"STOP THE KILLING NOW"

sort it out afterward

Byrd has his past mistakes to answer for, but I believe that his speeches on Iraq will be seen as a lone and brave example of personal courage and responsibility for generations to come...

Wonderful speech, but something is missing...

Senator Byrd said, "Mr. Bush raises constitutional concerns in his latest veto threat. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I suppose one could be encouraged that constitutional concerns exist in the Bush kingdom. After setting aside the Constitution whenever convenient to justify pre-emptive attacks, illegal searches, secret wiretapping, clandestine military tribunals, treaty violations, kidnapping, torture, and a rejection of habeas corpus, one has to wonder about the nature of these purported "constitutional concerns." If the Constitution is finally to be read, let us read it in its entirety, including the articles which give the people's Representatives the power over the purse, and the power to declare war."

SENATOR BYRD PERHAPS NEEDS A FRIENDLY REMINDER: THE CONSTITUTION ALSO GIVES "THE PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVES" THE POWERS OF IMPEACHMENT!!

Senator Byrd's clear sight on the Iraq Occupation and the damage this administration is doing to the Constitution ought to be shared by all presidential candidates. This is, as we all know, not the case: the Romneys of the world want more, not fewer, Guantanamo Bay torture camps, while Clinton and Obama are as radical as their focus groups will let them be. Obama wants to increase spending on the military; half a trillion dollars a year only buys so much. The Iraq misadventure, premised on lies and planned by ideologues who disregarded anything they didn't want to hear, could never have gone well, but, as we see on the news everyday, the situation can be made worse. I suspect that until American citizens demand the demilitarization of the nation that not much will actually change. America will continue to find wars of choice without honor where the blood and treasure of the nation will be spent to line corporate pockets. Isn't it time to take back America from the war profiteers, the fascists, and religious lunatics?

I would have thought that Senator Byrd, master of parliamentary procedure, would understand that the war can be ended by Senate INACTION. Mr. Bush had an appropriations bill, and he vetoed it. That's it. Now, let the money run out. Don't send him another bill funding the war in Iraq-Nam. He had his chance. If the pro-war faction is worried about "supporting the troops," let them figure a way to fight without money or bring them home with what little is left.

Not good enough. He still fails to charge Bush and his cronies with crimes and impeachable offenses and in my view he thereby fails in his duty. But so do they all. A sad commentary... one wonders what it would take for members of Congress to remember who they are and where they came from. It is unconscionable that men like Bush or Cheney are still allowed to occupy positons of responsibility and make executive decisions. We have all failed.

There is only one issue: http://www.gpln.com/oneissue.htm

"They should not now be asked to serve as targets in a religious conflict between Sunni and Shiites that has raged for thousands of years."

This is colonial talk. This is exactly what the Bush Administration wants us to believe. The the Iraqi people have been supposedly fighting for thousands of years, therefore their uncivilized and barbaric nature needs to be tamed by the humanitarian and civilized US military, hence bestowing peace and democracy upon the Middle East. We should be extra vigilant of these so called "antiwar" Democrats who claim they want to end the war, but constantly offer the Bush Administration concessions, sides with the Right wing on the war, repeatedly funding the war, opposing cutting off funds, opposing impeachment, etc. Does it ring a bell with anyone that the Democrats are only changing their ways because theyre getting lots of feedback from their base, which is the antiwar majority??? They acknowledge the fact that the people put them in power for a specific reason, and that was to change what the Bush Administration is doing. So far theyve proved that they are on the same page with Bush on voting for a redeployment of US troops in Iraq, while keeping other troops in Iraq for "counter-terrorism" purposes, upping the Iraq Army, etc. This goes against what the majority of Iraqi people want. And it also reflects the wholehearted dedication the Democrats share with the Republicans on employing the US imperial project by extend military, economic, and polical hegenomy in the Middle East while ensuring an uninhibited flow of profit for the US ruling class.

And I wouldnt be so quick as to clamor for Robert Bryd's spontaneous endeavor to end the war. We all know his record.

Whatever Sen. Byrd's record, he seems to be the only senator who speaks the truth about this criminal occupation, and he has done so since the beginning. Most of these office holders are quacks, frauds, or imbeciles. At least Byrd understands the extent of the corruption and criminality in the present administration, and says it out loud.

I salute Senator Byrd. He is a true American hero for all that hge has done to oppose the criminal disaster in Iraq.

BUT:

Bush is going to hold fast to his original unstated purpose. He will insist on the oil gaveaway to the international oil giants. He will insist on maintenance of permanent military bases to protect the assets of those companies (plus intimidate and threaten other countries in the region). And he will staff the obscene "embassy" to be the permanent imperial outpost intended to dominate the entire middle east.

You can put him down all you want but remember he is the only one that did and has spoken out. I do not agree with him most of the time but on this issue he has been anti Bush/Iraq and about the only one to speak out about it.

Better late then never like the rest of them.

The man has more than "answered" for his past "mistakes." And what's with the "better late than never?" He voted against the "war," and has been screaming bloody hell since the day Crazy Moron stole office. But, see, he's old and his hands shake so HE IS TO BE IGNORED. Been fighting for us all along.

unless the masses of us mobilize and storm the white house and halls of congress, we are left with the present members of this government (unless enough of them decide to impeach). and lacking that appropriate but unlikely event, we can bitch and moan on these sites til the cows come home, or we can continue to put as much pressure as is possible to move the agenda in a bit more sane direction. in this context, it makes no sense to complain about one of the more "friendly" crew members of this sinking ship. while byrd is on the front lines, with few effective allies, we're in our own little pleasant comfort zones, writing diatribes that are certain to make the choir sing "halleluia." what are the chances that some of this brilliance can make its way to people who can make a difference? yes, many in positions of power fall woefully short of "our" standards - what else is new? transmute some of that natural rebellion against a horrific state of affairs to build, or rebuild, a positive movement for peace in this country. and do it knowing that it won't be easy or quick. in fact, it's entirely possible that we may be doing this the rest of our lives. get used to it.

Yes, the President wants to stay in Iraq. Why? To keep the largest Embassy in the World intact? To keep the constructed airbases running? To make sure the oil will flow to the American companies who will surely continue to make record profits at our expense? And what about the members of Congress who are supporting this slaughter? Can't they be held accountable? This ongoing disregard for the majority of the Americans who are or will be footing the bill, for the citizens of other countries who are dumbfounded at the administration intransigence, for the Iraqis who suffer because of the chaos brought on by this debacle, must END. Do you remember how the world condemneded Germany for the unspeakable events that transpired there? There were probably many Germans like us who opposed the policies. They seemed powerless to take any action to oust the powers who wanted war. Are we as powerless as they were? How will we ever justify our inaction?
Who is this war benefiting? Remember the words "Follow the money." I can tell you it's not benefiting the majority of Americans who are paying outrageous prices for gas! It's not benefiting our dead and wounded (nor the Iraqi dead and wounded and whose cities and towns and villages have been destroyed by us). If the money for this debacle had been put into subsidizing gas or finding alternative energy sources or education, we would all be far better off in every way (except for the guys who are supporting this ongoing war, occupation, debacle, whatever you want to call it.

I remember, during your last presidential election, hearing John Kerry get raked over the coals and vilified for saying that Iraq would end up costing your country 250billion.

But regarding his comments about a civil war between Sunni and Shiites:
What would happen in L.A. or New York if the police went home? People would divide up in groups based on commonalitites, by neighbourhood, church association, labour union, any organization that existed would be used to organize people to maintain law and order.

hmmmm.
it's hard to know who to believe these days...the ex-klansman or the dues paying skull-and-bones member. could byrd's statements about iraq be sincere? sure. did he "more than atone for his past"? hell if i know (how do you measure a thing like atonement anyway?). and what about bush? could he really have believed in the ideal of an autonomous iraq delivered to the doorstep of democracy as a fundamentally noble goal? delivered during his presidential tenure, no less? perhaps, i suppose. i think the man is just about naive and poorly read enough to believe and embrace that notion. at any rate, if we're apparently willing to be credulous about the ex-klansman's sincerity, why not the "devout" christian's? some of the previous post's sure seem eager to exonerate Byrd...i assume this is the case because he's "speaking their language" (i.e., anti war in iraq). p.s., anyone want to guess as to whether the good senator was ever present at any lynchings? maybe we should consider this before we give him a pass in so facile a manner. just a thought.
what's interesting to me is that IF (and i say if with all appropriate skepticism), IF Bush actually had in his mind an independent, democratic and free iraq in mind--even if it's primary strategic purpose was as a US ally) then his is perhaps the most progressive and radical vision since ...i don't know, MLK. iraq is certainly bloody now, but it certainly has been bloody before, WELL before, our invasion, thanks to its exalted leader. (Yeah i know we propped him up in the 80's and all, but i'm certain that sans our support he STILL wouldn't have been a nice guy to the Kurds and marsh Arabs--remember them?)
bush got one thing right, it may be the ONLY thing he got right in his whole 8 year tenure: we need to be on the offensive. everything beyond that, in my opinion, he got horribly, horribly wrong. our soldiers and innocent iraqi civilans are now paying the price for his mistakes.

To soma4society:
As a native West Virginian I feel compelled to respond.
First-Sen. Byrd's Klan membership was 60 odd years ago and he has apologized many times-and more importantly not shown in the years since any racist attitudes. Also-at that time the Klan was nearly a mainstream group with millions of members.
Senator Byrd is currently doing the "right thing"-while in declining health-what more do you want? Yes-I'll believe-and thank-the reformed klansman compared to unreformed sadist and warmonger currently in the White House.

OK - All together now (tune of It's Off to Work We Go)

It's all about the OIL,
It's all about the OIL,
It's all about the OIL you see,
and the big OIL company.

Needs a little work, but hey -

leighton, you're right. It's all about the OIL. We hear that word OIL so seldom from the Congress or the papers or the TV pundits it's easy to forget that's really why we're in Iraq. I note that Sen. Byrd didn't even mention the word. Did it become a no-no word not to be used in public when I wasn't looking?

I also note that on the CommonDreams home page there's a piece about Halliburton and KBR moving their headquarters to Dubai and Saudi Arabia. There they can escape US taxes. Isn't that nice? These guys are obviously smarter than the rest of us.

As feeble as old Senator Byrd is, he still has a better mind than Bush or any of his war-profiteer buddies in the White House, State Department, Justice and the Pentagon.

Our country is in SERIOUS danger thanks to those currently in power...

Most of the world has turned against us, thinking that ALL Americans must be power-mad egomaniacs that want to run everything everywhere.

People around the world have watched America turn it's back on countless treaties, aid that has been promised to other countries, and the advice of our most faithful allies.

We have had sufficient laws on the books for protecting and enforcing our borders, but this administration has refused to enforce the immigration laws and infringements on our borders... until the point where we have AT LEAST 20 million illegal invaders inside our country sucking our resources dry.

The worst part is that we have seen since the last election that the old guard Democrats like Reid, Feinstein and Kennedy are as corrupt and greedy as the Republicans in Congress.

It high time that we all campaign against ALL INCUMBENTS! If the Republicans and Democrats won't give us decent candidates, vote Libertarian or the Green Party... ANYTHING BUT more of the same!

This war won't end until all the people pour out into the streets demanding an end to this debacle. And, we must call equally loudly for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. People protested in the 60's because there was a draft and the Vietnam War directly effected the lives of everyone, rich and poor. Most people who don't have sons or daughters, brothers or sisters, wives or husbands in the line of fire are too comfortable (or too fearful) to be actively engaged in the effort to end the war. We sit at our computers and spout anti-war rhetoric at each other; we write to our government representatives; we cast our votes for progressive candidates ... all good, but not enough.

Before the invasion, I marched with thousands of others in San Francisco in opposition to the impending attack on Iraq, just as I had marched in the streets against the Vietnamese War. After the horrific "shock and awe", it became unpatriotic to speak out. The marching stopped. We (I) have allowed the Bush administration to dismantle our rights as citizens. We (I) have allowed them to murder thousands upon thousands of people. We (I) have allowed them to torture prisoners. The list goes on and on. But, still, we do not march. We don't put ourselves on the line. We let Codepink and the other courageous activists do the work for us. Until the the citizens of this country care enough to rise in unity against the actions of our government, there will not be change. Tomorrow, at noon, I will stand with the "women in black" in the plaza in my little town. When there are hundreds of us instead of a couple of dozen, I will know the marching has begun.

Memorial Day is the appropriate day for us to register our huge discontent. A day of mourning for past and present victims of wars, invasions, brought on by men who care more for plunder and pillage than for people.

Byrd was one of the very few in government who spoke out strongly and clearly against the invasion of Iraq.

Hillary Clinton and most of the other Dems went along with the Bush-Cheney-neocon plan.

cosmos, you may feel alone in your small town protest, but unknown generally, because not reported by papers or TV, is the fact that there are lots of weekly one-hour protests going on all over the country. In Oregon there are about 8 in the Portland area I know about. When there are enough of them, people become accustomed to seeing them on the street. We get WAY more waves and peace signs, even from inside police cars, than negative comments. A group has been on the courthouse steps in Corvallis Oregon every day since the war started. I think these small visible groups helps in that, from psych 101, people are influenced by what they think the majority believes. The more we are seen, the more come to our side, which has happened. Since the 60's the gov't wised up and made it hard to have big demonstrations by requiring expensive permits that pay for insurance and police. As long as you don't obstruct the sidewalk you can do these small one hour protests free. Every group that chooses a day and an hour and starts demonstrating weekly, grows and grows. On the internet southern Cal is organized and you can see how many mini-(ie free)- protests take place down there weekly. But most areas are not organized on the net. Portland area has only recently gotten in touch with the other groups via internet. Everybody, do this in your state. It develops a list we can use. It may seem too weak and law-abiding, but these groups do help, and draw more of the public in. Eventually we will have to take to the streets in large numbers, with or without the expensive permits. These small groups help get people ready for that.

"sadist" and "warmonger". wow.
i mean, his policies turn my stomach too (i opposed and marched against the war in iraq as did millions) but isn't this a bit hyperbolic? only if one intentionally tries to AVOID reading history can a person come to the conclusion that Bush--by comparison with others such as Ghengis Khan, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.--these terms apply to this man. by definition a sadist or warmonger must actually enjoy the act of killing and inflicting harm on other human beings. do rational people honestly believe bush revels in the daily iraqi bloodshed and loss of life? somehow i doubt it. we are in different moral universes altogether when you compare Bush to some of history's worst personalities.

second point: the goal of my first post was less to impugn Sen. Byrd per se than it was to encourage a little more even-handedness when it comes to skepticism concerning our public officials. i simply found some of the lead-in comments on the earlier posts interesting (i.e., yeah, Byrd was in the klan and all but he's "more than atoned for his past").

furthermore, to suggest as a response to my criticism that "lots of folks were klan members back then" is a morally bankrupt argument. if the klan and its attitudes had truly been "mainstream" in the late 40s as you incorrectly suggest (the height of the klan's membership was actually around the early 20s and it dropped precipitously after that time-period), then MOST americans would have been out terrorizing blacks along with the kkk in the late 40s. but they weren't.

it's my view that generally speaking, most people know the difference between right and wrong (barring the influence of religious fundamentalism or psychosis)--it's usually more a question of whether or not they're willing to act on this awareness in some concrete way. i'm hoping that's why millions marched against the war in iraq: we didn't need the benefit of 50 years hindsight to know the arguments in favor of the war were specious and that it was, therefore, wrong.

as a post-script, let's recall that Byrd also filibustered the civil rights act for 14 hours in the 60s. to clarify: i point this out not to suggest the man is still--or even was at that time--a diehard racist, but only to complicate your assertion about his attitudes since the late 40s a little.

nice sparring with you!
c

Glad you responded.Would not want this site to be comprised solely of people with exactly identical opinions.
Regarding the klan. I think it was the 30's when they held their largest march in DC-and I believe Byrd left the group in the 30's also.But those are minor quibbles on my part.
The reason I refer to shrub as a sadist[in addition to his constant smirking]-believe it was a conservative [Tucker Carlson] who reported that at a function shrub mocked the pleas of the female convict for commutation of her death sentence,Yes-she had committed an horrific crime but she had done very well all the years she was in prison. Regardless-it's the shrub's reaction to another human's appeals for life that led me to that opinion.
As to warmonger-not waiting a few weeks to allow the weapons inspectors to confirm their work-he seems to fit that bill too. All the half truths and outright lies used to justify the invasion add to his crimes. Does he always enjoy the carnage he has caused? perhaps he just doesn't care.
Regarding Byrd's filibustering in the 60's-thanks for that correction-had forgotten.
On a tangent-Byrd drew a lot of flack over the last 20 years or so for having the temerity to use his seniority to bring several projects to WVa-including one to my birthplace of Wheeling.Doubtless that's why I jump to his defense. Hope it's understandable to all when one examines the historical neglect of that entire region [including unsafe mines to this day]some knee-jerk reactions are hard to avoid.
Thanks for your rebuttal.

In support of Harrisburgentel and in ode to the sentiments of Dr. Zimmerman Robert above I take the audacious course of reprinting a comment originally submitted to the discussion regarding Ralph Nadar's most recent posting at Common Dreams: for as Jean Houston has montrad "These Are The Times, and We Are The People."

The problem with the anti-war movement is that it is not a peace movement - this is the moment for a peace movement. The road to peace obviously does not mean passivity - with any positive step in that direction as important and beneficial as any other - and that means every click of the mouse and every meditation required to produce every single blog - nothing is wasted effort, it is all accumulating to create the argument for impeachment of not only the members of the Bush/Cheney administration, but the behavior of war as a part of daily industrial commerce.

With the spewing of activated depleted uranium as a by product - the extremist male model has reached it's final point of obsurdity and life cost inefficiency.

Mr. Nadar's piece is nothing less than it should be: a provocation for action!

Submitted below is the Detroit City Council's Resolution for Impeachment of Bush/Cheney. Copy it or search Articles of Impeachment and create your own. Then, best in person with a reading, deliver to your neighbors and state congressional contincency, especially to your own district.

Then link to the National Lawyers Guild's nation wide town hall action and help carry the first step to peace through (best yet do this as an action in support of what is your local area Department of Peace, and in support of a national citizen's Department of Peace, with or with out passage of HR 808.

City of Detroit Resolution to Impeach
President George W. Bush and
Vice President Richard B. Cheney

WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired with others to defraud the United
States of America by intentionally misleading Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq
in order to justify a war in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush has admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct
electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United
States Code, Section 1805; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in
violation of the "Federal Torture Act" Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture
Convention and the Geneva Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of the
"supreme Law of the Land"; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney acted to strip American citizens of their
constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention without access to legal counsel, without charge
and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based
solely on the discretionary designation by the President of a U.S. citizen as an "enemy combatant",
all in subversion of law; and

WHEREAS, In all of this George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have acted in a manner contrary
to their trust as President and Vice President, subversive of constitutional government to the great
prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the City of
Detroit and of the United States of America; and

WHEREAS, Petitions from the country at large may be presented by the Speaker of the House
according to Clause 3 of House Rule XII;
Be it resolved that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrant impeachment
and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or
profit under the United States;

Be it resolved further by the City of Detroit, that our senators and representatives in the United
States Congress be, and they are hereby, requested to cause to be instituted in the Congress of the
United States proper proceedings for the investigation of the activities of the George W. Bush and
Richard B. Cheney, to the end that they may be impeached and removed from such office.

Be it resolved further, that the Clerk of the City of Detroit be, and is hereby, instructed to certify to the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, under the seal of the City of Detroit, a copy of this
resolution and its adoption by the City of Detroit, as a petition, and request that this petition be
delivered to the Office of the Clerk and entered in the United States Congressional Journal. The
copies shall be marked with the word "Petition" at the top of the document and contain the original
authorizing signature of the City Clerk, Janice M. Winfrey

soma4society I think you are giving Bush credit for having moral's and ethic's that do not exist in him. I have saw nothing to indicate he cares about any of the people dying, if he did he would bring a halt to the slaughter. He cares about his image first and what he wants. In fact, I don't think he cares if he destroys this country. Because he is well on his way to doing that. The Islamic Fundamentalist's only have to set and wait for Bush to do their dirty work for them!

Senator Robert Byrd is about the only U.S. Senator that I know of who is awake and uncorrupted. He has spoken out with perfect eloquence, countless times against the invasion & occupation of Iraq. Such a man would make a really great president. We're lucky to have him in the senate. Without him, our government would be a much bigger nightmare for lovers of truth, justice and democracy than it is now.

http://kucinich.us/

Soma4: Bush has been called the UNFEELING president for many reasons. Gonzales is a flack that has lent cover to torture. As governor of Texas, he presided over more executions than almost any other state (Florida, another Bush state being a contender!) and seems to ENJOY the POWER to kill, maim, and torture. There is neither heart nor soul in the man, he is a dark progeny and worse still for hiding behind Jesus whose teachings were and are everything he is not. He is a dark dangerous fraud, if he has a god, it is Mars, god of war and that is the entity to which his deviant policies pay homage. He and the bloodless coup that seized office are a stain on the nation's history, and will be the cause for a kick ass dose of karmic blowback. THAT is not far off...