Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
President Bush Rejects a Plan for Peace
The following remarks were given in response to The President's veto of an Iraq spending bill passed by both the House and the Senate on May 1, 2007:
Four years ago, I stood in this very spot and warned against an ill-advised invasion of Iraq. Today, the situation in Iraq has spiraled out of control into a bloody, deadly sectarian civil war. Yet, the President and his team continue to hold fast to their stay-the-course nonsense. While they do, thousands of brave young Americans place their lives in jeopardy everyday. That reality is one that this nation and the world did not have to experience. It is a tragic reality brought on by a war of choice and an occupation that has yielded neither stability nor reconciliation.
Four years ago today, the President landed on the deck of the U-S-S Abraham Lincoln to declare, "Mission Accomplished." Four years ago. It feels like an age. For thousands of our soldiers and their families, and likely for the Iraqi people, it feels like a lifetime. How wrong the President was then, and how wrong he continues to be today.
Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." No matter how many times the President wishes it were so, peace in Iraq will not be found at the barrel of an American gun. No matter how hard the President hopes it will happen, sectarian violence will not be quelled with U.S. forces occupying the Iraqi nation. Cross your fingers. Pull out your lucky rabbit's foot. Even nail a horse shoe over the Oval Office door. But, hoping for luck will never change the deadly dynamic in Iraq.
Peace demands an Iraqi-led political solution to transcend the ethnic and sectarian divisions that are splitting the country apart -- a political effort which, to date, the Iraqi government has been unable or unwilling to take on. Our legislation could have spurred that progress, but President Bush has defiantly said no. This White House clings to its "foolish consistency."
When he took office as President more than six years ago, George W. Bush issued a call for renewed responsibility in government. Where are the echoes of that call today? What is responsible about clinging to this failed course in Iraq and refusing to consider a new path? What is responsible about the President continuing to foster and manipulate the fears of the American people? Faced with the tragic consequences of its misjudgments in Iraq, the Bush Administration is paralyzed, unwilling to acknowledge, much less remedy, its catastrophic blunders.
President Bush has gone as far as to say that the way out of Iraq "will be decided by future presidents." What an outrageous abdication of responsibility!
It is unacceptable to pass the buck to future leaders, while our brave troops fight and die today in the cross hairs of this Iraqi civil war. The time to begin rectifying this dreadful blunder is now. Not in two years. Not with the next President. But now!
With the supplemental bill, Congress responded to the calls of the American people. We offered a new beginning in reconstruction and stability for Iraq. Our proposal could have generated political reconciliation and economic security in Iraq. Our bipartisan plan shifted the responsibility for the Iraqi nation's long-term success to the Iraqi people themselves.
Put plainly, Congress offered a plan that could have meant a brighter future for Iraq -- a future controlled by the Iraqi people themselves, with continued support from the United States. But the President has flatly rejected that plan. It is a sad day for our nation and for the world.
Before the war began, I urged the President to think through the consequences. There was no doubt as to the military outcome of war between the United States and Iraq; our military might was certainly unquestioned. But I was very concerned about the repercussions that would follow this certain military victory. Tragically, the repercussions I feared all have come to pass. Oh, how I wish that I had been wrong.
Once again, I urge the President to think through the consequences of his choices, the consequences of his rejection of this new plan for Iraq, the consequences of clinging to false hopes. For that is what this veto does. This veto endorses the falsehoods that took us to war. It cements failed policies in place. This veto ensures that hundreds, maybe thousands more, will die in Iraq without any true plan for peace. It forces our military to continue to pursue a mission impossible, creating democracy at the point of a gun.
I am sorry that this day has come to pass. I am sorry that the horrors of this deadly and mishandled occupation have become the stuff of political gamesmanship. There is ample blame to go around for that fact.
I have seen clashes between the Legislative and Executive branches. I have seen Presidents make mistakes in the past. Everyone makes mistakes. I certainly have. But I have never seen such arrogance in a White House that seals its eyes and ears, and blindly sends so many people to their doom. I pray for our troops, for our President, for our country, and for the people of Iraq.
President Bush has chosen to hold hostage $100 billion for our troops to his failed policies. But his choice is not the last word. Congress will get to work on a new version of the supplemental appropriations conference report. We will not delay. But we also will not stop our efforts to stand for what is right and to craft policies that reflect the true strength of America -- humility, modesty, honesty. We will continue to press for a strong, intelligent foreign policy that does not rely on military might alone. And we will not stop in our efforts to bring peace to Iraq and our troops home from war.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Robert C. Byrd is United States Senator from West Virginia.
25 Comments so far
Show AllI sure hope that the military is now using the remaining funds (which supposedly last through June) on planning to remove the troops. It will kinda suck if on June 30th the military says "Sorry guys, but you will have to find your own way home from Baghdad", and leave all that equipment behind.
There is an old saying that come to mind:
"IF YOU ARE NOT A PART OF THE SOLUTION....THEN THERE IS GOOD MONEY TO BE MADE IN PROLONGING THE PROBLEM"
"SEC. 1311. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this or any other Act shall be obligated or expended by the United States Government for a purpose as follows:
(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.
(2) To exercise United States control over any oil resource of Iraq."
Everyone should go and google HR 1591 and read the whole bill. This is the part that I think chimpy is really against. It says this for this act and any future acts. The two main things Chimpy wants is permanent bases and control of Iraq's oil. And also, if you read the bill, every cent that is spent has to be accounted for and provided to the Congress for oversight. With oversight they can't steal anymore from our treasury.
But the president is not seeking peace ...
I don't care if you did vote for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution or were once a wizard in the KKK, Senator Byrd, you have at least learned from your mistakes and been placed in our midst so none could say, "if only someone would have told us".
It is a lonely job but you have stuck to it. Thanks for your devotion and willingness to be reviled for the sake of the rest of us.
President Bush's self-aggrandizing actions are killing our soldiers in Iraq, destroying our economy with a crushing $9 trillion debt, and laying waste to our planet through global warming. Forget trying simply to stop this lie-based war. Congress must bend all of its efforts to impeaching this cruel coward and his henchman, Vice-President Dick Cheney.
A Byrd in the hand is worth any number of Bushes.
All the talk in the world is simply wasted on these people in the admin..The ONLY course of action is to stop the funding of the war, which Congress DOES have the power to do, and impeach the bastards in office. That is the ONLY way this is going to come to an end. Talk...talk...talk. That's all that is going on right now.We need action, not words.
Senator Byrd, I had watch your lonely voice in the well of the Senate on that day October 10, 2002, which will live in infamy, and I could not believe that so few your colleagues had joined your voice of reason and pragmatism.
As the longest and oldest Senator, why don't you admit the simple fact that American Constitution, copy of which you are carrying in your pocket, is a dead letter? That it is people, who consent with the law, make all the difference, not law by itself. That the first junta, which decided to do what they please, was able to tank 230 years of tradition brought about by armed people back in 1776 and 1787. That once tanked, American system of government may be restored only by the force of arms.
Your voice, Senator Byrd, will be very important to mobilize American people to salvage what is still salvageable, and there is not much left.
Don't need to go further than Florence, skst, and vbratt: the Iraq/Afghan situation is basically going as planned for Bush/Cheney -- IMPEACH.
Now that the President has vetoed the emergency spending bill he asked for, Congress should move on to other things. Bush has stepped into the trap. He has no funding for the war.
"But I have never seen such arrogance in a White House..." Senator Byrd hits the nail on the head. Nothing else could explain the actions of this administration more than pure arrogance. It's nice to think that Congress would be willing to work on a compromise, but you know what, teachers and school administrators whose schools don't meet their benchmarks and timetables according the "No Child Left a Dime" Act don't get *their* funding. Why should it be different for the White House? Set some goals and a timetable, and if they're not met, no funding.
Who are you people kidding with that headline "Plan for peace"? That bill had more pork in it than the pig down the street from me at a farm. It had nothing to do with the war and I'm glad it was vetoed.
First, I'll say we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq but we did so stop trying to debate that. It's done so lets move on.
If you really want to do something about the war then have a bill ONLY about the war. To me it looked like the dems were buying off other dems. To those of you who say "just cut the funding". That is exactly the OPPOSITE that we should do. I say give them all the money we can to protect them.
There are only two options we have about this war: 1. We pull out 2. We fight it but we stop being nice and actually fight it like a war.
If you want to pull out then you better pullout tomorrow not 7 months from now. Who came up with that plan? "Hey guys we aren't supposed to be here and we are going home...but not till 7 months from now." If that was passed then I say any soldier who died in that 7 months their blood is on our hands. You don't keep a soldier fighting if you plan on pulling out except to provide cover while you retreat. You don't keep him there to fight a war you don't believe in. If a bill is passed to pull out then we better have everything in place BEFORE it gets to the media so we can pull out without anyone getting hurt.
If you want to stay in the war then we need to get something straight. War is hell. We need to give the soldiers everything they need and stop pussyfooting around and playing nice. We are fighting 2 wars actually. The war in Iraq and the war with the media. You think we would've fought in WWII if we had cameras at Omaha Beach (we had 3,000 casualties there)?
I do believe we need change in Iraq, but walking away is the worst thing to do. If we left now, we would leave a place where terrorists could go and not worry about being found because they don't have a strong government or anyone to protect the civilians.
What we should be doing is working on everyone getting the Sunnis and Shiites talking at the same table. We should be sending Bush to Iraq and make it so he can't leave until a deal is reached. The sooner we get them talking the sooner the soldiers can come home.
Regardless what you believe keep one thing in mind. We can't be selfish here. This war isn't just about American lives. It's also about Iraqis' too. We have to protect a country we tore apart. When we leave (Because we will leave one day whether it's in October or farther in the future) that we have something in place to protect the innocent people. After all, isn't that what the strong are supposed to do?
Senator Byrd's long and distinguished service in the Senate should serve as a model for anyone seeking a career in politics. In a situation that increasingly leaves one speechless, his articulation of what most of us are feeling is most welcome. As for Bush, has he no shame? As an amature American historian, I can only say I've never seen or read about such incompetence, arrogance and complete misunderstanding of the democratic form of government as is displayed by this president and those in his administration. Future historians will be unable to rank him anything other than "Worst. President. Ever."
Rick is right. No more funding bills. If Congress is bent on a supplemental, than the next bill on Schrub's desk should only fund the withdrawal of our troops. Period. No benchmarks, no "progress" reports. No nothing! Fini!!
Shane,
No such luck. There is pleny of money floating around in the DoD to keep the troops going for a long time to come. And they won't be spending it on finding ways to bring our troops home. They could probably find a few bucks by stopping the funding to our mercenary armies like Blackwater. Or maybe not install new missle defense bases in Europe. The Russians might back off a bit if that happened. Or how about we don't spend anything the new plan to rearm our "outdated" nuclear stockpiles with new and improved warheads? Oh, and how about that Star Wars program?
mphalen
Good point! I knew there was a real reason for the veto. I just thought that giving up the Hydrocarbon Law benchmark so his cronies could get their hands on Iraq's oil would give him pause. Oh well....
I'd like to know just how Congress intends to stop Bush. All he has to do is write the word "veto" and he gets everything he wants. Congress will buckle because they don't want to be known as the Congress that left our brave men and women high and dry in Iraq. Of course, that happened the day Cheney told Bush to start the war.
The main beneficiaries of the taxpayer cash funding of the war, being the power and wealth of the military corporations, bureaucracy, and key crony figures in the command structure, are thinking more of how to get out of this as late as possible with their hides, power and cash intact. That includes continuing the pretext that their moral course was right all along, only reality was the problem. Withdrawal from Iraq equals admission of guilt, and that cannot be. The well paid puppets in Congress go along with this. Of course the oil addicted US economy doesn't want to lose Middle East Oil access, or to compromise on Israel. Admitting military failure means decline in power, admitting corrupt motives and facing further decline of the US dollar, the loss of "will". The longer the Iraq withdrawal decision is left, the worse the eventual fall. Sometime soon, the US will have to jump down while it still can, before its pushed.
One way they can stop Bush is to do nothing. Let him twist in the wind. Congress has always had the power and authority to just stop funding the war. It doesn't require Bush's signature, let alone consent.
Do that and you can watch the Pentagon automatically start bring the troops home and let Blackwater figure it themselves.
Excellent!! My thought exactly. Congress has no obligation to send ANY supplemental funding bill to Bush. Time to move on folks. Congress gave him a bill to fund his occupation. He vetoed it and said he didn't want it. So, Okay. Done. Congress gave it their best shot, so now it's time for them to move on to other important stuff.
I like it! I'm going to write Pelosi and my rep's right now and tell 'em it's time to move on. They have a real budget to work on. Shrub wants more funding for the troops? Put it in the budget.
Oh, I forgot. In that upcoming budget? No more money for mercenaries, building permanent bases in Iraq, Haliburton, KBR, or any of the other rotten war profiteers. And give our troops a damn raise so they can support their families and not be on welfare.
Oh, wait...One other thing. I'd like Congress to figure out how we can redefine National Guard to mean "National" not "International", as in not an extention of the U.S. military. I kinda think the States would really like to know if they can have their First Responders and the National Guard back to help during the next national emergency..You know...like hurricanes, major fires, floods, tornados, in-country terrorist attacks...stuff like that...
I don't think we should work on removing our troops until we hold Bush and the neocons accountable (impeachment) for the lies and manipulation of intelligence that got us in Iraq in the first place. Without being held accountable, Bush can stay in office and continue to hide behind our troops and use them as political leverage against the demos should Iraqi violence continue after we withdraw.
Damn! I wish I could send Pelosi to hell for saying that "impeachment is off the table". She is undermining her own constitutional duty.
Re- Ms. Pelosi "taking impeachment off the table," I believe we need to recognize that most of the time it is not possible for folks in government to simultaneously be effective And speak truth.
Pelosi is one smart woman and a solid strategist. I see her statement as simply another ploy. There's no reason to believe that she means exactly what she says - ever. Her statement is for public consumption.
The democrats are showing themselves to be smarter than they've appeared in recent years. We'll see if they can match the brilliance of "M.C. Rove." And we'll soon see if they have wisdom and will to be effective in both the long- and short-term.
Re- Iraq and the debate about "setting a date" etc.
A critical point that has is usually ignored is the possibility that Iraq has successfully served many of its original purposes - for example, consolidating the wealth and power of an already quite powerful elite.
Another realistic possiblity is that the entire war itself is a distraction. A slight of hand trick filling the news cycles and getting the public to "'look over there,' while we try to hide other crucial misdeeds and secrets 'over here.'
It's the oldest magic trick in the world. And the neo-cans are, if nothing else, master tricksters.
Summing up: mendacity rules!
I have a question. Wasn't it the Democrats who said "There will be no timetable for Iraq" when they got elected?
You say Bush needs to be held accountable (and he does), but the people you elected to "change Washington" are exactly the same people they replaced. First thing they did is go after the Republicans and want impeachments and blah blah blah. Politics is alive and well in Washington. How about we get back to the issues like the deficit and outsourcing. I don't need to move to India to get my job back.
Viper...impeach Bush but leave the troops in uncertainty. Hmmm yup I agree with that NOT. First thing you should do is stop making the Iraq war a political agenda. Why are people so stuck in the past and want to go after Bush. How about we first look to the future to solve the problem that we (US) created and get our troops home safe and no more people killed. There is plenty of time to do finger pointing and impeaching Bush later.
Oh there is one thing that the Democrats and the Republicans need to do. Bring me back my rights the Patriot Act killed them. I don't care if they monitor over seas phone calls, but put some oversights in place. I don't trust people and I don't trust the government.
Senator Byrd speaks with the honesty, integrity and passion we hope to find in all of our leaders. Too bad he stands alone. As Cheney has predicted, the Dems will cave in as usual and give the president everything he wants.
Rick Wagner,
Re: Now that the President has vetoed the emergency spending bill he asked for, Congress should move on to other things. Bush has stepped into the trap. He has no funding for the war.
I agree. Congress should simply turn its attenntion to other business, such as conducting investigations into the administration's wiretapping activities and passing legislation requiring voter-verified paper ballots and random election result audits.
Alternatively, Congress could just send the same appropriation bill back to the White House, with the additional proviso that it be funded by levying a tax on the citizenry. Lets see, now... that's $124 billion divided by 300 million people, or about $1650 for a family of four...