Sho-nuff Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 http://news.yahoo.com/fc?tmpl=fc&cid=34&in=us&cat=us_congress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phishhead Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 Here is the article: WASHINGTON (AFP) - Senator Robert Byrd -- one of the most outspoken critics of US policy in Iraq (news - web sites) -- welcomed calls for a congressional probe into US troops' not having found weapons of mass destruction there, and called into question President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s "truthfulness" on the matter. "What amazes me is that the president himself is not clamoring for an investigation," Byrd said from the floor of the Senate. "It is his truthfulness that is being questioned. It is his integrity that is on the line," the West Virginia Democrat said. "Yet he has raised no question, expressed no curiosity, about the strange turn of events in Iraq -- expressed no anger at the possibility that he might have been misled." "How is it that the president who was so adamant about the dangers of WMD, has expressed no concern about the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?" Byrd said. Byrd, 85, the longest serving member of the senate -- has served in congress' upper chamber 1959, and served in the US House of Representatives for several years before that. He is not known for being particularly liberal, having belonged once to the anti-integrationist Ku Klux Klan, nor as a pacifist, having been a staunch supporter of the US war in Vietnam. Yet the conservative southern Democrat has become an unlikely hero of anti-war and anti-occupation forces who have e-mailed copies of his florid tirades decrying the US-led war and its postwar management of Iraq around the globe. In one of his most controversial rants, Byrd slammed Bush for donning a military flight jacket while greeting victorious US troops on an aircraft carrier immediately after the completion of the war. "I do not begrudge his salute to America's warriors," Byrd said. "But I do question the motives of a desk-bound president who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech," he said. In Thursday's speech he said he was worried that weapons of mass destruction might indeed have been in Iraq's possession recently, but may now be in the hands of terrorists or another nations hostile to US interests. "The belligerent stance of the United States may have convinced Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) to sell of disperse his weapons to dark forces outside of Iraq," he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 who cares? byrd carries no weight except with a few extremeskins posters....let the x-Klansman wail away!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 I knew that the completely irrelevant Klan issue would be used to wish this away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 I truly believe that because Byrd is not being allowed to lead the Senate around by the nose towards his pet pork projects, he's lashing out at the President. He doesn't have much credibility. This isn't Fulbright questioning the Vietnam War. But the Dems know they need someone to pull the gloves off with Bush, and that they can't lose with him. If Byrd's comments are ignored, then he's just a silly old man. If they gain traction, then the Dems will jump on board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 But what if Byrd is right? What if Saddam did have chemical and biological weapons and intended to use them only as he has in the past; to quell any internal political uprisings. What if, as a result of the invasion, he decided to give them away to Arab extremists rather than let them fall into the hands of British and American troops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 If that happens, then I think its pretty obvious that it'll be Clinton's fault! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 If Byrd is right, that would certainly be a problem. But why is Byrd the only one we have to rely upon to credibly pose that question (unless you count the Guardian )? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 JDM....just returning serve............you all are the first to uncover any spec of "disapproved" behavior.......but, don't let me interfere with the double standard or hypocrisy!!!!! enjoy eating at the table set for a feast of fools!!! "to quell any internal political uprisings"....well isn't that a quaint euphemism!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Hog Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 F' Byrd; KKK Grand Wizard idiot ! !:finger: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuckinIA Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 Byrd's past KKK exploits are a lot less irritating than the reasons he gets reelected. The WVA turnpike and the rest of his porcine/federally funded foolishness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 was strom thurmond ever in the KKK? not sure, just know he agreed with some of their beliefs.... "But what if Byrd is right? What if Saddam did have chemical and biological weapons and intended to use them only as he has in the past; to quell any internal political uprisings. What if, as a result of the invasion, he decided to give them away to Arab extremists rather than let them fall into the hands of British and American troops?" kurp, you know this is irrelevant because byrd is a bigot and a kkk member.... :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 I've read several articles now about how there were many disagreements about WMD's in Bush's cabinet. Many of them have been posted here. Synthesizing of the articles, they indicate that the WMD was the compromise issue that the administration felt could best be used to sell the war. Further, there are a bunch of articles implying different comfort levels with the intelligence and intelligence reports indicating different degrees of certainty within both the administration and intelligence agencies themselves. This ambiguity was disregarded in the fervor to promote a war. As we know, the war was sold on three levels. Iraq's WMD's are a direct threat to the US and European allies. (specifically Spain and France, I believe, if I remember the maps correctly) Sadam is an intolerant dictator and murderer of his people who is intolerable. Sadam has links, money, equipment, training etc. with anti-american terrorist groups. The second issue can never be shot down. He was or is a horrible monster who committed attrocities against his own people. A person whose self interest led him to murder, torture, and uspeakable cruelty. The first issue is still in the realm of doubt. It is incredibly unlikely that these weapons never existed. This week, the Bush administration claimed it's possible that Iraq may have destroyed the weapons just before the war started. If so, wasn't that the condition we gave for not going to war? Strange lapse of intelligence there which makes that suggestion seem absurd. Could the WMD's be buried, dispersed to Syria et al., or sold. That's possible and even more worriesome. So far all the proof we have found, unless I missed something, has been circumstantial. Still, the timeframe for finding them has been short. It took 12,000 men working together over a month to find the Sniper in Southern Maryland. Here, we are talking about tons of material, but also an entire country. On the other hand, the Bush administration at least in its rhetoric does not seemed overly concerned with the mission of recovering and destroying these chemicals and agents. The issue of terrorism support is stronger. There is substantial evidence that Iraq funded Hamaas, although they are more anti-Isreal, than anti-American. In addition, there were a few news reports that some Al Qaeda troops joined the fighting. How they knew they were Al Qaeda I'm not sure. They also captured at least one fugitive terrorist. So this position seems to have some validity, though I would like records to appear showing money, arms transfers, training records, etc. The evidence is not necessarily linking anti american efforts, but there is evidence of terrorist support in Iraq. Even though the media and UN said this was the weakest leg of our argument, I think it has possibly borne the most fruit. So, was the war necessary. On the level of WMD, we have circumstantial evidence of their existance, a possible dispersion to unknown parties of lethal materials, disagreements within intelligence agencies over the quality and type of intelligence gathered, and increased resentment from the doubters. On the level of humanitarism, ridding the country of Sadam is good. Delaying the establishment of a people's governement indefinately is iffy, and it will take ten to twenty years to know if we have done anything to improve their lives in any real sence. Still, I'd say Sadam's removal was a good thing, because sometimes the will to do the right thing and taking the first step is important. Finally, the terrorism issue. If the weapons are dispersed where the terrorists can more easily get their hands on them we have made our lives much more difficult. We have probably reduced outgoing money, may or may not have induced more anti-american fervor that may lead to more terrorist enlistment or sympathy for the cause, and have caught some fugitives. Conclusion: if you are pro human rights then the war was necessary. For millitary reasons, the legitimacy is still very much in doubt. Is there anyone out there who can say with authority that this war has made us any safer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 Don't know if anyone saw this, but it was on Yahoo.. Ex-Official: Evidence Distorted for War Sat Jun 7, 6:18 AM ET Add White House - AP Cabinet & State to My Yahoo! By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The Bush administration distorted intelligence and presented conjecture as evidence to justify a U.S. invasion of Iraq (news - web sites), according to a retired intelligence official who served during the months before the war. "What disturbs me deeply is what I think are the disingenuous statements made from the very top about what the intelligence did say," said Greg Thielmann, who retired last September. "The area of distortion was greatest in the nuclear field." Thielmann was director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. His office was privy to classified intelligence gathered by the CIA (news - web sites) and other agencies about Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear programs. In Thielmann's view, Iraq could have presented an immediate threat to U.S. security in two areas: Either it was about to make a nuclear weapon, or it was forming close operational ties with al-Qaida terrorists. Evidence was lacking for both, despite claims by President Bush (news - web sites) and others, Thielmann said in an interview this week. Suspicions were presented as fact, contrary arguments ignored, he said. The administration's prewar portrayal of Iraq's weapons capabilities has not been validated despite weeks of searching by military experts. Alleged stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons have not turned up, nor has significant evidence of a nuclear weapons program or links to the al-Qaida network. Bush has said administration assertions on Iraq will be verified in time. The CIA and other agencies have vigorously defended their prewar performances. CIA Director George Tenet, responding to similar criticism last week, said in a statement: "The integrity of our process was maintained throughout, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong." On Friday, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency acknowledged he had no hard evidence of Iraqi chemical weapons last fall but believed Iraq had a program in place to produce them. Also Friday, Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites), said he was not prepared to place blame for any intelligence shortcomings until all information is in. "There are always times when a single sentence or a single report evokes a lot of concern and some doubt," Warner told reporters after a closed hearing of his committee. "But thus far, in my own personal assessment of this situation, the intelligence community has diligently and forthrightly and with integrity produced intelligence and submitted it to this administration and to the Congress of the United States." Thielmann suggested mistakes may have been made at points all along the chain from when intelligence is gathered, analyzed, presented to the president and then provided to the public. The evidence of a renewed nuclear program in Iraq was far more limited than the administration contended, he said. "When the administration did talk about specific evidence — it was basically declassified, sensitive information — it did it in a way that was also not entirely honest," Thielmann said. In his State of the Union address, Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The Africa claim rested on a purported letter or letters between officials in Iraq and Niger held by European intelligence agencies. The communications are now accepted as forged, and Thielmann said he believed the information on Africa was discounted months before Bush mentioned it. "I was very surprised to hear that be announced to the United States and the entire world," he said. Thielmann said he had presumed Iraq had supplies of chemical and probably biological weapons. He particularly expected U.S. forces to find caches of mustard agent or other chemical weapons left over from Saddam's old stockpiles. "We appear to have been wrong," he said. "I've been genuinely surprised at that." One example where officials took too far a leap from the facts, according to Thielmann: On Feb. 11, CIA Director Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iraq "retains in violation of U.N. resolutions a small number of Scud missiles that it produced before the Gulf War (news - web sites)." Intelligence analysts supposed Iraq may have had some missiles because they couldn't account for all the Scuds it had before the first Gulf War, Thielmann said. They could have been destroyed, dismantled, miscounted or still somewhere in Saddam's inventory. Some critics have suggested that the White House and Pentagon (news - web sites) policy-makers pressured the CIA and military intelligence to come up with conclusions favorable to an attack-Iraq policy. The CIA and military have denied such charges. Thielmann said that generally he felt no such pressure. Although his office did not directly handle terrorism issues, Thielmann said he was similarly unconvinced of a strong link between al-Qaida and Saddam's government. Yet, the implication from Bush on down was that Saddam supported Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s network. Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks frequently were mentioned in the same sentence, even though officials have no good evidence of any link between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 The DIA head kahuna was on CNN last night: he stated he had no doubts Iraq held WMDs. The uncertainty was always over where they were located. Don't care anyway. The opening hand has been played. One destabilizing force has been removed. The next moves will entail strangling the flow of funds and arms to organizations like HAMAS. The attacks in SA were incredibly stupid. There has been a distinct change in the tone of Arab leadership/tolerance for terrorism lately. The final phase, if necessary, will entail killing these people. HAMAS leadership has already stated that their goal remains complete "restoral" of Palestine (meaning Israeli territories) under a Palestinian State. They are working inexorably toward their own death sentences. Let's be quick and efficient about the whole process. Meanwhile, some of you might as well busy yourselves about the process of painting anti-war placards and protests as symbols of your empathy and understanding for the plight of terrorists and murderers everywhere. So much to protest....so little time!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKurp Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 Originally posted by fansince62 Meanwhile, some of you might as well busy yourselves about the process of painting anti-war placards and protests as symbols of your empathy and understanding for the plight of terrorists and murderers everywhere. So much to protest....so little time!!!! FanSince62, you're playing a little loose with some of the sentiments on this board. I don't think anyone here, at least to the best of my recollection, has any empathy for terrorists. As for understanding, well, why not? If you can understand what makes the enemy tick, can you not then begin to formulate a strategy to combat his actions and negate his effectiveness? You seem to advocate killing them all. Well, have you not noticed that they're already doing this to themselves? What terrorist directly responsible for 9/11 is still alive? Sure, those who had some hand in planning it are still living, but the men who carried out the atrocity had no regard for their own lives. You can kill those who don't kill themselves, but how do you stop others from taking their place? The search for that answer requires understanding the enemy, and should not be mistaken for empathy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 fan would probably answer by saying, "who needs understanding when you've got lots of bombs and guns? KILL 'EM ALL! Yeeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaa!" http://www.indelibleinc.com/kubrick/films/strangelove/audio/scream2.wav http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/wavs/scott1.wav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Matt Kyriacou Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 If Senator Robert Byrd is all the left has to throw at Dubya, then I know I will be sleeping soundly for the next 5+ years. Here is a great listen. http://www.lauraingraham.com/public/audio/050903/WebClipByrdBushCriticism1.ra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 What I find amusing is that anyone seems to think it takes Byrd's Klan affiliation to dispel what he said here. In fact, he dispelled what he said here all by himself. Just read the man's quotes. He's making pasta and he's throwing stuff on the wall to see what sticks. "What amazes me is that the president himself is not clamoring for an investigation," Byrd said from the floor of the Senate. "It is his truthfulness that is being questioned. It is his integrity that is on the line," the West Virginia Democrat said. "Yet he has raised no question, expressed no curiosity, about the strange turn of events in Iraq -- expressed no anger at the possibility that he might have been misled." "How is it that the president who was so adamant about the dangers of WMD, has expressed no concern about the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?" Byrd said. Look at those quotes. Byrd is CLEARLY calling into question whether these weapons existed at all. Then, because he really wants to make an impact, he contradicts himself by saying: "The belligerent stance of the United States may have convinced Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) to sell of disperse his weapons to dark forces outside of Iraq," he said. Wait a minute. You mean the weapons of mass destruction that Bush has shown no anger over being misled about and who's truthfulness over WMD statements is being called into question over weapons that don't exist were really weapons that DO exist and were dispersed to other nations? Which is it? The President was misled and lied to America about WMDs or WMDs were the danger the President said and Iraq dispersed them to avoid their destruction? See, it's arguments like these that make me happy to be a thoughtful person who see's utter tripe for the utter tripe it is. While liberals dance about trying to think this is moving, the only conclusion one can have is Byrd is senile and can't coherently keep to topic so he throws all topics on the wall and you guys don't even see him doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 I think Byrd, like many other Americans and citizens of the world would like the WMD found. Then there can be no reason to criticize the President and the intel he used to reach his decision to invade. I don't think that is asking too much. Also, Byrd can then figure out why he is taking shots at Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 AJ I can discount cuz ne's neither part of the solution or the problem... Kurp...while your thought process is legitimate....it doesn't square with history. we have been trying to recognize the legitimate "aspirations" and "interests" of the soulful young 21 year old Arab longing to determine the right course to follow: blowing up other 21 year olds at the behest of some cowardly/power hungry, recidivist mullah safely hiding inside a mosque, or peacefully supporting compromise. the terrorist movements have been linking up and sharing information/funding etc. for at least a decade. they have no interest in peace, negotiation, compromise.....democracy. Does the US need to appeal to those elements that can be reached? Yes. But for terrorist organizations be they Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc., they are fast reaching the point where they need to be sought out and killed....with malice. So yes, AJ, I have no compunction about this whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 maybe they would understand this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeature/castle.html we could rid ourselves of a lot of distractions all at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 Might just be necessary A.J. Good insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.