Author:
<:)A DUCK
| [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: Thursday, February 20 2003, 14:31:13 GMT ( - 8 )
t r u t h o u t | Statement
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Speech
We Stand Passively Mute
Wednesday 12 February 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.
If we bomb Iraq and invade it and kill tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children and even if we loose a few thousand of our own youth - WHAT THE FUCK - IT'S NOT REALLY A WAR!! The Gulf War wasn't really a war although the parents of the thousands of Iraqi troops that we fried in their tanks or in their fox holes might argue the point.
There hasn't been a war since WWII as far as the United States is concerned
Congress long ago abdicated it's constitutional responsibilities to the executive branch - Let's see Korea that was a police action not a war might have a hard time telling that to 50,000 mothers and wife's who lost their husbands or sons and VIETNAM that wasn't no WAR - 55,000 dead Americans and hundreds of thousands of wounded and maimed Americans and it wasn't a WAR!! The millions of Vietnamese widows and orphans might argue that point though.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress....
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States....
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....
What does our Constitution say about war? Our Founders divided war into two separate powers:
Congress was given the power to declare war
The president was given the power to wage war.
What that means is that under our system of government, the president cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress.
Again, reflect on the words of Madison: "The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies. A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments. The separation of the power of declaring war from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived to exclude the danger of its being declared for the sake of its being conducted."
Therefore, under our system of government although the president is personally convinced that war against a certain nation is just and morally right, he is nevertheless prohibited by our supreme law of the land from waging it unless he first secures a declaration of war from Congress. That was precisely why presidents Wilson and Roosevelt, who both believed that U.S. intervention in World Wars I and II was right and just, nevertheless had to wait for a congressional declaration of war before entering the conflict. And the fact that later presidents have violated the declaration-of-war requirement does not operate as a grant of power for other presidents to do the same.
What about the congressional resolution that granted President Bush the power to wage war against unnamed nations and organizations that the president determines were linked to the September 11 attacks? Doesn't that constitute a congressional declaration of war? No, it is instead a congressional grant to the president of Caesar-like powers to wage war, a grant that the Constitution does not authorize Congress to make.
WAR POWERS
The Constitution divides war powers between the Congress and the President. This division was intended by the framers to ensure that wars would not be entered into easily: it takes two keys, not one, to start the engine of war.
The Constitution's division of powers leaves the President with some exclusive powers as Commander-in-Chief (such as decisions on the field of battle), Congress with certain other exclusive powers (such as the ability to declare war and appropriate dollars to support the war effort), and a sort of "twilight zone" of concurrent powers. In the zone of concurrent powers, the Congress might effectively limit presidential power, but in the absence of express congressional limitations the President is free to act. Although on paper it might appear that the powers of Congress with respect to war are more dominant, the reality is that Presidential power has been more important--in part due to the modern need for quick responses to foreign threats and in part due to the many-headed nature of Congress.
The Supreme Court has had relatively little to say about the Constitution's war powers. Many interesting legal questions--such as the constitutionality of the "police action" in Korea or the "undeclared war" in Viet Nam--were never decided by the Court. (Although the Supreme Court had three opportunities to decide the constitutionality of the war in Viet Nam, it passed on each one.)
The cowboy from Texas IS TRULY A MENTALLY CHALLENGED - STRIKE THAT HE IS AN IMBECILE AND HIS PLAYGROUND BULLYING RHETORIC WILL DO SUCH DAMAGE TO THE UNITED STATES THAT IT WILL TAKE DECADES TO RECOVER - BOTH IN THE LOST RESPECT FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD - RESPECT THIS NATION EARNED OVER DECADES HE HAS DESTROYED IN LESS THEN TWO YEARS - AND THE OTHER DAMAGE WILL PROBABLY BE MEASURED IN LOST LIFE'S - THAT REMAINS AN UNKNOWN - REMEMBER HE AVOIDED HIS RESPONSIBILITIES DURING VIETNAM AND THAT MEANT THAT SOMEONE ELSE HAD TO TAKE UP HIS SLACK AND DO THE JOB THAT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING - SOMETIMES I WONDER IF THAT PERSON CAME HOME OR NOT!
Hopefully the democrats and the centrist republicans will join together and exercise their legislative prerogatives and put this President in his place. I doubt it though the moderate republicans have somehow let their party be controlled by the extreme far right and the democrats - they saw what was happening and they just stood mute - scared that Ashcroft would call them traitors - THANK GOD BYRD HAD THE BALLS TO SPEAK UP -
THE PRESIDENTS COURSE OF ACTION IS POTENTIALLY CATACLYSMIC THAT'S AN AWFULLY EXPENSIVE WAY TO GET RID OF HIM IN A COUPLE OF YEARS AND HE IS DIGGING HIS OWN POLITICAL GRAVE UNFORTUNATELY HE IS SHOVELING TWO PILES OF DIRT ON THE UNITED STATES FOR EVERY HANDFUL OF DIRT THAT HE IS BURYING HIMSELF WITH!
For him to say that a preemptive military strike on a country half of which is under 15yo and a country he has not been able to demonstrate is a threat to the United States is in the highest moral tradition of the United States is beyond comprehension - The United States in it's history has committed some pretty shameful acts - BUT NOTHING COMES CLOSE TO WHAT THIS MEGALOMANIAC THAT ALMOST HALF OF THE ELECTORATE PUT IN THE WHITE HOUSE IS ATTEMPTING!
THOSE THAT ARE PROTESTING THIS WAR - I hope that the next protests of twice the size of the last ones and if necessary keep growing - I HOPE THEY DWARF THE VIETNAM ERA MARCHES (THEY WERE HUGE) unfortunately with a couple hundred thousand troops already in the theater and with all his rhetoric - I doubt he will back down even if Saddam gave up power and left Iraq - he will find an excuse - then who's next IRAN or N. Korea - I think Iran cause N. Korea's leader is as crazy as he is - and he knows it - if they think they are going down they are going to take millions with them - if it happens hope they take a chunk of Pennsylvania avenue with them.
ehg
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] |
Feedback: 