Mr. President, 38 years ago I, Robert C. Byrd, voted on the Tonkin Gulf Resolution--the resolution that authorized the President to use military force to "repel armed attacks" and "to prevent further Communist aggression" in Southeast Asia.
It was this resolution that provided the basis for American involvement in the war in Vietnam.
It was the resolution that lead to the longest war in American history.
It led to the deaths of 58,000 Americans, and 150,000 Americans being wounded in action.
It led to massive protests, a deeply divided country, and the deaths of more Americans at Kent State.
It was a war that destroyed the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson and wrecked the administration of Richard Nixon.
After all that carnage, we began to learn that, in voting for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, we were basing our votes on bad information. We learned that the claims the administration made on the need for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution were simply not true, and history is repeating itself.
We tragically and belatedly learned that we had not taken enough time to consider the resolution. We had not asked the right questions, nor enough questions. We learned that we should have been demanding more hard evidence from the administration rather than accepting the administration at its word.
But it was too late.
For all those spouting jingoes about going to war with Iraq, about the urgent need for regime change no matter what the cost, about the need to take out the evil dictator--and make no mistakes, I know and understand that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator--I urge Senators to go down on The Capital Mall and look at the Vietnam memorial. Nearly every day you will find someone at that wall weeping for a loved one, a father, a son, a brother, a friend, whose name is on that wall.
If we are fortunate, a war with Iraq will be a short one with few American deaths, as in the Persian Gulf war, and we can go around again waving flags and singing patriotic songs.
Or, maybe we will find ourselves building another wall on the mall.
I will always remember the words of Senator Wayne Morse, one of the two Senators who opposed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. During the debate on the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, he stated: "The resolution will pass, and Senators who vote for it will live to regret it."
Many Senators did live to regret it.
The Tonkin Gulf Resolution contained a sunset provision to end military action. S.J. Res. 46 will allow the President to continue war for as long as he wants, against anyone he wants as long he feels it will help eliminate the threat posed by Iraq.
With the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, Congress could "terminate" military action. With S.J. Res. 46 , only the President can terminate military action.
I should point out that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and S.J. Res. 46 do have several things in common. Congress is again being asked to vote on the use of force without hard evidence that the country poses an immediate threat to the national security of the United States. We are being asked to vote on a resolution authorizing the use of force in a hyped up, politically charged atmosphere in an election year. Congress is again being rushed into a judgment.
This is why I stand here today, before this Chamber, and before this Nation, urging, pleading for some sanity, for more time to consider this resolution, for more hard evidence on the need for this resolution.
Before we put this great Nation on the track to war, I want to see more evidence, hard evidence, not more Presidential rhetoric. In support of this resolution, several people have pointed out that President Kennedy acted unilaterally in the Cuban missile crisis. That is true. I remember that. I was here. I also remember President Kennedy going on national television and showing proof of the threat we faced. I remember him sending our UN ambassador, Adlai Stevenson, to the United Nations, to provide proof to the world that there was a threat to the national security of the United States.
All we get from this administration is rhetoric. In fact, in an address to our NATO colleagues, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, according to the Chicago Tribune, urged our allies to resist the idea for the need of absolute proof about terrorists intent before they took action.
Before we unleash what Thomas Jefferson called the "dogs of war," I want to know, have we exhausted every avenue of peace? My favorite book does not say, blessed are the war makers. It says: "Blessed are the peacemakers." Have we truly pursued peace?
If the need for taking military action against Iraq is so obvious and so needed and so urgent, then why are nearly every one of our allies opposed to it? Why is the President on the phone nearly every day trying to convince our allies to join us?
So many people, so many nations in the Arab world already hate and fear us. Why do we want them to hate and fear us even more?
People are correct to point out that September 11 changed everything. We need to be more careful. We need to build up our intelligence efforts and our homeland security. But do we go around pounding everybody, anybody, who might pose a threat to our security? If we clobber Iraq today, do we clobber Iran tomorrow?
When do we attack China? When do we attack North Korea? When do we attack Syria?
Unless I can be shown proof that these distant nations do pose an immediate, serious threat to the national interests and security of the United States, I think we should finish our war on terrorism. I think we should destroy those who destroyed the Trade Towers and attacked the Pentagon. I think we should get thug No. 1 before we worry about thug No. 2.
Yes, September 11 changed many aspects of our lives, but people still bleed. America's mothers will still weep for their sons and their daughters who will not come home.
September 11 should have made us more aware of the pain that comes from being attacked. We, more than ever, are aware of the damage, the deaths, and the suffering that comes from violent attacks.
At that time, he was the longest serving human being in the history of the United States Senate, elected nine times for 6 year terms. He spoke with the authority of someone who had seen more and lived through more than any other elected official. He clearly pointed out that the AUMF was irresponsible on two counts, first because it was being rushed through the chamber by a bullying administration without clear evidence of an Iraqi WMD program, a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, or a convincing case that our own national interest was being threatened, and more importantly, because it was an open-ended blank check and a gross abrogation of Congress's constitutional responsibilities.
He was opposed most vehemently by John McCain and Joe Lieberman, who own this war as much as Bush himself. Here, though, is the Junior Senator from New York's response, from which she cannot hide:
No comments:
Post a Comment