Great speech from Robert Byrd

MikeLastort2 · Feb 16, 2003

Delivered to the Senate floor on 2-12-2003.

Senate Remarks: Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences

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.
Click to expand...

Motterman · Feb 16, 2003

Yay! Let's all follow the racist Democrat "Strom Thurmond"... Lalalalalaaa!!!!

MikeLastort2 · Feb 16, 2003

Originally posted by Motterman
Yay! Let's all follow the racist Democrat "Strom Thurmond"... Lalalalalaaa!!!!
Click to expand...

Great response.

DoctorJones24 · Feb 16, 2003

Thanks, Mike. That is pretty powerful.
I think he perhaps overstates slightly in blaming Bush for a few things: finding Osama was never going to be easy, and I'm not sure anyone would have by now; also, I'm not aware of Bush "delaying" funding for Homeland Security.

The rest, however, is pretty eloquent and chilling and represent a very needed voice.

BenReilly · Feb 16, 2003

I've always admired Robert Byrd. Nice speach, but the comment about "military attack on a nation which is over 50% children" was ridiculous. We're supposed to not attack any Arab countries because they have absurd birthrates?

As a practical matter, I see no reason for Democrats to question the war. It's a fait accompli and unless things go badly, dissent accomplishes nothing. What I do want to see is more attacks on Bush's domestic policies, which are arguably the worst of any 20th century President.

MikeLastort2 · Feb 16, 2003

Originally posted by BenReilly
I've always admired Robert Byrd. Nice speach, but the comment about "military attack on a nation which is over 50% children" was ridiculous. We're supposed to not attack any Arab countries because they have absurd birthrates?

As a practical matter, I see no reason for Democrats to question the war. It's a fait accompli and unless things go badly, dissent accomplishes nothing. What I do want to see is more attacks on Bush's domestic policies, which are arguably the worst of any 20th century President.
Click to expand...

War is by no means a fait accompli yet. This war can be averted. Speaking out against Bush's foreign policy disasters on the floor of the Senate and/or House BEFORE he war starts can hopefully drill some sense into his thick skull.

BenReilly · Feb 16, 2003

Originally posted by MikeLastort2
War is by no means a fait accompli yet. This war can be averted. Speaking out against Bush's foreign policy disasters on the floor of the Senate and/or House BEFORE he war starts can hopefully drill some sense into his thick skull.
Click to expand...

More likely it will just reinforce the view that Democrats are pussies. This is not a winning issue.

This is the kind of speech that Byrd should make, but I sure as hell don't want Daschle or Kerry making it.

superdave · Feb 16, 2003

Originally posted by Motterman
ad hominem attack
Click to expand...

Once again, the hawks are incapable of engaging any pro-peace arguments.

Hey Motterman...obviously this war is a bad idea, and all the argument I need is that Bush used to be a cokehead.

And he was a cokehead hella more recently than Byrd was a Klansman.

DoctorJones24 · Feb 16, 2003

Originally posted by BenReilly
As a practical matter, I see no reason for Democrats to question the war. It's a fait accompli and unless things go badly, dissent accomplishes nothing.
Click to expand...

Ben,
I'm sorry, but this kind of thinking about politics is unbelievable in its open disregard for the principles upon which this country was founded. Honestly, if you really really believe this, what the hell is all the bother about democracy and free speech for? Haven't we already lost?

Mike Lane · Feb 16, 2003

Thanks, Mike, great speech.

Mel Brennan · Feb 16, 2003

Originally posted by BenReilly
I've always admired Robert Byrd. Nice speach, but the comment about "military attack on a nation which is over 50% children" was ridiculous. We're supposed to not attack any Arab countries because they have absurd birthrates?

As a practical matter, I see no reason for Democrats to question the war. It's a fait accompli and unless things go badly, dissent accomplishes nothing. What I do want to see is more attacks on Bush's domestic policies, which are arguably the worst of any 20th century President.
Click to expand...

Except for the last sentence, this is foolish, foolish talk; Imagine if that were the view of the Kennedy (and Khrushchev) advisors during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Likely, you would not be here to spout such fatalist war-backing...noone would.

Byrd is just talking about DEBATE regarding throwing the world into war, and your talking about running from discussion as viable party strategy? Truly scary.

Ghost · Feb 16, 2003

Mike, your tag line is ridiculous. There is no doctrine of pre-emption in play. The war is a continuation of the first gulf war after the repeated, systematic violation of the cease fire agreement ending that war. Therefore, legally speaking, a state of war exists, and therefore a "pre-emptive war" is not possible in this circumstance. Why are we said to be the violators of international law when it's Hussein who has repeatedly flouted 16 UN resolutions?

Dan Loney · Feb 16, 2003

It's a bad issue for the Democrats because if they had asked the kinds of questions the UN has been asking, we wouldn't be in this mess. The UN has only diplomacy and public opinion to work with, and they're our best hope. At the time, the Democrats had the Senate, and the explicit wording of the Constitution. And they wimped out.

There's a good lesson there about putting political maneuvering ahead of good policy. It would have been a Democratic partisan's wet dream to have Colin Powell caught lying to the Senate, but lying to the UN isn't nearly as big an offense.

EDIT: to Ghost - if UN resolutions are the standard for invasion, then Israel is pretty much screwed. In any case, the punishment for violating resolutions have been continued sanctions. Going to the UN for 1441, as well as a follow-up resolution, put the "continuation" theory to bed for good.

MikeLastort2 · Feb 16, 2003

Originally posted by Ghost
Mike, your tag line is ridiculous. There is no doctrine of pre-emption in play. The war is a continuation of the first gulf war after the repeated, systematic violation of the cease fire agreement ending that war. Therefore, legally speaking, a state of war exists, and therefore a "pre-emptive war" is not possible in this circumstance. Why are we said to be the violators of international law when it's Hussein who has repeatedly flouted 16 UN resolutions?
Click to expand...

I beg to differ.

My sig describes what I think about the rush to war.

Thank to Robert Byrd, of course.

Ian McCracken · Feb 16, 2003

Originally posted by superdave
Once again, the hawks are incapable of engaging any pro-peace arguments.
Click to expand...

And, pray tell, what exactly are the anti-freedom arguments? They have no agenda, other than to oppose Bush. The have no solutions, only criticisms. I want to hear specifics, not flowery rhetoric about peace.

superdave · Feb 16, 2003

Originally posted by Ian McCracken
And, pray tell, what exactly are the anti-freedom arguments?
Click to expand...

Dude, the fact that you walk free is all the anti-freedom argument I need.

Ian McCracken · Feb 16, 2003

Originally posted by superdave
Dude, the fact that you walk free is all the anti-freedom argument I need.
Click to expand...

Ahh, just as I expected, you couldn't come through with a viable argument.

Cascarino's Pizzeria · Feb 16, 2003

Hey Mike - can you give us the # of Dems who voted for a use of force in the Senate? I bet it's a majority of them. Where's Senator Klan's.......um......Byrd's righteous indignation with "turncoats" within his own party?

DoctorJones24 · Feb 16, 2003

Originally posted by Ghost
Mike, your tag line is ridiculous. There is no doctrine of pre-emption in play. The war is a continuation of the first gulf war after the repeated, systematic violation of the cease fire agreement ending that war. Therefore, legally speaking, a state of war exists, and therefore a "pre-emptive war" is not possible in this circumstance. Why are we said to be the violators of international law when it's Hussein who has repeatedly flouted 16 UN resolutions?
Click to expand...

Ghost,
Have you really not watched ANY pundit talk shows in the last few months? Everyone from McCain to Powell has been very clear in their defense of this war as a "new" direction in American Foreign Policy: pre-emption as necessitated by the new realities of global movement, communication, and WMDs. Never has one pro-war talking head mentioned ANYTHING about this being simply "the final battle" of the Gulf War, as you seem to suggest.

Cannon · Feb 16, 2003

Originally posted by superdave
Once again, the hawks are incapable of engaging any pro-peace arguments.
/B]
Click to expand...

You give me all of your arguments and I bet that I can find the error or hole in each one. No on the board has been able to refute a single one of the arguments (backed up with facts) I've made which support an attack on Iraq. If you really have such great arguments, please feel free to reveal them. I bet you won't becuase this is just another one of your lies.

MikeLastort2 · Feb 16, 2003

Originally posted by Cannon
You give me all of your arguments and I bet that I can find the error or hole in each one. No on the board has been able to refute a single one of the arguments (backed up with facts) I've made which support an attack on Iraq. If you really have such great arguments, please feel free to reveal them. I bet you won't becuase this is just another one of your lies.
Click to expand...

Since I don't hang on your every word, I probably ignored whichever post you made that has your pro-war argunents. Post a link to your "backed up with facts" arguments.

Ian McCracken · Feb 16, 2003

Originally posted by Cannon
You give me all of your arguments and I bet that I can find the error or hole in each one. No on the board has been able to refute a single one of the arguments (backed up with facts) I've made which support an attack on Iraq. If you really have such great arguments, please feel free to reveal them. I bet you won't becuase this is just another one of your lies.
Click to expand...

I'll help them out since they refuse or are incapable of doing so. Here are their arguments:

1. We hate Bush

2. We oppose Bush

3. We are socialists who despise capitalism.

4. America is evil and is the cause of all wrong doing in the world.

5. Sadam doesn't want to hurt anyone.

Danwoods · Feb 16, 2003

Originally posted by Ian McCracken
I'll help them out since they refuse or are incapable of doing so. Here are their arguments:

1. We hate Bush

2. We oppose Bush

3. We are socialists who despise capitalism.

4. America is evil and is the cause of all wrong doing in the world.

5. Sadam doesn't want to hurt anyone.
Click to expand...

1. Not hard to do. I've been trying to like him since he was the governor here and it's not as easy as you think.

2. More than 50% of the voting population did that during the last election. Why are you surprised now?

3. What does capitalism have to do with war?

4. Everything we do is good and we do it for the betterment of mankind. But only when the conservatives do it.

5. Saddam does not want to get bombed in to the stone age and thus will not be looking for a way to attack us with these WMD he is developing.

lynesjc · Feb 16, 2003

Democrats for Preemption: An old doctrine.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-whitney021303.asp

Good quotes from FDR, JFK, and Clinton endorsing the idea of preemption.

Arisrules · Feb 17, 2003

Rober Fisk of the Independent I think is the person that everyone should read. He lays out the facts as they are.

Also, I love the comparisons of Powell to Adlai Stevenson. It was anything but. It was more like the UN ambassador of the US during the USS Pueblo incident that was ridiculed by everyone.

All I know is that if we go into Iraq like cowboys, even more violence will come of it.