Senator Byrd's speech to the American Senate, February 12, 2005, before the start of the war in Iraq, in an empty room

Senator Byrd's Speech to the American Senate, February 12, 2005, before the start of the war in Iraq, in an empty room

Speech by Senator Robert Byrd of February 12, 2003

Posted on March 14, 2005

This is the full text of the speech, the video of which is available on the site.

http://thomas.loc.gov

Here is my translation of Byrd's speech attached. It is probably the written text he had prepared, as there are differences with the video. And when you read the Senate minutes

search by date February 12, 2003, then pages S2268 and onwards. I attach a copy of the page for information because I can't find a permanent URL.

The text seems twice as long. It adds many digressions, cites many names of illustrious predecessors, and even personal anecdotes.

-- Bruno Viaris

Here is my translation of Byrd's speech attached. It is probably the written text he had prepared, as there are differences with the video. And when you read the Senate minutes

search by date February 12, 2003, then pages S2268 and onwards. I attach a copy of the page for information because I can't find a permanent URL.

The text seems twice as long. It adds many digressions, cites many names of illustrious predecessors, and even personal anecdotes.

-- Bruno Viaris

Senator Robert Byrd of the USA

Speech delivered before the Senate on Wednesday, February 12, 2003

We are passively silent

To consider war is to think of the most horrible human experience. On this day in February, as this nation stands on the brink of battle, every American must consider the horrors of war.

However, this chamber is, for the most part, silent - ominously and terribly silent. There is no discussion, no debate, no attempt to present the nation with the pros and cons of this war. There is nothing.

We are passively silent in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, apparently stunned by the tumult of events. It is only in the editorials of our newspapers that one finds a real discussion on the wisdom or imprudence of engaging in this war.

And it is not a small fire that is looming. It is not merely an attempt to neutralize an enemy. No. The battle that is coming, if it occurs, represents a turning point in American foreign policy, and probably a turning point in the recent history of the world.

This nation is about to embark on the experimentation of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at a very poorly chosen time. The doctrine of preemption - the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that does not constitute an imminent threat, but could become one in the future - is truly a new perversion of the traditional concept of legitimate defense. It seems to be in violation of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being experimented at a time when terrorism is widespread worldwide, causing many countries to fear that they may soon be on our blacklist, or that of another nation. High-ranking officials recently refused to exclude nuclear weapons from the attack plans against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and reckless than such uncertainties, especially in a world where globalization has so closely linked the vital economic and security interests of many nations? Large cracks are appearing in our long-standing alliances, and American intentions are suddenly the subject of harmful speculation from all sides. The anti-Americanism that arises from distrust, misinformation, suspicion, and the alarmist rhetoric of American leaders is breaking apart the solid alliance against global terrorism that existed after September 11.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks, but with little indication of when and where such attacks might occur. Fathers and sons are called to the colors, without knowing the duration of their stay or the horrors they may face. Communities find themselves with insufficient police and fire departments. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The morale of the nation is dismal. The economy is shaky. Fuel prices are rising and risk rising even higher soon.

This government, in power for just over two years, must be judged on its record. I think this record is lamentable.

In just two short years, this government has squandered the enormous surplus of about $560 billion for the next decade, and has led us into a deficit situation as far as we can foresee.

This government has adopted regulations that have slowed economic growth. This government has neglected urgent issues, such as the crisis in the elderly care system. This government has delayed proper funding for homeland security. This government has been slow to strengthen the protection of our long and porous borders.

Regarding foreign policy, this government has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, we heard him just yesterday rallying his troops and calling them to kill. This government has broken traditional alliances, risking to paralyze, forever, international organizations for maintaining order such as the United Nations and NATO. This government has questioned the traditional and international perception of the United States as a well-intentioned peacekeeper. This government has turned the delicate art of diplomacy into threats, insults, and defamation, which are the lamentable reflection of the little intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders. This will have serious consequences for the years to come.

To treat heads of state as pygmies, to label entire countries as evil, to belittle and despise the opinions of powerful European allies, this type of crude insensitivity cannot be good for our nation. We may have a massive military power, but we cannot wage a global war against terrorism alone. We need as much the cooperation and friendship of our long-time allies as we do of the new friends that our wealth has attracted. Our impressive military machine will be of little use if we suffer another devastating attack on our soil that seriously harms our economy. Our military forces are dwindling, and we will need the renewed support of those nations that can provide armed forces, rather than just signing letters of encouragement.

So far, the war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion, yet there are signs that terrorism is already re-investing in this region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we establish lasting peace in Afghanistan, terrorist bases will flourish again in this distant and devastated country.

Pakistan is also threatened by destabilizing forces. This government has not even finished the first war against terrorism, yet it is eager to embark on another conflict, with much greater risks than in Afghanistan. Do we have such a short memory? Have we not learned that after winning a war, we must always stabilize the peace?

And yet, there is little talk about the post-war situation in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rampant. We will seize the Iraqi oil fields, we will become an occupying power that will control the price and supply of oil of this nation for an indefinite period. Who do we propose to hand over power to after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war ignite the Muslim world and cause devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel respond with its nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi governments be overthrown by radicals, supported by Iran, which is much more linked to terrorism than Iraq?

Will a disruption in oil supplies lead to a global recession? Has our incendiary and belligerent language and our insensate disregard for the interests and opinions of other nations reignited the race to join the nuclear club, and made proliferation even more lucrative for countries that need financial resources?

In just two short years, this careless and arrogant government has initiated a policy that could have disastrous consequences for many years.

One can understand the anger and shock of any president after the savage attacks of September 11. One can imagine the frustration of chasing only a shadow and an amorphous and elusive enemy, almost impossible to punish.

But to transform this frustration and anger into this kind of disaster in our foreign policy, extremely destabilizing and dangerous, which the whole world is witnessing, is inexcusable for a government that has the incredible power and responsibility of leading the world's greatest superpower. Frankly, many statements made by this government are unworthy. There is no other word for it.

Yet this chamber remains obstinately silent. We may be on the verge of inflicting death and destruction on the population of Iraq - a population, I would add, half of which is under 15 years old - and this chamber is silent. Perhaps more than just a few days before we send thousands of our citizens to face the unimaginable horrors of chemical and biological weapons - and this chamber remains silent. We may be on the verge of a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, and everything goes on as usual in the United States Senate.

We are traversing history as true sleepwalkers (1). Deep in my heart, I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens do not have to suffer the harshest of awakenings.

Engaging in war is always playing a joker. And war must always be the last resort, not the first choice. I must really question the judgment of any president who can say that a massive, unprovoked military attack on a nation composed of more than 50% children is "in the highest tradition of morality of our country." This war is not necessary at this time. The pressures seem to be yielding good results in Iraq. Our mistake was to corner ourselves. Our challenge is to find a way to gracefully get out of this box we have built ourselves. Perhaps there is a way, if we give ourselves more time.

(1) "sleepwalking through history" is a quote I have not yet found the source of. It is the title of a book on "the Reagan years," but I would not be surprised if it is a quote from a famous president.

Senator Robert Byrd of the USA Speech before the Senate

We are passively silent

Wednesday, February 12, 2003

To consider war is to think of the most horrible of human experiences. On this day in February, as this nation stands on the brink of battle, every American must consider the horrors of war.

However, this chamber is, for the most part, silent - ominously and terribly silent. There is no discussion, no debate, no attempt to present to the nation the pros and cons of this war. There is nothing.

This government, in power for just over two years, must be judged on its record. I think this record is lamentable.

In just two short years, this government has squandered the enormous surplus of about $560 billion for the next decade, and has led us into a deficit situation as far as we can foresee. This government has adopted regulations that have slowed economic growth. This government has neglected urgent issues, such as the crisis in the elderly care system. This government has delayed proper funding for homeland security. This government has been slow to strengthen the protection of our long and porous borders.

In just two short years, this careless and arrogant government has initiated a policy that could have disastrous consequences for many years.

We are traversing history as true sleepwalkers (1). Deep in my heart, I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens do not have to suffer the harshest of awakenings.

Another French version, which may be redundant (I am overwhelmed), but the main thing is that this text be available in French.

Yet this chamber remains stubbornly silent. We may be on the verge of inflicting death and destruction upon the population of Iraq - a population, I would add, of which more than half is under 15 years old - and this Chamber is silent. Perhaps more than just a few days before we send thousands of our citizens to face unimaginable horrors of chemical and biological warfare - and this Chamber remains silent. We may be on the verge of a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, and everything proceeds as usual in the United States Senate.

We are walking through History as true sleepwalkers (1). Deep in my heart, I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens do not have to face the harshest of awakenings.

To engage in war is always to play a wild card. And war must always be the last resort, not the first choice. I must truly question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive, unprovoked military attack on a nation composed of more than 50% children is "in the highest moral tradition of our country." This war is not necessary at this time. The pressures seem to be yielding good results in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is now to find a graceful way out of the box we ourselves have built. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

Looking for someone who can translate. Contact

February 12, 2003

12 February 2003 Translation by Bruno Nyssen

To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war.

Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.

Cependant, cette chambre est en majeure partie silencieuse, sinistrement, terriblement silencieuse. Il n’y a pas de débat, pas de discussion, pas de tentative de présenter à la nation les 'pour' et 'contre' cette guerre particulière. Il n’y a rien.

We stand passively mute in the United States Senate, paralyzed by our own uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on the editorial pages of our newspapers is there much substantive (substantif, soutenu ou substantial, substentiel) discussion of the prudence or imprudence of engaging in this particular war.

Nous demeurons passivement muets au sénat des Etats-Unis, paralysés par notre propre incertitude, apparemment pétrifiés par le tourbillon des événements. Il n’y a que dans les éditoriaux de nos journaux qu’on trouve des discussions soutenues à propos de la prudence ou de l’imprudence de s’engager dans cette guerre particulière.

And this is no small conflagration we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.

Et ce n’est pas une petite conflagration que nous envisageons. Ce n’est pas une simple tentative de désarmer un bandit. Non. Cette bataille à venir, si elle se concrétise, représente un tournant dans la politique étrangère américaine et éventuellement dans celle de l’histoire mondiale récente.

This nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption* -- the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but may be threatening in the future -- is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self defense. It appears to be in contravention of international law and the UN Charter. And it is being tested at a time of world-wide terrorism, making many countries around the globe wonder if they will soon be on our -- or some other nation's -- hit list. High level Administration figures recently refused to take nuclear weapons off of the table when discussing a possible attack against Iraq. What could be more destabilizing and unwise than this type of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied the vital economic and security interests of many nations so closely

together? There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to damaging worldwide speculation. Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11.

Cette nation est sur le point de s’embarquer dans le premier test d’une doctrine révolutionnaire appliquée d’une façon extraordinaire à un moment regrettable. La doctrine de prévention* (l’idée que les Etats-Unis ou toute autre nation puisse légitimement attaquer une nation qui n’est pas éminement menaçante mais qui pourrait l’être dans le futur) représente une nouvelle tournure radicale dans l’idée tradtionnelle d’auto-défense. Cela se révèle être en violation de la loi internationale et de la charte des Nations Unies. Et c’est en train d’être testé en des temps de terrorisme mondial, ce qui fait se demander à beaucoup de pays autour du globe s’ils seront bientôt sur notre liste rouge (ou celle d’une autre nation). Les hauts responsables du gouvernement ont récemment refusé d’écarter les armes nucléaires lorsqu’ils ont discuté d’une attaque possible contre l’Irak. Qu’est-ce qui pourrait être plus déstabilisant et imprudent que ce type d’incertitude, particulièrement dans un monde où la mondialisation a intimement lié les intérêts économiques et sécuritaires vitaux de tant de pays? Nos alliances de longue date se fissurent, et les intentions américaines sont soudainement l’objet de spéculations préjudiciables dans le monde entier. L’anti-américanisme, basé sur une méfiance, une mauvaise information, et sur la rhétorique alarmante des dirigeants américains, est en train de détériorer la solide alliance contre le terrorisme mondial qui a existé après le 11 septembre.

le Collins reprend e.a. l’adjectif militaire pre-emptive : ‘désigné pour réduire ou détruire la capacité/force d’attaque ennemie avant que celui-ci puisse l’utiliser’ mais le substantif pre-emption ne reprend que la signification propre au droit international : ‘le droit d’un gouvernement d’intercepter et de saisir pour son propre usage des marchandises ou tout bien de ressortissants d’un autre pays en transit, spécialement en temps de guerre’. Il faut ici traduire preemption par la définition militaire de preemptive, préventif en français, alors que preemptive n’est apparemment pas exactement l’adjectif de preemption.

Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks with little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family members are being called to active military duty, with no idea of the duration of their stay or what horrors they may face. Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire protection. Other essential services are also short-staffed. The mood of the nation is grim. The economy is stumbling. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.

Ici dans notre pays, les gens sont prévenus d’attaques terroristes imminentes, sans savoir où et quand de telles attaques pourraient avoir lieu. Des membres de familles sont appelés à un devoir militaire actif, sans aucune idée de la durée de leur service ou des horreurs auxquelles ils devront faire face. Des communautés sont laissées avec des protections de police et d’incendie insuffisantes. D’autres services essentiels sont également en manque de personnel. L’humeur de la nation est sinistre. L’économie piétine. Les prix pétroliers augmentent et pourraient bientôt grimper.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

Ce gouvernement, maintenant au pouvoir depuis un peu plus de deux ans, doit être jugé sur ses résultats. Je crois que le résultat est sombre.

In that scant two years, this Administration has squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the eye can see. This Administration's domestic policy has put many of our states in dire financial condition, under funding scores of essential programs for our people. This Administration has fostered policies which have slowed economic growth. This Administration has ignored urgent matters such as the crisis in health care for our elderly. This Administration has been slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. This Administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and porous borders.

Au cours de ces deux petites années, ce gouvernement a gaspillé un excédent estimé de quelque 5.6 trillions de dollars sur la prochaine décennie et nous a conduit à estimer des déficits jusqu’à des horizons in(dé)finis.

In foreign policy, this Administration has failed to find Osama bin Laden. In fact, just yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces and urging them to kill. This Administration has split traditional alliances, possibly crippling, for all time, International order-keeping entities like the United Nations and NATO. This Administration has called into question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as well-intentioned, peacekeeper. This Administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders, and which will have consequences for years to come.

En politique étrangère, ce gouvernement a négligé de trouver Osama Ben Laden. En fait, encore hier, nous l’avons encore entendu rassembler ses forces et les pousser à tuer. Ce gouvernement a divisé les alliances traditionnelles, nuisant éventuellement à jamais aux instances internationales de maintient de l’ordre comme les Nations Unies ou l’Otan. Ce gouvernement a transformé en suspicion l’habituelle perception internationale des Etats-Unis comme bien intentionnés et gardiens de la paix. (ndla: hem! Qui y croyait encore?) Ce gouvernement a transformé l’art patient de la diplomatie en menaces, étiquettes et injures du genre qui offrent un piètre reflet de l’intelligence et la sensibilité de nos dirigeants, et qui auront des conséquences pour les années à venir.

Calling heads of state pygmies, labeling whole countries as evil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- these types of crude insensitivities can do our great nation no good. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

Traiter des chefs d’états des Pygmées, cataloguer des pays entiers comme étant le diable, dénigrer de puissants alliés européens est hors de propos. Ce genre de manque de conscience grossier ne peut pas faire de bien à notre grande nation. Nous pouvons avoir une puissance militaire massive, mais nous ne pouvons pas combattre seuls dans une guerre mondiale contre le terrorisme. Nous avons besoin de la coopération et de l’amitié de nos alliés de longue date, autant que celles de nos récents alliés que nous pouvons attirer avec nos richesses. Notre redoutable machine de guerre ne sera que peu de chose si nous avons à subir une autre attaque dévastatrice sur notre sol, ce qui nuit sévèrement à notre économie. Notre main d’oeuvre militaire est déjà en train de s’amenuiser et nous allons avoir de plus en plus besoin du soutien de ces pays qui peuvent fournir des troupes, pas seulement signer des lettres d’encouragement.

The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far, yet there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its hold in that region. We have not found bin Laden, and unless we secure the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again flourish in that remote and devastated land.

La guerre en Afghanistan nous a jusqu’ici coûté 37 milliards de dollars; c’est cependant une preuve que le terrorisme peut déjà être en train de regagner son emprise dans cette région. Nous n’avons pas trouvé Ben Laden, et à moins que nous ne maintenions la paix en Afghanistan, l’antre sombre du terrorisme prospérera déjà de nouveau dans ce lointain pays dévasté.

Pakistan as well is at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war one must always secure the peace?

Au Pakistan également il y a un risque de déstabilisation des forces. Ce gouvernement n’a pas encore terminé la première guerre contre le terrorisme et est cependant impatient de s’embarquer dans un autre conflit dont les risques sont beaucoup plus grands que ceux en Afghanistan. Est-ce l’étendue de notre attention est si courte? N’avons-nous pas appris qu’après avoir gagné la guerre, on doit toujours maintenir la paix?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns (il s’agit plutôt de reins les rênes du pouvoir) of power after Saddam Hussein?

Et cependant nous prêtons peu d’attention aux répercussions d’une guerre en Irak. En absence de projet, la spéculation à l’étranger est abondante. Allons-nous saisir les champs de pétrole irakiens, devenant une puissance d’occupation qui contrôle le prix et l’approvisionnement en pétrole de cette nation dans l’immédiat? A qui proposons-nous de donner les rênes du pouvoir après Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Est-ce que notre guerre va enflammer le monde musulman, aboutissant à une attaque dévastatrice sur Israël? Est-ce qu’Israël va répliquer avec son propre arsenal nucléaire? Est-ce que les gouvernements de Jordanie et d’Arabie saoudite vont être renversés par les radicaux, soutenus par l’Iran, qui a plus de liens étroits avec le terrorisme que l’Irak?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a world-wide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

Est-ce qu’une perturbation de l’approvisionnement mondial en pétrole peut conduire à une récession mondiale? Est-ce que notre insensé discours belliqueux et notre insensible indifférence des intérêts et opinions des autres nations accélère la course mondiale pour joindre le club nucléaire et faire de la prolifération une pratique encore plus lucrative pour les nations qui ont besoin de ces revenus?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

En l’espace de seulement deux courtes années, ce gouvernement insouciant et arrogant a lancé des politiques dont les conséquences pourraient être désastreuses pendant des années.

One can understand the anger and shock of any President after the savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which it is nearly impossible to exact retribution.

On peut comprendre la colère et le bouleversement d’un président après l’attaque sauvage du 11 septembre. On peut apprécier la frustration d’avoir seulement une ombre à chasser et un ennemi éphémère dont il est presque impossible de réclamer un châtiment.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely (?? Manque-t-il un mot?) currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

Mais transformer cette frustration et cette colère en cette espèce de situation extrême dont nous sommes témoin est inexcusable de la part d’un gouvernement responsable de la redoutable puissance et de la conduite de la destinée de la plus grande super-puissance de la planète. Franchement, beaucoup de déclarations faites par ce gouvernement sont scandaleuses. Il n’y a pas d’autre mot.

Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq -- a population, I might add, of which over 50% is under age 15 -- this chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfare -- this chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

Cependant cette chambre demeure mortellement silencieuse. A la veille de ce qui est certainement l’horrible infliction de mort et de destruction de la population de la nation irakienne (une population, j’ajouterais, qui à plus de 50% est âgée de moins de 15 ans), la chambre est silencieuse. A quelques jours de l’envoi probable de milliers de notre propres citoyens, qui vont braver des horreurs inimaginables de guerre chimique et biologique, la chambre est silencieuse. A la veille de possibles représailles terroristes suite à notre attaque en Irak, c’est un jour comme un autre au Sénat des Etats-Unis.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

Sincèrement, nous marchons comme des somnambules à travers l’Histoire

. Je prie de tout mon cœur pour que cette grande nation et ses bons et loyaux citoyens n’aient pas le plus rude des réveils.

To engage in war is always to pick a wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice. I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50% children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country". This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so quickly. Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

Envisager la guerre, c’est toujours tirer une carte au hasard. Et la guerre doit toujours être la dernière solution, pas un premier choix. Je dois sincèrement mettre en doute la décision de n’importe quel président qui affirme qu’une attaque militaire sur une nation composée à 50% d’enfants est ‘la plus haute tradition morale de ce pays’. Cette guerre n’est pas nécessaire en ce moment. La pression semble obtenir de bons résultats en Irak. Notre erreur a été de nous mettre dans un coin si rapidement. Notre défi est de maintenant trouver un moyen honorable de nous sortir de la situation dans laquelle nous nous sommes mis. Peut-être y a-t-il encore un moyen si nous nous accordons plus de temps. (ndla: hélas, …)

February 12, 2003

12 February 2003 Translation by Bruno Nyssen

le Collins reprend e.a. l’adjectif militaire pre-emptive : ‘désigné pour réduire ou détruire la capacité/force d’attaque ennemie avant que celui-ci puisse l’utiliser’ mais le substantif pre-emption ne reprend que la signification propre au droit international : ‘le droit d’un gouvernement d’intercepter et de saisir pour son propre usage des marchandises ou tout bien de ressortissants d’un autre pays en transit, spécialement en temps de guerre’. Il faut ici traduire preemption par la définition militaire de preemptive, préventif en français, alors que preemptive n’est apparemment pas exactement l’adjectif de preemption.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.

Ce gouvernement, maintenant au pouvoir depuis un peu plus de deux ans, doit être jugé sur ses résultats. Je crois que le résultat est sombre.

Treating heads of state as pygmies, labeling entire countries as the devil, denigrating powerful European allies as irrelevant -- this kind of crude insensitivity can do no good for our great nation. We may have massive military might, but we cannot fight a global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and friendship of our time-honored allies as well as the newer found friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our economy. Our military manpower is already stretched thin and we will need the augmenting support of those nations who can supply troop strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.

Pakistan is also at risk of destabilizing forces. This Administration has not yet finished the first war against terrorism and yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we not learned that after winning the war, one must always secure the peace?

And yet we hear little about the aftermath of war in Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? To whom do we propose to hand the reigns (it is rather the reins of power) of power after Saddam Hussein?

Will our war inflame the Muslim world, resulting in devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own nuclear arsenal? Will the Jordanian and Saudi Arabian governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by Iran, which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq?

Could a disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a worldwide recession? Has our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard of the interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to join the nuclear club and made proliferation an even more lucrative practice for nations which need the income?

In only the space of two short years this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

In only the space of two short years, this reckless and arrogant Administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous consequences for years.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely (?? Missing a word?) currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

But to turn one's frustration and anger into the kind of extremely (?? Missing a word?) currently witnessing is inexcusable from any Administration charged with the awesome power and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on the planet. Frankly, many of the pronouncements made by this Administration are outrageous. There is no other word.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts, I pray that this great nation and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

Back to Guide Back to Home Page

Senator Byrd's speech to the American Senate, February 12, 2005, before the start of the war in Iraq, in an empty room

En résumé (grâce à un LLM libre auto-hébergé)

Mots-clés