It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Hart Rudman, Bush, Gore, and 9/11

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 18 2004 @ 05:51 PM
In my short time here, I have mostly supported Bush, though I remain indecided about my vote so far. As I have stated before, I will vote on the issues and who I think will be a better leader for the next four years - not on mud-slinging and who-is-worse-than-who.

I decided to read up a little on the Hart-Rudman Act and President Bush's inability to get things started on time. It does appear that he dropped the ball on this one - again, hindsight is 20/20, but things could have been done here in a more timely manner. I do applaud his actions in establishing most of what the act stipulated soon afterwards, however. Contrary to what was said earlier, Bush established the Department of Homeland Security on October 8, with Tom Ridge as the head.

Now to my next point. Saying that 9/11 wouldn't have happened under Gore's watch is irresponsible and sensationalistic. There is NO way to know what would have happened if Gore had won the election, and to say that you know what would have happened is to allow ridicule heaped upon yourself for acting like a soothsayer. This would be like a conservative stating that if Bush Sr. would have beaten Clinton in 1992, a lot more people in Arkansas and DC would be alive today, because heresay has it that the Clintons had them all killed. Is this true? Who is to say? WE WILL NEVER KNOW, BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY. The past is past - we can learn by it, but we can never repeat it, nor should we speculate what could have happened.

If someone else speaks of Gore preventing 9/11 again, I would remind you that for all we know, Gore would have signed a peace treaty with OBL and Saddam. Who knows? Let it be - focus on today's issues.

Kerry vs. Bush. The NEXT four years.


log in