Posted on 02/27/2002 12:11:31 PM PST by kattracks
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the famous former Ku Klux Klansman, complained today, "There's no end in sight in our mission in Afghanistan."
The remarks "were among the harshest in Congress yet about the anti-terrorism campaign," the Associated Press noted today.
Long ago saddled with the nickname Sen. Pork for his notoriously wasteful squandering of taxpayer dollars, Byrd controls spending legislation as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Though he loves bringing boondoggle make-work projects home to West Virginia, he has begun expressing reluctance to foot the bill for ending terrorism.
Today Byrd indulged in one of his favorite pastimes, harassing and hectoring a member of the Bush administration. "Instead of concentrating on completing our operations in Afghanistan, the Pentagon seems to be looking for opportunities to stay longer and expand our presence in the region," Byrd lectured Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.
"We seem to be good at developing entrance strategies but not on developing exit strategies."
Wolfowitz said the Pentagon had no clear view of how long U.S. troops should remain in Afghanistan or how much the operation might eventually cost. That's because "things change, and they change rapidly," Wolfowitz said.
"Everything has gone in ways that are unpredictable," he said.
The spendthrift Byrd said he didn't want to give the Pentagon or Afghanistan a blank check. "When will we know when we've achieved victory and it's time to leave Afghanistan?" he grumbled.
"I can't tell you when we have won," Wolfowitz replied. "That's something, unfortunately, we only know when the terrorists have stopped."
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Bush Administration
War on Terrorism
Then again this is going to be an ongoing issue as long as the Executive branch is allowed to wage war without explicit congressional approval such as a declaration of war. Damn pesky constitution.
Clinton? Is that you?
Answer me this, on whom are we supposed to declare war?
I thought so too, then I realized its Jimmy Carter. He talks about human rights and then sucks up to dictators.
Tell Byrd if he would have used his position to impeach and convict Clinton the U.S. would not be in this mess. Jeez, what a hyprocrtic whiner. Also, I might add his KKK white robes bear a striking resemblance to those diapers and robes that Osama Bin Laden wears.
Excellent question. And I mean that. The fact is there is no appropriate entity on which to declare war. The constitutional remedy for this problem is for the President and Congress to work together in order to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal
Ron Paul introduced two bills which would have provided for the constitutional remedy. One added a definition of air piracy to the antiquated piracy on the high seas (very appropriate) and the other would have been the congressional authorization for the President and State department to issue letters of Marque.
They never made it out of committee. This Congress and President (as well as the previous many) are rarely if ever as concerned as you are about such relevant issues as you have so correctly identified.
May be a racist? May be a racist? He is a racist! So is his dog Billah!
May be a racist? May be a racist? He is a racist! So is his dog Billah!
So, what did Congress mean, then, when they authorized the President to take all necessary means instead of declaring a state of war?
The fact is there is no appropriate entity on which to declare war.
Why not Afghanistan? We may not accept the Taliban as the government, but the reality is that they were the government in control. And, they had named Bin Laden as the commander-in-chief of their military.
-PJ
I understand that completely. This question was "when will we pull out of Afghanistan?" and the answer is "when all terrorism everywhere is ended." Surely you aren't so stupid that you think that the U.S. will be successful in ending terrorism forever all across the globe. Not even God claims that is possible. All of his prophets have in fact predicted the opposite.
Because they did not commit these acts.
Okay, let's just fold up our tents, leave Afghanistan and go home -- Nope, that will just lead to instability and the return of the Taliban and al Qaeda.
Sorry, two choices -- Bush could have applied the Clinton approach and killed a few Camels and destroyed a few empty tents like Clinton ... but look where that led to ... further terorism on our soil on an unprecedented level.
The alternative was to remove al Qaeda with or without force. Seems the Taliban decided that it was to be with force.
Of course, by your logic maybe we should have simply ignored Pearl Harbor and certainly never occupied Japan after the war. Ever notice that we are still there ... as we are in Germany?
I don't either. I also don't recall mentioning that Byrd is not a hypocrite. He is. Even Hypocrites can address issues correctly. In this case, the racist hypocrite Byrd is in fact hitting the nail on the head.
Because they did not commit these acts.
Are you saying that the Taliban had no part in either the attacks ... or supporting those who did attack the WTC? If so, then you're not very smart!
"That instrument [the Constitution] has only provided affirmatively, that, 'The Congress shall have power to declare War;' the plain meaning of which is that, it is the peculiar and exclusive province of Congress, when the nation is at peace, to change that state into a state of war; whether from calculations of policy or from provocations or injuries received: in other words, it belongs to Congress only, to go to War. But when a foreign nation declares, or openly and avowedly makes war upon the United States, they are then by the very fact, already at war, and any declaration on the part of Congress is nugatory: it is at least unnecessary. This inference is clear in principle, and has the sanction of established practice. It is clear in principle, because it is self-evident, that a declaration by one nation against another, produce[s] at once a complete state of war between both; and that no declaration on the other side can at all vary their relative situation: and in practice it is well known, that nothing is more common, than when war is declared by one party, to prosecute mutual hostilities, without a declaration by the other."
--Alexander Hamilton
FYI -- the congress has approved Bush's campaign against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. This doesn't require a formal declaration of war by congress under the Constitution -- merely the more practical aspect that the Congress adequately finance the effort.
I am absolutely saying that and this Amdinistration has not presented any contrary evidence to the opposite effect.
Wow! What a great point.
Imagine if we followed the rantings of the DU/Bartcop anti-Bush crowd and do nothing until Sen Byrd and Hillary Clinton approves -- all the while waiting for more attacks!
These people are scarey as they'd rather see Americans dead if it meant the political demise of Bush. Forget the old common sense bit about defending yourself, let's hold terrorism summit with our Eurobuddies -- maybe ask for input from Somalia, Russia and China to see if they all approve of our ideas about defending ourselves without a strongly worded protest issued from the U.N. first and international trials in Berne.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
I am absolutely saying that and this Amdinistration has not presented any contrary evidence to the opposite effect.
First, you democrat phoney -- I asked you a question that you purposefully altered. This makes you a piss-poor liar. My question was: "Are you saying that the Taliban had no part in either the attacks ... or supporting those who did attack the WTC?"
Clearly you removed the second half of my compound question. I purposefully held this lure in front of you and like the dishonest person you are you bit -- you changed the question to make a phoney rhetorical point.
You sir, are a fraud -- a dishonest fraud too stupid to realize that not everyone will fall for your deceptions.
Now, let me rephrase my question in a way you are less likely to distort.
Are you saying that the Taliban had no part in supporting those who attacked the WTC?
try to answer without being a deceptive phoney this time
I was answering the whole question. I hope that helps.
Be careful before this Bozo changes the question to:
"So, are you claiming that the Taliban did not ... harbor ... the ... Jews[?]"
This guy is just too phoney and like so many Dems thinks that those on the other side of the aisle can't see through is infantile attempts to deceive.
How do we know when they've stopped? How do we define "terrorists" and under what circumstances could it ever be officially declared "stopped"?
So far, the definition of terrorists has been along the lines of "it could be anyone, of any age, size, shape, color, religion or political persuasion in or outside of your immediate vicinity, friendly or malevolent, suspicious or bland, domestic or foreign, and using weapons ranging from nail clippers to biologicals to backpack nukes to internet hacking". Anyone associated with such suspicious characters must also be treated as supporters, sympathizers or conspirators of terrorism.
Even if we completely forget about trying to define a terrorist (failing which we must simply administer a presumption of guilt against the whole population of and every visitor to the U.S.), how do we define when terrorism has stopped? Would another "Tim McVeigh" or a "Harris and Klebold", or an unknown Anthrax mailer constitute a continued terrorism? How about another kid flying a single engine cessna into a several story office "tower". Or how about no terrorist acts at all? How many have we had since 911?
Finally, perhaps the "War on Terrorism" is already over and we just don't know it yet. After all, the USA PATRIOT ACT is here; Homeland Security is here; probable cause is out the window, along with due process, habeus corpus, presumption of innocence, the right to counsel, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to keep and bear arms; internet privacy, bank privacy, etc. etc. If all that hasn't got the Government feeling safe from their "enemies", what must they yet do in order to "keep us safe"[ly in our pens, eating our mush].
He assumes Americans are devils and Muslims are angels.
He's either French or Jimmy Carter.
I was answering the whole question. I hope that helps.
Again, you are a liar. If you answered the whole question, why did you misrepresent the question I posed?
Further, there is a ton of evidence that the Taliban harboured and supported al Qaeda. In fact, you may have missed all those al Qaeda training bases in Afghanistan and the the hundreds of newsreports where the Taliban refused to hand over bin Laden and his al Qaeda cronies -- but I doubt it.
You are a liar -- caught in the act.
I didn't. We both know what your question was in full. It was not necessary for me to copy the whole thing in order to answer the question. I answered it and I have indicated (now for the third time) that there was no intent to alter the question. It would be quite idiotic for me to do so since anyone could go up the post list and see for themselves what you asked. If I hadn't copied any portion of the text would you now be whining that I didn't answer your question at all? LOL.
After exhaustive research, consisting of going to his profile page and looking at his e-mail address, I've figured out that Demidog is...Robert Fisk!
Does that explain everything, or what?
Even if I accepted this explaination, which I do not given the context of the question, you are still literally lying. The Taliban may not have bombed the WTC, but they provided facilities to al Qaeda that enabled the Taliban to train the terrorist and plan the operation.
And as to "whining" -- sorry, but I never knew that it was somehow "whining" to uncover lies and deception.
That would explain everything. The British apologist for all thing left and deceptive. Me thinks that the Pakistanis hit him in the head a few too many times! One might think that a man of Fisk's advantages and background might have developed a streak of integrety by his age, but he continually proves the contrary.
No I'm not. I've explained even why I consider my answer to the entire question you posed as appropriate. The mere residence of bin Laden in Afghanistan is not an indication that he was supported by Afghanistan or the Taliban.
I'm afraid you must not know what the definition of lying is given your use of the word. A lie is a deliberate falsehood. When I say I answered your entire question that should clear the matter up. It means that I had no intention of only answering a portion of your question.
If you insist on calling me a liar rather than telling me why you disagree with this assesment then you obviously have no rational rebuttal and instead wish to call me names in a hysterical fashion.
That's the mark of somebody who doesn't have a decent argument.
First, you didn't answer the question in full or if you did, you lied through your teeth. There is a mountain of evidence to prove that the Taliban harboured/supported al Qaeda. To deny that there were no al Qaeda bases in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, or that the Taliban provided support for those thugs is absurd.
So if you answered the question in full, then you are still a liar. LOL
Trot it out then. Let's see it.
No, I did not make an Ad hominem attack.
An ad hominem attack would be where I atttacked your credibility based on who you are. For example, if I said you were not to be trusted because you were a Democrat, then THAT would be an ad hominem attack.
Instead, I attacked your credibility based on your ACTIONS. I caught you in a lie, therefore, I called you a liar based on your actions. Perfectly appropriate.
Sir -- lying is the resort of a dishonest mind. Lying so badly is the resort of a feeble and dishonest mind.
Sure, but if I do prove that the Taliban harboured al Qaeda, will you promise to leave this forum forever and never post again?
No you didn't. You have no rebuttal to my answer and cannot back up your claims and thus are simply calling me names (liar for instance) in order to shirk your responsibility. That responsibility being backing up your claims. You can't do it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.