Senator Byrd's 2003/05/06 speech

[pkt]

Remarks by U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd: "A Troubling Speech"

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/050703B.shtml

Tuesday 06 May 2003

In my 50 years as a member of Congress, I have had the privilege to witness the defining rhetorical moments of a number of American presidents. I have listened spellbound to the soaring oratory of John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. I have listened grimly to the painful soul-searching of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

Presidential speeches are an important marker of any President's legacy. These are the tangible moments that history seizes upon and records for posterity. For this reason, I was deeply troubled by both the content and the context of President Bush's remarks to the American people last week marking the end of the combat phase of the war in Iraq. As I watched the President's fighter jet swoop down onto the deck of the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, I could not help but contrast the reported simple dignity of President Lincoln at Gettysburg with the flamboyant showmanship of President Bush aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

President Bush's address to the American people announcing combat victory in Iraq deserved to be marked with solemnity, not extravagance; with gratitude to God, not self-congratulatory gestures. American blood has been shed on foreign soil in defense of the President's policies. This is not some made-for-TV backdrop for a campaign commercial. This is real life, and real lives have been lost. To me, it is an affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq for the President to exploit the trappings of war for the momentary spectacle of a speech. I do not begrudge his salute to America's warriors aboard the carrier Lincoln, for they have performed bravely and skillfully, as have their countrymen still in Iraq, but I do question the motives of a deskbound President who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech.

As I watched the President's speech, before the great banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," I could not help but be reminded of the tobacco barns of my youth, which served as country road advertising backdrops for the slogans of chewing tobacco purveyors. I am loath to think of an aircraft carrier being used as an advertising backdrop for a presidential political slogan, and yet that is what I saw.

What I heard the President say also disturbed me. It may make for grand theater to describe Saddam Hussein as an ally of al Qaeda or to characterize the fall of Baghdad as a victory in the war on terror, but stirring rhetoric does not necessarily reflect sobering reality. Not one of the 19 September 11th hijackers was an Iraqi. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence to link the September 11 attack on the United States to Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was an evil despot who brought great suffering to the Iraqi people, and there is no doubt in my mind that he encouraged and rewarded acts of terrorism against Israel. But his crimes are not those of Osama bin Laden, and bringing Saddam Hussein to justice will not bring justice to the victims of 9-11. The United States has made great progress in its efforts to disrupt and destroy the al Qaeda terror network. We can take solace and satisfaction in that fact. We should not risk tarnishing those very real accomplishments by trumpeting victory in Iraq as a victory over Osama bin Laden.

We are reminded in the gospel of Saint Luke, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." Surely the same can be said of any American president. We expect, nay demand, that our leaders be scrupulous in the truth and faithful to the facts. We do not seek theatrics or hyperbole. We do not require the stage management of our victories. The men and women of the United States military are to be saluted for their valor and sacrifice in Iraq. Their heroics and quiet resolve speak for themselves. The prowess and professionalism of America's military forces do not need to be embellished by the gaudy excesses of a political campaign.

War is not theater, and victory is not a campaign slogan. I join with the President and all Americans in expressing heartfelt thanks and gratitude to our men and women in uniform for their service to our country, and for the sacrifices that they have made on our behalf. But on this point I differ with the President: I believe that our military forces deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and not used as stage props to embellish a presidential speech.

- - -

In fact, I'd venture to call it an election stump speech.

PK

[Inquartata]

"Well...there he goes again." -R. Reagan

[KShan5[PrFC]]

What kinda crap is that??

He is mad because the President has accomplished what he wants and did it in dramatic fashion. Sure flying onto the carrier in afighter jet was not 100% necessary; but who cares? (Bush actauly piloted the plane while in the airborn) Bush was indeed in the service before. If Senator Kerry (D) had done flown onto a carrier it would have been fine, but Bush is Republican, therefore it is not.

Bush went onto the carrier and congratulated the troops, there is nothing wrong with that. He said they could go home! SO WHAT!

Oh and when Bush linked Saddam and al Queta he did not say Saddam made the attacks on September 11th. What he said was that the "War on TERROR" started on Sept. 11, and that Saddam was indeed part of that war, just not a member of al Queta, but a member of a group of people waging terror on the US. (This can be debated, but the fact is he never linked al Queta as being sponsered or anything of the nature, by Iraq.)

And finally, the Senator alludes that the speech was offensive and done improperly. Y in his speech he quotes Luke, an author of his own Gospel. Could this not offend none Christians? Is this also not improper?

O and by the way, I thought the President's speech was one of the best I have heard in a decade. it was beautifuly written and everytime he spoke it was filed with pride and emotion.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]
What kinda crap is that??

He is mad because the President has accomplished what he wants and did it in dramatic fashion. Sure flying onto the carrier in afighter jet was not 100% necessary; but who cares?

well, I do, for one.
I'm glad at least ONE of the democrats had the balls to call him out on this gaudy and completely unnecessary act of showmanship.

(Bush actauly piloted the plane while in the airborn)

so have many children. flying isn't hard. landing is.

Bush was indeed in the service before.

which service? he is the correct age to have served in Vietnam. did he? oh, thats right, he was too busy defending our home shores...

If Senator Kerry (D) had done flown onto a carrier it would have been fine, but Bush is Republican, therefore it is not.

First of all, no it would NOT be fine. I would call him out on it, too. the difference is he DIDN'T do it. moreover, I don't think he would. Also, remember that Kerry WAS in combat. Bush was NOT.

Bush went onto the carrier and congratulated the troops, there is nothing wrong with that. He said they could go home! SO WHAT!

do you think his choice of venue and his actions had anything to do with consideration for those troops? it was done all for the publicity. btw, how much do you think his little trip to the carrier cost the american public??

Oh and when Bush linked Saddam and al Queta he did not say Saddam made the attacks on September 11th. What he said was that the "War on TERROR" started on Sept. 11, and that Saddam was indeed part of that war, just not a member of al Queta, but a member of a group of people waging terror on the US. (This can be debated, but the fact is he never linked al Queta as being sponsered or anything of the nature, by Iraq.)

not in the carrier speech, no, but he DID say REPEATEDLY that he would show such a link in the lead up to the war. did he? did I miss it?

O and by the way, I thought the President's speech was one of the best I have heard in a decade. it was beautifuly written and everytime he spoke it was filed with pride and emotion.

I suggest you revisit some old speeches. FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton ALL had better speeches than that one.

-m

[muaddib]

I think Senator Byrd's speech was right on the money.

On Larry King the other day, BOB SCHIEFFER of CBS NEWS said

"Well I must say, Larry, as I watched the president what I thought about was Ronald Reagan, who was known as the great communicator. And Ronald Reagan understood it's not just the words you say, that you use to communicate. You use, where you say it, how you say it, the background around you. And we saw some very powerful pictures tonight. My sense of it is, we'll remember these pictures a lot longer than we'll remember the words that the president said tonight. "

Sadly, I think Bob is right. Our world is becoming more and more visual, and the image of Dubya, getting out of the jet in his dashing outfit, will be remembered by many next November.

Now I'd like to see some images. How about an image of the mountain of WOMD that's in Iraq? Instead we see Haliburton sucking oil!

[civiltech]

Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]
What kinda crap is that??

He is mad because the President has accomplished what he wants and did it in dramatic fashion. Sure flying onto the carrier in afighter jet was not 100% necessary; but who cares? (Bush actauly piloted the plane while in the airborn) Bush was indeed in the service before. If Senator Kerry (D) had done flown onto a carrier it would have been fine, but Bush is Republican, therefore it is not.

Bush went onto the carrier and congratulated the troops, there is nothing wrong with that. He said they could go home! SO WHAT!

Oh and when Bush linked Saddam and al Queta he did not say Saddam made the attacks on September 11th. What he said was that the "War on TERROR" started on Sept. 11, and that Saddam was indeed part of that war, just not a member of al Queta, but a member of a group of people waging terror on the US. (This can be debated, but the fact is he never linked al Queta as being sponsered or anything of the nature, by Iraq.)

And finally, the Senator alludes that the speech was offensive and done improperly. Y in his speech he quotes Luke, an author of his own Gospel. Could this not offend none Christians? Is this also not improper?

O and by the way, I thought the President's speech was one of the best I have heard in a decade. it was beautifuly written and everytime he spoke it was filed with pride and emotion.

Hey keyshan, private.

I saw you on the air craft carrier to! Wern't you the one who started clapping and yelling to que to crowd to do so? Very well staged! You should be proud. The theatre performance was excellent, and I'm sure it will help Dubya get relected. And that in turn will keep you in a job!

Well played.

[civiltech]

And Private, by the way:


If you use J'ai envie instead of Je veux in your signature, it will look like you actually know how to speak french.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by civiltech
Hey keyshan, private.

PrFC is not Private First Class. It stands for Providence Fencing Club. KShan is a bit young for the military....

-m

[veeco]

Originally posted by civiltech
And Private, by the way:


If you use J'ai envie instead of Je veux in your signature, it will look like you actually know how to speak french.

Actually, both would work... However the correct way to write the second sentence is

"Je veux (j'ai envie de) faire de l'escrime 24 heures par jour, sept jours par semaine."

But I prefer it the way KShan wrote it, it just sounds better in my head with the accent ;-)

[civiltech]

Our Canadian French is a bastardized version which we prefer!

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally posted by civiltech
And Private, by the way:


If you use J'ai envie instead of Je veux in your signature, it will look like you actually know how to speak french.

Sorry not french nor Canadian...Thankfully (I kid) I am in high school and I am not fluent....not even close.

Oh btw Mike, FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. were not President within in the past ten years. Just thought I would clarify this historical misconception.

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]
Oh btw Mike, FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush Sr. were not President within in the past ten years. Just thought I would clarify this historical misconception.

True, but they only add to my point. what about Clinton? he had much better written speeches, as well.

-m

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Clinton had very well written speeches, and he was a great politician. But I think the emotion that this stirred was enormous. I just feel it was superbly written and all of his points flowed together like poetry.

[Inquartata]

Just goes to show that Bush can do nothing right. Right?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]
O and by the way, I thought the President's speech was one of the best I have heard in a decade. it was beautifuly written and everytime he spoke it was filed with pride and emotion.

Considering your age, one decade may be a good comparison. From what I read, I still find it wanting compared with the Gettysburg adress, just to take one example from one of his party colleagues.

This may seem condescending, but: when you comment in writing on how others write, your opinions are not given more weight by having three spelling errors in one sentence.

KShan5[PrFC]: from your water cooler posts, I find it a fairly safe bet that you are one of Bush´s supporters. I, OTOH, find a lot of the statements and policies - on foreign policy at least - that come out of the White House ill-advised, and I get the impression that my personal opinions on what are a good end results are quite different than theirs.

If my assumption about you is correct, we have a situation where a politician´s supporter finds his speech good, while his opponent finds it less so. Expressed thusly, you must understand that these are not very strong statements. Obviously, if a politician´s supporter would state that one of his speeches is weak, or that his opponent would state that a speech is good - stirring, forceful, whatever, that would mean much more.

Can you give such examples for you? I could give examples of politicians which I agree with but I think that their speeches are lousy. They are Swedish, though, so you have probably not heard about them. No examples in the other direction that I cam e remember directly. That probably is related to the fact that in Swedish politics speeches and rethorics are far less important than in american politics - over here, there are no debating teams in school, saying that you are lousy at speeches is likely to get you sympathty, and may politicians are positively lousy at it.

Personally, I prefer if speeches don´t have so much emotion in them - the less the better, IMO. That goes for pride, also. Comples intellectual issues and lots of number that require the listener/reader to think, rather than emote, is what gets my liking.

Yes, I am a Swede, and an engineer to boot.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[S. Fisher]

"Just goes to show that Bush can do nothing right. Right?"

Wrong.

[Philistine]

Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]

{snip}
O and by the way, I thought the President's speech was one of the best I have heard in a decade. it was beautifuly written and everytime he spoke it was filed with pride and emotion.

No offense, but how old were you a decade ago?

--Philistine

[KShan5[PrFC]]

Originally posted by Philistine
No offense, but how old were you a decade ago?

--Philistine

Good point.

Now, I understand what you are saying Peter, and I agree. If epeemike said it was a good speech, then it would have more behind it. And I shall give an example, about not finding a Bush speech to be provoking emotionally, or intellectually.

Last night George Bush gave a speech at the University of South Carolina where he was awarded an honorary law degree. The reason I did not like this speech was that he used it as a political platform. He continued to talk about the war on Iraq and terror, and I feel that he should have been congratulating the graduating students, and not continued to talk of politics. Yet, you may ask how is this different from his trip to the Lincoln. To me the Lincoln was still the time and place to do this. But to make my point I am not just a supporter of Bush who follows blindly. And no, the speech was no match for that made at Gettysburg. But how many are? And no I do not think that Bush is a great orator, but this particular speech I think was excellent.

[jeff]

One of the many reasons I don't support Bush is his inability to frame and speak complete, coherent, English sentences. This especially shows up in any extemporaneous speech.

I would be surprised if his speeches will stand up over time to JFK's (eg: "we will bear any burden", and "send a man to the moon and bring him back"), FDR's (the fireside chats), or Winston Churchill's (too many to mention - he's the best, I think) or (for fairness, picking another president I didn't like) Reagan. And, it's amazing to think how Lincoln's Gettysburg address crystallized the meaning of the great conflict of the Civil War - though critics at the time thought it was terrible. These are high standards

[epeemike81]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Just goes to show that Bush can do nothing right. Right?

sure he could have done something right. a nice, dignified speech in the oval office or the rose garden. that would have been right. He could have NOT used an aircraft carrier and its crew as a stage prop. he could have HAD some dignity. He didn't.

-m