Retired Navy CWO letter to Sen. Byrd

[thedrifter]

05-12-2003

Guest Column – Retired Navy CWO letter to Sen. Byrd



Editor’s Note: The following is a letter from a retired Navy chief warrant officer from Huntington, West Va., to Democratic Sen. Robert C. Byrd on May 6, 2003, in response to Byrd’s remarks on the Senate floor the previous day denouncing President Bush’s visit to the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln:



Senator Robert Byrd:



I am a retired U.S. Navy Chief Warrant Officer (W-4) who served honorably on active duty for thirty-two years, from 1955 to 1987. I challenge your public criticizing and slandering our commander-in-chief and his visit to a major Iraqi War participant, the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72), during May 2-3, 2003.



The president's visit to that fine ship was a representative symbol of our nation's “hand shake, well done, and welcome home” salutation to every member of our armed forces who served, and continues to serve, in the Middle East War, not just for personnel of the Abraham Lincoln!



I was aboard a ship off Onslow Beach, North Carolina, when President John F. Kennedy paid us a visit during a major Joint Task Force military exercise in the spring of 1962. There was much elation and joy throughout the entire fleet of some 40 ships participating in that exercise; everyone was grateful and thankful that our commander-in-chief thought enough of what we were doing to come witness one of the largest and most complex joint exercises ever conducted by our military. That visit by President Kennedy is not one bit different from the visit of President Bush to the USS Abraham Lincoln last week.



Later, in October 1962, I was serving aboard the Navy’s first nuclear powered aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise (CVAN-65), which was a part of the activated Joint Task Force, while U.S. Marines from Camp LeJeune were again back-loading on amphibious ships at Onslow Beach; we were preparing for an invasion of Cuba. I remembered President Kennedy’s visit there the previous spring and the significance of his visit and concern for what we were about to do, if necessary.



I watched your diatribe on the floor of the U.S. Senate yesterday, May 6,

2003. I initially hesitated to correspond with you because of heartfelt, intense disgust with your denigration of our president, and commensurately, our military forces. After much thought, I consider your conduct on the Senate floor abhorring and shameful, and deserving of any criticisms directed your way by any veteran or member of our armed forces.



Your party leadership position on the Senate Armed Services Committee is dubious. Your conduct on that committee is now tainted because your defamation of our

commander-in-chief will be considered in all your committee decisions and will be viewed by our military forces as being guided by a purely partisan, edifying, and self-serving agenda, rather than that which is best for our military.



I believe that you owe an apology to President Bush and to every crew member of the USS Abraham Lincoln because your tirade on the Senate floor on May 6, 2003, did much to malign the faith of many members of this nation's military forces in our government. Our military's conduct in this crisis has been gallant, heroic and exemplary and deserves the highest praise and respect.



Your degradation of our commander-in-chief certainly does not show any praise or respect, but sadly places your partisan agenda at a higher level.



Many of my Navy and civilian friends and relatives have corresponded with me about your conduct on the Senate floor yesterday and have voiced great displeasure with your obvious pure, personal partisanship. I am being ridiculed and shamed by them because you are my representative in the Senate. I have lost much respect for you as an individual because your conduct does not reflect the dignity of your constituency, especially those of veterans and the armed forces. You have certainly made a lasting impression on many of my Navy associates and civilian friends, and

relatives, especially those who do not live in our state.



I am ashamed of your representation on my behalf. Your actions demonstrate a personal, blatant, and obvious hate for our president. Your partisanship has been fomenting since President Bush was elected to office and your conduct in the Senate and public statements of defiance about every thing he has attempted to do for the past two plus years is nothing short of shameful.



Be assured that I will work feverishly to end your tenure in the U.S. Senate and to elect a more deserving representative to the office you presently hold.



Sincerely,



James H. Wright

CWO4, U. S. Navy Retired

Huntington, WV 25705-2711

[thedrifter]

05-12-2003

For the Record: Sen Byrd Comments Denouncing Bush Speech



Tuesday, May 6, 2003



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



Sempers,

Roger