Sorry, but in your 80's sometimes you start losing it.... I just calls em as I sees em.
Calling them as you see them and being right are two different things.
If a person is suffering from senility it will show up in the day to day things he says and does. The following is a speech Byrd gave on the senate floor on January 29, 2003. I don't see any part of it which supports what you say you see. Quite the opposite, Byrd had a better grasp of what was going on than almost anybody else did. The person whom you call senile is the same person who said things over a year ago which you are saying now.
--------------------
"President Bush Must Have UN Authorization Before Military Strikes"
President Bush last night warned the American people to brace for war with Iraq. In his State of the Union address, he vowed that if Saddam Hussein does not disarm, the United States will "lead a coalition" to disarm him.
Although the President stopped short of a declaration of war, his message was clear: In his view, Saddam Hussein constitutes an imminent danger to peace and security in the world, and the United States is prepared to wage war, with or without the support of the United Nations, to remove him from power. The chain of events that President Bush set into motion last year when he inducted Iraq into what he called an "axis of evil" appears on the verge of spilling over into battle and bloodshed.
The President's remarks come amid a firestorm of protest from some of our closest allies in Europe and the Middle East over the apparent willingness of the United States to ride roughshod over the United Nations and dictate to the rest of the world the terms of Iraq's disarmament. The President in his State of the Union speech once again made clear that Iraq will be dealt with on his timetable, at his hands, according to his agenda.
I am fully cognizant of the danger presented by the possibility of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons in the hands of a ruthless dictator like Saddam Hussein. I am fully cognizant of, and frustrated by, the fact that Iraq has consistently flouted the United Nations mandates to disarm, and has apparently shown only token cooperation with the current inspection regime. Iraq has much to answer for, and the President is correct in demanding that Iraq respond to the United Nations.
What concerns me greatly is that this President appears to place himself above the international mandates of the United Nations. He has turned a deaf ear to the concerns of other nations and has vowed that the United States will lead an assault on Iraq regardless of the judgment of the United Nations. President Bush has made the overthrow of Saddam Hussein a personal crusade, and in his zeal to pursue his goal, he has failed to make the case to the American people and to our allies abroad that the United Nations is dragging its feet, that war is the only option left, and that war cannot wait.
The President in his address alluded to tantalizing evidence that Saddam Hussein is in collusion with al Qaeda and that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction which it is hiding from the United Nations weapons inspectors. But he has yet to present that evidence to the public or to demonstrate why it constitutes an immediate cause for war. If the evidence is as compelling as the President indicates it will be, surely the member states of the United Nations will close ranks behind the United States and demand the forcible disarmament of Iraq.
The President also set what appears to be a new deadline for the United Nations. On February 5, he said, the United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene to hear evidence of Iraq's illegal weapons programs and its links to terrorist groups. I look forward to learning the details of that meeting. I wonder why the President is holding back for another week if he has such information today, and perhaps has had it for some time. I am confident that the U.N. weapons inspectors would welcome such evidence, not next week but today, so that they could do their jobs more effectively. I wonder why the Senate has not been given this evidence. I wonder why the American people, who are being asked to send their sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters into the battle zone, have not been made privy to this important evidence.
Perhaps the answer lies in the follow-up comment by the President: "We will consult, but let there by no misunderstanding. If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him." Despite all his comments to the contrary, it appears that the President has predetermined that war with Iraq is the only recourse left.
If war is the answer, the support of the international community is essential. I believe that it would be a very grave mistake for the United States to preempt the work of the United Nations weapons inspectors and initiate an invasion of Iraq without first seeking the express support of the Security Council. The United States is already seen by many as an aggressor in the Middle East. Speculation is rife in Europe that the United States is pressing to invade Iraq to give the U.S. control of the Iraqi oil fields. America's reputation in the court of world opinion is in tatters.
Unfortunately, the President's State of the Union speech did little to allay the worries of the American people or the international community. The President signaled to the world that America is ready for war with Iraq, but he did not explain why Iraq suddenly presents such "a serious and mounting threat" to our country, our friends, and our allies that war is the only option. How is it that the threat from Iraq is more serious than the threat from North Korea? How is that the threat from Iraq appears to have eclipsed the threat from al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations?
Nor did he attempt to prepare the American people for the possible consequences of war with Iraq - the terrible toll on the lives on innocent Iraqis, the potential for hundreds or thousands of battlefield casualties of American servicemen and women, the sharply increased threat of terrorist attacks on America and its allies. The President promised that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would liberate the people of Iraq, but he made no mention of what they could expect from a post-war Iraq. He made no mention of the burden that the United States would have to bear to ensure that a post-war Iraq did not devolve into chaos.
In his State of the Union address last year, the President declared a global war on terror, and he called on all nations of the world to come together to combat the curse of terrorism. In his speech last night, the global war on terror got remarkably short shrift. "We are working closely with other nations," the President said. "We have the terrorists on the run."
Unfortunately, having terrorists on the run means that terrorists have escaped our dragnet and, according to intelligence assessments, are actively plotting new attacks on the United States and its allies. We still do not know the fate of Osama bin Laden. We may have him on the run, but we also fear that he continues to pose a real and imminent threat to the United States. And unlike Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden has demonstrated his willingness to attack American citizens at home and American interests abroad.
But instead of rallying the international community to the continued need to cooperate in fighting global terrorism, the President's policies and rhetoric are polarizing the world.
I believe that the Senate has a duty to speak to the issue of war with Iraq, and I believe that the United States has a duty under international law to work within the structure of the United Nations charter. If we indict Saddam Hussein on the grounds that he has failed to disarm in accordance with the United Nations resolutions, how can we then turn around and act against him without U.N. support? What signal does the United States send to the world regarding respect for international law? The United Nations is acting responsibly. Iraq, if not fully cooperating, is at least straitjacketed. America's allies are calling on us to give the inspectors time to do their work. This is not the time for precipitous action on the part of the United States.
For these reasons, I am today introducing a resolution urging that the U.N. weapons inspectors be given sufficient time to complete their work and calling for the President to seek a United Nations resolution specifically authorizing the use of force before initiating any offensive military operation against Iraq.
It may come to be that war is the only way to subdue the malevolence of Saddam Hussein. But that is not a decision for the United States to make unilaterally. President Bush in November galvanized the United Nations to act on the issue of Iraq. For that he is to be commended. Now he must follow through on his pledge to work with the U.N. The United Nations has demonstrated in the past two months that it is willing to act responsibly and vigorously in addressing the issue of Iraq's disarmament. No one could accuse chief weapons inspector Hans Blix of sugar-coating his interim report to the U.N. Security Council on January 27. He made clear that Iraq is not adequately cooperating on matters of substance. He made clear his frustration with Iraq. But he did not slam the door on the possibility of disarming Iraq without resorting to war.
As long as that door remains open even a crack, as long as Iraq is not actively threatening its neighbors or the United States, as long as the United Nations can maintain a stranglehold on Saddam Hussein's ambitions, I believe that we have a duty to strive to find an alternative to war. And if war it must be, then it should be a coordinated undertaking authorized by Congress and sanctioned by the member states of the United Nations, not a preemptive strike initiated by the President of the United States.
The consequences of war are incalculable. Before we take such a momentous step, before we place the lives America military personnel and innocent civilians in harms way, we should stop to reflect on the consequences, and we should redouble our efforts to find a peaceful solution to the disarmament of Iraq. If war is the only recourse, it must be a war endorsed and fully supported by the United Nations.
__
Senator Robert Byrd
_____________________
How does Byrd act as "like he's losing it" as you say? It appears to me he has more on the ball than Kerry does and much much more than junior. |
