CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Robert Byrd's speech from 2/13
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Robert Byrd's speech from 2/13

post #1 of 6
Thread Starter 
Worth reading and discussing:

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.
post #2 of 6
FYI: I didn't post this because all the friends of Bill O'Reilly and Strom Thurmond will be all over Byrd's history.
post #3 of 6
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Maxwell Demon (devin):
FYI: I didn't post this because all the friends of Bill O'Reilly and Strom Thurmond will be all over Byrd's history.
Well, that would certainly be one way to deflect conversation away from the excellent points he makes.
post #4 of 6
It's what'll happen.
post #5 of 6
Why does everybody insist on calling this a pre-emptive action? It is enforcement of 17 UN resolutions that have been frequently and blatantly violated over the past 12 years. A pre-emptive attack does not involve us telling the whole world we are coming - instead it would be a quick attack without forewarning.
It's ironic that Sen. Byrd is talking about violations of international law and the UN Charter when that is what we are going to try and fix - violations of international law and the UN Charter. Iraq has violated these, and if the UN doesn't enforce them, does that mean that they don't apply? The US is enforcing things for the UN, whether the UN likes it or not.
Why should we take nuclear weapons off the table? If Saddam knows that is the case, what is to stop him from unleashing his WMD against coalition forces? We need some kind of deterrant, and nuclear weapons are the best deterrant we have.
Those cracks in the alliance have been around for 50 years. Just ask DeGaulle.
Why is Byrd talking about city government problems (fire, police)? That's what mayors and city councils are for, not Congress or the White House.
$5.6 trillion squandered? Where is he getting his math? The administration squandered $1.35 trillion (the tax cut). What happened to the other $4.25 trillion? It was lost because of reduced tax revenues (due to the recession and drop in business spending) and pork barrel spending passed by his party (can someone say farm bill?). States are not in trouble because of Bush tax cuts, but because of reduced revenues as a result of the recession and drop in business spending, combined with pork barrel spending. Why is the federal government being held accountable for problems of their own making? I recall the administration trying to get a lot of things passed in terms of health care reform, tort reform (which would lower health care costs), and so on, but Mr. Byrd's party has obstructed those bills.
If Mr. Byrd wants Osama dead (as we all do), perhaps he could be so good as to tell us where he is? How can you find someone when you don't know where he is or what he looks like (via altering his appearance)? I'm sure we are doing what we can, but Mr. Byrd seems to like to bash the administration over the head with things like this instead of being constructive about it. Would things be any different if someone else was President? If he was President? I don't recall the administration name-calling. Perhaps, grouping nations with other nations (a la Rumsfeld), but not calling names. In fact, if I recall correctly, it was the Germans who were name-calling.
Pygmies? Okay, let's drop evil, for the sake of argument. Wouldn't you say Iraq is a bad neigbor? That they are killing and torturing their civilians? Isn't that bad? What about North Korea? and Iran? Oh, if they are bad, isn't bad roughly the equivalent of evil? Are France and Germany really relevant? They seem to think so, but the rest of Europe doesn't.
What nations can actually provide troop support, Mr. Byrd? Not continental Europe - their forces are so far behind the curve relative to ours that they would just get in the way. Africa? Russia? Someone from Asia, perhaps? The only military that wouldn't cause more problems than solutions (in a fighting standpoint - not peacekeeping) is the UK.
What do you propose in regards to Pakistan - shall we invade? They don't want us in their country. What can we do? They are our allies, and according to your own speech, we don't attack or belittle our allies. If they want our help, they'll ask. If not, what can we do?
Absence of plans re: Iraq, Mr. Byrd? What are you talking about? Haven't you heard the administration talking about a modern-day Marshall/MacArthur Plan, where we will go in and help them rebuild, help them move to democracy, and allow them to be self sufficient? That being the case, and since we will void the oil contracts Saddam secured (at cut rate prices) to give the Iraqis money from their own natural resources to rebuild and become a stable nation, how are we going to control the price of that oil? Have you heard of the global economy? According to your speech, we have trading partners. These nations trade among themselves, and we will do the same with Iraq. They will sell their oil at market prices (currently $36/barrel). How are we controlling that, Mr. Byrd?
We don't know who will be the next President of Iraq, that's why it will be run by General Franks until such a time that they can elect their own leader, and we don't have to put in a US puppet.
How can our attack inflame the Muslim world when said Muslim world is on our side? At last count, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, UAE, and Yemen are all on our side.
Who has these WMD to attack Israel with in the first place, Mr. Byrd, other than Iraq?
How do you anticipate that Iran will topple Saudi Arabia and Jordan? They are Shiites and Persians. There is no love lost between the Iranians and Sunni Arabs (or even Iraq's own Shiite Arabs).
I don't see any disruption of the world's oil supply other than what Saddam could do without us in there anyway. Your rhetoric is a moot point.
Apparently, the North Koreans, Iraqis, and Iranians just started their WMD programs, because if it was our bellicose language that started it, then that must be the case. What? They all have been developing them for decades? How about that.
Iraq is 50% 15 and under? Did you get this from the same Iraqi surveys that said that malnutrition from the sanctions has killed 500,000 Iraqi children? Do you know what that means, Mr. Byrd? That means that since the Gulf War, Iraq has doubled in population. There are 22 million Iraqis. It would stand to reason that there are then 11 million Iraqi children. Do you know what kind of birth rate that is, Mr. Byrd? They'd have to be rabbits.
post #6 of 6
Thanks, Poxy. And let's not assume that everyone will try to derail this discussion by focusing on the messenger. The message here is what's worth discussing.

I'll admit to being terribly frustrated over yesterday's (or was it Thursday's) debacle at the UN, where Colin Powell was essentially dressed down by the French foreign minister, who was, in turn, cheered by the gallery for his simplistic grandstanding. It was infuriating because no one, certainly not the country that nearly gave the guy the bomb in the first place, should be allowed a moral high ground in this debate.

The problem is, we did it to ourselves. We needlessly rallied world opinion against us when Cheney, as far back as late summer, started beating the unilateral drum of war before even attempting to build a coalition. By wanting to rush into Iraq with the fewest number of allies as possible (or expecting everyone else to fall in line behind us, damn the destabilizing effect on the region), and without making our case to the international community, we made the rest of the world skeptical of our intent. Now, we're reaping the harvest of this distrust, whether it's deserved or not.

The way I see it, Saddam is nearly irrelevant to this equation. Sure, getting rid of him will make everyone feel happy, like getting to see Rocky win in ROCKY II, but it still won't change the fact that Iran, the country where bin Laden's son is hiding out along with countless al-Qaeda soldiers, is going full-steam-ahead on its Russian-funded "civilian" nuke program. I agree that it's troubling that Saddam has yet to account for all of that VX and Sarin, but those aren't the weapons of immediate concern. What I want to know is, where are the chemicals al-Qaeda experimented with in Afghanistan. Chances are, those are the ones being snuck in through our poorly policed borders.

Byrd's right. We have backed ourselves into a corner, and, frankly, I don't know how we can save face without going to war. If, as I suspect, the Bush administration wanted to invade without a clutter of UN member nations restricting their ability to install the government of their liking, then their end-run failed. I nervously await their next step.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Robert Byrd's speech from 2/13