A Magnificent Speech from Senator Robert Byrd to STOP the IRAQ INVASION!

[KoKo]

Listen and WEEP! This is only one of his amazing catalog of Speeches to TRY TO STOP the INVASION!

Call him a "Racist Pig"...go back into this man's life (a man who's in his 90's and has seen more of America than you and I have ever seen) and tell me Senator Byrd who stood for days on the floor of the Senate working to STOP "Iraq Invasion" isn't a hero?

Listen and weep...to this only ONE of his speeches.. There are more...and I could post them...but listen....listen....listen...and KNOW.. that one TRUE DEMOCRAT SPOKE UP and HE HAD ALLIES! Not ALL DEMS voted to GOT TO WAR WITH IRAQ.

Separate out those who were in the SENATE who were there when Senator Byrd stood ALONE for most of his speeches and DECIDE "WHO" you would vote for who listened to those speeches and WHY we should vote for them NOW...given the DISASTER OF IRAQ!

You Tube Watch and Listen to only ONE of Byrd's Speeches.. THERE ARE MORE.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKFs5oSS25E

and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5s7z-EDJGo

FROM CNN........................................................................................


Byrd blasts Bush for 'flamboyant showmanship' with carrier speech
White House says Bush address marked 'milestone'

By Sean Loughlin
CNN Washington Bureau
Wednesday, May 7, 2003 Posted: 12:00 PM EDT (1600 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Blasting President Bush's "flamboyant showmanship," the Senate's senior Democrat on Tuesday assailed the president for his speech aboard an aircraft carrier last week in which he declared an end to major combat in Iraq.

"President Bush's address to the American people announcing combat victory in Iraq deserved to be marked with solemnity, not extravagance; with gratitude to God, not self-congratulatory gestures," Sen. Robert Byrd, D- West Virginia, said in a sharply worded speech delivered on the Senate floor. "American blood has been shed on foreign soil in defense of the president's policies. This is not some made-for-TV backdrop for a campaign commercial."

Bush's prime time address to the nation Thursday was carried live on television. The White House also won extensive coverage of the buildup to the speech with the president's dramatic arrival on the USS Abraham Lincoln. Arriving by a Navy jet, he sat in the co-pilot's seat as the pilot made a tailhook landing on the carrier.

Last week, the White House had said that such a landing was necessary because the carrier would have been too far out for a helicopter landing. In fact, the carrier was close enough to the California coast for a helicopter landing.

"The ship did make much faster progress than anticipated," White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Tuesday, when asked about the matter. Still, he said the president "wanted to arrive on it in a manner that would allow him to see an arrival on a carrier the same way pilots got to see an arrival on a carrier."

Some Democrats have criticized the landing as an elaborate and expensive photo opportunity for a president up for re-election next year. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California, sent a letter Tuesday to the General Accounting Office -- the investigative arm of Congress -- asking for a "a full accounting of the costs associated with the president's trip." Fleischer said he had no estimate on the cost of the carrier event.

Sen. Robert Byrd said the end of the war should have been marked with 'solemnity, not extravagance'
Sen. Robert Byrd said the end of the war should have been marked with 'solemnity, not extravagance'

The White House has described the speech as an appropriate acknowledgment of a "milestone" in the war against terrorism and also as a way of thanking the men and women in the armed services who participated in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

Byrd's speech was the most pointed and stinging commentary about the matter from a lawmaker.

"As I watched the president's fighter jet swoop down onto the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, I could not help but contrast the reported simple dignity of President Lincoln at Gettysburg with the flamboyant showmanship of President Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln," Byrd said.

Byrd, who has been a persistent and vocal critic of Bush's policies toward Iraq, said a "salute" to America's warriors was appropriate, but he added, "I do question the motives of a desk-bound president who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech."

Byrd opposed a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.

Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman, told CNN the president was "honored" to visit the carrier as commander in chief and "personally thank our men and women in the military for a job well done."

Asked about Byrd's specific criticism of Bush's unusual arrival on the carrier, McClellan referred back to his comment about the president wanting to thank the armed forces in person.

"I think I've addressed that," McClellan said.

--Capitol Hill Producer Ted Barrett contributed to this report.

[H2O Man]

1. I liked that

his book "Losing America" provided details of the Cheney-instituted "shadow government" -- not too many others in Washington DC have done so.

[KoKo]

2. and...there's more.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5s7z-EDJGo

[cuke]

24. And more - he killed Universal Health Care in 1993

And DU loves him. I wonder how many people have died from a lack of health care because of that

[cali]

3. he's right on the Iraq war and wrong

on gay rights and other minority rights. He has a 20% rating from the ACLU. He holds bigoted view points. Sorry, if you that causes dissonance and if you can't hold two opposing but true pictures of the man in your brain.

[KoKo]

6. Huh... what's the "Litmus Test?"

:shrug: .....what are you saying? You are trying to say Two Rights don't make a Wrong...or Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right or that Iraq War and Further are NOT as important as Gay and Gun Rights?

I don't believe you are serious. I think you are so involved with "Your Issue" you cannot see beyond them for the future of US ALL. :shrug:

[IndianaJones]

9. civil rights affects US ALL. nt.

[cali]

12. Sad, how willing some people are

to throw civil rights out the window, and accuse others of caring only about 'their issues'. And off base, as I'm neither black or gay.

[cali]

10. No. I'm saying one can appreciate his stand on the Iraq war

and still condemn his bigotry against gays and lesbians, and his poor record on civil rights. It's really not that complicated, and his nothing to do with "my issues". It has to do with standing up for all people.

Again, this is a Senator with a 20% rating from the ACLU on civil rights; how on earth do you defend that kind of record???

I don't get it. You can't see beyond ONE issue, and don't seem to care about issues of equality.

:shrug:

[KoKo]

21. Are you, yourself. a One Issue Voter?

:shrug:

[cuke]

25. Are you?

I don't support any politician who stands in the way of Universal Health care

[KoKo]

29. Where do you fall on Guns/Gays/Doctrine of "Pre-Emptive Strike?" How about

Going to war that was Illegal and using the Mainstream Media to Promote "Endless War?" What about Trade Deficits and Debt beyond what any of us could imagine...Lying to Congress...infiltrating all Branches of Government with Republican Political Operatives...Stealing the first Election by placing Operatives in Florida and the second '04 by having DRE Machines and Repug Operative installed in Ohio and in our Court system so that INVESTIGATIONS could not go Forward...What about the BUSH CRIME FAMILY who has subverted our Government since Poppy and before him...Reagan?

Huh? :eyes:

[cuke]

31. I can see that you really don't want to talk about Byrd killing Universal Health Care

Everyone has their priorities

[cali]

33. Clearly not.

As anyone without an agenda, who reads my posts, can see.

[Martin Eden]

4. Here's a link to the full text of the speech

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0212-07.htm

[CountAllVotes]

5. K&R

Senator Robert Byrd is a true patriot!!! :patriot:

I hope he NEVER retires in my lifetime!

:D

:kick: & recommend!! :)

[cali]

7. what does that even mean,

a true patriot? Frankly, I think true patriotism means a belief in full civil rights for all Americans.

[IndianaJones]

11. that would disqualify Byrd. nt.

[CountAllVotes]

18. I like Byrd

I always have and always will.

He has made some excellent speeches in his life. Are you not a fan of his?

If you aren't a fan of his and you don't believe he is an example of a true patriot, then why does he always have a copy of the Constitution in his hand when he speaks?

[cali]

19. I appreciate his stance on the war and deplore his civil rights

record- and I'm not talking about the distant past. And sorry, that he has a copy of the constitution in hand when he speaks is not the test of a "true patriot". He doesn't believe in civil rights for all.

[IndianaJones]

20. lmao. nt.

[cuke]

27. Simply incredible

[IndianaJones]

8. Byrd is an eloquent bigot. nt.

[KoKo]

14. Depends on how one defines..BIGOT! "Your Bigot" might not be MINE!

And..I assume all of us here are Democrats? No? :shrug:

[IndianaJones]

17. anti-civil rights? nt.

[KoKo]

22. Would you say "It takes all kinds" to make a "Big Tent?"

:shrug: Perhaps that "Big Tent" is TOO BIG...for many of us?

[Mass]

13. Delete. Sometimes, you have to accept that some people cannot see beyond their nose.

I guess you love Buchanan also, as Buchanan does not disagree with Byrd on many issues?

I am ready to give Byrd a small pass because of his age, but it is difficult that so called progressive would become agressive when somebody wants to remind who he is.

[cuke]

15. You mean the prick who killed Universal Health Care in 1993?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(Senate)

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 created reconciliation. (See Pub.L. 93-344, § 310; 88 Stat. 297; 2 U.S.C. § 641.) But Congress came to use it in the 1980s. Congress used reconciliation to enact President Bill Clinton's 1993 (fiscal year 1994) budget. (See Pub.L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 312.) President Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets.

[cali]

16. He's no hero

and I find it sad that someone would use that word in regards to him. I'm not saying that he doesn't have his good points, but he has continued to express bigotry. That alone disqualifies him from being a hero.

[KoKo]

23. To those of us who are devastated by Iraq Killing/Maiming/Torture/Crimes agains Humanity...

Yes..he's a hero! So what's YOUR problem and can you disregard this WAR and the CRIMES/TORTURE..for whatever your AGENDA IS?

Where is the MONEY...after this expenditure for Bush/NeoCon's War Dreams...for YOUR PROGRAMS? Huh? :shrug:

[cuke]

26. How about those who died because he killed Universal Health Care in 1993?

Or are you a single issue voter? Whatever your AGENDA IS, Byrd has wasted billions of dollars of MONEY on pork for his state, effectively wasting our MONEY. He also loves to shower MONEY on OIL, GAS AND COAL CORPORATIONS. Where you gonna get the money or YOUR PROGRAMS, huh?

[KoKo]

28. War or the Universal Health Care that got trashed when Hillary Supported it?

:shrug:

[cuke]

30. Byrd killed Universal Health Care in 1993

It's revealing that you don't want to comment on it.

More Americans die from a lack of health insurance in one year, than have died in Iraq over four years. And you have nothing to say about it

[cali]

34. You have a lot of nerve.

How fucking disgusting is it that you claim ownership of pain over Iraq? :puke:

I have been against this war since it was merely a glint in busco's fish cold eye. I've marched in DC, organized with the AFSC, written letters, etc. And I appreciate Byrd's stance on the war without trying, as you do, to pretend he's something he isn't.

Excusing his poor civil rights record, is reprehensible.

Oh, and I don't have heroes. I think it's a sign of a mind unable to deal with realities.

[H2O Man]

32. "Hero" is an

interesting concept. It is said, accurately, that one person's hero is another person's villian. A verse that perhaps explains this in the larger context -- and relates to the discussion we had been having on the du:gd thread that you started in which you expressed the negative views of Senator Byrd that are also found here -- comes from the 15th century poet Nguyen Trai: "Although we have been at times strong/ at times weak/ we have no time lacked heroes."

[cali]

35. Some of us don't have heroes. There are people I admire

greatly, but I don't put anyone on a pedestal. I think it's a very bad idea. And DU is a great object lesson as to why.

[H2O Man]

36. Sure.

I think that by about the age of 17, healthy and well-functioning people move beyond "heroes" in the sense that you are speaking. I believe the OPer's posts are speaking about Senator Byrd doing things which are heroic, which I hope that even you would agree is not only distinct, but a positive potential that every human being has. Common, ordinary, weak people often take actions in uncommon circumstances that we can identify as "heroic." Some people will remain fully focused upon that person's ordinary weaknesses, while others will find themselves focusing more on that heroic act when thinking of that person. I'm not sure that one is right or one wrong; it's just diagnostic of how we as individials approach life.

[cali]

37. You and I view what the OP is doing, differently.

I see him/her as being in denial about any other side of Byrd than his perceived heroism. And I don't see how it could be viewed in any other light, given his/her rage over anyone pointing out Byrd's deficiencies. He/she doesn't seem to be able to entertain two opposing truths at the same time. To me, that's an essential thing.

As I said, I can appreciate Byrd's stance on the war, and look with dismay on his civil rights record.

[H2O Man]

38. Very differently.

I think that there may be two reasons we view the OP's position very differently: first, she and I are friends, and were engaged in an on-going, off-thread(s) discussion; and second, she and I hold a similar point of view. As a result, I can say with absolute certainty that she is fully capable of recognizing that people -- including the 90-year old senator -- are combinations of good and bad; that she believes in the need to recognize the Constitutional rights of every US citizen; and that she is opposed to any effort to deny those rights to any individual or group based on race, ethnicity, skin color, religion, sex and/or sexual identity.

As such, she recognizes that the Bush administration's "war on terror" -- including the terror the administration is causing in Iraq, and the threat the administration poses to the Constitution here in the US (including both the document's balance of federal powers, and the Bill of Rghts) -- is of primary concern to democrats today. Senator Byrd has taken positions that the OPer admires and thinks are important. Senator Byrd is not alone in those stances, although there aren't many others in congress who have defined the issues relating to the Cheney "shadow government" as clearly as he did in his book "Losing America."

Finally, our different perspectives certainly lead to very different understandings of what she is attempting to communicate. Your use of the word "rage" is perhaps a key -- while I suspect that she thinks it is outrageous that a few attempt to highjack a thread about Senator Byrd's stance on the war, my personal communications with her allow me to say without any chance of error that there was no "rage" in the negative sense that I think you were implying. But, as always, you are as entitled to your beliefs as I am entitled to mine.

[cali]

39. Yes, indeed. I do think that the OP

exhibits an inability to countenance criticism of Byrd. And I believe her posts in this thread are representative of that- and a great deal of anger. I also find your characterization of other points of view, on this thread, as "hijacking", interesting. That strikes me as belittling other's opinions. NO thread started here as an inherent right to be an echo chamber. But we've had this discussion before. You seem to feel that one has a right at DU to request people to stay off of a thread, or to hew to what you see as the OP's point. I don't agree with that approach to posting.

[H2O Man]

40. There is a good

example of how communication can be difficult on a computer screen -- I've noted several times on this and the thread that you started on Senator Byrd, where I believe I made very clear that I share the concerns that Senator Byrd's positions on the gay community are a problem. But it doesn't seem to register with you -- ah! that "echo chamber" you see elsewhere! Indeed, I think the very idea of being able to see both the good and bad in people, including the elderly senator, is found in the majority of posts on these two threads .... including several of yours.

Being able to see the good and bad in folks is a good thing, cali. It allows for interesting, well-rounded discussions. I've participated in such conversations on both your thread, and this one. I welcome such opportunities. I'm more than happy to discuss and debate these topics with anyone and everyone that I think is sincere in discussing/debating issues. It works for me, but I can understand that you may take another approach. Whatever works for you. I do note, however, that one of us was quoting a 15th century poet, while the other was intent on making little digs.