the world ever came to nuclear war. The United States armed forces were at their highest state of readiness ever and Soviet field commanders in Cuba were prepared to use battlefield nuclear weapons to defend the island if it was invaded.

Now, here's the scary thought...

Imagine Dubya at the helm.


i vaguely remember the cuban missle crisis...it was a great moment in kennedy's administration.....

but on the other hand there was the bay of pigs invasion...where jfk promised air support for cuban fighters against castro only to change his ming at the last moment leaving these fighters high & dry. some say that if jfk kept his promise castro would have been over thrown.....
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Ar, if you check your history you will see that the Bay of Pigs was planned by Nixon, when he was VP to Ike. Ike was against it but the wheels were already in motion when Kennedy took office. No biggie, as Kennedy took responsibility for it because it happened under his watch. Unlike some others.

On Iraq. What that has to do with real threats like North Korea and Iran is beyond me. Our resources could have been better served keeping these guys in check rather than rebuilding, or attempting to rebuild, Iraq.

The Occupation of Iraq has taxed our resources and made vulnerable to future attacks.

Unfortunately, Israel is showing us how we have to fight terror. It is not pretty. Many civilians will have to die. Because it is the civilians and their governments who can stop terrorism. If they are going to allow the thugs to live among the people, then the people must be bombed. This has to continue until the people are willing to rid their neighborhoods of terrorists.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
stevie...


this is the first time i ever heard that the bay of pigs was nixon's idea when he was v.p....but he ok'd it & then at the last minute he changed his mind....am curious why....do you know why ?

the invasion of iraq stopped saddam from becoming s situation like n.k. & iran. and there is no doubt in my mind that iraq would have held the world hostage with his threats just like these other 2 countries....

just how you & others believe & are angry that this invasion was wrong......i believe that this invasion was correct but am very angry with the way it is being fought....i stated many times here that i think the blame of what is going on in iraq falls squarely on the shoulders of rumsfeld....he wanted a streamline more mobile army while powell ( powell doctrine)wanted an overwhelming force to invade iraq....the suit won out over the former general & we now have this mess.....i believe if powell would have won that debate, iraq wouldn't have most of the problems it has now....

my wife mentioned the other night that israel should train other forces on how to fight against these thugs...and make no mistake about it, these terrorists are thugs who like to hide behind innocent people & use them as shields....and you're right it's not pretty..but it has to be done...
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
stevie..

thanks for the links...i'll check them out when i get a chance...however my research now is mainly on football & research on news stories are over for the next couple of months....priorities my friend !!

i wasn't knocking jfk...my entire family were big jfk supporters....i was just commenting on buddy's first post...no matter how great we think these leaders are....they still commit blunders.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
You are right about that Al. And it sometimes takes years to get to the truth.
Please, don't let me interupt your football handicapping you are among the best.
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
stevie...

thanks for the compliment...really appreciate it.

but i'm not convinced that last year wasn't a fluke...i'm very interested in seeing if i can come close to last year's record.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
i can`t believe you weren`t called on this b.s,stevie..........

who was president when the bay of pigs invasion happened?.....i think it was jfk?...no?.....

nixon was not in power..for god`s sake,he was an ex-v.p......kennedy was the decision maker....

and he botched it horribly....no air support...sending 1500 ex pat`s in to be slaughterd.......

a boondoggle..

by your logic,we could blame clinton for iraq....and 9/11.....

based on clinton`s comments,the iraqi invasion was set in motion on clinton`s watch....and the planning for 9/11 certainly started on clinton`s watch....

right?....no,that`s wrong....

nobody`s blaming clinton...even though the 9/11 plan was obviously put in motion on his watch...

what did nixon do?.....all he did was give kennedy moral support after the bay of pigs failed miserably....

you could say that kennedy won his election vs nixon in a similar,very controversial manner to bush`s defeat of gore....

what did nixon do?...after,as some alleged,having the election pulled out from under him?...

did he fly overseas as gore/clinton and carter did...and lambast kennedy?.....as these "patriots" did with bush?....

of course not...

""Do you remember or know how Kennedy's partisan and political foes responded to the crisis?
The Republican who'd lost the 1960 presidential election to Kennedy six months before and by less than a percentage point--and who had reason to believe that it may have been stolen--was invited to the White House. He didn't bring his resentments in his briefcase.

From Richard Reeves's "President Kennedy": " 'It was the worst experience of my life,' Kennedy said of the Cuban fiasco . . . to, of all people, Richard Nixon. . . . Kennedy wanted the symbolic presence and public support of both political friends and foes to show the nation and the world that Americans were rallying around the president, right or wrong."

Kennedy asked Nixon's advice. Nixon told him to do what he could to remove Castro and communism from Cuba. The meeting ended with Nixon telling JFK, "I will publicly support you to the hilt."

Kennedy and Nixon that day achieved something like "the kinship of competitors." Mr. Reeves writes. Nixon was good as his word, supporting the president and refusing to attack him.

Others did the same. New York's liberal governor Nelson Rockefeller and Arizona's conservative senator Barry Goldwater, both of whom thought they might run against Kennedy in the next election, met with him individually and gave the president their public support.

But the most important backing Kennedy needed was that of his immediate predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower, who had led America through the previous eight years of relative peace and prosperity. He also knew something about amphibious invasions, as he had commanded the biggest in history, in June 1944, on the beaches of Normandy.
Eisenhower was not amused by what had just happened to his country. Called to Camp David, he dined with Kennedy, and then together they toured the grounds. It was on this walk that Ike delivered a stinging reprimand in which he challenged Kennedy's judgment, knowledge and understanding of the world.

Richard Reeves: "That was in private. In public, the two men came back from their walk to face the reporters and cameras. . . . Kennedy told reporters he had asked the General to visit him so he could 'get the benefits of his thoughts and experiences.' Eisenhower told the reporters, 'I am all in favor of the United States supporting the man who has to carry the responsibility for foreign affairs.' "

Ike supported Kennedy's leadership and refrained from making public criticisms. Later, when the smoke cleared and Eisenhower was dead, Kennedy staffers said that of course Eisenhower had to support Kennedy; the original idea of a Cuban exile force had been hatched while Ike was president....

"""" This was spin, and of a particularly disingenuous sort."""" Under Eisenhower--under every president--possible and contingency foreign-affairs initiatives are put forth and game planned. That's what governments do. It was Kennedy who, only weeks after his November election, told CIA director Allen Dulles that he wanted the agency to move forward on Cuban invasion plans. After he was in the White House he consented to and encouraged the plans, and personally tinkered with them, to their detriment. """


more conspiracy theories?......rewriting history?....

that`s your problem..the new democrats...and apparently some of the old....

.you don`t have a clue regarding how to take a stand on anything....how to take responsiblity for anything...like kennedy did....

that`s why this new brand of moonbat democrat....the ones that call our soldiers nazi`s....and accuse our boys of murder based on leaks from their slimy moles...can`t win an election....

no character....just monday morning quarterbacking....and politics...

all you can do is second guess and bite the ankles of those that have to deal with tough situations......

almost 50 years after the fact...and still trying to pass the buck...

pathetic..
 
Last edited:

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
Weasel, it is amazing how you rewrite history. We see you here daily trying to rewrite the present so it is not surprising that you have no grasp of the past.
Look it up. Nixon was the guy who started the whole thing.
Of course Kennedy had a role and he failed in his role. He took responsibility for that. Which is more than the Rumsfelds and the Bush's do for Iraq.
Of course in their eyes Iraq may not be a failure. Their friends are making plenty of money from it.
Read up on The Bay of Pigs, not just one account.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
A CHRONOLOGY OF THE BAY OF PIGS INVASION


o March 17, 1960: President Dwight D. Eisenhower approves a covert
attack on Cuba using a paramilitary force of Cuban exiles.


o April 12, 1961: President John F. Kennedy decides that U.S. armed
forces will not take part in the invasion.


o April 14, 1961: B-26 bombers piloted by Cuban exiles begin
early-morning aerial bombardment of air bases in Cuba. Two pilots land
in Florida, posing as Cuban defectors in a CIA-hatched plot.


o April 15, 1961: U.S. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson, speaking at the
United Nations, denies U.S. participation in the attack. The defectors
are discovered to be impostors. Planned airstrikes are canceled.


o April 17-19, 1961: An exile-led force of about 1,500 lands at the
beach in Cuba's Bay of Pigs. Cuban military forces crush the invasion,
bringing it to a quick end.
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
I was just 18 in 1960 new in the Army. We were for part of our training being told Cuba was a problem coming and we might have to go there. Ike had not left office. And we found out later he had his VP guy named Nixon Involved with military on a quick hit on Cuba. I would guess There Two in the same. Kennedy in 61 would not allow any US troops to go. We were told to stand down. Believe history will show Nixon was not happy and was going to run for President in 64 and use this against Kennedy. Who of course was shot and Johnson took over.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
From Wikipedia. Keep rewiting history Weasel. Pathetic.

"The CIA had begun recruiting and training Cuban exiles during the Eisenhower administration, months before diplomatic relations were severed with Cuba in January 1961, as tensions between Washington and Havana increased. However, it was Vice President Richard Nixon, not Eisenhower, who pushed the plan forward. Nixon afterwards always feared that his involvement and responsibility for the failure would surface. The CIA was initially confident that it was capable of overthrowing Castro, having experience assisting in the removal of other foreign governments such as Iranian prime minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and Guatemalan president Jacobo Arbenz Guzm?n in 1954. Richard Mervin Bissell Jr., one of Allen Dulles three aides, was made director of "Operation Zapata." (There is no direct evidence tying this to Zapata Corporation.)"
 

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
stevie & gw..

this sunday night fox new's war stories will be talking about the cuba & u.s. confrontations....
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top