Your Uncle Norman and I were the closest friends. We met in Advanced Navigation School in 1944. We celebrated our graduation with our wings and commission and a big party. We then travelled together to attend Radar School in Boca Raton Florida. In addition to learning how to drop bombs by radar, we had one giant celebration for the month we were there.
We staged at McCook, Nebraska and we were assigned to an overseas training unit in Pyote, Texas. Your Uncle had his own car (very rare in those days) and we took about 5 days driving from Nebraska to Texas. The story of this trip would make a very funny but touching book.

I was assigned to a unit in Saipan, going into aerial combat one month before Norman's group was assigned to the nearby island Tinian. Norman contacted me when he arrived and we looked forward, after the next mission, to getting together. It was his first mission and a severe blow to me when I learned that he was missing in action.

My friendship with Norman was very close and was very joyous. We trained together. I am sure it will bring a smile to your face to know that your Uncle Norman was a very popular guy with the women. For years afterwards, when I met somebody from Buffalo, my first question was if they knew the Bassetts. Years later, I met your Aunt at the New York Museum of Art and we were in touch with each other for a while. I do not know why the events played out that I survived 27 missions and we lost Norman the first time out.

I read with interest you feelings about the last Election. Over the years, I have been a Republican, a Democrat and an Independent. But, I have steadily had the position that diplomacy should come long before an American is put into jeopardy on foreign soil.
I have great hopes for what lies ahead because I think President Elect Obama is brilliant and has conducted the most intelligent and brilliant campaign in history. I cannot tell you how much I welcome intelligence combined with a genuine feeling for the USA.
Most of us interpret events differently. My answer to your question is that the great majority voted for change, perceived leadership, and a fresh look at our failed policies.
I will not get into the details now, but would like to say the freedom that your Uncle Norman and I fought for is the ability to disagree and to be respected regardless of how we disagree with each other….and even to have an open mind to consider another way of looking at things.

I want to thank you again for your letter and I look forward to any comments you may have. Your Uncle Norman was a great man.

Best, Jack

My father died at an early age of non-Hopkins Lymphoma in 1965 and my uncle Kingman was a large influence in my life. He sadly too has passed on.

I remember as a young girl visiting my father's grave in Forest Lawn in Buffalo and seeing the marker for Norman. His parents and sisters missed him dearly. I remember being proud (as I still am) that he gave his life for our freedoms.

I am saddened by the recent elections and while it is clear that change is needed – when I asked people why they were voting the way they were, I rarely got a clear answer. It scares me to death.

I am absolutely supportive our men in the military and it is very clear that they feel strongly about what is needed. That path is not necessarily the easiest nor the most popular and they/their families need and deserve our full support. It frightens me about how many people agree to a concept and then do not have the fortitude to follow through when things get tough..

Nancy Pelosi, December 1998:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Ted Kennedy, September 2002:
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry, October 9, 2002:
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

Jay Rockefeller, October 10, 2002:
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years… We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

John Kerry, January 23, 2003:
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime… He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation… And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."

John Edwards, 2002
“I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country. And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.”

Al Gore, September, 2002:
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" and "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

Not to mention Tony Blair and John Howard. War criminals!

I never said opposition to the war was unpatriotic. I simply said that you dishonor our troops by insisting that they are engaged in a war for the purposes of "vanity, greed, and imperialistic swagger." That is simply a factual statement. If that is what you believe, then our troops are the moral equivalent of the nazis we fought in World War II.

And Allen's implication that our men are simply too stupid to know otherwise only adds to the insult and reveals his contempt for them. In any event, ignorance does not excuse one from being a war criminal, so to the extent that you actually believe that our government is at war because of "greed," then our enlisted men should not be honored but tried.

Of course there are some veterans against the war, as there are against any war. That is neither here nor there. But this dismissal of people with whom you disagree as "greedy" and "imperialistic" just poisons public discourse. Why not argue on the merits rather then with the insults?