Monitor archives:
Copyrighted material

Sen. Robert Byrd: This is Another Gulf of Tonkin Resolution

to index of Iraq debate
Mr. WARNER. I fear no question that would be asked. I have the privilege of being designated by our Republican leader to be one of the managers of the debate today, tomorrow, and the days to come, since I am proud to have my name on this resolution which is before the Senate. I will be prepared, as best I can, to respond to my colleagues because I speak from my own personal convictions, which are equally as strong as those of my dear friend from West Virginia.

But the Senator said the President is not king, and the Senator is right. There is no one who understands this Constitution better. The king is not mentioned, as far as I can recall, in the Constitution anywhere. But what is in the Constitution is the President should be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and, indeed, the Air Force and the Marines.

At this very moment, while we are in this Chamber, Saddam Hussein is firing on our airplanes over Iraq, which have been operating for over a decade, trying to enforce at least one of the resolutions, 688, which precluded him from using force, such as poison gas and biological weapons against his own people.

Just in the month of September, 60 times have our airplanes and those of Great Britain and at one time France experienced that hostile fire against American and British aviators. Therein is the constitutional responsibility of our President to fire back.

A very good question which my good friend raises, What is new? I am urging the administration to try and share more information with the Congress this week and to perhaps declassify information, but I can only speak for myself as to what is new, and that is the biological weaponry. It is an open fact now.

It has been expressed by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Secretary Rumsfeld, that Saddam Hussein is manufacturing this biological agent by using trucks. Three or four trucks constitute a small industrial plant, and they can be moved around. It can be containerized. It could be put in a bottle or can of baby powder and smuggled into the United States. There are means, and all of us know how that could be distributed in a harmful way against our people.

That is the new information that compels me to take the actions I am taking with others. I will, in the days to come, give other bits of information that compel me to take this position behind this resolution.

Mr. BYRD. He speaks of biological weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein as being something new. That is not new. That is not new.

This Nation itself helped to build, helped to create the building blocks of biological weaponry years ago when we sent to Saddam Hussein, this country made available to Iraq, back in the days when we thought that Saddam Hussein would be our friend. A few years later, after we provided Iraq help in making biological weapons, today we find he is our enemy.

This is the way it is. Yesterday's friend is today's enemy. We have known about the biological weapons for years. We helped Iraq to have the building blocks. Now we have claimed this is something new. This is not new. This is not a new pretext. We have known this all along. The Israelis knew these things. They knew what was happening in Iraq with respect to nuclear weapons. These things are not new, but they are new just before this election. That is what I am saying. Let us come back after the election and then debate, and then, who knows? I might join with the distinguished Senator in promoting a resolution to declare war, Congress declare war.

Mr. WARNER. But this biological weaponry, the ability to manufacture it and move those sites around to conceal his industrial base, the ability to package it in such a way that it now can be transported long distances, I think that is new technology, which is troublesome to me. We know full well of the willingness and capability of terrorists to hit us as they did on 9/11. We saw them attack the USS Cole. What is to prevent those biological weapons being placed into the hands of this growing network of terrorists, people who hate the United States, and bring it to our shores and distribute it?

Mr. BYRD. It was not more than 6 weeks ago when this President, this administration, expressed concern at the "frenzy" that people were being wrapped into. This administration tried to cool it 6 weeks ago, talking about the frenzy.

We have heard this administration's Cabinet Members out on the trail say time and again, there is no plan, no plan on the President's desk. That is what Secretary of State Powell said to me when I asked, What is new? What about these plans? Oh, there is no plan on the President's desk. Even the President himself has said there is no plan. Even as late as October 1, just a few day ago, 3 days ago, 4 days ago, the President himself said he has not made a decision to go to war.

So what is new? That is what I am saying to my distinguished friend. We knew about their packaging. Why didn't the CIA Director say it to me when I asked him twice, once up in 407 and once in my own office, What is there that is new from your standpoint of intelligence that we did not know 3 months ago, 6 months ago? He has not been able to come up with anything.

So I say to my distinguished friend from Virginia, yes, I am concerned about packaging and all that. But that is not new. That should not make it all-compelling that we vote on this matter of peace or war, or preemptive strike, before we go home. The people out there want us to come home. Let's go home to the people who send us here; let's talk with them in town meetings; let's tell them what we know. They have questions they want answered. Let's go to our people, our bosses, the people whom we represent. Let's go back to them before we make this fateful decision once and for all, which involves so much of the treasure and blood of the people who sent us here. Let's go back to them; let's get their feelings; and then we can come back and make this decision.

Mr. WARNER. I will walk out of this Chamber after we complete our debate to go to my State, as others have gone to theirs, to listen to my citizens. But I say to them, the timing of the work we are doing on this resolution is important now, for many reasons. But I draw to the attention of my colleague that the United Nations is now deliberating, at this very moment, on the possibility of another resolution providing for yet another attempt for an inspection regime.

If we show our strength and we show our resolve as a unified Congress, behind the President, to the extent we do that, it is to that extent that resolution could be meaningful and have teeth in it and enforceability in such a way that we can avoid the conflict of war to resolve this question of weapons of mass destruction, about which I know my good friend may have a view different from mine.

We know now he possibly does not have an operative nuclear weapon, but he is doing everything he can to get the materials to construct one or the materials to incorporate in such technology as he has in place now.

There is nothing in this Constitution about preemptive strikes
Mr. BYRD. May I say to my friend, he is getting the cart -- I say most respectfully, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, for whom I have tremendous respect -- he has been chairman of the Armed Services Committee on which I sit -- is getting the cart before the horse. Let's let the United Nations, that forum of world opinion, speak. Let it make its decision; let's see where those people stand; let's see where those other nations stand, and then come back to this body and the body across the Capitol and let the Congress make its decision after the United Nations has taken a position; otherwise, we get the cart before the horse. Let's wait and see what that world opinion says. Let's wait and see where they stand, the United Nations, and then we will be in a better position to make our decision.

We are voting on this new Bush doctrine of preventive strikes -- preemptive strikes. There is nothing in this Constitution about preemptive strikes. Yet in this rag here, this resolution, S.J. Res. 46, we are about to vote to put the imprimatur of the Congress on that doctrine. That is what the Bush administration wants us to do. They want Congress to put its stamp of approval on that Bush doctrine of preemptive strikes.

That is a mistake. That is a mistake. Are we going to present the face of America as the face of a bully that is ready to go out at high noon with both guns blazing or are we going to maintain the face of America as a country which believes in justice, the rule of law, freedom and liberty and the rights of all people to work out their ultimate destiny?

Mr. WARNER. If I could turn to the reference to the United Nations and the timing, I wish I were the student of history that my good friend Robert Byrd is.

I remember when you took me, hand in hand, to Rome and we went to the very site of the Roman Senate. Do you remember that day? You stood there, amidst the falling rubble of that historic building -- if only they would restore it to its original integrity as ever more a reminder of the strength of the Senate as a body, in State legislatures or wherever -- but at any rate, what was the quote of a Frenchman who said one time: Oh, tell me in which direction the crowd is surging so I can run out and get in front and lead?

Do you remember that quote?

Mr. BYRD. No, but I remember Caesar, when he saw one of the Roman soldiers running away from the battle, he took that Roman soldier and turned him around. He said: You are running in the wrong direction.

That is what I am afraid we are doing. We are running in the wrong direction.

Mr. WARNER. No, but what I say is, what our President has done, to hope that the United Nations will move in the right direction, is to go there and speak to them and to lead, together with others -- the Prime Minister of Great Britain and others -- lead, not wait and see in what direction they go. No, that is the reason for the timing of this resolution.

I would like to ask most respectfully -- --

Mr. BYRD. I think the President would be in a much better position with the United Nations to leave the case as he had made it. He made a fine case. He made a case in which there was no room for water or air. He placed it right in front of the United Nations, the fact that that body has been recreant in its duty and its responsibility. It passed resolution after resolution after resolution, and has done very little.

I think the President is in a much better position, ultimately, if we let the United Nations speak first and not go to the United Nations and say: Now, we would love to hear what you have to say, but regardless of what you have to say, we have made up our minds, and if you don't do it, we are going to do it.

Well, why not let him do it?

I think this responsibility should be left clearly in the lap of the United Nations. We will make our decision later, when the President comes back to this institution which, under this Constitution, has the power -- not any President -- the power to declare war.

The Constitution is clear: Only Congress can declare war
Mr. WARNER. I draw to the attention of my colleague that it has been over a decade since hostilities were concluded in the signing of those documents in the desert by Saddam Hussein's Foreign Minister on April 6, 1991. Sixteen resolutions which have been passed by this body have been ignored. Only one of them is receiving any degree of enforcement through the bravery of our airmen.

I say, what is the record of the UN, having sat there and let 16 resolutions be ignored, allowing the inspectors to be driven out? And President Clinton made his effort to get this Chamber to pass a resolution for regime change, to send the inspectors back. What fragment of knowledge do you have about the UN that I do not possess, that they have sat there 16 times and said do this -- did not enforce it, allowed for a 4-year lapse in the inspection team to be there -- and are now considering at this very moment sending another team back? What is it about this institution that instills in you the confidence that this, the 17th resolution, if they adopt it, will have more force and teeth and resolve and conviction than did the previous 16?

Mr. BYRD. What were we doing in those 4 years? What were we doing? What were we failing to do that now comes to mind that makes us so determined and so hell-bent to vote on this rag, S.J. Res. 46, before this election? We knew all this for 4 years. Where were we?

Why did we wait until this particular moment?

That is one answer.

Mr. WARNER. We were flying those missions. Our airmen were risking their lives. That is what we did.

Mr. BYRD. We were doing that, but we ought to have been doing more. Why wait until an election and then come up all of a sudden and say, Oh, we have got to have this S.J. Res., we have got to put into the hands of one man the trust and the temptation, which Madison so well spoke against because it was too much, too great for any one man?

The gulf war, does the Senator remember the total cost of that war?

Mr. WARNER. No, I do not recall, but I know it was shared.

Mr. BYRD. It was $61.1 billion.

Does the Senator recall how much the U.S. had to pay?

Mr. WARNER. It seems to me a smaller fraction of it because our allies contributed a considerable number.

Mr. BYRD. That is right. We ended with the United States being left holding the bag for about $7.5 billion.

Mr. WARNER. That is my recollection.

Mr. BYRD. That is a little over $7 billion. That is what we ought to be doing now. We ought to get these other countries to belly up to the bar and help to bear the cost of this war. We are not doing that, though. We are having an administration that says, Give it to me, give me the authorization to go, and if you, the UN, don't do it, I will.

Who is "I"? "I will." "We will." Who is "we"?

We are committing the American people, we are committing the blood and the treasure of the American people to do what the United Nations won't do. I say, do what the President has done thus far. Put it in the lap of the United Nations and expect them to give us an answer. Then come back to the people's representatives and let them make a determination as to whether or not at that point we should strike. Maybe we shouldn't.

Mr. WARNER. Let's stop and think. We are not in this alone. Great Britain -- I know of no Senator who has a greater respect for England's participation as our ally in World War I, World War II. I have had the privilege of going with my good friend to Great Britain and sitting in the Houses of Parliament.

Mr. BYRD. That Anglo-Saxon blood flows through the veins of the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. WARNER. My mother's great- great- great-grandfather built Balmore Castle, which the Queen uses as her home.

But let us get back to this. Great Britain has helped us. I know Spain and Portugal expressed an interest.

I ask my good friend -- I have seen him on this floor defending the courage of Turkey and its leaders -- am I not correct that Turkey has been a valiant partner in war in the area?

Mr. BYRD. Does the Senator know how many times Turkey has violated the UN Security Council resolutions? More than 40 times.

I am a friend of Turkey.

Mr. WARNER. I know the Senator is.

Mr. BYRD. I say to my dear friend, point to Iraq, for which I have no grievance, and talk about Iraq's violations of United Nations Security Council resolutions. Turkey has violated those resolutions; and that ain't all. Israel has violated those resolutions. Israel has violated those Security Council resolutions. So don't put it all on the basis of violations of Security Council resolutions.

I am simply saying -- and the distinguished Senator can stay with me here until the Moon is up and full at midnight and until that Moon changes.

Mr. WARNER. I am prepared to do so.

Mr. BYRD. He can stay with me until the cows come home, and I will always lead him right back to this foundation, my rock on which I stand. And it says: Congress shall have the power to declare war.

The administration can say all it wants. It can bring all of its Cabinet heads up and have them on television on Sunday. It can bring Dr. Rice, it can bring Secretary Powell, it can bring the secretary of war, it can bring the Vice President of the United States, the President of this body, and they can say whatever they want until they are completely out of breath. And I guarantee you they will not once mention the Constitution of the United States. They haven't thus far. But they are going to be brought right back every time to face this Constitution which I hold in my hand, which says Congress shall have the power to declare war.

I plead with the American people, let your voice be heard
Mr. BYRD.Today -- just today -- I say this at 15 minutes until 3 p.m. on this day, the 4th day of October in the year of our Lord 2002 -- my office has received 1,400 telephone calls -- just today. And almost every single caller has said: Wait. Slow down. Don't rush this through.

I plead with those people out there, I plead with the American people, let your voice be heard. You need to be heard. You have a right to be heard. You have questions that should be asked and answered. Let the leadership of this Congress know that you don't want this resolution rammed through this Congress before the election. The life of your son may depend upon it. The life of your daughter may depend upon it. Get out there and let this leadership know that we should stay on our jobs -- or that we should come home and talk with the people back home and put off this fateful decision which cannot be retracted except through another piece of legislation.

Let the people back there speak to us and then come back after the election and make this decision so we will not be hearing the television ads and reading the newspaper ads with respect to politics while we have to make this decision.

I hope the people will speak out. Let the hills and the mountains and the valleys reverberate with the sound of your voices. It is your country. Stand for it now. People out there, speak out, write, use the telephones, use the mail, and let the leadership of this Congress hear you. Tell them to wait.

Mr. WARNER. If I could ask one further question of my good colleague, first, I join with the Senator in encouraging the people to speak out, write, and call. I welcome those who disagree with my views, or those who might wish to associate with my views and those of others who have written this resolution.

But I say to my good friend that it is always a learning experience to join him on this historic floor of this great Chamber of this Senate, which he has referred to with the deepest of affection for so many years as the greatest deliberative body on Earth.

The Senator mentioned Madison. By coincidence, my itinerary this weekend will take me to Madison County, VA, where there is a little museum that has some of the fragments and memorabilia of that great statement.

I ask this one last question: This document will rest on every Senator's desk. S.J. Res. 46 was introduced by our colleague who sits right here, Joseph Lieberman, for himself and Mr. Warner of Virginia, and others. I wrote the resolution with others in 1991. It was then the Warner-Lieberman resolution. Now I think, appropriately with the majority resting on that side, it is the Lieberman-Warner resolution.

But I ask my good friend: Is there a word in this resolution -- and I hold myself responsible for the words in this resolution. Is there any word, is there any sentence, is there any paragraph that exceeds the authority given to the President of the United States in the Constitution which you love and defend so dearly?

Some UN resolutions against Iraq have expired
Mr. BYRD. Absolutely. Absolutely. This whole piece, this great expenditure of paper, is nothing more than a blank check given to the President of the United States to use the forces of this country, the military forces, in whatever way he determines, whenever he determines, and where he determines to use those forces to "defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region."

Now, you don't need all this paper. You have a vast waste of verbiage here. Just make it one sentence. Make it one sentence, may I say to my friend from Virginia, one sentence. If we are going to make it a blank check, let's make it a blank check right upfront, without all of these flowery figleaves of "whereas" clauses, and simply say that the President has this power. Give it to him and we will put up a sign on the top of this Capitol: "Out of business." Gone home. "Gone fishing." Put up a sign: "We are out of it. We are out of business. We, here in the Congress, are out of business," may I say to my friend.

Now, I know his intentions are the best. I believe that. I respect him. I have served with him. He is a reasonable man. I consider it an honor to be a Member of the same body. He is always a man with whom one can debate, disagree, agree, and he does not carry it out of this Chamber. He is a good man at heart. He loves his country. He has served his country. He is loyal to his country, sometimes too loyal to his party, may I say, which cannot be said of this Senator from West Virginia. Party is important, but not all that important.

But I say, instead of just passing this resolution, why don't we say upfront: Let's give this man downtown a blank check. Leave it all to him. Give it to him lock, stock, and barrel. We'll go home. Put a sign on the Capitol: "Out of business until we are called back by the President under the Constitution." We will go home. We will go fishing, play golf, study, read, write our memoirs -- "out of business."

Why don't we just do that, instead of going through this kind of blank check, and covering it over with figleaves and "whereases" that are flowery -- flowery -- beautiful? Oh, they are pretty figleaves, they are pretty "whereases." But that is what this all amounts to: Nothing; a poison pill covered with sugar. That is all we are doing.

Mr. WARNER. I say to my friend, the President of the United States, as I read the Constitution, has the authority, at this very moment, to employ the men and women of our Armed Forces in the defense of our Nation.

Mr. BYRD. No. That Constitution does not say that. No, no, no.

Mr. WARNER. I think it is implied in there.

Mr. BYRD. Oh, no, no.

Mr. WARNER. As Commander in Chief, if he believes an attack has been made on this country, or that an attack is imminent which he believes he has to preempt, he has the authority to use those forces, and we don't have to pass this.

Mr. BYRD. No. Wait a minute. The Senator is saying two different things now. I say that under this Constitution, this President -- any President -- as Commander in Chief of our country, and as the chief executive officer of this country, has the inherent power to repel any sudden, unforeseen attack upon this Nation, its territories, its people. He has that because Congress may not even be in session. Congress may be out for the August recess.

Mr. WARNER. That is correct.

Mr. BYRD. The Framers foresaw there might be that situation where Congress might not be here and the President would have to take action. But this resolution is saying something far different. That is not what this resolution says.

Read it. It does not say that the President has the inherent power to repel an instant, an unforeseen attack on this Nation. It does not say that. Now, I go along with that. But I do not go along with this. This says: "The President is authorized --"

We are handing it right over, right now, if we pass this. We are not saying come back tomorrow or next week or next month or next year.

"The President is authorized --" That means here and now, as soon as he signs his name on this piece of paper.

"The President is authorized to use all means that he determines --"

"He determines --"

"To be appropriate."

What "he determines to be appropriate." The Senator from Virginia may not determine that to be appropriate. What "he determines to be appropriate, including force. . . ." That means the Army, the Navy, the airplanes, everything -- "including force. . . ."

In order to do what?

"In order to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions referenced above -- "

Well, what is that: "referenced above? "You have to go through all these beautiful figleaves to find out what resolutions are referenced. And even some of those resolutions have long gone out of existence. They no longer exist. And yet are we going to raise from the dead, like Lazarus, UN resolutions that have long ago gone out of existence, that no longer have life in their bodies?

No. We say we are going to revive them. Like the Shulamite woman in the Bible, we are going to revive her son.

"Referenced above --"

"'Referenced above'?" They do not tell you specifically what resolutions.

"...Defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat --"

What threat? Is it a direct, immediate, imminent attack on this country? Then, that is one thing. But "against the threat posed by Iraq. . . ."

A threat determined by whom? Who determines what the threat is?

"...Against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region."

What a broad grant of naked power. To whom? One person, the President of the United States. This Constitution itself refutes -- it refutes -- this resolution right on its face.

This is, plain and simple, a blank check given to the President
Mr. WARNER. If I could say to my dear friend, on the desk are two resolutions. The one that was originally introduced by Mr. Daschle and Mr. Lott --

Mr. BYRD. All right.

Mr. WARNER. I say to you, sir, that is the one to which you referred.

Mr. BYRD. Let me look at that one.

Mr. WARNER. Fine.

Mr. BYRD. Let me read from it.

Mr. WARNER. But the one I drew your attention to, I say to my good friend, is the one drawn by Mr. Lieberman and myself, which language is somewhat changed. This is the one that is presently the subject of this debate.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. Let me read it.

I am sorry Mr. Lieberman has joined in this resolution, but he is a Senator, and he has the perfect right to join any resolution he wants to join.

But I think the American people want somebody who stands for something. They are tired of this wishy-washy going along and saying: We have to get it over, and we have to put it behind us.

We are not going to put this thing behind us. The President has chosen to make this the battlefield. Iraq: He has chosen to make that the battlefield. His administration has chosen to do that. His chief political adviser, Karl Rove, advised the Republican members of the National Committee in January to do that, make that the battlefield. So they have chosen to do it. And you will find a way to get away from it. You can't do it.

So let's fight that battle on that battlefield, and in so doing, let's draw attention to the shortcomings of this administration when it comes to the domestic issues and the problems facing this Nation: health issues, the issues of homeland security. That is where the battle ought to be fought. But if it were fought on that battleground, the eyes of the people would not be deflected during an election.

Well, here is what the verbiage says:

"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines --"

"He." Madison said that was too much, too much trust, too much temptation, too great to be turned over to any one man. And that is precisely what we are doing here.

"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to -- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq -- "

Why, Iraq has posed a threat for decades now. But how imminent and how much is it directed toward the heart of America?

He can do anything he wants and say: Well, Congress said I could defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and Congress also included the language "and enforce all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." How much looser can that be, "enforce all relevant"? What do we mean by "relevant UN Security Council resolutions"?

A resolution may have long ago expired, gone out of existence by virtue of the happening of some circumstance. Yet like Lazarus, we are going to say: Lazarus, come forth, and Lazarus came forth when Jesus called him to come forth. He came forth wrapped in his grave clothes. And Jesus said: Loose him and let him go.

We can't say that about UN Security Council resolutions. We can't say "resolutions come forth; come forth in your grave clothes. Loose that resolution and let it go." We can't say that. That is what we are saying here, "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

This is, plain and simple, a blank check given to the President of the United States. I won't touch it. With all respect to those Senators who believe in what they are doing, they believe in it as sincerely as I believe they are wrong, but they believe they are right. I don't say anything with respect to their integrity. I don't challenge their honor. I don't challenge for a moment their dedication to their country. I say it is wrong.

We are giving to the President of the United States a blank check, and Congress cannot do that. Congress should not do that. Where is the termination? Where is the deadline? Where is the sunset language that says after this happens, this resolution shall no longer exist, this resolution we are over and done with? There is nothing. This goes on to the next President of the United States.

Show me if I am wrong. It goes on to the next President of the United States, and the next one. We are going to have a Democratic President at some point in this country. Then where will my friends on the other side of the aisle be? I know where they will find me. They will find me right where I am now, if God lets me live. But that is what we are doing. We are unwittingly passing a blank check, not just to this President but to any future President, until such time as the Congress acts to repeal or amend this resolution.

I am not willing to do it. Put a sunset provision in it. That would help some.

This is another Gulf of Tonkin resolution
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague for recognizing what he was reading from previously is separate from the resolution which I coauthored with Senator Lieberman which he now has read. That is the subject. I say most respectfully to my colleague, I firmly say there is nothing in this resolution, of which I was privileged to be a coauthor with others, which in any way transcends the authority given to the President of the United States by this Constitution. We have a disagreement on that.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator join his friend from across the mountains, across the Alleghenies, in putting language into this resolution which he advocates here, would he join me in putting language in here which indubitably states, unquestionably states the authority of the Constitution, which requires that Congress declare war, not be impinged upon by this resolution in any way?

Mr. WARNER. That is a challenge. I will consider that. But let me just say, earlier today I recounted how this body has only used that power to declare war five times. Yet we have sent forward men and women of the Armed Forces into harm's way upwards of 200 times. I say to my friend, that is a challenge.

I assert very firmly, there is nothing in this resolution that goes beyond the authority the President has. This President, as well as any other President, could act tomorrow without the specific authority of Congress, if he felt it was necessary to use the troops to defend the security interests of this country.

Mr. BYRD. The Constitution does not say that. That is exactly what my friend is wanting to read into this Constitution. I don't mean just my friend, I mean the others who support his view.

Mr. BYRD. He has said this Nation has issued a declaration of war but five times. That is right. There have been 12 major wars in which this country has participated. We have had five declarations of war by this Congress out of those 12 wars. But out of six of the remaining seven, the President acted on authorizations by statutes. They were not declarations of war as such, but they were statutes from which the authorization could be drawn. So that is 11 of the 12. The 12th was in Korea, and Congress did not declare war. Congress did not authorize the forces of this country being injected into that conflict. That was done by Harry Truman, and he is my favorite Democratic President during my career, not my favorite all-time Democratic President.

By the way, Eisenhower is my favorite Republican President during this time.

Back on the subject, there were 12 major wars. The distinguished Senator from Virginia has mentioned the number 200. He has said we have had military forces involved in over 200 conflicts. Yes, in over 200, but they were not major conflicts. They were minor skirmishes having to do with cattle rustlers, having to do with pirates, having to do with minor engagements. No, they were not major conflicts.

Mr. WARNER. The war in Vietnam did not have a declaration. That was not minor, and you know that well. There were over 50,000 casualties. The war in Korea, in which I had a very modest role in the Marine Corps, was not modest. There were over 50,000 casualties.

Mr. BYRD. I said for the war in Korea, we did not have a declaration. Mr. Truman put our troops there, and we didn't have a declaration.

Let's go back to the war in Vietnam. I was here. I was one of the Senators who voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Yes, I voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. I am sorry for that. I am guilty of doing that. I should have been one of the two, or at least I should have made it three, Senators who voted against that Gulf of Tonkin resolution. But I am not wanting to commit that sin twice, and that is exactly what we are doing here. This is another Gulf of Tonkin resolution. I am not going to vote for that this time. No. Don't count me in on that.

Mr. WARNER. I respect this. We just have strong differences. I think we have stated them.

I would like to read this bit of history. I was going to save this for next week. You have raised properly the classification of this current set of facts as presenting the preemptive issue. But let me read you -- I will hand this to you, but it will be in the Record -- use of the military forces of the United States in engagements which have the facts that could be judged as preemptive action by our Presidents: In 1901, in the Colombia-Panama engagement; 1904, 1914, and 1965, the Dominican Republic; 1912, Honduras; 1926, Nicaragua; 1958, Lebanon; 1962, naval quarantine of Cuba; 1983, Grenada; 1986, Libya; 1989, Panama, Just Cause; 1992, Somalia; 1998, Sudan; 1998, Iraq, Desert Fox, when President Clinton ordered that; 1999, Kosovo. You and I had that resolution together, brother Senators, on Kosovo. We did the right thing.

Mr. BYRD. We may have been brother Senators on the resolution which brought us out of Somalia.

Mr. WARNER. I remember that well.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator. He has been very liberal --

Mr. WARNER. Not liberal but prepared. We will have more on this floor in the days to come.


Comments? Send a letter to the editor.

Albion Monitor October 4 2002 (

All Rights Reserved.

Contact for permission to use in any format.