Senator Byrd speech...not making friends with the bush government....
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. Â*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. Â*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.
__________________________________________________ ____
where is the debate on this...is see debate here, but little in the press or media or at a government level.....g
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. Â*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. Â*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.
__________________________________________________ ____
where is the debate on this...is see debate here, but little in the press or media or at a government level.....g
Comments
Why isn't there more debate on these issues or similar questioning from the media?
Maybe White House policy.... Press Sec. Ari Fleischer (sp?) and his pseudo-threats to Free Speech and Bill Maher (watch what you say... criticism is unpatriotic... anything but blind support and we might send the Homeland Security folks over to tap your phone) have something to do with that?
The movement to hold the current administration up to legitimate benchmarks is slowly coming up from shoving its heads in the ground in denial of the C average presidency.
White House Press Corps Matriarch Helen Thomas (i think... at 82 has outlived husbands) recently named GWB the "Least competent/qualified President in recent history". She's been in the media pool since LBJ and knows how to spot a lightweight.
The Anti-War movement is cautious not to get itself tagged for pending McCarthyism/Ashcroftism, yet the criticisms are equally appropriate to the policy maker as to the policy, so GWB should prepare to be held up to the light and scrutinized more.
Had this scrutiny been applied to his true record a few years back... how long does the free ride continue towards turbulence before the passengers start to ask to see the real flight plan, your flying license, and your blood alcohol level.
There's another thread with links to a Vonnegut article that asks similarly unflattering questions of Dubya.
Maybe only the 80 year olds feel immune to the smear and spin campaigns that will suddenly surface to distract attention from the substantive criticisms that are pointed at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave...
more questions are good
smarter leaders are good
more of both is better
Wheel invented!
Prometheus gives men fire!
<strong>Man walks on the moon!
Wheel invented!
Prometheus gives men fire!</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is it a quote from the Vonnegut article ?
and what happened to prometheus??
i like the idea of these new, small nucs we want to build....perhaps we should licence them to be made by ronco...like the pocket fisherman....
it slices, it dices, it fits in your pocket and sends your enemies to valhalla, the ronco pocket fissionman
g
<strong>
and what happened to prometheus??
g</strong><hr></blockquote>
he suffered from a strange illness of his liver , i guess.
Senator Byrd ask good questions who merit debate whatever our opinion can be.
g
god, the internet is soooo much fun.....
thegelding expects a PM from the mods on this one....sigh, it is hard being the bad boy....
timeout for gelding...go sit in your corner and think a while about what you have done....
[ 02-25-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>Man walks on the moon!
Wheel invented!
Prometheus gives men fire!</strong><hr></blockquote>
actually, for full ironic/sardonic effect on the first koan above, i recommend this version
<a href="https://store.theonion.com/uploads/odc_holy_shit.gif"; target="_blank">language too funny/rude for image linkage</a>
That is what the everyone else outside of the US sees, they dont see Coke anymore, they dont see Warner Bros studios, they dont see Disneyland, they dont see sitcoms... they DO see unilateral foreign policy. they DONT see the threat of Iraq to the US. they DO see protests around the world AND in the US drawing millions but falling on deaf ears (deaf ears with extra cotton stuffed in just in case hearing spontaneously returns).
Where is the debate? Where is the threat? US foreign policy is cementing hatred towards the US into the hearts of every iraqi alive today (and unfortunately into the hearts of many arabs outside of iraq), essentially guarranteeing a future filled with 'Terrorist threat alerts'. Get used to that, because its not going anywhere anytime soon. Your children will grow up intimately aware of the Threat Alert. They will know red means bad, they may not understand why they have to skip kindergarden once a month or so. They will (again at an early age) understand the 'soft target' and consequently more will develop the phobia of large gatherings and things like shopping malls. They will quickly pick up on what a 'dirty bomb' is, they wont understand radioactivity yet, but they will certainly fear it in their hearts when they curl up in their peter rabbit pyjamas. Remember, the number one babysitters helper in north america is TV. And boy, kids learn like sponges (god bless my neice and nephew).
Who will run iraq if Saddam is removed? GWB? Where are they going to find a regime to replace Saddam's? Is Saddam is the only bad-guy, everyone else is cool? These are critical pieces to a war puzzle that have not been addressed.
If you are american you have a right to know, remember you may have voted for this government. And if you didn't they still represent you... and your spouse... and your children... and your parents.
[ 02-25-2003: Message edited by: I-bent-my-wookie ]</p>
i have heard many politcally partisan speeches from both sides...but valid points, put forth in an elegant and emotional way, are much rarer....
byrd is not right on every count, nor is he the best person in washington, but his speech there is very good and was nice to read...i think this country would do better with more people talking and expressing views...i still have no clue as to why GW wants the things he does...he is a very secretive man...open government is not his forte....
more press conferences, more public forums, more disclosure...it is a good thing...it is an AMERICAN thing....g
[ 02-25-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
That's why so many people here like it. It's pure anti-Bush and nothing more.
[ 02-25-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<strong>It's so disappointing that you all can't see a purely partisan political speech when is presented to you.</strong><hr></blockquote>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
from the master of objectivity himself . . . . .
haahaaa
.
anyway, Byrd rocks . . . at least with this speech he said what needs to be said and repeated LOUDLY
<strong>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
from the master of objectivity himself . . . . .
haahaaa
.
anyway, Byrd rocks . . . at least with this speech he said what needs to be said and repeated LOUDLY</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea Klansmen rock
Anyway. Looking at it objectively I'm correct. Byrd is complete politics and partisanship. He said nothing of importance because he mined the facts for what he wanted. His picture is incomplete and bias. Lie of omission if you will. But "everyone" here loves it because they are anti-Bush. Too blind to see the Byrd speech for what it is.
the fact that the points are valid is one thing... the fact most "mainstream" media sources aren't asking these same questions makes byrd deserve credit that might otherwise go to a non-partisan media doing their proper job instead of covering for ineptitude.
bring on the questions. no softball, no bias.
only the shady fear the light of honesty.
shine it into some dark corridors and who runs?
plus, blind obedience is doubly tough on the dog.
you can also learn to hate and become close-minded and reject and hate....luckily Bryd at least seems to fit the first group....
(i don't hate 80 year olds that use to be klansman that are no longer....i do dislike 30 year olds that are currently klansman....)
ps...things can be anti-bush and also still be right...i know that thought will surprise you....
pss...just so you don't feel so all alone poor scotty....there are just as many right leaning humans at AI as left leaning humans...hell, i stopped coming to AO for some time because the mood and posts were just tooooooo brutally conservative....
i love the rights cry of not being heard...what with rush and fox news and all that...plus, almost every election is about 50/50....we are a country of half left leaners and half right leaners (some lean a whole lot more than others on both sides)...i guess that is a good thing....the problem is that when a leader is elected with about 50 percent of the vote, then about 50% didn't vote for him...so if that person does something "major" (start a war, end certain freedoms, refuse to give information to the people or press) then alot of people get upset, saying, hey he doesn't represent me, i didn't vote for him...the problem again is that we as a nation need to stand behind our president...but that is much easier to do if A) you voted for him...B) he is doing good things (or at least reasonible things) and C) if he is doing "major" shifts in americas historic path, then he better be on the news everyday and traveling across the country every chance he gets to explain that to the people....g
[ 02-25-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>personally, i find the tone and the particular points made less important than the fact that, partisan or not, the process of criticism and desire for accountability are alive and kicking in an otherwise almost orwellian environment. </strong><hr></blockquote>
This is just so silly it's almost not worth commenting on.
<strong>
i love the rights cry of not being heard...what with rush and fox news and all that...</strong><hr></blockquote>
What does this have to do with anything? The only complaint here along those lines is from you...
[quote]where is the debate on this...is see debate here, but little in the press or media or at a government level.<hr></blockquote>
... and curiousuburb:
[quote]Why isn't there more debate on these issues or similar questioning from the media?<hr></blockquote>
[ 02-25-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
as for the other...i believe debate and discussion in the USA is very important now, historically and for our future... and it is lacking right now...oh well, the "calls to war" are such an alluring sound to some...sweet songs of the sirens drawing us to the rocks...g
" Always good to hear what the Klan has to say. "
__________________
Is that the best you can do? Besides when I want to know what they think I always look for you.