Oooooooh, let us....entertain you! Da da de da!
Senator Byrd...The Truth Will Emerge.
by searchfothetruth 63 Replies latest members adult
-
-
searchfothetruth
Don't shoot the messenger!
-
Gopher
But the messenger (Sen. Byrd) is not objective. His fuzzy thinking about issues was very clearly illustrated by his pro-KKK stance even long after he left that hateful organization. The messenger is untrustworthy. If he wasn't against human rights violations in America during his younger years, why would he care about human rights violations in Iraq during the 1990's?
He sure knows how to put together a long diatribe, you've got to give him that! His anti-war stance this year was a masterpiece of political showmanship.
-
rocketman
LOL @ teenyuck!
-
searchfothetruth
The fact that A US Senator has said these things should at least make people think.
If Byrd is as much a 'nut job' as you say and as biased as you say then how the hell did he become a Senator!
It's a common trick to denounce what someone says by attacking their character.
If Senator Byrd was a member of the KKK then he should NEVER have become a senator. I totally agree that someone with those views is more of a liability and is open to attacks because of his background.
But don't forget G.W.Bush. He's not exactly whiter than white is he?
Drunk driving convictions etc are also things to be looked at don't you think?
-
-
searchfothetruth
NewsTHE INDEPENDENT CROSSWORD FOR YOUR PDA Sport Argument Education Money Travel Enjoyment Home > News > World > Politics The case for war is blown apart
By Ben Russell and Andy McSmith in Kuwait City
29 May 2003
Tony Blair stood accused last night of misleading Parliament and the British people over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and his claims that the threat posed by Iraq justified war.
Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, seized on a "breathtaking" statement by the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, that Iraq's weapons may have been destroyed before the war, and anger boiled over among MPs who said the admission undermined the legal and political justification for war.
Mr Blair insisted yesterday he had "absolutely no doubt at all about the existence of weapons of mass destruction".
But Mr Cook said the Prime Minister's claims that Saddam could deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes were patently false. He added that Mr Rumsfeld's statement "blows an enormous gaping hole in the case for war made on both sides of the Atlantic" and called for MPs to hold an investigation.
Meanwhile, Labour rebels threatened to report Mr Blair to the Speaker of the Commons for the cardinal sin of misleading Parliament - and force him to answer emergency questions in the House.
Mr Rumsfeld ignited the row in a speech in New York, declaring: "It is ... possible that they [Iraq] decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict and I don't know the answer."
Speaking in the Commons before the crucial vote on war, Mr Blair told MPs that it was "palpably absurd" to claim that Saddam had destroyed weapons including 10,000 litres of anthrax, up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tons of mustard gas, sarin, botulinum toxin and "a host of other biological poisons".
But Mr Cook said yesterday: "We were told Saddam had weapons ready for use within 45 minutes. It's now 45 days since the war has finished and we have still not found anything.
"It is plain he did not have that capacity to threaten us, possibly did not have the capacity to threaten even his neighbours, and that is profoundly important. We were, after all, told that those who opposed the resolution that would provide the basis for military action were in the wrong.
"Perhaps we should now admit they were in the right."
Speaking as he flew into Kuwait before a morale-boosting visit to British troops in Iraq today, Mr Blair said: "Rather than speculating, let's just wait until we get the full report back from our people who are interviewing the Iraqi scientists.
"We have already found two trailers that both our and the American security services believe were used for the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons."
He added: "Our priorities in Iraq are less to do with finding weapons of mass destruction, though that is obviously what a team is charged with doing, and they will do it, and more to do with humanitarian and political reconstruction."
Peter Kilfoyle, the anti-war rebel and former Labour defence minister, said he was prepared to report Mr Blair to the Speaker of the Commons for misleading Parliament. Mr Kilfoyle, whose Commons motion calling on Mr Blair to publish the evidence backing up his claims about Saddam's arsenal has been signed by 72 MPs, warned: "This will not go away. The Government ought to publish whatever evidence they have for the claims they made."
Paul Keetch, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: "No weapons means no threat. Without WMD, the case for war falls apart. It would seem either the intelligence was wrong and we should not rely on it, or, the politicians overplayed the threat. Even British troops who I met in Iraq recently were sceptical about the threat posed by WMD. Their lives were put at risk in order to eliminate this threat - we owe it to our troops to find out if that threat was real."
But Bernard Jenkin, the shadow Defence Secretary, said: "I think it is too early to rush to any conclusions at this stage; we must wait and see what the outcome actually is of these investigations."
Ministers have pointed to finds of chemical protection suits and suspected mobile biological weapons laboratories as evidence of Iraq's chemical and biological capability. But they have also played down the importance of finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Earlier this month, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, provoked a storm of protest after claiming weapons finds were "not crucially important".
The Government has quietly watered down its claims, now arguing only that the Iraqi leader had weapons at some time before the war broke out.
Tony Benn, the former Labour minister, told LBC Radio: "I believe the Prime Minister lied to us and lied to us and lied to us. The whole war was built upon falsehood and I think the long-term damage will be to democracy in Britain. If you can't believe what you are told by ministers, the whole democratic process is put at risk. You can't be allowed to get away with telling lies for political purposes."
Alan Simpson, Labour MP for Nottingham South, said MPs "supported war based on a lie". He said: "If it's right Iraq destroyed the weapons prior to the war, then it means Iraq complied with the United Nations resolution 1441."
The former Labour minister Glenda Jackson added: "If the creators of this war are now saying weapons of mass destruction were destroyed before the war began, then all the government ministers who stood on the floor in the House of Commons adamantly speaking of the immediate threat are standing on shaky ground."
The build-up to war: What they said
Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons
George Bush, Us President 18 March, 2003
We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd
Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003
Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction
Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003
Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit
Tony Blair 28 April, 2003
It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy them prior to the conflict
Donald Rumsfeld, US Defence Secretary 28 May, 2003
1 June 2003 11:56 Search this site:
Printable StoryI think the tide is turning...it's not just us 'crackpot conspiracy theorists' that are seeing the lies now!
-
DanTheMan
That political cartoon was excellent, thanks for sharing.
-
Dino
That cartoon is priceless!
Loved it.
Dino
-
Gopher
Searchfothetruth --
The cartoon by "Tom Tomorrow" that you posted makes valid points about going to extremes in our political discussion and in the way we view others with different points of view. Although I still feel the war against Iraq was necessary (WOMD or not), I respect the viewpoints of those who differ. There are good points to be made on both sides of the issue.
For one side to call the other side "un-American" is in itself un-American to me. America should stand for the right to vigorously debate the issues of the day.
If Byrd is as much a 'nut job' as you say and as biased as you say then how the hell did he become a Senator!
That's a great question. I think it's because he's a politically astute character who knows how to say what the people wanted to hear. That's how he got into office.
It's a common trick to denounce what someone says by attacking their character.
If his membership and continued support of the KKK for decades thereafter cannot cast doubts on his character and his ability to react to human suffering, then I guess all bets are off! Nothing in your past really matters then.
If Senator Byrd was a member of the KKK then he should NEVER have become a senator. I totally agree that someone with those views is more of a liability and is open to attacks because of his background.
Correct.
But don't forget G.W.Bush. He's not exactly whiter than white is he?
Drunk driving convictions etc are also things to be looked at don't you think?
Not necessarily. He's a flawed person like everyone else. If he's paid his debt to society and no longer displays "drunk driving" habits, then it is unfair to continue to hold those against him.
Besides we're comparing apples and oranges here. An ongoing love affair with a hate group like the Ku Klux Klan calls into serious question one's attitude towards humanity and therefore one's fitness to govern. Past sins, once paid for, do not necessarily affect one's ability to govern.
