Posted on 09/22/2002 8:52:44 PM PDT by syriacus
Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., said President Bush’s plans to invade Iraq are a conscious effort to distract public attention from growing problems at home.
“This administration, all of a sudden, wants to go to war with Iraq,” Byrd said. “The [political] polls are dropping, the domestic situation has problems.... So all of a sudden we have this war talk, war fervor, the bugles of war, drums of war, clouds of war.
“Don’t tell me that things suddenly went wrong. Back in August, the president had no plans.... Then all of a sudden this country is going to war,” Byrd told the Senate on Friday.
“Are politicians talking about the domestic situation, the stock market, weaknesses in the economy, jobs that are being lost, housing problems? No.”
Byrd warned of another Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Passed on Aug. 7, 1964, that resolution handed President Lyndon Johnson broad powers to escalate the war in Vietnam, a conflict that cost 58,202 American lives and millions of Asian lives.
“Congress will be putting itself on the sidelines,” Byrd told the Senate. “Nothing would please this president more than having such a blank check handed to him.”
Byrd said his belief in the Constitution will prevent him from voting for Bush’s war resolution. “But I am finding that the Constitution is irrelevant to people of this administration.”
Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., both praised Byrd after he spoke.
“It is the height of patriotism to ask such hard questions,” Clinton said. “No one exemplifies that more than the senior senator from West Virginia.”
Byrd said, “Before the nation is committed to war, before we send our sons and daughters to battle in faraway lands, there are critical questions that must be asked. To date, the answers from the administration have been less than satisfying.”
Byrd repeatedly said Bush has failed to give members of Congress any evidence about any immediate danger from Iraq. Byrd also criticized his speech to the United Nations.
“Instead of offering compelling evidence that the Iraqi regime had taken steps to advance its weapons program, the president offered the U.N. more of a warning than an appeal for support.
“Instead of using the forum of the U.N. General Assembly to offer evidence and proof of his claims, the president basically told the nations of the world that you are either with me, or against me,” Byrd said.
“We must not be hell-bent on an invasion until we have exhausted every other possible option to assess and eliminate Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction program. We must not act alone. We must have the support of the world.”
Byrd said Congress needs solid evidence and answers to several specific questions, including: * Does Saddam Hussein pose an imminent threat to the U.S.? * Should the United States act alone? * What would be the repercussions in the Middle East and around the globe? * How many civilians would die in Iraq? * How many American forces would be involved? * How do we afford this war? * Will the U.S. respond with nuclear weapons if Saddam Hussein uses chemical or biological weapons against U.S. soldiers? * Does the U.S. have enough military and intelligence resources to fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while mobilizing resources to prevent attacks on our own shores?
Byrd said the proposed resolution Bush sent Congress on Thursday would be the “broadest possible grant of war powers to any president in the history of our Republic. The resolution is a direct insult and an affront to the powers given to Congress.”
Byrd also criticized Bush’s request for power to carry out “pre-emptive attacks” and send troops to Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, the West Bank and anywhere else in the Middle East.
“I cannot believe the gall and the arrogance of the White House in requesting such a broad grant of war powers,” Byrd said. “This is the worst kind of election-year politics.”
A wasted mind is a terrible thing.
It's time for the soon to be ex-President Pro-Tem to get to a home.
Although I have seen a great number of attacks on Byrd in this thread I have not seen any attempts to answer the questions he asked or to provide links to where the answers may be found. Regardless of who asks the questions they should be answered before we go to war.
Attacking Byrd and his Klan links is just a waste of time and energy.
Can you refer me to where and when they were answered? How about links? My son and I have been discussing this at length lately.
Read Bush's speech to the UN.
Surprise .. Surprise
Byrd said Congress needs solid evidence and answers to several specific questions, including: * Does Saddam Hussein pose an imminent threat to the U.S.? Yes, because his ownership of chem and bio weapons is an imminent threat for farming out to terrorist shills, thus he and Iraq must be disarmed, immediately; giving this maniac more time only increases the transfer scenario likelihood. * Should the United States act alone? If the irrelevant U.N is no more intelligent than the Kofi KooKoo and his letter waving over Saddam's initial hollow offer, then yes, we must ignore the irrelevant and get the job done without hesitation ... it is in our national interest to enforce the existing U.N. resolutions with extreme prejudice. * What would be the repercussions in the Middle East and around the globe? Kiss the asses of the Oil Sheiks if you want to; we should NEVER allow the opinions of the globe who has yet to enforce the U.N. resolutions dictate our actions! * How many civilians would die in Iraq? Frankly, sniveler, it ain't our problem ... but our method for waging war is the least dangerous to civilian populations. How many military personnel did the Islamicist fanatics kill on 9/11? THAT'S how our enemy wages war. We do it far better and with far superior precision. * How many American forces would be involved? Probably 50,000 to 100,000. * How do we afford this war? How do we afford bulldozing the remains of Chicago to rebuild it? This question is the least important of the entire list of sniveling queries. * Will the U.S. respond with nuclear weapons if Saddam Hussein uses chemical or biological weapons against U.S. soldiers? We should, but we would likely only use tactical nukes if effective. We don't seek to poison the entire Middle East, even if Saddam doesn't care to. Let the Islamic oil farts think about that one! * Does the U.S. have enough military and intelligence resources to fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while mobilizing resources to prevent attacks on our own shores? We damn sure do and the senile coot ought to know it, from where he's been standing, aiding the dismantling of our resources for his buttboy, sinkEmperor. Our administration wouldn't undertake the effort if we hadn't the resources because abject failure due to lack of resources is a catastrophe I would hope even sinkEmperor would avoid!
NEXT...
Here is an answer to one of Byrd's questions. Smallpox vaccine guidelines readied
There is a reason why the government has stockpiled enough smallpox vaccine to treat the entire population of the U.S.
And there is a reason why a new "morning after" anthrax vaccine has been rushed into production.
And there is a reason why, since April, pharmaceutical company field sales forces have been alerting medical personnel nationwide to be on the lookout for the symptoms of various exotic diseases and specifying how they should be reported to the public health authorities.
The administration obviously has reason to expect an biological attack on the U.S. civilian population. Who do you suppose might have the means to mount such an attack?
And where do you suppose the weaponized anthrax in last September's mailings came from?
Watch Shrillary sucking up to Byrd.......SHE WANTS HIS JOB AS OWNER OF THE SENATE RULE BOOK.
Typical stalinist approach.
Do not be led: think! Lay out your own conclusions and we'll discuss.
And where do you suppose the weaponized anthrax in last September's mailings came from?
Can you show me a link to where the Administration has made these claims? Where is their supporting documentation? What about delivery systems? I can think of several other countries that have the same capabilities, some friendly to us, some not, why is Iraq singled out as the target?
One of the things that Reagan said that has always stuck with me is "Trust but Verify".
LOLOLOL Very very funny, but true. heh heh
Not really. It actually hardly takes up any time at all.
Byrd attacks Bush's character with something unproven, and I reply with an aspect of Byrd's character I think can be proven.
I'm got plenty of time to discuss the pros and cons of our involvement in Iraq with someone who doesn't lob unfounded accusations at Bush. But Byrd doesn't really seem as interested in a discussion as he seems interested in getting in a few jabs at Bush, does he?
Byrd certainly has mastered the art of being an ethically-challenged salesman. The salesman says many things everyone can agree with--then shovels a lie into the heap of acceptable statements. (Liberals are quite good at this.)
Of course our leaders should discuss our upcoming involvement in Iraq...but the discussion certainly is hindered by Byrd's saying Bush's War Plans Are a Cover-Up.
If Byrd really wanted to discuss those questions, don't you think he would have presented the questions without the gratuitous attack on Bush?
Byrd is quite adept at pre-emptively striking out at someone he sees as the enemy---his own president.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.