Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Yellow Rose of Texas
I have not heard that explanation before. I hard that Perot somehow blamed Bush for Viet Nam and for an event during which some of his employees were kidnapped.

Your explanation makes more sense.
1,414 posted on 10/07/2005 3:35:06 PM PDT by Samwise (The media is "stuck on stupid.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1413 | View Replies ]


To: Samwise
The Viet Nam explanation makes more sense. Perot had people on the ground working to get Christmas gifts/aid/etc. to the POWs (through various postal agencies around the world). He thought he had Nixon's approval.

What he didn't know was that Nixon had had a bombing planned in the same area at the same time.

Had a friend working as USPS liaison with the UPU for Perot on the scene at the time. The guys involved in the first efforts to improve things for the POWs were everafter fairly distrustful of the government. However, the work along this line continued until 1973 with the "official" end of our direct involvement in Viet Nam.

Things go on in this world you never hear about, and if you do, they seem unbelievable.

It was under Jimmy Carter that some of Perot's employees were held captive in Iran.

Perot's difficulties with "W" and "W"'s dad have to do with Texas politics ~ period, and they probably do have something to do with Viet Nam ~ but you have to remember one of Perot's best buddies over the years has been Ollie North. "W"'s dad (as Vice President) didn't pick up the slack and save Ollie from prosecution by vengeful, vicious Democrats.

Burr shot Hamilton over less.

1,415 posted on 10/07/2005 4:02:21 PM PDT by muawiyah (/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again? How'bout a double sarcasm for this one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1414 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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