Another Sen. Byrd speech (very good)

I'm glad at least one of them up there on Capital Hill are asking the right questions...very good speech.

byrd.senate.gov...

I'm very proud of Byrd - he's gone quite a while without using the N word.

edit, I mistook him from Senator Ron Wyden Oregon, I apologize

[Edited on 11-6-2003 by Grommer]

[Edited on 11-6-2003 by Grommer]

oh, all this 'where are the weapons' stuff is just political nonsense. The 'dems' are trying to gain ground.

I ask where they were when their man, Clinton, bombed Iraq in 98 after they kicked the weapons inspectors out. If they firmly thought their weren't weapons why didn't they bring this up then? They didn't - just politics here, imho. Most of these same guys gave Bush the green light, btw.

Senator Byrd asks some compelling questions...

"Where are the massive stockpiles of VX, mustard and other nerve agents?

Where are the thousands of liters of botulinim toxin?

Could they be buried underground or are they somehow camouflaged in plain sight? Were they destroyed before the war? Have they been shipped out of the country?

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction remain a mystery and a conundrum. What are they, where are they, how dangerous are they?"


We know from the documentation of the UN inspectors that they existed in Iraq and we even have accounts of them being used in attacks so I think Senator Byrd's questions are the most important ones to ask. If they would have been found straight away, the world could have breathed a sigh of relief but since when did Saddam Hussein make things easy on anyone? Best case scenerio is that all or most will be discovered underground, hidden but if thats not the case, where do we look then? Senator Byrd, I hope you get your answers and I hope their ones we can all live with knowing.

I agree. I find it amazing though that the speech was cited none the less. It's the whole good cop, bad cop paradigm. You know, you have the bad cop who's yelling and screaming at you saying 'where's the drugs...where's the money..tell me right now!! Then, on the other hand, you have the good cop who acts like your friend 'hey come on man, just tell us where it's at, we'll get this all worked out, we'll cut a deal with you'. It doesnt matter, they're both out to get you!

You'll have to bare with me, I'm still comming to realization that it doesnt matter what side they're on, they both want to screw you over, and take away your rights, etc.

[Edited on 11-6-2003 by Grommer]

I heard on a conservative talk radio show ( Either Limbaugh or M. Regan ) that Byrd is showing that he is too old and ought to be forced to retire. Simply for questioning the Lord God G.W.Bush. I think he is demonstrating exceptional clarity and his mental facilities are just fine. We all have our Bigotries, past or present. I think he can be forgiven. Lord Bush on the other hand goes way out of his way to act as though he has no bigoted ideas. I think it's over reaction to the fact that his grandfather Prescott Bush was a major player in Union Banking Corp., which had assets seized under the trading with the enemy act during ww2. This bank was a major financial backer of Hitler. Ouch. I did not know if this was true or not. I wrote 2 letters to the editor of a local newspaper which were published. The circulation of the paper is appx. 80,000. Both mentioned this Prescott Bush factoid and no one has written a letter refuting this allegation. So now I assume it is factual. Go Byrd. GO Byrd. GO BYRD!!!!

Originally posted by tr
I think it's over reaction to the fact that his grandfather Prescott Bush was a major player in Union Banking Corp., which had assets seized under the trading with the enemy act during ww2. This bank was a major financial backer of Hitler. Ouch. I did not know if this was true or not. I wrote 2 letters to the editor of a local newspaper which were published. The circulation of the paper is appx. 80,000. Both mentioned this Prescott Bush factoid and no one has written a letter refuting this allegation. So now I assume it is factual.

Okay, well...I'm not going to say that your point is invalid. I fail to see it's relation to the topic but I'm guilty of that on occasion too. I have no knowledge pro or con of this statement and it may very well be true but..and this is a big but...including this statement as a sidenote in an article in a local paper and having no one print anything to prove it wrong doesn't begin to legitimize it in any sense. If it wasn't the main premise of the article, this fact could have been glanced over by anyone more attentive to said premise and if the titles of your articles were thus that would discourage anyone with opposing political views from reading them, you may not have reached anyone wanting to disprove this single "factoid". Hypothesis goes to theory and then accepd fact by researching the evidence and having substancial proof able to refute conjecture.

Again, I don't mean any insult nor am I discounting your statement merely saying I cannot accept it as fact on the basis that I hate Bush and it will make me feel better and more justified in doing so which I'm sad to say is becoming more of a national concern than our own security and constitution. Its my opinion that we as a nation have become one that accepts the tactics of asserting false statements as facts and holding to them until proven wrong. We say something and if no one speaks up, we assume it is now taken for the truth. I had always heard to assume is to make an "ass out U and Me"

Though - I do think we need to find out where the weapons are. It seems though this is being spun into a 'there were no weapons' debate. We need to know who now might have them.

We know there are weapons. We have records of them. We have no records as to where they are now. It took too long to get action into Iraq and Saddam had too much time to disperse them. I knew Bush was making a mistake pandering to the UN all the while Saddam was finding nice little hiding places for them. For crying out loud, he could have sank them in the ocean in a barge or dumped them in the Euphrates. I remember someone saying that test proved some contamination of the river with biotoxins.

[Edited on 11-6-2003 by astrocreep]

astrocreep, good points.

Do you guys remember those those Iraqi mystery ships reported about before the war?

(trying to find a link)

Here's a link:
www.worldnetdaily.com...

Though I know we discussed it here - if anyone heard anything more about those ships I'd be interested.

very good points all, however, has anyone noticed the spin that they're taking now? Instead of hunting WMD's, it's hunting for a weapons program? Notice how they're trying to find a way out of it, well I think they're gonna have a hard time pointing the blame on this one.

billmon.org.v.sabren.com...

I honestly believe from the get go we were being lied to in order to have this war. I want some real proof, no mobile weapons labs that are actually hydrogen labs.

www.observer.co.uk...

www.hq.nasa.gov... fotos at the bottom look familiar?

here's a third one just in case

yellowtimes.org...

I want you to SHOW ME THE WMDS!!!!, and if you have time, try to stop lying to me as well, it'd be greatly appreciated

Its a new world order. Heightened security awareness and all. The leaders of the world want a new set of rules. Total disclosure and transparency from the "liliputions" -as Mitch Daniels calls the american individuals. But total information lock down from the Executive Branch.

I'm sorry , ASTROCREEP, but you should expect more of this type of thinking from Americans. It's called follow the leader.

My letters to the editor did not mention the Prescott factor as a sidebar.

The letters are limited to 300 words.

You are right . I can't assume that its true based on that.

But the fact that no one responded was telling.

And I feel less guilty and less isolated than had I believed it without research AND without sharing it with my hometown.

The government wants to tear up the constitution in the name of security? --OK. I will assume the government is subject to massive distrust as well.

Take the whole attitude of the mistrust in Byrd's speach, and you may be able to see where my line of thinking fits in. The right is constantly saying how saddam compares to hitler. Fair enough.

Cnn was afraid to come out and report the evils of Saddam's regime. Big News.

After the trading with the enemy bust, I read where the media and other politicians did not cry foul ball when Prescott Bush became CEO of the USO.

A funny picture. Our troops watching the USO show- not realizing the same man who brought the night's entertainment brought them the whole damn war!!

Then Later the guy becomes a senator.

And then his son and grandson are both US presidents.

I wish someone would refute this. It is destabilizing my happy little life in the matrix.

Pull the plug out the back o' my head ,

Senator Byrd is the morpheous to my neo.

What's that little book he carries around with him???

The constitution!!! The Red pill!!!

Now here's a sidebar.

During the war, people wrote letters to the editor saying that those who compare Bush to Hitler should wake up and exercise better judgement. ( I was not alone).

That's about the same message Germany and France were getting.

After the war Bush tells politicians at the G-8 summit that it's best to move on. Don't dwell in the past.

And in my local newspaper, The letters to the editor turned to unrelated gripings about local small talk.

The usual world not shaking small talk.

Unless the government plans on pre-announcing war plans or announcing dates that we are between wars and it's OK to dissent without being unpatriotic, I guess it's now totally unpatriotic to be against wars.

Sounds like a BIG BROTHER Orwellian 100 year war to me... ... GO BYRD GO!!!

First of all I would like to praise Astrocreep for his opinions on where these weapons may be. I thought from the very beginning that these weapons were in water. I thought I was the only one who even thought that was possible. Astro is the first person other than myself to express this same idea. Thank you for keeping an open mind Astro, it is good to know that there are others out there that think as I do.

As for Byrd well I think that he is great. I have liked Byrd ever since I first saw him speak to the Senate which was not even a year ago. I know about his past cause of the word of mouth and partly because I can see it in him, but I have learned that people change and that warrents my pride for his doctrine. What I like about Bryd is that he is not a bandwagon politican like everyone else. Only people like Wellstone and Ventura have these same qualities. As far as I have seen that is. If anyone can prove me wrong then please by all means do so. I want to know of more like them.

Byrd is a crusader for his own ideal and that is what causes those that don't agree with his ideals to be at difference with him and to label him as crazy or whatever they say about him. I think that if Helms can run for as long as he did and say the stupid things he did then so can Bryd. Cause unlike Helms, Byrd doesn't say bigoted things anymore. Byrd seems to be a humanist at this point. He also seems to be an idealistic rationalist. I like that in a man. That shows dicipline if you ask me.

Sometimes it is hard to keep as sensible mind in such a senseless world. Bryd does that with much clarity. He is a great writer and I sometimes fear that his emotions will cause his health to upset his heart. If you haven't noticed he shakes a lot when he speaks. I worry about his health and I dread the day he will die. I remember when I posted a topic titled "Who are your political idols" and someone asked me why Bryd????

I remember telling them why. The people who disagreed with me had often changed their minds after I told them why I supported his ways. My step father doesn't like him very much. He says that Bryd cares about nothing but his own office. I totally disagree with that assessment. If Bryd cared about his office so much then why isn't he a bandwagon leader????

The fact is that Bryd is a true man who sticks to his beliefs regardless of the outcome. That may show stubborn qualities but nonetheless that can be benefital to the people he serves. Take his views on defense spending for example. He complains about the amount of money we waste on wars and the military when we could be spending it on our children's futures. That to me shows that he really has heart and isn't in for the fame. He knows that the war hawks are enemies of idealist rational and he takes them on in the Senate floor, unlike all the others. Everyone else will justify the wars in some way or another but Bryd won't.

Bryd is a really fair and honest politican if you ask me.


I almost forgot:

For a very long time I thought I was the only one who like Robert Bryd. It is good to know that some others here agree with me and that I am not alone in that belief.

[Edited on 13-6-2003 by Abraham Virtue]

Oh ya,
The Klan recruiter, I guess as long as your a democratic and/or talk the "anti-Bush" line you are OK

Originally posted by pokerbob
Oh ya,
The Klan recruiter, I guess as long as your a democratic and/or talk the "anti-Bush" line you are OK

That isn't why I like Bryd. Maybe that is why others here do, but not me. I like Bryd because he cares not what others think.

Besides I wouldn't say he is anti-Bush. Just anti-anti that is all.

Originally posted by Bob88
Here's a link:
www.worldnetdaily.com...

Though I know we discussed it here - if anyone heard anything more about those ships I'd be interested.

An excerpt from the article:
"Chief inspector Hans Blix reported to Security Council members that Iraq had failed to account for 1,000 tons of chemical agent, 6,500 chemical bombs, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard gas and VX nerve agent and 380 rocket engines useful in the delivery of biological and chemical agents."

What worries me is the failure to follow up on this story. Where did the ships go? Are we still tracking them or did we goof and lose them? Is the big cover up actually that we knew where they were but let them escape? Should the world be bracing for hell on earth and does it have something to do with all the raised alerts lately?

As for Senator Byrd, although I'm not a big fan anymore, I did find the questionsI posted earlier of significant importance. I fear though, that his main premise in his speech was to make us think there never were weapons which is the most dangerous idea this country could entertain.

A.V. thanks for the kind words. You and I seem to be on the same page about WMD.