Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: KantianBurke
It would have been irresponsible for Bush to veto a bill with more security when the US was found to be at risk.
25 posted on 06/01/2002 4:17:43 PM PDT by marajade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: marajade
"It would have been irresponsible for Bush to veto a bill with more security when the US was found to be at risk."

The bill he signed offers less security not more. By Federalizing airport security he has guaranteed that it will be more costly and less efficient, just as everything that the Ferderal Government is involved in.

33 posted on 06/01/2002 6:29:50 PM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: marajade
"It would have been irresponsible for Bush to veto a bill with more security when the US was found to be at risk."

The bill he signed offers less security not more. By Federalizing airport security he has guaranteed that it will be more costly and less efficient, just as everything that the Federal Government is involved in.

34 posted on 06/01/2002 6:30:15 PM PDT by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: marajade
Please spell out the "added security". It is an added headache for all the mothers with tiny children and little old ladies(and men) in support hose, while the terrorists walk right by. After all, being "insensitive" is worse that allowing a terrorist on a plane.
59 posted on 06/02/2002 11:40:23 AM PDT by Politicalmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson