But the instant critiques of the president's first actions--why, he dawdled too long in Sarasota, he hid out in Nebraska, he didn't speak to us soon enough--now seem, well, churlish and woefully uninformed.

The Peter Jennings and Dan Rather types pissed me off almost as much as the terrorists with this drivel.

But the instant critiques of the president's first actions--why, he dawdled too long in Sarasota, he hid out in Nebraska, he didn't speak to us soon enough--now seem, well, churlish and woefully uninformed.

Not "churlish" .... CHILDISH. The adults are back in town ... and the childish libs are throwing tantrums.

God bless our President.

This guy completely misses the point. What was wrong with the president authorizing the military to shoot down any rogue airliner that threatened to kill thousands on the ground? If the military had been able to shoot down the two plains that hit the WTC, these clowns would not have wanted them to.

If the passengers aboard the second flight headed towards Washington hadn't sacrificed themselved, the military would have shot it down. The media realizes that the passengers who confronted the terrorists are heroes, but Bush is evil for giving the military the power to do, essentially, the same thing those brave men did. I really don't understand it.

I didn't pick this up earlier, but this article implies that the president must give the authority to shoot an airliner down. That means that even if there were fighter jets above Manhattan and they were 100% sure the second airliner was headed for the second tower, they couldn't have shot it down without the president giving them permission to do so. Does anyone here know if this is really the case, or not?

The statement that this decision was reached should give each of us increased confidence in the decision-making ablity of our President

That decision looks very sharp in hind-sight, however it was made with limited information.

As America began to pray, information reached passengers on the 4th jet, and they boldly acted.

We should all be grateful that the USAF did not have to shot down the 4th jet. It certainly would have lead to a lot of division on many levels of our nation, and may have been judged as ruthless.

Instead we have the relief that its intended target and occupants were all spared. Remember the observations of AA 77, and the conclusion that it was searching for the White House. it could have easily taken out the Capitol or Washington Monument, instead hit a portion of the pentagon with limited results, taking out a secondary target.

My heart and prayers go out to those in the 4 planes, pentagon and both WTC towers.

An American President using the military to fire upon and burn American civilians to death? This has never happened before, ever, ever, ever, in our history!!!

Does it matter? I called for shooting the sucker down too, when we got word a plane was hijacked over PA. The only reason it would matter is if a bunch of nutballs want to harass a pilot and ask him 'how it felt' to shoot down an airliner. Thank God he didn't have to do so.

What was wrong with the president authorizing the military to shoot down any rogue airliner that threatened to kill thousands on the ground?

Not a damn thing. If we learned anything from last week, it's that those on the plane are already dead. Don't add to the body count by letting the terrorists make corpses on the ground as well.

Now to read about another person, who though not an American, had to face a situation even more evil: Read up on Winston Churchill and his descision regarding Coventry.

Vice President Dick Cheney has described how Secret Service agents unceremoniously grabbed him by his arms and his belt and hustled him into a bunker beneath the White House.

You just gotta love the Secret Service, if the president or Vice president is in danger, to heck with your pride, we are going to grab you butt and head you to safety!! PERIOD!!

I am glad that these guys take thier jobs so seriously, they are some of the best we have. Keep ever vigilant Secret Service and keep these great men safe!!!

It's the moral dilemma of all time, isn't it....but, what is the alternative?

Shoot down a plane that contains hijackers bent on a suicide mission to hit a building full of people, and save lives, or

do nothing and let more die than simply acting?

I'll never second-guess this decision - as horrifying a decision as it was.

Then again, if I remember correctly, you disagreed with the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, which, were basically the same sort of imperative dilemma - which course of action would save MORE American lives?

An American President using the military to fire upon and burn American civilians to death? This has never happened before, ever, ever, ever, in our history!!!

And it still has not happened. So what's you point? Better yet, given the same situation, what would YOU have done? Or, let's say, your wife is held hostage by someone with a bomb and he is going to drag her with him into your house and kill all of your children inside. What would you do? Let him? Or would you stop him if you could? Even if it meant killing your wife.

Regardless of whether the order was carried out or not, doesn't matter. The probability of the plane being forced to land by fighters unharmed is next to nothing. The heroic passengers brought that plane down knowing full well the consequences of their action versus inaction. I believe those brave souls would have wanted to be shot down to save other American lives had they not been able to act as they did. The President is absolutely correct to have issued the order. If you were in his shoes, what would you say? What would you say to those countless family members if such a plane was not shot down and murdered a 5,000 + more people? Thank God for GWB! Al Gore would already have surrendered.

Apparently irony is lost on some people. I was referring to Waco.

Shooting down a plane that has been converted into a weapon is not murder, even if there are civilians on board. In such a case, no one is killing the civilians as a means to achieving some desired result.

Dropping the bombs on Japan was NOT a "moral dilemma." It was a deliberate, direct attack on civilians, as a means to bring about a desired result, which makes it a crime.

See post #15.

I was referring to Waco.

Now we know. But apples are not oranges.

I think this was a tongue-in-cheek reference to Waco.

The president made the right decision. However, I probably would feel a little queezy if Clinton had made that decision.