The Unauthorized Randy “Duke” Cunningham Page
Randy “Duke” Cunningham Forum
Date: 2006-03-07 11:54:00
In light of Cunningham's scandalous crimes, I am surprised there has been little mention of the "Black Budget."
About the only mention was in a recent Businessweek issue:
The black budget is the hidden cost of the highly classified, "black projects" of the CIA, NSA, DIA, and the military. They are officially known as, Special Access Programs. What they are and what they cost are kept secret from a majority of Congress and all taxpayers.
What we know of Cunningham's crimes seem limited to "white projects" and earmarks. However, Cunningham was also involved in appropriations for black projects too.
I remember years ago, asking a large defense contactor if they were worried about probable congressional resistance to their large and controversial project. The representative said, "no." He said they were pretty confident to get it listed as a black project, and therefore avoid the expected congressional resistance in getting it funded.
One has to wonder how many projects are put into the Black Budget to avoid scrutiny and oversight, rather than on their own merit?
If Cunningham was committing crimes that we know about in white projects, it makes one wonder how many crimes were committed involving black projects. And because of the secrecy of those projects, can we ever know?
Also, since much of the CIA's budget lies within the black budget, it will be interesting to see what happens with Wilkes' friend, Foggo.
Black Budget Background:
Date: 2006-03-07 13:09:42
Cunningham was a thief; there is no hint or accusation that he was a traitor. Being a thief does not make him a traitor. All of you know what I think of him. But to imply that he is also a traitor to this country is just plain wrong and piling on.
Cunningham's military and political records prove quite the opposite.
Date: 2006-03-07 16:50:37
You did not but others have. I mentioned it here because I could just see them returning with this b.s. Call it a pre-emptive strike.
It does not now matter if he did or did not get sweetheart contracts under black budgets. We'll never know it and his fine and sentence of incarceration are set. And who says that they contracts were not for usable and workable items? And in a trillion dollar budget a few million is like, as RMiddlemas says, a fea firt.
Because a politician receives a bribe to get a military contract through does not necessarily mean that the contract id necessarily bad. Case in point, do you really think that our Navy's A-6 and F-4 program were the result of honest bidding and contracting? Or that Henry J. Kaiser got to build all those ships in WW2 because he had the best product . . . these 3 examples became the best products through trial and error, but to start out were they were not the best products . . . no they were not. The contracts were the result of money under the table.
You think that the Osprey is the best deal for the Marines? Why in he!! Is it getting shoved down the Corps throat? Think about it. Grease is getting applied in many places.
How do you think that LBJ, a Texas school teacher, became so wealthy in his own right?
John Stennis, "great friend of the Navy" and the strong senator from Mississippi was the scion of a down on their luck land poor Mississippi family. The Navy decides to build a jet training base in the middle of no where in Mississippi. Wham it lands on LEASED Stennis property outside of Meridian. Do you think that the Navy just sought out the Mississippi bottom lands for no reason? Stennis entered the Congress a poor country boy and dies a multi-millionaire. How do you think that happened?
This folks is how business is done in Washington, and it is wrong, but it does not mean that these guys are traitors, They are just greedy hogs. Does bribery and greed increase the cost of a contract? Of course it does. But considering that Cunningham is being called the worse and he charged, what, less than 3/10th of 1%, the bribery is bad but could be a ton worse. Cunningham is by no means the worst.
What worries the hell out of me is not the Cunninghams. He got chump change for selling his soul. He was likely schooled how to do it WRONG so that he would be caught . . . tossing a victim to the lions. What concerns me are the boys that really know how to launder money. It never goes into a campaign fund. It goes right out of the country in a laundering plan like the old Investor Overseas Services (IOS) remember (Bernie Cornfield?)“Bicycle Run.” It gets electronically laundered through about 50 off shore accounts in a dozen different countries in about the time it takes to read this sentence. Then after the money goes in and immediately comes out, the account automatically collapses. That is what concerns me because Cunningham was only a small hog. The big boys that are taking 10% to 20% out of a contract, we will never catch. These are the guys really driving up the cost of government contracts.
But again, they are crooks for doing this, not de facto traitors.
Date: 2006-03-07 21:13:53
Is so p!sses ne off that I do not write the checks to them. The wife does . . .
Cunningham was nothing more than one of those little ducks that were fed to the alligators.
The Fine Print:
The above comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way
(Communications Decency Act, 47 USC Â§ 230).
In compliance with the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998,
we do not accept postings from children under 13 years of age.
Privacy notice: messages posted to this forum are public.
Trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
The rest copyright © 2001-2012 Dan E. Anderson. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 1996-2012 Dan E. Anderson. All rights reserved.
This page is not authorized or approved by anyone, but I hope you enjoy it.
About this website.
If you have comments
(hate mail, praise, jokes, corrections, constructive criticism, or destructive criticism), please
send me (Dan Anderson) a secure private message.
You can read other people's comments