Exaulted,
First thing's first. I didn't realize you were a citizen of Canada, but by the tone of your posts, I'm not at all surprised. Although I'm not exactly sure how you believe that gives you a zero chance of probability in the possibility of terrorist attack. By that logic, you are telling me that you know the mind of terrorists and where they plan to strike. Personally, I don't know their mind, what makes it work, or how they choose their targets. For all I know, they may think the maple leaf is a symbol of hatred toward Allah. For the sake of your nation, I hope you are right though.
I haven't done a book report in 10 years, and I'm not starting again now. Especially since it would be so easy for you to claim I googled it, reworded it, and tried to pass it off as my own. I was required to read 1984 in 9th grade, just as every other student in my school district was. I can absolutely tell you that the Patriot Act is a far cry from Big Brother watching you and cameras on you at every turn making sure you aren't plotting a plan to gain freedom from it.
Being as you have no stake in the fight here, I'll give you this reply and one other, then I'm done with you. The opinion of foreigners on how I feel about my country, it's leaders, and our way of life in general doesn't matter to me one bit. No offense, but it just doesn't, and I won't argue it with them.
The Patriot Act made the jobs of the law enforcement easier basically. It makes it harder for not only terrorists, but all criminals to hide what they do. Just one good example is the change in the amount of money you can move through financial institutions and wire transfers at one time. Pre-Patriot, you could move $9,999 and get away with it. Post-Patriot, you must sign a form and present identification for $5000, and. Few people realize that banking institutions also make a report for $2,500 and over without your knowledge. As a person who makes large transfers on a regular basis, I'm not inconvenienced by this. The form and I.D. take all of 30 seconds, and my transfers are legal and easily explainable, so I don't mind if someone takes a look at them occasionally.
You don't have to specifically mention Michael Moore for anyone with any common sense to see you all but quoting his rhetoric. Moore makes a lot of money peddling his garbage to college kids and conspiracy theorists, and I'm proud to say I've never given the man a dime of my money, nor will I ever. You want examples of Michael Moore's lies, twists, and propaganda.....no problem. Let me point you here,
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm and just ease down about mid-way of the page. There you will find a point by point destruction of his "documentary". You may not want to believe that Moore is a money-hungry, biased, liar. That's fine. Here's a good example of his lying to create controversy:
Wednesday, May 5th, 2004
Disney Has Blocked the Distribution of My New Film... by Michael Moore
Friends,
I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter.
Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." The reason? According to today's (May 5) New York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush.
What did Jeb Bush have to say??
"What tax break?" Florida Gov. Jeb Bush responded. "We don't give tax breaks, that I'm aware of, to Disney," Bush said. "I appreciate the fact that Disney creates thousands and thousands of jobs in our state."
And, according to Disney, who owns Mirmax.........
"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."
Moore tried to lead people to believe that it was a sudden thing that his movie would not be distributed by Miramax, when in fact, he'd known it for over a year. This is the very sort of thing he accuses the Bush administration of doing, isn't it? Releasing facts at opportunistic times to create panic and turmoil.....i.e. the raising and lowering of terror alert levels. Hypocritical to say the least. You want to see where Moore admits that not only Farenheit, but all of his movies are biased and subjective.....no problem. You either haven't looked, or you don't want to look for this, but here ya go:
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/000344.html and if you don't want one with a bias against Moore himself, just go to any search engine and type in "Moore admits documentaries are op-ed pieces" and you'll get TONS of the same quote as well as others. Enough about that jerk. If you want to know the truth, it's out there. If you choose to ignore it and believe what this man says as gospel, that's your choice.
You want specific information on how Halliburton came to hold the contracts they hold in Iraq, no problem. Head here
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20030918.shtml and you will see that they actually won a contract through the bidding process that made them the most logical choice when it came time to issue a no-bid contract. If you don't like that source, just do a search for LOGCAP Halliburton and you'll see why they were the most logical choice. And, by the way, Dick Cheney is NOT the chairman of Halliburton. He has no affiliation with the company and hasn't since accepting the nomination for Vice President. You should really do your homework here. When you resign your position.....you are no longer the holder of that position. That's how that works.
I'll give you the points for the Iraq-Iran war. As I said before, the hotly contested topic of the day to the best of my memory was the farm loans being used to buy arms from Russia, and stopping the issuance of those farm loans on that basis. The fact remains, no matter where Hussein got what he had, he agreed to dispose of it properly and keep detailed record of said disposals. When asked to produce the record of disposal as a rebuttal to the intelligence of MI-6, Russian Intelligence Agency, and the CIA's accounts of what he had left, he couldn't/wouldn't. Why anyone wants to make anyone other than Hussein himself accountable for his own failures in properly following the guidelines he begged to be set, I'll never understand. The CIA admitted that their intelligence was wrong, or at the very best inaccurate, but nobody wants to blame Hussein for not keeping to the rules. Strange how that works unless you're pulling for a certain President to look bad at all costs, no matter how inaccurate a light you have to portray them in.
And, finally, your analogies compared to pre-emptive strike of perceived enemies abroad is ridiculous. There is no doubt about the goal of terrorists. Their goal is to kill anyone that they perceive to be an infidel. There is no "might" there. That is their goal, and they advertise it every day. If you can honestly equate someone who "might run you over" but has shown no intent to do so, to someone who has actually said that they will kill you if they get the chance, even if it costs them their own life in the process, you need to re-examine your outlook on life. An attack on American soil is something this country cannot stand for. If they are allowed to live and breed their ideals, it will happen again unless they are hunted down and stopped where they live. What you perceive as pre-emptive, many perceive as retaliation. The problem with retaliation is that terrorists have spread all over the world like a virus, and you can't allow borders to be an issue when it comes to eradicating the virus. Like it or not, America will do what it must to defend itself and we will act in our own collective self interest to do so.
But, like you said, you live in a country that has zero chance of terrorist attack. Again, I hope you're right. However, if you believe that if for some reason Al Sadr or some other crazy cleric were to issue an opinion to the followers of this Jihad that Canadians were part of the infidel menace, they wouldn't attack Canada, you're just as crazy as they are. I just wonder, how will you feel if it happens in your country?
Alas, to stretch a long post out even further, I must drop this one final thing in. I feel like any person who feels the need to criticize another for their handling of a situation should be prepared to offer up an alternative course of action. So, tell me, oh wise and exaulted leader of the partial college education and little or no real world experience beyond what you can get out of a book........given all the same information that Bush was given by the various intelligence agencies both at home and abroad, knowing the kind of person Saddam Hussein is, and Saddam's own failure to account for 1200 weapons he was proven to have had but couldn't show what he'd done with........what would you have done? Give the U.N. an 18th chance to force him to comply? If not that, then what?