Science Talk

Callistus Valerius · Guest

The President wants the Congress to fund the troops now. He will not
withdraw the troops. If Congress declines to fund the troops, they will
fight with what is at hand, even if it's sticks and stones. If the troops
must grow their own food, they will, so it's up to the Congress to decide
the conditions in which our troops will fight.

Tim Crowley · Guest

On Apr 3, 7:20 am, "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

radium ant farm · Guest

Tim Crowley wrote:

Joseph Welch · Guest

"Callistus Valerius" <jazzyboss@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uotQh.17809$PL.1281@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to
explain to us what the exit strategy is...I think it's also important for
the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved
and when they will be withdrawn."
-George W. Bush to the Houston Chronicle, April 9th, 1999

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r103:H06OC3-756:

URGING WITHDRAWAL OF AMERICAN TROOPS FROM SOMALIA (House of
Representatives - October 06, 1993)

[Page: H7516](Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to put in the Record the six points that
then-Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger said should be followed before
American men and women are committed in combat or near a combat area. That
speech was November 28, 1984. The words ring as valid as they did then.

I want to put into the Record the House Republican Policy Committee
statement that was drafted yesterday. It is excellent. Also, I want to
repeat my own words in this well 8 days ago when we were discussing that
weak Somalia resolution. Listen to my words in this well a week ago Tuesday:

`Here is something very sad, Mr. Speaker--Mr. Chairman. Two Pakistani men
are MIA. Can you imagine, if these were American boys, how upset Members of
this Chamber and the U.S. Senate should be? Missing in action. Does that
mean men in some dirty little garage off a Mogadishu alley are being
tortured to death, or does it mean they are already dead, and their bodies
have been dumped down a well, or are rotting behind some blown-up building
in Mogadishu?'

Four days later, that nightmare comes true. One of our American Black Hawk
helicopter men had a handcuff on one wrist. Nobody puts handcuffs on a dead
body. They were tortured to death. Now, get 5,000 men in there and get these
Americans back and then get out.

Mr. Speaker, specifically, I believe the six tests for committing combat
forces, as outlined by former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger in a
November 28, 1984 speech, must be our guide. Secretary Weinberger said that
the following tests should be used to determine whether or not U.S. troops
should be sent into combat:

First. Is the situation vital to U.S. or allied national interests?

Second. Have all other options already been considered or used?

Third. Is there a clear commitment, including allocated resources, to
achieving victory?

Fourth. Are there clearly defined political and military objectives?

Fifth. Will our commitment of forces change if our objectives change?

Sixth. Will the American people and Congress support the action?

Statement of Republican Policy on U.S. Armed Forces in Somalia, Adopted
April 1, 1993

U.S. military forces in Somalia have fulfilled the mission given them by
President Bush. Republicans therefore call on President Clinton to bring our
troops home.

The United States has a proud tradition of providing international
humanitarian assistance to those truly in need. Somalia is a case in point.
In the early 1980's, and again in the early 1990s, the American people and
the U.S. Government responded to famine in Somalia by bringing in massive
quantities of food and medical assistance.

In the last several months, as anarchy gripped that country and famine again
loomed on the horizon, President Bush sent U.S. Armed Forces to Somalia to
restore order and permit food to reach the people. He made a commitment to
withdraw our troops when the mission was completed and return the operation
to the U.N. This process was begun before he left office. The mission has
been accomplished, but our troops remain, and it appears President Clinton
has no intention of bringing them home. Instead, U.N. bureaucrats who want
to keep the United States in Somalia will decide their fate.

Republicans commend our Armed Forces for restoring order to Somalia and for
helping to alleviate human suffering in that country. However, we have
several deep concerns. Without appropriate congressional consultation,
President Clinton has committed thousands of U.S. military personnel to a
U.N. peacekeeping operation commanded by a foreign national for an
indefinite period of time. Our men and women in uniform will provide both
the fighting teeth and the logistical tail for this open-ended operation.

Republicans believe U.S. Armed Forces should always remain under U.S.
command. They should not be loaned to international organizations to conduct
operations with ambiguously defined objectives.

Furthermore, costs to the U.S. taxpayer continue to mount. In addition to
the $800 million in costs already incurred by the U.S., President Clinton
has just committed the taxpayers to another half billion dollars.

The United States is the world's only superpower, but this does not mean we
are omnipotent, nor that our obligations are universal. Republicans believe
that President Bush's commitment to pull our forces out of Somalia should be
fulfilled.

**********************************************************************

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:14:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::

PRESIDENT URGED TO WITHDRAW TROOPS FROM SOMALIA (House of Representatives -
October 06, 1993)

[Page: H7459](Mr. KIM asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KIM. Mr. Speaker, I urge President Clinton to withdraw American forces
from Somalia.

I could not be more outraged at the atrocities committed against American
troops. We went to Somalia to relieve suffering--to feed a starving people.
They needed our help,--and we gave it to them.

The original mission has been accomplished. Yet, American troops are still
there. I would like to know why and so would the people in my district.

How many more times must we witness the bodies of our own soldiers being
dragged through Somalia's streets and being the center of barbaric
celebrations and cheering? How many more American soldiers have to die
before the mission is defined.

The people in my district want answers, they want to know what the mission
is, and why this is such a pressing national security concern. And most of
all, they want to know when their sons and daughters are coming home.

Mr. Speaker, I urge President Clinton to answer these questions.

**********************************************************************

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:3:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::

INVESTIGATION REQUIRED IN ADMINISTRATION ROLE IN SOMALIA (House of
Representatives - October 06, 1993)

[Page: H7458](Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I attended a briefing yesterday on Somalia of House
and Senate Members led by Secretaries Aspin and Christopher, and I was
furious when I left. Never have I heard a more confused, disjointed, vague
defense of American foreign policy in my professional career.

Today we see the specter of the President and his team huddling at the White
House to determine what is our policy and what is our mission.

We accomplished our mission, to get relief to the people of Somalia. It is
now time to leave.

Now there are reports that our military leaders on the ground in Somalia
asked for tanks and APC's over a month ago. Secretary Aspin denied that
request. Those tanks would have saved that American ranger company on
Sunday.

Mr. Speaker, if these reports prove true, Secretary Aspin should tender his
resignation.

[Page: H7459]

**********************************************************************

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:21:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::

SOMALIA (House of Representatives - October 06, 1993)

[Page: H7459](Mr. MACHTLEY asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MACHTLEY. Mr. Speaker, Somalia is a unique opportunity for the Clinton
administration to express its U.S. foreign policy/military engagement rules
in a Third World conflict. We should not be isolationist. I supported our
role in Desert Storm. I supported the humanitarian mission in Somalia, but
that mission has been completed.

When we are going to put our troops on any foreign soil, we should, in fact,
follow three military principles.

First, we should have a clear mission statement, and we should have an end
point in which we will disengage our military. This has not happened in
Somalia, as yesterday's briefing by the Secretary proved.

Second, we should have an overwhelming military force to guarantee success
with minimum casualties. That has not happened in Somalia. In fact, we are
incrementally trying to increase our forces.

Third, we must have a force which is commanded by a U.S. military commander.
The United Nations force in Somalia in fact tried somehow to improve on what
had been a United States success story, having military commanders control
military forces. We must have that.

I believe that it was Claude Wist, a military theorist, who said, never
reinforce failure.

Today we need a disengagement plan that safely guarantees our troops out of
Somalia.

**********************************************************************

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:22:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::

MORE ON SOMALIA (House of Representatives - October 06, 1993)

[Page: H7459](Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

[Page: H7460]Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton's policy in Somalia
is certainly not the Bush policy in Somalia. The Bush administration went in
there for humanitarian purposes. The Clinton administration policy, as
closely as we can figure out, is for nation building.

Every one of us, the President, Members of Congress, must indeed be held
accountable for our actions. We have a duty to get out of Somalia and to get
out of there quickly, in my judgment. I spoke out against going in there in
the first place. I voted against going in there in the first place, because
we have no vital interest in Somalia.

Now what do we find? Our troops are in combat. I call upon the President to
invoke the War Powers Act. It is the law of the land.

If the President does not invoke the War Powers Act, I call upon the
Congress to see to it that we can take action. It is the law of the land,
and it is an impeachable offense for any President to violate the law.

Get out of Somalia now.

**********************************************************************

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:26:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
UNITED STATES TROOPS IN SOMALIA (House of Representatives - October 06,
1993)

[Page: H7460](Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, December 4, 1992, President Bush sent troops to
Somalia to secure food lines and feed the hungry and end the violence there.

In January, January 15, the warring factions of Somalia signed a pact to
disarm. In April, April 26, the United States Marines handed Somalia over to
the UN peacekeeping forces and declared, to some degree, mission
accomplished. The folks were fed.

Three times since then, President Clinton has escalated by sending more
American troops to Somalia. As recently as Monday, 200 soldiers from Fort
Stewart, GA, in my district that I represent, learned they would be going to
Somalia.

I can promise my colleagues that the soldiers from the 24th Infrantry will
do well. They are trained; they are capable. They have a great devotion to
duty. I hope that they kick Aideed's read end, and I hope they do it soon.
But aside from that, I am sure they are asking the same question my
colleagues and I are right now, as they look at the picture of Chief Warrant
Officer Durant in the paper and see his haggard and worried look.

They are saying, why are we there? How long will it last? What is at peril?

Mr. President, we owe the American people the answers to these questions.

**********************************************************************

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:28:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::

UNITED STATES INVOLVEMENT IN SOMALIA (House of Representatives - October 06,
1993)

[Page: H7460](Mr. LINDER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my extreme concern for what
I see as an escalation of United States involvement in Somalia. In the wake
of mounting United States casualties, President Clinton has called for an
increased military presence in Somalia without clearly defining the purpose
of continued United States involvement.

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the mission of the United States in Somalia has
evolved into something that was never intended when the peacekeeping force
arrived 10 months ago. Somewhere along the way, the Clinton administration
changed the intent of operations in Somalia from a humanitarian hunger
relief program to an offensive mission aimed at capturing or disabling
Somali warlords to establishing a government of our liking. Consequently,
American troops are constantly at risk and, most unfortunately, some have
indeed made the ultimate sacrifice.

It is inconceivable to me how we can continue military operations in a
foreign country without a specific goal, without clear cut rules of
engagement, and without plans for eventually ceasing operations.

Mr. Speaker, the original goals have been met. Those who have served have
served nobly. But, now it is time to get American military personnel out of
Somalia.

[Page: H7461]

**********************************************************************

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:32:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
BRING OUR TROOPS HOME (House of Representatives - October 06, 1993)

[Page: H7461](Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything the gentleman
just said. Twenty-three young Americans have been killed, 70 wounded, 8 are
missing. We have talked about this since April, bring our troops home,
before any of them were killed. Nothing has been done.

Yesterday, we had a meeting with Secretary of Defense Aspin and Secretary of
State Warren Christopher. All I can tell the Members is that there were
about 350 Members of the House and Senate that were there. I believe
everybody in that meeting felt like we were watching jello being made. They
had no plan. They had no coherent policy.

They were asking Members of Congress what we thought they should do. Imagine
that, the executive branch of Government in a situation like that, asking
330 Members of Congress in a meeting like that what they should do.

The fact of the matter is, young men and women of this country should not be
put in harm's way when we have no coherent policy. As the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dornan] just said, send massive forces in, get our troops
out of there, the ones that are being held captive, level part of that
country, and bring our troops home.

**********************************************************************

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:42:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::

SOMALIA: WHY ARE WE STILL THERE? (House of Representatives - October 06,
1993)

[Page: H7454](Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, day after day the Clinton administration tries to
convince the American people that troop withdrawal from Somalia is close at
hand. However, events of the last few days indicate something different.
American soldiers are fighting and dying under U.N. command on a unclear and
ill-defined mission.

During his campaign, Mr. Clinton assured the public that he would be
decisive on foreign affairs decisions that could possibly lead to United
States military involvement in situations such as Somalia.

The current White House policy has waffled, though, on the important issues,
and we have no idea where it is leading us, on such important issues as
withdrawal, and when, on the commitment of new troops, how many, building
nations or not building nations. Again, much like the other campaign
promises, the reality has not corresponded with the rhetoric.

Our mission in Somalia was very clear; we were there on a humanitarian aid
mission.

Mr. Speaker, the famine has been conquered, why are we still there? Mr.
Speaker, I ask the President to be decisive and bring our troops home safely
and immediately.

**********************************************************************

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:44:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
ANOTHER VIETNAM? (House of Representatives - October 06, 1993)

[Page: H7454](Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, according to the Washington Post today, the
attack on American troops in Somalia reminds many experts of Vietnam. It's
an apt comparison.

In fact, the American Ranger company caught in the Somali crossfire suffered
70 percent casualties, a figure that officers compared to the Ia Drang
Valley battle in Vietnam.

There is another similarity. We have no clearly defined plan of action in
Somalia. American troops are simply targets for discontented Somalis.

President Clinton wants to send more troops to Somalia, but I have to ask
this question: If we do not have a plan, why do we want to send more troops
to this faraway country?

What national interest is served by having Americans boys killed in Somalia?

Mr. Speaker, the President is old enough to know how the Nation reacted to
the Vietnam war. He should know that, without a clearly defined mission, the
American people do not want to put our soldiers in danger's way. I urge the
President to develop a plan to get our troops out of Somalia, and to do it
now.

**********************************************************************

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:48:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
CLINTON DOCTRINE IN SOMALIA MUDDLED AT BEST (House of Representatives -
October 06, 1993)

[Page: H7455](Ms. PRYCE of Ohio asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton's laser beam on the
economy has blown a hole in our Nation's foreign policy. The Clinton
doctrine in Somalia is muddled at best.

Our mission has expanded, but our force has contracted. As we downsize our
military, the administration embroils us in more conflict. Our military is
now expected to chase down a Somali warlord, build a nation, and establish a
brand new democracy in that strife-torn land, when what we intended to do
initially was no more than feed the starving. Well, the feeding stations
have been closed since August and our troops are still there.

In April, Republicans passed a resolution recommending the immediate
withdraw of our troops from this operation. Instead, the President chose to
stay, with no clearly defined mission.

We must urge the President to exhibit leadership, to come up with a plan to
get our troops out of Somalia. If we had acted timely, these American
families would not be grieving for their loved ones today.

**********************************************************************

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:52:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
WE HAVE ACHIEVED OUR GOALS--BRING THE TROOPS HOME (House of
Representatives - October 06, 1993)

[Page: H7455](Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)

Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, American lives are being lost in Somalia
because of indecision and a lack of United States policy.

The President needs to decide and decide today to bring U.S. troops back.

Our men and women there have achieved the goals of the humanitarian aid.
They met the mission set out by then President Bush with the full
consultation of then President-elect Clinton.

Do not let them languish now, engaged in a mission of nation building in a
nation which does not seem to want a central government.

Suppose Aideed is removed. In that vacuum, another warlord would only take
his place.

What is the achievable goal? Right now it should be to get out of Somalia
with all our soldiers, including the ones that have been taken prisoners,
without further American lives lost for the lack of a clear policy.

Out fighting men and women should not be the victims of an administration
whose foreign policy is watch and wait.

[Page: H7456]

**********************************************************************

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:53:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
OUT NATIONAL PRIDE IS AT STAKE IN SOMALIA AND WE NEED ANSWERS (House of
Representatives - October 06, 1993)

[Page: H7456](Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, our policy in Somalia is indeed troubling and
confusing to Members of Congress and to the American people. There is a
growing gap between what the United Nations wants to do and what the United
States wants to do between our military objectives and our political
objectives. We have much at stake here in our national pride and in our
foreign policy.

When Madeleine Albright, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, says
that the United Nations, quote, wants political reconciliation of that
long-suffering country, in part through the establishment of basic civic
institutions such as a functioning judiciary and police, unquote, that is
not why we sent troops over there.

However, Mr. Speaker, President Clinton is asking the right questions. In
his speech to the United Nations he said we must answer these questions:

Is there a real threat to international peace?

Does the proposed mission have clear objectives?

Can an end point be identified?

How much will this cost?

The Congress and the American people need these answers.

**********************************************************************

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:54:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::
INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW (House of Representatives - October 06, 1993)

[Page: H7456](Mr. ROTH asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)

Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, yesterday this Congress was stunned, and so were the
American people, to find that the administration did not have the vaguest
idea of what to do in Somalia. The briefing yesterday was, in one word,
`appalling.' This is the administration who, without any congressional
approval, put 300 American soldiers into Macedonia, next to that bloodbath
in Bosnia. The American people have the right to know with our troops in
Macedonia: First, what is their mission; second, is there a good chance for
success; third, when will we disengage; and fourth, does this mission have
the support of the American people?

To quote a liberal tabloid, Mr. Speaker, `Inquiring minds want to know.' If
the administration cannot answer these questions satisfactorily and now,
then let us remove our troops from Macedonia today, before they suffer
casualties, and then we are told by the administration we cannot extricate
ourselves without losing prestige. This is serious business.

Mr. Speaker, before the body bags start coming home from that part of the
world, we want to know what the adventurists in this administration are up
to.

**********************************************************************

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r103:90:./temp/~r103lrdHmA::

WHITE HOUSE MUST GET ITS ACT TOGETHER ON SOMALIA (House of Representatives -
October 06, 1993)

[Page: H7458](Mr. GRAMS asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GRAMS. Mr. Speaker, it is time to start pulling our troops out of
Somalia, and start putting some sense back into the White House.

After listening to Secretary's Christopher and Aspin yesterday, it is clear
the administration has no real goal or no real plan, for our continued
presence in Somalia.

Well, it is not worth having American soldiers give their lives just to save
face, for the Clinton administration.

We were right in getting into Somalia for humanitarian reasons, but that
mission has been accomplished, and it is now time to get out.

Mr. Speaker, if the Clinton administration cannot figure out what to do in
Somalia--it terrifies me to think of how they would handle a real
crisis--such as a possible bloody civil war in Russia.

Never before in history has there been a full scale civil war in the midst
of nuclear power.

If that ever happened in Russia, this Nation would face the most critical
foreign policy challenge in human history.

From what I have seen from the Clinton administration's handling of Somalia,
I have real fears about their readiness to handle such a crisis.

It is time to get out of Somalia. It is also time for the White House to get
its act together. Produce a plan that should have been detailed months ago.

The world today is too dangerous, and the stakes are too high.

--
____________________

George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by undermining American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
_____________________

JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html
The New Face of the Republican Party
http://tinyurl.com/y2j2yr

radium ant farm · Guest

Joseph Welch wrote:
<1110260196.ecf49628a3a54dda7831ad143a6abbbe@meganetnews2>

Guest

On Apr 3, 10:20 am, "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyb...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Republican Loser · Guest

radium ant farm wrote:

radium ant farm · Guest

kyldltn@yahoo.com wrote:

radium ant farm · Guest

Republican Loser wrote:

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_byrddroppings

Words of wisdom from the
King of Pork
Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.)
Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee

"They call me 'The Pork King,' they don't know how much I enjoy it." -
Sen. Robert Byrd

After he secured $97 million in fiscal 1999, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.
Va.) became the first person in CAGW's Congressional Pig Book history
(since 1991) to help obtain more than $1 billion in pork for his state.
In honor of this fiscal incontinence, we dedicate this page to Senator Byrd.

New! Sen. Byrd Pork Tally

Porker of the Month Porker of the Year
June 2006 2002
May 2003
July 2002
February 2001

Projects Named For Senator Byrd

Sen. Byrd has set a new standard for taxpayer-funded narcissism by
convincing the West Virginia Legislature to erect a statue of himself in
the state Capitol. The statue's completion violates state law
prohibiting statues of government officials until they have been dead
for half a century.

Byrd's statue is currently housed in the Capitol Rotunda, as shown in
the picture, and it is said if you stand under the statue the senator's
hand points directly at your pockets.

Sen. Byrd sometimes claims that he is in favor of fiscal restraint.
However, the senator currently has more than 30 public works named after
him - seriously undermining his pleas for budget responsibility.

The projects include a Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam (pictured above),
Byrd Aerospace Tech. Center, Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope
(pictured left), Byrd Industrial Park, and various other projects
proving how he really sees government coffers.

Other Byrd Projects

Robert C. Byrd Drive, from Beckley to Sophia (Byrd's hometown)
Robert C. Byrd National Technology Transfer Center at Wheeling Jesuit
University
Robert C. Byrd Highway
Robert C. Byrd Federal Correctional Institution
Robert C. Byrd High School
Robert C. Byrd Freeway
Robert C. Byrd Center for Hospitality and Tourism
Robert C. Byrd Science Center

Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center of West Virginia
Robert C. Byrd Cancer Research Center
Robert C. Byrd Technology Center at Alderson-Broaddus College

Robert C. Byrd Hardwood Technologies Center, near Princeton
Robert C. Byrd Bridge between Huntington and Chesapeake, Ohio
Robert C. Byrd addition to the lodge at Oglebay Park, Wheeling
Robert C. Byrd Community Center, Pine Grove
Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarships
Robert C. Byrd Expressway, U.S. 52 near Weirton
Robert C. Byrd Institute in Charleston
Robert C. Byrd Institute for Advanced Flexible Manufacturing
Robert C. Byrd Visitor Center at Harpers Ferry National Historic Park
Robert C. Byrd Federal Courthouse
Robert C. Byrd Academic and Technology Center
Robert C. Byrd United Technical Center
Robert C. Byrd Federal Building (there are two)
Robert C. Byrd Hilltop Office Complex
Robert C. Byrd Library and Robert C. Byrd Learning Resource Center
Robert C. Byrd Rural Health Center
Robert C. Byrd Clinical Addition to the veteran's hospital in Huntington

Robert C. Byrd Industrial Park, Hardy County

Robert C. Byrd Scholastic Recognition Award

Robert C. Byrd Community Center in the naval station, Sugar Grove
Robert C. Byrd Clinic at the West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine
Robert C. Byrd Biotechnology Science Center at Marshall University

"L'etat, c'est Moi": Words from the King

"Having the title [of Appropriations chairman] is fine, but not having
the money is sobering."

Prior to the vote on President Bush's tax cut in 2001, Byrd made one
last attempt to blackmail his fellow senators with pork from the well of
the Senate: "Let me say to my colleagues, if you vote for this budget
conference report, don't come to the appropriations watering hole. It is
not that I would not love to help you, but you are going to make it
impossible." He also sent his colleagues a letter reiterating his threats.

"One man's pork is another man's job. Pork has been good investment in
West Virginia. You can look around and see what I've done." Remarks made
March 15, 2001 during Senate floor debate.

"West Virginia has always had four friends," Byrd said, "God Almighty,
Sears Roebuck, Carter's Liver Pills, and Robert C. Byrd."

"It is often overlooked that as chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, I was instrumental in assisting all of the states in the
union with mass transit, highways, waterways, sewerage, education '' he
said. "I worked to serve the national interests. Of course West
Virginia, as one of the 50 states, benefited, but few states have needed
more help."

"When I was a member of the West Virginia House of Delegates 51 years
ago, West Virginia had four miles of divided highway,'' he said. "Four
miles.'' Today the state has about 37,000 miles of highway.

Given CAGW's long history of chronicling and criticizing Byrd's prolific
spending, CAGW was not surprised when he contemptuously referred to the
group as "a bunch of peckerwoods" on National Public Radio in the summer
of 2001. Remember, this is the same man who said "you might as well slap
my wife as take away my highway money." That must be especially true
regarding the Robert C. Byrd Highway.

In an interview with George magazine, December/January 2001, about loan
guarantees for steel companies, Sen. Byrd claimed that "he has no
apologies to make" to the American people for the more than $1 billion
in taxpayer money he has wasted. And said, "Run me over, that's all
right, but tell the good speaker that I'm not dropping anything."

Slo · Guest

On Apr 3, 7:20 am, "Callistus Valerius" <jazzyb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Slo · Guest

On Apr 3, 9:55 am, radium ant farm <s...@water.glass> wrote:

radium ant farm · Guest

Slo wrote:

Tim Crowley · Guest

On Apr 3, 9:32 am, radium ant farm <s...@water.glass> wrote:

Tim Crowley · Guest

On Apr 3, 9:39 am, radium ant farm <s...@water.glass> wrote:

radium ant farm · Guest

Tim Crowley wrote: