While it would be easy to fill a sizable bookcase with books published in 2004 that were highly critical of George W. Bush, few of those authors carry the gravity of Senator Robert Byrd, who first came to congress when Truman was president. In Losing America, the veteran Democrat offers scathing criticism of Bush, whom he sees as undeserving of the office, unfit to lead, "callow and reckless," and "incredibly dangerous." Besides criticizing the much-discussed rise of the neoconservative philosophy, Byrd bemoans what he sees as the erosion of constitutionally mandated separation of powers. While many of his objections are colored with a high degree of personal dudgeon over perceived disrespect for him and his branch of government, he uses well-reasoned legal and historical arguments to illustrate his concerns. In Byrd's descriptions of encounters with Bush, the president is remarkably similar to the incurious, distracted cipher of contemporary books from Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill, and though a certain level of decorum is generally practiced among governmental figures, the level of vitriol in his criticisms indicates that Byrd must either be confident he'll never need to be on Bush's good side or is simply too furious to care. As one might expect from a man accustomed to having people listen closely to him, Byrd has an ego; he tells of advising freshman senator Hillary Clinton to become a "work horse" and not a "show horse" and he is pleased when she chooses the latter (thanks to him, he indicates). Byrd is also a bit long-winded in making his points, often launching into lengthy historical anecdotes as a means of comparing and contrasting Bush to his predecessors. But his thoughts are not snarky op-eds from a pundit; they are well earned, compellingly expressed, and come from a politician much more experienced than most. --John Moe


From Publishers Weekly
Attacks on the Bush presidency have proliferated in recent months, but few critics bring to the argument the weight of Senator Byrd (D-W.Va.), who has served under 11 presidents. Few combine his scholar's understanding of constitutional government with the experience gained in his nearly half-century of Senate tenure. Of course, it must be noted that Byrd is a veteran Democratic leader now attacking a Republican president during an election year. In his view, Bush and his advisers—Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Perle and Cheney—are dangerous not merely because their policies are ill conceived, but because they are intent on usurping the powers of the "the People's Branch of Government," Congress—refusing, for instance, to let Tom Ridge testify before the Senate Appropriations Committee on the proposed Department of Homeland Security. To Byrd the Constitution's checks and balances and the powers of the legislative branch, including the power of the purse and the power to declare war, have kept America a safe and functioning democracy. He argues, offering a series of instances, that the Bush administration is systematically, relentlessly and with stubborn arrogance making a mockery of these constitutional mandates through subterfuge, warmongering and intimidation of a Congress that is "cowed, timid, and deferential." Byrd is forthrightly critical of President Bush, charging him with "political mendacity" and saying that, in comparison with the other presidents he has known, "Bush #43 was in a class by himself—ineptitude supreme." This volume is a searing criticism, informed by Byrd's knowledge of history, leavened with his vast experience and written with his legendary rhetorical flourish. Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.


From The Washington Post's Book World/washingtonpost.com
According to recently released transcripts of Henry Kissinger's telephone conversations, President Richard Nixon asked his chief of staff, Alexander Haig, in March 1974 to fetch the "football," the black bag that contained the codes to launch nuclear weapons. This ominous presidential request did not signal a heightening of tensions with the Soviet Union. Rather, it marked the climax of Nixon's desperate struggle with Congress during the Watergate scandal. "He is going to drop [a bomb] on the Hill," Haig informed Kissinger, but then he hastened to reassure the alarmed secretary of state, "[The President] is just unwinding. Don't take him too seriously." Watergate, which ended with Nixon's forced resignation, was no joking matter. That episode is widely considered the height of presidential imperialism and the nadir of Congressional-White House relations in 20th-century American politics. But Losing America, Sen. Robert C. Byrd's diatribe against President George W. Bush and his administration, suggests that contemporary America faces a more dangerous constitutional crisis than the American people confronted three decades ago. Sept. 11, he warns, transformed "a lackluster, inarticulate, visionless president into a national and international leader, nearly unquestioned by the media or by members of either party." "That September day," Byrd suggests, endangered "cherished, constitutionally enshrined freedoms as had almost no other event in the life of our nation." Amid the revelations of the Bush White House's miscalculations and blunders in taking the nation to war, the fierce and fractious resistance to America's presence in Iraq, and the shame over the Coalition of the Willing's treatment of Iraqi prisoners, Byrd's story is not especially fresh. But with the possible exception of Howard Dean, he has been telling it longer than anyone else. And unlike Dean's primal scream, Byrd's assault on the Bush White House challenges the administration on constitutional grounds, specifically that document's designation of Congress "as "the people's branch, the sacred temple of free and open debate." Also unlike Dean, Byrd, who has represented West Virginia in Congress since 1952, when he was elected to the House (he was elected to the Senate in 1958), cannot be accused of belonging to what has been called the "Democratic wing" of the Democratic Party. As a young man, he briefly joined the Ku Klux Klan; as a senator, he filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights bill. Byrd eventually regretted his opposition to civil rights and became sufficiently centered in the national party to be elected Senate majority leader in 1976.Byrd's mastery of Senate procedures and West Virginia politics has given him the freedom to serve up grand rhetoric, laced with classical references, in defense of republican government. Losing America, which is delivered like one of Byrd's exalted and wayward speeches (for good measure, the book includes eight of his recent speeches from the floor of the Senate), is likely to be read respectfully and fitfully -- by Democrats and Republicans alike. Although highly critical of the Bush White House for its hubris and callowness (one wonders how the president could be equally imposing and immature), the book, by contemporary standards, is not militantly partisan. Byrd is at least as scornful of his Democratic colleagues as he is of the Bush administration. It was bad enough, he laments, that congressional Democrats were complicit in the hasty enactment of what he calls the "Unpatriotic Act," which put civil liberties at risk; more alarming was their indifference to oversight of the Justice Department's enforcement of the legislation. Congress "took a pass on the issue of enemy combatants and did not want to soil its skirts with the nasty little issue of detainees at Guantanamo Bay," he charges. "Rather than deliberate, discuss, debate, and test the limits of appropriate presidential power in the war on terror, Congress has decided it would rather just salute the emperor and then stand down." Not surprisingly, he reserves his harshest jeremiad for the Bush administration's rush to war with Iraq. His contempt for the Bush doctrines of "preemption" and "regime change" is joined to a scathing indictment of Congress's swift enactment of the Iraqi Resolution, which delegated to the president the sole decision to go to war and determine its scope and duration. When Congress took up the question of Iraq in the fall of 2002, Democrats were divided over whether the country should go to war. But the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate and most of their colleagues, facing a popular president and November elections, were anxious to get the war behind them and change the subject to the flagging economy. Byrd carried out a lonely but vigorous protest against this strategy. Calling for "more time" and "more evidence," he urged his colleagues to slow down and consider the hard lessons of history. As one of the few remaining senators who were in office during the Vietnam era, when he was a staunch supporter of Lyndon Johnson's and Richard Nixon's war policies, Byrd reminded his colleagues of the ignominy that followed from the expeditious, near-unanimous enactment of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964. (The resolution, which authorized the president to take "all necessary measures" to prevent aggression against the United States, passed unanimously in the House; only two senators opposed it.) Nevertheless, the Iraqi Resolution passed by overwhelming margins, 296-133 in the House, 77-23 in the Senate. Even Byrd's amendment to "sunset" the resolution -- to limit the duration of its authority to one year -- received only 31 votes. To Byrd, the unwillingness of Congress to impose any time limit on such a breathtaking grant of power was the most "inexplicable vote of any that were cast in the whole sorry episode." After the vote, the self-anointed defender of legislative prerogative was left alone, to lament, like an Old Testament prophet, "How are the mighty fallen!" Byrd is no longer so lonely -- his prophesies about the Iraqi War have hit home not only for most Democrats but also for a growing number of discontented Republicans. But the senator's voice is still one of the few that defends the right of Congress (as expressed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution) to play a vital role in foreign policy. One of his favorite classical referents is Helvidius Priscus, a Roman senator who became a victim of the tyrant Vespasian for daring to speak his mind. Byrd invoked Helvidius repeatedly in excoriating his colleagues for "playing it safe" and handing Bush "carte blanche by passing the Iraq war resolution." Lest his fellow senators and the readers of Losing America dismiss Byrd's Roman example as histrionic, it must be noted that the sober James Madison chose Helvidius as his pen name in attacking Alexander Hamilton's sweeping defense of foreign policy during the Washington administration. Hamilton argued that, in foreign affairs, the explicit constitutional restrictions on presidential power extended no further than the right of the Senate to ratify treaties and of Congress to declare war. These rights of the legislature should be interpreted strictly, Hamilton believed, so that they did not hinder the executive in other matters of foreign policy -- such as keeping the peace -- that "naturally were the domain of the president."In taking the name of Helvidius, who wanted the Roman Senate to regain a measure of autonomy in an autocratic age, Madison meant to urge Americans to disavow a runaway executive, which would render the carefully calibrated system of checks and balances meaningless. More important, he meant to point out that representative government required public debate about foreign policy questions -- about war and peace -- which were among the "highest acts of sovereignty." To suggest, as Hamilton did, that foreign policy was within the proper definition of presidential authority was to imply that the executive branch had a legislative power. Such an argument was "in theory an absurdity -- in practice a tyranny." The debate between Hamilton and Madison was not only the first but also the best of many such struggles about the proper boundaries of executive power and Congress's responsibility to restrain the president in the most likely sphere of executive aggrandizement -- foreign policy. In its best light, Losing America urges us to continue this debate -- in a dangerous world that tempts the American people and their representatives to place so much faith in the president.Cast against the history of the past five decades, the Bush administration's executive aggrandizement is not as radical as Byrd claims. Indeed, Harry Truman, who fought an extensive war in Korea without any congressional authorization, argued that the Cold War against communism and the president's new responsibilities as the leader of the free world greatly diminished Congress's role in foreign policy. Like the Cold War, the war against terrorism is fought not against a sovereign nation but against an idea championed by an elusive and intractable enemy. Also like the Cold War, the war against terrorism seems to require a drastic modification in the Constitutional system of checks and balances. Although the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic party, Sen. John Kerry, raised substantive arguments against going to war with Iraq, he voted for the Iraqi Resolution because he accepted presidential superiority over Congress in foreign affairs. "We are affirming a president's right and responsibility to keep the American people safe," he said, "and the president must take that grant of responsibility seriously." That such a sentiment has become so commonplace in contemporary American politics explains why Byrd's objections seem to belong in our past. In truth, his sermon should be taken seriously by anyone who believes that republican government ultimately rests on public debate and resolution regarding the highest acts of sovereignty.Copyright 2004, The Washington Post Co. All Rights Reserved.


From Booklist
As the subtitle suggests, Senator Byrd has clear contempt for both the foreign and domestic policies of the Bush administration. Of course, his opposition to the war in Iraq has been consistent. Here, his main concern is what he views as an attack on our constitutional liberties and on the separation of powers, led by an ideologically driven administration. His warnings about the potential, down-the-road threat implied by measures taken in the name of "national security" deserve consideration. Unfortunately, his zeal overwhelms his historical perspective. Our freedoms survived the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Red scare of the 1920s, and the McCarthy era. So his claim that our freedoms are under unprecedented attack is over the top. Most Jeremiahs' predictions are wrong. Yet we are compelled to listen to them because their most horrific visions occasionally come true. Had Bush or Rice paid closer heed to Jeremiahs in their own administration--well, who knows? Schell, who made his name as a prophet of doom in the Fate of the Earth series in the New Yorker, here warns us about inherent dangers in our war against terrorism. Apparently, he sees most of the dangers emanating from the American side. He absurdly blames the U.S. for "destabilizing Pakistan" (as if Pakistan was once an island of stability). He worries that our nation will lash out like "an enraged blind giant". Still, he does correctly point out that some of the more grandiose foreign policy goals of Bush's advisors risk setting off chain reactions with incalculable consequences. Jay Freeman
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

FROM THE PUBLISHER

In the months and years following September 11th, Senator Robert C. Byrd viewed with dismay what he considers a "slow unraveling of the people's liberties," a time when dissenting voices were stilled and awesome power swung suddenly to the president to fight a "war on terror." The way down this path violates historic American principles. It provides no regard for the balance of powers or the role of Congress; it invades our privacy; it makes no attempt to educate the public and build consensus. It displays little regard for our environment. It grapples little with the realities of people who have to work for a living, rear children or care for aging parents, and cope with physical ailments -- problems that plague our country and cry out for attention. Swept along, we have entered a war under a new and dangerous doctrine without proper consideration, and we have rushed dangerous legislation through Congress willy-nilly. We have a White House that favors the rich and the well-connected, lavishes tax cuts on big businesses, and pushes through unfair tax legislation.

Most serious, this administration has, in greater measure than ever before, operated under a cloak of secrecy, which is deeply antithetical to the principles of our nation. For far too long, argues Senator Byrd, too many of us have passively gone along, aiding and abetting a dangerous process. Now is the time, he urges, to regain the Constitution that our fore-fathers so wisely left us, a time to return to the values and principles that made America great. Losing America is a ringing call to action by one of the country's longest-serving and most respected legislators, one who does not shrink from warning the people of the sinister agenda of a power-seeking White House.

SYNOPSIS

West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd has served the U.S. Congress for 51 years, 45 of them as a senator. This text is an extension of the work Byrd has done over the past three years in the U.S. Senate to make the public aware of the many damaging and radical changes—and violations of historic American principles—that have taken place under the current Bush administration. Written at the urging of noted individuals, including Senator John Glenn and W.W. Norton senior editor, Ed Barber, Byrd's text examines major issues including the Patriot Act, Afghanistan, homeland security, the "axis of evil," and the war in Iraq. No subject index. Annotation ©2004 Book News, Inc., Portland, OR

FROM THE CRITICS

Sydney M. Milkis - The Washington Post

In truth, [Byrd's] sermon should be taken seriously by anyone who believes that republican government ultimately rests on public debate and resolution regarding the highest acts of sovereignty.

Publishers Weekly

Attacks on the Bush presidency have proliferated in recent months, but few critics bring to the argument the weight of Senator Byrd (D-W.Va.), who has served under 11 presidents. Few combine his scholar's understanding of constitutional government with the experience gained in his nearly half-century of Senate tenure. Of course, it must be noted that Byrd is a veteran Democratic leader now attacking a Republican president during an election year. In his view, Bush and his advisers-Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Perle and Cheney-are dangerous not merely because their policies are ill conceived, but because they are intent on usurping the powers of the "the People's Branch of Government," Congress-refusing, for instance, to let Tom Ridge testify before the Senate Appropriations Committee on the proposed Department of Homeland Security. To Byrd the Constitution's checks and balances and the powers of the legislative branch, including the power of the purse and the power to declare war, have kept America a safe and functioning democracy. He argues, offering a series of instances, that the Bush administration is systematically, relentlessly and with stubborn arrogance making a mockery of these constitutional mandates through subterfuge, warmongering and intimidation of a Congress that is "cowed, timid, and deferential." Byrd is forthrightly critical of President Bush, charging him with "political mendacity" and saying that, in comparison with the other presidents he has known, "Bush #43 was in a class by himself-ineptitude supreme." This volume is a searing criticism, informed by Byrd's knowledge of history, leavened with his vast experience and written with his legendary rhetorical flourish. (July 26) FYI: Hillary Rodham Clinton will appear with Senator Byrd at an event in New York City on July 26, and Ted Kennedy will appear with him on July 27 at an event in Boston, during the Democratic Convention. Copyright 2004 Reed Business Information.

Library Journal

What's happening to our liberties post-9/11? Musings from the longtime West Virginia senator. Copyright 2004 Reed Business Information.

Kirkus Reviews