| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon May 23, 2005 9:55 pm Post subject: Republican Walter Jones against 'A Clean Break' war agenda |
| You can hear JINSA/PNAC Zionist extremist operative Richard Perle basically lying to Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) about the 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda via the audio link (for the Armed Services Committee hearing on April 6th, 2005) at the following URL:
http://gorillaintheroom.blogspot.com/2005/04/operating-off-different-agenda.html
Congressman Jones had used James Bamford's 'A Pretext for War' book as guide in the questioning of Richard Perle. More about the 'A Clean Break'/war for Israel agenda (as conveyed by James Bamford on pages 261-269 of 'A Pretext for War' can be read after scrolling down to such at the following URL):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/02/11/a-clean-break-from-james-bamford-s-a-pretext-for-war.php
Here is an article about how Congressman Jones is against the Iraq war:
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 10:00:35 EDT
Subject: Walter Jones
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050521/APN/505210502&cachetime=3&template=dateline
"I wish it had never happened," Jones said.
Like many things about Jones, freedom fries lend themselves to caricature. They are an emotional response to a complex problem, easily reduced to a ticker line on CNN.
But Jones now says we went to war "with no justification." He has challenged the Bush administration, quizzing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other presidential advisers in public hearings. He has lined the hallway outside his office with "the faces of the fallen."
Jones represents the state's most military congressional district, running from Camp Lejeune along the coast through Cherry Point, up to the Outer Banks.
"If we were given misinformation intentionally by people in this administration, to commit the authority to send boys, and in some instances girls, to go into Iraq, that is wrong," Jones said. "Congress must be told the truth."
Jones is no favorite of the White House these days, or of his fellow Republicans, particularly those in leadership roles. The same impulse that prompted him to get mad at the French now makes Jones criticize the war and, lately, House ethics rules. Jones accepts that his emotions cost him influence, but he insists he can live with the consequences.
Jones essentially inherited his seat from his father, Walter B. Jones Sr., who held it for 26 years and who campaigned for his son before he died. His dad was an old-school Democrat known for his sense of humor and ability to use his committee chairmanship to steer projects to his district.
The son is a different man, a conservative Republican who disavows pork projects, tours churches more than social clubs, is quicker to tears than to laughter.
His choices reflect his personality: Jones sees what comes across his desk or through his door as indicators of God's will.
Jones has picked unusual battles lately. Or, he says, unusual battles have picked him - championing an accused murderer and, separately, challenging House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
First, Ilario Pantano, the so-called preppy Marine lieutenant charged with shooting and killing two Iraqis during a search operation. Jones has said he'd be proud to call Pantano his son, even though the two hadn't met until April, when they shared double billing at a Wilmington fish fry. Their goal: to raise money for Pantano's defense on charges of premeditated murder.
Pantano has been the subject of a preliminary hearing that could have led to a court-martial at Camp Lejeune. However, the officer presiding over the hearing recommended Friday that all charges against Pantano be dismissed.
Jones has challenged DeLay, as a lonely Republican co-sponsor of a Democratic bill asking the House to undo a rules change. The change was enacted in January to protect DeLay as he faced ethics questions about accepting trips and gifts from lobbyists.
He votes "no" more often than just about anyone, especially on programs he sees as unwarranted increases in federal spending, such as No Child Left Behind and last year's prescription-drug benefit bill.
Republicans do not usually need his vote. Their margin in the House (231 votes to Democrats' 202) is comfortable; but they say his contrariness marginalizes him.
"His father was more of a bargainer," said former U.S. Rep. Cass Ballenger, a Hickory Republican. "Walter may bargain, but I've never run into it."
Jones is a member of the big class of Republicans first elected to the House in the 1994 GOP sweep; five are now in the Senate, including North Carolina's Richard Burr. Other Tar Heel Republicans, such as Charlotte's Sue Myrick and Asheville's Charlie Taylor, lead key House committees.
Jones does not aspire to be a chairman. "I have goals, but I don't have any burning desire for this or that," he said.
Jones hates to be rude, hates to appear hurried, says, "God bless you" to the elevator operators and security guards. In an annual survey by the Washingtonian magazine, Hill staffers voted him the kindest of the 435 House members.
Jones, 62, came to Congress as an eager cop in Newt Gingrich's force bringing order to the ways of Washington.
He remains close to some members of his 1994 class, particularly Rep. Gil Gutknecht, a Minnesota Republican, a fellow contrarian who said recently that Bush had no credibility on Social Security. As they hurried to the Senate floor last week, Gutknecht slapped his friend on the shoulder. "Walter and I came here to shake up Washington," Gutknecht said. "Washington has proved more resilient than we thought."
Jones was not always a Republican. He was a Democratic state legislator noted for his advocacy of campaign finance and lobbying reform. In Washington, he has championed no such single issue.
It's harder here, he said, because everything's so much bigger and more complicated.
Jones conducts as many meetings with constituents as he can, choosing to spend time with them over committee meetings or social functions. Jones sits in front of the desk, beneath a picture of himself and his father, beside a silver bust of Mother Teresa.
Each group wants to tell him something. Before they leave he always tells them something as well, whatever his passion of the moment happens to be: a handout on foreign debt; a reading from a letter he sends to the families of all fallen soldiers; excerpts from the book "A Pretext for War," which alleges an administration conspiracy behind the war in Iraq.
Jones tells one group how he's trying to find a piece of land in Washington for a memorial to war dogs. He flips through a book dog handlers gave him, leafing past stylized drawings of animals leading their masters through danger. He starts to read, then catches himself. "I better not read this now," he says. "I never get through it without crying."
Jones says he is like his mother, an animal lover who would rather give credit than take it. His father had power, but when he joined the House leadership, he lost some of his independence. He said he remembers the worst day of his father's career, when he had to vote for a financial bailout of New York City in the 1970s.
"He had to vote it that way," Jones said. "I would rather do what I think is right than to sell my political soul."
Even if it costs his district and constituents, Jones said the people he represents know him and how he operates; they have elected him repeatedly, by 61 percent in 2000, his last competitive race.
Jones came to Washington with a generation that embraced term limits. Now he has become what he once demonized, a career politician.
The first question of politics - Why did you run? - stumps Jones. His cheek disappears again into his hand. He grimaces, the press-release regular who does not enjoy interviews, who is hurt, really, that his hometown paper, The Daily Reflector of Greenville, never endorses him, especially by the charge that his religious advocacy gets in the way of his work.
He ran, in part, because his name is Walter B. Jones Jr., a name with a long history.
He continues to run, in part, because an object in motion tends to stay in motion, a little disillusionment notwithstanding.
"We were going to do all these things to empower the people," he said of the Class of '94. "Too many times, we have expanded the government."
Yes, Washington tires him. Yes, he feels pain in his heart for the soldiers who have died, who have lost legs and arms. Yes, he knows some of his peers, especially Republicans, question his choices.
He points upward with one hand, and outward with another. "I've tried to do the best for Him," he says, "and the best for them."
Click here: Dateline Alabama | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu May 26, 2005 12:37 pm Post subject: House Kills First Vote on Iraq Withdrawal |
| http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jeserich.php?articleid=6094
May 26, 2005
House Kills First Vote on Iraq Withdrawal
by Mitch Jeserich
The House of Representatives voted down a measure, by a 128 to 300 vote, that called on President Bush to devise a plan for a withdrawal from Iraq. It came in the form of an amendment to the $491 billion budget for the Pentagon that was passed on Wednesday night.
But the withdrawal amendment marks the first time that Congress has officially voted and debated legislation that deals with a withdrawal.
"No, it won't pass today, but it will give us a chance to talk about it," said Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), the sponsor of the amendment. "It's an opportunity for members of Congress who are frustrated that our troops are being killed for a war that wasn't necessary in the first place and that there is no plan in sight to bring them home."
Despite the overwhelming defeat, about two-thirds of Democrats voted for it and so did five Republicans – a dramatic shift from just a few months ago, when talk of a potential withdrawal was taboo for even the most progressive lawmakers.
Of the five Republicans to vote for Woolsey's amendment, only one, Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina, spoke in favor of it on the House floor. Jones, one of the most conservative members in Congress, led the campaign in 2003 to change French fries to freedom fries.
"We've never voted one time together in my eleven years here," said Jones, referring to Representative Woolsey. "When I voted two years ago to submit the troops, I was making my decisions on facts. Since that time, I've been very disappointed on what I've learned about the justification of going into Iraq. Afghanistan, absolutely, we should be there. We should have more troops, but we can't have more troops there when they're in Iraq."
There are no practical signs the U.S. is close to a withdrawal. The defense appropriation bill that the House just passed added an additional $45 billion to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which would bring the costs of the war to over $300 billion.
The House Republican leadership allowed just 30 minutes for debate on the amendment. Still, it was lively and at times emotional.
"I rise in strong opposition to this amendment," said Representative Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), Chair of the House Armed Services Committee. "It's a message-sender to people like al-Sadr who are fomenting rebellion against the elected government in Iraq. It's a message sender to Zarqawi and his followers who think that the United States doesn't have the stomach to continue to oppose them. The Iraqi people would feel that the American resolve was fading away."
"What a great day this is … that Ms. Woolsey has now an amendment to develop a plan to provide for a withdrawal," said Representative John Conyers (D-Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.
"Yet, here are the members of the House of Representative who, under Article I Section 8 of this great Constitution, are the only ones who can declare war, and they're saying we don't even want to talk about a plan. … Congress can talk about this. Please, summon up your courage, that's your job."
"I don't think I have to question anybody to summon up my courage," Representative Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) responded angrily. "I was shot down in Vietnam, and you do not tell the enemy what you are going to do because you put the troops at risk. I don't want the 1,700 kids who have died in Iraq to have died for nothing."
Representative Woolsey still has a long way to go in her efforts to turn Congress against the continued U.S. military presence in Iraq. Woolsey is the sponsor of another resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq that has just 33 co-sponsors. So, the 128 representatives voting for her amendment calling on the president to create a withdrawal plan, despite its defeat, could be seen as progress.
"The way to end the insurgency is to remove the troops who are viewed as occupiers," said Woolsey. "There is a group of us working on another piece of legislation that may be bipartisan. The sooner we can bring this type of legislation to the floor, the better off we'll be."
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jeserich.php?articleid=6094 | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
