https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-bush-book/neither-george-bush-voted-for-trump-book-author-tells-new-york-times-idUSKBN1D40TP

(Reuters) - George H.W. Bush and his son George W. Bush did not vote for fellow Republican Donald Trump last year, says the author of a new book on the 41st and 43rd U.S. presidents in which they open up about their disapproval of the man now occupying the White House.

The elder Bush voted for Hillary Clinton, while his son voted for neither Trump nor his Democratic challenger, or “none of the above,” said Mark K. Updegrove, who wrote “The Last Republicans” with the cooperation of the two Bushes. HarperCollins will publish the book on Nov. 14.

In an interview with the New York Times, Updegrove said the elder Bush, 93, who served as president from 1989 to 1993, had an instinctive dislike of Trump though he did not know him personally.

In an interview during the 2016 presidential campaign, George H.W. Bush told the author that Trump was a “blowhard,” driven by “a certain ego” and lacking a commitment to public service.

</snip>

https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/pilot-of-deadly-fredericksburg-plane-crash-identified



FREDERICKSBURG — The pilot of a WWII vintage plane that crashed into a Fredericksburg apartment complex parking lot Saturday has been identified.

Cal Pacific Airmotive, Inc. a California-based company that works to repair and preserve P-51 and TF51 aircraft, identified the pilot of the P-51D Pecos Bill as Cowden Ward Jr.

Cal Pacific Airmotive Inc
2 hours ago
It is with a sad heart we share the news of the P-51D Pecos Bill accident that claimed the life of pilot Cowden Ward Jr. and his passenger, a WWII B17 veteran. Our condolences to Cowden's family, the family of his passenger and to the crew at Freedom Flyers. Their mission is to honor those who have served, and they have honored many. Our hearts go out to you at this time.

https://www.p51pecosbill.org/

The small plane crash killed two people, authorities confirmed.

</snip>

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/on-this-world-war-i-anniversary-lets-not-celebrate-woodrow-wilson/2018/11/09/1c7ca77c-e456-11e8-b759-3d88a5ce9e19_story.html?utm_term=.ec1d0824eb61

By Michael Beschloss

<snip>

As an academic, Wilson had emphasized the need for presidents to explain military setbacks and other complex or mystifying events to Americans. Yet he spent much of 1917, the first year of U.S. engagement in the war, in kingly isolation, rarely using his luminous oratorical gifts to explain to his countrymen why they needed to make severe sacrifices for a conflict that wasn’t an obvious, direct threat to America’s national security.

Wilson, who preened as a civil libertarian, persuaded Congress to pass the Espionage Act, giving him extraordinary power to retaliate against Americans who opposed him and his wartime behavior. That same law today enables presidents to harass their political adversaries. Wilson’s Justice Department also convicted almost a thousand people for using “disloyal, profane, scurrilous or abusive language” against the government, the military or the flag. Wilson is an excellent example of how presidents can exploit wars to increase authoritarian power and restrict freedom, some arguing that criticizing the commander in chief amounts to criticizing soldiers in the field.

In the 1918 midterms, with the Great War heading to its climax, Wilson shamelessly exploited the military struggle for domestic politics, urging voters to support his party “for the sake of the nation itself” because Republicans were trying to take “the conduct of the war out of my hands.” This cheap maneuver backfired. Roosevelt and Taft charged that Wilson was asking for “unlimited control over the settlement of a peace that will affect them for a century.” Partly out of disgust with Wilson’s presumptuousness, voters switched control of both the House and Senate to the Republicans.

I admire Wilson’s insistence on ending the war with a League of Nations to ensure that such a conflict never happened again, but his plan to achieve it was clumsy political malpractice. He knew the Republican majority in Congress and many other Americans would be troubled by the possibility that if the Senate endorsed U.S. entry into the League of Nations, the new peace organization might have the right to call American troops into battle. Wilson should have immediately made it his central mission to assuage those fears, but he instead decamped to the Paris peace conference for months — certain, in his vanity, that no mere professional diplomat could match his negotiating skills. The domestic debate over the League of Nations was left to its loudest opponents, such as Henry Cabot Lodge, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. By the time Wilson returned in the summer of 1919, fatal damage had been done.

<snip>

One can admire Wilson for his progressive reforms, for his idealism and eloquence about America’s role in the world, as I do, without sugarcoating his displays of political incompetence as a president of war. In wartime, Americans have a right to expect that the bravery of U.S. troops is matched by brilliant political leadership in the White House. Too often in the past, World War I anniversaries have been transformed into paeans to Woodrow Wilson. This time, let’s keep it focused on the troops.