Clarification:

I'm not the least bit interested in what anyone thinks Gore would have done
are what Kerry might do.

I was just asking people to ask themselves, in the privacy of their own
heads, how much of the approval of Bush's handling of terrorism is due to
his being a republican and how much is due to objective analysis of what he
has done.

My question was: If Gore had done *exactly* what Bush has done (however
improbable you may think that to be), what would the republicans among you
be saying now?

I think we would be hearing a lot of stuff along the lines of "See,
democrats are always afraid to use enough troops to get the job done, etc."

I can't help but point out that:

The country was pulled out of depression and WWII won by a Democrat.

The Cuban missile crisis was handled by a Democrat.

The commitment to build up our nuclear deterrent was initiated by a Democrat
(the "missile gap" as a key campaign issue).

Vietnam was turned into a real war by a Democrat and a Republican watched
the last chopper leave the embassy on TV.

There have been some notable mishandling of military action by other
Democratic presidents but there is nothing in the Democratic philosophy or
platform that makes it a given that any Commander in Chief of that party
will wimp out. That's something you have to look to the individual for.
(Take a moment and ponder the combat experience of the candidates.)

However spectacular the results look on CNN, and however inspiring his TV
presence, Bush has done all the easy things and none of the hard, tough,
difficult, time consuming, and complex ones in the war on terrorism.

--

Roger Long