And now for the rest of the story!

The bottom line is, was it reasonable to raise the threat level? There's nothing to suggest it wasn't reasonable. Additioanlly, as noted earlier, it's ultimately the call of the President, so if Bush said the threat level should be raised, then the threat level shoudl be raised. The description as put forth by Tom Ridge appears inconsistent with the facts.

 

Ridge is probably like that little fat press secretary, trying to sell books.

 

Do we still say "fat", or do we say "gravitationally challenged"?

 

Not "fat" ... horizontally endowed!

 

So, you're saying he's tall, but from side to side?

 

Poor fellow! The libs used him for about a week and then .... canned him.

 

The rest of the story Rev? More like another tiny snippet of the story.

Here's a terror alert timeline.

After Bush was seated in office second time the terror alerts kinda died out qui bono?

The neocons played the threat of terrorism like a fiddle to get what they wanted, and to hide what they didn't want people to know.

Bottom line here is they were crooks playing on our fears no different than the crooks we have now playing on our fears about "global warming". Give us what we want or our boogeyman will get you. One of the oldest tricks in the book and you all are still falling for it.

 

Do some research Rev, into the whole story. Put it all together, connect the dots. Governments use fear to control their populations. It's not a new idea and it's not something we're immune to just because we live in the USA.

 

And how are we supposed to tell the difference when our first political priority is to defend our chosen politicos instead of the constitution and bill of rights?

 

You've been around BB this long and haven't noticed the democrats defend democrats and republicans defend republicans (in some cases no matter what they've done or are about to do) instead of the constitution and bill of rights?

"We" is everyone on this board and in this country with the exception of a very limited few who tend to defend the law instead of men. By law I'm not talking about all the un-constitutional laws that were passed in seasons of fear and dread but the law that limits the government's power.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

 

Heard yesterday that Cheney had said his influence with Bush waned in the second term. Perhaps that is one reason. Frankly I believe his attempt to reform SS hurt him. SS will only be reformed when it goes bankrupt and out of business.

 

You have to use the tools available. Right now, like it or not, the only tool we have is the Republican Party. Now if overnight you can hocus pocus a majority Conservative Party into existence then more power to you, but don't tarry, the time may be shorter than you think.

 

When I was born again I built my house on the rock Rev. I did the same when I became political. My political rock is the constitution and bill of rights. Not a group of corruptable men who promise me the moon on a silver platter if I'll just...

This keeps me a heck of alot more objective than most of the posters on this board who can only argue about which group of corruptable men is best suited to carry on the statist interventionism both parties and the majority of the dumbed down population seem to think is the answer to all our problems.

OR says, "You have to use the tools available. Right now, like it or not, the only tool we have is the Republican Party. Now if overnight you can hocus pocus a majority Conservative Party into existence then more power to you, but don't tarry, the time may be shorter than you think."

No, the only tool you have is a corrupt republican party. You've built your house on men who are easily corruptable. The best tool and defense against governmental abuse of powers and the protection of our liberty we have is the law if you'll allow your republicans to bend or break or ignore the law then what have you got?

Just what we have today. A lawless government.