| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Conservatives Against Conservation" |
| Date: |
18 Jul 2004 04:27:16 PM |
| Object: |
Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
Alright Neocons, knock yourselves out smearing
Robert Byrd, that way you have to deal with
the issues:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5458209
MR. RUSSERT: But, first, Robert C. Byrd has been a senator for 45 years, serving with 11 presidents and now says our current president is "...a dangerous leader in a dangerous time."
Senator Byrd, welcome.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD, (D-WV): Thank you.
MR. RUSSERT: Why would you say our commander in chief is a dangerous leader?
SEN. BYRD: He doesn't like to answer questions. He doesn't like to build a consensus. He doesn't like consultation. He is a man who's governed by his instincts, he says. That's fine. I don't believe, however, that we should have a national leader who is governed by his instincts.
MR. RUSSERT: In the midst of the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, what message do you think it sends to the world when someone like you says that President Bush is dangerous, reckless and arrogant?
SEN. BYRD: I hope that the world will listen. This book constitutes a wake-up call, a wake-up call not only to our own people but to the world.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you what you also say in the book. Back in October of 2002, only 23 senators opposed a resolution authorizing the president to go to war. "In the end, only 22 other members voted to oppose this despicable grant of authority. ...Never in my half century of congressional service had the United States Senate proved unworthy of its great name. What would the framers have thought? In this terrible show of weakness, the Senate left an indelible
stain upon its own escutcheon. Having revered the Senate during my service for more than forty years, I was never pained so much."
You say that the 22 senators who joined with you were profiles in courage, and those who didn't vote that way had shown weakness. John Kerry, candidate for president, John Edwards, candidate for vice president, your Democratic Party, voted for the war. Are they weak?
SEN. BYRD: They were misled. I'm confident of that. And I have a feeling that that is why they voted as they did.
MR. RUSSERT: Misled by whom?
SEN. BYRD: Misled by this administration, misled by this president, misled by Mr. Rumsfeld, misled by the CIA. Mostly, though, however...
MR. RUSSERT: Intentional?
SEN. BYRD: I can't say it was the intention, but it was what caused many senators, I'm sure, to vote as they did. And we have to remember that this was in an atmosphere where to vote against it and to speak out against this administration took courage. And many senators were fearful that they would be called unpatriotic if they did not vote with the administration.
MR. RUSSERT: You seem to suggest that John Kerry and John Edwards lacked courage.
SEN. BYRD: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying they lacked the facts. I didn't have the facts any more than anybody else, but I had studied this administration; I had listened to what Karl Rove had said in Austin, Texas, when he addressed the Republican National Committee in January of 2001 when he indicated that this war, this homeland security subject, all of this, was a horse on which they could ride right through the upcoming election. He indicated that the people
trusted the Republicans more to defend this country, and it was his suggestion that the Republican strategy should be to use this in order to win the election. I read about that. And then, as a result of my reading that, every time I saw the president on camera with the backdrop of the military, of the National Guard, I remembered what Karl Rove said. And I think the administration was carrying it right through on his advice.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you another excerpt from your book: "We keep hearing the refrain, `Stay the course.' What is the course? Is it that we continue sending American troops to be used as sitting ducks in an Iraqi shooting gallery? How long are we going to be fed the pap that fighting the terrorists on the streets of Baghdad saves us from fighting terrorists on the streets of New York City or Washington, D.C.?"
What would you do, pull all the American troops out immediately?
SEN. BYRD: No. No, we made a mistake. It was wrong to enter this war. There were two wars going on: one in Afghanistan, which I fully supported. That was a war that was begun by the--those who destructed the world towers. That was an attack on America. I was 100 percent behind the president in his reaction to that war.
But then a second war has come along, in which another country did not attack us, there was not an imminent danger from Iraq. This was Mr. Bush's war. I was against it. It was a mistake, I said at the time. I say now that it is a mistake. I'd never say that we should pull our troops out. I think we should work, having entered into this, to bring about an honorable way to bring our troops home.
MR. RUSSERT: Would that, however, make Iraq a haven for terrorists if we were to abandon it?
SEN. BYRD: It is already a haven for terrorists. It was not before Mr. Bush attacked this country that had not provoked this country by an attack. We attacked Iraq. We've never done that. This was part of the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive attack. It was wrong. That's a dangerous doctrine. And I simply say that we have to do what we have to do, and we have to have a plan to bring our men home with honor, but it's very hard because the Bush administration insulted
some of our friends and referred to old Europe, and they turned the back of their hands to the U.N. And so we have to go it alone, almost, because we're losing the support that we have over there with other countries.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you another excerpt from the book: "Bush's power has been wielded with arrogance, calculation, and disdain for dissenting views. The Constitution's careful separation of powers has been breached, and its checks and balances circumvented. Behind closed doors, schemes have been hatched, with information denied to the legislative branch and policy makers shielded from informing the people or Congress. In fact, there appears to be little respect
for the role of Congress. There is virtually no attempt to build consensus through the hard work of reaching across the aisle to find common ground. Real consultation does not exist."
You've worked with 11 presidents. Is that any different than with the previous 10 presidents?
SEN. BYRD: It's very different. I have never seen such secrecy. I've not--I have never experienced such a feeling of disdain for the Congress by this administration. And this is what I've been talking about. We saw it--I see it in the Appropriations Committee, where the administration continues to try to seek more power, grasp more power. This administration does not like oversight by the Congress. And it is exceedingly dangerous. I've never seen anything like
that in my experience. Nixon...
MR. RUSSERT: Nixon had secrecy.
SEN. BYRD: ...had secrecy. And some of his people are in this administration: the vice president, the secretary of defense, former secretary of the Treasury, Mr. O'Neill.
MR. RUSSERT: And this is worse?
SEN. BYRD: Far worse. I've never experienced anything like this. I've never felt as afraid of what-- where we're headed as I feel now.
MR. RUSSERT: Aren't the Democrats also responsible, however, for the gridlock and for the excessive partisanship?
SEN. BYRD: There's no question about it. It isn't the president and this administration alone. Our own Congress lost its backbone when it voted to shift the constitutional power to declare war to this president, to this one man. The framers must have been spinning in their graves because they intended for such a decision to be cast by--not just by one house of Congress but by both houses of Congress. And now we have--we shifted. Congress was weak, and I was ashamed
of the Senate for the first time in my 45 years, that it would shift this power and remove itself and take away its voice. It turned over to this one man the decision to use our military forces as he would, when he would, where he would, and there's no sunset provision in that. There was at least a sunset provision in Tonkin Gulf resolution. There's no sunset provision in this power.
I said to myself and to my colleagues, "Look, if we're going to be silly enough and unsensible enough to shift this power to this president, let's at least put a sunset provision in it." I offered an amendment, got 31 votes, including my own. I could hardly believe it. I was ashamed. But not only has the Congress failed, the American people have been unthinking and they've not asked questions. And finally, the press, the media itself, bought into this once the
president's drums of war started. I call it his drums and I don't mean his individually alone, but his administration. But in particular, this leader, when he loosed the dogs of war, the press fell in line and the press failed to ask the questions that it should have asked. So there are a lot of people at fault here.
.
|
|
| User: "cLIeNUX user" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
18 Jul 2004 11:15:23 PM |
|
|
Alright Neocons, knock yourselves out smearing
Robert Byrd, that way you have to deal with
the issues:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5458209
MR. RUSSERT: But, first, Robert C. Byrd has been a senator for 45 years,
serving with 11 presidents and now says our current president is "...a
dangerous leader in a dangerous time." >
Senator Byrd, welcome.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD, (D-WV): Thank you.
MR. RUSSERT: Why would you say our commander in chief is a dangerous leader?
SEN. BYRD: He doesn't like to answer questions. He doesn't like to
build a consensus. He doesn't like consultation. He is a man who's
governed by his instincts, he says. That's fine. I don't believe,
however, that we should have a national leader who is governed by his
instincts.
That's called "an animal".
Byrd plays a mean fiddle, yes? Does he play any blues?
Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
The Responsible Party
.
|
|
|
| User: "Docky Wocky" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
19 Jul 2004 12:10:09 AM |
|
|
Why doesn't Byrd just admit that Bush doesn't like him!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Conservatives Against Conservation" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
19 Jul 2004 08:44:07 AM |
|
|
In article <RIIKc.14214$lz2.11972@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>, says...
Why doesn't Byrd just admit that Bush doesn't like him!
That would be something to take pride in, like
being on Nixon's Enemies List.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
19 Jul 2004 02:24:26 PM |
|
|
Conservatives Against Conservation <no@spammer.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1b648b124b70c6de989ac1@netnews.comcast.net>...
MR. RUSSERT: But, first, Robert C. Byrd has been a senator for 45 years,
serving with 11 presidents and now says our current president is "...a
dangerous leader in a dangerous time."
Senator Byrd, welcome.
SEN. ROBERT BYRD, (D-WV): Thank you.
MR. RUSSERT: Why would you say our commander in chief is a dangerous leader?
SEN. BYRD: He doesn't like to answer questions....
Translation: I keep sending him e-mails and he ignores me. I even
try to IM him, but he has a block on my SENATORSHEETS sreenname.
SEN. BYRD: He doesn't like to build a consensus.
Translation: He doesn't let democrats tell him what to do. He's
a leader, not a wishy-washy,
stick-yer-finger-in-the-air follower.
SEN. BYRD: He doesn't like consultation.
Translation: I'm still waiting for him to invite me to the White
House.
SEN. BYRD: He is a man who's governed by his instincts, he says.
That's fine. I don't believe, however, that we should
have a national leader who is governed by his instincts.
Translation: He does what he believes is right, and we can't have
that!
MR. RUSSERT: In the midst of the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan,
what message do you think it sends to the world when
someone like you says that President Bush is
dangerous, reckless and arrogant?
Translation: Considering you know 1001 to keeps sheets nice and
white, and
no black man was safe when you are your friends went
"out
on the town" - who the hell are you kidding calling
President Bush dangerous?
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Foxtrot" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
18 Jul 2004 06:01:10 PM |
|
|
Conservatives Against Conservation <no@spammer.com> wrote:
Alright Neocons, knock yourselves out smearing
Robert Byrd, that way you have to deal with
the issues:
No need to smear him, merely speaking the truth about
his past in the KKK is all we need to do. Absolutely NO
klansman is qualified to judge anybody else.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5458209
MR. RUSSERT: But, first, Robert C. Byrd has been a senator
for 45 years, serving with 11 presidents and now says our
current president is "...a dangerous leader in a dangerous time."
SEN. BYRD: Misled by this administration, misled by this
president, misled by Mr. Rumsfeld, misled by the CIA.
***** klansman. Bush said the exact same things about
Iraq that Clinton said. And BJ's wife voted for the war. If
Hussein was so harmless, doncha think Billy would have
told Hillary not to vote for the war?
SEN. BYRD: Far worse. I've never experienced anything
like this. I've never felt as afraid of what-- where we're
headed as I feel now.
Afraid? Suppose the folks who had crosses burned on
their lawns by your pals were afraid?
.
|
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
18 Jul 2004 09:44:29 PM |
|
|
"Foxtrot" <foxtrot@null.com> wrote in message
news:7nvlf0ttc5i61i2dptqgq23vl50p5sumk8@4ax.com...
Conservatives Against Conservation <no@spammer.com> wrote:
Alright Neocons, knock yourselves out smearing
Robert Byrd, that way you have to deal with
the issues:
No need to smear him, merely speaking the truth about
his past in the KKK is all we need to do. Absolutely NO
klansman is qualified to judge anybody else.
Byrd isn't a Klansman, so that makes you a liar.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5458209
MR. RUSSERT: But, first, Robert C. Byrd has been a senator
for 45 years, serving with 11 presidents and now says our
current president is "...a dangerous leader in a dangerous time."
SEN. BYRD: Misled by this administration, misled by this
president, misled by Mr. Rumsfeld, misled by the CIA.
***** klansman. Bush said the exact same things about
Iraq that Clinton said. And BJ's wife voted for the war. If
Hussein was so harmless, doncha think Billy would have
told Hillary not to vote for the war?
SEN. BYRD: Far worse. I've never experienced anything
like this. I've never felt as afraid of what-- where we're
headed as I feel now.
Afraid? Suppose the folks who had crosses burned on
their lawns by your pals were afraid?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. N" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
18 Jul 2004 10:34:40 PM |
|
|
"Foxtrot" <foxtrot@null.com> wrote in message
news:7nvlf0ttc5i61i2dptqgq23vl50p5sumk8@4ax.com...
No need to smear him, merely speaking the truth about
his past in the KKK is all we need to do.
Byrd's involvement with racism was and is wrong.
He's also right about George W. Bush.
A shame you aren't listening. NO President of ANY party should be able to
get away with what Bush has - and plans to in the future.
--
-Mr. N
*************************
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-George W. Bush, April 9, 1999
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Conservatives Against Conservation" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
18 Jul 2004 07:06:57 PM |
|
|
In article <7nvlf0ttc5i61i2dptqgq23vl50p5sumk8@4ax.com>, says...
Conservatives Against Conservation <no@spammer.com> wrote:
Alright Neocons, knock yourselves out smearing
Robert Byrd, that way you have to deal with
the issues:
No need to smear him, merely speaking the truth about
his past in the KKK is all we need to do. Absolutely NO
klansman is qualified to judge anybody else.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5458209
MR. RUSSERT: But, first, Robert C. Byrd has been a senator
for 45 years, serving with 11 presidents and now says our
current president is "...a dangerous leader in a dangerous time."
SEN. BYRD: Misled by this administration, misled by this
president, misled by Mr. Rumsfeld, misled by the CIA.
***** klansman. Bush said the exact same things about
Iraq that Clinton said. And BJ's wife voted for the war. If
Hussein was so harmless, doncha think Billy would have
told Hillary not to vote for the war?
SEN. BYRD: Far worse. I've never experienced anything
like this. I've never felt as afraid of what-- where we're
headed as I feel now.
Afraid? Suppose the folks who had crosses burned on
their lawns by your pals were afraid?
So you're saying Bush is not a dangerous leader because
Byrd is or was a racist??
It's pretty obvious that Bush is dangerous, reckless and
arrogant. You neocons are pretty good at rationalizing
that away so you can support him anyway.
Come on, he attacks Iraq without a valid reason. He claimed
Iraq was an imminent threat. He got it wrong. He alienated
our allies. He misled the country in his state of the union
speech. Now he's flip-flopping about why we attacked Iraq.
What kind of president is that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Foxtrot" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
18 Jul 2004 08:26:31 PM |
|
|
Conservatives Against Conservation <no@spammer.com> wrote:
foxtrot@null.com says...
No need to smear him, merely speaking the truth about
his past in the KKK is all we need to do. Absolutely NO
klansman is qualified to judge anybody else.
So you're saying Bush is not a dangerous leader because
Byrd is or was a racist??
What part of "Absolutely NO klansman is qualified to
judge anybody else" don't you understand?
It's pretty obvious that Bush is dangerous, reckless and
arrogant.
Come on, he attacks Iraq without a valid reason. He claimed
Iraq was an imminent threat. He got it wrong.
Hussein had FOUR YEARS without inspections to hide
his WMDs. If he was such an angel, how come he didn't
allow the inspections for years? HMMMM?
He alienated
our allies. He misled the country in his state of the union
speech.
LOL, it's one of the dolts who believes Michael Mooron!
Now he's flip-flopping about why we attacked Iraq.
What kind of president is that?
One that does something about foreign attackers, instead
of spending his presidency getting blowjobs by interns.
.
|
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
18 Jul 2004 09:45:09 PM |
|
|
"Foxtrot" <foxtrot@null.com> wrote in message
news:618mf0dach5h7lg7602bk7caqtao8nhus8@4ax.com...
Conservatives Against Conservation <no@spammer.com> wrote:
foxtrot@null.com says...
No need to smear him, merely speaking the truth about
his past in the KKK is all we need to do. Absolutely NO
klansman is qualified to judge anybody else.
So you're saying Bush is not a dangerous leader because
Byrd is or was a racist??
What part of "Absolutely NO klansman is qualified to
judge anybody else" don't you understand?
Byrd isn't a Klansman. Why do you keep lying?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Foxtrot" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
18 Jul 2004 10:01:45 PM |
|
|
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Foxtrot" <foxtrot@null.com> wrote
What part of "Absolutely NO klansman is qualified to
judge anybody else" don't you understand?
Byrd isn't a Klansman. Why do you keep lying?
Once a klansman, always a klansman. He still uses
the racist slur "*****".
Are you embarrassed that such a disgraceful redneck
is an outspoken representative of your party?
.
|
|
|
| User: "abracadabra" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
19 Jul 2004 07:44:33 AM |
|
|
"Foxtrot" <foxtrot@null.com> wrote in message
news:u0emf0lrguqls7odf5p97p1p4kr2q5a9ab@4ax.com...
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Foxtrot" <foxtrot@null.com> wrote
What part of "Absolutely NO klansman is qualified to
judge anybody else" don't you understand?
Byrd isn't a Klansman. Why do you keep lying?
Once a klansman
He quit the Klan before he was ever in office and publicly rebuked his short
term membership.
At least you admit you're a liar.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "InsuranceBroker" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
19 Jul 2004 05:23:57 AM |
|
|
Subject: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the
Press
From: Foxtrot
Date: 7/18/2004 11:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <u0emf0lrguqls7odf5p97p1p4kr2q5a9ab@4ax.com>
"abracadabra" <abra@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Foxtrot" < > wrote
What part of "Absolutely NO klansman is qualified to
judge anybody else" don't you understand?
Byrd isn't a Klansman. Why do you keep lying?
Once a klansman, always a klansman. He still uses
the racist slur "*****".
*****. This is just another of Carl Roves attacks on people. Last
elections your idiot republicans were kicking the veterans. Have you no shame
or ability to argue issues? Have you any ability to make a case other than
personal insults?
Are you embarrassed that such a disgraceful redneck
is an outspoken representative of your party?
Your are the one that is an embarrasment and disgraceful communist. You shot
blanks and insult people. That is the communist method.
I guess you like the individual from Hawaii who grabs the balls of some cop in
the rest rooms as a representative of the republican party.
Doing Insurance business in the Garden State
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "FSIA" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
19 Jul 2004 12:30:47 AM |
|
|
Foxtrot wrote:
Once a klansman, always a klansman. He still uses the racist slur "*****".
Only when referring to you...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Foxtrot" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
19 Jul 2004 01:06:59 AM |
|
|
(FSIA) wrote:
Foxtrot wrote:
Once a klansman, always a klansman. He still uses the racist slur "*****".
Only when referring to you...
I see. In your hypocritical little mind, it's perfectly
acceptable for one of the most powerful lawmakers in
the nation to use bigoted insults like *****--if it's
against people you personally dislike.
.
|
|
|
| User: "InsuranceBroker" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
19 Jul 2004 05:25:36 AM |
|
|
Subject: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the
Press
From: Foxtrot
Date: 7/19/2004 2:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <huomf0dq3i40f487it7nsl92qltfaomq1s@4ax.com>
newsgroups@earthling.net (FSIA) wrote:
Foxtrot wrote:
Once a klansman, always a klansman. He still uses the racist slur
"*****".
Only when referring to you...
I see. In your hypocritical little mind, it's perfectly
acceptable for one of the most powerful lawmakers in
the nation to use bigoted insults like *****--if it's
against people you personally dislike.
*****. why not argue his comments on Bush instead of trying to make a case
for 60 years ago. Your leading republicate who recently died after 60 years in
the senate would not even accept his own black daughter. You apparently had no
problem with guys who father black babies as long as they do not talk about
them.
Doing Insurance business in the Garden State
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "FSIA" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
19 Jul 2004 01:48:21 AM |
|
|
Foxtrot writes...
newsgroups@earthling.net (FSIA) wrote:
Foxtrot wrote:
Once a klansman, always a klansman. He still uses the racist slur "*****".
Only when referring to you...
I see. In your hypocritical little mind, it's perfectly
acceptable for one of the most powerful lawmakers in
the nation to use bigoted insults like *****--if it's
against people you personally dislike.
Oh, stop twirling on your ***** of sanctimony .. it was a joke.
.
|
|
|
| User: "InsuranceBroker" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
19 Jul 2004 05:26:12 AM |
|
|
Subject: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the
Press
From: FSIA
Date: 7/19/2004 2:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <MPG.1b651c9c391a83e989769@netnews.bresnan.net>
Foxtrot writes...
newsgroups@earthling.net (FSIA) wrote:
Foxtrot wrote:
Once a klansman, always a klansman. He still uses the racist slur
"*****".
Only when referring to you...
I see. In your hypocritical little mind, it's perfectly
acceptable for one of the most powerful lawmakers in
the nation to use bigoted insults like *****--if it's
against people you personally dislike.
Oh, stop twirling on your ***** of sanctimony .. it was a joke.
Nothing is a joke to the small minded republicans.
Doing Insurance business in the Garden State
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "InsuranceBroker" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
18 Jul 2004 08:41:36 PM |
|
|
Subject: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the
Press
From: Foxtrot
Date: 7/18/2004 9:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: <618mf0dach5h7lg7602bk7caqtao8nhus8@4ax.com>
Conservatives Against Conservation <no@spammer.com> wrote:
says...
No need to smear him, merely speaking the truth about
his past in the KKK is all we need to do. Absolutely NO
klansman is qualified to judge anybody else.
So you're saying Bush is not a dangerous leader because
Byrd is or was a racist??
What part of "Absolutely NO klansman is qualified to
judge anybody else" don't you understand?
Robert Byrd is an elected US Senator. The repaublican are a bunch of racist.
Look at the hero of the party who lived to be 100 years old and refused to
admit that he had fathered a black daughter. When you want to talk about
hateful individual, why do you use Byrd when he speaks as an elected US
Senator? Do you have a problem with democracy? I guess you do since you
support George W. Bush.
It's pretty obvious that Bush is dangerous, reckless and
arrogant.
Come on, he attacks Iraq without a valid reason. He claimed
Iraq was an imminent threat. He got it wrong.
Hussein had FOUR YEARS without inspections to hide
his WMDs. If he was such an angel, how come he didn't
allow the inspections for years? HMMMM?
He alienated
our allies. He misled the country in his state of the union
speech.
LOL, it's one of the dolts who believes Michael Mooron!
Now he's flip-flopping about why we attacked Iraq.
What kind of president is that?
One that does something about foreign attackers, instead
of spending his presidency getting blowjobs by interns.
Doing Insurance business in the Garden State
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Conservatives Against Conservation" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
19 Jul 2004 08:50:28 AM |
|
|
In article <618mf0dach5h7lg7602bk7caqtao8nhus8@4ax.com>, says...
Conservatives Against Conservation <no@spammer.com> wrote:
says...
No need to smear him, merely speaking the truth about
his past in the KKK is all we need to do. Absolutely NO
klansman is qualified to judge anybody else.
So you're saying Bush is not a dangerous leader because
Byrd is or was a racist??
What part of "Absolutely NO klansman is qualified to
judge anybody else" don't you understand?
It's pretty obvious that Bush is dangerous, reckless and
arrogant.
Come on, he attacks Iraq without a valid reason. He claimed
Iraq was an imminent threat. He got it wrong.
Hussein had FOUR YEARS without inspections to hide
his WMDs. If he was such an angel, how come he didn't
allow the inspections for years? HMMMM?
He got tired of foreigners pushing him around? Not
that Saddam was justified in that, but pride is a
powerful motivator. The fact is, there was no evidence
for WMD's. Bush miscalculated, which is not surprising
since he's not very good at that sort of thing. Math
has always been a little fuzzy for him.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
19 Jul 2004 04:19:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 01:26:31 GMT, Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote:
Conservatives Against Conservation <no@spammer.com> wrote:
foxtrot@null.com says...
No need to smear him, merely speaking the truth about
his past in the KKK is all we need to do. Absolutely NO
klansman is qualified to judge anybody else.
So you're saying Bush is not a dangerous leader because
Byrd is or was a racist??
What part of "Absolutely NO klansman is qualified to
judge anybody else" don't you understand?
You might have a point were the issue a moral judgment.
But if you ask a racist what time it is, or whether it is raining, his
answer is probably as accurate as that of one not a racist.
But more importantly we KNOW President Bush is dangerous.
Anyone who thinks another country has nuclear bombs, or is close to
getting them, when there is just about no evidence to support that
is dangerous when his finger is near the Big Button.
What if Bush similarly decided that China planned to nuke us?
He seems fully capable of making that kind of blunder, given his
similar blunder about Iraq.
Bombs away.
THat's a real danger.
We don't need a guy who has PROVEN he makes mistakes about nuclear
weapons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Avanti_Ken" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
19 Jul 2004 06:44:47 PM |
|
|
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message
news:ngeof01ho95v2hlj3fg8td6i62ejphr1ro@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 01:26:31 GMT, Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote:
Conservatives Against Conservation <no@spammer.com> wrote:
foxtrot@null.com says...
No need to smear him, merely speaking the truth about
his past in the KKK is all we need to do. Absolutely NO
klansman is qualified to judge anybody else.
So you're saying Bush is not a dangerous leader because
Byrd is or was a racist??
What part of "Absolutely NO klansman is qualified to
judge anybody else" don't you understand?
You might have a point were the issue a moral judgment.
But if you ask a racist what time it is, or whether it is raining, his
answer is probably as accurate as that of one not a racist.
But more importantly we KNOW President Bush is dangerous.
Anyone who thinks another country has nuclear bombs, or is close to
getting them, when there is just about no evidence to support that
is dangerous when his finger is near the Big Button.
What if Bush similarly decided that China planned to nuke us?
He seems fully capable of making that kind of blunder, given his
similar blunder about Iraq.
Bombs away.
THat's a real danger.
We don't need a guy who has PROVEN he makes mistakes about nuclear
weapons.
=================
Well, in my opinion, Byrd is dangerous, Bush made the right decisions in
Afganastian and Iraq, good things have happened with Qaddafi, the North
Koreans have responded to pressure from their neighbors and the recent
proposals from the U.S., It has been confirmed that Iraq was indeed trying
to acquire yellow cake from Africa, Joe Wilson looks foolish, we secretly
removed several tons of yellow cake from Iraq two weeks ago, the US economy
is growing at a rapid pace, unemployment is back to the level it was when
President Clinton left office and trending downward and the US mainland has
not been hit by a terrorist attack, nor have our embassy's or ships at sea
or in port been attacked since 9-11-01. I say, things are looking up and
Bush should be re-elected.
Avanti_Ken
.
|
|
|
| User: "My Pet Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
19 Jul 2004 07:11:19 PM |
|
|
In article <P1ZKc.74571$uK.29756@twister.tampabay.rr.com>, says...
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message
news:ngeof01ho95v2hlj3fg8td6i62ejphr1ro@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 01:26:31 GMT, Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote:
Conservatives Against Conservation <no@spammer.com> wrote:
foxtrot@null.com says...
No need to smear him, merely speaking the truth about
his past in the KKK is all we need to do. Absolutely NO
klansman is qualified to judge anybody else.
So you're saying Bush is not a dangerous leader because
Byrd is or was a racist??
What part of "Absolutely NO klansman is qualified to
judge anybody else" don't you understand?
You might have a point were the issue a moral judgment.
But if you ask a racist what time it is, or whether it is raining, his
answer is probably as accurate as that of one not a racist.
But more importantly we KNOW President Bush is dangerous.
Anyone who thinks another country has nuclear bombs, or is close to
getting them, when there is just about no evidence to support that
is dangerous when his finger is near the Big Button.
What if Bush similarly decided that China planned to nuke us?
He seems fully capable of making that kind of blunder, given his
similar blunder about Iraq.
Bombs away.
THat's a real danger.
We don't need a guy who has PROVEN he makes mistakes about nuclear
weapons.
=================
Well, in my opinion, Byrd is dangerous, Bush made the right decisions in
Afganastian and Iraq, good things have happened with Qaddafi, the North
Koreans have responded to pressure from their neighbors and the recent
proposals from the U.S., It has been confirmed that Iraq was indeed trying
to acquire yellow cake from Africa, Joe Wilson looks foolish, we secretly
removed several tons of yellow cake from Iraq two weeks ago, the US economy
is growing at a rapid pace, unemployment is back to the level it was when
President Clinton left office and trending downward and the US mainland has
not been hit by a terrorist attack, nor have our embassy's or ships at sea
or in port been attacked since 9-11-01. I say, things are looking up and
Bush should be re-elected.
Avanti_Ken
Even if Iraq turn out OK, the ends do not justify the means.
Bush misled the nation, soldiers died. We did not need to
spend $200 Billion of ours & our childrens' taxpayers dollars
and thousands of lives to accomplish this, not to mention
other thousands left maimed by this war.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
20 Jul 2004 09:55:32 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:44:47 GMT, "Avanti_Ken"
<KMatson-remove-@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message
news:ngeof01ho95v2hlj3fg8td6i62ejphr1ro@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 01:26:31 GMT, Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote:
Conservatives Against Conservation <no@spammer.com> wrote:
foxtrot@null.com says...
No need to smear him, merely speaking the truth about
his past in the KKK is all we need to do. Absolutely NO
klansman is qualified to judge anybody else.
So you're saying Bush is not a dangerous leader because
Byrd is or was a racist??
What part of "Absolutely NO klansman is qualified to
judge anybody else" don't you understand?
You might have a point were the issue a moral judgment.
But if you ask a racist what time it is, or whether it is raining, his
answer is probably as accurate as that of one not a racist.
But more importantly we KNOW President Bush is dangerous.
Anyone who thinks another country has nuclear bombs, or is close to
getting them, when there is just about no evidence to support that
is dangerous when his finger is near the Big Button.
What if Bush similarly decided that China planned to nuke us?
He seems fully capable of making that kind of blunder, given his
similar blunder about Iraq.
Bombs away.
THat's a real danger.
We don't need a guy who has PROVEN he makes mistakes about nuclear
weapons.
=================
Well, in my opinion, Byrd is dangerous, Bush made the right decisions in
Afganastian and Iraq,
Invading Iraq was a disaster. They posed no risk to us and by March
17, 2003, when we attacked, that was pretty obvious.
The costs are huge.
The benefits are basically zero, in terms of US interests..
good things have happened with Qaddafi,
He began efforts to rejoin the world economy many years ago.
Remember how he turned over his guys to be tried for blowing up the
plane over Scotland? THat proves Qaddafi was a changed man, long
before Bush was elected.
We finally decided to accept his offer. The offer was on the table for
years.
the North
Koreans have responded to pressure from their neighbors and the recent
proposals from the U.S.,
You mean by speeding up their production of nuclear bombs?
Or what?
What concession do you think they have made?
It has been confirmed that Iraq was indeed trying
to acquire yellow cake from Africa,
You mean on the pages of nutmax magazive? Yes, but they have confirmed
that Vince Foster was an agent for the Chinese Commies, having an
affair with Hillary in order to steal nuclear bomb secrets.
There has been no confirmation that Iraq was trying to buy yellow
cake. WHat we have is a British lord saying that the UK's logic was
REASONABLE in saying that they had evidence of it.
John Cleese in a Monty Python skit plays a UK official who says
"My reasoning was SOUND. Wrong, but SOUND."
The Lord has said that their reasoning was SOUND.
Not that it was RIGHT.
And since they won't say what the evdience is, we can not tell.
But the notion is odd, given that Iraq did not have a nuclear program.
It would be like my trying to buy gas, when I don't own a car.
In addition, Iraq already had a huge amount of yellowcake left over
from the old days. It would be like me trying to buy gas when I
already had a storage tank of it.
And it's odd in that Iraq has uranium naturally occuring in its
mountains, such that it would be less-detectable to just mine their
own, saying they were mining for something else but extracting Uranium
along the way, than to go to Africa and ask to buy some. Which surely
would be noticed by the world.
So is this story true? Not likely.
Everything in the UK dossier about Iraqi weapons has proven *****,
that we have been able to examine, so why would you think this would
be any different?
If the UK had gotten even ONE thing right about Iraq, I might feel
better about the odds that they are right on this one.
But I am dubous.
Iraq had no nuclear program, and buying uranium for a nonprogram is a
pretty odd concept. WHen you already have the stuff, and can make more
in your own mountains.
Joe Wilson looks foolish,
you mean according to William Safire? The guy who swears Atta was in
Prague? The guy who swore Bruce Lindsay was going to be indicted, that
Hillary was going to be indicted right after the election? That the
CIA was wildly in error about Iraq because they UNDERESTIMATED the
threat there?
Yes, to the fierce partisans desparately trying to divert attention
away from the Big Lie we were told, that Iraq was going nuclear, I am
sure Wilson looks foolish.
It's a defense mechanism.
But to others he does not look foolish. He looks to have been right on
the money.
we secretly
removed several tons of yellow cake from Iraq two weeks ago,
Yes. Iraq had in Iraq tons and tons of the stuff from the old days,
all documented by the IAEA over the years, all accounted for.
This just proves how odd the claim is that Iraq was trying to buy
more, since they already had so much in Iraq.
I think we left something like 400 tons of mined uranium, though, not
yet yellow cake. Also left over from the old days.
I could be wrong about that, it's a vague memory. But I think that's
correct, 400 tons.
Again - they already had all this stuff, why try to buy more?
And why would we care? Since it does not improve Iraq's position to
add to their already large inventory of such stuff?
THe whole buying uranium story is flakey.
the US economy
is growing at a rapid pace,
Odd then that job growth last month was insufficient to keep up with
our growing population.
Odd that in six of the last seven months real wages have fallen.
Odd then that the ratio of those working to our population of working
age is stuck at such a low level.
This year, monthly job growth is at the forty-fourth percentile, for
average monthly percent increase in number working. Below average, in
other words.
Economic growth for the first quarter has been revised downward by
economists.
And consider how we have done since the recession ended compared to
other recoveries. Anemic. This is supposed to be the really really
good part of the business cycle. We are something like 8 million jobs
short of where we should be were this recovery to be average.
And - real weekly income down six months of the last seven, did I
read?
unemployment is back to the level it was when
President Clinton left office
Huh?
"During the last full month before Bush took office in January 2001,
the unemployment rate was 3.9 percent. In June 2004, the official U.S.
unemployment rate was 5.6 percent—"
http://www.aflcio.org/yourjobeconomy/jobs/jobcrisis.cfm
And that understates how bad it is now. Because many have just GIVEN
UP looking for work.
Look at the ratio of number working to number old enough to work. IT
has gone way way down under Bush.
That's the EMPLOYMENT rate. It has crashed and is not showing signs of
getting much better. To keep even, we have to create about 150,000 new
jobs per month. IN June, we created only 119,000 new jobs, so the
employment rate likely fell - again.
and trending downward and the US mainland has
not been hit by a terrorist attack,
But terrorist attacks overall are up. And we have had more killed and
horribly injured in Iraq than were killed in the WTC.
Many of those injured in Iraq would be better off dead.
So we have through President Bush's big blunder about WMD which were
not there done as much harm to Americans as bin Laden did on Sept 11.
nor have our embassy's or ships at sea
or in port been attacked since 9-11-01. I say, things are looking up and
Bush should be re-elected.
Yeah. But others don't agree. Are we on the right track or the wrong
track?
Most say wrong track.
For good reason.
Bush is the first President since Herbert Hoover to be unable to
produce an increase in the number of working Americans.
Worst in 72 years.
Bush launched a huge, costly war to get nonexistent weapons.
That has to be the biggest military blunder since some fool opened the
gates for the Trojan Horse.
And by Mar 17 2003, when we invaded, there was a TON of evidence that
the theory of WMD in Iraq was *****.
Bush has proven he makes big mistakes about nuclear weapons. He said
Iraq was making them and they were not.
We don't need a President proven to get it wrong about nukes.
What if we attack North Korea thinking they DONT have any that can get
to Seattle, but they do?
We need a smart PResident. A guy who can look at the intelligence, ask
teh right questions, and get the RIGHT answer, not the wrong answer.
Nukes - make it too dangerous to keep a moron in office.
Avanti_Ken
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael C. Shultz" |
|
| Title: Re: Sen. Robert C. Byrd calls Bush "A DANGEROUS LEADER" on Meet the Press |
19 Jul 2004 09:22:13 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 00:44:47 +0000, Avanti_Ken wrote:
"George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr." <tyrebiter@commiemartyrs.edu> wrote in message
news:ngeof01ho95v2hlj3fg8td6i62ejphr1ro@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 01:26:31 GMT, Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote:
Conservatives Against Conservation <no@spammer.com> wrote:
foxtrot@null.com says...
No need to smear him, merely speaking the truth about
his past in the KKK is all we need to do. Absolutely NO
klansman is qualified to judge anybody else.
So you're saying Bush is not a dangerous leader because
Byrd is or was a racist??
What part of "Absolutely NO klansman is qualified to
judge anybody else" don't you understand?
You might have a point were the issue a moral judgment.
But if you ask a racist what time it is, or whether it is raining, his
answer is probably as accurate as that of one not a racist.
But more importantly we KNOW President Bush is dangerous.
Anyone who thinks another country has nuclear bombs, or is close to
getting them, when there is just about no evidence to support that
is dangerous when his finger is near the Big Button.
What if Bush similarly decided that China planned to nuke us?
He seems fully capable of making that kind of blunder, given his
similar blunder about Iraq.
Bombs away.
THat's a real danger.
We don't need a guy who has PROVEN he makes mistakes about nuclear
weapons.
=================
Well, in my opinion, Byrd is dangerous, Bush made the right decisions in
Afganastian and Iraq, good things have happened with Qaddafi, the North
Koreans have responded to pressure from their neighbors and the recent
proposals from the U.S., It has been confirmed that Iraq was indeed trying
to acquire yellow cake from Africa, Joe Wilson looks foolish, we secretly
removed several tons of yellow cake from Iraq two weeks ago, the US economy
is growing at a rapid pace, unemployment is back to the level it was when
President Clinton left office and trending downward and the US mainland has
not been hit by a terrorist attack, nor have our embassy's or ships at sea
or in port been attacked since 9-11-01. I say, things are looking up and
Bush should be re-elected.
Avanti_Ken
May all your children be drafted, chickenhawk.
-Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
