The greater danger Iraq or North Korea?

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.

Tw

That is not what I have been hearing. Do you a link to substantiate that statement?

Most Americans say give U.N. more time


By Patrick Tyler and Janet Elder
The New York Times



Even after the Bush administration's aggressive case for going to war soon in Iraq, a majority of Americans favors giving U.N. weapons inspectors more time to complete their work so that any military operation wins the support of the Security Council, the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll shows.

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~1178592,00.html

With major decisions of war and peace still pending, 59 percent of Americans said they believed the president should give the United Nations more time. Sixty-three percent said Washington should not act without the support of its allies, and 56 percent said Bush should wait for U.N. approval.

tres, Seems we read and listen to different media sources. c.i.

c.i., your Byrd excerpt is a ray of light in an ever darkening world, it was very poignant!

BillW, I knew there were a few of you that would appreciate Senator Bird's words - of wisdom. c.i.

Now I'm a group (or, would that be a pack?)

In your case, a six pack would be nice! c.i.

Ohhhhhhh, devastation in the least!

ci & au:


(Headlines above are links to the complete stories.)

I'd like to make three more points: 1) Containment is working, 2) some of us never claimed we should "never" go to war, and 3) demonstrations around the world seem to agree; they do not want a war with Iraq - at this time.

ci - No... your posts are outdated. Check the dates on my citations; they are more recent, and reflect CURRENT attitudes and opinions among Americans. The "analysis" you cite was written at the end of January about polling done earlier still, and is of no value in discussing what people think here in mid-February, when several key events have occurred upon which many Americans have changed their opinions of the war issue.

I stated that the majority of Americans support war without UN approval. I have offered citations to back that up. There may well be other current polling that shows different numbers, but you've not cited any. My goal in offering these citations was not to prove anyone else wrong, just to respond to you and au, who asked me to back up my claim. That I did. Recent polling shows that most Americans are willing for the US to attack Iraq without UN approval.

tres, I fully understand that poll numbers can change over night, but I hadn't realized that Americans were "that" fickle on such an important issue. It hasn't even been three weeks. That is "really" disappointing. However, I'm sure that Blair's request for more UN inspector time is "recent." c.i.

ci - You call them "fickle" because they are abandoning your point of view as they become better informed on the issues. Were they moving more towards your point of view, I am quite sure you would call them something quite different. "Enlightened" perhaps.

rrraaaooooowwww!! pfffft!!

Please provide "proof" c.i., that containment is working.

For who, Saddam?

"Containment" is working, because Saddam has not and cannot make any aggressive moves against anybody. How much more proof do you need? c.i.

On the other hand, some of us see North Korea as a 'greater' threat to US interests. We still have not won our war against terrorism. A war with Iraq will only exacerbate our war against terrorism, because more Muslems will become inflamed at how the US appears to be pro-Israel, and con Arabs. c.i.