A very good speech TIA, very good indeed.

But from the text of his speech there are a number of things that Senator Byrd (Sniff) must have been aware of:

On the contemplation of war, he says, "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."

Could that have anything whatsoever to do with the fact that it was the Joint House Security Committee (i.e. House of Representaives and the Senate) that had identified the threat that Iraq posed? - Matter of record. That this threat had been previously identified almost five years less four days before in a speech made by President Bill Clinton.

He goes on:

"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."

Absolutely, this is the war on terror and those who would propagate it. It is a turning point, it is a definitive moment in the history of mankind. It is a moment when a leader said enough is enough, those shadowy organisations and the nations who back them will not dictate through terror the path of mankind. We shall enter this struggle with the full intent to see it through irrespective of the cost, because we believe that we stand for the values of our forefathers and that all of mankind should share in that freedom, if they so chose, but by Christ at least give the people that choice.

"This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine...... -.......The doctrine of pre-emption"

I would like to point out to Senator (Sniff) Byrd, that the doctrine of pre-emption has been a reality since the first successful Soviet Atomic test.

"...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."

Senator (Sniff) Byrd does not state how he, or, more correctly those responsible for the safety and security of the United States of America, knows when part 1 of his statement becomes part 2.

"It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter." - Not really. It is up to the government of each country in the world to assess what threatens it, and under the terms of the Charter of the United nations each country is allowed to act in self-defence if it believes that it is threatened without recourse to any other authority. If you don't believe me read the Charter.

"High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq." - This should have come as no great surprise to Senator (Sniff) Byrd. Since when has anybody gone into a potential conflict and assured their opponent what punches they are going to throw? Besides Iraq armed with Chemical & Biological Weapons must have realised that standard NATO doctrine was that such a threat would be answered by the use of Tactical Nuclear weapons. If not, their major trading partners, the Russians would have acquainted them of that fact - that and that alone prevented the use of Chemical and Biological weapons during Desert Storm.

"Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur." - In other words they are being advised to be vigilant - True? But somehow Senator (Sniff) Byrd sees this as threatening?

"Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed." - Alarmist claptrap based upon absolutely nothing at all. The question I would have asked of Senator (Sniff) Byrd would have been, prove it.

"This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal." - Pure politics, nothing more. I would like to hear Senator (Sniff) Byrd's take on the inaction during the final two years of President Bill Clinton's Presidency with regard to a threat that the security services of the United States of America and his own Administration identified - probably least said the better, Eh?

I could go through the speech in detail - Absolutely no point. All I can say is thank Christ that this man (Senator 'Sniff' Byrd) was not President, and was not responsible for the safety and security of the United States of America.

This man had he been in charge would have stood silent and acquiescent guardian to:

- The UN's abandonment of sanctions against Iraq (possibly in 2002/2003)

- The renewal and acceleration of Iraq's WMD programmes including nuclear (No way Saddam would have stood back and let Iran pip Iraq to the post on that score - True?)

- Increased support for international terrorism from Iraq in the light of Hamas's victory in the Palestinian elections

Depending on exactly when Saddam would have attacked Iran, you peace loving appeasing shower could possibly have been looking at a nuclear war sometime within the coming four to five years. Well done Sniff.