Fare well Mr. President

you were a hunter too, and we (Germans) owe a lot to you.
Thank you so much.
Foxi

That breaks my heart.

He was a great man. He served his country with distinction.

An absolute gentleman among men!

He was a great man. A far better man than Hillary Clinton..........................RIP C.I.C. ................FWB

RIP Mr.President

A good man and a true American hero. RIP Mr. President.

Rest in peace Mr. President.

You are all good man to say nice things about President Bush.

RIP.

What a great man, the complete oposite to idiotic Trump.

Bushpig4Ever said:

What a great man, the complete oposite to idiotic Trump.

Click to expand...

No need to go down that road here. If you want to rant about Trump start another thread!

I will repeat myself from another thread. Rest in piece commander in chief! You'r work is done!
His faith is now sight!!

President George H W Bush was clearly a good man. His service to our country is one of the reasons we are able to sleep comfortably in our beds at night. God bless him and his family who mourn his passing. No doubt he is with his beloved wife and child.

Could someone explain to me why he (George Sr.) was pro New World Order and pro U.S.A.?, seems contradictory. I think Trump seems very pro U.S.A. but is not a globalist. The media loved George Sr. and seems to hate Trump. I don't understand.

George Sr. was a real gentleman. I don't think the media hates Trump, it rather despises him. But let's return to hunting in Africa...

Iwannahunt said:

The media loved George Sr. and seems to hate Trump. I don't understand.

Click to expand...

Love the tweet the US Navy made..........

I’ve always wondered how history would be different if Perot had not run in 1992.

Iwannahunt said:

Could someone explain to me why he (George Sr.) was pro New World Order and pro U.S.A.?, seems contradictory. I think Trump seems very pro U.S.A. but is not a globalist. The media loved George Sr. and seems to hate Trump. I don't understand.

Click to expand...

They certainly didn't much care for him very much at the time. During the campaign against Clinton, I would estimate positive coverage was 70-30 in favor of Clinton. "New world order" did not have the same meaning that the conspiracy crowd have caused it to involve into. The Soviet Union had collapsed and the old bi-polar, West vs East order largely collapsed with it. Bush's idea was a realignment of democratic states that would be strong enough to manage problems like Saddam Hussein had created in the Middle East and aid the emerging democracies in Eastern Europe, and to a lesser extent in Asia. These infant democracies would need close management and guidance as they reentered mainstream European life as truly independent states. Best case envisioned a newly democratic Russia joining the West in containing Chinese ambitions and managing resource zones like the Middle East. Worst case, Eastern Europe could be brought back into the Western European fold using NATO as a catalyst. All of which was contemplated as absolutely in US national interests.

The isolationist crowd, of course, complained bitterly. In their minds, the collapse of the Soviet Union would give us the opportunity to step off center stage - a rather naive concept for the world's largest economy. Gradually, the term "New World Order" became synonymous in many people's minds with "globalism." It also had a bit of a seemingly sinister ring to it that the conspiracy kooks could leverage and tie into their dire warnings of secret international cabals mysteriously dictating world economic policy.

George H. W. Bush fought for this country every day of his adult life. He believed our national interests were best protected on the international stage with the help of strong allies sharing collective national objectives. He realized that our boundaries did not run along our seaboards or the Canadian and Mexican borders. Instead, they ran along the Pacific's western rim, deep into the Middle East, and through Europe. During his Vice-Presidency and Presidency he did more to actively shape and re-draw those boundaries than anyone since Thomas Jefferson bought the Louisiana Purchase. Regrettably, the creation of that energy and intellect were allowed to largely drift on auto-pilot for most of the following decade.

flat8 said:

I’ve always wondered how history would be different if Perot had not run in 1992.

Click to expand...

Yes, the world would have greatly benefitted from a second term. Things were moving quickly in Eastern Europe and Asia. He was the right man for the job.