Jimmy Breslin’s column is mostly ignored outside of New York City; his is still a strong voice I like to read though I often disagree. Last Week, he wrote a column about how great Senator Robert Byrd is.
The hand shakes but the mind does not. Nor does the voice waver. Always in his jacket pocket is a copy of the Constitution of the United States, which he loves.
And Oct. 17, Robert C. Byrd, 86, United States senator from West Virginia, rose in the Senate and read a speech, with sentences shorter than his usual because his thoughts were so biting. He had searched his heart and the skies above for words that would scald now, and be a legacy for all to follow.
Byrd is the former Ku Klux Klan member who spent a day on the Senate floor talking about how horrible Bill Clinton’s actions were in lying to a grand jury with the conclusion that no real punishment should come to him. In essence, Byrd is a windbag who will speak passionately on any topic, but vote according to how his party tells him to. Aren't words made worthless when those who can do something talk instead of act? Breslin doesn't seem to think so.
Breslin likes Byrd this time because the Senator was wind bagging in October about the war in Iraq. That Byrd would blast Bush for attacking Iraq when he had no criticism of Clinton’s actions in Kosovo or Clinton's bombing of Iraq during Impeachment seems empty. Breslin goes on to quote the long-winded speech Byrd gave in October. Here is the conclusion:
"I began my remarks with a fairy tale. I shall close my remarks with a horror story, in the form of a quote from the book 'Nuremberg Diaries,' written by G.M. Gilbert, in which the author interviews Hermann Goering.
"'We got around to the subject of war again, and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.
"'... But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
"'There is one difference,' I pointed out. 'In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States, only Congress can declare wars.'
"'Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.'"
The quote is interesting as far as it goes, but what great moral lesson was Byrd trying to impart? I hardly see how the United States fits this description. If Byrd’s theme is that the people were shamed into the war to prove their manhood, he is living in his own mind. How many people do you know that banged on their Congressman’s door clamoring for war because they didn’t want to be seen as pacifists?
What really happened was a bunch of liberals ignored their Vietnam Syndrome and voted for war because the people actually want to defeat dangerous regimes. The Left didn’t want to go back to voters and explain that terrorism is best dealt with by hand wringing and threats. Why didn't the Senators offer these specific criticisms when war was proposed. Back then it was about multi-lateralism, but now we shouldn't have gone because it's not easy enough. Would the war's difficulty been justified had France wanted to fight?
Worse than that is the disingenuousness of a Senator like Kerry that saved criticism for the rough times when he was perfectly willing to use the issue to look like centrist at the time.
Democrats since the 1960s have had a dilemma of whether to use force to reach peace. They usually choose appeasement or write empty agreements like Clinton's pact with North Korea in 1994.
The popularity of Bush and his policies made Democrats fear being independent. Byrd might have a thing or two to say about his party members who voted for the war as a cover and then gleefully pointed to every hitch in the road. Instead Byrd attacks the people for cowering to a government that will question their patriotism. Nice try. If Byrd doesn’t like people cowering to government, he could always support reducing the size of government.
Is Byrd the best that Breslin can do for heroes?
No comments:
Post a Comment