Is the ship sinking... - CEG Archives

I'm glad to see Ashcroft gone. Maybe he'll take the Patriot Act with him.

Originally posted by Fat Mike:
Maybe he'll take the Patriot Act with him.

The Patriot Act saved the George Washington Bridge in New York. It wouldn't surprise me if that didn't matter to you though.

I'm quite surprised that Ashcroft is leaving. You'd think he wouldn't want to leave with so much 'unfinished business'. But maybe this is a testament to the stresses and strains those charged with protecting us feel these days. He has been a great Attorney General.

Mixed feelings about a shakeup. Happy to see a few go, apprehensive about who might replace them. Paranoid that Ashcroft might get anywhere near a Supreme Court seat.

Originally posted by Davo:
The Patriot Act saved the George Washington Bridge in New York.

What was supposed to happen to GWB?

I think you are confused. Probably another bridge... and may be over another river. So may be not Patriot Act either?

You do understand that its standard that the Attorney General only serves one term, right? Its nothing new, its a very difficult position to be in, no matter what, let alone post-9/11. There will be shakeups, for sure, but to say the ship is sinking is silly.

E1

I don't think that any of us here any the slightest idea just how stressful these cabinet positions really are. Ashcroft's gallbladder removal was directly attributed to extreme levels of stress. The other positions given 9/11 aren't much different though his was probably one of the worst hit. Most of these people are just looking forward to being able to spend time with their families again after four years of being a ghost on the homefront for all intents and purposes. They are human just like all the rest of us and they have limits, most of which have been crossed at this point.

Also, cabinet shuffles almost always occur at re-election time. Fresh talent brings in people who aren't run down and worried about ailing family relationships, health issues, and so forth. As important as these positions are to each individual they mean nothing if they risk losing their families in the process. In many ways the cabinet positions are a much more stressful job than the presidency itself.

Re-election is the only "good" time for those to step down that know they need to. Any other time and it can be touch and go politically in so far as damage control is concerned unless an obvious reason is at hand.

Given the suspect nature of the problems on both the domestic issues and the foreign policy issues it would seem prudent on several levels to get some new cabinet members in place.

Small scale shakeups yes, this looks like an overhaul.
Stress or family issues? BS! There's something else behind this especially if the whole afore mentioned flock leaves. Elected officials at this level surrendered a "normal" family life a long time ago.
The cabinet IS the president! Dubya is the face not the brains.

Originally posted by alex_96GL:
What was supposed to happen to GWB?
I think you are confused. Probably another bridge... and may be over another river. So may be not Patriot Act either?

I am definitely confused, because I have no idea what your post is supposed to mean.

uh, ok... presumably it was B-klyn bridge. that's on the other side of Manhattan

IMO, the story was all too fishy to believe it in the 1st place. but then again, if you live in NYC you get an altogether different perspective of the war on terror, so I'm probably overly cynical

Originally posted by RT and his SE:
Small scale shakeups yes, this looks like an overhaul.
Stress or family issues? BS! There's something else behind this especially if the whole afore mentioned flock leaves. Elected officials at this level surrendered a "normal" family life a long time ago.
The cabinet IS the president! Dubya is the face not the brains.

Cabinet appointees are not elected officials FYI, they are appointed cabinet positions chosen BY elected officials. Why everyone buys into the conspiracy theory crap about "there's gotta be something else behind this" really escapes me. For all of our thinking that other people's lives are so drastically different than our own, people are largely the same, whether in the private or public sectors. Is there always something else going on behind the scenes in your own life that causes several other people to make certain decisions in their lives that are close to you? Micro to macro is applicable here.

Sure it's possible there's an agenda at work, but these cabinet posts in many cases aren't related to one another directly so it's hard to make that argument. Could be that the folks just disagree with the commander in chief, could be that they're just plain tired and want to get away from it all. Remember that many of the cabinet members led very successful lives outside of their public service commitments and simply may feel it's time to get back to their "normal" life. This was the original intent of limited terms for all offices. People that were successful in the private sector dedicated a small portion of their lives to serving in the public sector, then returned to their private lives after the fact. This practice minimized gov't corruption because there were no interests to be bought. Not the case in today's unlimited term Congress and Senate.

Originally posted by RT and his SE:

The cabinet IS the president! Dubya is the face not the brains.

Is this the way liberals are looking at this election..
"We did not win but with the cabinet gone we did not lose either. Which means we won! Just like in 2000. So essentially, we have controlled the white house for the last 12 years, except for the last 4 years "W"s face was there. This can only be proof that the American public heartily endorses our liberal adgenda"

Originally posted by Dan Nixon:

Originally posted by RT and his SE:

The cabinet IS the president! Dubya is the face not the brains.

Is this the way liberals are looking at this election..
"We did not win but with the cabinet gone we did not lose either. Which means we won! Just like in 2000. So essentially, we have controlled the white house for the last 12 years, except for the last 4 years "W"s face was there. This can only be proof that the American public heartily endorses our liberal adgenda"

So Georgie's cabinet was appointed by Liberals now?
Let me see if I can help you a little. Myself as a concerned American citizen wants to know why the people who have been running our country for the last 4 years now suddenly want out. One, two maybe three people leaving I would say ok but if all these people leave it looks like a vote of no confidence. The question is legitimate no matter what side of the aisle you stand on.
Dan, if you want to start a Conservative vs Liberal pissing match go start your own thread.

Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Is this the way liberals are looking at this election..

If so, they're in for quite the reality check. John McIntyre of RealClearPolitics.com sums it up nicely:

Originally posted by John McIntyre, RCP:
But what really makes Democrats and the liberal elites sick is they know what George W. Bush is going to do with this hard fought victory. They saw him take a 500,000 popular vote loss and ram through massive tax cut after massive tax cut. They saw him in a post 9/11 world radically shift American foreign policy to embrace the doctrine of American preemption and military dominance. They know full well what George W. Bush can do.

For an average President, a 51-48 win wouldn't be that big of a deal. For this President, however, a majority of the popular vote coupled with expanded majorities in Congress is all he needs to permanently change the political course of this country.

Democrats know that on a whole host of policy issues a world of hurt is coming their way. Private accounts for Social Security, medical savings accounts, tax simplification, tort reform and much, much more are all in the pipeline.

And let's not kid ourselves with the idea that any of this is going to be bipartisan. There will be no negotiation with the Nancy Pelosis, Charlie Rangels or Barbara Boxers in this Congress. The bipartisanship will come from Red State Democratic Senators who have seen what happened to their former Red State Democratic Senators who obstruct and side with the far Left.

We haven't even mentioned the Big Kahuna: the Supreme Court. In many ways the battle for the Supreme Court is the single most important issue. Democrats know they were lucky to go four years and not have a single appointment from President Bush. They won't be so fortunate this time.

With 55 Republican Senators and the ghost of Tom Daschle echoing in the Senate chamber, President Bush is going to seriously reshape the third branch of our government. While the press may reduce this to being all about abortion, in reality abortion and Roe vs. Wade will only be a very small part of what the Supreme Court is going to have the final say over in the next 30 years. And liberals know that it is not just the three or four appointments to the High Court, but the dozens, even hundreds of lifetime appointments to the entire Federal bench that will lock in conservative jurisprudence for an entire generation.

This brings us back full circle to how devastating to liberals that 135,000 vote margin in the Buckeye state will be to the future course of this country. Was this a mandate or a landslide for President Bush? No. But it was one of the most consequential elections in this nation's history, the ramifications of which will be felt for decades. And behind all the vitriol, blather and post-election spin; that sick feeling among Democrats is because they know this to be true.

Link to rest of article.

Originally posted by Viss1:
Paranoid that Ashcroft might get anywhere near a Supreme Court seat.

My thought exactly...

Originally posted by Davo:

Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Is this the way liberals are looking at this election..

If so, they're in for quite the reality check. John McIntyre of RealClearPolitics.com sums it up nicely:
Originally posted by John McIntyre, RCP:
But what really makes Democrats and the liberal elites sick is they know what George W. Bush is going to do with this hard fought victory. They saw him take a 500,000 popular vote loss and ram through massive tax cut after massive tax cut. They saw him in a post 9/11 world radically shift American foreign policy to embrace the doctrine of American preemption and military dominance. They know full well what George W. Bush can do.

For an average President, a 51-48 win wouldn't be that big of a deal. For this President, however, a majority of the popular vote coupled with expanded majorities in Congress is all he needs to permanently change the political course of this country.

Democrats know that on a whole host of policy issues a world of hurt is coming their way. Private accounts for Social Security, medical savings accounts, tax simplification, tort reform and much, much more are all in the pipeline.

And let's not kid ourselves with the idea that any of this is going to be bipartisan. There will be no negotiation with the Nancy Pelosis, Charlie Rangels or Barbara Boxers in this Congress. The bipartisanship will come from Red State Democratic Senators who have seen what happened to their former Red State Democratic Senators who obstruct and side with the far Left.

We haven't even mentioned the Big Kahuna: the Supreme Court. In many ways the battle for the Supreme Court is the single most important issue. Democrats know they were lucky to go four years and not have a single appointment from President Bush. They won't be so fortunate this time.

With 55 Republican Senators and the ghost of Tom Daschle echoing in the Senate chamber, President Bush is going to seriously reshape the third branch of our government. While the press may reduce this to being all about abortion, in reality abortion and Roe vs. Wade will only be a very small part of what the Supreme Court is going to have the final say over in the next 30 years. And liberals know that it is not just the three or four appointments to the High Court, but the dozens, even hundreds of lifetime appointments to the entire Federal bench that will lock in conservative jurisprudence for an entire generation.

This brings us back full circle to how devastating to liberals that 135,000 vote margin in the Buckeye state will be to the future course of this country. Was this a mandate or a landslide for President Bush? No. But it was one of the most consequential elections in this nation's history, the ramifications of which will be felt for decades. And behind all the vitriol, blather and post-election spin; that sick feeling among Democrats is because they know this to be true.

Link to rest of article.

Hurrah for the single party system! Wait that been tried before. Well thank God we had the we had the most powerful country in the free world to show them the error of their ways!

So who will show us?
"We have met the enemy and they are ours."

I can see where this has nothing to do with the topic other than to inflate your little conservative chubbies. So thanks for playing.

Thank God we live in a country where the biggest crisis of the day is the changing of the guard in GW's cabinet.

Originally posted by Dan Nixon:
Is this the way liberals are looking at this election..
"We did not win but with the cabinet gone we did not lose either. Which means we won! Just like in 2000. So essentially, we have controlled the white house for the last 12 years, except for the last 4 years "W"s face was there. This can only be proof that the American public heartily endorses our liberal adgenda"

I don't know about all that, but it certainly does appear that Bush is the talking head - or the pawn if you want to get melodramatic - for the people who now appear to be leaving en masse. That raises an eyebrow for me.

Originally posted by RT and his SE:
So Georgie's cabinet was appointed by Liberals now?
Let me see if I can help you a little. Myself as a concerned American citizen wants to know why the people who have been running our country for the last 4 years now suddenly want out. One, two maybe three people leaving I would say ok but if all these people leave it looks like a vote of no confidence. The question is legitimate no matter what side of the aisle you stand on.
Dan, if you want to start a Conservative vs Liberal pissing match go start your own thread.

There are 21 cabinet positions, of them, two have resigned (AG and CS), and three others are rumored to be considering a move. Of the three others, two of them are directly related to wartime/terrorism, those being Rumsfeld (SD) and Powell (SS). While morals seemed to have gotten Bush reelected, the polls also show that Iraq is the number one issue on people's minds, so to me it makes perfect sense to consider a change of leadership for the key positions surrounding the terrorism and wartime issues in order to at least create the perception, if not the reality, of new direction.

Powell is by far the largest asset they have, I would be wounded if he stepped down

well it looks to me that bush might be making a move to bring his admin a little closer to center. getting rid of a$$croft and dumbsfeld is a start.

having stuck to the chastity belt toting, bible thumping, terrorist rebuking, tax cutting ways of the right wing conservatives helped bush to keep his seat, but i think the solid division of voters spoke volumes. it's obvious that come 2008, far right conservatism won't appeal to the voting masses since terrorism will hopefully not be as big of an issue.

Originally posted by Swazo:
Powell is by far the largest asset they have, I would be wounded if he stepped down

In your opinion does Powell have political aspirations for 2008 - and if he does, is he better served by distancing himself from Bush or maintaining a position in cabinet?

Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
In your opinion does Powell have political aspirations for 2008 - and if he does, is he better served by distancing himself from Bush or maintaining a position in cabinet?

That's hard to tell. Bush's popularity was proved with this current election. Certain Senators-elect from South Dakota, North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia would agree. But if some kind of scandal breaks (as has happened in the second terms of the last three two-term presidents) or Iraq isn't resolved (God help us if it isn't), then every Republican is going to be running from him, much like the Dems were running from Clinton in 2000.

Originally posted by Davo:
But if some kind of scandal breaks (as has happened in the second terms of the last three two-term presidents) or Iraq isn't resolved (God help us if it isn't), then every Republican is going to be running from him, much like the Dems were running from Clinton in 2000.

The reason I ask is that during the campaign Powell seemed to be noticeably absent from the news - but then again, that might have been the nature of the campaign coverage up here.

Originally posted by BP:
well it looks to me that bush might be making a move to bring his admin a little closer to center. getting rid of a$$croft and dumbsfeld is a start.

having stuck to the chastity belt toting, bible thumping, terrorist rebuking, tax cutting ways of the right wing conservatives helped bush to keep his seat, but i think the solid division of voters spoke volumes. it's obvious that come 2008, far right conservatism won't appeal to the voting masses since terrorism will hopefully not be as big of an issue.

I would much rather be what you described than a no moral, anti-religion, terroist coddling, tax raising, tree hugging, PETA worshiping, liberal. I just pray to God that people will see through Hillary if, heaven help us, she runs for office.

Originally posted by Mysti-ken:

Originally posted by Swazo:
Powell is by far the largest asset they have, I would be wounded if he stepped down

In your opinion does Powell have political aspirations for 2008 - and if he does, is he better served by distancing himself from Bush or maintaining a position in cabinet?

I would like to see him run for office, and he is someone I would vote for considering his past stances on issues.

What hurt him was going to the UN with fabrications of WMD, which turned out to be total BS. He lost face in the international community IMO, but only to an extent. The blame on that one should fall apon the VP, and I think most of the world knows that. If you look at what his stance was before the 9/11 attacks and after about invading Iraq, you'll see he was not in favor of doing so. Considering his background, I can accept that. He is also a military man, and he can follow orders as well as give them.

I'd like to see Rummy get the boot, and Powell remain where he's at. I think he adds a lot of strength to President Bush's cabinet, so I would like to see him continue being the voice of reason within it.

Originally posted by RT and his SE:
The question is legitimate no matter what side of the aisle you stand on.
Dan, if you want to start a Conservative vs Liberal pissing match go start your own thread.

The question is SILLY no matter what side of the isle you are on. You have an ailing Ashcroft who has been ready to quit for over a year, the sec of commerce - a CLOSE Bush friend leaving (no confidence..from the commerce dept??). You have Powell (rumors ONLY) who was pulled from RETIREMENT, has no political aspirations and is working his ass off..this guy DESERVES to leave if he chooses. Rumsfeld WANTS to stay and probably will, and RICE who has only said she wants someday to GET BACK to ACADEMIA. Has anyone actually expressed no confidence in Bush now that election is over..or is this simply an Al Franken talking point?

The REPUBLICAN ship sinking??? The same Republicans who just won the presidential race with gains in nearly all demographic by the widest margin since 1988, the republican house gaining 10 seats, the republican senate gaining 5 and throwing out a democrat minority leader for the first time in 50 years. I think it a bit premature to start bailing water just yet.

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
I would much rather be what you described than a no moral, anti-religion, terroist coddling, tax raising, tree hugging, PETA worshiping, liberal.

if that was your lame attempt at drawing an opposite parallel to my description then you get an -F for effort.

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
I just pray to God that people will see through Hillary if, heaven help us, she runs for office.

the next election will be even more of a joke than this one if she runs. when it comes down to it she won't even make the ticket.

Originally posted by Dan Nixon:

Originally posted by RT and his SE:
The question is legitimate no matter what side of the aisle you stand on.
Dan, if you want to start a Conservative vs Liberal pissing match go start your own thread.

The question is SILLY no matter what side of the isle you are on. You have an ailing Ashcroft who has been ready to quit for over a year, the sec of commerce - a CLOSE Bush friend leaving (no confidence..from the commerce dept??). You have Powell (rumors ONLY) who was pulled from RETIREMENT, has no political aspirations and is working his ass off..this guy DESERVES to leave if he chooses. Rumsfeld WANTS to stay and probably will, and RICE who has only said she wants someday to GET BACK to ACADEMIA. Has anyone actually expressed no confidence in Bush now that election is over..or is this simply an Al Franken talking point?

The REPUBLICAN ship sinking??? The same Republicans who just won the presidential race with gains in nearly all demographic by the widest margin since 1988, the republican house gaining 10 seats, the republican senate gaining 5 and throwing out a democrat minority leader for the first time in 50 years. I think it a bit premature to start bailing water just yet.

i still don't see how this equates to a liberal vs conservative issue. ...i hope you're not insinuating that everyone is either a conservative or a liberal and conservative = republican and democrat = liberal. if that's the case then too many people have a boxed in false sense of reality.

sure the republican party picked up a couple spots in this election, but they're realizing they have to change in order to stay competitive down the road. the democrats are feeling the same. the pressure is on because in 2008 without the threat of terror, a 3rd party candidate could make a very strong showing and be decisive.

Originally posted by BP:

i still don't see how this equates to a liberal vs conservative issue. ...i hope you're not insinuating that everyone is either a conservative or a liberal and conservative = republican and democrat = liberal. if that's the case then too many people have a boxed in false sense of reality.

Point taken...in my original sarcastic comment when I used the phrase "Is this the way LIBERALS are looking at this election..", I substitue "Is this the way THOSE SEVERELY DISTURBED BY JOHN KERRY LOSING THE ELECTION are looking at this election.."

The original sarcasm being brought out of course by the utter nonscensical nature of the remark..

Dan are you familiar with how decision are made in large companies? (Simplified version) The board makes it recommendation and the CEO rubber stamps it. It works the same way in the White house and it always has. Sorry but your superman GW is not smart enough to do it alone. Hell he had to pay someone off to get into Yale and has had to have people bail him out his whole business life!
So the original remark

Quote:

The cabinet IS the president! Dubya is the face not the brains.

was a statement of fact not an attempt to rile unlike that last part about Dubya being dumb!

Originally posted by Dan Nixon:

...in my original sarcastic comment when I used the phrase "Is this the way LIBERALS are looking at this election..", I substitue "Is this the way THOSE SEVERELY DISTURBED BY JOHN KERRY LOSING THE ELECTION are looking at this election.."

...fair enough.

Originally posted by BP:

the next election will be even more of a joke than this one if she runs. when it comes down to it she won't even make the ticket.

Unfortunately,

The democratic party is fresh out of good candidates. If she decided to run, she is a lock as the democratic nominee.

Originally posted by BP:

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
I would much rather be what you described than a no moral, anti-religion, terroist coddling, tax raising, tree hugging, PETA worshiping, liberal.

if that was your lame attempt at drawing an opposite parallel to my description then you get an -F for effort.

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
I just pray to God that people will see through Hillary if, heaven help us, she runs for office.

the next election will be even more of a joke than this one if she runs. when it comes down to it she won't even make the ticket.

And I give you an F for common sense you no moral, anti-religion, terroist coddling, tax raising, tree hugging, PETA worshiping, liberal.

I think we're reading too much into this, though I opened a bottle of Korbel to toast Ashcroft resigning. He duped us all into thinking he actually would put his personal beliefs aside to fulfill his position...

And I also would be glad to see the Patriot Act go as well... Prove it actually saved that bridge, and that it would not have been saved with the powers in existence prior to it passing.

Both Ascroft and the Patriot Act were attacks on our freedoms which are victories for the terrorists.

Originally posted by svtcarboy:
And I also would be glad to see the Patriot Act go as well... Prove it actually saved that bridge, and that it would not have been saved with the powers in existence prior to it passing.

Both Ascroft and the Patriot Act were attacks on our freedoms which are victories for the terrorists.

James, you disappoint me. I always enjoy reading your posts because they're always from a fresh point of view, and you bring something different to discussions here, which I appreciate.

But to say Ashcroft and the Patriot Act are victories for terrorists is quite stupid. The media has made Ashcroft to be a Lucipher incarnate, and I've considered you impervious to media propaganda. I hope your above statement is just a 'fluke'.

Proof that the bridge was saved by the Patriot Act? (I know CBS is a less than trustworthy "news" source, but I approve of this article): CBS story
If you or someone else here is more qualified than the Attorney General to judge the Patriot Act's significance in this case, then you all should be in a different line of work than you are in now. I've heard and read this case described in more detail than in this article, and it is clear the Patriot Act was crucial to bringing this guy down.

Originally posted by 99blacksesport:

And I give you an F for common sense you no moral, anti-religion, terroist coddling, tax raising, tree hugging, PETA worshiping, liberal.

i'll give you the benefit of a doubt that you're being an obnoxious idiot in an attempt to be funny.

...but after further review the sad truth is that you're not funny and all that's left is an obnoxious idiot.

Originally posted by Davo:

Originally posted by svtcarboy:
And I also would be glad to see the Patriot Act go as well... Prove it actually saved that bridge, and that it would not have been saved with the powers in existence prior to it passing.

Both Ascroft and the Patriot Act were attacks on our freedoms which are victories for the terrorists.

Proof that the bridge was saved by the Patriot Act? (I know CBS is a less than trustworthy "news" source, but I approve of this article): CBS story

Unfortunately this particular article does not constitute proof of the value of the Patriot Act in apprehending Faris, as it doesn't discuss at all any of the elements of the investigation that led up to his arrest.

It does, however ,seem to indicate that before he was arrested, Faris had effectively nixed the idea of attacking the bridge because it was not likely to succeed.

Did the Patriot Act factor into Faris' apprehension - no way of telling from that article.

But even assuming it did factor in the arrest ... did it "save the bridge?" It doesn't appear the bridge was in danger because they decided not to attack it before he was arrested.

The article doesn't explain how much time elapsed between the decision to not attack the bridge and Faris' arrest. Had they chosen to attack the bridge, they might have had time to do it before Faris was arrested.

Okay, okay you got me. So it led to the apprehension of a terrorist, but there is no proof that it saved the bridge. Let's get rid of the Patriot Act!!

Originally posted by Davo:
Okay, okay you got me. So it led to the apprehension of a terrorist, but there is no proof that it saved the bridge. Let's get rid of the Patriot Act!!

???? I thought the article proved nothing about the arrest.

Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Unfortunately this particular article does not constitute proof of the value of the Patriot Act in apprehending Faris, as it doesn't discuss at all any of the elements of the investigation that led up to his arrest.

Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
It doesn't appear the bridge was in danger because they decided not to attack it before he was arrested.

... they decided not to attack before he was arrested because it wasn't going to work technically ... there was no attack planned on the bridge.

Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
???? I thought the article proved nothing about the arrest.

I'll try to find something that draws pictures and has diagrams about how the Patriot Act helped to apprehend this terrorist. Dick Morris does a great job explaining how the Patriot Act. If I cared more than I do about what you believe or don't believe, I'd dig up his argument. But I don't.

You may not have been able to detect my sarcasm, but my point was even if they 'decided not to attack the bridge', a terrorist was captured. This would not have been possible without the Patriot Act. Even if the bridge wasn't saved, the Patriot Act is a valuable piece of legislation.

Is it just me or does the Patriot Act sound like "hate crime" legistlation squared. Meaning it could be used against people other than those that work for al-qaeda. Possibly racial hate groups.

Quote:

`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--

`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;

`(B) appear to be intended--

`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or

`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.

But I did find something quite uplifting in the legistlation too:

Quote:

(6) Many Arab Americans and Muslim Americans have acted heroically during the attacks on the United States, including Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a 23-year-old New Yorker of Pakistani descent, who is believed to have gone to the World Trade Center to offer rescue assistance and is now missing.

Originally posted by Davo:
You may not have been able to detect my sarcasm, but my point was even if they 'decided not to attack the bridge', a terrorist was captured. This would not have been possible without the Patriot Act. Even if the bridge wasn't saved, the Patriot Act is a valuable piece of legislation.

Your sarcasm wasn't particularly entertaining; on the other hand your witless attempt to prove your point with a link that proved the opposite - that was pretty humorous.

This story does not indicate that the information assembled to arrest this terrorist was only gathered because of the expanded powers of the Patriot Act.

I believe we traded a substantial portion of our Constitutional rights for whatever safety is provided by the Patriot Act. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would trade liberty for safety will find themselves with neither."

I wish I could find the links, but many security experts were doubtful the additional powers provided under the Patriot Act would indeed help fight terrorism.

I did not mean the appointment of Ashcroft was a victory for terrorists, but his disregard for people's Constitutional rights is. The only way we'll really beat terrorism is to fight it, but also to not allow it to change the very foundation our country was created on.