Replies

President Bush didn't help his place in history

That's the key difference between Bush and x42. All Clinton cared about was his legacy. Bush, on the other hand, is trying to do the right thing. Somehow I don't believe that having a dead president - but a dead president with a "place in history" - on Sept. 11 would have been quite the right thing for the U.S. Perhaps you disagree.

No I don't disagree--a dead president would not have been a good thing. Nor would a dead mayor of NYC or a dead New York governor or dead senators and congressmen been good things. But that didn't stop them from being in the heart of the day's events promptly. Granted, we haven't heard about "credible threats" to the mayor, governor, or congressmen, but I believe the physical risks to the president (especially given the kind of protection that he would have had in an immediate return) were outweighed by the need to show courage and take the lead in responding to the attack. I think he wasn't quite there in the way this country needed as quickly as he needed to be. I'm not saying he's a lousy president. I still support him. Clearly, his military response will be much more important than what he did Tuesday. I just think his response Tuesday would have been more meaningful if he had returned to the capital right away.