What the hell is Sen. Byrd talking about (live on C-Span 2)?

Sitting on the porch with his wife and dog, enjoying the Spring? Is he losing it or something? :wtf:

Anyone else watching?

Maybe he has a point in mind? Maybe he is just really tired of winter and is calling in the spring?

Are the votes over for the night? Is this a period of morning business where anyone can talk about anything?

Curious... a treatise on Easter eggs??? and Easter candy???

I caught Chafee and Snowe when they voted, but who are the two other ones?

who voted against it.

Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
DeWine (R-OH)
Jeffords (I-VT)
McCain (R-AZ)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)

The Budget Bill has passed 51-49.

Voinovich (R-OH)
DeWine (R-OH)

Easter eggs are a springtime delight!

So it might be in the 50s or 60s in West Virginia, which would make it a nice spring day. Byrd is also a politician and will always go for a photo on his poach with his wife a dog, better than leaving those reporters inside his house.

like, "Huh??"

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Be nice.

I'm not calling him a moron or incompetent; I was just like, "Where did that come from?"

I think this is just jibber jabber time.

Now Santorum is doing it.

as a student of History he delivers these wonderful transitional speeches periodically.

and eggs and front porches.

Rather listen to his wisdom than the Repugs who spew out nothing but hate and could care less about the real world outside their little circle of misfits.

You Go! Senator Byrd. We don't have many around with your charm, perspective and love of the simple joys in life. :toast:

The budget is voted. They are going in recess for one week.

or practicing for filibuster. He had a good speech on filibustering this month.

it was long but I listened to him on cspan and he was good. I don't think he has lost anything he may be a little wordy but has an excellent command of the language.

http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_speeches/byrd_speeches_2005_january/byrd_speeches_2005_january.html

snip
"I am particularly dismayed by accusations I have read that Senate Democrats, by insisting on having an opportunity to debate the nomination of Dr. Rice, have somehow been engaged in nothing more substantial than "petty politics" or partisan delaying tactics.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The Senate's role of advice and consent to presidential nominations is not a ceremonial exercise.


 I have stood on this Senate floor more times than I can count to defend the prerogatives of this institution and the separate but equal – with emphasis on the word "equal" – powers of the three branches of government.  A unique power of the Legislative Branch is the Senate's role in providing advice and consent on the matter of nominations.  That power is not vested in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or any other committee; nor does it repose in a handful of Senate leaders. It is not a function of pomp and circumstance, and it was never intended by the Framers to be used to burnish the image of a President on inauguration day. "



snip
"We can all agree that the President, any President, has the inherent duty and power to repel an attack on the United States.  But where in the Constitution can the President claim the right to strike at another nation before it has even threatened our country, as Dr. Rice asserted in that speech?  To put it plainly, Dr. Rice has asserted that the President holds far more of the war power than the Constitution grants him.


This doctrine of attacking countries before a threat has "fully materialized" was put into motion as soon as the National Security Strategy was released.  Beginning in September 2002, Dr. Rice also took a position on the front lines of the Administration's effort to hype the danger of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.


Dr. Rice is responsible for some of the most overblown rhetoric that the Administration used to scare the American people into believing that there was an imminent threat from Iraq.  On September 8, 2002, Dr. Rice conjured visions of American cities being consumed by mushroom clouds. On an appearance on CNN, she warned: "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."


Dr. Rice also claimed that she had conclusive evidence about Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons program. During that same interview, she also said: "We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there have been shipments going into… Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes… that are really only suited for nuclear weapons programs."


We now know that Iraq's nuclear program was a fiction. Charles Duelfer, the chief arms inspector of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, reported on September 30, 2004: "Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."


But Dr. Rice's statements in 2002 were not only wrong, they also did not accurately reflect the intelligence reports of the time.  Declassified portions of the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate from October 2002 make it clear that there were disagreements among our intelligence analysts about the state of Iraq's nuclear program.  But Dr. Rice seriously misrepresented their disputes when she categorically stated, "We do know that is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon."


And yet that is exactly what Senators were being pressured to do last week – to acquiesce mutely to the nomination of one of the most important members of the President's Cabinet without the merest hiccup of debate or the smallest inconvenience of a roll call vote.

The juxtaposition with the surrounding Senatorial events was so striking. He has a wonderfully wry dramatic sense.