This particular chap is, well, how should I put it nicely, a bit of a nut-job and not exactly well respected here in the States. He is best known for his hours-long meandering diatribes that at times embarrasses even his most ardent supporters. Members of his own political party have been know to refer to him as “sheets” behind his back. – freeman
Who cares what an Ex KKK member thinks! Search, I am suprised you would rely on an ex KKK member for your views...given your human rights/war crimes agenda..... – ThiChi
Robert KKK Byrd is an IDIOT! – Yerusalyim
The ex-Klansman showed his true colors ... The ex-Klansman's admirers ... This ex-Klansman... The ex-Klansman... ended his ties with the group in 1943... three years [later] he wrote: "The Klan is needed today as never before... The ex-Klansman later filibustered the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act... The ex-Klansman vowed never to fight "with a Negro by my side... – ThiChi
I guess it would be too much of a bother for people to comment on what the Honorable Senator actually SAID. As for me: "Yeah, what Sen. Byrd said."
tj ~ a Negro; who sometimes agrees with "ex-Klansmen"
You want comments on what "the honorable" Senator said?
His statements are a masterpiece of political statesmanship. And there are some good points in what he states. He still hasn't convinced me, however.
One thing he said that I believe is wrong:
it appears to this Senator that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing International law, under false premises.
I love his use of "may have been" in turning a supposition into a factual statement. In fact Iraq had been in violation of United Nations resolutions for 12 years. Former Iraqi dictator-for-life Saddam Hussein promised to disarm, and it didn't appear that he was complying.
The U.N. resolutions said there should be "serious consequences" to Iraq for failing to comply. Only the American leader had the resolve to impose those serious consequences. And Iraq was liberated from a brutal dictator.
Just because the American coalition has been unable to capture Bin Laden or completely put Al-Qaeda out of business does not mean what was done in Iraq was wrong. America needed to show it meant business. And who can discredit the evidence of links between the Al-Qaeda movement and the former Iraqi government? They were cozy, as recent reports have shown.
Even the previous American president Bill Clinton acknowledged the probability of WOMD within Iraq and the need to act. The United Nations warned of "serious consequences". Well enough with the warnings, president Bush finally did something. Whether it was the right choice, we'll have to watch how events play out in the Middle East arena and see.
it appears to this Senator that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing International law, under false premises.
Bush, Rumsfeld, and Powell worked long and hard to convince the world that Iraq possessed WoMD in tremendous quantities. They even had satellite photos of the exact locations. They wanted Blix to freely interview Iraqi scientists who supposedly knew more than they were willing to tell but were afraid of reprisals from Sadaam.
The Holy Trio convinced the world that the threat was real and immediate... that Iraq's nuclear capabilities were a substantial threat to the security of the U.S., and that if something wasn't done... and done right quick... we were hours away from another 9/11. *THAT* was the motive behind the "War to Liberate Iraq," -- the discovery of Sadaam's stockpile of WoMD -- a motive that has become, over the two months since the end of hostilities, viewed as highly suspect. Even the very top-level Administration officials who once so vigorously touted the WoMD issue are quietly backing away from it -- and for good reason. They've taken on the appearance of fools (at best) or liars (at worst).
Disagree with the distinguished Senator all you want, but he has a valid point. As things have played out, it DOES certainly "appear" that America went to war under false pretenses.
I wonder if the "public" can handle the truth? Should "it" be controlled (troll) by a select few? How much will "the truth" change our individual lives? How will you change? How will I change?
It would be wise to be very selective about who (whomn) a person can trust with all of the information spewing around the news media and from the so called elected officials!!
When I said 'IF' I was merely making the point that an ex (or more likely still) KKK member should not be suitable for selection as a Senator, I wasn't doubting what was said about him.
On the other hand, no one who disagrees with him has commented on the rights or wrongs of what he said, just attacked the person himself, and while he is a senator, surely you must take notice of what he said.
There are many people who have a shady past, this doesn't mean that they are blind to what's going on around them.
It also doesn't mean that the things that they have done in the past cannot be brought out when they make statements like this to lessen the impact of the things said.
Just analyse the speech and comment on those. It would be interesting to see what you think of the comments made.
Senator Byrd In Scathing Denunciation Of Bush Policies
5-22-3
(AFP) -- US Senator Robert Byrd -- a senior Democrat -- issued a scathing denunciation of White House military and diplomatic policy, particularly of the recently-concluded war in Iraq which he said may have been waged in violation of international law.
"The American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing international law, under false premises," Byrd said, in offering some of the most unvarnished criticism yet by Democrats of the US-led war on Iraq.
"Our costly and destructive bunker-busting attack on Iraq seems to have proven, in the main, precisely the opposite of what was the urgent reason to go in.
"This house of cards built of deceit will fall," said Byrd, a West Virginian and the most senior member of the US Senate, in comments delivered from the Senate floor.
The George W. Bush administration, Byrd charged, "assiduously worked to alarm the public and to blur the faces of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, until they virtually become one.
"What has become painfully clear in the aftermath of war is that Iraq was no immediate threat to the United States, and many of us here said so before the war," Byrd said.
After the war, the search for banned nuclear, biological and chemical weapons has come up empty, Byrd noted.
"The Bush team's extensive hype of (weapons of mass destruction) in Iraq as justification for a preemptive invasion war has become more than embarrassing -- it has raised serious questions about prevarication and the reckless use of power," Byrd said.
"We did not complete the war in Afghanistan because we were so eager to attack Iraq. Now it appears that al-Qaeda is back with a vengeance ... and we may well have destabilized the Mideast region, a region we have never fully understood."
The West Virginia Democrat also criticized as "spineless" his colleagues in Congress for voting to authorize the war.
