I thought the article on balance was good, but I do see what you mean about the inference that the president didn't return to Washington was because he was afraid. It's part of the story of that day, however, because the press made it so, and must be mentioned. I just wish it were mentioned in the context, of say: "The press, never friendly to the president raised questions early on as to the president's whereabouts. This was an unecessary and ill timed distraction at a time of severe crisis." No that would be a fair description of the medias part in the events of the day, can't have that can we?
Otherwise, he appears to be strong and unafraid and it comes over in the article.
regards
A fair description from the media - what a novel ideal. Had this attack occurred under Clinton's watch, I'm certain the press would have acted in a similar 'fair' manner. Imagine the following:
Actual story:
Bill Clinton, after arriving at a local Florida high school, spotted a particularly attractive possible conquest in the audience. He dispatched a secret service agent to get the pertinent information on the young lady and he was informed that she was one Diane West, a teacher's aide. Mr. Clinton has his minions invite the young lady for a tour of Air Force One where she was quickly whisked. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Clinton was notified of the attacks on America, all pandamonium ensued, and the president was spirited away, to destinations unknown. Ms. West was still aboard the aircraft.
Reported story:
Bill Clinton heads West.