[bonesmccoy]

Sir,

Your comments suggest that you believe it necessary to have an absolutely secure environment when the POTUS travels into a combat zone.

The reason the trip is so remarkable is that this POTUS has demonstrated a willingness to take personal risk in order to make a political point.

The factor that makes this trip "hot shot" is that the trip is clearly dangerous.

We have become too accustomed to a POTUS who is a wimp.

Well, I doubt that any US President has entered a combat zone as treacherous as Baghdad since Madison faced British troops in Washington.

Frankly, with Al Queda's continuing activity, the POTUS has already faced direct attack.

Travelling to Baghdad to clarify exactly which nation and which "team" is in charge is highly appropriate.

Since the war on terror is a propaganda war, this was a great shot to take.

[section9]

If they suggest that, than the error was in my writing.

I was simply saying that operational security was, in all probability, compromised. President Bush has his security compromised every time he goes to a campaign rally. I understand, as you do, that security can never be absolute. If we wanted absolute security, the President would govern from Cheyenne Mountain, not the White House.

I am fully cognizant of the risks that Bush took going to Baghdad. The trip was a ballsy move. He didn't have to do this, but he did. And he did this because he cares about the men.

Politically, this helps him. The image of a President with the troops on Thanksgiving Day in a Combat Zone is one that helps our cause in the war and, in a smaller sense, helps in the political campaign.

Finally, as to Presidents in combat zones; Lincoln went to a Fort (McNair?) south of DC. At the time, there was a raid on by Jeb Stuart's cavalry. Lincoln had a few minie balls went by him before the General in Command, who I believe was Abner Doubleday, told him, "Get down, you damn fool!"

Be Seeing You,

Chris