posted on February 14, 2003 12:03:30 PM new
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 planet. 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.
posted on February 14, 2003 12:17:41 PM new
It is certainly anti-Republican, but the folks at the Democratic Leadership Conference would argue that it should not be the Democratic position.
posted on February 14, 2003 01:12:29 PM new"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"
posted on February 14, 2003 01:32:28 PM new
The republicans are absolutely drooling at this anti-war position of the Dems in Congress and Presidential hopefuls.
It cost the Dems the mid-term elections. It will cost the Dems the next presidential election. It will allow our federal courts to be heavily stacked with conservatives.
It takes half a brain to allow despots like Hussein to have WMDs and blindly oppose going after him.
Without the support of the DLC, a Democrat can not get elected President.
posted on February 14, 2003 02:02:57 PM new
The Washington Times concern for the Democratic Party is truly heartwarming. Lol.
Beside it was the real republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, who worked with Murrow, who finally shut down McCarthyism before the nation was irreparably harmed.
posted on February 14, 2003 02:04:29 PM new
It's a done deal and we'll see how people feel in hind sight.
Bush wants so bad to be remembered well by history and I have my doubts he will achieve it.
I suspect all this would not be a problem if he were only sure of his daddy's love.
posted on February 14, 2003 02:12:50 PM new
The sad thing is that the Dem presidential hopeful Howard Dean had some very good positions on domestic issues. He would have a somewhat uphill battle coming from a small state (Vermont). But he will not even have a chance with an anti-war position.
Anyone candidate who appears to be weak on defence or against getting the despotic trouble makers around the world will not get elected and also stand to lose their seat.
People are far more fed up with Hussein, bin Laden, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and anyone else that wants a piece of us than they are with Bush and the Republicans.
We could see a republican majority including the presidency for as long as Roosevelt ushered in the Dem majority.
Only three things that could change the Republican land slides: Dems gets to the right of the repubs on defending our nation as Kennedy did in the 1960 election; or something goes horribly wrong in our prosecution of the war; or the war ends quickly and the economy is still in the dumps- a repeat of Bush Sr's loss.
posted on February 14, 2003 02:54:29 PM new
Well, I wouldn't call voicing disagreement with the ruling party anti American. It's not like we live in, say, Iraq, where such disagreement would be punished severely.
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on February 14, 2003 03:01:43 PM new
LindaK: I might point out that Jesus was out of step with the Jewish leadership also.
By the time the election rolls around Dubya will have buried any chance he has to win. They said the same about his daddy and a nobody from Arkansas whipped him.
Also it might do Dubya and followers some good to read the Constitution of the United States. They give good lip service to it while at the same time they are urinating all over it.
posted on February 14, 2003 03:39:16 PM new
The WSJ doesn't know what it's talking about with Oregon politics. The make-up of Oregon is very, very simple. You have Portland-metro, which is Liberal and has one-half of the population in Oregon. You then have the rest of the state, which is extremely ultra-conservative and is the other 50 percent. While we may not elect Republican governors or vote for Republican Presidential hopefuls, we do pack'm into the state legislature! The Republicans made sure that the last governor would have to leave because every fix-it measure THAT DID NOT RAISE TAXES that he tried, they shot down. Why? It was to leave Democrats with no other choice but to have to raise taxes to run the state. That's so the republicans can parade around talking about how Democrats like to raise taxes and bigger government, while at the same time, Republicans raise taxes as well, but they also borrow, AND they make government BIGGER than Democrats do!
Therefore, I doubt the WSJ's opinion on anything that it doesn't have a clue about. I doubt that their assessment of the Democratic Party is relevant in the least. The Democratic Party lacks both leadership and direction; they have lost focus and touch with their constituency (by contrast, the Republican's constituency that they keep in touch with is the Rich). They have lost their roots and so, have lost their way. They are a dismal failure and they should be voted out of power along with the rabid republicans.
posted on February 14, 2003 06:08:37 PM new
I am in no way comparing Jesus to the Democratic Party. The Democrats and the Republicans have both given Bush and cronies too much leash and allowed this thing to get out of hand. They are all guilty by their inaction.
"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."
What I am pointing out is you don't have to walk in lockstep or goosestep with Bush and Co. to be right. You can actually think for yourself which seems to be very lacking these days.
posted on February 14, 2003 07:09:59 PM new
Senator Byrd's speech is in the finest tradition of American debate. The "you're either with us or you're against us" attitude of the president is something altogether different.
posted on February 14, 2003 08:37:17 PM new
The democrats lack the votes to do anything. They barely have enough votes to even slow the republicans down.
In any event, you're not going to get a democrat elected that is against whacking some despots and changing some of these dangerous regimes.
The mid-terms were a message. Even the Israeli hardliner Sharon won the election.
People all over the world are sick and tired of terrorists and terrorists regimes. The people are not going to elect pansies that will not pro-actively protect their people. Even Schroder of Germany is in political trouble.
The US and its allies are going to light some of them up and watch the rest crawl away back under their rocks. Notice how silent old crazy Qadaffi of Libya has been since we sent a few bombs down his chimney ?
