Re: Supressed? speech by Sen. Robert Byrd -- Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
At 1:04 PM -0800 2/14/03, Trei, Peter wrote: This comes from another mailing list. I've confirmed that it's not been reported on by the NYT, the Washington Post, or the Boston Globe. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0212-07.htm FWIW - This speech was reprinted as an op-ed piece in today's San Francisco Chronicle. Of course you don't have to pay attention to the opinions of people in San Francisco... Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Re: Supressed? speech by Sen. Robert Byrd -- Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
At 1:04 PM -0800 2/14/03, Trei, Peter wrote: This comes from another mailing list. I've confirmed that it's not been reported on by the NYT, the Washington Post, or the Boston Globe. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0212-07.htm FWIW - This speech was reprinted as an op-ed piece in today's San Francisco Chronicle. Of course you don't have to pay attention to the opinions of people in San Francisco... Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
Re: Supressed? speech by Sen. Robert Byrd -- Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
At 05:49 PM 2/16/03 -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: Peter: I think you're right. It's had some, spotty coverage: http://news.google.com/news?hl=enq=%22robert+byrd%22+war+iraq+floorbtnG=Search+News One reason why it may not have been picked up (speaking as a political journalist, albeit not one who writes about this area) is that it's not particularly novel: Some Democrats have been saying this for a while. Introducing a bill to rescind Bush's war power, calling for impeachment, endorsing Rep. Paul's legislation, etc. would have been far more newsworthy, and more than just talk. The right-wing alternative media covered it. I saw clips on Fox and heard clips on Rush Sean. They used it as an opportunity to beat up on KKK-Byrd as well as the content of the speech. DCF The government is just people. People, my eye, they're Democrats. --The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)
Re: Supressed? speech by Sen. Robert Byrd -- Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
At least he's already opposing the unpatriot act II -- is anyone else? On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 07:30:16PM -0800, Mike Rosing wrote: On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Declan McCullagh wrote: Most outspoken? Wellstone voted for the Patriot Act. How about Feingold, who was the lone dissenter, and is still alive and kicking? That's because Feingold voted *for* Ashcroft in the Judiciary committee. He could have voted him down (along party lines) and we wouldn't be dealing with Ashcroft as AG. I think he may be reggretting a really *big* mistake. Or maybe he he's just laughing because he knows everything is going according to plan. Hard one to call. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Supressed? speech by Sen. Robert Byrd -- Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 05:58:07PM -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: That's no joke. Remember what happened to the most outspoken member of the Senate, Paul Wellstone. Funny they never came up for any reason for that crash, eh? Tried to blame it on the weather, but then all those other pilots flying the same area at the same time said it couldn't be, and besides, his plane had two de-icing systems, not just one. Most outspoken? Wellstone voted for the Patriot Act. How about Feingold, who was the lone dissenter, and is still alive and kicking? -Declan
Re: Supressed? speech by Sen. Robert Byrd -- Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
Peter: I think you're right. It's had some, spotty coverage: http://news.google.com/news?hl=enq=%22robert+byrd%22+war+iraq+floorbtnG=Search+News One reason why it may not have been picked up (speaking as a political journalist, albeit not one who writes about this area) is that it's not particularly novel: Some Democrats have been saying this for a while. Introducing a bill to rescind Bush's war power, calling for impeachment, endorsing Rep. Paul's legislation, etc. would have been far more newsworthy, and more than just talk. -Declan On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 04:04:49PM -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: This comes from another mailing list. I've confirmed that it's not been reported on by the NYT, the Washington Post, or the Boston Globe. Peter Trei -- From: Dave Farber[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:52 PM To: ip Subject:[IP] Speech by Sen. Robert Byrd -- Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences -- Forwarded Message From: Bruce R Koball [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:46:04 -0800 (PST) To: Dave Farber [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ip [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Speech by Sen. Robert Byrd Dave, On the chance you've not seen this, it's a truly remarkable speech by Sen. Robert Byrd made yesterday on the Senate floor. Remarkable both for its content and the way it seems to have been buried by the media... I mean, not even a squib in the NYT! http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0212-07.htm -- End of Forwarded Message Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences by US Senator Robert Byrd Senate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12, 2003 To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war. Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war. And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world. This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11. Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher. This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal. In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits
Re: Supressed? speech by Sen. Robert Byrd -- Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 05:50:46PM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 05:58:07PM -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: That's no joke. Remember what happened to the most outspoken member of the Senate, Paul Wellstone. Funny they never came up for any reason for that crash, eh? Tried to blame it on the weather, but then all those other pilots flying the same area at the same time said it couldn't be, and besides, his plane had two de-icing systems, not just one. Most outspoken? Wellstone voted for the Patriot Act. How about Feingold, who was the lone dissenter, and is still alive and kicking? Feingold is great, but Wellstone was more a PITA to both Klinton's and Dubbya's administrations. Yes, unfortunately he voted for the unpatriot act -- but who didn't, other than Feingold? OTOH, he even went to Columbia questioning the spraying and deepening involvment -- and even got sprayed there. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Supressed? speech by Sen. Robert Byrd -- Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Declan McCullagh wrote: Most outspoken? Wellstone voted for the Patriot Act. How about Feingold, who was the lone dissenter, and is still alive and kicking? That's because Feingold voted *for* Ashcroft in the Judiciary committee. He could have voted him down (along party lines) and we wouldn't be dealing with Ashcroft as AG. I think he may be reggretting a really *big* mistake. Or maybe he he's just laughing because he knows everything is going according to plan. Hard one to call. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Supressed? speech by Sen. Robert Byrd -- Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
On Sun, Feb 16, 2003 at 05:50:46PM -0500, Declan McCullagh wrote: On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 05:58:07PM -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: That's no joke. Remember what happened to the most outspoken member of the Senate, Paul Wellstone. Funny they never came up for any reason for that crash, eh? Tried to blame it on the weather, but then all those other pilots flying the same area at the same time said it couldn't be, and besides, his plane had two de-icing systems, not just one. Most outspoken? Wellstone voted for the Patriot Act. How about Feingold, who was the lone dissenter, and is still alive and kicking? Feingold is great, but Wellstone was more a PITA to both Klinton's and Dubbya's administrations. Yes, unfortunately he voted for the unpatriot act -- but who didn't, other than Feingold? OTOH, he even went to Columbia questioning the spraying and deepening involvment -- and even got sprayed there. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Supressed? speech by Sen. Robert Byrd -- Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 05:58:07PM -0600, Harmon Seaver wrote: That's no joke. Remember what happened to the most outspoken member of the Senate, Paul Wellstone. Funny they never came up for any reason for that crash, eh? Tried to blame it on the weather, but then all those other pilots flying the same area at the same time said it couldn't be, and besides, his plane had two de-icing systems, not just one. Most outspoken? Wellstone voted for the Patriot Act. How about Feingold, who was the lone dissenter, and is still alive and kicking? -Declan
Re: Supressed? speech by Sen. Robert Byrd -- Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
The statement is real, it may not have been from the floor tho: http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_newsroom/byrd_news_feb/news_2003_february/news_2003_february_9.html Thanks, I'll send this to Feingold and see if he'll try to get a vote or motion going to force the executive to justify it's actions. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Supressed? speech by Sen. Robert Byrd -- Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
On Friday, February 14, 2003, at 01:04 PM, Trei, Peter wrote: Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences by US Senator Robert Byrd Senate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12, 2003 To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war. Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing. But speaking out against the war is a violation of the Homeland Security Act, the PATRIOT Act, and is a violation of the sedition laws. (They got Debs put in prison for much less.) This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. Only if they're weak. The U.S. doctrine combines the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force with the Bush Doctrine of only looking at weak nations. Nations with large nuclear, er, nucular, forces we leave alone. (rest of speech elided) About Byrd's speech, he is protected by the same Bush doctrine. If a less powerful person made these charges, he'd face a talking to by the FBI. And after PATRIOT II passes with an overwhelming majority, but after no debate, he'd face having his DNA removed with extreme prejudice at the least, deportation as the middle option, or a life sentence for violations of the Reich Protektion Act as the most severe (assuming he wasn't simply disappeared). We live in fascist times. --Tim May
Re: Supressed? speech by Sen. Robert Byrd -- Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 03:29:57PM -0800, Tim May wrote: About Byrd's speech, he is protected by the same Bush doctrine. If a less powerful person made these charges, he'd face a talking to by the FBI. And after PATRIOT II passes with an overwhelming majority, but after no debate, he'd face having his DNA removed with extreme prejudice at the least, deportation as the middle option, or a life sentence for violations of the Reich Protektion Act as the most severe (assuming he wasn't simply disappeared). We live in fascist times. That's no joke. Remember what happened to the most outspoken member of the Senate, Paul Wellstone. Funny they never came up for any reason for that crash, eh? Tried to blame it on the weather, but then all those other pilots flying the same area at the same time said it couldn't be, and besides, his plane had two de-icing systems, not just one. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Supressed? speech by Sen. Robert Byrd -- Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, Tim May wrote: We live in fascist times. People are fascist, not the times. Read your own posts sometime. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, Plan 9 from Outer Space [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Re: Supressed? speech by Sen. Robert Byrd -- Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
The statement is real, it may not have been from the floor tho: http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_newsroom/byrd_news_feb/news_2003_february/news_2003_february_9.html Thanks, I'll send this to Feingold and see if he'll try to get a vote or motion going to force the executive to justify it's actions. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Supressed? speech by Sen. Robert Byrd -- Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 03:29:57PM -0800, Tim May wrote: About Byrd's speech, he is protected by the same Bush doctrine. If a less powerful person made these charges, he'd face a talking to by the FBI. And after PATRIOT II passes with an overwhelming majority, but after no debate, he'd face having his DNA removed with extreme prejudice at the least, deportation as the middle option, or a life sentence for violations of the Reich Protektion Act as the most severe (assuming he wasn't simply disappeared). We live in fascist times. That's no joke. Remember what happened to the most outspoken member of the Senate, Paul Wellstone. Funny they never came up for any reason for that crash, eh? Tried to blame it on the weather, but then all those other pilots flying the same area at the same time said it couldn't be, and besides, his plane had two de-icing systems, not just one. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
