1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Senator Robert Byrd's speech

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout' started by AroundTheWorld, Feb 22, 2003.

  1. AroundTheWorld

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2000
    Messages:
    83,288
    Likes Received:
    62,281
    Has this speech been posted before? I could not find it.

    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.
     
  2. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,075
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    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

    This speech might go down in the history books.

    It is extremely distressing that the Congress, based on many allegations of Bush and Powell that have been proven to be distortions and half-truths, ignored their responsibility to make the decision to go to war.
     
  3. AroundTheWorld

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2000
    Messages:
    83,288
    Likes Received:
    62,281
    The speech has gotten a lot of recognition in Europe.

    However, I just did some research and found out that the guy was a KKK member and apparently a racist for a long time. I know that doesn't mean he cannot be right about some of the things he says now, but for me, that kind of disqualifies him, at least if he never issued a sincere apology. Apparently he used the term "white ni**ers" not too long ago.
     
  4. johnheath

    johnheath Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    0
    Byrd knows that the business cycle took its inevitable downturn, and a recession started during Clinton's last year in office. That fact, coupled with the need to defend ourselves against Al Queda in Afghanistan (an operation Byrd supported), took care of the imaginary surplus (which Byrd knows didn't really exist).

    Byrd's speech is just more partisan B.S.
     
  5. johnheath

    johnheath Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    0
    In addition to my previous comments, Byrd also knows that attacking Iraq in not a pre-emptive action.

    Iraq decided to not comply with sanctions after the first Gulf War. By doing so, Saddam has brought this upon himself. The world told Saddam to disarm, or suffer dire consequences. Byrd completely ignores reality with his partisan hatchet job of a speech.
     
  6. TheFreak

    TheFreak Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 1999
    Messages:
    18,304
    Likes Received:
    3,310
    K

    K

    K

    I'm surprised Byrd had time to speak. I thought he was too busy portraying Confederate generals in movies.
     
  7. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,880
    Likes Received:
    20,662
    Repeate after me:

    The last rececession started in March 2001 after Bush took office.
    The last rececession started in March 2001 after Bush took office.
    The last rececession started in March 2001 after Bush took office.
    The last rececession started in March 2001 after Bush took office.
    The last rececession started in March 2001 after Bush took office.
    The last rececession started in March 2001 after Bush took office.
    The last rececession started in March 2001 after Bush took office.
    The last rececession started in March 2001 after Bush took office.
    The last rececession started in March 2001 after Bush took office.
    The last rececession started in March 2001 after Bush took office.
    The last rececession started in March 2001 after Bush took office.

    ad nauseum.

    The party that is responsible for making the official call on the recession is the National Bureau of Economic Research (http://www.nber.org/). NBER declared the last recession started March 2001.

    You now know better.
     
  8. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,880
    Likes Received:
    20,662
    Hmmmmmm. Maybe it you who is dancing with their delussions.

    Or should I say that foreign policy experts disagree dramatically with your opinion. The experts are saying that the USA is engagaing in a fundamental shift in foreign policy, one toward preemptive military actions. I could post www links, but I leave that as an exercise for the reader.
     
  9. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,880
    Likes Received:
    20,662
    My only problem wrt this speech is that Byrd should have given it last September, when it might have made some difference.
     
  10. glynch

    glynch Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    18,075
    Likes Received:
    3,605
    In addition to my previous comments, Byrd also knows that attacking Iraq in not a pre-emptive action.

    Oh, ok, Mr. Heath sir, since you say it it must be right.

    and a recession started during Clinton's last year in office. That fact,...

    Oh, ok, Mr. Heath sir, can you provide any proof. Or have Bush and Powell convinced you that all Americans and bbs posters should accept you r word as Gospel?
     
  11. johnheath

    johnheath Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    0
    No Glynch, because the United Nations says so.

    Our President and Tony Blair, backed by the majority of the Security Council, are trying to force the UN to enforce their mandates. Therefore, if this attack ever happens, it will be an enforcement action that is an extension of the first Gulf War (a United Nations action).

    You do read the newspaper, don't you?



     
  12. johnheath

    johnheath Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am wrong on this point. The official recession, as called by the NBER, started in March. Of course, the economy had run out of steam in the fall of 2001, but I misused the exact definition of "recession".

    Semantics aside now, Al Gore could not have escaped the same recession, which is why Byrd comments about the culpability of Bush is partisan crap.
     
  13. rimrocker

    rimrocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    23,120
    Likes Received:
    10,158
    I can't believe you actually wrote this.

    First, the surplus did exist.

    Second, the reason it doesn't anymore is only minmally related to Defense spending and declining revenues.

    Average DOD budget during the Clinton Years: Approximately $325 Billion
    DOD Budget for 2003: $365 Billion
    Estimated cost of Iraq War: $70 Billion

    Estimated Increase in Defense Spending asssuming a War: Maybe $110 Billion

    CBO estimated decline in tax revenues for the next 10 years: $385 Billion

    Projected Budget Surplus in 2001:$5.6 Trillion

    Together, declining revenues and Defense spending have so far accounted for maybe 1/11 of the decline in the surplus. I'll even assume the $37 Billion Byrd talks about for Afghanistan is not covered in the above numbers and estimate an additional cost of $60 billion increase in DOD funding for 2001 and 2002. Now we're up to maybe a little more than 1/10 of the projected surplus.

    Where did the rest go: Tax Cuts. According to the CBO, Bush's tax cuts will take about $4.4 billion out of the surplus.

    And by the way, I do agree we were headed for a recession regardless of who came to occupy the white House. The difference is Gore would have been responsible enough not to return us to deficits and we would have come out of this stronger.
     
  14. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    Whose money was it in the first place? Restaurants who don't return the change can be very profitable likewise.
     
  15. Oski2005

    Oski2005 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    18,100
    Likes Received:
    447
    You get change when you give more than the actual price. The fact that we are defecit spending doesn't help your restaurant analogy out.
     
  16. giddyup

    giddyup Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,466
    Likes Received:
    488
    Wasn't the surplus created by over-taxing? These guys here make it sound like the Federal Government had reined in the spending.

    If the Fed has not used it, the money should be returned to its rightful owner.

    I know the analogy is a bit off... but only because it's illegal for the restaurant to keep the extra money. Funny how it's not illegal for the Federal Government not to keep the extra money!

    It took legislative action to return your change to you!
     
  17. Oski2005

    Oski2005 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2001
    Messages:
    18,100
    Likes Received:
    447
    Well the Fed Govt isn't a business. You aren't giving them money to provide you a nice dinner, you are paying them money to do everything that is neccessary to keep this country going. I guess it just depends on your view of what exactly the Govt should do. I would like to have seen that money go into paying down the debt. I'm thinking long term though, even though I'm young, paying down the debt probably wouldn't do me any good either.
     
  18. rimrocker

    rimrocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    23,120
    Likes Received:
    10,158
    What is indisputable is that we have deficits that add to the debt and both of those things are real and ours to deal with eventually. How can there be extra money when we have a multi-trillion dollar debt? Would it not make more sense to pay off the debt and then say, "Damn good job America-- we don't have all that interest we have to pay for anymore, and ours debts are paid, so let's lower everyone's taxes to reflect that."

    It is aso indisputable that Mr. Heath doesn't know what he's talking about. That's the second time he's made an irresponsible statement like that and the second time he's been confronted with real numbers.
     
  19. johnheath

    johnheath Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, it did not. Robert Reich, a favorite economist of the left, explains this well-

    The federal budget process allows politicians to utilize the funds from the so-called “Trust” of Social Security and to move projects “off-budget” so that they can achieve their political goal. The surplus doesn’t exist.

    So, Washington should overtax us and keep our money?
    Hold on. Gore wanted to take Social Security funds, which are the imaginary surplus, and put them in a "lock box". If he kept his promise, the "surplus" would have immediately disappeared- just as your argument has in this thread.
     
  20. rimrocker

    rimrocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    23,120
    Likes Received:
    10,158
    I put this quote in Google and the only thing that came back was a page that has Harry Browne saying this, not Reich.

    http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/Harry_Browne_Budget_+_Economy.htm

    Your credibility is effectively zero. Political differences are welcome here, but not intentinal distorition.

    And the quote makes absolutely no sense anyway.
     

Share This Page