Posted on 04/11/2007 1:01:11 PM PDT by pissant
From your Link : “But one of the biggest problems in contractors’ and congressmen’s mutual back-scratching isn’t Duke-style corruption. It is what’s perfectly legal.”
“...citing several official letters praising Audre’s technology or endorsing automated document conversion.”
Followed by this claim
“But the preponderance of evidence...”
Funny thing, the only evidence cited in this OPINION piece was presented by Duncan Hunter backing his position.
I notice this is still the only thing you have to present about Duncan Hunter when you yourself state he has well over twenty years in office. Surely you can do better than this one thing huh?
The lack of a known investigation may -- or may not -- have anything to do with the recent termination of the U.S Attorney in San Diego who prosecuted Cunningham and was reportedly in the process of an expanding corruption probe. Although I have no reason to believe that Hunter has done anything illegal, I question the ethics of any elected official who puts himself in the position of having to defend a "pork barrel contract" that effectively diverted millions of dollars of tax dollars to a campaign contributor in his district for something that the Department of Defense did not ask for, did not want, and did not need. That kind of spendthrift behavior is something that I would expect from Democrats, not from someone who calls himself a conservative.
Here. I’ll say it loudly: Hunter supports US manufacturers, he supports defense contractors, he supports buying much much more than the Pentagon wants or has budget for. He is THE favorite congressman of Defense contractors, large and small, for steering as much work their way as he possibly can. I worked for Boeing Defense and Space for years. We loved him there.
The same folks who holler that body armor wasn’t available or humvees weren’t ‘up armored’ enough etc etc, are often the same folks that will claim people, who actually support the idea that the military should have more than it actually needs, are doing a bad thing when they try to accomplish that very goal.
If anywhere in our Nation an excess is warranted, it is in our military preparedness.
I respect and appreciate your honesty. Unfortunately, there are 435 members of the House and 100 Senators and thousands of elected representatives on the state and local level who use our hard-earned tax dollars to fund local projects that they think are worthy or important, when in reality they are simply trying to bribe the voters with their own money, at best and/or thank campaign contibuters for their support, at worst. Either way, the cost to the American taxpayer is mega-billions and billions of dollars. IMHO, there is nothing conservative about forcing people to pay 30% or more of their hard-earned income to Congress so that the likes of Duncan Hunter can hand out our money to their friends. I know that pork has been a part of the American political scene since day one, and I know that little is likely to change except perhaps the rare corruption prosecution to keep the Congressional giveaway program from getting too out of hand, but I don't have to like it, and there is no way that I will ever support an unapologetic money-grabbing, spendthrift like Hunter no matter how much I may agree with many of his other positions.
“to their friends” in Duncan Hunter’s case means to defense contractors. Let me know if he has a Duncan Memorial Drive or a Hunter Botanical gardens named after him.
You can legitimately criticize him for going along with Bush’s prescription drugs plan or voting for the fat farm bill and such. But I will only give him respect for forcing the Pentagon to purchase more armaments then they (meaning the administration in power) request. He has consistently railed at the lack of military spending, not just to feed his friends contracts, but rather because he is a Hawk. Perhaps the most hawkish member serving.
He actually has a pretty decent record of fighting pork in his 26 years.
And it is acutally spending that is constitutionally obligated.
Please explain to us how Duncan Hunter helped to increase our military preparedness by using the "power of the pig" to steer a multi-million dollar defense contract to a campaign contributer for the digitalization of miltary records from the Panama invasion, particularly when the Department of Defense did not request, did not need, and did not want the expenditure. Seems to me that he undermined our military prepardness by wasting millions of dollars that should have been used to directly support our troops and their mission. Going back to the point I raised yesterday, this is one the major problems with career politicians. After spending decades inside the beltway where they can make and play by a different set of rules, they become so out of touch with reality that they are unable to differentiate between absolute "needs" and discretionary "wants."
That explains why he recently opposed opening the books on pork so that the taxpayers can determine through a searchable database exactly who requested the money, how much was requested, and what is it being used for.
Digitally preserving records is a great idea. I have two words why. SANDY BERGER. Saying that Duncan Hunter “undermined our military prepardness” exposes you as being nothing more than a hater because you undoubtedly support someone else.
That is as rediculous a statement as one can make IF someone actually read a bit about this man before making such such claims about them based on ONE example.
I get it, you read one opinion piece and so Duncan Hunter is the Devil to ya. I can’t wait to see who you actually support for President.
Care to explain that comment? I would like some context for that claim. No link, just your words is what I ask for.
I’ll put Hunter’s expertise about what is needed in our military up against ANY Pentagon expert. We have civilian control for a reason, and we are very fortunate ot have a few guys in Congress that actually know what the hell they are doing.
My post #100 was deleted.
Why is CJ permitted to insult me and I am not permitted to reply in kind?
He’s been one of the lead guys fighting for line item veto for years, for starters.
And what exactly are you talking about on the pork database?
“DUNCAN HUNTER (R-CA) Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005 Agreements for Future Employment: 0
Compensation: 0
Gifts Received: 0 (Amount: $0)
Payments to Charitable Organizations in lieu of Honoraria: 0 (Amount: $0)”
I guess some people like to ignore the facts and just presume that everybody does it.
Thanks for posting those facts again. I had seen them before, but someone else might see them now.
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.