Post #54,842
10/4/02 9:28:01 AM
10/4/02 10:15:13 AM
|
Text of Sen. Byrd's opening remarks on war authorization
Quite impressive. I see why he is in office.
[link|http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_newsroom/byrd_news_oct2002/rls_oct2002/rls_oct2002_2.html|URL]
"A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
Edited by Silverlock
Oct. 4, 2002, 10:15:13 AM EDT
|
Post #54,844
10/4/02 10:00:40 AM
|
Why does he hate America so much?
Very nice.
|
Post #54,861
10/4/02 10:54:51 AM
|
He doesn't
And he's correct.
You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #54,845
10/4/02 10:03:29 AM
|
Fie on Sen. Byrd ; )
While the text of his comments were polished and coherent, the video snippets I saw of him on the Senate floor yesterday made him appear quite the raving lunatic. I think his credibility takes a beating from performances like that.
"With the bravery of being out of range." - Roger Waters
Cliff
|
Post #54,896
10/4/02 12:14:52 PM
|
You must have seen a different snippet than I did.
An impassioned speech about important issues is OK by me. In the end, I'm not sure it had that much effect on the herd that heard it.
Senator Byrd does piss me off at times, but not this time.
Alex
The sun will set without thy assistance. -- The Talmud
|
Post #54,886
10/4/02 11:41:31 AM
|
Re: Text of Sen. Byrd's opening remarks on war authorizatio
He quotes Lincoln, who proceeded to abolish all civil rights and invaded the south.
Nice speech. Nice hypocracy.
I agree that there are questions, but the answers regarding Iraq are not "when" but "where". Take Saddam & regime out, and both answers are moot.
The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
|
Post #54,909
10/4/02 12:52:20 PM
|
Sterling rhetoric in service of tawdry mendacity
We've been putting this thing off for eleven years now, and this guy has the gall to say it's "in haste."
The guy's a demagogue. He's damn good at it, though.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
The nihilists and the liars have buried truth alive in a shallow grave.
"We never voted for Saddam" - Imam Husham Al-Husainy
|
Post #54,922
10/4/02 2:38:53 PM
|
So, is this resolution being debated...
...a Declaration of War?
If it is, then why isn't being labelled as a such?
If not, then what is it?
1. Pass resolution
2. ?
3. U.S. war in Iraq
|
Post #54,983
10/4/02 11:16:14 PM
|
"tawdry mendacity"?
Is that like meretricious prevarication?
-drl
|
Post #54,985
10/4/02 11:26:41 PM
|
meretriculous prevarication? wondering which lactating
stripper to tip? Language is but a canvas, in my case butcher paper.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
|
Post #55,044
10/5/02 8:31:41 AM
|
As the sign that secretaries like says...
[link|http://www.officeplayground.com/lackplanning.html|Lack of planning on your part, does not constitute an emergency on my part.]
He is right. If Bush wants to finally engage the Iraq problem, it is hasty to start with asking for a blanket resolution that dismantles one of the basic protections that lie between the Republic and tyranny.
Bush has started a process. Let that process work. And if in that process Bush decides that war is necessary, then ask the legislative branch for the appropriate declaration. But not until.
Cheers,
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
|
Post #55,112
10/6/02 7:23:29 AM
|
% that vote GO Now == % Murican sheep, in full stampede.
|
