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.”
I didn't. I'm still unsure whether to be sorry I missed his appearance or to be happy I did.
I think that there is nothing he could have done on a comedy show, that evening, which would have been respectful of the lives that were lost.
If I search hard for any glimmer of good in his appearance there ----I guess it would be ---
At least, when he was on Letterman's comedy show, it's likely he was more honest than when he was at Ron Brown's funeral.
And it's such a big rice bowl. Of course we supply the rice, whether we want to or not, and I for one, don't.
They have not made these claims. Yet. But they are taking action. And actions speak louder than words.
"What about delivery systems?"
What does it take, besides a terrorist and an aerosol? Or a flask of weaponized spores introduced into a ventilation system, or subway tunnel? Or, as has already been demonstrated, a 32 cent stamp can do the trick. And did not Mohammed Atta et al inquire into the possibility of acquiring crop dusters?
"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?
Only three countries are known to have produced weaponized anthrax: the U.S., the Soviet Union...and Iraq. Only three countries are known to have produced and maintained stocks of biological weapons: the U.S., the Soviet Union...and Iraq.
Since 1990, only one country is known to have manufactured bioweapons in quantity.
So, where do you think the anthrax came from?
And why do you think the administration seems to be quietly preparing for some kind of biological attack?
What GWB has done is put the UN and the world on notice. "If you do not act now, we will act alone if necessary. This is not about the security of the UN, but the security of the USA and it's people." By forcing the UN to act, he has made the UN either back up what it's charter says or go the way of the dinosaur and become irrelevant.
Any more questions?
* Does Saddam Hussein pose an imminent threat to the U.S.?
Yes
* Should the United States act alone?
YES
* What would be the repercussions in the Middle East and around the globe?
Don't mess with the US.
* How many civilians would die in Iraq?
Doesn't matter. What matters is US deaths. * How many American forces would be involved?
50-100,000*
How do we afford this war?
We make the damn UN pay for us kicking Sadaam.
* Will the U.S. respond with nuclear weapons if Saddam Hussein uses chemical or biological weapons against U.S. soldiers?
A bug is a germ is a nuke. All are WMD's and we only have one kind. Guess which one we would use.
* 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?
There is never enough intelligence to prevent attacks. You can however have enough information, as we do now, to pre-empt an attack.
What GWB has done is put the UN and the world on notice. "If you do not act now, we will act alone if necessary. This is not about the security of the UN, but the security of the USA and it's people." By forcing the UN to act, he has made the UN either back up what it's charter says or go the way of the dinosaur and become irrelevant.
Any more questions?
Yes, where can I find a link to where GWB or the Administration has answered those questions?
Can we nail Hitlery for 'supporting the Klan?' [wicked grin]
Why not? It's true.
Have your wicked grin, my man. I'll keep my wicked scowl.
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.