Oil for friends
I haven't seen this widely reported lately, so now that the link is free I'm posting here, lest people think that the only scandalous behavior in Congress of late was that of Duke Cunningham.
Money can't buy love, unless you're Anna Nicole Smith. But these days a little heating oil can buy friends in Washington, especially when they come as cheap as Democrat William Delahunt. Massachusetts wants bargain oil prices to help it through the winter. Venezuelan tyrant Hugo Chavez wants influence in Washington. Leave it to the Congressman from the Commonwealth and a Kennedy to close the deal.Last week Venezuela announced that its U.S.-based Citgo Petroleum would sell 12 million gallons of home heating oil at a 40% discount to help the poor in Massachusetts. The deal was announced by Mr. Delahunt on the lawn of a beneficiary before Thanksgiving, with Congressman Ed Markey at his side. "This today is about people, it's not about politics," Mr. Delahunt said with a straight face. Massachusetts-based Citizens Energy, run by the Kennedy clan, will be one of the distributors.
"To Citgo, to the people of Venezuela, our debt," the Congressman pledged. Mr. Delahunt should rightly feel a debt to the people of Venezuela, whose per-capita income is perhaps one-tenth that of Massachusetts and whose sole source of hard currency is the oil that their leader is now giving away to the second-richest state in the union. But Mr. Delahunt has no unpaid debt to Mr. Chavez. For some years now the Congressman has been lobbying hard for the Venezuelan despot, whom he paints as a misunderstood humanitarian. How French.
Mr. Chavez came to power in 1999. In seven years he has a domestic record of human rights abuses, election fraud, property confiscations a la Zimbabwe's Mugabe, erosion of the independent judiciary, limits on press freedom and militarization. His best friends include Fidel Castro, the Iranian mullahs and Colombia's FARC terrorists.
The Bush Administration is worried about all this, but Mr. Delahunt has no qualms. After Mr. Chavez was briefly deposed in 2002 because of his use of violence against dissent, Mr. Delahunt visited Venezuela and proclaimed, "I think he's learned from this. I think he understands that healing and reconciliation are the true qualities of leadership, not division." Mr. Chavez's attacks on his critics have since worsened.
Mr. Delahunt returned to Caracas to dine with Mr. Chavez in August and was asked whether he might be acting in opposition to U.S. policy. "I don't work for Condoleezza Rice. I don't report to the State Department. I report to the people who elected me in the state of Massachusetts. I belong to an independent branch of government."
Swell guy, huh?
Comments
But we should investigate and charge Rove who committed real crime.
Posted by: Democrat | December 1, 2005 11:48 AM
So, let's see. A congressman went and negotioted a great deal for his constituents, right out in the open and above board.
Hmmm. And now you Neocons compare him to the Duke who stole from all Americans to hand out billions in overpriced defense contracts based on bribes that he lied about.
OK, got it.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | December 1, 2005 01:22 PM
JFK is rolling in his grave right now. His NEPHEW is negotiating with Castro's heir apparent! And as a Massachusetts resident formerly in Delahunt's district...don't even get me started.
Posted by: Lori | December 1, 2005 08:21 PM
Well Barry,
I think that article is very misleading. I am certainly not here to defend Chavez, which I dont like and I think he is an opportunist. However, many of the things written there are highly inaccurate. Chavez was democratically elected...twice. The second time, after the large uprising of the opposition was in the presence of international monitors, headed by Jimmy Carter. The international monitors and Jimmy Carter made clear that the election was fair.
Now, as I said, I dont like Chavez and I certainly dont like his support for Castro. However, the people in his country have the right to elect anyone they like, even if we disagree with them. At the very least Chavez is far more democratic than dictators like Musaraf in Pakistan or the Saudi royal family, which are well-known allies of the Bush administration. Just for the record.
Posted by: Blue Wind | December 1, 2005 10:13 PM
Nothing is wrong with Chavez or Castro. Just because they don't want to be puppets of the United States doesn't make them bad.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | December 1, 2005 11:39 PM
Which one of these was the leading factor in motivating the "Honorable" William Delahunt to make this deal?
1. Helping the poor in Massachusetts
2. Make the Bush administration look bad
Posted by: Al | December 2, 2005 04:17 PM
The customer is king. He is just following the Neocon agenda. You should all be applauding him.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | December 3, 2005 12:53 AM
All right, Bailey, against my better judgment I'm finally going to ask. What the hell ever gave you the idea that I'm a neocon?
Posted by: Barry | December 3, 2005 07:39 AM
You seem to be an intelligent guy, until the subject of Bush comes around, and then instead of cynicism a disturbing streak of ostrich-like blind faith and optimism pukes up in your writing.
I'm giving you credit for being too smart to be a simplistic Dittohead, so you must be hypotized by the more intellectual, but wrong, Neocon bullshit.
Something has to account for your inability to see Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld for what they are -- traitors, hypocrites, and thieves.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | December 4, 2005 11:06 AM
So is anyone who's supportive of our efforts in Iraq automatically a neocon? I certainly don't think so. Years ago, the term "neocon" actually meant something. Now it seems simply shorthand for "supports the war." I cannot imagine any other issue in which I would be so classified.
The original neocons were disillusioned leftists who evolved to oppose Soviet communism and what they say as a cultural decay, but they continued to embrace the welfare state as envisioned by the Great Society. I'm not a former lefty, the Soviet Union is gone, I have no patience for the socio-cultural conservative agenda, and I'm not a welfare statist.
If supporting the war alone makes me a neocon, then so be it, I guess, but it's a bastardization of the term's original meaning.
Posted by: Barry | December 4, 2005 11:36 AM
Wow, nothing can make you slink out from under Dubya's desk.
Neocon is actually just shorthand for Nazi and Moron, that which Bush embodies so perfectly.
The Iraq War was planned far ahead of 9-11, to gain control of Iraqi oil and manipulate Bush and Cheney's frat brothers into billionairehood.
That is exactly what it has done.
Posted by: Bailey Hankins | December 5, 2005 12:41 AM