Byrd: U.S. Senate conscience
Editorial
The Charleston Gazette
Saturday September 21, 2002
LONG a student of the U.S. Constitution, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., may be its most eloquent defender today. In his striving to prevent the Bush administration from seizing complete power, Byrd has become the foremost advocate of the checks-and-balances system between the three branches of government.
In questioning White House efforts to impose an imperial foreign policy on the planet, Byrd does as much as anyone to protect the civil rights, jobs and lives of average Americans.
West Virginians elected Byrd to Congress in 1952, to the Senate in 1958. His state, one of the nation’s poorest, saw a greater percentage of its sons die in Vietnam than any other. Now he questions Bush’s eagerness for war.
“I recall all too well the nightmare of Vietnam. I recall too well the antiwar protests and demonstrations, the campus riots, and the tragic deaths at Kent State, as well as the resignation of a president. And I remember all too well the gruesome daily body counts in Vietnam,” Byrd told the Senate in June.
Byrd praised Sens. Wayne Morse, D-Ore., and Ernst Gruening, D-Alaska — the only two who voted against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in 1964 that expanded the war in Southeast Asia. The West Virginian said:
“Morse expressed his concern that the Pentagon and the executive branch were perpetrating a ‘snow job’ upon Congress and the American people. If the Senate approved the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, Senator Morse warned, the ‘senators who vote for it will live to regret it.’” Byrd himself was one of those senators.
“For all of their blustering about how al-Qaida is determined to strike at our freedoms, this administration shows little appreciation for the constitutional doctrines and processes that have preserved those freedoms for more than two centuries,” Byrd said.
In his two-volume history of the Senate, Byrd called it the “anchor of the Republic, the morning and evening star in the American constitutional constellation.” That’s a bit bombastic — but the senator is correct in contending that U.S. policies mustn’t be decreed by the president alone, but must be subject to approval by the people’s elected representatives in Congress.
“As we learned all too well in Korea, Vietnam and Somalia, it is dangerous to present Congress and the American people with a fait accompli on important matters of foreign affairs,” he said.
Warning of a “blank check for military operations that are yet to be determined,” Byrd insists that Americans should know what happens in the Philippines, in Colombia, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Palestine.
Byrd also opposes threats to the jobs and rights of Americans at home. For example, he argues, the North American Free Trade Agreement hurt both companies and workers by eliminating hundreds of thousands of high-paying U.S. jobs in steel, agriculture, clothing and shoemaking.
In May, Byrd urged senators to reject “fast-track authority” allowing the president “carte blanche to determine what will be contained in a series of trade agreements.” Byrd lost, 66 to 30.
Byrd also opposes Bush’s threat to veto any Homeland Security bill guaranteeing “civil service protections, collective bargaining rights and other provisions that safeguard federal workers’ rights.” The new department will employ 170,000.
“I have not seen such executive arrogance and secrecy since the Nixon administration, and we all know what happened to that group,” Byrd said.
Regarding Iraq, Byrd leaves no doubt he would like to see dictator Saddam Hussein gone. “He has promoted the starvation of Iraqi children so that he and his cabal can live in palaces. Saddam Hussein is a scourge on the people of Iraq and a menace to peace.” But, “as the Constitution demands, it is the role of Congress to declare war. When the president is ready to present his case to Congress, I am ready to listen. But I am tired of trying to connect dots in the dark,” Byrd said.
Last week, Byrd told the Senate:
“We stand today in the swirl of unanswered questions about this administration’s intent with regard to an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq, the reasons for which have not yet been explained to Congress or the American people. Perhaps the White House has the answers to the questions that people are asking about why we may soon send our sons and daughters to fight, and perhaps die, in the sands of the Middle East. But thus far, we have encountered only a wall of secrecy at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue — a wall built on the pillars of executive privilege.”
We’re proud that the West Virginia senator has become a champion of checks and balances in government. No president — especially one who lost the popular vote and was handed the office by his party’s Supreme Court justices — should rule alone, without other views. Crucial decisions must never be made solely in White House basement rooms.
There are times when one man’s voice helps change history. Let’s hope this is one of those times. Robert C. Byrd is the conscience of the Senate.
wvgazette.com
__________________________________________________________________
Bush's war plans are a cover-up, Byrd says
By Paul J. Nyden
STAFF WRITER
The Charleston Gazette
Saturday September 21, 2002
Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., said President Bush’s plans to invade Iraq are a conscious effort to distract public attention from growing problems at home.
“This administration, all of a sudden, wants to go to war with Iraq,” Byrd said. “The [political] polls are dropping, the domestic situation has problems.... So all of a sudden we have this war talk, war fervor, the bugles of war, drums of war, clouds of war.
“Don’t tell me that things suddenly went wrong. Back in August, the president had no plans.... Then all of a sudden this country is going to war,” Byrd told the Senate on Friday.
“Are politicians talking about the domestic situation, the stock market, weaknesses in the economy, jobs that are being lost, housing problems? No.”
Byrd warned of another Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Passed on Aug. 7, 1964, that resolution handed President Lyndon Johnson broad powers to escalate the war in Vietnam, a conflict that cost 58,202 American lives and millions of Asian lives.
“Congress will be putting itself on the sidelines,” Byrd told the Senate. “Nothing would please this president more than having such a blank check handed to him.”
Byrd said his belief in the Constitution will prevent him from voting for Bush’s war resolution. “But I am finding that the Constitution is irrelevant to people of this administration.”
Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., both praised Byrd after he spoke.
“It is the height of patriotism to ask such hard questions,” Clinton said. “No one exemplifies that more than the senior senator from West Virginia.”
Byrd said, “Before the nation is committed to war, before we send our sons and daughters to battle in faraway lands, there are critical questions that must be asked. To date, the answers from the administration have been less than satisfying.”
Byrd repeatedly said Bush has failed to give members of Congress any evidence about any immediate danger from Iraq. Byrd also criticized his speech to the United Nations.
“Instead of offering compelling evidence that the Iraqi regime had taken steps to advance its weapons program, the president offered the U.N. more of a warning than an appeal for support.
“Instead of using the forum of the U.N. General Assembly to offer evidence and proof of his claims, the president basically told the nations of the world that you are either with me, or against me,” Byrd said.
“We must not be hell-bent on an invasion until we have exhausted every other possible option to assess and eliminate Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction program. We must not act alone. We must have the support of the world.”
Byrd said Congress needs solid evidence and answers to several specific questions, including:
*Does Saddam Hussein pose an imminent threat to the U.S.?
*Should the United States act alone?
*What would be the repercussions in the Middle East and around the globe?
*How many civilians would die in Iraq?
*How many American forces would be involved?
*How do we afford this war?
*Will the U.S. respond with nuclear weapons if Saddam Hussein uses chemical or biological weapons against U.S. soldiers?
*Does the U.S. have enough military and intelligence resources to fight wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while mobilizing resources to prevent attacks on our own shores?
*Byrd said the proposed resolution Bush sent Congress on Thursday would be the “broadest possible grant of war powers to any president in the history of our Republic. The resolution is a direct insult and an affront to the powers given to Congress.”
Byrd also criticized Bush’s request for power to carry out “pre-emptive attacks” and send troops to Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, the West Bank and anywhere else in the Middle East.
“I cannot believe the gall and the arrogance of the White House in requesting such a broad grant of war powers,” Byrd said. “This is the worst kind of election-year politics.”
wvgazette.com |
