Posted on 04/02/2003 6:05:05 PM PST by JohnHuang2
Congressman Protests Use of French Marble
By ROBERT GEHRKE .c The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - A Colorado congressman is asking the Bush administration to stop making headstones for military veterans from marble bought from a French-owned company.
If the Veterans Administration agrees to Rep. Scott McInnis' request, the additional marble would come from two other quarries - one a Swiss-owned operation in the Colorado Republican's district.
``The French have done everything in their power to undermine the very troops whose sacrifice from which they now stand to profit,'' McInnis said in a letter to Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony J. Principi.
``To force the relatives of our servicemen and women fighting the war in Iraq to mourn their loss under a headstone supplied by a company with French allegiance is an insult that no American soldier or their family should be forced to endure,'' McInnis wrote.
Georgia Marble Company has been quarrying marble in Georgia since 1884. In 1995 it was bought by Imerys, a Paris-based corporation.
``They've produced a product and quality that we think veterans deserve and at the price that taxpayers deserve,'' said VA spokesman Phil Budahn.
Georgia Marble is one of three suppliers of marble for headstones to the VA. The other two are Vermont Quarries Corp., which is owned by two Italian companies, and Sierra Minerals Corp., which leases the Yule Quarry in Colorado from Pleuss-Staufer International Inc., a Swiss company.
``If we eliminate one of the three that will just make us more reliant on the other two,'' Budahn said.
Last week, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., introduced legislation that would prevent the Pentagon from using European-based GSM cell phone technology in postwar Iraq. That move would benefit Qualcomm Inc., a company based in Issa's district that has competing technology.
The statue of Abraham Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington is carved from the Georgia-quarried marble. The building surrounding the statue is made from Colorado marble, as is the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington National Cemetery.
Rex Loesby, president of Sierra Minerals, said the French ownership issue was just a small part of a larger letter he had sent McInnis, expressing concerns about the VA management of his contract.
Loesby said his is the only quarry that can produce white marble, but the VA has been buying a large volume of gray marble for headstones at a lower price from Georgia Marble.
``I like to say I could survive ... and I can compete heads-up with anybody, but the truth is I can't,'' Loesby said.
The headstone contracts are up for bid again this summer.
Since 1973, the VA has provided more than 8 million headstones and markers, Budahn said, including bronze markers as well as marble headstones.
LOL! The liberals would be shocked to learn that someone has included me among them. But I am a little surprised to learn that failure to be the first in line to throw tomatoes at the French qualifies one as a "liberal."
If the term "liberal" is to have any real meaning in the ideological sense, you can't just use the label on everyone who rubs you the wrong way. The person actually has to hold liberal positions in order to be a liberal. You may think I'm a jerk, and that's fair--everyone's entitled to an opinion. But not all jerks are liberals (even if damn near all liberals are jerks).
The French are anti-US, why should we be aquiescent to their contempt?
If they want to be against us, that's their choice. But it is really stupid for us to buy things from them. A boycott has been undertaken, and here is a matter relevant to that boycott.
A purchasing boycott is arguably the most polite and civil protest there is. You don't do anything hostile to them, you just stop profiting them.
What's shrill or low-class about that? The French aren't what they used to be, anyway. They don't deserve admiration today, although the region certainly contributed a great deal to civilization in the past. Today they are decadent, they represent social decay and intellectual pestilence.
Best not to support them in anyway, lest they metastasise more profusely.
And why deprive them of an opportunity to learn from their error by preventing them from feeling any consequence for wielding their endemic post-modern dada gestalt hostily against us?
That's a rather harsh assumption to make about someone. Don't be so zero-sum. I don't hate America. I just don't hate France either. Heck, while I'm at it, I have nothing against the good people of Nepal or Upper Volta, either.
Still, it seems somewhat petty, or beneath us, as Americans to give such weight to what the French "think of us." There likely is widespread anti-American sentiment there, but that's hardly unique to the French. Even the nations that support the current war, amongst the British population, for instance, you still find lots of anti-American sentiment expressed.
I'd hoped Americans felt more secure about who they were than to let themselves feel bothered by what the peoples of other countries think of them. What good is being a Superpower if one is so sensitive?
You're right. Just think, after a while people won't be able to use that "newbie" label on you. Then they'll have to find some other label to stick to you. And when they do that, their arguments will be just as flimsy. Namecalling is never a good way to win an argument, and rational posters and lurkers know that.
When the people of Nepal or Upper Volta start drawing swastikas on the graves of war dead that died liberating them from the Nazis, then perhaps I would form an opinion about them too.
France *caused* this war. Our young men and women are once again bearing the baggage of France. Had France not telegraphed their utter unwillingness to back up any resolution with force, said force may very well have not been necessary.
Why, then, should Americans be wrong in deciding not to do business with those that make our young men and women die for them, yet again, without gratitude?
No, the opinion wasn't valid, and it has little to do with your "newbie" status. :-) Opinions are like that...
No, actually, there is something uniquely French about this brand of antiamericanism. While it is true that they hate pretty much everybody (fair enough, I suppose) they take particular delight in poking the U.S. in the eye.
They have an economy being dragged into the gutter by their own socialist anchors around the necks of business... and they think we are the only reason they never recovered after Bastille Day.
Not all the French do things like that. Keep in mind as well that the real French aren't likely to do things like that--those anti-Semitic acts are increasingly perpetrated by Muslim immigrants who merely reside in France.
France *caused* this war. Our young men and women are once again bearing the baggage of France. Had France not telegraphed their utter unwillingness to back up any resolution with force, said force may very well have not been necessary.
That's a big leap to make--blaming the outbreak of a war on a non-combatant. If Saddam is as irrational or as inflexible as he has been portrayed, do you really think Saddam would have changed his response if France had joined the side of the U.S.?
I'm sure Saddam knew that the U.S. was coming anyways, regardless of what the French said or did about it. Bush himself made it clear from the outset that the French opinion, or even that of the UN at large, wasn't going to affect his decision to go to war.
All that UN resolution wrangling was just a way of Bush trying to buy time for the troop build-up and give Tony Blair some political cover domestically. France did exactly what Bush expected from the beginning, and it didn't change anything. France acted its part very well, like in a Hollywood production. It was all for show. Bush is a master strategerist, after all. :)
Should we be insensitive?
What is the good of being a superpower if you have to keep giving money to people who actively work against you?
I see what you mean about a diversity of people being anti-us. But obviously, that segment of the popultion doesn't rule the land in Britain. There they are, with us in Iraq.
The French, on the other hand, are to busy having thier daughters raped by Islamic immigrants and collecting unemplyment to do anything but tell us how bad we are. Why buy from someone who hates you? Look at what their philosophy is doing for them, and they wish it on us, as well.
I have yet to see an apology or any photos of French soldiers out scrubbing those marks off of the memorial. Until I do, I can only assume that Chirac approves of the defacement. What... does he expect us to clean up this mess too?
That's a big leap to make--blaming the outbreak of a war on a non-combatant. If Saddam is as irrational or as inflexible as he has been portrayed, do you really think Saddam would have changed his response if France had joined the side of the U.S.?
a.) Many wars are started or aggravated because of non-combatants. France should know about that. Weakness has never prevented a single war, ever.
b.) Yes, Saddam may be nuts, but I don't think he ever had a deathwish. He likes his power and palaces too much. Given a credible and global threat to his stance, he may well have buckled. I think it is entirely fair to point out that it is precisely the inability of the UN to deal with him (due to France) that gave him the resolve to continue his duplicity before the world stage.
I'm sure Saddam knew that the U.S. was coming anyways, regardless of what the French said or did about it.
He does now.
Bush himself made it clear from the outset that the French opinion, or even that of the UN at large, wasn't going to affect his decision to go to war.
No, he didn't. You're drinking the DNC koolaid again.
All that UN resolution wrangling was just a way of Bush trying to buy time for the troop build-up and give Tony Blair some political cover domestically. France did exactly what Bush expected from the beginning, and it didn't change anything. France acted its part very well, like in a Hollywood production. It was all for show.
This is so disconnected from reality... what, are you on the DNC morning talking-points fax list? This is fantasy.
Bush is a master strategerist, after all. :)
Finally, we agree on something. :-)
Regards,
Why would the French government apologize for the acts of criminals who deface property? The French government didn't commit the crime--I'm sure if they could find out who did it, the perpetrators would be prosecuted. And how often are soldiers anywhere assigned to clean up graffiti? And why would you see widely-broadcast photos of the clean-up? It's not like it's a "Made for TV, breaking-news production." I guess I have a hard time seeing why the French government at the national level, or any government of any country, would take such special measures and involve itself in the middle of what is basically a street crime. I think you're setting your expectations and standards a little high.
Weakness has never prevented a single war, ever.
You're right about weakness, but to choose a non-involved third party as being "responsible" for the war is a bit much. If this was a factor, then France alone can't be blamed--what about the other countries that had misgivings about the plans of the U.S., like Germany and Russia or China?
b.) Yes, Saddam may be nuts, but I don't think he ever had a deathwish. He likes his power and palaces too much. Given a credible and global threat to his stance, he may well have buckled. I think it is entirely fair to point out that it is precisely the inability of the UN to deal with him (due to France) that gave him the resolve to continue his duplicity before the world stage.
He does like his power and palaces--which is why he's over there now putting up a fight. It was clear from the beginning that what Saddam supposedly did with his WMD was not going to satisfy the U.S.--Bush wouldn't take yes for an answer. Several times on the news I heard it said from the Bush Administration that Saddam would have to "allow democracy" besides disclose/get rid of his WMD. They didn't emphasize that "leaving power" part until almost before the war began, but it was referred to as a side note before that. Saddam must have known that the U.S. would only be satisfied with his leaving power, and Saddam instead chose to die in office.
As far as a credible and global threat, the UN has never been credible. The U.S. is the only power who commands credibility, so the UN and France were irrelevant from the beginning.
Bush himself made it clear from the outset that the French opinion, or even that of the UN at large, wasn't going to affect his decision to go to war. No, he didn't. You're drinking the DNC koolaid again.
No DNC involved here. I heard Bush say in several speeches something to the effect that "America has the right to act in its self-defense," and that therefore, in the final analysis, action against Saddam does not depend on UN authorization. It's clear that Bush only bothered with the UN because there were still men and equipment on their way to the Gulf before the war could be launched, and the British public were demanding UN involvement according to the polls, so Bush played the UN game for a little while so that Tony Blair's government wouldn't collapse under pressure from the anti-war/multilateralist types over there--Bush and Blair had to make it look like they were at least trying.
Actually, an ironic thing came about from Bush's footsies with the UN--he was trying to avoid the perception that he was a "cowboy" who goes rushing in alone, and by waiting so long with the UN, a lot of Americans started griping that Bush was wasting too much time. Hard balance to strike. Before the UN debacle, Americans had been expressing in the polls that they'd support the war more if the UN or other coalition members would go along with it too.
Don't get me wrong, I think the UN is irrelevant and ridiculous anyway, so I'm not criticizing the Administration over the UN factor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.