Nobody knows how Gore, Clinton, G. H. W. Bush, Reagan or any other President would have reacted, because they weren't in that office when it happened. That's also true with Kerry.

As for shooting a "few missles," that's what the military (and politicians) call a "measured" response. We have never had a situation like 9/11 before, so there is nothing to "measure" it against. The Cole incident and embassy bombings were nowhere close to the same scope.

In terms of "heros" of 9/11, they were the people of New York, including the members of FDNY, NYPD, the Mayor and even the Governor.

To me, President Bush did his job which was to support local efforts and get things moving in terms of Federal assistance and aid -- and also to add moral support to the people of The City and others. I think he did it very well.

I'm not sure that makes him a "hero." Those of you who know me will also know that I would feel the same way about anyone who was President on that day.

Regarding Senator Kerry's four month term in Vietnam, I doubt that he "abandoned" the war effort. When you're in the military, you pretty much go where the service sends you. You may request certain assignments, but you have little or no influence on whether you get them or not. (Unless you're an Annapolis graduate with an admiral for a father.) It would not, however, surprize me if the Navy hierarchy took a close look at his record, and given his family background, decided to get him out of the line of fire. Had President Bush been in the same situation, he would probably have gotten the same treatment -- if, in fact that happened. That's just the way it is. Some pigs are more equal than others.

I have a very good friend who is the head of a major bankers organization. He had the opportunity to go to Vietnam as a member of Combat Camera, Pacific (the folks who go ashore first and take pictures of the Marines head on as they storm the beach -- expected combat lifetime slightly better than a Medic, which wasn't good) OR become an aide to an Admiral. Guess which one he took. The same one I would have given the opportunity. Let me get that door for you, Admiral.

After being wounded in action three times, I probably would have figured that sooner or later my luck was going to run out. If Senator Kerry won two rather prestegious medals in only four months, he was doing something right. To echo comments I've made before, the Navy doesn't just hand out Bronze and Silver Stars. The argument(s) that Kerry didn't or dosen't deserve the decorations -- and lied to get them doesn't hold water. Again, you don't put yourself in for medals -- someone else does. That means that you are not calling Kerry a liar, but rather the men who served with and under him -- as well as those who commanded him.

Uhm no I didn't talk about his being deserving of medals or not. In my last post I talked about what he did after his service that upset me.

-Rudey

I hope we can agree on this then. Clinton didn't take out Osama and Crew, even when he had a dozen chances, even after they bombed the basement of the WTC in attempts to pummle the towers - well, George II at least is trying to rid the world of Osama and his gang.

George I didn't finish Iraq the first time around - George II is.

Learn from your mistakes, right? Well, George II did learn from Clintons and George I's mistakes - the world is a better and safer place now than it was 5 years ago.

Okay I have to take issue with your statements... as in Clinton didn't take out Osama and his crew after the WTC bombing... well other than launching a couple of cruise missles at him... but the missiles didn't eliminate Osama or his "Crew"... as unfortunately G.W's actions in Afghanistan as well; while admirable for eliminating the extremism of the Taliban, they failed in the primary mission of capturing or eliminating Osama. Both Clinton and Bush tried to rid the world of Osama using different methods, and both failed.

Finally the claim that the world is a safer place than it was five years ago is so ludicrous it defy's belief.... there are more armed conflicts now that five years ago, there are more terrorist actions per annum than five years ago, more Americans are targeted for attacks or killed than five years ago, there has been a marked increase in racially or religously motivated attacks than five years ago, and finally (my own opinion here) I believe that Iraq has now become a focal point for anti-American, anti-"Western" terrorists - were recruits, funding, and equipment are now plentiful.

Clinton fired some missles and that was it. George II is still going after Osama, and he'll be caught - so don't mark that up as a loss for George II just yet. Yes, its true, two different methods, but one tried and failed, the other one tried and continues to try, he hasn't failed yet.

The world is a safer place now. We are now educated on the terrorists, we know their faces, we know their tactics, we know their financers, the caves they live in, the types of bombs they use, how they train, where they train, which regimes support them and which ones oppose them...etc. 10 years ago, the same hate for the US was there, it was just undiscovered - we never knew (as citizens, me and you) until they came into the US and kicked us right in the nads. We now have the best security at our borders, in our airports, on our planes, in our ports, on our universities and on our streets - we didn't have this pre-9/11. Yes, there are flaws, we catch them every day, but are we still better of now than pre-9/11? Hell yes we are. Does that make the terrorists that are all over the world mad? Yep, but we have to roll with the punches. Its now or later....lets take them now, so that our children can live safe lives.....So, in my opinion, we are safer today than we were pre-9/11.

As for Iraq being a breeding ground for terrorism - you are right, thats why we are there, liberating them from the corruption that has ruled that country for decades. When we are finished there, which may be decades, I hope we go to the next country and do the same thing to them.

Let freedom prevail, and for this to happen - Bush in '04.

You're right. I was responding to multiple posts. There was no single quote or anything at the top of that reply.

DeltAlum your comment about "being an Annapolis grad w/ an admiral for a father" made me think of McCain. I'm not sure of his father's rank, but I know he was quite 'up there'. McCain sure didn't have an easy time during Vietnam(gross understatement of the year). If he and Kerry were to duke it out McCain would win hands down (and be classy doing it).

italics added

You've summed it up quite well!



Edited because the elaboration was much too personal.

Swissmiss,

You don't have to sell McCain to me. He's pretty damned impressive.

And, there are some "Trade School" (Annapolis, West Point, AFA) legacies who choose to make it on their own.

But there are also those who don't mind riding someone else's coat tails.

I wasn't trying to sell him! :) I just really liked your comment (as I do in general). Sorry if I caused a misunderstanding. Here's a cup of hot chocolate :)

I bet one day Kerry will say he is heroic and the next day say his service didn't amount to much. He is good at straddling the issue.

-Rudey

On the other hand, there is at least battlefield service to discuss, and they can find his service records.