| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
He was right then and he's right now
U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, delivered the
following remarks on Sunday at 138th anniversary celebration of The Nation magazine. Early this morning came news of the capture of Saddam Hussein. That is good news. Despite his fall from power many months ago, the specter of a possible return to power had cast a constant shadow over Iraq and the Iraqi people. I applaud the tenacious work of the military and intelligence communities for their success today. But that success does not diminish the challenges that remain in Iraq, and it certainly does not tamp the passions inflamed against the United States throughout the Muslim world by our actions in Iraq. The capture of Saddam Hussein will not be the keystone for peace in that volatile region. This day 's news does not lessen the danger that the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes poses to international peace and stability. In order to bring lasting stability to Iraq, that nation needs the help of the entire world, not just America and her fighting friends. As each day passes and as more American soldiers are killed and wounded in Iraq, I become ever more convinced that the war in Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place for the wrong reasons. Contrary to the President's rosy predictions - and the predictions of others in the Bush Administration - the United States has not been universally greeted as a liberator in Iraq. The peace - if one can use the term "peace" to describe the chronic violence and instability that define Iraq today - the peace is far from being won. Iraqi citizens may be glad that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, but they appear to be growing increasingly resentful that the United States continues to rule their country at the point of a gun. What a huge price we are now paying for the President's bullheaded rush to invoke the unwise and unprecedented doctrine of preemption to invade Iraq, an invasion without provocation, an invasion without the support of the United Nations or the international community. It would be tragic enough if the casualties of the Iraq war were confined to the battlefield, but they are not. The casualties of this war will have serious repercussions for generations to come. Truth is one casualty. Despite the best efforts of the White House to contort the invasion of Iraq into an extension of the war on terror, there was never a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11. Not a single Iraqi was among the 19 hijackers of those four planes. Despite dire warnings from the President, Saddam Hussein had at his fingertips neither the means nor the materiel to unleash deadly weapons of mass destruction on the world. Despite presidential rhetoric to the contrary, Iraq did not pose a grave and gathering menace to the security of the United States. The war in Iraq was nothing less than a manufactured war. It was a war served up to a deliberately misled and deluded American public to suit the neoconservative political agenda of the Bush White House. A lasting casualty is the international credibility and reputation of the United States of America. We have squandered the good will that had rallied to our side after the attacks of 9-11, attacks that struck just a few short blocks from where we sit tonight. At the end of that fateful day, the world was with us. The French newspaper "Le Monde" proclaimed, "We Are All Americans." But we squandered that good will. We turned our sights on Iraq and turned our back on the United Nations. As a result, in some corners of the world, including some corners of Europe and Great Britain, our beloved nation is now viewed as the world bully. Finally, and most disheartening to me, Congress allowed the Constitution to become a casualty of the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes. Congress allowed its Constitutional authority to declare war to fall victim to this irresponsible strategy. Just a little more than a year ago, in October 2002, the Senate obsequiously handed the President the Constitutional authority to declare war. It failed to debate; it failed to question; it failed to live up to the standards established by the Framers. Like a whipped dog, the Senate put its tail between its legs and slunk away into the shadows, slunk away from its responsibility. Congress - and I mean both houses - Congress delegated its constitutional authority to the President, and effectively washed its hands of the fate of Iraq. It is a dark and despicable mark on the escutcheon of Congress. The roots of this travesty can be traced directly back to the President's doctrine of preemption, that cock-eyed notion that the United States can pre-emptively attack any nation that for whatever reason may - may! - appear to pose a threat in the future. Not only is the doctrine of pre-emption a radical departure from the traditional concept of self-defense, but it is also a destabilizing influence in world affairs. The Bush doctrine of pre-emption is a dangerous precedent. The Bush doctrine of pre-emption is a reckless policy. The rising tide of anti-Americanism across the globe is directly attributable to the fear and distrust engendered by this Bush doctrine of pre-emption. Yet, too many Americans are willing - yes, even eager - to swallow the Administration line on pre-emption without examining it, without questioning it, without challenging it. Thank God for courageous institutions - like this one - which are willing to stand up to the tide of popular convention. I commend The Nation magazine for filling this vacuum, and I urge you to continue in your mission, without fear, without constraint, and with an unyielding commitment to truth. Today, for better or worse, the United States has embroiled itself in the future of Iraq. But that does not mean that we need to continue to be the lone wolf in Iraq. Unfortunately, the Administration's latest edict to freeze out French, German, Russian, and Canadian companies from Iraq gives me little reason to hope that the President is even remotely interested in internationalizing the political, economic, and security reconstruction effort. As a result, the White House continues to feed the perception throughout the world that Iraq's reconstruction is a spoil of war. Reconstruction contracts, funded with $18.6 billion from the American taxpayer, seemingly have become kickbacks to those countries which dared not speak out - as Germany, France, Russia, and Canada did speak out - against a policy of preemptive war. Like all roads to peace in the Middle East, the path to stability in Iraq may still face obstacles. We cannot precisely predict what those obstacles will be. But we must demand accountability from the Bush White House. We must continue to raise questions. We must continue to seek the truth. We must continue to speak out against wrongheaded policies and dangerous strategies. I am reminded of the closing lines from Tennyson's Ulysses: tho' We are not now that strength which in old days Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are, - One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will, To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. For my part, I will continue to speak out. I will continue to challenge, to question, and never yield in defense of the Constitution, the United States Senate, and the American people. For your part, I hope that The Nation magazine will sail on, always serving as an advocate for the truth and an antidote to the tide of imperialism that threatens to encompass our government. Congratulations on your remarkable achievements. |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
He was right then and he's right now
"Sandman" wrote in message ...
U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, delivered the following remarks on Sunday at 138th anniversary celebration of The Nation magazine. Ah yes, Senator Byrd. Former Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan. Voted against the Civil Rights Act 0f 1964 (like most of his democratc collegues). He of the racist "White Ni__er" comments on sunday morning talks shows just a few years back... A real paragon of virtue you got there, Sandi... And he's the guy you've chosen to spin Bush's foreign policy triumphs? What, Cynthia McKinney wasn't available? Early this morning came news of the capture of Saddam Hussein. That is good news. Despite his fall from power many months ago, the specter of a possible return to power had cast a constant shadow over Iraq and the Iraqi people. I applaud the tenacious work of the military and intelligence communities for their success today. But that success does not diminish the challenges that remain in Iraq, and it certainly does not tamp the passions inflamed against the United States throughout the Muslim world by our actions in Iraq. The capture of Saddam Hussein will not be the keystone for peace in that volatile region. This day 's news does not lessen the danger that the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes poses to international peace and stability. In order to bring lasting stability to Iraq, that nation needs the help of the entire world, not just America and her fighting friends. As each day passes and as more American soldiers are killed and wounded in Iraq, I become ever more convinced that the war in Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place for the wrong reasons. Contrary to the President's rosy predictions - and the predictions of others in the Bush Administration - the United States has not been universally greeted as a liberator in Iraq. The peace - if one can use the term "peace" to describe the chronic violence and instability that define Iraq today - the peace is far from being won. Iraqi citizens may be glad that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, but they appear to be growing increasingly resentful that the United States continues to rule their country at the point of a gun. What a huge price we are now paying for the President's bullheaded rush to invoke the unwise and unprecedented doctrine of preemption to invade Iraq, an invasion without provocation, an invasion without the support of the United Nations or the international community. It would be tragic enough if the casualties of the Iraq war were confined to the battlefield, but they are not. The casualties of this war will have serious repercussions for generations to come. Truth is one casualty. Despite the best efforts of the White House to contort the invasion of Iraq into an extension of the war on terror, there was never a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11. Not a single Iraqi was among the 19 hijackers of those four planes. Despite dire warnings from the President, Saddam Hussein had at his fingertips neither the means nor the materiel to unleash deadly weapons of mass destruction on the world. Despite presidential rhetoric to the contrary, Iraq did not pose a grave and gathering menace to the security of the United States. The war in Iraq was nothing less than a manufactured war. It was a war served up to a deliberately misled and deluded American public to suit the neoconservative political agenda of the Bush White House. A lasting casualty is the international credibility and reputation of the United States of America. We have squandered the good will that had rallied to our side after the attacks of 9-11, attacks that struck just a few short blocks from where we sit tonight. At the end of that fateful day, the world was with us. The French newspaper "Le Monde" proclaimed, "We Are All Americans." But we squandered that good will. We turned our sights on Iraq and turned our back on the United Nations. As a result, in some corners of the world, including some corners of Europe and Great Britain, our beloved nation is now viewed as the world bully. Finally, and most disheartening to me, Congress allowed the Constitution to become a casualty of the Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes. Congress allowed its Constitutional authority to declare war to fall victim to this irresponsible strategy. Just a little more than a year ago, in October 2002, the Senate obsequiously handed the President the Constitutional authority to declare war. It failed to debate; it failed to question; it failed to live up to the standards established by the Framers. Like a whipped dog, the Senate put its tail between its legs and slunk away into the shadows, slunk away from its responsibility. Congress - and I mean both houses - Congress delegated its constitutional authority to the President, and effectively washed its hands of the fate of Iraq. It is a dark and despicable mark on the escutcheon of Congress. The roots of this travesty can be traced directly back to the President's doctrine of preemption, that cock-eyed notion that the United States can pre-emptively attack any nation that for whatever reason may - may! - appear to pose a threat in the future. Not only is the doctrine of pre-emption a radical departure from the traditional concept of self-defense, but it is also a destabilizing influence in world affairs. The Bush doctrine of pre-emption is a dangerous precedent. The Bush doctrine of pre-emption is a reckless policy. The rising tide of anti-Americanism across the globe is directly attributable to the fear and distrust engendered by this Bush doctrine of pre-emption. Yet, too many Americans are willing - yes, even eager - to swallow the Administration line on pre-emption without examining it, without questioning it, without challenging it. Thank God for courageous institutions - like this one - which are willing to stand up to the tide of popular convention. I commend The Nation magazine for filling this vacuum, and I urge you to continue in your mission, without fear, without constraint, and with an unyielding commitment to truth. Today, for better or worse, the United States has embroiled itself in the future of Iraq. But that does not mean that we need to continue to be the lone wolf in Iraq. Unfortunately, the Administration's latest edict to freeze out French, German, Russian, and Canadian companies from Iraq gives me little reason to hope that the President is even remotely interested in internationalizing the political, economic, and security reconstruction effort. As a result, the White House continues to feed the perception throughout the world that Iraq's reconstruction is a spoil of war. Reconstruction contracts, funded with $18.6 billion from the American taxpayer, seemingly have become kickbacks to those countries which dared not speak out - as Germany, France, Russia, and Canada did speak out - against a policy of preemptive war. Like all roads to peace in the Middle East, the path to stability in Iraq may still face obstacles. We cannot precisely predict what those obstacles will be. But we must demand accountability from the Bush White House. We must continue to raise questions. We must continue to seek the truth. We must continue to speak out against wrongheaded policies and dangerous strategies. I am reminded of the closing lines from Tennyson's Ulysses: tho' We are not now that strength which in old days Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are, - One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will, To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield. For my part, I will continue to speak out. I will continue to challenge, to question, and never yield in defense of the Constitution, the United States Senate, and the American people. For your part, I hope that The Nation magazine will sail on, always serving as an advocate for the truth and an antidote to the tide of imperialism that threatens to encompass our government. Congratulations on your remarkable achievements. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
He was right then and he's right now
Pajama self-indulges:
Ah yes, Senator Byrd. Former Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan. Voted against the Civil Rights Act 0f 1964 (like most of his democratc collegues). He of the racist "White Ni__er" comments on sunday morning talks shows just a few years back... Ancient history. In case you hadn't noticed, Senator. Byrd has completely changed since those far-off days. A real paragon of virtue you got there, Sandi... As he is today, "paragon of virtue" is exactly what Senator Byrd is. And he's the guy you've chosen to spin Bush's foreign policy triumphs? No spinning. Just one of many people telling the truth about Bush's mendacious PR machine. And that's what really gets under the skin of fundamentally dishonest spinning jackasses like you. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
He was right then and he's right now
"Sandman" wrote in message . ..
Pajama self-indulges: Ah yes, Senator Byrd. Former Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan. Voted against the Civil Rights Act 0f 1964 (like most of his democratc collegues). He of the racist "White Ni__er" comments on sunday morning talks shows just a few years back... Ancient history. In case you hadn't noticed, Senator. Byrd has completely changed since those far-off days. A real paragon of virtue you got there, Sandi... As he is today, "paragon of virtue" is exactly what Senator Byrd is. And he's the guy you've chosen to spin Bush's foreign policy triumphs? No spinning. Just one of many people telling the truth about Bush's mendacious PR machine. And that's what really gets under the skin of fundamentally dishonest spinning jackasses like you. "Under my skin?" Au contraire, Sandi -- my party has controlled the Senate and House for the last decade; has held the White House over democrats by a two-to-one margin since 1968; has a commanding edge in governors and state legislators; bucked every historical trend by routing democrats in last year's mid-terms... The economy is growing at a rate not seen since the Reagan administration; productivity is at all-time high and inflation is near all-time lows; Afghani's have been liberated, Iraqi's have been liberated and Saddam is in Bush's custody. Liberals haven't been relevant in American politics in over a generation and Leftists have NEVER been relevant here... No "fundamental dishonesty" here, Sandi... Just the facts, ma'am. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
He was right then and he's right now
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:46:21 -0600, dave weil
wrote: So, how does the last statement jibe with your (and Mr. McKelvy's statement about a "rate not seen since Reagan")? Misplaced parenthesis. Should be: So, how does the last statement jibe with your (and Mr. McKelvy's) statement about a "rate not seen since Reagan"? |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
He was right then and he's right now
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
He was right then and he's right now
dave weil wrote in message . ..
On 21 Dec 2003 06:47:07 -0800, (pyjamarama) wrote: The economy is growing at a rate not seen since the Reagan administration; I'd like to know where you guys are getting this stuff. Can you cite figures? Will this do? U.S. economic growth revised up GDP grew at a blistering 8.2 percent pace in the third quarter, faster than originally thought. November 25, 2003: 10:47 AM EST NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The U.S. economy grew in the third quarter at an even faster pace than originally reported, the government said Tuesday. Gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of economic activity, grew at an 8.2 percent annual rate, the fastest pace since the first quarter of 1984, after growing at a 3.3 percent pace in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported. Originally, GDP growth was reported at a 7.2 percent annual rate. Economists, on average, expected the reported growth rate to be revised to 7.6 percent, according to Briefing.com. The report had little positive impact on Wall Street, which had widely expected the strong report. U.S. stock prices were little changed in early trading, while Treasury bond prices rose. One key reason for the large upward revision in third-quarter GDP was a re-evaluation of the rate of change in business inventories in the quarter. Originally, the government said businesses cut inventories by $35.8 billion in the quarter, but that figure was trimmed to $14.1 billion in the latest report. The lower rate of shelf-clearing in the third quarter could mean the economy will get less of a boost from re-stocking in the fourth quarter than some economists had hoped. "The bottom line is that Wall Street will have to shave off some of its overly exuberant fourth-quarter real GDP estimates," said Anthony Chan, chief economist at Banc One Investment Advisors. Third-quarter growth was also boosted by a 6.4 percent pace of growth in consumer spending, the strongest pace since the third quarter of 1997, after growing at a 3.8 percent rate in the second quarter. Consumer spending growth was originally reported as 6.6 percent. Much of the strength in consumer spending in the third quarter was due to a 26.5 percent rate of growth in the sale of durable goods, items meant to last three years or more, and much of that came in sales of motor vehicles and parts. It was the strongest performance for durable goods sales since the fourth quarter of 2001, when sales jumped at a 33.6 percent pace. Auto sales have slowed down during the fourth quarter, however. Consumers got a boost in the late summer and early fall from child tax credit rebate checks and from the tail end of a boom in mortgage refinancing. Cash-out refinancing cut homeowners' monthly payments and put more cash in their pockets, and parents got an extra cash infusion from rebate checks. Those effects have mostly dissipated in the fourth quarter, however, leading most economists to believe consumer spending will slow. Unsurprisingly, home sales soared in the third quarter, with residential investment up at a 22.7 percent annual pace, the strongest pace since the first quarter of 1992, compared with 6.6 percent in the second quarter. Nonresidential fixed investment rose at a 14 percent rate, the fastest pace since the first quarter of 2000, following the second quarter's 7.3 percent pace, a sign of further strength in business spending. Investment in equipment and software rose 18.4 percent, the fastest pace since the fourth quarter of 1998 and more than double the prior quarter's pace of 8.3 percent. |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
He was right then and he's right now
On 21 Dec 2003 17:39:05 -0800, (pyjamarama)
wrote: dave weil wrote in message . .. On 21 Dec 2003 06:47:07 -0800, (pyjamarama) wrote: The economy is growing at a rate not seen since the Reagan administration; I'd like to know where you guys are getting this stuff. Can you cite figures? Will this do? Thank you for the cite. See below: U.S. economic growth revised up GDP grew at a blistering 8.2 percent pace in the third quarter, faster than originally thought. November 25, 2003: 10:47 AM EST NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The U.S. economy grew in the third quarter at an even faster pace than originally reported, the government said Tuesday. Gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of economic activity, grew at an 8.2 percent annual rate, the fastest pace since the first quarter of 1984, after growing at a 3.3 percent pace in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported. Originally, GDP growth was reported at a 7.2 percent annual rate. Economists, on average, expected the reported growth rate to be revised to 7.6 percent, according to Briefing.com. The report had little positive impact on Wall Street, which had widely expected the strong report. U.S. stock prices were little changed in early trading, while Treasury bond prices rose. One key reason for the large upward revision in third-quarter GDP was a re-evaluation of the rate of change in business inventories in the quarter. Originally, the government said businesses cut inventories by $35.8 billion in the quarter, but that figure was trimmed to $14.1 billion in the latest report. "The Bureau of Economic Analysis plans to release the results of its 12th comprehensive (or benchmark) revision of the national income and product accounts (NIPAs) on December 10, 2003. An article in the June 2003 issue of the Survey of Current Business discussed the changes in definitions and concepts that will be implemented in the revision; an article in the August 2003 issue described changes in presentation, including new and redesigned tables; and an article in the September 2003 issue described changes in statistical methods. Information is available on BEA's Web site": www.bea.gov/bea/dn/2003benchmark/CR2003.htm Soooo, apparently there have been some changes in the reporting... It's like an episode of West Wing. You know, the one where the Demos have just found out that the GAO wants to revise the definitions of "poor" from an income of $16,000 to $18,000 for a family of three. The Bartlet Administration is taken aback. (rough transcript of the show) Toby Ziegler - "Are you tellling me that there are now 2,000,000 more poor people"? Sam Seaborn - "Well...yah". TZ - "Wouldn't it be better for re-election if we didn't have to say that there were 2,000,000 more poor people"? SS - "Well, it would be better for re-election if there actually *weren't* actually 2,000,000 more poor people". The lower rate of shelf-clearing in the third quarter could mean the economy will get less of a boost from re-stocking in the fourth quarter than some economists had hoped. "The bottom line is that Wall Street will have to shave off some of its overly exuberant fourth-quarter real GDP estimates," said Anthony Chan, chief economist at Banc One Investment Advisors. Third-quarter growth was also boosted by a 6.4 percent pace of growth in consumer spending, the strongest pace since the third quarter of 1997, after growing at a 3.8 percent rate in the second quarter. Consumer spending growth was originally reported as 6.6 percent. Much of the strength in consumer spending in the third quarter was due to a 26.5 percent rate of growth in the sale of durable goods, items meant to last three years or more, and much of that came in sales of motor vehicles and parts. It was the strongest performance for durable goods sales since the fourth quarter of 2001, when sales jumped at a 33.6 percent pace. Auto sales have slowed down during the fourth quarter, however. Consumers got a boost in the late summer and early fall from child tax credit rebate checks and from the tail end of a boom in mortgage refinancing. Cash-out refinancing cut homeowners' monthly payments and put more cash in their pockets, and parents got an extra cash infusion from rebate checks. Those effects have mostly dissipated in the fourth quarter, however, leading most economists to believe consumer spending will slow. Unsurprisingly, home sales soared in the third quarter, with residential investment up at a 22.7 percent annual pace, the strongest pace since the first quarter of 1992, compared with 6.6 percent in the second quarter. Nonresidential fixed investment rose at a 14 percent rate, the fastest pace since the first quarter of 2000, following the second quarter's 7.3 percent pace, a sign of further strength in business spending. Investment in equipment and software rose 18.4 percent, the fastest pace since the fourth quarter of 1998 and more than double the prior quarter's pace of 8.3 percent. Thank you for providing this cite. I would like to note, however, that the BEA hasn't actually *released* the "final" figures for the Quarter. I know it's a little technicality and all that, but you'll have to wait until the 23rd for that. http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn1.htm (Estimates for the third quarter of 2003 on the revised basis will be released at 8:30 a.m. on December 23.) Hopefully, we'll find that all is as CNN claims it will be. Hopefully, we'll find that the estimates are correct. and yet, it seems like the goalposts are being moved, doesn't it? Thanks again for the cite. |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
He was right then and he's right now
"Sandman" wrote in message . ..
Pajama self-indulges: Ah yes, Senator Byrd. Former Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan. Voted against the Civil Rights Act 0f 1964 (like most of his democratc collegues). He of the racist "White Ni__er" comments on sunday morning talks shows just a few years back... Ancient history. In case you hadn't noticed, Senator. Byrd has completely changed since those far-off days. Yet your ilk had no problem digging up 'ancient history' and smearing Trent Lott as a racist when he made comments about Strom Thurmond. BTW, the "white ******" comment isn't ancient history. It's only a few years old. |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
He was right then and he's right now
"Snubis" wrote in message m... "Sandman" wrote in message . .. Pajama self-indulges: Ah yes, Senator Byrd. Former Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan. Voted against the Civil Rights Act 0f 1964 (like most of his democratc collegues). He of the racist "White Ni__er" comments on sunday morning talks shows just a few years back... Ancient history. In case you hadn't noticed, Senator. Byrd has completely changed since those far-off days. Yet your ilk had no problem digging up 'ancient history' and smearing Trent Lott as a racist when he made comments about Strom Thurmond. BTW, the "white ******" comment isn't ancient history. It's only a few years old. Have all of you heard Hillary's Mahatma Gandhi gaffe??? ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Linear Mode
