Roger Long wrote:

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'd admit shocking surprise and give him just as much credit as I'm giving
Bush. But, that's just as hypothetical as saying that Gore would have done
exactly what Bush did.

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

I would suggest that, rather than pulling us out of it, the Great Depression
was greatly exacerbated by said Democrat. Had the anti-capitalist sitting
in the White House not taken such drastic anti-business actions, we may have
seen the Great Depression last half as long (if not less) - and we're STILL
dealing with the after-effects of Roosevelt's tampering. Further, I don't
think I'd react well to somebody who referred to Stalin as "Uncle Joe".

I will give Truman credit for having the balls to drop Fat Man and Little
Boy, though.

The Cuban missile crisis was handled by a Democrat.

And handled quite well, too.

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

Another example of colossal intelligence failure. History showed that there
was no missile gap or bomber gap. Nonetheless, kudos for backbone.

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

Does the phrase "They can't bomb a ****house without my approval" mean
anything to you? Sure, Vietnam was escalated by Johnson, but he gets a
failing grade for not letting the military do its job.

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.

Agreed. However, that's one issue of many to be considered and I have
serious issues with many other planks in the Democratic platform. Further,
most of the leaders of the party are much too socialist for my taste.
(Don't confuse that with satisfaction with Republican leadership, though.)

(Take a moment and ponder the combat
experience of the candidates.)

Again, just one issue of many issues. In comparing the combat experience of
Kerry vs. Bush, I'd say it's apples and oranges. While I will grant you
that a CIC with combat experience is generally preferrable, I propose that
it is not necessary to perform the CIC role effectively - especially if the
CIC knows enough to simply give goals to the real experts and then get out
of their way.

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.

What would some of those things be? Further, who do you think would have
done them or done them better?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________