Senator Robert C Byrd

[Sgt Schultz]

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/9933.jpg

"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds," Robert C. Byrd

Byrd voted against the Supreme Court nomination of Thurgood Marshall. Byrd belonged to the Ku Klux Klan during his twenties and referred to the KKK as "an effective force in the struggle against communism and in the promotion of traditional American values."

Senator Robert C. Byrd played a Confederate General in the 2003 movie stinker Gods and Generals.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v395/thorphalanx/byrd.gif

Senator Byrd emphasized that his KKK days were over by 1943.

"I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state .... The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia .... It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibilities of rebuilding the Klan in the Realm of W. Va .... I hope that you will find it convenient to answer my letter in regards to future possibilities." — Robert Byrd in letter to Klan Imperial Wizard Samuel Green of Atlanta, April 8, 1946.
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/6566.jpg

by Michelle Malkin

Sen. Robert Byrd, ex-Klansman

EX-KLANSMAN Robert Byrd, the senior senator from West Virginia, casually used the phrase "white ******" twice on national TV this weekend. Enraged civil rights groups organized a protest campaign against Sen. Byrd and demanded that he undergo sensitivity training ... not. The ex-Klansman, you see, is a Democrat. Democrats can join hate groups and utter the ugliest racial slurs and get away with it because they are Democrats. They belong to the party of racial tolerance and understanding. They're paragons of virtue, and the rest of us are bigoted rubes.

The ex-Klansman showed his true colors when asked by Fox News Sunday morning talk show host Tony Snow about the state of race relations in America. Sen. Byrd warned: "There are white ******s. I've seen a lot of white ******s in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

The ex-Klansman, famed for Beltway blowhardism, should have quit talking a lot sooner. Why any prominent politician in his right mind would publicly and deliberately use the poisonous epithet "******" -- which most daily newspapers refuse to spell out, no matter the context -- is beyond comprehension. It's an open question as to whether the rant-prone, 83-year-old Byrd is even in his right mind, but senility doesn't excuse bigotry.

The ex-Klansman's admirers praise his historical knowledge, mastery of procedural rules, and outspokenness. They refer to the Senate's senior Democrat as the "conscience of the Senate." They downplay his white-sheet-wearing days as a "brief mistake" -- as if joining the Klan were like knocking over a glass of water. Oopsy.

This ex-Klansman wasn't just a passive member of the nation's most notorious hate group. According to news accounts and biographical information, Sen. Byrd was a "Kleagle" -- an official recruiter who signed up members for $10 a head. He said he joined because it "offered excitement" and because the Klan was an "effective force" in "promoting traditional American values." Nothing like the thrill of gathering 'round a midnight bonfire, roasting s'mores, tying nooses, and promoting white supremacy with a bunch of your hooded friends.
http://jewishworldreview.com/carics/byrd.caric.gif
The ex-Klansman allegedly ended his ties with the group in 1943. He may have stopped paying dues, but he continued to pay homage to the KKK. Republicans in West Virginia discovered a letter Sen. Byrd had written to the Imperial Wizard of the KKK three years after he says he abandoned the group. He wrote: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union."

The ex-Klansman later filibustered the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act -- supported by a majority of those "mean-spirited" Republicans -- for more than 14 hours. He also opposed the nominations of the Supreme Court's two black justices, liberal Thurgood Marshall and conservative Clarence Thomas. In fact, the ex-Klansman had the gall to accuse Justice Thomas of "injecting racism" into the Senate hearings. Meanwhile, author Graham Smith recently discovered another letter Sen. Byrd wrote after he quit the KKK, this time attacking desegregation of the armed forces.

The ex-Klansman vowed never to fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

If this ex-Klansman were a conservative Republican, he would never hear the end of his sordid past. "Ex-Klansman who opposed civil rights and black justices" would appear in every reference to Sen. Byrd. And even the "ex-" would be in doubt. Maxine Waters and Ralph Neas and Julianne Malveaux and Al Sharpton and all the other left-wing bloodhounds who sniff racism in every crevice of American life would be barking up a storm over Sen. Byrd's latest fulminations. Instead, the attack dogs are busy decrying latent racial bigotry where it doesn't exist, while the real thing roams wild and free in their own political backyard.
++++++++++++++++++++

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Robert Byrd: Senator Ashcroft, I understand you had the nerve to give a speech at BOB JONES University. Is this correct sir?

John Ashcroft: Yes, sir, that is correct.

Robert Byrd: Sir, are you a rascist?

John Ashcroft: No sir, I am not, and I'm offended by the very question.

Robert Byrd: I have no further questions. I turn it back to the distinguished, illustrious and honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy. Thank you.

Ted Kennedy: Senator Ashcroft, do you believe you are someone that can be trusted to follow the law?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Senator Robert Byrd, February 7, 1999, ABC’s News Program "This Week"
"The question is, does this rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors? I say yes. No doubt about it in my mind.”

“I’m voting-if I vote not to convict, I’m voting not to remove because conviction carries with it removal. I have no doubt that he [Clinton] has given false testimony under oath. And that he has misled the American people and that he has-there are indications that he did indeed obstruct justice.”

Byrd voted not to convict.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Byrd called members of Citizens Against Government Waste "a bunch of peckerwoods" on National Public Radio in the summer of 2001.

Byrd on gun ownership." We have to keep those "Negrotown Saturday Night Specials" out of the "wrong" hands, don't we?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Byrd Belives Laws Don't Apply To Him

By the staff
of Capitol Hill Blue

August 19, 1999

In early May, Senator Robert C. Byrd, a longtime and powerful Democrat from West Virginia, was following a van too closely on U.S. Route 50 in Fairfax, Virginia, when the van stopped for traffic.

Byrd's 1999 Cadillac slammed into the rear of the van. It took a tow truck more than an hour to pry the vehicles apart.

Byrd's car was not drivable and suffered an estimated $7,000 in damage. The driver of the 1990 Ford Econoline van, Chris Lee, 42, a house painter from Fairfax, said he didn't hear any sounds indicating that Byrd hit the brakes or swerved.

"Just boom," Lee said.

The Fairfax County police officer who investigated the accident had started to write the 81-year-old Senator a traffic ticket when Bryd pulled a copy of the U.S. Constitution out of his pocket and pointed to a section that he said the cop prevented the cop for ticketing him for anything because he, as a member of Congress "shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest" both while attending a session and traveling to or from the Capitol.

Byrd spokeswoman Ann Adler says the Senator, an acknowledged Constitutional scholar, "almost always has one (the Constitution) in his pocket."

Byrd was taken to the nearby Fair Oaks police station where the shift commander put in a quick call to Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan. Horan told the cop that if the Senator wanted to claim Congressional immunity for the ticket, the cops would have to honor it. With everything else that had happened in Washington in recent months, a traffic accident probably couldn't be classified as "treason, felony or breach of the peace."

Horan said he was familiar with the immunity clause -- Article 1, Section 6, of the Constitution -- because he had encountered it once before during his 32 years in office. Another member of Congress, also from West Virginia, invoked the clause to escape a speeding ticket 20 years earlier.

The constitutional provision was written in 1781 to protect members of Congress from harassment as they traveled across the country (usually by horseback), and to discourage people from trying to prevent the members from casting unpopular votes.

Constitutional scholars say that while the law has little use in modern times, it is often used by Washington area police as a way to avoid arresting members of Congress.

"It's a common misconception that it (the law) prevents ticketing," says Georgetown University professor Paul Rothstein. "Police departments in this area are frequently under that misapprehension. I think it's a way to do a favor for people of influence and stature, but it does smack of unequal treatment under the law."

And such unequal treatment is often invoked. A study of public records with police departments in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia show 217 members of the House and Senate escaped ticketing and arrest last year for a variety of traffic offenses ranging from speeding to driving while intoxicated.

In the 1998 Congressional session, 84 Representatives and Senators were stopped for drunken driving and released after they claimed Congressional immunity. It should be noted, however, that there is a big difference between being stopped for "suspicion" of DUI and actually being charged with the offense. More than one police officer, however, told Capitol Hill Blue they are not allowed to charge members of Congress.

"I've stopped Senators who were so drunk they couldn't remember their own name," says one Fairfax County police officer. "And I was ordered to let them drive home."

During late-night Congressional sessions, Representatives and Senators often spend time between votes in the private Republican and Democratic clubs or any of a dozen other Capitol Hill watering holes. One Capitol Hill police officer says he has had to jump out of the way more than once to avoid being run down by a drunken member of Congress roaring out of a House office garage.

"But there's not a damn thing I can do about it," he says, "Not if I want to keep my job."

Sgt. Joe Gentile of the D.C. police admits city police do not issue traffic tickets to senators and representatives while Congress is in session. Alexandria and Montgomery County claim members of Congress receive no special treatment for traffic violations, but records show 47 members were released without tickets last year. Arlington and Prince George's county refuse to reveal their policies, but records show members are rountinely released without charge in both counties.

Members of Congress feel no compulsion to obey the law. District of Columbia police issued 2,912 parking tickets to cars owned by members of Congress in 1998. None were paid. The financially strapped District, which actively pursues and "boots" cars belonging to ordinary citizens, does not go after members of Congress.

But Representatives and Senators are not the only privileged class in Washington. More than 20,000 foreign nationals living and working in National Capital area carry cards issued by the U.S. Department of State that grants them "diplomatic immunity" from arrest and prosecution.

"Some may feel immunity from traffic tickets is not a big deal, but it's significant of a culture that breeds contempt for the rules that other citizens must obey," says retired Southern Illinois University political scientist George Harleigh. "A culture that allows tolerance for breaking minor laws breeds indifference to larger violations."

For years, members of Congress exempted themselves from many of the laws they passed for the rest of the country. Most bills carried a statement that said, "Exempted from the provisions of this act shall be the legislative and executive branches of the federal government." The exemptions allowed, among other things, members to work employees for long hours without overtime or to discriminate on the basis of sex, political affiliation, age or other reasons.

The federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) can shut down a private company for safety violations, but OSHA has no jurisdiction over Congressional buildings and inspectors are not even allowed on Capitol Hill.

Changes made after Republicans took control of Congress in 1995 were supposed to bring Congress into compliance with the laws that governed the rest of the nation, but those who work on the Hill say little has changed.

"Congress is America's last plantation," says former GOP staffer Jonathan Luckstill. "Staffers are still used to run personal errands for members, women staffers are hired on the basis of looks and can be fired on a whim," he says.

"There really isn't much recourse," Luckstill adds.

Sometimes, however, recourse comes through hindsight. A week after he claimed Congressional immunity for his traffic accident, West Virginia Senator Robert C. Byrd's staff contacted the Fairfax County police and told them to reissue the ticket.

So the cops again called Commonwealth's Attorney Horan.

"I said, if you can waive your rights under the Fifth and Sixth amendments you certainly can waive your rights under Article One, Section Six," Horan said "If the senator wants his day in court, he's entitled to it."

So the Senator got his ticket and appeared in court on July 19, pleading "no contest" on a charge of failing to keep control of his car. The judge levied $30 in court costs, but Bryd was not fined, a sentence that observers said was unusually light for a Fairfax County traffic court that is known to be tough on first-time offenders.

http://www.jimandpatsanders.com/pages/main2/byrdturban.jpg

[JCOOK]

OUCH!

[FORD]

Can we say OBSESSION???

[ELVIS]

No...

Shut the fuck up!

[Sgt Schultz]

Originally posted by FORD
Can we say OBSESSION???

Just trying to make the point that Byrd is not the guy to hitch your wagon to if you want to have a credible argument.

[FORD]

Senate Remarks by Robert C. Byrd


February 13, 2003



"American Rhetoric Over the Top"




The language of diplomacy is imbued with courtesy and discretion. Diplomats the world over can be counted on to choose each word of every public statement with precision, for an ill-received demarche could turn allies into adversaries or cooperation into confrontation.

Like most professions, diplomacy has its own lexicon. As John Kenneth Galbraith wrote in 1969, "There are few ironclad rules of diplomacy but to one there is no exception: when an official reports that talks were useful, it can safely be concluded that nothing was accomplished." And when we hear a seasoned envoy refer to a "frank and open discussion," we know that he is actually talking about a knock-down, drag-out fight behind closed doors. While negotiation can steer great powers away from a course that would lead to war, we can usually count on public statements about diplomacy to be underwhelming.

There have been exceptional times when bold statements have energized world opinion. When President Reagan stood on the Berlin Wall in 1987 and proclaimed, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," he spoke to millions of Germans who longed to be freed from oppression. While I would not go so far as to credit a single phrase with hastening the fall of the Eastern Bloc, certainly President Reagan's statement reflected the resolve of the West to oppose communism.

There have also been a fair number of bold statements to the world that have backfired.

For example, Nikita Khrushchev squandered whatever credit he might have gained through a goodwill tour of the United States in 1959, when he visited the United Nations the next year. The Soviet Premier famously exclaimed to the West, "We will bury you," while slamming his shoe on the table in front of him. This ill-advised outburst was a vivid depiction of an irrational and out of control superpower.

Fortunately, the United States has a tradition in foreign policy of being slow to anger. We have nurtured a reputation of being rational and deliberate. I doubt that Americans would have much tolerance for a president who used the United Nations as a forum for testing the construction of his footwear on the nearest table. It would be a great departure for the United States to use its foreign policy organs as a means to spread divisive rhetoric.

Unfortunately, the tone of our foreign policy in recent months has been in a steady decline. To some of our allies, the United States, through its words and its actions on the crisis in Iraq, is beginning to look more like a rogue superpower than the leader of the free world. Many newspapers in European capitals criticize U.S. policy toward Iraq. Moderate Muslim nations, such as Jordan and Turkey, are growing progressively suspicious of American motives in the war against terrorism. An increasing number of people in Arab countries are coalescing around an outright hatred of the United States.

Let us remember that President Bush came to office promising to change the tone in Washington. I wonder if the current tone of American foreign policy is what he had in mind? One source of alarm is the tone of the National Security Strategy released by the White House in September 2002. In broad strokes, the strategy argues that the United States should use its overwhelming military power to engage in preemptive strikes to prevent others from ever developing the means to threaten our country. The strategy notes a preference for working with allies to keep the peace, but underscores the willingness of the United States to act unilaterally.

The content and the tone of these important pronouncements in the National Security Strategy sparked outcry, in the United States and around the world. The report gave critics plenty of ammunition to make their case that the United States is a 400 pound gorilla that will stop at nothing to get its way. Our strategy leaves much of the world the impression that Americans agree with the quotation of the late Chinese leader, Zhou Enlai (JOE EN-LIE), which turned the axiom uttered by the military strategist Carl von Clausewitz on his head: "All diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means."

There are many examples of provocative rhetoric that have escalated the stakes of our standoff with Iraq. In his 2002 State of the Union Address, the President coined an "Axis of Evil," comprised of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. In October 2002, the White House Press Secretary suggested that regime change in Iraq could be accomplished with "the cost of one bullet." On December 30, 2002, President Bush said that Saddam's "day of reckoning is coming." The next day, he chided a reporter who asked about the prospect of war in Iraq by saying, "I'm the person who gets to decide, not you." The President's coarse words did nothing to ease criticism of American unilateralism.

Several members of the President's national security team warned Iraq in January 2003 that "time is running out" for Iraq, and that such time was measured in weeks, not months. On Sunday talk show interviews on January 29, the White House Chief of Staff refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in a war against Iraq. On February 6, President Bush ominously declared that "the game is over." With each of these statements, the chances of war appeared to grow.

To be fair, the President and his advisors have repeatedly stated a preference for the peaceful disarmament of Iraq. But as I speak right now, many Americans believe that war is inevitable. Through words and through action, the United States appears to be on a collision course with war in the Persian Gulf. Stating a preference for a peaceful solution is not enough to alter the heading of our great ship of state.

If our rhetoric toward Iraq is not alarming enough, the last weeks have seen an appalling increase in criticism of our allies and the United Nations.

On September 12, 2002, President Bush delivered a strong and effective speech that urged the United Nations to take action to disarm Iraq. The President said: "All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations [faces] a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"

The President threw down the gauntlet, and the United Nations acted. Inspectors have returned to Iraq, and they are doing their job. The inspectors have asked for more time, but the President has now challenged the U.N. to authorize the use of force, or again face irrelevance. The world is now wondering, which is the greater threat to the relevance of the U.N.: a rogue nation that flaunts the will of the international community; or a permanent member of the Security Council that views the institution as useless unless it submits to its will? This hand has been overplayed. More threats of U.N. irrelevance will only portray the United States as a bully superpower.

European allies who do not share our view on the crisis in Iraq have recently been in the cross hairs for verbal bombardment. Secretary Rumsfeld has lumped Germany in with Libya and Cuba as the principal opponents of war in Iraq. He also characterized Germany and France as being "Old Europe," as if their economic and political power does not matter as compared to the number of Eastern countries that comprise New Europe.

Richard Perle, a senior advisor to the Department of Defense, has also had choice words about our European allies. In October 2002, Mr. Perle recommended that German Chancellor Schroeder resign in order to improve relations between our two countries. On January 30, Mr. Perle followed up this charge by saying: "Germany has become irrelevant. And it is not easy for a German chancellor to lead his country into irrelevance." Spreading his criticism around, Mr. Perle stated that "France is no longer the ally that it once was." So far as I can tell from press reports, Mr. Perle, who is the Chairman of the Defense Policy Board, has not been admonished for his inflammatory statements.

Such vindictive criticism of our European allies has had repercussions. According to a new poll, published in the Financial Times Deutchland on February 10, 57 percent of Germans agree with the statement, "The United States is a nation of warmongers." And now we find ourselves in a pointless stalemate with our NATO partners over military assistance for Turkey. If we had been more temperate in our rhetoric, perhaps we could have worked through the anti-American tone of the recent elections in Germany. Instead, we find ourselves escalating a war of words against two great European powers.

Mr. President, how we communicate our foreign policy makes a difference. We expect North Korea or Iraq to use inflammatory propaganda to speak to the world, but we are a more dignified nation. There are ways for our country to indicate resolve without resorting to bellicosity. The subtext to nearly every new White House statement on Iraq is that the United States has run out of patience. The Administration is signaling its willingness to use an extreme amount of military force against Iraq when many still question the need to do so. We need to change our tone.

Impetuous rhetoric has added fuel to the crisis with Iraq and strained our alliances. Before committing our nation to war with Iraq and the years of occupation that will surely follow, we should repair the damage to our relations with our allies. I urge the President to change the tone of our foreign policy -- to turn away from threatening Iraq with war, away from insulting our friends and allies, away from threatening the United Nations with irrelevance. Our rhetoric has gone over the top, from giving an indication of our strength to giving an indication of recklessness.

I have learned from fifty years in Congress that it is unwise to insult one's adversaries, for tomorrow you may be in need of an ally. There will come the day when we will seek the assistance of those European allies with which we are now feuding. But serious rifts are threatening our close relationship with some of the great powers of Western Europe. The Secretary of State said yesterday that NATO is at risk of breaking up. It is time to put our bluster and swagger away for the time being. I urge the President to calm his rhetoric, repair our alliances, and slow the charge to war.

[John Ashcroft]

Heh heh heh...

Ford identifying obsessions no less???

Good stuff Sgt. Schultz

Amazing what a dose of cold hard facts will do to a liberal.

[FORD]

Senate Remarks by Robert C. Byrd


February 26, 2003



"Tell the World the True Cost of War"




Since last August, the Administration has worked aggressively to convince the American public that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who directly threatens the United States. The President has been unambiguous, and often dangerously blunt, about his passion to use force to destroy Saddam's regime.

The Bush Administration has promoted a vision of Saddam's removal from power quickly, easily, and bloodlessly. Indeed, part of the rationale for support for this war is that America's tremendous military superiority over Iraq will confine a military conflict to a relatively painless contest between the United States' awesome military forces and the relatively weak, conventional military machine of Saddam Hussein.

A swift and simple military victory certainly is one possibility, but in our democratic-Republic the Administration also has a responsibility to inform the American people that much less pleasant scenarios are also possible and even likely. The Congress has a responsibility to explore all possible scenarios with an eye to the eventual costs of this war. We must not just accept the rosy projections so far offered by the Administration. Frankly, I have seen little effort by either the Administration or the Congress to inform the taxpayer about the likely costs of this war.

In both dollars and human lives, the Administration has been ominously quiet about its internal calculations and estimates. What is even worse is that the Congress has barely bothered to ask about them.

Earlier this month, the President unveiled his budget for the Fiscal Year 2004. Even assuming the most primitive and loose definition of the term "fiscal responsibility," that budget request should certainly have included some rough cost estimate for a war with Iraq. Even a range of costs would have been somewhat illuminating.

But no cost estimate was included in the President's budget. Let me repeat that. There is no estimate of the cost of the looming war with Iraq in the President's budget. The possible war has dominated the airwaves for months, yet there is no cost estimate in the President's budget. President Bush mentions the looming conflict in nearly every public pronouncement, yet no cost estimate to fight this war appears in his '04 budget. Is the Administration trying to tell the people of this nation it is for free?

When the Defense Secretary presented the President's defense budget to the Senate Armed Services Committee, and was asked what the Administration projected that a war in Iraq would cost, he would only say that such costs are "not knowable." Let us contemplate that answer "not knowable." Does the Secretary of Defense mean to say that this great nation does not yet know what its plans include for a war with Iraq? Is that why the costs are "not knowable?" Does he mean to say that we do not yet know exactly what we are going to try to achieve in Iraq? Is that why the costs are "not knowable?" Or does he simply mean to indicate that he does not want to divulge the potential costs, therefore to us they are "not knowable."

One must presume that by now the Administration would have made several internal forecasts of the military cost of the war using various scenarios, and that the White House Council of Economic Advisors would have prepared for the President a classified study of the projected economic impact of the war. Reportedly OMB Director Daniels has been working on war estimates for months, yet we are told that these costs are "not knowable." None of this information has been made available to the public, nor, I suspect, is it likely to be released in the near future. Congress has a responsibility to demand that information. Congress must not accept the answer, "not knowable." The American people deserve to know the truth.

There was one cost estimate provided by the Administration which came from an interview last fall with Larry Lindsey, the President's former economic advisor, who said that a war with Iraq could cost between $100 billion and $200 billion. He went on to opine that that was "nothing."

Yet, the White House quickly distanced itself from that comment, and the director of the Office of Management and Budget rebuked that estimate, saying that Lindsey's estimate was "very, very high."

The OMB Director suggested that the cost of the war would be closer to $60 billion or $70 billion. The Pentagon recently stretched that estimate to $95 billion. I wonder just what we are to make of these conflicting estimates. How are we to gauge the validity of such widely varying numbers. Do these figures contemplate other complications?

What if casualty estimates grow into the thousands? What if oil prices skyrocket, sparking inflation and lines at the gas pump, and costing the U.S. economy thousands of American jobs? Suppose the Middle East erupts in a tornado of violence, toppling regime after regime in the region?

Even a rudimentary list of the possible contingencies shows that costs may grossly exceed what the Administration wants the public to believe.

The Congressional Budget Office reported last September that the incremental costs of just deploying a force to the Persian Gulf -- that is, those costs incurred above those budgeted for routine operations -- could be between $9 billion and $13 billion. Prosecuting a war, according to the CBO, could cost between $6 billion and $9 billion per month. And after hostilities ended, the costs just to return U.S. forces to their home bases could range between $5 billion and $7 billion.

Regardless of the swiftness of a military victory, there remains the cost of a post-war occupation of Iraq, which the Administration says could last for up to two years and could mean another $1 billion to $4 billion or more per month during that period. On top of that, the United States might face a humanitarian crisis including rampant disease and starvation if Saddam Hussein employs a scorched earth strategy in defending his regime. What about the need for a cleanup of biological and chemical weapons if the Iraqi Republican Guard employs them against U.S. soldiers?

Reconstruction and nation-building costs resulting from installing a democratic government in Iraq have to also be thought about. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences projected that the minimum reconstruction and nation-building costs for Iraq could be as high as $30 billion, and that's under the very best of circumstances. Will the Administration propose something similar to a Marshall Plan for Iraq? The Academy reported that U.S. investments in Western Europe after World War II under the Marshall Plan cost a total of $13.3 billion over a four-year period. That is the equivalent of $450 billion over four years if measured as a percentage of GDP in 2002.

No one likes to talk about putting a price tag on national security, but these costs simply cannot be ignored in light of our current sagging economy and given a projected budget deficit of $307 billion for the fiscal year 2004. Remember, this government is going to have to borrow the money to finance this war. The total price of a war in Iraq could easily add up to hundreds of billions of dollars - - even a trillion or more - - overwhelming a federal budget which is already sliding into deep deficits and warping the U.S. economy and impacting the economies of other nations for years to come.

And unlike the Gulf War in 1991, many of our allies are unlikely to want to help much in defraying these costs. Right now, the Administration is trying to coax nations to join the "coalition of the willing" by paying them, not by asking them to help us pay for the war. "Coalition of the willing" or "COW" for short. It appears to me that the U.S. is the "cow" - - the cash cow in this case. We are the ones being milked.

The Administration reportedly has negotiated a multi-billion package of grants and loans for the Republic of Turkey for use of its bases to open a possible northern front against Iraq. The Administration is negotiating similar multi-billion packages with Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and other allies in the Middle East. I wonder if members are aware of the details of any of these deals in the works or their projected costs over time?

I believe that the costs of this war will be staggering. We know that our nation's most precious treasure, the lives of our young men and women in uniform, will certainly be threatened. But we do not know how great the risk is because the Administration will not talk about its plans. In addition, the cost, in terms of taxpayer dollars, will be enormous. We hear of negotiations ongoing with Turkey that are in the area of $30 billion. We learn of requests from Israel for $12 billion. In addition, Jordan wants to be compensated. We read that negotiations are underway to provide economic assistance to Mexico, Chile, and various African nations -- all of which are members of the United Nations Security Council.

Where will this all end? How many nations will be promised American economic assistance just for their tacit support? And how strong is support that can be bought with promises of American dollars?

This is no way to operate. If the case against Saddam Hussein were strong enough on its merits, the United States would not have to buy the support of the international community. If the world truly believes that Saddam Hussein poses an imminent threat, then let the world say so clearly. But do not taint that decision, do not taint the possible sacrifice of American soldiers, sailors, and airmen, by prying open the door to war with a blank check from the taxpayers.

If war is undertaken without UN sanction or broad international support, the United States taxpayer can expect to pay the costs of the war for decades and pay the interest costs for decades more.

And that's to say nothing about the larger macroeconomic costs to the economy. The economic ripples of a war could spread beyond direct budgetary costs into international energy markets through higher oil prices. The psychological effects of a war in Iraq, especially if it initiates new terrorist attacks around the globe, could further scare the already jittery financial markets and rattle consumers.

If the war goes badly, either through heavier than expected causalities, protracted bloody urban warfare, massive foreign denunciations, chemical and biological warfare, or major terrorist attacks here and abroad, we may be plunging our economy into unfathomable debt which this nation cannot easily sustain.

But even if one discounts these scenarios as unlikely, and sets them all aside, the potential costs of a limited war in Iraq could continue to pile up for years, depending on the total damage to Iraq, the civilian casualties, and the possibility that the war's effects could spread into other countries.

This is a dangerous and damaging game the Administration is playing with the American public. Glossing over the cost of a war with Iraq may make it easier to win short-term support. But without any serious attention to costs, the American people cannot be engaged in a fulsome public discussion about the eventual wisdom of undertaking this war. Public support cannot be sustained to accomplish our post-war goals in Iraq if the nation has been misled about the duration and difficulty of such a conflict. We cannot treat the citizens of this nation as if they are children who must be fed a fairy tale about fighting a glorious war of "liberation" which will be cheap, short and bloodless. If the President is going to force this nation to engage in this unwise, potentially disastrous, and alarmingly expensive commitment, he must lay out all of the costs and risks to the nation.

What is particularly worrisome is how naively the idea of establishing a perfect democracy in Iraq is being tossed around by this Administration. If the Administration engages in such a massive undertaking without the American people understanding the real costs and long-term commitment that will be required to achieve this bucolic vision, our efforts in Iraq could end with chaos in the region. Chaos, poverty, hopelessness, hatred - - that's exactly the kind of environment that becomes a fertile breeding ground for terrorists.

The Administration is asking the American public and the international community to support this war. The Administration must also put all of its cards on the table. A list of real risks and downsides do the nation no good locked in Donald Rumsfeld's desk drawer. They must be brought into the sunshine for the people to assess.

The American people are willing to embrace a cause when they judge it to be noble and both its risks and its benefits are explained honestly to them. But if information is withheld, long-term political support can never be sustained. Once the order is given and the bombs start falling, the lives of American troops and innocent civilians on the ground hang in the balance. Once "boots are on the ground," concerns about the monetary cost of war necessarily take a back seat. This nation will not shortchange the safety of our fighting men and women once they are in harms way.

But our people and this Congress should not have to wait until our troops are sent to fight to know what we are facing, including the painful costs of this war in dollars, political turmoil, and blood.

In a democratic-Republic, secrecy has no place. Hiding information from the public to rally support behind a war, at the very time when the government should be striving for maximum trust will eventually undermine our nation's strength. This conflict will be paid for with the people's treasure and the people's blood. This is no time to affront that sacrifice with beltway spin and secrecy.

[John Ashcroft]

Uh, I said "facts"...

[ELVIS]

Again, no link...:rolleyes:

[FORD]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Uh, I said "facts"...

Read the speech now, and it seems prophetic.

[ELVIS]

Dude! Whatever Robert Byrd has to say is irrevelant to the upcomming election...

Let's see you grow some balls and post something positive about John Kerry!

Otherwise, fuck off!

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Dude! Whatever Robert Byrd has to say is irrevelant to the upcomming election...

Let's see you grow some balls and post something positive about John Kerry!

Otherwise, fuck off!

John Kerry will not allow BCE Fascists to fuck the judicial system for decades.

There, you happy now?

[JCOOK]

He was going to before he decided against it.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
John Kerry will not allow BCE Fascists to fuck the judicial system for decades.

There, you happy now?


Yes I am, but regarding your post, NO! I am not!

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
John Kerry will not allow BCE Fascists to fuck the judicial system for decades.



What basis do you base this on ??

[John Ashcroft]

Because he knows damn well that liberal activism can only be forced on the populace through judicial activism.

Liberal pet-causes lose time after time after time when put to a vote of the people through state questions and so forth. So, in comes kangaroo courts like the 9th circus to legislate from the bench.

Liberalism depends on this. Liberal's know damn well that if Bush gets to appoint justices that simply interpret the law rather than create law (ala Massachussetts, New Jersey, California, etc.), those days are over.

[ELVIS]

Hmmm...

[FORD]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft


Liberalism depends on this. Liberal's know damn well that if Bush gets to appoint justices that simply interpret the law rather than create law (ala Massachussetts, New Jersey, California, etc.), those days are over.

You mean like "Bush v Gore 2000" the most damaging case of "judicial activism" to ever occur on this planet?

[ELVIS]

Bush won!

[John Ashcroft]

Recount after recount.

No, I'm talking about pretty much all of the state questions that have been passed yet overturned (by the 9th circus) in California regarding illegals.

I'm also talking about the Torricelli - Lautenburg fiasco.

I'm also talking about Gay Marriage in Massachussetts.

And yes, I'm also talking about the fucking Florduh Supreme Court creating rules as they went during the 2000 recount fiasco.

But no, I'm not talking about the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000.

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Bush won!

Won a 5-4 court decision, with the 5 all BCE appointees.

Yeah, that's a Hell of a shocker :rolleyes:

[ELVIS]

No asshole, Bush won the vote count!

[FORD]

Senate Remarks by Robert C. Byrd


March 19, 2003



"The Arrogance of Power"



I believe in this beautiful country. I have studied its roots and gloried in the wisdom of its magnificent Constitution. I have marveled at the wisdom of its founders and framers. Generation after generation of Americans has understood the lofty ideals that underlie our great Republic. I have been inspired by the story of their sacrifice and their strength.

But, today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.

Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination. Instead of isolating Saddam Hussein, we seem to have isolated ourselves. We proclaim a new doctrine of preemption which is understood by few and feared by many. We say that the United States has the right to turn its firepower on any corner of the globe which might be suspect in the war on terrorism. We assert that right without the sanction of any international body. As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.

We flaunt our superpower status with arrogance. We treat UN Security Council members like ingrates who offend our princely dignity by lifting their heads from the carpet. Valuable alliances are split. After war has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America's image around the globe.

The case this Administration tries to make to justify its fixation with war is tainted by charges of falsified documents and circumstantial evidence. We cannot convince the world of the necessity of this war for one simple reason. This is a war of choice.

There is no credible information to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11. The twin towers fell because a world-wide terrorist group, Al Qaeda, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth and our influence by turning our own planes into missiles, one of which would likely have slammed into the dome of this beautiful Capitol except for the brave sacrifice of the passengers on board.

The brutality seen on September 11th and in other terrorist attacks we have witnessed around the globe are the violent and desperate efforts by extremists to stop the daily encroachment of western values upon their cultures. That is what we fight. It is a force not confined to borders. It is a shadowy entity with many faces, many names, and many addresses.

But, this Administration has directed all of the anger, fear, and grief which emerged from the ashes of the twin towers and the twisted metal of the Pentagon towards a tangible villain, one we can see and hate and attack. And villain he is. But, he is the wrong villain. And this is the wrong war. If we attack Saddam Hussein, we will probably drive him from power. But, the zeal of our friends to assist our global war on terrorism may have already taken flight.

The general unease surrounding this war is not just due to "orange alert." There is a pervasive sense of rush and risk and too many questions unanswered. How long will we be in Iraq? What will be the cost? What is the ultimate mission? How great is the danger at home? A pall has fallen over the Senate Chamber. We avoid our solemn duty to debate the one topic on the minds of all Americans, even while scores of thousands of our sons and daughters faithfully do their duty in Iraq.

What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomatic efforts when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?

Why can this President not seem to see that America's true power lies not in its will to intimidate, but in its ability to inspire?

War appears inevitable. But, I continue to hope that the cloud will lift. Perhaps Saddam will yet turn tail and run. Perhaps reason will somehow still prevail. I along with millions of Americans will pray for the safety of our troops, for the innocent civilians in Iraq, and for the security of our homeland. May God continue to bless the United States of America in the troubled days ahead, and may we somehow recapture the vision which for the present eludes us.

[ELVIS]

As a result, the world has become a much more dangerous place.

Yeah, for terrorists...

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Yeah, for terrorists...

Really.....

Now that the BCE has invaded two countries which had NOTHING to do with the 9-11 attacks (and only Afghanistan even a peripheral association with Bin Laden ) hasn't the "cause" for terrorists actually increased?

Haven't Bin Laden's accusations of "Great Satan Imperialists declaring a crusade against Islam" been given credibility by attacks against 2 countries not involved in 9-11?

And that begs the question:

Is that what the BCE wants??

[John Ashcroft]

Nope.

How many hit's has the U.S. taken since Dubya declared war on those scumbags?

You're using John Kerry hypothetical nuance bullshit as the basis for your reasoning.

I'm simply stating a fact to support mine.

And I know it upsets you when I call your precious "freedom fighters" scumbags, but too bad dude...

[Sgt Schultz]

U.S. Senator Supports President's Decision To Go To War With Iraq

"Saddam Hussein has shown repeatedly that he cannot be trusted. He has crossed the diplomatic line in the sand again and again and then reneged on his promises. The administration, with its several military buildups, has threatened, 'Wolf! Wolf!' too often and then backed off; this time the wolf should show its claws and teeth.

The U.S. should strike, strike hard and strike decisively. In this instance, the administration needs to act sooner rather than later."

Saddam has shown that our diplomacy doesn't work, and he should not be allowed to manipulate the U.S. again. He should feel the pain of a real bite."

"[Hussein]has promoted the starvation of Iraqi children so that he and his cabal can live in palaces. Saddam Hussein is a scourge on the people of Iraq and a menace to peace."

Here is a portion of the speech given by the President which was so strongly supported by the Senator.

“Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. “

The Senator - Robert C. Byrd
The President - William Jefferson Clinton

[Wayne L.]

Senator Robert Byrd & former KKK member defines what the Democratic Party is really all about on the inside even though they won't admit in publicly. He was for the war in Iraq in the beginning but has turned into a mental case with his mindless politically rhetoric against Bush for publicity reasons to sell his ludicrious book.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
U.S. Senator Supports President's Decision To Go To War With Iraq

"Saddam Hussein has shown repeatedly that he cannot be trusted. He has crossed the diplomatic line in the sand again and again and then reneged on his promises. The administration, with its several military buildups, has threatened, 'Wolf! Wolf!' too often and then backed off; this time the wolf should show its claws and teeth.

The U.S. should strike, strike hard and strike decisively. In this instance, the administration needs to act sooner rather than later."

Saddam has shown that our diplomacy doesn't work, and he should not be allowed to manipulate the U.S. again. He should feel the pain of a real bite."

"[Hussein]has promoted the starvation of Iraqi children so that he and his cabal can live in palaces. Saddam Hussein is a scourge on the people of Iraq and a menace to peace."

Here is a portion of the speech given by the President which was so strongly supported by the Senator.

“Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. “

The Senator - Robert C. Byrd
The President - William Jefferson Clinton

This post shut him up...


:elvis:

[Dr. Love]

I need to visit these forums more often. I thought Kerry was BCE (skull and bones) and was a DLC pussy-sellout, etc.

When did FORD start supporting a person he called a Bush-clone?

[FORD]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
I need to visit these forums more often. I thought Kerry was BCE (skull and bones) and was a DLC pussy-sellout, etc.

When did FORD start supporting a person he called a Bush-clone?

I'm not supporting the DLC pussy sellout. I'm voting against Bush Jr to prevent further fascistization of the government through theft of the judicial system.

[freak]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
I need to visit these forums more often. I thought Kerry was BCE (skull and bones) and was a DLC pussy-sellout, etc.

When did FORD start supporting a person he called a Bush-clone?

My pet theories are dosage adjustment and/or inferior generics.

Either way, it's cerebral chemistry at work here.

[ELVIS]

That's real smart...:rolleyes:

..and a plan that's destined to fail...

[Sgt Schultz]

Something to consider when the likes of Robert KKK Byrd and John Kerry say we have no allies, and the ones we do have are not legitimate.............

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Boston Brahmin Disses Our Allies
John Kerry is far too willing to dismiss our Coalition.
by Deroy Murdock

Time and again, John Kerry has been dismissive to the point of rudeness toward this country's Coalition allies. None of America's 33 partners ever had to send so much as a Q-Tip to support Operation Iraqi Freedom. The fact that any nation assigns even one citizen to fight shoulder to shoulder with U.S. GIs should elicit celebration and gratitude, not the sort of ethnocentrism that a sneering Boston Brahmin might expect to see gushing out of, say, Texas oil country.

Worse than a snotty host who snickers about guests who bring the "wrong" wine to dinner, Kerry snarls about nations that toil with America to build a safe, free, and prosperous Iraq.

In March 2003, Kerry dismissed these countries as the "coalition of the coerced and the bribed."

In September 2003, Kerry said that "this President's pride has brought us a coalition of the few, barely willing to do anything at all: 160 Mongolians, 43 Estonians, and 83 Filipinos isn't a coalition; it's a cover-up."

Last March, Kerry told CNN: "The fact is that those countries are really window dressing to the greatest degree. And they weren't there in the beginning when we went in, and they're not carrying the cost of this war."

Last April, Kerry virtually made America's allies disappear. "To do this right," he said, "we have to truly internationalize both politically and militarily. We cannot depend on a U.S.-only presence."

On September 6, Kerry dismissed the notion that there are international boots on the ground beside ours. He called this "the phoniest thing I've ever heard."

Kerry's skinned-up nose would be ugly enough if non-American Coalition soldiers frittered away the hours by barhopping in Baghdad. In fact, they dine on hot lead with our boys and girls, too often in fatal servings.

According to the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count website, 124 overseas soldiers have been killed in Iraq as of last week. This includes, among others, 13 Poles, 19 Italians, and 66 Britons. Kerry's sarcasm must be uniquely soothing to their shattered families.

As for the living, the Heritage Foundation's Nile Gardiner has documented the extent to which America is not alone in Iraq and, indeed, is ably assisted by nations from around the globe.

Despite the high-profile departures of Spain and the Philippines, American GIs in Iraq serve with uniformed personnel from Albania, Armenia (as of this month), Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, South Korea, Thailand, Tonga, and Ukraine.

These 26,487 troops represent 17.3 percent of forces in Iraq, compared to the 126,500 U.S. soldiers who, it is fair to say, fill 82.7 percent of positions there. While Americans have suffered 89 percent of the war's deaths, 11 percent of those killed were international soldiers.

"Faced with a barrage of misleading rhetoric, the American public could be forgiven for thinking that the trans-Atlantic alliance no longer exists," writes Gardiner in his September 7 report, The Myth of U.S. Isolation: Why America Is Not Alone in the War on Terror. "The Coalition includes 21 nations from Europe, and nine from Asia and Australasia. Twelve of the 25 members of the European Union are represented, as are 16 of the 26 NATO member states."

True, France and Germany are AWOL in this conflict. But neither France nor Germany speaks for all of Europe, as both Napoleon and Kaiser Wilhelm grew to understand.

President Bush should showcase this Coalition by hosting a White House summit on Iraq with these countries' chiefs of state or foreign ministers. Publicly acknowledging their courage and sacrifice would educate Americans before November 2.

Using Gardiner's report and other data, I produced a chart that identifies Coalition nations, their troop contributions, and fatalities in Iraq.

One could argue that America should have even more overseas assistance, or that blue-helmeted United Nations peacekeepers should be on patrol. But John Kerry's self-contradictory insistence that America is both solo in Iraq and at the head of a coalition of the "barely willing" illustrates, yet again, his trouble with the truth.