The Duke Goes Down & Oil for the Poor

SAN DIEGO — A tearful, trembling Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Rancho Santa Fe) resigned Monday after pleading guilty to receiving $2.4 million in bribes from military contractors and evading more than $1 million in taxes.

The money involved makes Cunningham's the largest bribery case since several members of Congress were convicted of the crime in the early 1980s.

The downfall of Cunningham, an eight-term congressman and decorated Navy fighter pilot from the Vietnam War, began with revelations about the sale of his house in Del Mar Heights to a military contractor at an inflated price two years ago.

But in a plea agreement, Cunningham admitted a pattern of bribery going back to 2000, with contractors supplying him with Persian carpets, silver candelabras, a Rolls-Royce, antique furniture, travel and hotel expenses, use of a yacht and a lavish graduation party for his daughter.

In return, Cunningham used his high-ranking position in Congress — he served on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and the House Intelligence Committee — to "influence the appropriations of funds and the execution of government contracts."

"I broke the law, concealed my conduct and disgraced my high office," Cunningham, 63, said outside the federal courthouse. "I know I will forfeit my freedom, my reputation [and] my high office." Cunningham left without answering questions.

Cunningham, who represented an affluent suburban district, faces a possible sentence of up to 10 years in prison and a $350,000 fine when he returns Feb. 27 to the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns.

*snip*

Democratic leaders were quick to argue that Cunningham's crime is part of a pattern.

"This offense is just the latest example of the culture of corruption that pervades the Republican-controlled Congress, which ignores the needs of the American people to serve wealthy special interests and their cronies," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco).

Cunningham has a history of publicly bursting into tears. He did the same thing when pleading that his drug-using son should receieve less than the mandatory minimum sentence for drug possession Rep. Cunningham had helped put into law.

Of course, it would be folly to suggest that corruption is something new which we're only suffering from thanks to the Bush Administration. But certainly the rich history of payoffs, cronyism, and general skullduggery that this White House is so fond of hasn't helped.


In other news, left-wing folk hero and conservative bogeyman Hugo Chavez is apparently going to deliver on his promise to deliver low-cost heating oil to poor residents of Massachuseets:

QUINCY, Mass. --Tens of thousands of low-income Massachusetts residents will receive discounted home heating oil under an agreement signed Tuesday with Venezuela, a key supplier of U.S. oil imports whose government is a political adversary of the Bush administration.

The agreement would distribute oil from a subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company at 40 percent below market prices. It gives President Hugo Chavez's government standing as a provider of heating assistance to poor U.S. citizens at a time when U.S. oil companies have been reluctant to do so. Meanwhile, Congressional efforts to expand aid in response to a spike in winter heating costs have failed.

U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, a Massachusetts Democrat who met with Chavez in August and helped broker the deal, said his constituents' needs for heating assistance trump any political points the Chavez administration can score.

"This is a humanitarian gesture," Delahunt said, speaking after a news conference with Venezuelan officials outside the home of a constituent who will receive heating aid. "It has nothing to do, as far as I'm concerned, with anything between the Bush administration and the Chavez administration.

"This is going to alleviate the fears of people who were wondering whether they were going to be able to get through our cold, bitter New England winter."

Chavez has become one of Latin America's most vocal critics of U.S.-style capitalism, which he calls a major cause of poverty. U.S. officials, meanwhile, have accused Chavez of endangering Venezuelan democracy by assuming ever-greater powers. During a short-lived 2002 coup against Chavez, the U.S. government promptly recognized the new leaders, who were soon driven out amid a popular uprising.

Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican like President Bush, cheered the agreement during a Statehouse news conference, saying, "I want to say thanks to U.S. Rep. Delahunt and all of those around the world working to get lower-priced energy to us."

He refused to respond to a question about the propriety of dealing with Chavez, however.

Certainly, opponents of Hugo will smell a rat and accuse the Venezuelan president of buying support as a way to neutralize his antagonistic relatonship with President Bush while at the same time highlighting the failures of the neo-liberal economic model Chavez fights against so vociferously. Doubtless that's the plan, but it won't matter to people who would otherwise freeze their asses off in the Massachusetts winter.

I don't know when staying warm became such a contentious issue. Whatever happened to just wearing a sweater?

Iraq: We'll Take it from Here

Putting aside numerous differences at a reconciliation conference in Cairo, Iraqi leaders called for a timetable to be set for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. The Associated Press reports that the gathering of Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish leaders (under the auspices of the Arab League) also said that Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right to resistance."

The communique – finalized by Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders Monday – condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

While the document called for a withdrawal timetable, it didn't give any specific dates. Most Shiite and Kurdish members of the government have echoed the US position that setting a definite date would "encourage the terrorists." But recently President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, said that foreign troops could start leaving in 2006 or 2007.

Of course, they want a timetable just because they hate America and want the terrorists to win.

It wouldn't serve to oversimplify this event; there was a great deal of debate (as there should be) about what the U.S. should do and how to promote internal security and sovreignity. Still, the fact that this strikingly moderate proposal (start leaving in 2006... or maybe 2007) has been contemptuously brushed aside by the White House and Congress gives some idea of what the 'liberators' of Iraq think of the people who they set free.

Speaking Frankly (another article of mine)

On Monday November 14th Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) came to Brandeis to speak on issues of gay rights. Being the first and by far most prominent openly homosexual member of Congress, Frank is considered a pioneer in making it acceptable for public servants to be open about their sexuality, as well as an icon generally for the GLBT movement.

In a brief interview granted to The Hoot prior to the talk, Frank described the depths of homophobia that still infect the discourse of American life but declared himself encouraged by the monumental progress that has been made in recent years. Frank expressed disapproval of the current mania for portraying gay people as fashion-conscious and with a flair for decorating, calling TV show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy “a minstrel show” which depicts homosexuals as shallow and superfluous members of society.

When asked about whether support for gay rights (and gay marriage in particular) had hurt the Democrats in the 2004 election cycle, Frank admitted that this was so but urged a policy of pressing for gay rights while being realistic about it. He cautioned against treating insufficiently zealous supporters of gay rights exactly the same as fervent opponents of gay rights, stressing that while “politics is about values”, it does no good if your side never wins.

In the talk itself, Frank spoke on various homophobic aspects of US immigration law, which as recently as 1991 barred immigration and even tourist visas to gays and lesbians. As a way of illustrating how far the nation has come, Frank traced that law from its unanimous 1968 passage – in what was otherwise a very liberal and anti-discriminatory immigration bill – to its equally unanimous abolition in 1991.

The congressman also explained why what he considered the duplicity of the anti-homosexual faction to a hopeful sign. Frank reasoned that they wouldn’t have to be dishonest if they thought they could win with the truth, and so all the gay-rights side needs to do is be open and honest because “most people are not at heart homophobic”. One prime example of chicanery in Frank’s view was the argument that allowing gay unions would lead to social disorder. “It’s the same argument they had about women getting the vote and desegregation” he said “Always the predict chaos, and it never happens.”

In response to a question about the outing of closeted legislators and public figures who advocate anti-homosexual laws and rhetoric, Frank said that he supported such actions because it was a matter of hypocrisy, not privacy. “If [gun-control activist] Sarah Brady secretly carried an Uzi, people would write about it.” Frank said “This is no different.”

Frank also emphasized the need to not be discouraged by recent opposition to gay marriage. “If you’re not losing as many battles as you win, you’re not fighting enough battles.” On the subject of gay marriage, he described civil unions as “a step forward” and advised seizing on any and all concessions made by the anti-gay rights crowd. “Remember when we tried to get gays into the military, and the right-wing crowd said ‘We don’t care what you do in your bedrooms, so long as it’s not in the military’? Well, now whenever some new anti-gay measure that infringes on our private lives comes up, I ask them whether that stuff about staying out of our bedrooms was BS or what. It’s been very effective.”

The event was organized by Triskelion in collaboration with the Brandeis Democrats.



P.S. Hey, this blog has been going for over a year. Fancy that.

Democratic Gains, But A Slight Personal Loss

Well, the elections of 2005 are over, and Democrats have won big. I know what you're thinking: there are elections in 2005? Yes, there are; and some fairly important ones, such as the governorships of Virignia and New Jersey, not to mention a myriad of ballot initiatives and local elections. Let's go down the line:

In Virginia Democrat Tim Kaine beat Jerry Kilgore, in one of the closest and most expensive governor's races in history.

In Maine: An anti-gay initiative was defeated. The proposal would've repealed anti-discrimination laws against homosexuals.

In New jersey Former senator Jim Corzine won the governorship in the race against Republican Doug Forrester. Corzine is filthy rich, though, so this isn't too surprising.

In California: All of Governor Schwarzenegger's ballot intiatives failed, including one to take redistricting power away from the legislature, one to slow state spending, one to restrict how union money is spent for political purposes, and one to lengthen the time teachers needed to work to pass probation.

In Pennsylvania: A slate of 8 pro-ID (Intelligent Design) Republicans were all defeated in their bids for school board, while two supporters of the teaching of intelligent design lost their seats.

Alas, Leslie Byrne - for whom I toiled all those weeks in the summer - did not. To be fair, it was veyr close, and her opponent raised twice as much money as she did.

Still, all in all, a good day.

Senate Blackout

Yahoo

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats accusing the ruling Republicans of stalling tactics imposed a rare closed session of the Senate on Tuesday to force the majority to complete a probe on whether the Bush administration misused intelligence before the
Iraq war.

Senate Republican leaders were livid about the tactic, which drew public attention back to Iraq as President George W. Bush faced the fall-out from an indictment of a senior aide related to the handling of pre-war intelligence.

...

Democrats invoked a little used rule to temporarily shut down television cameras in the chamber, clear galleries of reporters, tourists and other onlookers, force removal of staff members and recording devices and stop work on legislation.

SHUTTERED SENATE FLOOR

After 2-1/2 hours of negotiations on the shuttered Senate floor, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts said work could be wrapped up next week on "phase two" of his committee's investigation of intelligence lapses before the Iraq war -- whether the administration twisted intelligence findings to justify the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

His committee has produced a report on the first part of its investigation into lapses on intelligence on Iraq weapons, none of which were found despite many U.S. and foreign reports saying they were a major threat.

The committee has not finished a follow-up on whether the administration exaggerated or misused the reports to justify going to war in March, 2003.

...

Reid said the Republican-led Congress did nothing to keep a check on the Bush administration. "This Republican Senate does no oversight. None. None. It is all part of a plan. They obstruct, they take orders from the White House," Reid said.

On one hand, it's nice to see the Democratic Party finally demand some explanation for what happened in the run-up to the Iraq war.

On the other hand, it seems rather undemocratic that nobody is allowed to know what was actually said (senators are forbidden to speak of it, since it deals with classified national-security issues).

Even so, this ties in to the issue brought about by the lack of WMDs in Iraq. Those on the left geenrally accuse Bush of deliberately lying about this, while Bush's defenders claim he was merely incredibly incompetent or deluded, not dishonest.

I suppose the deciidng factor on that issue is: was the intelligence we had on Iraqi WMDs convincing? But, if it was ambiguous, how did Bush present it? Without being able to see what he's seen, it's impossible to tell.

Still, i want to hear people's opinons: Lying, incompetent, or deluded?