A couple of Democrats finally speak up! -- <font size = "4">The Drunks Bar </font size "4">

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:31:07 02/13/03 Thu
Author: Queer
Subject: A couple of Democrats finally speak up!

Senator Robert Byrd Addresses the Senate

Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0212-07.htm

Published on Wednesday, February 12, 2003 by CommonDreams.org

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.

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.

2) DeFAZIO, PAUL INTRODUCE BILL TO REPEAL BUSH'S BLANK CHECK FOR WAR

http://www.house.gov/defazio/pf_020503DERelease.shtml

This page is excerpted from the web site of U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio

February 05, 2003

Press Release

Contact: Kristie Greco (202) 225-6416

WASHINGTON, DC -- Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Ron Paul (R-TX) today introduced legislation to
repeal the Iraq Use of Force Resolution passed by Congress and signed into law by the President last
fall. Following is DeFazio's statement:

"I heard no new evidence today from Secretary Powell's address to the United Nations, that would
convince me that military action in Iraq is necessary to improve security of Americans.

"Americans want the President to lay a clear case for immediate military action in Iraq, but the
Administration's message keeps changing -- six months ago, their case hinged on regime change, three
months ago it was Saddam thwarting inspections, three weeks ago it was possible possession of
chemical weapons, today its tenuous terrorist links. If the case was clear, it would have been clear
from day one.

"Our nation's immediate threat is still Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda terrorist network. We have full
knowledge of North Korea's equally rapidly developing nuclear weapons program under the control of an
equally diabolical leader. There's well-published accounts of several Mid-east governments aiding and
funding known terrorists. Of America's imminent threats, Saddam Hussein is much lower on the list.

"Saddam Hussein is a brutal untrustworthy tyrant, but he is being contained, and we should allow
weapons inspectors to continue their work.

"The President seeks war, this is clear. The Constitution grants the Congress sole authority to
declare war, and I believe the President should come before Congress to seek that authority. Our
resolution allows him that option."

The legislation introduced today would repeal Public Law 107-243. The bill text reads in total:

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,

Section 1. Repeal of Public Law 107-243.

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243; 116
Stat. 1498) is hereby repealed."

The legislation repeals the broad delegation of authority Congress gave to the President in October,
to launch military action against Iraq. Under this legally-binding resolution, the President would
have to return to Congress to seek authority to launch a preventive attack on Iraq.

For the text of the bill, go to:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.j.res.20:

This page is excerpted from the web site of U.S. Representative Peter DeFazio, Fourth District,
Oregon.http://www.house.gov/defazio/

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

The doomsday clock ticks on -- NKLS Cody, 09:47:24 02/14/03 Fri
- I was telling someone how we lost 9,000+ during Gulf War I... -- Jay Hovah, 16:17:59 02/14/03 Fri
  - Uh huh -- NKLS Cody, 18:02:44 02/14/03 Fri