Our rights are being taken away-Patriot Act

[Pop N Wood]

In my experience' date=' the “sheeple†are on the side of the patriot act because they simply don’t take the time to research things.

 

What category do you fall in?[/quote']

 

There are far to many wonderfully brilliant posts on this very thread refuting this very statement. Frankly, I'm shocked... ... to be reading that this is STILL your possition. Personally, I choose to fall into the catagory of the silent majority who know that WE are in charge of the Patriot Act... and as a Patriot, I choose to believe in the greater good of those we elect into office, giving them the responsibility of getting it done on our behalf.

 

Maybe I am using too many big words for you. Was it not fair my turning your own argument back at you? Pertinent or not? I am having a real problem with people using the word “sheeple†to seemingly discredit other people’s arguments when they are incapable of providing anything other than generalities to support their own arguments. My guess is the majority of the "sheeple" remain blissfully ignorant of anything to do with the patriot act.

 

One other thing. You might try taking a course on the constitution to better understand where the government, our government, derives it’s power. It really doesn’t matter to me what your beliefs are. If the elected representatives pass a law that is conflicts with the constitution, then they have violated the very contract which grants them their power. Probably 95% of the Patriot Act is benign, common sense procedural items that probably needed to be done anyway (check out the web site the DOJ created site to promote this very agenda: http://www.lifeandliberty.gov). But the other 5% does violate the spirit, if not the letter of the constitution. And I believe history will prove me right when the courts strike down those portions of the act.

 

 

NO' date=' I'm not saying anything. History proves that record clearly. Its not opinion, it is the record. Luck had nothing to do with it. Policy did. Tax Policy. The MORE the government "allows" us and business to keep of our own production... the better the economy will due. It's plain and simple

.[/quote']

.

Again, a massive oversimplification hardly worth responding to other than to say nothing concerning the economy is so black and white. “provesâ€, “clearlyâ€, “not an opinionâ€. All unsubstantiated verbiage.

 

And please, stop quoting Hollywood movies to support your arguments.

[tannji]

If I may put forth some rather curt and perhaps inflammatory statements:

 

1. I personally feel far more threatened by soldiers with M16s than by turban-clad lunatics with Ak-47s.

 

2. Most emphatically, I do not believe that the U.S. should be at war, or that the “war on terrorism†is a war at all. War, by definition, is between nation-states; between governments.

 

3. And, to be entirely forthright, I would rather risk being blown up by terrorists than being interrogated in a basement cell of some federal building. I don’t say this in some benighted effort to appear heroic, in the “give me liberty or give me death†sense. But I’ve heard enough from first-hand sources about what it means to be “protected†by one’s government.

 

 

Michael, I dont know you, or your history. You come off as educated, (in the modern sense of the word) and not aggressive or argumentative. Additionally, we must have something in common, as we are both members of one of the best private interest sites on the web!

 

That being said, and without trying to be offensive myself.... but WTF!!! With tongue in cheek, and in keeping with the tone of most of the other posts in this thread, I submit it is unlikely that you can with any real credibility know if you would prefer "turban-clad lunatics with Ak-47s" over our GI's. I hold a very stong belief that should you ever face that situation, your viewpoint would change. I have NEVER heard anyone who had been in such a situation say anything remotely similar. You sound like you hold an American degree.... So you are qualified to hold positions like say... the Peace Corps. That would place you in a situation where at least the percentage of people sharing your beliefs would likely be higher, and you would also have a chance at proving your convictions!

 

As to my own qualifications.... I havent faced "turban-clad lunatics with Ak-47s", but I have been "interrogated" in a federal facility over a breach of security and confidentiality. (not by myself, but based on the premise that I could have known about it, and either aided or prevented it) This was during the dying days of the Cold War, so I wasnt able to summon much of the confidence in the outcome I would probably carry today. It may not have been in a "basement cell", but it was under serious enough conditions that I wasnt going to quibble. As un-nerving as that experience was, I would undergo it again without hesitation, especially if it meant avoiding the terrorist scenario. I would dearly love one of our veterans of the conflicts in Iraq to chime in here.... I am certain what their opinion would be.

It is so easy to make statements such as these, when we havent been involved in a situation that would qualify the remarks. The closest I have seen to this would be some of Kerry's Post Viet Nam remarks, but he at least had seen some combat, even if the record of it appears to have been since exaggerated.

Anyhow, no offense but that remark doesnt put you in the most complimentary light possible.... and once again, this post has been about 4 hours in the making due to my workload at home, so someone may have already posted and gotten an illuminary response from you.... I will know as soon as I hit Submit.... I can see your standpoint, but perhaps it would have been easier to relate to if it hadnt been posted in such an extreme and unlikely scenario.

[pparaska]

Your kidding!? Right? Of course its purpose is to SAVE LIVES. And anyone with functioning brain cells should be wary of the potential abuses. That's the beauty of being an American! We don't have to fear these things... we have each other! Its never been easier or more realistic to network as a nation for what is right. Question authority... but support it as well.

 

No I'm not kidding unfortunately. Some of my closest friends have gone absolutely nuts in the past few years and now believe that Bush is out to get us, to start WWIII, to turn the US into a police state, etc etc etc. I'm not one of these people, but I know quite a few of them and they were what I would consider rational only a few years ago. Don't fool yourself by thinking that no one believes Michael Moore's BS or no one questions Bush's motives.

 

To me, that's the really scary part. That people who you thought were rational have taken this conspiracy theory and swallowed it as truth. But tell them not to worry, everyone in Washington DC is in the Illuminati (chuckle). There's no getting away from the rampant, organized conspirators... We're all doomed - the sky is falling....

 

Yeah, right. The people of this fine country would absolutely burn DC to the ground in a day flat the minute they thought the US was REALLY becoming a police state - it wouldn't be just some militants in the mid west forests either.

 

Personally, I'd find a new set of people to hang out with if my friends were all taking this Bush is the Devil stuff SERIOUSLY.

[pparaska]

To this day we are not allowed to have a hand in making real decisions...such as NAFTA' date=' such as the Warren Commision, such as the 911 Commision...we get bottle fed a programming and anyone who questions said program is labeled then demonized.

 

Your perception is your reality - it doesnt mean your are right or wrong it only means it is all you have to go on and you have made your decision based on said input. It doesnt mean that there is no other input to review (hence the incredible doc's the govt wont release regarding JFK, OKC Murrow Building Bombing, 911 - you name the event and there is not full disclosure)...and when they do release it it is full of black marker strikes leading said doc unreadable.[/quote']

 

It can't be that way. Every other nation and militant group has secrets and our government can't? We lose immediately. I know alot of people don't understand why things are classified. Until you deal with classified material that NEEDS to be classified (admittedly, some stuff is classified for reasons other than protecting the security of the US), it's difficult to appreciate that the average Joe CAN'T have full disclosure. It comes down to the life and death of people. Maybe one, maybe many.

 

Yet we are expected to shed our blood for circumstances that we are not given full disclosure - therefor our perception is incomplete until we get full disclosure. I'm not saying a war or any action is not justified - what I am saying is give me full disclosure. If you are not willing to give me full disclosure then screw you if/and when you expect me to jump on your band wagon for your cause.

 

It's ALWAYS been that way because it HAS to be. There's NO WAY the government should give the public FULL DISCLOSURE of classified information. Not only would the information now be known to all but the METHODS AND SOURCES of classified information gathering, etc. would then be compromised, meaning we have no new classified info of that type/method coming in to have an upper hand or at least a fighting chance. Wars are usually won on who knows what better/sooner. Asking the government for full disclosure means that you're asking them to lose any conflict in the future.

 

Sorry, Kevin, your perception will have to be incomplete - not that if you even had full disclosure would it be complete.

[pparaska]

"most likely correct."

 

And John C.' date=' From one realist to another, that is all you can ask, and all we should expect...

 

John C. for President...

Mike[/quote']

 

John, I really wish you'd consider a job in politics. Seriously. Of course, no one on Capitol Hill would understand a word you were saying .

 

Where do I send campaign contributions?

[pparaska]

Pete' date='

 

I didn’t want to identify folks by name, but yes, in my previous post I was thinking of you and others of my friends in the D.C. area.

 

You make a critically important point, which has much to do with the psychology of the differences in our positions. You actually feel safer surrounded by a barbed wire fence and armed guards. Whereas I feel threatened! The barbed wire makes me think of Dachau.

 

In your perspective, evidently, the guards are there to protect you, too. Protecting the “secrets†going on at the military base, and protecting the men and women who work on them, are intimately related. As a law-abiding citizen just doing his job, protecting the secrets means protecting you, too – hence, the guards are on your side.

 

Whereas in my view, the interests of the government and of the individual are invariably at odds. The government which is “best†is that government that’s mired in confrontation with other concentrations of power, such a corporations, unions, PACs, churches, whatever. Then, the individual can “relax†while the various organs of power battle it out. Those teens in uniform toting M16s are there to protect the interests of the government. I do NOT see those interests as my interests. But I swallow my pride and stomach the situation, because I’d rather work in my relatively cushy job than pump gas or dig ditches, even if it means being surrounded by barbed wire. There indeed crumbles the courage of my convictions.

 

The conservative newspaper columnist George Will put it quite deftly, when he wrote that a quintessential feature of government is that it has a monopoly on the legitimate exercise of violence. I agree. But that is precisely what scares me. No terrorist, no matter how brutal, how cunning or how amoral, can exercise violence with “legitimacyâ€. And in that sense, terrorists can be fought. But government is special. Government can exercise violence legitimately – that is its prerogative. One can not hope to confront the government with violence, and entertain the hope – even in the abstract – of winning.

 

 

If I may put forth some rather curt and perhaps inflammatory statements:

 

1. I personally feel far more threatened by soldiers with M16s than by turban-clad lunatics with Ak-47s.

 

2. Most emphatically, I do not believe that the U.S. should be at war, or that the “war on terrorism†is a war at all. War, by definition, is between nation-states; between governments.

 

3. And, to be entirely forthright, I would rather risk being blown up by terrorists than being interrogated in a basement cell of some federal building. I don’t say this in some benighted effort to appear heroic, in the “give me liberty or give me death†sense. But I’ve heard enough from first-hand sources about what it means to be “protected†by one’s government.[/quote']

 

Well, I'm not too surprised at your response so far - your life experience is different from mine, and you've seen more reason to question government than I have (I see it as 99.9% benign). My way of thinking is more like wheelman's or tannji's. I also wouldn't care too long if I was pulled into a basement interrogation room to be debriefed on something. It'd be uncomfortable, but not horrid.

 

But in number 2 above, you are talking about semantics. O.k. Let's just say that we are in a violent conflict with militants that are not associated with one country or government (since the Taliban is on the run in Afghanistan). The word war is probably used by the administration to get across the SEVERELY SERIOUS SITUATION we are in. When Kerry says BS like "police action", he's playing on old wounds from Viet Nam, using terms of his past political enemies for effect. It undersells the situation. The word WAR is much closer to the state of awareness, preparedness, sacrifice, even gloom that the citizens of this country SHOULD be feeling.

 

On number 3 above - please tell me you're just saying that for effect.

Just who's government was protecting your first hand source? Ours?

 

 

As far as the Patriot Act, I'm with Pop N' Wood - if the 5% of the Patriot Act IS really against the constitution, I have faith it will be changed.

 

I'm still having a problem with the absolutes on this topic though. I asked earlier what other way do we deal with the high probability that there are sleeper cells already in the US planning attacks, and probably more that will sneak across our vastly borders? Just my little brain at work here but it seems that ABSOLUTE personal privacy is not congruent with a situation with terrorist cells already IN the US. Sure, we never had ABSOLUTE personal privacy rights anyway. And the bit about "the ability to get search orders without listing probable cause.", as PopN'Wood said - yes, that's going too far in my opinion. Can someone point me to where that 's in the Patriot Act?

[Guest freedomfighter]

Your kidding!? Right? Of course its purpose is to SAVE LIVES. And anyone with functioning brain cells should be wary of the potential abuses. That's the beauty of being an American! We don't have to fear these things... we have each other! Its never been easier or more realistic to network as a nation for what is right. Question authority... but support it as well.

 

No I'm not kidding unfortunately. Some of my closest friends have gone absolutely nuts in the past few years and now believe that Bush is out to get us' date=' to start WWIII, to turn the US into a police state, etc etc etc. I'm not one of these people, but I know quite a few of them and they were what I would consider rational only a few years ago. Don't fool yourself by thinking that no one believes Michael Moore's BS or no one questions Bush's motives.

[/quote']

 

To me, that's the really scary part. That people who you thought were rational have taken this conspiracy theory and swallowed it as truth. But tell them not to worry, everyone in Washington DC is in the Illuminati (chuckle). There's no getting away from the rampant, organized conspirators... We're all doomed - the sky is falling....

 

Yeah, right. The people of this fine country would absolutely burn DC to the ground in a day flat the minute they thought the US was REALLY becoming a police state - it wouldn't be just some militants in the mid west forests either.

 

Personally, I'd find a new set of people to hang out with if my friends were all taking this Bush is the Devil stuff SERIOUSLY.

 

MY POINT EXACTLY!

 

We the people are the power... period.

[Pop N Wood]

And the bit about "the ability to get search orders without listing probable cause.", as PopN'Wood said - yes, that's going too far in my opinion. Can someone point me to where that 's in the Patriot Act?

 

I listed the web link in the quote that had that paragraph. http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/. Says Section 215.

 

If you google “Patriot Actâ€, to google’s credit the first link is the actual act (all 300+ pages of legalese). The second is the Department of Justice web site trying to “educate†people on the act. The third is the ACLU, and the fourth is the MSN article I quoted. Hopefully the unabridged facts, both extremes and maybe something in the middle.

[Pop N Wood]

As far as burning DC to the ground, I only live 30 minutes out of town.

 

Actually it has not come to that point (DID YOU ROGER THAT, HOMELAND SECURITY GUYS??). We can easily work within the system to get this resolved.

 

Maybe the patriot act has been the greatest boon to law enforcement since the advent of the fingerprint and maybe it has yet to be used for anything other than what it was intended. But the potential for abuse is there. Ruby Ridge started when some FBI guy duped a suspected white supremacist into sawing off two shotguns for them. That turned a person with less then politically correct views into public enemy #1 and led directly to the stupidity (on both sides) that ensued. I really don’t want to turn this debate from the patriot act to Ruby Ridge or Waco. But that situation summarizes my fears about a government with an agenda.

 

Think about how nebulous the word “national security†is. Jmortenson and I have openly disagreed with this law on what is understood to be a very public, non secure medium. Couple that with the half dozen web searches I have done on the topic. I consider this to be healthy dialog (I know I have learned a lot). But does this mean we could now both have our library records pulled in the interest of national security? (I would bring up Kevin Shasteen but my guess is he is already on someone’s watch list ).

 

Do we really need to give the government such a big hammer?

[Mikelly]

We let these kinds of discussions persist on our site for these reasons. I'd like to believe that we are intelligent enough, smart enough, civil enough, and mature enough to debate such topics without letting emotion run them into being deleted... That is the purpose... Pop, Jon M., Kevin, Phil and Michael make very good arguments for your view on this crazy world we all currently deal with. Nothing wrong with reasonable dialogue on subjects that are obviously on all our minds.

 

We come from different backgrounds, with different views on life, liberty and our pursuits of Freedom. How each of us pursues it is no different than making our own Zcar creations... the end is the same, in our own personal views. Gentlemen, I offer up this answer... there is no defined right or wrong... These are simply opinions and views...

 

This has been a NINE PAGE THREAD of very RELEVANT information that has been very thought provoking. For that, I applaud all of us for keeping it grounded and spirited, yet civil. There are folks who live elsewhere in the world who would love to have such luxuries…

 

God bless us all!

 

Mike the fence sitter... 8)

[Kevin Shasteen]

We let these kinds of discussions persist on our site for these reasons. I'd like to believe that we are intelligent enough' date=' smart enough, civil enough, and mature enough to debate such topics without letting emotion run them into being deleted... That is the purpose... Pop, Jon M., Kevin, Phil and Michael make very good arguments for your view on this crazy world we all currently deal with. Nothing wrong with reasonable dialogue on subjects that are obviously on all our minds.

 

We come from different backgrounds, with different views on life, liberty and our pursuits of Freedom. How each of us pursues it is no different than making our own Zcar creations... the end is the same, in our own personal views. Gentlemen, I offer up this answer... there is no defined right or wrong... These are simply opinions and views...

 

[b']This has been a NINE PAGE THREAD of very RELEVANT information that has been very thought provoking. For that, I applaud all of us for keeping it grounded and spirited, yet civil. There are folks who live elsewhere in the world who would love to have such luxuries…[/b]

 

God bless us all!

 

Mike the fence sitter... 8)

 

Ditto that,

 

Pete,

 

I never said I or all of us needed "Complete Disclosure". The point I was making is w/out said complete disclosure - you do not have the comlete story. As a result you can not make a correct assumption w/o said full disclosure - therefore, your opinion is limited (compromised) and if you blindly accept this compromise w/o questioning it then you are subject to being manipulated regardless of how blindly patriotic your opinion may be. That is all I've been trying to say.

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[Mikelly]

Kevin is right... I can argue from my unique point of view all day long the WMD stance and why it was a "sure Bet", but without disclosure of real facts, real data (And most likely JAIL TIME FOR ME), few would understand how we got where we are in good faith.

 

Always question, and never assume your government is "Looking out for you!". It keeps us healthy.

 

Mike

[johnc]

Why hasnt the onwer of Building #7's interview on a public ran PBS film where he admitted "I decided to PULL the building due to the surface damage caused by the falling debris from the other buildings" make the newspapers?

 

For those who dont know what "Pulling" means, it is a Demolitionist term and means to "Implode" a building. If the owner, on the spur of the moment decided to "PULL" the building this would imply that the explosives were already in the building - otherwise how could a building be imploded only minutes after the decision was made when it takes months to prep a high rise building for said implosion. Yet no one wants to talk about building #7 - ooooh, conspiracy theory wacko nut weirdo.

 

Never in the history that mankind has been building high rises has a steel frame building perfectly fallen inward, just like an implosion, due to debris falling on it from the outside - NEVER! Untill of course 911's building #7...yet the owner of the building admitted that he gave the go to "Pull" it...implying the explosives were already there!

 

Oh God! Kevin, I'll do your research for you:

 

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0111290236nov29.story

 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-12/su-sed120301.php

 

http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/jan04/departments/washington/washington.html

 

http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch7.pdf

 

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch7.pdf

 

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/letters.html

 

Letters

 

Ever since analyses of the collapse of the twin towers began to appear, I have been troubled by the omission of a most relevant piece of evidence. Dr. Eagar alludes to it in his first sentence but never follows up. My problem is: If the towers came down as a result of the crash-related structural damage, obliteration of fireproofing, and burning fuel, then why did the 47-story Building 7, which was not hit, also fall some hours later? It apparently failed as the result of a common fire. Now that is scary, because it suggests that all tall buildings are likewise vulnerable. Will someone please explain that?

 

Bill Denton

Mempis, Tennessee

 

Dr. Eagar responds:

 

I was also curious about Building 7 when it was described to me. I told the person who described it that there must have been another source of fuel in that building. It turns out there was. Building 7 contained the New York City Emergency Management Control Station, and as a result, it had three tanks of diesel fuel holding tens of thousands of gallons to run their emergency electric generators. What we learn from this is not to store tens of thousands of gallons of fuel in high-rise buildings. Fortunately, most high-rises do not have such huge fuel storage facilities.

 

 

WTC 7 collapsed for the same basic reason as 1 and 2 - fire. And I saw the NOVA show where the "pull" statement was made and it was in the conext of "what will you do with the building." It was not an immediate order to bring the building down. A few hours later the building collapsed on its own accord.

[Kevin Shasteen]

Perhaps you should re-listen to that Nova program. His words were, "We CHOSE to pull the building"...not "We WILL pull the building once the thing cools off".

 

My opinion, yes I know it differs from others - but is still my opinion.

 

BTW, I can post a dozen links to each one of your links stating the contrary to which you will then post a dozen links to counter my links - so the links from individuals that didnt have 1st hand knowledge, yet rely on heresay, dont mean that much to me.

 

I'm only interested in those with 1st hand knowledge, like the NYC firemen...oh wait - they were forced to sign gag orders preventing them from speaking openly...I'm sure that was for the name sake of National Security and had nothing to do with the FACT they were claiming, those that did make it out alive, they had heard dozens of secondary explosions seconds prior to the building coming down.

 

I'm sure the NYF know the difference between beams snapping loose and explosions...so why not let them speak? And no - I dont want links I would like some commen since responses.

 

The bottom line is we all have our opinions and these opinions will differ. I will listen to all sides - but if one side is kept from me regardless of the reason then I am highly suspect.

 

The only

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[Moridin]

I'll try not to but in too much here, as I already have before, but I wanted to point a minor point out.

 

There was a member on here, and I think it was a year and a half ago, that lived in the San Jose area. Anyway, we started talking a bit, about going karting, getting Z's running, etc... Basically, I came to find out that he had been interogated and jailed on 3 seperate occasions with no access to a laywer, no reasons why he was in some basement, and so on. I also found out he was 18 at the time and of Palistinian descent (wore a turbin and was growing the beard). I haven't talked to him in awhile, but last time I heard from him, he moved to Saudi Arabia so he wouldn't have to deal with the government's B.S. He just wanted to go to school, get a degree, and do some stuff with cars.

 

Oh...he was born and raised in the United States.

[Guest freedomfighter]

I'll try not to but in too much here' date=' as I already have before, but I wanted to point a minor point out.

 

There was a member on here, and I think it was a year and a half ago, that lived in the San Jose area. Anyway, we started talking a bit, about going karting, getting Z's running, etc... Basically, I came to find out that he had been interogated and jailed on 3 seperate occasions with no access to a laywer, no reasons why he was in some basement, and so on. I also found out he was 18 at the time and of Palistinian descent (wore a turbin and was growing the beard). I haven't talked to him in awhile, but last time I heard from him, he moved to Saudi Arabia so he wouldn't have to deal with the government's B.S. He just wanted to go to school, get a degree, and do some stuff with cars.

 

Oh...he was born and raised in the United States.[/quote']

 

You mean he still had all his fingers and toes and ears and limbs and stuff?! It sure is a good thing he went through that here rather then just about any place else in the world... especially the middle east!

I know many of you seem to wish we lived in a perfect world, but we don't. And if being "safer" during a time of war means checking everynone out, then where the hell do I line up. I will gladdly endure, on behalf of my family and other fellow Americans, the same interigation your Palistinian friend had to go through. Its the price of freedom, baby, and I think its a freakin bargain!

[JMortensen]

Yeah, if there's one place I'd like to be as a Palestinian who was repeatedly questioned by the American authorities, it's Saudi Arabia. He picked just the right time to go too, now that they are cracking down on foreign terrorists. He probably got some serious questioning here, who knows what kind of methods they'll use to question him there. Makes my dangly parts dangle a little less just thinking about it.

[Kevin Shasteen]

.., I will gladdly endure, on behalf of my family and other fellow Americans, the same interigation your Palistinian friend had to go through. Its the price of freedom, baby, and I think its a freakin bargain!

 

Well its not the price of freedom...its the price of social, technical, commercial advancement. But this is the slippery slope we face. We are danged if we do nothing and we are danged (privacy changes forever) if we do what we have to do.

 

Johnc...Forgive me for pulling your chain.

 

I do read both sides of an issue and only posted for the sole purpose of creating open dialogue: and to get the point across that decisions (opinions) made w/out full disclosure should be hightly suspect.

 

I'm not for envasion of one's privacy - but as others have said already, with the advent of technology: what else can you do? This is the extremely tantamountingly dangerous slippery slope to which we, IMHO, will not return.

 

For those that believe we will return do you honestly believe that technology is going to reverse itself and the terrorist, regardless of whom you believe they are, will simply apologize and go home? Of course not. America is transitioning into a new horizon. The old ideological freedoms once enjoyed are being sold down the river in exchange for safety and the 9/11 event was the spark that lit the fire.

 

It is going to be very interesting how it will all play out after it is all said and done.

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[tannji]

Kevin is right... I can argue from my unique point of view all day long the WMD stance and why it was a "sure Bet"' date=' but without disclosure of real facts, real data (And most likely JAIL TIME FOR ME), few would understand how we got where we are in good faith.

 

Always question, and never assume your government is "Looking out for you!". It keeps us healthy.

 

Mike [/quote']

 

The WMD issue is unfortunate, as not only was it focused upon too heavily as an excuse (that we didnt need) but WMD are not really an issue, at least not as to whether or not Saddam had them. The only real question is; Where did they go? I will only suggest that you read between the lines in press releases, certain headlines, and cries of "foul!" from certain Middle Eastern countries and spokesmen. I think that anyone who pays attention, and can interpret a bit will be able to point in the general direction of the WDM, and be able to do it within the year. The only real question mark is the election...... Time will tell, most certainly.

[Guest freedomfighter]

Kevin is right... I can argue from my unique point of view all day long the WMD stance and why it was a "sure Bet"' date=' but without disclosure of real facts, real data (And most likely JAIL TIME FOR ME), few would understand how we got where we are in good faith.

 

Always question, and never assume your government is "Looking out for you!". It keeps us healthy.

 

Mike [/quote']

 

The WMD issue is unfortunate, as not only was it focused upon too heavily as an excuse (that we didnt need) but WMD are not really an issue, at least not as to whether or not Saddam had them. The only real question is; Where did they go? I will only suggest that you read between the lines in press releases, certain headlines, and cries of "foul!" from certain Middle Eastern countries and spokesmen. I think that anyone who pays attention, and can interpret a bit will be able to point in the general direction of the WDM, and be able to do it within the year. The only real question mark is the election...... Time will tell, most certainly.

 

EXACTLY!