Oh, they do, George, they do. You can just imagine the comfort I felt over the weekend, when I learned that former U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-California) had been sentenced to eight years and four months in prison for taking millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks while serving in the hallowed halls of Congress. It's always nice to see a Republican in the slammer, even if there's room for so many more.
According to The New York Times, Cunningham's sentence is "the longest ever handed down for a member or former member of Congress in a federal corruption case." My "comfort" on hearing this was so great that I almost forgot about the war in Iraq, the pending war with Iran, the Dubai ports deal, Hurricane Katrina, the mounting deficit, the shrinking dollar, global warming, the Medicare drug scam, the torture of prisoners, the march of nuclear nonproliferation with our new best friend India, and the urgent question of which gender-bending films or performances might sweep the Oscars this year. (By the time you read this, of course, we'll know the answer to that last conundrum. But just as an aside -- God forgive me! -- that was one long gay-cowboy movie.)
Anyhow, ex-Rep. Cunningham, 64, is, or was, a Vietnam war hero, "a Naval pilot ace and 'Top Gun' instructor," as the Times describes him, "who parlayed those experiences into a powerful political career" in the suburbs of San Diego and won eight successive terms in Congress. Along with houses, yachts, cars, "gifts," "a Tiffany statue," "Bijar rugs," "rare antiques," "candelabras" and at least $2.4 million for favors he rendered to "defense contractors." None of these "contractors," as far as I know, is currently facing prison, but, then, most of them aren't as loud and, uh, emotional as Cunningham is.
"In 1992," says a report in our own Barre-Montpelier Times Argus, Cunningham "suggested that liberal leaders in the House should be 'lined up and shot.'" Later he attacked Bill Clinton as "a traitor to his country" and railed about the presence of "homos" in the military. Even so, Cunningham hasn't stopped crying, blubbering and pleading for mercy since federal prosecutors caught his hand in the till last summer. Now, while invariably described as "disgraced," Cunningham is also fully repentant -- are you surprised? -- and never-endingly "tearful" in his public appearances.
Really, Cunningham's just a tearful kind of guy. He wept when he resigned from Congress last November. He wept on the floor of the House three years earlier, when urging his fellow lawbreakers -- excuse me, lawmakers -- to authorize Bush's invasion of Iraq. He probably weeps when he thinks about General Patton's automobiles, but it ain't goin' down in court. Coincident with his prison time, Cunningham has been ordered to pay more than $1.8 million in back taxes, penalties and interest, and a couple million more in "forfeiture" of his ill-gotten lucre. That would make any congressman weep, n'est-ce pas? Especially if he's the only one required to do it.
"I rationalized decisions I knew were wrong," Cunningham confessed on Saturday, "in a halting, cracking voice," as usual: "No man has ever been more sorry." He must have been flabbergasted when the judge didn't buy it, because an apology seems to work for every other sorry specimen at that level of jurisprudence -- and with so much money involved!
Hell, most arms merchants don't even have to say they're sorry to get what they want. Witness the Pentagon's recent decision to reimburse Kellogg Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Vice President Dick Cheney's bombs-and-bullets emporium, Halliburton, for almost every penny it's bilked from the American taxpayer -- specifically, $250 million in "excessive," "questionable" and "unjustified" charges incurred in the "reconstruction" of Iraq. Quoting again from The New York Times:
"The Army said in response to questions on Friday that questionable business practices by the subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root, had in some cases driven up the company's costs. But in the haste and peril of war, it had largely done as well as could be expected . . . Under the type of [no-bid] contract awarded to the company, 'the contractor is not required to perform perfectly to be entitled to reimbursement.'"