OT--Senator Byrd Speech

[albionmoonlight]

The part in this with which I agree most is his point that the Senate is saying almost nothing. I know we all think differently about what should be done, but it was not until I read this that it struck me how silent Congress has been.



Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech - Wednesday, February 12, 2003

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences.
On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

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.

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.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption -- the idea 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. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to
damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.
Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal. In that scant two years, this
Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our
elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for
homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our
long and porous borders.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders,and which will have consequences for years to come.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful
European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great
nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global
war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored
allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating
attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the panet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

[Anrhydeddu]

It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter.

If the UN and international governing bodies had enforced their own laws and resolutions, then we wouldn't be in this mess with Iraq.

[Senator]

The doctrine of preemption -

This is the only thing that sends shivers down my spine. I want needledick out of Iraq, but I am more concerned with the big picture. Preemption changes everything. This is a total departure from our long standing policy. Not saying it is right or wrong, I am just saying this is an enormous moment, long term for the USA.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Senator
Not saying it is right or wrong, I am just saying this is an enormous moment, long term for the USA.

It's a step in the right direction IMO. We've already seen what the lack of it has wrought.

But be careful not to limit this as a U.S. only decision, there's no shortage of capable allies who agree.

[Senator]

Allies come and go. The decision we make as a country can only be thought of in context of we alone.

[Hammer755]

Originally posted by Senator
Allies come and go. The decision we make as a country can only be thought of in context of we alone.

Excellent point Senator (I expect nothing less.)

If, and this is a really big if, but if Saddam lays waste to the Middle East with WMD next month, what will the history books of 2050 say? Will it say that the US listened to the reasonable countries of France & Germany, or will America bear the brunt of the historical blame, saying that the US left a madman in power that could have prevented WWIII?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Hammer755
If, and this is a really big if, but if Saddam lays waste to the Middle East with WMD next month, what will the history books of 2050 say? Will it say that the US listened to the reasonable countries of France & Germany, or will America bear the brunt of the historical blame, saying that the US left a madman in power that could have prevented WWIII?

You already know the answer to that one I'm afraid. The U.S. will be blamed no matter what the outcome. Even if the outcome is 100% positive, somewhere someone is already composing a lie that will replace the truth.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Senator
Allies come and go. The decision we make as a country can only be thought of in context of we alone.

I think we're thinking of two different usage of "context", unless I'm misreading you.

You refer to the context of how we will eventually judge the policy change. That the U.S. will judge the decision on the impact it has on the U.S. On that, I agree (with the caveat that I agree with what I believe you're saying).

I referenced the allies in the context of the circumstances that surround our present decision.

Crap, I'm fighting a cold & not explaining the distinction I'm seeing as well as I'd like. I hope you can fight through that muddle to understand what I'm trying to say, and give me a pass (at least temporary) if it doesn't make one whit of sense. I'm doin' the best I can today

Jon

[Fritz]

as the king of American pork politics, it is hard to take Byrd seriously. He would be behind any policy that got federal funding/projects located in his state.

[Senator]

Yes, I understand you. We were on two different schools of thought. The present vs. the future. It is clear now what you meant.

I truly believe that we are in a no win situation here. The window of opportunity has passed for that. We have to decide if the UN means anything to us. We have to decide if we will take the unprecedented step of preemption. There are so many things that CHANGE everything America has believed in since we began as a country. It is a huge step, one that other Presidents never dared to take. This is why this is important. Because we can be attacked by rogue elements of the world, who are obtaining the ability to do large scale damage to us, do we strike first? And do we do so independant of the UN? These are the questions that are in play, and will have long ranging implications long after the Iraq situation is completed. It is an amazing moment in history, if your a policy wonk like me.

[Anrhydeddu]

Which makes his crack about the deficit totally ludicrous. The best way to reduce the deficit is to reduce spending, which Byrd is completely against.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by Senator
It is an amazing moment in history, if your a policy wonk like me.

Well, I'm not sure I quite qualify for the latter, but I'll happily agree with beginning of your comment there

Thanks for fighting through the muddled post, I think I'm coming up on a date with some cold medicine & the inside of my eyelids for a while.

[Blackadar]

You can criticize Byrd, but in this case, he's right.

Damned good speech.

Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

Never were truer words spoken.

[kcchief19]

There is nothing I could add to Byrd's speech that would improve upon the points he made.

[Fritz]

http://www.bsnn.net/who%20sucks/Byrd.htm

What Would Lincoln Say of Robert Byrd


By Nathan Porter
BSNN.net



While Tom Daschle received all the headlines for his rhetorical hemorrhage on the Senate floor this week, it was Robert Byrd who, as usual, filled me with a combination of outrage, hatred, and hilarity. Watching the old cock peck and cluck around the Senate has become a bizarre hobby of mine. More often than not he embarrasses himself through his demented outbursts, and there is no one in politics more worthy of eternal embarrassment than Robert Byrd.

“I am disgusted by the tenor of the war debate that has seemingly overtaken this Capital City,” Byrd said stamping his feet across the Senate floor. “The debate has taken an ugly turn, forcing many to question the motivations of this Administration's efforts to place America's sons and daughters in harm's way.”

“Is the President determined to make the great party Abraham Lincoln the war party?” he continued. “What would Abraham Lincoln say if he were here?”

Good question, Senator. I suspect Lincoln might say your degeneracy appears to be pretty rapid. Or he might say that we should have faith that right makes might. He might say a house divided against itself cannot stand. That this government cannot endure permanently divided half-right and half-wrong.

Senator Byrd droned on: “It is despicable that any President would attempt to use the serious matter of impending war as a tool in a campaign year. The blood of our sons and daughters—our soldiers, sailors, and airmen—have far more value than a few votes in a ballot box. There is nothing more sobering than the decision to go to war, but the Administration has turned the decision into a bumper-sticker election theme.”

“I have been in this Congress for fifty years,” Byrd continued, “and I have never seen a President or Vice President stoop this low.”

Oh really? LBJ fabricated events to get the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, Nixon used the White House as his personal crime syndicate, and the atrocities of Clinton and Gore are simply too numerous to mention. But Bush speaking the truth is as low as it gets.

What is despicable and low is that this son of the KKK would invoke the name of Lincoln and discuss the value of our soldier’s blood to use his war against war as a campaign tool. And one can only assume that the valuable blood of which Byrd speaks is only that of Caucasian soldiers. For it was Senator Byrd who declared he would never fight in the armed services with a “Negro” by his side. “Rather I should die a thousand times,” he once wrote, “and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

What would Lincoln say, Senator Byrd? Would he say, “Whenever I hear anyone arguing for racial discrimination I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally”?

Think about this for a minute. Byrd would rather see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again. He would rather the United States cease to exist than suffer the personal indignity of fighting along side a person of color. Perhaps that is Senator Byrd’s real problem with the Bush Administration’s position on Iraq. Its national security team has been degraded by “race mongrels” like Colin Powell and Condi Rice, and “white niggers” like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, and in the demented, racist mind of Robert Byrd it’s time for this nation to be trampled in the dirt never to rise again. What better way to accomplish this than to sit idly by as rogue nations and terror networks acquire weapons of mass destruction.

What would Lincoln say? Would he say it’s better to leave nothing for tomorrow which can be done today? Would he say if all do not join now to save the good old ship America this voyage, no one will have a chance to pilot her on another voyage?

Senator Byrd ended his desk-thumping rant by making the anti-war argument du jour: “For the first time in the history of the Republic, the nation is considering a preemptive strike against a sovereign state… America fights wars, but America does not begin wars.”

This is a very popular argument, but like so many things uttered by politicians, it simply is not true. One can begin by examining the suspect rationale for the Mexican-American War. And what were Korea and Vietnam if not pre-emptive strikes? I don’t recall the US being attacked by either country, yet we spilled the blood of American soldiers, black and white alike, attempting to preempt Soviet domination of the entire planet. Was Senator Byrd opposed to that? It’s hard to know because in those days he was too busy filibustering the 1964 Civil Rights Act and opposing the nomination of Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court. What would Lincoln say?

[oykib]

Whether or not the speaker is a demented, pork-haording racist has no bearing on the validity of his words.

Either he's right this time, or he's not. It has nothing to do with whether he was right yesterday or will be right tomorrow.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by oykib
Whether or not the speaker is a demented, pork-haording racist has no bearing on the validity of his words.

Either he's right this time, or he's not. It has nothing to do with whether he was right yesterday or will be right tomorrow.

It makes all the difference in the world if Sen. Byrd is just rambling on another partisan diatribe.

"The doctrine of preemption -- the idea 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."

This is nothing new, but Byrd would paint the picture that premption is a creation of the younger Bush.

"Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. "

What does this have to do with war? Is the Senator linking the two issues? Should he be? How much of a budget loss has your local fire department seen as a result of Administration policies?

"This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal"

Here begins the political blather. I wonder if his record would be better if the president had asked for more funding for Corrior H and other pork?

"I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". "

And he closes with an irrelevant appeal to the heartstrings.

---

If you want to hear truth in Sen. Byrd's speech, you will hear it. This is nothing new, people always believe what they want to. But what you will be ignoring is that this speech is not saying anything substantive.

[Blackadar]

Fritz, I guess that depends on whether you're a Bush backer or not.