Sad is one word.. and truly, I'm sad for him, but I am not sure it is sad in the sense that it's a tragedy precisely.

Whatever "Duke" may have been in 1972, he allowed his moral compass to become seriously impaired. His conduct in 1972 is essentially not relevant here. He acted criminally, further, he was fully corrupt. Hopefully he'll help further the investigation as pennence for his actions, but even if he does, he's still guilty of major crimes. This is not a man who (apparently) was somehow driven to act immorally, he's no "victim" of some romanticized tragedy. He had, seemingly, every advantage, and yet still was corrupted. It suggests perhaps his moral compass never truly pointed north, for not so many folks I know are in one decade moral and decent, and in a another, fully for sale.

I recognize you like him and it may be your bias speaking here, but there is nothing that says people who are charismatic, capable warriors are also upright morally.

The tragedy is self-induced, he will seemingly get what is his due.

So I'm said that a once proud hero turned to crime, but this is his lot... You are skirting the edge of apologizing for him Mitch, or at least it seems so.

PB

Wow.

It may be the Scotch talking, but I am in complete agreement with PB. I am also mightily impressed by his well-reasoned, sincere, concise response that was free of both snark and invective. Well done.

/staring at my empty glass trying to figure out how PB managed to slip me a cyber-mickey.

I'd prefer to believe that "Duke" wasn't quite as strong as he might have been. Amoung men acting honorably and heroically he assumed both traits, and magnified them. Amoungst those engaging in questionable activities he again magnified and emphasized those traits. Yes, I agree with PB that his moral compass was never fully developed, but I would add that he also highlighted the beliefs of both the systems in which he operated very well.

Cunningham screw the pooch. He cast his previous acheivements in the dumper by selling himself out for 2.4 million dollars....pure and simple. The rules and integrity he got from the service and his splendid actions in it did not serve his common sense in the political world.

Real easily bought....

Angryclown concurs. Since when did Mitch go all soft on crime? The Dukester sold out his constituents for some antique commodes. Getting a man like that out of Congress and into an orange jumpsuit ain't exactly "sad."

Wow, pb made a valid point, and in les than 15 paragraphs. He couldn't stop himself from making a dig at Mitch, but it was mild. Could this be the start of a trend?
One other thought: pb were you as honest about Jim Wright, Dan Rostenkowski and "Torch" Torrecelli?

Um....I agree with pb??? Ouch.

Excuse me, I gotta go soak my brain in bleach for a couple hours.

PB:

Not apologizing. Just sad.

Clown:

Not soft on crime; I did say (in an earlier post) they should throw the book at Cunningham. Government should not be for sale.

(Paging Marc Rich)

Curious that Michele Bachmann hasn't cendemned Cunnengham's crimes.

Curios.

Ciurious indeed.

Read my blog.

Curios.

Ciurious indeed.

Read my blog.

Posted by Eva Young at November 30, 2005 12:09 PM

Only after you learn how to spell.

This was my point a couple of days ago when Mitch first posted this. That thread seem to go way off the reservation.
i can't say for sure that his moral compass was under-developed because its takes real valor to do what he did and be consistent in his actions in the military.

I wonder if the culture of Washington is so strong that good people go there but never come back.

Hence the need for strong oversight. I think the Republicans are witnessing that. Hopefully us Democrats have learned this too.

Eric

History is crowded with examples military heroes who were flawed in their non-military lives. Many who shined in battle but could not fit in when they returned to civilian life.

In my military career I worked with many razor-sharp troops who were excellent in the field but constant trouble in garrison. I don't know that I can explain why it is so. Suffice it to say that excellence in one facet of life does not necessarily mean that the same person will excel in other situations.

Eric,
"I wonder if the culture of Washington is so strong that good people go there but never come back."

Case in point: Wellstone!
"I promise I will only serve two terms."
"The Republicans have a majority in the White House, Senate and House. I HAVE to run again."

Yeah Clay, who would have thought that somebody who's really good at killing foreigners could be a bad person?

I feel like it's deja vu all over again.

PB's excellent post sounds much like the comment I wrote on this blog in 1999 when the police nabbed our own little terrorist Sarah Jane Olson.

For example, I noted that our own little terrorist had allowed her moral compass to become seriously impaired. I opined that her conduct in 1999 (as the doyen of left-wing causes and community theatre) was not relevant to her crimes against the police during the 1970s. I argued that she had acted criminally and that she was not a "victim". I recognized the left-wing's bias toward her and noted that the lefties were apologizing for her. (My first draft said that the left "was skirting the edge of apologizing for her" but I changed that when I realized that the left--including Chris Coleman--were indeed actually apologizing for her.)

As I say, deja vu all over again.

Kermit,
A simple 'I agree' with you would have been sufficient.

Wellstone, and now Republican Gutknecht, running against their pledge is a long way from money laundering(f*@k the spelling you know what I mean), accepting bribes, co-conspiracy, and othher cries that add up to $2.4 million of crap that don't mean shit when you're a active defender of this country and expect your government to be accessing the best possible equipment and products for you to do your job.

The two are not in the same fucking ball park. You are right about the Republicans running everything and the world of shit we're in is still being blamed on Clinton and the Democrats. How does that happen?

How does every thread end in a Left versus Right shit-kick fest?

This is about Duke and the corrupting culture of DC- hell, I'm softer him than some of the conservatives on here, but you just have to stick in a Democrat, any Democrat even a dead one to make a weak ass point.

Go E. S.

I had written a longer response, but as this appears to be beyond the attention span of some...

Kermit, I find it ironic to be asked if I'm a hypocrite on a page where the author refuses to address his own hypocrisy because he doesn't feel he should give any time to uncomfortable facts that don't support his position. That's for the other "biased" media to do, in his opinion. Will you hold Mitch to the standard you hold me, that you ask that I hold Dems to a standard. Will you hold yourself to that same standard? Also, Mitch spent 5 months taking digs at me, some mild, many not. I forgave the "nots", but if you're keeping score, lets at least reflect the score.

Mitch - "As lilliputians who wouldn't have been fit to carry Lieutenant Commander Randy Cunningham's clipboard 33 years ago" wow Mitch, how would you know that? As Clay said, you don't have to be a Saint to kill someone, and do you really think his critics are "little people?"

On Olson et.al. She deserves jail. I don't pick my ethics on convenience. Lautenburg, Toricelli, Traficant (sp.)all do as well.

However, ethics isn't the test of whether it's legal - no matter what position this administration may waffle to. What Tom Delay has done clearly fails the sniff test, implying that he's for sale, willing to take highly questionable trips (for which he was censured). Do you hold Delay to any ethical standard? What about Frist?

Their conduct potentially causes great harm, and at a minimum destroys needed public faith. Just like Traficant, however, they will try and may succeed in avoiding jail time on a technicality. What they did was still corrupt. Duke Cunningham may be a nice guy when he's in a room full of other nice people, but clearly, behind the scene, he put the welfare of thousands of troops at risk for his own gain and to retain power. Delay (and other Democratic Congressmen) have put the welfare of a country at risk for the same reasons. Even if his intentions are good in your eyes, there is an old ethical adage from Khant - if the means by which you accomplish your ends are not ethical, the ends cannot be, they've been cheapened, invalidated by the path your trod to get there.

PB