← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Quantrill
Thread ID: 17249 | Posts: 14 | Started: 2005-03-11
2005-03-11 16:53 | User Profile
My representative, Tennessee Congressman John J. Duncan, Jr., along with Ron Paul from Texas, just might be the only two politicians worth a lick in the whole Congress. This still probably doesn't make up for the worthless scalawag Bill Frist hailing from Tennessee, but at least it's something.
[url="http://www.house.gov/duncan/2005/fs030905.htm"]http://www.house.gov/duncan/2005/fs030905.htm[/url] [font=Arial]March 9, 2005[/font] [font=Arial]United States House of Representatives[/font]
[font=Arial]Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a fellow Tennessean, but a man whom I never had the privilege of meeting. Samuel Francis was a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist and a leading voice of traditional conservatism. He passed away several days ago, just after the Congress had gone into recess, at the too-young age of 57 from complications after heart surgery. [/font]
[font=Arial]No two people, not even husbands and wives or best friends, agree on everything; and I did not always agree with Sam Francis. But I admired his courage. He was politically incorrect on almost everything, which made him right on most things, but also very controversial. He was a leading critic of neo-conservatives, Big Government conservatives who really are not very conservative at all. [/font]
[font=Arial]Raised in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Dr. Francis had a bachelor's degree from Johns Hopkins and master's and Ph.D. degrees from the University of North Carolina. Sam Francis did not believe in world government and multiculturalism. He was a patriotic American who put his own country first and was a brilliant and brave writer. [/font]
2005-03-11 17:16 | User Profile
Bravo, John Duncan. Well done!
2005-03-11 17:35 | User Profile
I'm pleased that Duncan did not act as Bob Barr did a few years ago and disavow his onetime friends as a sacrifice to the Gods of political correctness.
2005-03-11 17:42 | User Profile
Duncan is also against the war for Israel and oil. Good for him.
2005-03-11 18:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Duncan is also against the war for Israel and oil. Good for him.[/QUOTE]
If only it were for oil. I guarantee you that even if Iraq is "stabilized," you'll be paying more at the gas station tomorrow than you did last year. And it isn't as if Hussein's regime was ever unwilling to sell his oil. It was a US embargo that kept Iraqi oil out of Western refineries and gas stations, not the Ba'ath party.
2005-03-11 19:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Duncan is also against the war for Israel and oil. Good for him.[/QUOTE] East Tennessee is very solidly Republican, and Duncan took a lot of heat for his nay vote on the Iraq War. However, he has such a good reputation, that most of the Bush-lovers gave him a pass. Duncan's no Sam Francis, but he's solidly paleoconservative. He is even a fairly regular contributor to Chronicles.
2005-03-12 02:21 | User Profile
This Duncan fellows got guts! When I heard that he said some nice things about Dr. Francis on the floor of the House, I almost fell on the floor in MY house.
2005-03-12 04:20 | User Profile
John Duncan Jr. is my man!
2005-03-12 04:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=AntiYuppie]If only it were for oil. I guarantee you that even if Iraq is "stabilized," you'll be paying more at the gas station tomorrow than you did last year. And it isn't as if Hussein's regime was ever unwilling to sell his oil. It was a US embargo that kept Iraqi oil out of Western refineries and gas stations, not the Ba'ath party.[/QUOTE]
AntiYuppie,
Note the order I put that in, "Israel and oil." Obviously, Israel is the main reason, but we shouldn't overlook the plutocratic element as well. I recall that some of the oil companies were worried about a war over there and the effect it would have on business. I believe that in order to bring them on board the Neocons made a deal where they could go back into Iraq and perhaps the other oil producing countries once "liberated" and re-establish the position they had in the past before their assets were nationalized. One of the first things Saddam did when the Ba'ath retook control was to nationalize the oil industry.
As far as price goes anyone with sense would realize that an invasion of Iraq was going to take oil off the market. The idea that the Iraqi oil was going to sold to the US cheap was just bait for the general public. I remember Limbaugh making a naked appeal to greed a week prior to the invasion telling people that if the US went in gas would become cheap.
Neocons (and plutocrats too) couldn't care less about the price. For the Neocons I think in their fantasy world they believe that control of these resources allows them to keep Red China in check.
2005-03-12 05:11 | User Profile
"...He was a leading critic of neo-conservatives, Big Government conservatives who really are not very conservative at all."
Endearing to see that Junior's Party is not monolithically Stupid. How long before a D'Souza or Goldberg smears the good Congressman as a "Hater"...? :D
2005-03-13 02:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]For the Neocons I think in their fantasy world they believe that control of these resources allows them to keep Red China in check.[/QUOTE]
I've thought that too but I can't factor in our indifference to the Sudan pipeline and the Chicom's dragging billion-dollar energy contracts through the Axis of Evil trailerpark that is Iran just to see what the Neocons will -- or maybe won't -- do.
2005-03-13 03:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE] through the Axis of Evil trailerpark[/QUOTE]
LOL!
Askel,
It doesn't receive a lot of publicity, but they have complained about it. I'll see if I can find something. They have a full plate right now with Israel's immedient "threats." Maybe they will let their fellow travellers, the NeoLiberals carry the water with this one over "human rights" violations.
2005-03-13 13:00 | User Profile
Askel,
Here are a couple of items, the first one straight from the horse's ass- er, I mean mouth.
The Weekly Standard
End the Genocide Now From the September 22, 2004 Washington Post: Eventually the U.S. will act on Darfur. The question is how belatedly, and how effectively. by William Kristol and Vance Serchuk 09/23/2004 12:00:00 PM
SELDOM HAS THE GULF between diplomatic talk and effective action been as stark as it was this week at the United Nations. On Tuesday, President Bush, speaking before the U.N. General Assembly, called on the Sudanese government to stop the killing in Darfur, reiterating Secretary of State Colin Powell's declaration that the atrocities there constitute genocide. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan also condemned Khartoum for its campaign of violence. And three days earlier, the Security Council passed Resolution 1564, a toothless and watered-down warning to Sudan that sanctions might be considered should the carnage continue.
Unfortunately, Sudan's barbarity almost certainly will continue in the absence of effective action and U.S. leadership. The failure of world nations to force Sudan to change its behavior is merely the latest reminder of a fact we should have learned since the end of the Cold War--in the Balkans, in Rwanda and in Iraq. The United Nations is slow and weak, and the United States, especially when waiting on the United Nations, is itself often too slow to act.
The United States will eventually act on Darfur. After the election President Bush or President Kerry will not sit by and permit the second genocide in Africa in a decade. We will intervene--belatedly. The question is how belatedly, and how effectively.
The regime in Khartoum is unwilling to end the bloodshed it has unleashed in Darfur. Some 50,000 people have been killed, with 1.2 million forced to flee their homes. The Janjaweed militia backed by the Sudanese government continues to attack refugees, destroy villages and obstruct aid activities, acting in what the International Crisis Group has characterized as "a state of total impunity."
The U.S. government has done everything it can diplomatically to resolve the crisis. For nearly six months Bush, Powell and other senior officials have urgently and publicly demanded that the Sudanese government pull back the militia. The U.S. government has repeatedly threatened "consequences" if Sudan failed to do so. In this, the Bush administration has the support, indeed the encouragement, of a bipartisan, right-left, "never again" consensus.
Now it's time for the threats to end and the consequences to begin. After all, in addition to the humanitarian imperative, the United States has a strategic interest in Sudan. Khartoum is one of seven regimes on the U.S. government's list of state sponsors of terrorism, and Sudan's dictatorship has had ties with almost every significant terrorist organization in the broader Middle East. Al Qaeda was based in Sudan during the 1990s, and other terrorist groups continue to operate there freely. This month Die Welt reported that Syria and Sudan have been collaborating in developing chemical weapons and may have used them against civilians in Darfur. Thus, in moving against Khartoum for its human rights abuses, we will also be striking a blow in the war on terrorism.
For months it has been obvious that stopping Sudan's campaign in Darfur will require putting several thousand foreign troops on the ground. It has also been obvious that some of these troops will have to be American. As in the case of the Balkans, Rwanda and Iraq, U.S. policymakers have waited for the United Nations to take the lead in authorizing such a force. But after Saturday's Security Council vote, it is clear that at least two members of the council--China and Russia--will veto any genuine action against Sudan. Khartoum enjoys a strategic relationship with Beijing, which is hungry for Sudanese oil and doesn't worry about human rights or, for that matter, genocide. The Kremlin has a robust weapons trade with Sudan, having just this summer shipped an order of the very MiG warplanes that have been implicated in strafing civilians in Darfur. (The Sudanese ambassador in Moscow reports that his government is "very pleased" with the purchase, which the Russians delivered five months ahead of schedule.)
Of course, U.S. policymakers might wish that the problem of Darfur could be outsourced to our allies in the region, and some African nations have indicated that they would be willing to contribute troops. But that contingent will need to be backed up by the United States. If the regime in Khartoum is going to be forced to accept foreign intervention on its territory, or if that regime is going to be changed, Washington must be a leader in the effort.
So, as is so often the case, the coalition of the willing that goes into Sudan is going to have to be largely organized, sustained and financed by the United States, most likely without a U.N. mandate. That intervention is going to happen, but the sooner we act, the more lives will be saved and the sooner the forces of terrorism and barbarism will be dealt a blow. And given the bipartisan support for such action, waiting until after our election is both unwise and unnecessary. Indeed, preparations for intervention would serve as a useful signal that the next president, whoever he is, will continue to promote America's role and responsibilities in the post-Cold War, post-Sept. 11 world.
William Kristol is editor of the Weekly Standard. Vance Serchuk is a research associate in defense and security policy at the American Enterprise Institute.
é Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
[url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/004/670eeinw.asp[/url]
[url]http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110005624[/url]
2005-03-14 01:19 | User Profile
Here's something I didn't expect to see ... I'm hopelessy out of touch as a rule so it's no surprise I miss out.
Business As Usual? Halliburtonââ¬â¢s CEO says his company is pulling out of Iran. But a corporate subsidiary is still going ahead with a deal to develop Tehranââ¬â¢s natural gas fields
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball Newsweek Updated: 6:10 p.m. ET Feb. 16, 2005
Feb. 16 - Only weeks before Halliburton made headlines by announcing it was pulling out of Iranââ¬âa nation George W. Bush has labeled part of the ââ¬Åaxis of evilââ¬Âââ¬âthe Texas-based oil services firm quietly signed a major new business deal to help develop Tehranââ¬â¢s natural gas fields.
advertisement Halliburtonââ¬â¢s new Iran contract, moreover, appears to suggest a far closer connection with the countryââ¬â¢s hard-line government than the firm has ever acknowledged.
The deal, diplomatic sources tell NEWSWEEK, was signed with an Iranian oil company whose principals include Sirus Naseri, Tehranââ¬â¢s chief international negotiator on matters relating to the countryââ¬â¢s hotly-disputed nuclear enrichment programââ¬âa project the Bush administration has charged is intended to develop nuclear weapons.
ONLINE MAIL CALL
Our Readers Write Halliburton's Dealings With Iran
MOST-POPULAR ARTICLES
ââ¬Â¢ Health: Why We Need to Get More Sleep ââ¬Â¢ Mark Starr: Michelle Kwan's Swan Song ââ¬â> ââ¬Â¢ Patti Davis: Bush Is Stuck in an Iraq Traffic Jam ââ¬Â¢ Tips to Help You Sleep ââ¬Â¢ Clift: Hillary's Rebirth Frustrates the Right
There are few matters more sensitive for Halliburton than its dealings with Iran. The company, formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, last year disclosed that it had received a subpoena from a federal grand jury in Texas in connection with a Justice Department investigation into allegations that the firm violated U.S. sanctions law prohibiting American companies from directly doing business in Iran. (U.S. firms are barred from doing direct business in Iran, but under a confusing quilt of federal regulations, their foreign subsidiaries may do so as long as they operate ââ¬Åindependentlyââ¬Â from U.S. management.)
Documents disclosed by the company indicate that the Justice Department probe into Halliburtonââ¬â¢s Iran dealings, like a separate Justice investigation into alleged foreign bribes paid by a Halliburton-connected consortium to officials in Nigeria, cover the period that Cheney was Halliburton CEO.
If Iraq was Stalinist, perhaps Iran is yet the Leninist go-between confecting deals for East and West. Nuke plants as insurance as gas deals between American sucker developers and the inscrutable East are concerned.
Another slant, anyway.
It's my respect for Christopher Story that has me believing Chicom depopulation along the pipeline translates to Western support for relocating the "slaves". I don't know. I need to revisit that.