Byrd on Iraq

http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_speeche...may_list_2.html

"The Truth Will Emerge"




"Truth, crushed to earth, shall rise again, - -
The eternal years of God are hers;
But Error, wounded, writhes in pain,
And dies among his worshippers."

Truth has a way of asserting itself despite all attempts to obscure it. Distortion only serves to derail it for a time. No matter to what lengths we humans may go to obfuscate facts or delude our fellows, truth has a way of squeezing out through the cracks, eventually.

But the danger is that at some point it may no longer matter. The danger is that damage is done before the truth is widely realized. The reality is that, sometimes, it is easier to ignore uncomfortable facts and go along with whatever distortion is currently in vogue. We see a lot of this today in politics. I see a lot of it -- more than I would ever have believed -- right on this Senate Floor.

Regarding the situation in Iraq, it appears to this Senator that the American people may have been lured into accepting the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation, in violation of long-standing International law, under false premises. There is ample evidence that the horrific events of September 11 have been carefully manipulated to switch public focus from Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda who masterminded the September 11th attacks, to Saddam Hussein who did not. The run up to our invasion of Iraq featured the President and members of his cabinet invoking every frightening image they could conjure, from mushroom clouds, to buried caches of germ warfare, to drones poised to deliver germ laden death in our major cities. We were treated to a heavy dose of overstatement concerning Saddam Hussein's direct threat to our freedoms. The tactic was guaranteed to provoke a sure reaction from a nation still suffering from a combination of post traumatic stress and justifiable anger after the attacks of 911. It was the exploitation of fear. It was a placebo for the anger.

Since the war's end, every subsequent revelation which has seemed to refute the previous dire claims of the Bush Administration has been brushed aside. Instead of addressing the contradictory evidence, the White House deftly changes the subject. No weapons of mass destruction have yet turned up, but we are told that they will in time. Perhaps they yet will. But, our costly and destructive bunker busting attack on Iraq seems to have proven, in the main, precisely the opposite of what we were told was the urgent reason to go in. It seems also to have, for the present, verified the assertions of Hans Blix and the inspection team he led, which President Bush and company so derided. As Blix always said, a lot of time will be needed to find such weapons, if they do, indeed, exist. Meanwhile Bin Laden is still on the loose and Saddam Hussein has come up missing.

The Administration assured the U.S. public and the world, over and over again, that an attack was necessary to protect our people and the world from terrorism. It assiduously worked to alarm the public and blur the faces of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden until they virtually became one.

What has become painfully clear in the aftermath of war is that Iraq was no immediate threat to the U.S. Ravaged by years of sanctions, Iraq did not even lift an airplane against us. Iraq's threatening death-dealing fleet of unmanned drones about which we heard so much morphed into one prototype made of plywood and string. Their missiles proved to be outdated and of limited range. Their army was quickly overwhelmed by our technology and our well trained troops.

Presently our loyal military personnel continue their mission of diligently searching for WMD. They have so far turned up only fertilizer, vacuum cleaners, conventional weapons, and the occasional buried swimming pool. They are misused on such a mission and they continue to be at grave risk. But, the Bush team's extensive hype of WMD in Iraq as justification for a preemptive invasion has become more than embarrassing. It has raised serious questions about prevarication and the reckless use of power. Were our troops needlessly put at risk? Were countless Iraqi civilians killed and maimed when war was not really necessary? Was the American public deliberately misled? Was the world?

What makes me cringe even more is the continued claim that we are "liberators." The facts don't seem to support the label we have so euphemistically attached to ourselves. True, we have unseated a brutal, despicable despot, but "liberation" implies the follow up of freedom, self-determination and a better life for the common people. In fact, if the situation in Iraq is the result of "liberation," we may have set the cause of freedom back 200 years.

Despite our high-blown claims of a better life for the Iraqi people, water is scarce, and often foul, electricity is a sometime thing, food is in short supply, hospitals are stacked with the wounded and maimed, historic treasures of the region and of the Iraqi people have been looted, and nuclear material may have been disseminated to heaven knows where, while U.S. troops, on orders, looked on and guarded the oil supply.

Meanwhile, lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure and refurbish its oil industry are awarded to Administration cronies, without benefit of competitive bidding, and the U.S. steadfastly resists offers of U.N. assistance to participate. Is there any wonder that the real motives of the U.S. government are the subject of worldwide speculation and mistrust?

And in what may be the most damaging development, the U.S. appears to be pushing off Iraq's clamor for self-government. Jay Garner has been summarily replaced, and it is becoming all too clear that the smiling face of the U.S. as liberator is quickly assuming the scowl of an occupier. The image of the boot on the throat has replaced the beckoning hand of freedom. Chaos and rioting only exacerbate that image, as U.S. soldiers try to sustain order in a land ravaged by poverty and disease. "Regime change" in Iraq has so far meant anarchy, curbed only by an occupying military force and a U.S. administrative presence that is evasive about if and when it intends to depart.

Democracy and Freedom cannot be force fed at the point of an occupier's gun. To think otherwise is folly. One has to stop and ponder. How could we have been so impossibly naive? How could we expect to easily plant a clone of U.S. culture, values, and government in a country so riven with religious, territorial, and tribal rivalries, so suspicious of U.S. motives, and so at odds with the galloping materialism which drives the western-style economies?

As so many warned this Administration before it launched its misguided war on Iraq, there is evidence that our crack down in Iraq is likely to convince 1,000 new Bin Ladens to plan other horrors of the type we have seen in the past several days. Instead of damaging the terrorists, we have given them new fuel for their fury. We did not complete our mission in Afghanistan because we were so eager to attack Iraq. Now it appears that Al Queda is back with a vengeance. We have returned to orange alert in the U.S., and we may well have destabilized the Mideast region, a region we have never fully understood. We have alienated friends around the globe with our dissembling and our haughty insistence on punishing former friends who may not see things quite our way.

The path of diplomacy and reason have gone out the window to be replaced by force, unilateralism, and punishment for transgressions. I read most recently with amazement our harsh castigation of Turkey, our longtime friend and strategic ally. It is astonishing that our government is berating the new Turkish government for conducting its affairs in accordance with its own Constitution and its democratic institutions.

Indeed, we may have sparked a new international arms race as countries move ahead to develop WMD as a last ditch attempt to ward off a possible preemptive strike from a newly belligerent U.S. which claims the right to hit where it wants. In fact, there is little to constrain this President. Congress, in what will go down in history as its most unfortunate act, handed away its power to declare war for the foreseeable future and empowered this President to wage war at will.

As if that were not bad enough, members of Congress are reluctant to ask questions which are begging to be asked. How long will we occupy Iraq? We have already heard disputes on the numbers of troops which will be needed to retain order. What is the truth? How costly will the occupation and rebuilding be? No one has given a straight answer. How will we afford this long-term massive commitment, fight terrorism at home, address a serious crisis in domestic healthcare, afford behemoth military spending and give away billions in tax cuts amidst a deficit which has climbed to over $340 billion for this year alone? If the President's tax cut passes it will be $400 billion. We cower in the shadows while false statements proliferate. We accept soft answers and shaky explanations because to demand the truth is hard, or unpopular, or may be politically costly.

But, I contend that, through it all, the people know. The American people unfortunately are used to political shading, spin, and the usual chicanery they hear from public officials. They patiently tolerate it up to a point. But there is a line. It may seem to be drawn in invisible ink for a time, but eventually it will appear in dark colors, tinged with anger. When it comes to shedding American blood - - when it comes to wreaking havoc on civilians, on innocent men, women, and children, callous dissembling is not acceptable. Nothing is worth that kind of lie - - not oil, not revenge, not reelection, not somebody's grand pipedream of a democratic domino theory.

And mark my words, the calculated intimidation which we see so often of late by the "powers that be" will only keep the loyal opposition quiet for just so long. Because eventually, like it always does, the truth will emerge. And when it does, this house of cards, built of deceit, will fall.

###

 

I appreciate your being the vehicle to bring the hard truths to this board. I don't spend my time searching for them.

It's disturbing reading but I think it to be refreshing truth at the same time. So much of the mass media news is so carefully scripted and crafted that people tend to forget what's really going on. I think you have to dig hard to find information like this, and I bet so many people discard it as so much doomsaying "anti-american" rhetoric that it doesn't get the light of day it deserves.

 

True is, G. The more I think about it, the more despairing I feel about this country. How can a democracy really exist when the people are so f'n stupid? It's not that I merely disagree with most Americans about the Iraq war, it's that everyone is so damned ignorant. Nobody knows much of anything, really. Of course, I live right by all the frat houses at the U of M, so maybe I'm just being exposed to more of the prep/jock/bar scene.

It's amazing to me how most people don't know what's happening in the world. When I read this week that 40% of Americans rate Bush's environmental policy as "good" or "excellent", I nearly fell over. And most think Saddam was behind 9/11; a third believe the moon landing was a hoax; 70% can't find the Pacific Ocean on a map; only 11% reads a daily newspaper; only 7% have a passport, and only a tenth of those people actually use them. Good freakin' grief! This is great comedy.

 

He's just stating the obvious. Welcome to American foreign policy for the past 100 years.

 

You're right, there is no doubt that the world is a better place without the likes of Saddam and his regime but that was not the main reason we went over there. There's still no signs of weapons of mass destruction and rocksolid evidence that Iraq planned or was planning out terrorist attacks on the U.S. We totally fucked up all international relations : I say all because imo, even the countries which claims to be on our side, don't truly say what they TRULY want to say.

The U.S. is now looked upon as an arrogant, money driven bully who only goes by his rules. And worst of all : In this so called democracy of ours, if one dares to speak out against the administration, he/she is immediatly seen as an anti-american witch that needs to be burned or stoned. The effectiveness of the whole "Iraq is a major threat to the U.S." propaganda was surprising to me, I truly didn't believe that there was so many.... I don't want to be rude, so I'll say... : people who don't take time to think, in this country. And now we don't want the U.N. to be involved in the reconstruction of Iraq. This attitude is going to backfire on us sooner or later in one way or the other.

Oh And shoudn't we liberate the North Korean and Cuban people too ?

 

[ QUOTE ]
Daniel Thomas said:

a third believe the moon landing was a hoax

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at the footage dude you can't tell me that we landed on the moon with that kind of technology?

 

Mon Hoax?

This will help explain or at least offer another alternative to counter those who believe it was faked.
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/

It definitely is possible it was faked, but nobody will know for sure. Now Bigfoot, Elvis, Nessie, and I are going back to our poker game.

 

Re: Mon Hoax?

Ha ha! Funny stuff.

Seriously, the whole "Moon hoax" thing was taken from a TV movie in the '70s...starring OJ Simpson. Why does everything come back to him?

Didn't Buzz Aldrin punch out some guy who made the hoax claim to his face? That was pretty funny, too.

 

There is hope for Iraq, George Bush promised to send them Florida voting machines to use in their first elections.

Their choices are the guy we want, they guy we picked and anybody who isn't a Shiite.

 

Published on Thursday, May 29, 2003 by the

The Case for War is Blown Apart
by Ben Russell and Andy McSmith in Kuwait City

Tony Blair stood accused last night of misleading Parliament and the British people over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and his claims that the threat posed by Iraq justified war.



I believe the Prime Minister lied to us and lied to us and lied to us. The whole war was built upon falsehood and I think the long-term damage will be to democracy in Britain


Tony Benn, the former Labour minister
Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, seized on a "breathtaking" statement by the US Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, that Iraq's weapons may have been destroyed before the war, and anger boiled over among MPs who said the admission undermined the legal and political justification for war.

Mr Blair insisted yesterday he had "absolutely no doubt at all about the existence of weapons of mass destruction".

But Mr Cook said the Prime Minister's claims that Saddam could deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes were patently false. He added that Mr Rumsfeld's statement "blows an enormous gaping hole in the case for war made on both sides of the Atlantic" and called for MPs to hold an investigation.

Meanwhile, Labour rebels threatened to report Mr Blair to the Speaker of the Commons for the cardinal sin of misleading Parliament - and force him to answer emergency questions in the House.

Mr Rumsfeld ignited the row in a speech in New York, declaring: "It is ... possible that they [Iraq] decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict and I don't know the answer."

Speaking in the Commons before the crucial vote on war, Mr Blair told MPs that it was "palpably absurd" to claim that Saddam had destroyed weapons including 10,000 liters of anthrax, up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tons of mustard gas, sarin, botulinum toxin and "a host of other biological poisons".

But Mr Cook said yesterday: "We were told Saddam had weapons ready for use within 45 minutes. It's now 45 days since the war has finished and we have still not found anything.

"It is plain he did not have that capacity to threaten us, possibly did not have the capacity to threaten even his neighbors, and that is profoundly important. We were, after all, told that those who opposed the resolution that would provide the basis for military action were in the wrong.

"Perhaps we should now admit they were in the right."

Speaking as he flew into Kuwait before a morale-boosting visit to British troops in Iraq today, Mr Blair said: "Rather than speculating, let's just wait until we get the full report back from our people who are interviewing the Iraqi scientists.

"We have already found two trailers that both our and the American security services believe were used for the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons."

He added: "Our priorities in Iraq are less to do with finding weapons of mass destruction, though that is obviously what a team is charged with doing, and they will do it, and more to do with humanitarian and political reconstruction."

Peter Kilfoyle, the anti-war rebel and former Labour Defense minister, said he was prepared to report Mr Blair to the Speaker of the Commons for misleading Parliament. Mr Kilfoyle, whose Commons motion calling on Mr Blair to publish the evidence backing up his claims about Saddam's arsenal has been signed by 72 MPs, warned: "This will not go away. The Government ought to publish whatever evidence they have for the claims they made."

Paul Keetch, the Liberal Democrat Defense spokesman, said: "No weapons means no threat. Without WMD, the case for war falls apart. It would seem either the intelligence was wrong and we should not rely on it, or, the politicians overplayed the threat. Even British troops who I met in Iraq recently were skeptical about the threat posed by WMD. Their lives were put at risk in order to eliminate this threat - we owe it to our troops to find out if that threat was real."

But Bernard Jenkin, the shadow Defense Secretary, said: "I think it is too early to rush to any conclusions at this stage; we must wait and see what the outcome actually is of these investigations."

Ministers have pointed to finds of chemical protection suits and suspected mobile biological weapons laboratories as evidence of Iraq's chemical and biological capability. But they have also played down the importance of finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Earlier this month, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, provoked a storm of protest after claiming weapons finds were "not crucially important".

The Government has quietly watered down its claims, now arguing only that the Iraqi leader had weapons at some time before the war broke out.

Tony Benn, the former Labour minister, told LBC Radio: "I believe the Prime Minister lied to us and lied to us and lied to us. The whole war was built upon falsehood and I think the long-term damage will be to democracy in Britain. If you can't believe what you are told by ministers, the whole democratic process is put at risk. You can't be allowed to get away with telling lies for political purposes."

Alan Simpson, Labour MP for Nottingham South, said MPs "supported war based on a lie". He said: "If it's right Iraq destroyed the weapons prior to the war, then it means Iraq complied with the United Nations resolution 1441."

The former Labour minister Glenda Jackson added: "If the creators of this war are now saying weapons of mass destruction were destroyed before the war began, then all the government ministers who stood on the floor in the House of Commons adamantly speaking of the immediate threat are standing on shaky ground."

The build-up to war: What they said

Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons

George Bush, Us President 18 March, 2003

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd

Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction

Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003

Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit

Tony Blair 28 April, 2003

It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy them prior to the conflict

Donald Rumsfeld, US Defense Secretary 28 May, 2003

© 2003 Independent

 

This issue is far from over. Why isn't our president going through the same scrutiny ?

 

This is a revelant article from the UK:

WMD Was a Convenient Excuse for War Admits Wolfowitz

As if that's a shocker. Tell that to those GI's that keep getting killed over there.

 

Useless Typing

All of this useless interviewing, interrogating, hyping, and typing is not doing a damn thing for anybody. It's all about political positioning now. Now every stick-up-their-ass Conservative and bleeding-heart Liberal is out to show what was right/wrong about the attack on Iraq. On top of that we have every internet political jockey trying to make *THEIR* voice heard. The whole fucking world knew that Saddam Hussein had WMD's, but because he was giving them oil they looked away. The Kurd's were the only fucking people in this whole goddamn cesspool of a civiliazation that tried to do anything about it and they got fucked up while the world sat and watched. Our world leaders told Saddam he did a bad thing, but we didn't do a fucking thing about it. Why?...didn't won't to hurt our oil supplies. One day out of the blue Bush and Blair formed a coalition to get rid of his serial killin' ass and the world became outraged. Why?...because it's wrong to kill people and besides it might interfere with our free oil agreement. We care only for the Iraqi people and that is why we are sending them food, but France, Germany, and Russia were nice enough to omit they were only fucking send food because they were getting free oil out of it. Fuck humanity, we need to drive our cars is what they are basically saying.

So Bush, Blair, and a few compatriots bombed the fuck out of Iraq. They killed a lot of people and got a lot of people killed in the process. Freedom from tryanny was given to the Iraqi people and a new era of anarchy was born. It's hard for few 1,000 to police 1,000,000's, so deal with it until it calms down. Now the search for WMD's begins (since the UN dismissed the missiles that violated the UN regualtions that were launched in the war), but alas we are finding nothing. Where are the WMD? Nobody knows, but smart people are thinking Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria, Russia, etc. as being prime spots. Saudi denies it, but they have weak ass border patrols so they know shit. Syria is a bunch of assfuck politicians only worried about money in their pockets so my big guess is there. Russia has more going on than anyone will admit. Saddam is probably doing vodka shots at the Kremlin this very moment since he was snuck out by the Russian Ambassador. Our troops were not allowed to follow or supervise the Ambassador leaving the country in car or by plane. Even if we did "accidentally" try to bomb the shit out of him. Why didn't we push harder on the Russians? People are afraid of nuclear weapons. Period. That's why N. Korea gets to act up so fucking much. We're afraid the little fuckers are gonna blow up Tokyo if we mess with them.

Saddam was moved from power, Iraq was given back to the people, the UN was allowed back in to help, the brits and us governments are assisting in humanitarian aid and policing (to some extent), and a potential distaster of epic proportions was averted. Why are people so angry still? Politics and Fear! Ok, politics is easy. One side/person points out the bad manners of his opponent in an effort to win public appeal. Go against the UN, declare war, kill people, blow up stuff, and not prove your vocal point are all great fodder for your opponent to lob back at you. But you said "Fear", what's that about? Nations have always feared "CONQUERORS". The US is the youngest nation in the world that has political power and military prowess that rivals every nation on the planet if not surpasses. We have proved time and time again that we are very effective at killing people in our way. When things get rough the world asks for our help. This time we attacked another nation, tried out some new weapons, and scared the fuck out of many other nations. Fear has been implemented and we have a great new tool. Terrorism at it's purest form.

Now all of you on the net, tv, politcal institution, or wherever can bith, piss, and moan about whatever is trendy today, but remember if *YOU* don't do something constructive about it, then you aren't doing shit and are just as bad as those doing these atrocities. Stand up or shut up, you make the decision. Quit being a convenient fucking victim.

 

Re: Useless Typing

I asked you a while ago if it was difficult or if it came naturally to you.
Now I know for sure that being a dimwited idiot comes naturally, its not an act, its the essence of youre being.

 

Re: Useless typing

Read the first part./ skimmed the middle / caught the end. Essentially your accusations are baseless.

From the start of this BS war I let my representatives/local newspapers and news outlets know how I felt. I voiced my discontent to the President to congress however I could. The thing that really allowed this to happen is that Tom Daschle is a spinless jellyfish, he could have not ceded authority to Bush and we'd all be worrying about the economy right now.

I'm registered voter I let my voice be heard. The big question is what are your doing besides being apathetic.

 

Re: Useless Typing

[ QUOTE ]
replicant said:

We care only for the Iraqi people and that is why we are sending them food, but France, Germany, and Russia were nice enough to omit they were only fucking send food because they were getting free oil out of it. Fuck humanity, we need to drive our cars is what they are basically saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

No we don't, if we "only" cared about the Iraqi people, we would've ousted Saddam a long time ago. We DIDN'T declare war with Iraq for the sake of the Iraqi people but for "well being of the American people". It's safe to say that most people are happy that a monster like Hussein is no longer in power but that's not the issue, the issue is where are the weapons of mass destruction ? If you're going to go against the U.N. and basically tell the whole world to go fuck itself, "we have proof", "we know they have weapons of mass destruction", you'd better come up with the goods. The Iraqi people had been suffering for years and all of a sudden : "you know what ? I'm bored... lets go liberate them". Don't believe everything the nice little old man in the gray suit tells you.

[ QUOTE ]
replicant said:

People are afraid of nuclear weapons. Period. That's why N. Korea gets to act up so fucking much. We're afraid the little fuckers are gonna blow up Tokyo if we mess with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bullshit ! Couldn't Iraq do the same to Isreal since it was supposedly carrying nuclear and biological weapons. If you have the balls to go against Iraq you should have the balls to go against North Korea. Oh and what about it's people, don't we care about them too ?

[ QUOTE ]
replicant said:

This time we attacked another nation, tried out some new weapons, and scared the fuck out of many other nations. Fear has been implemented and we have a great new tool. Terrorism at it's purest form.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess scaring other nations is good for international relations ? Meanwhile the terrorist run free right.

[ QUOTE ]
replicant said:


Now all of you on the net, tv, politcal institution, or wherever can bith, piss, and moan about whatever is trendy today, but remember if *YOU* don't do something constructive about it, then you aren't doing shit and are just as bad as those doing these atrocities. Stand up or shut up, you make the decision. Quit being a convenient fucking victim.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you do something constructive, if you don't talk and argue about it first, and how do you know whether one (you don't know or have never met) is standing up for what he believes, or not ?

- "and are just as bad as those doing these atrocities"

You're a first class dumbass.

- "Stand up or shut up. You make the decision."

Tell that to the Dixie Chicks. The administration is the only one making the decisions, ask Hans Blix and Koffi Anan.

"Quit being a convenient fucking victim."

I bet you got a Bill O'reilly poster in your room...no, no better yet a shrine. Take your time and think and you'll have a clearer picture on who the real victims are ?

 

Skewed Intel just to justify a war. Could you imagine what the Republicans would do if Bill Clinton had done the same thing?

Dubya should be run out of town on a rail.

 

Thanks, nice read.

 

[ QUOTE ]
ONISTOMPA said:

This issue is far from over. Why isn't our president going through the same scrutiny ?

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer, I'm afraid, is that most Americans simply don't care. I just read a poll yesterday that stated that 41% of Americans either believe WMD has been found, or don't know.

That's yet another example of the appaling ignorance of the average American. This is what happens when nobody reads, nobody participates, and nobody gives a fuck. The war was just another reality show to watch while munching on pork rinds.

Of course, Bush would be in real trouble if there were any political opposition to his policies. But, as we have repeatedly seen, the Party Formerly Known as Deomcrats have hitched their wagon to the White House, and are unable to find any backbone. Sigh. At this point, I'm just telling myself, "Only six more years of Bush, only six more years of Bush..."

Oh, BTW, did anyone read the report this week from the Financial Times regarding the internal Treasury Dept. memo that predicts the US will accumulate $44 Trillion in debt over the future? We're all pretty much screwed, aren't we?

 

Also most democrats and most Americans are affraid of fully expressing themselves on the matter because of fear of being labled "anti-americans". The administration did a fine propaganda job : "either you're with us or you're against us (anti-american)".