ok, so Robert Byrd was a klansman, and is a blowhard, and a notorious pork-guzzler....

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.

Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq.

WHOOPS! Oh well. I mean, Saddam did announce last week that WMDs are now officially ILLEGAL in Iraq! I guess that's progress!

Not to mention, his long winded diatribe is inconsistent and, judging from his own voting record, hypocritical. I love how pols like him spend most of their life pointing fingers and never have the stones to accept any of the blame. Bugger off, Byrd--go ahead with your rants from the floor and keep doing your best to impoverish West Virginia.

1. A starting point is that Byrd?s record on civil rights is spotty. He opposed both Thurgood Marshall?s and Clarence Thomas? Supreme Court nominations. A couple of years ago he dropped the N-word twice on television. He?s been a huge impediment to immigration reform, igniting many to think that he?s traded his bigotry of African Americans to those of Latinos. He also voted against a bill that would have protected gays in the workplace from anti-discrimination.

2. He voted for John Ashcroft.

3. He once filed a complaint when a Senate aide used her seeing eye dog on the floor of the Senate, since having dogs is technically against the rules.

4. He told ABC that there was ?no doubt? that he felt Clinton lied under oath and that it qualified as ?high crimes and misdemeanors yet he toed the line and didn?t vote to impeach Clinton. In other words, this pontificator of the Constitution thinks that if the conditions are impeachment are clearly met, you still don't have any duty to impeach anyone.

5. His environmental voting record is spotty at best, especially when confronted with possible pork coming to WV. He championed mountaintop mining, for example.

6. When he was majority leader of the Senate for nearly 20 years he taxed and spent like there was no tomorrow, tucking appropriations for WV at every turn. In fact, he?s appropriated more than $1 billion of taxpayers? dollars over the years, a positively unimaginably large amount in comparison to his state?s size and population. This jackass even erected a statue to himself in the state legislature, which is in addition to the many roads and other public projects he's named after himself. Of course, he claims on occasion to be in favor of fiscal restraint, such as whenever tax reform is being discussed.

7. Prior to the vote on President Bush's tax cut in 2001, Byrd made one last attempt to blackmail his fellow senators with pork from the well of the Senate: "Let me say to my colleagues, if you vote for this budget conference report, don't come to the appropriations watering hole. It is not that I would not love to help you, but you are going to make it impossible." He also sent his colleagues a letter reiterating his threats. In other words, it's okay to take from the budget and give it to West Virginia, but it's not okay to take budget excess and give it back to the people who overpaid.

8. This dude is supposed to be a steward of our fiscal policy, yet he is precisely one of the reasons we have deficits (and debt) year in and year out. For a guy who brags about carrying around the Constitution everywhere he goes, maybe if he would read it sometime he would notice that it never ever envisioned the kind of fiscal pillage Byrd is so fond of. How the hell does he sleep at night?

9. As for Iraq, Byrd was against it the first time. Then again, it makes sense: the guy doesn?t really care about anyone but himself and his home state. I suppose if Iraq offered to build missiles in West Virginia, Byrd would welcome it with open arms. But until then, Byrd?s just happy to let Saddaam do whatever he wants. The Clinton administration used more than 400 cruise missiles on Baghdad, which is more than was used in the first Gulf War. Where was Byrd making long winded speeches then? I?ll tell you: he was in his Senate chambers keeping his piehole shut. He?s a Pork King first, a partisan player second, and somewhere after that a Senator.

And Tad--it's always nice to see an argument like yours jump into the debate: zero substance, all name calling. If you want to call me names, at least refer to me as a Libertarian.

jesus h. christ, 2003 ile

Byrd: a tool then, irrelevant now.

#1 on my 2008 death list

http://thepage.time.com/2008/05/20/ap-kennedy-has-a-brain-tumor/

Byrd just endorsed The Saint!

awesome

http://www.politico.com/blogs/anneschroeder/0708/The_full_dialogue_.html

wait wait wait what was the story behind this?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sen. Robert Byrd on Friday announced that he will step down from his chairmanship of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee to be replaced by Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii.

"I believe that it is time for a new day at the top of the Senate Appropriations Committee. I will step away from the chairmanship ... effective January 6, 2009," said Byrd, a 90-year-old Democrat from West Virginia.

Over the past year, Byrd has had health problems and some Senate Democrats worried he would not be able to withstand the rigors of chairing the committee that helps decide the country's spending priorities.

Byrd said he will continue serving in the Senate, however.

A long overdue infusion of youth and vigor.

He is by far the best part of watching C-SPAN.

Inouye has continuously represented Hawaii in the United States Congress since it achieved statehood.
That's crazy

A long overdue infusion of youth and vigor

haha

I just checked, and there are currently nine U.S. senators, not to mention the president, who were born after Byrd was first elected to the Senate.

Byrd is the only surviving Senator to have voted on a bill giving statehood to a U.S. territory.

Senators Byrd served with in 1959:

Barry Goldwater
J. William Fulbright
Prescott Bush
Everett Dirkson
Edmund Muskie
Margaret Chase Smith
John F. Kennedy
Hubert H. Humphrey
John Stennis
Mike Mansfield
Jacob Javits
Sam Ervin
Strom Thurmond
Albert Gore, Sr.
Lyndon B. Johnson

Impressive list. How many of today's lot can say they've accomplished as much?

lol at warmongering 2003 ile

Impressive list. How many of today's lot can say they've accomplished as much?

Wonder whose son and whose grandson will be running against each other in the presidential election of 2040.

"Senator Beeps, could you tell the debate panel where you learned your values?"

"Well, it began with jumping koalas..."