Casey Could Defeat Santorum in Pennsylvania: Angus Reid Consultants: "Angus Reid Global Scan : Polls & Research
Casey Could Defeat Santorum in Pennsylvania
February 16, 2006
(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey maintains the upper hand in the United States Senate election, according to a poll by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. 51 per cent of respondents in the Keystone State would support the Democrat in a head-to-head contest against Republican incumbent Rick Santorum.
Casey has been Pennsylvania’s state treasurer since January 2005, and previously served as the state auditor general for eight years. Casey is the son of former Keystone State governor Robert P. Casey, and lost the 2002 Democratic primary to current governor Ed Rendell.
Santorum was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1994, and earned a second term in 2000, defeating Democrat Ron Klink with 53 per cent of all cast ballots. He had previously served for two consecutive terms in the House of Representatives.
Support for Casey fell by one point since October, while backing for Santorum increased by two points to 36 per cent. The U.S. Senate election is scheduled for Nov. 7.
In a state in which one in five residents is over 60 years old, Medicare is expected to become a major campaign issue. Virginia Davis, a spokesman for Santorum’s office, said in a statement to Bloomberg.com that "it is senator Santorum’s priority that Pennsylvania’s seniors have access to quality, affordable prescription drugs."
Polling Data
If the 2006 election for senator were being held today, and the candidates were Bob Casey Jr. the Democrat and Rick Santorum the Republican for whom would you vote?
Feb. 2006
Oct. 2005
Jul. 2005
Bob Casey Jr. (D)
51%
52%
50%
Rick Santorum (R)
36%
34%
39%
Someone else
1%
1%
--
Would not vote
2%
2%
1%
Not sure
10%
11%
11%
Source: Quinnipiac University Polling Institute
Methodology: Telephone interviews to 1,661 Pennsylvania voters, conducted from Jan. 31 to Feb. 6, 2006. Margin of error is 2.4 per cent."
Friday, February 17, 2006
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Santorum in Bed With Blank Rome Law firm - He Took Money - January 29, 2006 Worse Than Clintrons and Whitewater
SouthCoastToday.com - Lawmakers turn to lobbyists for fundraising - January 29, 2006: "Lawmakers turn to lobbyists for fundraising
By BRODY MULLINS, The Wall Street Journal
/File photo by The Associated Press The Justice Department’s public-corruption and bribery case against lobbyist Jack Abramoff (right), seen here with his attorney, Abbe Lowell, in September 2004, has refocused attention on the financial ties between lawmakers and lobbyists. While Mr. Abramoff’s lobbying activities reportedly crossed the line into illegality, the practice of lobbyists raising large amounts of money for lawmakers is both legal and commonplace in Washington today.
Nearly three years ago, Gregg Hartley left his job as a top aide to Republican Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri to become a lobbyist. Mr. Hartley began helping companies like BellSouth Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Viacom Inc. get audiences with Mr. Blunt and other top House Republicans and win some important legislative battles.
At the same time, Mr. Hartley was helping his old Capitol Hill boss raise campaign money and offering him political advice. Mr. Hartley is now assisting Mr. Blunt in his bid to succeed Rep. Tom DeLay as House majority leader. For the last three weeks, the lobbyist has offered strategic advice during regular visits to Mr. Blunt's office in the U.S. Capitol, according to people familiar with the meetings.
Mr. Hartley's dual roles highlight a practice that is becoming more common in Washington: Lobbyists are serving as principal fundraisers for lawmakers they're trying to sway. Bruce Gates, the top political strategist for Mr. Blunt's main rival to become Majority Leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, also is a lobbyist for private clients. William Oldaker, a lobbyist with numerous health-care clients, oversees fund raising for two dozen Democratic lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.
The Justice Department public-corruption and bribery case against lobbyist Jack Abramoff and a half-dozen members of Congress has refocused attention on the financial ties between lawmakers and lobbyists. While Mr. Abramoff's lobbying activities crossed the line into illegality, the practice of lobbyists raising large amounts of money for lawmakers is both legal and commonplace in Washington today.
Federal Election Commission records show that 71 lawmakers now list lobbyists as treasurers of their re-election or political action committees. In 1998, the number was just 15, according to a review of FEC reports by the Center for Public Integrity. Lawmakers attribute the change to the sharply rising costs of running campaigns.
In the long-running debate about whether lobbying money corrupts politics, Mr. Hartley's relationship with Mr. Blunt shows how deeply the financial ties run between Capitol Hill and the lobbyists on K Street. Advocates of change argue that lawmakers who rely on lobbyists become unduly beholden to them, and thus more willing to help their clients.
"By putting a lobbyist in charge of your political operations, you are conflicted from the start," argues Alex Knott of the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, which favors reducing the role of money in politics.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Blunt says there's nothing wrong with the congressman's close relationship with the lobbyist. In the leadership race, says his spokeswoman, Jessica Boulanger, the only involvement of Mr. Hartley "has been in the capacity of an old friend." Mr. Hartley hasn't called other members of Congress on Mr. Blunt's behalf, she notes. Mr. Blunt declines to comment. Mr. Hartley declines to discuss his fundraising activities.
In the wake of the current lobbying scandal, lawmakers from both parties have been scrambling to introduce bills to reform the lobbying industry. But none of the leading proposals would ban lobbyists from continuing their fundraising activities for members of Congress. House Speaker Dennis Hastert wants to ban lawmakers from accepting privately financed trips. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist would prohibit lawmakers' spouses and children from lobbying.
"We are carping on trifles here," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, during a Senate hearing on lobbying reform Wednesday. "Why is it that we warm up to all these lobbyists? It isn't for a meal. ... We know when it comes time to finance our campaigns, we're going to be knocking on those same doors."
The lobbying reform legislation proposed by Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican, wouldn't ban lobbyists from raising money for members of Congress. But it would require them to disclose when they host fundraisers for politicians. Lobbyists say they aren't violating any rules by moonlighting as fundraisers. "I'm not a rule maker, I'm a game player," says David Girard-diCarlo, a managing partner at Philadelphia-based law firm Blank Rome who serves as national finance director for Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. Blank Rome has numerous lobbying clients. Mr. Girard-diCarlo oversees a group of more than 40 Washington lobbyists who hope to raise $4 million for Mr. Santorum's re-election bid. "The senator is most appreciative" of such fundraising help, says Mr. Santorum's spokesman, Robert Traynham.
In addition to providing help with direct fundraising, Mr. Hartley is one of many lobbyists also helping members of Congress to raise money for specialized funding organizations called leadership PACs. Mr. Blunt and hundreds of other lawmakers in both parties have formed such PACs in order to help fellow party members facing close re-election races. Under federal election rules, lawmakers cannot donate more than $4,200 per election cycle from their own re-election coffers to the campaign of any colleague. But they can funnel as much as $10,000 per election cycle from leadership PACs to another campaign.
In practice, such financial support from politically secure lawmakers for the re-election efforts of vulnerable colleagues often translates to reciprocal support down the road. Lawmakers draw on such support when angling for leadership positions within Congress.
"Leadership PACs originated as a way for one member to garner support from other members when seeking a leadership position in the House or Senate," Mr. Blunt wrote to the FEC in 2003. "More recently, leadership PACs have enabled the Republican party to maintain its majority in the House of Representatives."
When Republicans took over Congress in 1994, about 90 lawmakers operated such leadership PACs, which together raised a total of $28 million, according to the FEC. In the last election cycle, more than 300 leadership PACs took in $127 million.
Corporations represented by Mr. Hartley have donated more than $150,000 to Mr. Blunt's leadership PAC, the Rely On Your Beliefs Fund, known as the ROY B. Fund. Mr. Gates, the lobbyist with ties to Mr. Boehner, is treasurer of Mr. Boehner's leadership PAC, The Freedom Project. Mr. Boehner is Mr. Blunt's main rival for the majority leader post.
Both lawmakers are now recruiting congressional supporters for their majority-leader campaigns. Of the roughly 150 House Republicans who have announced who they will vote for, most have endorsed the candidate who has given them the most campaign money. Of Mr. Blunt's 91 publicly announced supporters, 68 have received money totalling $690,000 from Mr. Blunt's PAC, according to the Campaign for a Cleaner Congress, a congressional watchdog group.
Mr. Hartley, a 52-year-old fan of muscle cars and rock 'n' roll, was running a legal aid organization in his native Missouri when he met Mr. Blunt, who then worked as a country clerk. In 1992, Mr. Hartley raised money for Mr. Blunt's unsuccessful campaign for governor.
Four years later, Mr. Hartley helped Mr. Blunt, who is now 56, win a seat in Congress. Mr. Blunt, an ideological conservative, rose fast on Capitol Hill, winning the respect of moderate Republicans for his nonconfrontational approach. In 1999, when Rep. Dennis Hastert of Illinois was named speaker of the House, Rep. Tom DeLay tapped Mr. Blunt to replace Mr. Hastert as chief deputy whip.
Several years after arriving in Washington, Mr. Blunt married Abigail Pearlman, a lobbyist for the tobacco and food giant Altria Group Inc. Mr. Blunt's son, Andrew, is a lobbyist in Missouri whose clients include Altria, United Parcel Service Inc. and the former SBC Communications. Another son, Matt, is the current governor of Missouri.
When Mr. DeLay became majority leader in 2003, Mr. Blunt rose to Republican whip, the party's top House vote-counter. A few months later, Mr. Hartley left Capitol Hill to become a lobbyist with Cassidy & Associates, one of Washington's oldest and most successful lobbying firms.
Mr. Hartley's first clients were companies that had contributed money to Mr. Blunt and received legislative support from him. For example, Mr. Blunt had backed the Baby Bell phone companies in their battles with long-distance carriers and cable TV operators, and the Baby Bells had backed him with donations. They became Mr. Hartley's clients.
In July 2003, Mr. Hartley was hired by a coalition of major television networks — General Electric Co.'s NBC, Viacom Inc.'s CBS, News Corp.'s FOX and Walt Disney Co.'s ABC. The networks were seeking to loosen rules governing their ownership of local TV stations.
The Federal Communications Commission had proposed allowing the networks to own local stations covering 45 percent of U.S. households, up from the previous limit of 35 percent. By the time Mr. Hartley was hired, local broadcasters had mounted fierce opposition to the change, and more than two-thirds of Congress had announced their opposition to the move.
Mr. Blunt, however, joined other House Republican leaders in blocking the measure from reaching a floor vote. The standoff ended with a compromise: the network ownership limit was lifted to 39 percent. Mr. Hartley's network clients considered it a victory.
During this lobbying battle, Mr. Hartley was helping Mr. Blunt raise campaign money. Cassidy & Associates made available its skybox at Washington's MCI Center for a fundraiser at a Simon and Garfunkel concert. Mr. Blunt reimbursed Cassidy for the cost of the seats. Last fall, Mr. Blunt rented the skybox again for a fundraiser during a U2 concert.
At Cassidy, Mr. Hartley hired two former aides of Mr. Blunt and the husband of a third. After Mr. Blunt launched his campaign to replace Mr. DeLay as majority leader three weeks ago, Mr. Hartley began advising Mr. Blunt and his staff on the race, according to Republican aides involved in the matter.
"Roy has the trust and confidence in him that he had when Gregg was his chief of staff," says Drew Maloney, a lobbyist and former aide of Mr. DeLay who backs Mr. Blunt's campaign for majority leader. Dan Mattoon, a close adviser to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, calls Mr. Hartley "a very important part of Roy's outside operation."
Mr. Hartley joined a small group of lobbyists who have helped plot strategy and raise money for other Republican leaders, such as Messrs. DeLay and Hastert. In January 2004, Mr. Hartley attended a dinner meeting hosted by Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff at Signatures, Mr. Abramoff's now-defunct Pennsylvania Avenue restaurant, to discuss ways to persuade Republican lobbyists and their clients to give more campaign contributions to Republicans.
During the 2003-04 election cycle, Mr. Hartley himself donated $74,500 to Mr. Hastert, Mr. DeLay and other congressional Republicans. He is on pace to match that level of giving once again in the 2006 election season."
By BRODY MULLINS, The Wall Street Journal
/File photo by The Associated Press The Justice Department’s public-corruption and bribery case against lobbyist Jack Abramoff (right), seen here with his attorney, Abbe Lowell, in September 2004, has refocused attention on the financial ties between lawmakers and lobbyists. While Mr. Abramoff’s lobbying activities reportedly crossed the line into illegality, the practice of lobbyists raising large amounts of money for lawmakers is both legal and commonplace in Washington today.
Nearly three years ago, Gregg Hartley left his job as a top aide to Republican Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri to become a lobbyist. Mr. Hartley began helping companies like BellSouth Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Viacom Inc. get audiences with Mr. Blunt and other top House Republicans and win some important legislative battles.
At the same time, Mr. Hartley was helping his old Capitol Hill boss raise campaign money and offering him political advice. Mr. Hartley is now assisting Mr. Blunt in his bid to succeed Rep. Tom DeLay as House majority leader. For the last three weeks, the lobbyist has offered strategic advice during regular visits to Mr. Blunt's office in the U.S. Capitol, according to people familiar with the meetings.
Mr. Hartley's dual roles highlight a practice that is becoming more common in Washington: Lobbyists are serving as principal fundraisers for lawmakers they're trying to sway. Bruce Gates, the top political strategist for Mr. Blunt's main rival to become Majority Leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, also is a lobbyist for private clients. William Oldaker, a lobbyist with numerous health-care clients, oversees fund raising for two dozen Democratic lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.
The Justice Department public-corruption and bribery case against lobbyist Jack Abramoff and a half-dozen members of Congress has refocused attention on the financial ties between lawmakers and lobbyists. While Mr. Abramoff's lobbying activities crossed the line into illegality, the practice of lobbyists raising large amounts of money for lawmakers is both legal and commonplace in Washington today.
Federal Election Commission records show that 71 lawmakers now list lobbyists as treasurers of their re-election or political action committees. In 1998, the number was just 15, according to a review of FEC reports by the Center for Public Integrity. Lawmakers attribute the change to the sharply rising costs of running campaigns.
In the long-running debate about whether lobbying money corrupts politics, Mr. Hartley's relationship with Mr. Blunt shows how deeply the financial ties run between Capitol Hill and the lobbyists on K Street. Advocates of change argue that lawmakers who rely on lobbyists become unduly beholden to them, and thus more willing to help their clients.
"By putting a lobbyist in charge of your political operations, you are conflicted from the start," argues Alex Knott of the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, which favors reducing the role of money in politics.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Blunt says there's nothing wrong with the congressman's close relationship with the lobbyist. In the leadership race, says his spokeswoman, Jessica Boulanger, the only involvement of Mr. Hartley "has been in the capacity of an old friend." Mr. Hartley hasn't called other members of Congress on Mr. Blunt's behalf, she notes. Mr. Blunt declines to comment. Mr. Hartley declines to discuss his fundraising activities.
In the wake of the current lobbying scandal, lawmakers from both parties have been scrambling to introduce bills to reform the lobbying industry. But none of the leading proposals would ban lobbyists from continuing their fundraising activities for members of Congress. House Speaker Dennis Hastert wants to ban lawmakers from accepting privately financed trips. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist would prohibit lawmakers' spouses and children from lobbying.
"We are carping on trifles here," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, during a Senate hearing on lobbying reform Wednesday. "Why is it that we warm up to all these lobbyists? It isn't for a meal. ... We know when it comes time to finance our campaigns, we're going to be knocking on those same doors."
The lobbying reform legislation proposed by Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican, wouldn't ban lobbyists from raising money for members of Congress. But it would require them to disclose when they host fundraisers for politicians. Lobbyists say they aren't violating any rules by moonlighting as fundraisers. "I'm not a rule maker, I'm a game player," says David Girard-diCarlo, a managing partner at Philadelphia-based law firm Blank Rome who serves as national finance director for Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. Blank Rome has numerous lobbying clients. Mr. Girard-diCarlo oversees a group of more than 40 Washington lobbyists who hope to raise $4 million for Mr. Santorum's re-election bid. "The senator is most appreciative" of such fundraising help, says Mr. Santorum's spokesman, Robert Traynham.
In addition to providing help with direct fundraising, Mr. Hartley is one of many lobbyists also helping members of Congress to raise money for specialized funding organizations called leadership PACs. Mr. Blunt and hundreds of other lawmakers in both parties have formed such PACs in order to help fellow party members facing close re-election races. Under federal election rules, lawmakers cannot donate more than $4,200 per election cycle from their own re-election coffers to the campaign of any colleague. But they can funnel as much as $10,000 per election cycle from leadership PACs to another campaign.
In practice, such financial support from politically secure lawmakers for the re-election efforts of vulnerable colleagues often translates to reciprocal support down the road. Lawmakers draw on such support when angling for leadership positions within Congress.
"Leadership PACs originated as a way for one member to garner support from other members when seeking a leadership position in the House or Senate," Mr. Blunt wrote to the FEC in 2003. "More recently, leadership PACs have enabled the Republican party to maintain its majority in the House of Representatives."
When Republicans took over Congress in 1994, about 90 lawmakers operated such leadership PACs, which together raised a total of $28 million, according to the FEC. In the last election cycle, more than 300 leadership PACs took in $127 million.
Corporations represented by Mr. Hartley have donated more than $150,000 to Mr. Blunt's leadership PAC, the Rely On Your Beliefs Fund, known as the ROY B. Fund. Mr. Gates, the lobbyist with ties to Mr. Boehner, is treasurer of Mr. Boehner's leadership PAC, The Freedom Project. Mr. Boehner is Mr. Blunt's main rival for the majority leader post.
Both lawmakers are now recruiting congressional supporters for their majority-leader campaigns. Of the roughly 150 House Republicans who have announced who they will vote for, most have endorsed the candidate who has given them the most campaign money. Of Mr. Blunt's 91 publicly announced supporters, 68 have received money totalling $690,000 from Mr. Blunt's PAC, according to the Campaign for a Cleaner Congress, a congressional watchdog group.
Mr. Hartley, a 52-year-old fan of muscle cars and rock 'n' roll, was running a legal aid organization in his native Missouri when he met Mr. Blunt, who then worked as a country clerk. In 1992, Mr. Hartley raised money for Mr. Blunt's unsuccessful campaign for governor.
Four years later, Mr. Hartley helped Mr. Blunt, who is now 56, win a seat in Congress. Mr. Blunt, an ideological conservative, rose fast on Capitol Hill, winning the respect of moderate Republicans for his nonconfrontational approach. In 1999, when Rep. Dennis Hastert of Illinois was named speaker of the House, Rep. Tom DeLay tapped Mr. Blunt to replace Mr. Hastert as chief deputy whip.
Several years after arriving in Washington, Mr. Blunt married Abigail Pearlman, a lobbyist for the tobacco and food giant Altria Group Inc. Mr. Blunt's son, Andrew, is a lobbyist in Missouri whose clients include Altria, United Parcel Service Inc. and the former SBC Communications. Another son, Matt, is the current governor of Missouri.
When Mr. DeLay became majority leader in 2003, Mr. Blunt rose to Republican whip, the party's top House vote-counter. A few months later, Mr. Hartley left Capitol Hill to become a lobbyist with Cassidy & Associates, one of Washington's oldest and most successful lobbying firms.
Mr. Hartley's first clients were companies that had contributed money to Mr. Blunt and received legislative support from him. For example, Mr. Blunt had backed the Baby Bell phone companies in their battles with long-distance carriers and cable TV operators, and the Baby Bells had backed him with donations. They became Mr. Hartley's clients.
In July 2003, Mr. Hartley was hired by a coalition of major television networks — General Electric Co.'s NBC, Viacom Inc.'s CBS, News Corp.'s FOX and Walt Disney Co.'s ABC. The networks were seeking to loosen rules governing their ownership of local TV stations.
The Federal Communications Commission had proposed allowing the networks to own local stations covering 45 percent of U.S. households, up from the previous limit of 35 percent. By the time Mr. Hartley was hired, local broadcasters had mounted fierce opposition to the change, and more than two-thirds of Congress had announced their opposition to the move.
Mr. Blunt, however, joined other House Republican leaders in blocking the measure from reaching a floor vote. The standoff ended with a compromise: the network ownership limit was lifted to 39 percent. Mr. Hartley's network clients considered it a victory.
During this lobbying battle, Mr. Hartley was helping Mr. Blunt raise campaign money. Cassidy & Associates made available its skybox at Washington's MCI Center for a fundraiser at a Simon and Garfunkel concert. Mr. Blunt reimbursed Cassidy for the cost of the seats. Last fall, Mr. Blunt rented the skybox again for a fundraiser during a U2 concert.
At Cassidy, Mr. Hartley hired two former aides of Mr. Blunt and the husband of a third. After Mr. Blunt launched his campaign to replace Mr. DeLay as majority leader three weeks ago, Mr. Hartley began advising Mr. Blunt and his staff on the race, according to Republican aides involved in the matter.
"Roy has the trust and confidence in him that he had when Gregg was his chief of staff," says Drew Maloney, a lobbyist and former aide of Mr. DeLay who backs Mr. Blunt's campaign for majority leader. Dan Mattoon, a close adviser to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, calls Mr. Hartley "a very important part of Roy's outside operation."
Mr. Hartley joined a small group of lobbyists who have helped plot strategy and raise money for other Republican leaders, such as Messrs. DeLay and Hastert. In January 2004, Mr. Hartley attended a dinner meeting hosted by Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff at Signatures, Mr. Abramoff's now-defunct Pennsylvania Avenue restaurant, to discuss ways to persuade Republican lobbyists and their clients to give more campaign contributions to Republicans.
During the 2003-04 election cycle, Mr. Hartley himself donated $74,500 to Mr. Hastert, Mr. DeLay and other congressional Republicans. He is on pace to match that level of giving once again in the 2006 election season."
Philadelphia Inquirer | 01/29/2006 | Editorial | Santorum and the Lobbyists
Philadelphia Inquirer | 01/29/2006 | Editorial | Santorum and the Lobbyists: "Posted on Sun, Jan. 29, 2006
Editorial | Santorum and the Lobbyists'K Street? K Street? Never heard of it'Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) is trying to do an extreme makeover, in broad daylight.
He's trying to paper over his central role in a now-infamous program to boost Republicans' clout among Washington lobbyists.
As the huge and seedy Jack Abramoff scandal unfolds in Congress, Santorum has discovered a newly urgent desire to restrict lobbying. Well and good, all willing hands welcome.
But no voter should fall for the senator's attempt to obscure his ties to the so-called "K Street Project," named after the street that is home to many lobbying firms.
Santorum was an enthusiastic, high-profile supporter of the project, which sought to install movement conservatives in top lobbying jobs. It also sought to ensure that lobbyists and trade associations supported only Republican issues and candidates.
That's not illegal, per se. When Democrats dominated Congress, they threw their weight around, too. But the K Street Project took the practices to a new level of blatancy.
Santorum wouldn't be distancing himself from the project were it not for Jack Abramoff. The former lobbyist, and former close friend of the former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R., Texas), has pleaded guilty in an expanding federal probe of bribery and influence-peddling in Congress.
Abramoff rose to prominence in the Republican-friendly climate fostered by the K Street Project. But now Abramoff is radioactive politically and, by extension, so is K Street.
When he became the third-ranking Senate Republican in 2001, Santorum began hosting weekly meetings with lobbyists in Washington. They discussed issues, political strategy and, at times, job openings for Republicans at Washington lobbying firms.
But pressure anyone to hire Republicans? The senator is shocked, just shocked that anyone would suggest such a thing.
The official story line from the GOP, post-Abramoff, is that there were two K Street projects. One, led by top conservative activist Grover Norquist (a close friend of presidential adviser Karl Rove), actively pressured lobbying firms to hire Republicans. The other K Street project, says Santorum spokesman Robert Traynham, consisted of Santorum's weekly meetings with lobbyists to "get the Republican message out." Sort of a bad cop, good cop routine.
Santorum told a reporter last week that he "didn't even know what Grover Norquist was up to." But in 2002, Norquist told a reporter for the Inquirer's Washington bureau that Santorum had invited him to speak to Santorum's group.
"He [Santorum] has gotten me in to talk to all those guys," Norquist said, adding that he had access to most of them anyway. In the article, Santorum said he merely allowed Norquist to speak to the group, but added that he supported the push for more "transparency" as to the political affiliation of Washington lobbyists.
"Sen. Santorum has never pressured anyone to accept any type of job," Traynham said. "That is Grover Norquist's function."
It's a distinction without much of a difference, given Santorum's clout in the party. He set the table, and Norquist cleaned up.
Now, in the midst of a tough reelection race, Santorum is trying to distance himself from all things K Street. His leadership office said last week it would stop handing out lists of lobbying job vacancies at the weekly meetings.
If Santorum now wants to be in the vanguard of lobbying reform, fine. But his conversion is far more dramatic than he's willing to admit."
Editorial | Santorum and the Lobbyists'K Street? K Street? Never heard of it'Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) is trying to do an extreme makeover, in broad daylight.
He's trying to paper over his central role in a now-infamous program to boost Republicans' clout among Washington lobbyists.
As the huge and seedy Jack Abramoff scandal unfolds in Congress, Santorum has discovered a newly urgent desire to restrict lobbying. Well and good, all willing hands welcome.
But no voter should fall for the senator's attempt to obscure his ties to the so-called "K Street Project," named after the street that is home to many lobbying firms.
Santorum was an enthusiastic, high-profile supporter of the project, which sought to install movement conservatives in top lobbying jobs. It also sought to ensure that lobbyists and trade associations supported only Republican issues and candidates.
That's not illegal, per se. When Democrats dominated Congress, they threw their weight around, too. But the K Street Project took the practices to a new level of blatancy.
Santorum wouldn't be distancing himself from the project were it not for Jack Abramoff. The former lobbyist, and former close friend of the former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R., Texas), has pleaded guilty in an expanding federal probe of bribery and influence-peddling in Congress.
Abramoff rose to prominence in the Republican-friendly climate fostered by the K Street Project. But now Abramoff is radioactive politically and, by extension, so is K Street.
When he became the third-ranking Senate Republican in 2001, Santorum began hosting weekly meetings with lobbyists in Washington. They discussed issues, political strategy and, at times, job openings for Republicans at Washington lobbying firms.
But pressure anyone to hire Republicans? The senator is shocked, just shocked that anyone would suggest such a thing.
The official story line from the GOP, post-Abramoff, is that there were two K Street projects. One, led by top conservative activist Grover Norquist (a close friend of presidential adviser Karl Rove), actively pressured lobbying firms to hire Republicans. The other K Street project, says Santorum spokesman Robert Traynham, consisted of Santorum's weekly meetings with lobbyists to "get the Republican message out." Sort of a bad cop, good cop routine.
Santorum told a reporter last week that he "didn't even know what Grover Norquist was up to." But in 2002, Norquist told a reporter for the Inquirer's Washington bureau that Santorum had invited him to speak to Santorum's group.
"He [Santorum] has gotten me in to talk to all those guys," Norquist said, adding that he had access to most of them anyway. In the article, Santorum said he merely allowed Norquist to speak to the group, but added that he supported the push for more "transparency" as to the political affiliation of Washington lobbyists.
"Sen. Santorum has never pressured anyone to accept any type of job," Traynham said. "That is Grover Norquist's function."
It's a distinction without much of a difference, given Santorum's clout in the party. He set the table, and Norquist cleaned up.
Now, in the midst of a tough reelection race, Santorum is trying to distance himself from all things K Street. His leadership office said last week it would stop handing out lists of lobbying job vacancies at the weekly meetings.
If Santorum now wants to be in the vanguard of lobbying reform, fine. But his conversion is far more dramatic than he's willing to admit."
Saturday, January 28, 2006
RugNotes: Iranian Carpet-Makers Display Breathtaking Designs - Haghighi in Oman
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Iranian Carpet-Makers Display Breathtaking Designs - Haghighi in Oman
"Iranian Carpet-Makers Display Breathtaking Designs
SALALAH, Oman: Visitors at the Crowne Plaza Resort Salalah were in for a surprise at the end of last month when a selection of fine Persian carpets was on show in the hotel. For these were not your typical Persian rugs - they were carpets depicting breathtaking portraits of Iranian monuments in intricate detail.
"The main reason we are here is to introduce the people of the region to our art," said architect Mohammed Haghighi, business manager of Haghighi Carpets of Isfahan, Iran.
"Our brand in Iran is like Gucci in Italy."
Haghighi said that he wants people to realize how cheap hand made Persian carpets are relative to the time and effort it takes to create them.
"Countries such as India, Pakistan, and China mass produce cheaper carpets," said Amirhossein Haghighi, Mohammed's brother. He said these carpets are often of bad quality, especially the dyes, but they sell quickly because of their cheap price.
Mohammed Haghighi, whose family has been in the carpet-making business for more than a century, explained that Iran is the best place for producing carpets because the carpet industry belongs to Iran.
"The weaving technique is mastered with age long dexterity. If you want to buy good quality perfume," he said, "you would go to Paris because Paris is the best place for perfume."
Haghighi Carpets, which has been in business since 1890, won the Tehran-based International Grand Hand Woven Carpet Exhibition's Shaneh Bolourine award for their exceptional design and craftsmanship twice in 2001 and 2002.
Apart from the traditional carpet design, Haghighi weaves portraits, mostly of Iranian landmarks, into carpets. These portraits are not just any illustrations, they are three dimensional images.
"If you close your fist and look at the carpet right through it, the image will come alive," Haghighi said.
If you look at one of the carpets depicting the courtyard and fountain of a palace in Isfahan from one angle and slowly move to another, you feel as though the image's perspective is changing, as though you really are inside the palace.
The carpet-making process is directed by Haghighi's father, Feizollah Haghighi, owner of Haghighi Carpets, who works closely with the designers and weavers. It takes 10 people to make a 1.5 x 2.5 meter carpet.
"It is very difficult," said Amirhossein Haghighi, "you must calculate everything. First, you have to have the entire design in your mind."
Then follows the intricate and time-consuming process of drawing colors on wool or silk and weaving, he said.
The company uses natural dyes all drawn from plants. Applying these colors is an art in itself. "When you extract the colors while the plant is still wet, you get a different color than when the plant is dried up," said Mohammed Haghighi. "Using colors is the first and foremost thing you should know about in the carpet-making business."
The three dimensional portraits can have up to 3 different colors in one knot. One of the portraits illustrating the main hall of a public bath has beams of light projecting from the ceiling windows. The accuracy and consistency in the shades reflect a remarkable ability to control uniformity and use colors with such skill and competence.
In terms of cost, the portrait that won Haghighi Carpets the 2002 award was priced by the judging committee at $250,000.
This portrait, which depicts the inside of the Khaje Nasir mosque in the Iranian city of Shiraz, took two years to design and dye and two and a half years to weave.
Haghighi said that people think the price is fair. Still he wants the future owner of this portrait to have an air of appreciation of art and not simply be rich.
Haghighi has sold carpets to customers from all over the world, especially Arab buyers and international collectors. European buyers tend to purchase the smaller, cheaper ones.
When asked about the cost of producing such fine carpets, Haghighi answered philosophically: "It costs 40 years of working hard with passion and love."
Source : dailystar.com.lb"
Iranian Carpet-Makers Display Breathtaking Designs - Haghighi in Oman
"Iranian Carpet-Makers Display Breathtaking Designs
SALALAH, Oman: Visitors at the Crowne Plaza Resort Salalah were in for a surprise at the end of last month when a selection of fine Persian carpets was on show in the hotel. For these were not your typical Persian rugs - they were carpets depicting breathtaking portraits of Iranian monuments in intricate detail.
"The main reason we are here is to introduce the people of the region to our art," said architect Mohammed Haghighi, business manager of Haghighi Carpets of Isfahan, Iran.
"Our brand in Iran is like Gucci in Italy."
Haghighi said that he wants people to realize how cheap hand made Persian carpets are relative to the time and effort it takes to create them.
"Countries such as India, Pakistan, and China mass produce cheaper carpets," said Amirhossein Haghighi, Mohammed's brother. He said these carpets are often of bad quality, especially the dyes, but they sell quickly because of their cheap price.
Mohammed Haghighi, whose family has been in the carpet-making business for more than a century, explained that Iran is the best place for producing carpets because the carpet industry belongs to Iran.
"The weaving technique is mastered with age long dexterity. If you want to buy good quality perfume," he said, "you would go to Paris because Paris is the best place for perfume."
Haghighi Carpets, which has been in business since 1890, won the Tehran-based International Grand Hand Woven Carpet Exhibition's Shaneh Bolourine award for their exceptional design and craftsmanship twice in 2001 and 2002.
Apart from the traditional carpet design, Haghighi weaves portraits, mostly of Iranian landmarks, into carpets. These portraits are not just any illustrations, they are three dimensional images.
"If you close your fist and look at the carpet right through it, the image will come alive," Haghighi said.
If you look at one of the carpets depicting the courtyard and fountain of a palace in Isfahan from one angle and slowly move to another, you feel as though the image's perspective is changing, as though you really are inside the palace.
The carpet-making process is directed by Haghighi's father, Feizollah Haghighi, owner of Haghighi Carpets, who works closely with the designers and weavers. It takes 10 people to make a 1.5 x 2.5 meter carpet.
"It is very difficult," said Amirhossein Haghighi, "you must calculate everything. First, you have to have the entire design in your mind."
Then follows the intricate and time-consuming process of drawing colors on wool or silk and weaving, he said.
The company uses natural dyes all drawn from plants. Applying these colors is an art in itself. "When you extract the colors while the plant is still wet, you get a different color than when the plant is dried up," said Mohammed Haghighi. "Using colors is the first and foremost thing you should know about in the carpet-making business."
The three dimensional portraits can have up to 3 different colors in one knot. One of the portraits illustrating the main hall of a public bath has beams of light projecting from the ceiling windows. The accuracy and consistency in the shades reflect a remarkable ability to control uniformity and use colors with such skill and competence.
In terms of cost, the portrait that won Haghighi Carpets the 2002 award was priced by the judging committee at $250,000.
This portrait, which depicts the inside of the Khaje Nasir mosque in the Iranian city of Shiraz, took two years to design and dye and two and a half years to weave.
Haghighi said that people think the price is fair. Still he wants the future owner of this portrait to have an air of appreciation of art and not simply be rich.
Haghighi has sold carpets to customers from all over the world, especially Arab buyers and international collectors. European buyers tend to purchase the smaller, cheaper ones.
When asked about the cost of producing such fine carpets, Haghighi answered philosophically: "It costs 40 years of working hard with passion and love."
Source : dailystar.com.lb"
Santorum Linked to Gun Running, Corruption $500 Million Missing Dollars and a dead U.S. contractor
Mystery surrounds dead U.S. contractor: "Saturday, January 28, 2006 · Last updated 9:19 a.m. PT
Mystery surrounds dead U.S. contractor
By DEBORAH HASTINGS
AP NATIONAL WRITER
There are fortunes to be made in Iraq, where seemingly everything is broken or looted or blown up. The fortunes come from fixing those things; there is no shortage of cash to hire the fixers.
Often they are characters writ large with bravado and cunning and greed, sprouting like weeds amid the rubble.
Dale Stoffel was all of that. He devised elaborate schemes to get Iraqi government contracts to repair an unending list of things that no longer worked. He posed for photographs in the desert wearing a flak vest and toting an M5 submachine gun. He clinched a cigar between his teeth.
He pushed those schemes until they became reality. He signed huge contracts with the interim Iraqi Defense Ministry - the biggest of which was to repair the country's broken-down arsenal of tanks, helicopters and jets.
Yet Stoffel had expectations that seemed naively arrogant for a man of the world.
He was an arms dealer with a mysterious past, a swashbuckling, larger-than-life character who'd been around the block of international intrigue more than once. But in all the chaos, in a place overrun with mercenaries, privateers and shady government officials, he nonetheless expected everyone in Iraq to play by his rules.
It was a dangerous expectation.
At first, he complained to U.S. military and Baghdad officials: He wasn't being paid for his contracting work; corruption plagued his dealings with the Iraqi interim government. When that didn't produce a satisfactory response, he wrote to the Pentagon and to members of Congress saying the Iraqi Defense Ministry was ripping him off.
Then, after one year in country, after he hired powerful Washington lobbyists and pressed the flesh with connected Iraqis such as Ahmed Chalabi, after he secured contracts with the Iraqi government potentially worth hundreds of millions, someone killed Dale Stoffel.
On Dec. 8, 2004, a blue BMW station wagon riddled with blood and bullet holes was found on the side of a one-lane road used as a shortcut from the Taji military base, just past the point where it makes a hard right along the Tigris River.
The occupants were missing.
Stoffel had been in the passenger seat. Driving was American engineer Joseph Wemple, an expert carpenter who worked for Disney World and knew little about living in the kind of shadow world Stoffel embraced.
They had left Taji earlier that day, accompanied by an Iraqi worker, and were headed to their fortified compound outside Baghdad, a 15-minute drive. They never arrived.
After a series of calls, desperate colleagues located the Americans' bodies in a Baghdad morgue. They had been shot to death. The Iraqi employee survived. He has since disappeared.
The killings remain unsolved. The FBI is still investigating, though family members say little has happened in the past several months. A previously unheard of insurgency group continues to post Internet videos for no apparent reason, showing documents from Stoffel's laptop computer, which was stolen in the attack.
And in the passage of time, the deaths of these men have become one more turn in a twisting road of corruption leading ultimately to the interim Defense Ministry, to the issuance of 27 arrest warrants for its members - and to the disappearance of nearly the entire procurement budget for rearming the Iraqi military.
That money was to be used so that Iraq could stand on its own, and so that its occupying soldiers, most of them Americans, could go home.
---
Stoffel's company, Wye Oak Technology, had a hard-to-get federal license allowing him to import weapons. His former schoolmate Robert Irey, head of a Pennsylvania firm called CLI Corp., had years of construction experience.
Together, according to the plan, the international arms dealer and the small-town engineering company would get Iraqi military contracts and make lots of money.
Robert's brother, Bill, who did construction work for Disney World in Florida, also signed on, which was how Joe Wemple entered the picture. "I knew Joe from Disney," said Bill Irey. "He was the project manager for Shades of Green, the Army resort" near the amusement park.
All parties agreed that much of the money earned in Iraq would go to Stoffel, according to Irey. Stoffel had the weapons knowledge and he had made the contacts, including hiring a lobbying firm that also represented Chalabi's exiled Iraq National Congress.
He used those connections to meet other Chalabi family members - an extremely large clan whose offspring are scattered through the Iraqi government and business community - as well as interim Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan and other officials.
"It was his idea," said Bill Irey. "He had put together a brilliant proposal."
Wye Oak and CLI would refurbish every piece of moving equipment in Iraq's well-worn arsenal, including jets, helicopters, and Soviet-era tanks. The work would be financed by selling off an estimated 30 to 40 million pounds of military scrap from across Iraq, which Stoffel said was worth at least $1 billion, and possibly a great deal more.
CLI would retrofit a number of buildings at Taji military base, installing a kind of assembly line to do the repairs. CLI would also provide the manpower. Stoffel's international arms license would allow him to buy whatever parts were needed.
The interim Defense Ministry, in the first project of its kind since the U.S.-led invasion, signed the contract. Work began in August 2004, focusing on refurbishing tanks so they could be used to protect polling places during the parliamentary election in January 2005.
The project was overseen by the rebuilding task force led by U.S. Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus.
To the Americans, it was a public relations bonanza. The Iraqi military had been disbanded after the invasion. If the occupiers could show the army was getting back on its feet with newly overhauled equipment, everyone looked good.
To Stoffel and CLI, the deal was worth nearly $300 million. It also represented a windfall for the Iraqi government, which would get whatever funds were leftover from selling the military scrap, after the refurbishing was done.
But Wye Oak and CLI were never paid, both companies claimed.
After the contract was signed, Defense Minister Shaalan "came in and said, 'Oh, by the way, we're putting this guy in charge as an intermediary,' " Irey said. The intermediary was Raymond Zayna, an enigmatic Lebanese businessman who was given control of financial transactions between the contractors and the ministry. "We sent an invoice. The Ministry of Defense paid him. But we never saw any of the money," Irey said.
Stoffel believed that Zayna was skimming funds and kicking some back to the Defense Ministry, Irey said.
Fed up, Stoffel flew home for Thanksgiving.
He met with staffers from Republican Sen. Rick Santorum's office, who promised to look into the matter. The senator wrote to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asking for an investigation of Stoffel's complaints, according to documents supplied to The Associated Press by Santorum's staff.
Heartened, Stoffel went back to Iraq, where he was summoned to a series of meetings in the Green Zone to discuss his complaints. Eventually, after arguing back and forth, it was agreed that Zayna would make an initial payment to the contractors.
Five days later, Stoffel and Wemple were shot to death.
---
The killings have become Internet folklore, generating scores of blog entries and spy scenarios as intricate as any Eric Ambler novel: Stoffel, and by association, Wemple, were CIA agents; Stoffel was killed by an assassin connected to the Iraqi government; Stoffel was bumped off by another arms dealer who wanted his contract.
A week after the killings, an insurgent group calling itself the Brigades of the Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility in a video that showed identity cards belonging to Stoffel and Wemple, and photographs of the two taken from Stoffel's computer.
Both men, the video claimed, were CIA spies who were pillaging Iraq.
But unlike most terrorist postings, there were no images of the killings or of the bodies, prompting questions about whether the video was truly the work of terrorists or simply a smoke screen to hide the murder of a troublesome American.
"It's very strange," said Evan Kohlman, a terrorism consultant who has monitored the postings with increasing interest. "I really doubt they're insurgent groups. I've never seen anything like this, and I monitor every single posting coming out from every major insurgent group in Iraq."
And never, Kohlman said, has he seen such postings continue for months.
At least 13 have appeared since the killings - by another unknown group, this one calling itself Rafidan: The Political Committee of the Mujahideen Central Command. These show Defense Ministry correspondence and e-mail between Stoffel and various Iraqi and military officials, as well as photographs of Stoffel standing next to President George W. Bush, and another of him standing next to Chalabi, all taken from Stoffel's laptop.
"I think they're trying to divert attention from the fact that there are other motives for the killing of Dale Stoffel," Kohlman said. "There's nothing to be gained except to try to convince people that it's really insurgents who killed this guy."
---
And as for the corruption in the Iraq Defense Ministry that so infuriated Stoffel?
It went much deeper than even he suspected.
Stoffel and his CLI colleagues were dealing with Shaalan, the defense minister who was a small business owner in London before the invasion, and with chief procurement officer Zaid Cattan, a salesman with joint Polish-Iraqi citizenship who'd been living in Europe.
He griped about both, but his complaints found no legitimacy until five months after he and Wemple were killed.
In that time, a new parliament was sworn in, with Shaalan as a member. Letters from the U.S. Defense Department about Stoffel's accusations had bounced from Rumsfeld's office down to a military attorney who concluded the entire matter had nothing to do with the U.S. military.
But then the Iraqi Supreme Board of Audit presented a confidential report on the Defense Ministry to new Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari.
The May 2005 findings were breathtaking. Widespread fraud under Shaalan had resulted in the disappearance of virtually the entire $1.3 billion procurement budget. The report, a copy of which was obtained by the AP, examined 89 contracts and found that all had been paid in full, via cash bank transfers, in advance of any work being done.
All were awarded to Iraqis acting as intermediaries like Stoffel's contact, Zayna, and not to the suppliers themselves.
The finance minister called it "possibly one of the greatest thefts" in Iraqi history.
The Wye Oak-CLI contract was one of the most glaring examples. Nearly $25 million had been deposited by Zayna in a Lebanese bank "contrary to general contracting provisions," the audit said.
In October, 27 arrest warrants were issued for Defense Ministry officials, including Shaalan and Cattan. But by then, Shaalan had immunity from prosecution as a member of parliament.
He'd also left the country. He now lives in Britain and denies wrongdoing, though he acknowledges transferring $500 million in ministry funds to a Lebanese bank - to buy armored vehicles, he said.
He ran for re-election in December, but lost.
It is unclear what the newest Iraqi government will do about the arrest warrants.
As for Zayna, the last thing Bob Irey heard was the middleman remains in Iraq. He continues to bill the Defense Ministry for work done under the Taji contract."
Mystery surrounds dead U.S. contractor
By DEBORAH HASTINGS
AP NATIONAL WRITER
There are fortunes to be made in Iraq, where seemingly everything is broken or looted or blown up. The fortunes come from fixing those things; there is no shortage of cash to hire the fixers.
Often they are characters writ large with bravado and cunning and greed, sprouting like weeds amid the rubble.
Dale Stoffel was all of that. He devised elaborate schemes to get Iraqi government contracts to repair an unending list of things that no longer worked. He posed for photographs in the desert wearing a flak vest and toting an M5 submachine gun. He clinched a cigar between his teeth.
He pushed those schemes until they became reality. He signed huge contracts with the interim Iraqi Defense Ministry - the biggest of which was to repair the country's broken-down arsenal of tanks, helicopters and jets.
Yet Stoffel had expectations that seemed naively arrogant for a man of the world.
He was an arms dealer with a mysterious past, a swashbuckling, larger-than-life character who'd been around the block of international intrigue more than once. But in all the chaos, in a place overrun with mercenaries, privateers and shady government officials, he nonetheless expected everyone in Iraq to play by his rules.
It was a dangerous expectation.
At first, he complained to U.S. military and Baghdad officials: He wasn't being paid for his contracting work; corruption plagued his dealings with the Iraqi interim government. When that didn't produce a satisfactory response, he wrote to the Pentagon and to members of Congress saying the Iraqi Defense Ministry was ripping him off.
Then, after one year in country, after he hired powerful Washington lobbyists and pressed the flesh with connected Iraqis such as Ahmed Chalabi, after he secured contracts with the Iraqi government potentially worth hundreds of millions, someone killed Dale Stoffel.
On Dec. 8, 2004, a blue BMW station wagon riddled with blood and bullet holes was found on the side of a one-lane road used as a shortcut from the Taji military base, just past the point where it makes a hard right along the Tigris River.
The occupants were missing.
Stoffel had been in the passenger seat. Driving was American engineer Joseph Wemple, an expert carpenter who worked for Disney World and knew little about living in the kind of shadow world Stoffel embraced.
They had left Taji earlier that day, accompanied by an Iraqi worker, and were headed to their fortified compound outside Baghdad, a 15-minute drive. They never arrived.
After a series of calls, desperate colleagues located the Americans' bodies in a Baghdad morgue. They had been shot to death. The Iraqi employee survived. He has since disappeared.
The killings remain unsolved. The FBI is still investigating, though family members say little has happened in the past several months. A previously unheard of insurgency group continues to post Internet videos for no apparent reason, showing documents from Stoffel's laptop computer, which was stolen in the attack.
And in the passage of time, the deaths of these men have become one more turn in a twisting road of corruption leading ultimately to the interim Defense Ministry, to the issuance of 27 arrest warrants for its members - and to the disappearance of nearly the entire procurement budget for rearming the Iraqi military.
That money was to be used so that Iraq could stand on its own, and so that its occupying soldiers, most of them Americans, could go home.
---
Stoffel's company, Wye Oak Technology, had a hard-to-get federal license allowing him to import weapons. His former schoolmate Robert Irey, head of a Pennsylvania firm called CLI Corp., had years of construction experience.
Together, according to the plan, the international arms dealer and the small-town engineering company would get Iraqi military contracts and make lots of money.
Robert's brother, Bill, who did construction work for Disney World in Florida, also signed on, which was how Joe Wemple entered the picture. "I knew Joe from Disney," said Bill Irey. "He was the project manager for Shades of Green, the Army resort" near the amusement park.
All parties agreed that much of the money earned in Iraq would go to Stoffel, according to Irey. Stoffel had the weapons knowledge and he had made the contacts, including hiring a lobbying firm that also represented Chalabi's exiled Iraq National Congress.
He used those connections to meet other Chalabi family members - an extremely large clan whose offspring are scattered through the Iraqi government and business community - as well as interim Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan and other officials.
"It was his idea," said Bill Irey. "He had put together a brilliant proposal."
Wye Oak and CLI would refurbish every piece of moving equipment in Iraq's well-worn arsenal, including jets, helicopters, and Soviet-era tanks. The work would be financed by selling off an estimated 30 to 40 million pounds of military scrap from across Iraq, which Stoffel said was worth at least $1 billion, and possibly a great deal more.
CLI would retrofit a number of buildings at Taji military base, installing a kind of assembly line to do the repairs. CLI would also provide the manpower. Stoffel's international arms license would allow him to buy whatever parts were needed.
The interim Defense Ministry, in the first project of its kind since the U.S.-led invasion, signed the contract. Work began in August 2004, focusing on refurbishing tanks so they could be used to protect polling places during the parliamentary election in January 2005.
The project was overseen by the rebuilding task force led by U.S. Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus.
To the Americans, it was a public relations bonanza. The Iraqi military had been disbanded after the invasion. If the occupiers could show the army was getting back on its feet with newly overhauled equipment, everyone looked good.
To Stoffel and CLI, the deal was worth nearly $300 million. It also represented a windfall for the Iraqi government, which would get whatever funds were leftover from selling the military scrap, after the refurbishing was done.
But Wye Oak and CLI were never paid, both companies claimed.
After the contract was signed, Defense Minister Shaalan "came in and said, 'Oh, by the way, we're putting this guy in charge as an intermediary,' " Irey said. The intermediary was Raymond Zayna, an enigmatic Lebanese businessman who was given control of financial transactions between the contractors and the ministry. "We sent an invoice. The Ministry of Defense paid him. But we never saw any of the money," Irey said.
Stoffel believed that Zayna was skimming funds and kicking some back to the Defense Ministry, Irey said.
Fed up, Stoffel flew home for Thanksgiving.
He met with staffers from Republican Sen. Rick Santorum's office, who promised to look into the matter. The senator wrote to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asking for an investigation of Stoffel's complaints, according to documents supplied to The Associated Press by Santorum's staff.
Heartened, Stoffel went back to Iraq, where he was summoned to a series of meetings in the Green Zone to discuss his complaints. Eventually, after arguing back and forth, it was agreed that Zayna would make an initial payment to the contractors.
Five days later, Stoffel and Wemple were shot to death.
---
The killings have become Internet folklore, generating scores of blog entries and spy scenarios as intricate as any Eric Ambler novel: Stoffel, and by association, Wemple, were CIA agents; Stoffel was killed by an assassin connected to the Iraqi government; Stoffel was bumped off by another arms dealer who wanted his contract.
A week after the killings, an insurgent group calling itself the Brigades of the Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility in a video that showed identity cards belonging to Stoffel and Wemple, and photographs of the two taken from Stoffel's computer.
Both men, the video claimed, were CIA spies who were pillaging Iraq.
But unlike most terrorist postings, there were no images of the killings or of the bodies, prompting questions about whether the video was truly the work of terrorists or simply a smoke screen to hide the murder of a troublesome American.
"It's very strange," said Evan Kohlman, a terrorism consultant who has monitored the postings with increasing interest. "I really doubt they're insurgent groups. I've never seen anything like this, and I monitor every single posting coming out from every major insurgent group in Iraq."
And never, Kohlman said, has he seen such postings continue for months.
At least 13 have appeared since the killings - by another unknown group, this one calling itself Rafidan: The Political Committee of the Mujahideen Central Command. These show Defense Ministry correspondence and e-mail between Stoffel and various Iraqi and military officials, as well as photographs of Stoffel standing next to President George W. Bush, and another of him standing next to Chalabi, all taken from Stoffel's laptop.
"I think they're trying to divert attention from the fact that there are other motives for the killing of Dale Stoffel," Kohlman said. "There's nothing to be gained except to try to convince people that it's really insurgents who killed this guy."
---
And as for the corruption in the Iraq Defense Ministry that so infuriated Stoffel?
It went much deeper than even he suspected.
Stoffel and his CLI colleagues were dealing with Shaalan, the defense minister who was a small business owner in London before the invasion, and with chief procurement officer Zaid Cattan, a salesman with joint Polish-Iraqi citizenship who'd been living in Europe.
He griped about both, but his complaints found no legitimacy until five months after he and Wemple were killed.
In that time, a new parliament was sworn in, with Shaalan as a member. Letters from the U.S. Defense Department about Stoffel's accusations had bounced from Rumsfeld's office down to a military attorney who concluded the entire matter had nothing to do with the U.S. military.
But then the Iraqi Supreme Board of Audit presented a confidential report on the Defense Ministry to new Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari.
The May 2005 findings were breathtaking. Widespread fraud under Shaalan had resulted in the disappearance of virtually the entire $1.3 billion procurement budget. The report, a copy of which was obtained by the AP, examined 89 contracts and found that all had been paid in full, via cash bank transfers, in advance of any work being done.
All were awarded to Iraqis acting as intermediaries like Stoffel's contact, Zayna, and not to the suppliers themselves.
The finance minister called it "possibly one of the greatest thefts" in Iraqi history.
The Wye Oak-CLI contract was one of the most glaring examples. Nearly $25 million had been deposited by Zayna in a Lebanese bank "contrary to general contracting provisions," the audit said.
In October, 27 arrest warrants were issued for Defense Ministry officials, including Shaalan and Cattan. But by then, Shaalan had immunity from prosecution as a member of parliament.
He'd also left the country. He now lives in Britain and denies wrongdoing, though he acknowledges transferring $500 million in ministry funds to a Lebanese bank - to buy armored vehicles, he said.
He ran for re-election in December, but lost.
It is unclear what the newest Iraqi government will do about the arrest warrants.
As for Zayna, the last thing Bob Irey heard was the middleman remains in Iraq. He continues to bill the Defense Ministry for work done under the Taji contract."
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Huge Loophole in Santorum's Lobbying Bill Leaves Wiggle Room
Loophole in Lobbying Bill Leaves Wiggle Room: "Loophole in Lobbying Bill Leaves Wiggle Room
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 18, 2006; Page A04
Lawmakers are about to bombard the American public with proposals that would crack down on lobbyists. Several prominent plans, including one outlined yesterday by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), would specifically ban meals and privately paid travel for lawmakers.
Or would they?
According to lobbyists and ethics experts, even if Hastert's proposal is enacted, members of Congress and their staffs could still travel the world on an interest group's expense and eat steak on a lobbyist's account at the priciest restaurants in Washington.
The only requirement would be that whenever a lobbyist pays the bill, he or she must also hand the lawmaker a campaign contribution. Then the transaction would be perfectly okay.
"That's a big hole if they don't address campaign finance," said Joel Jankowsky, the lobbying chief of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, one of the capital's largest lobbying outfits.
The plans offered by Republican leaders yesterday would change two of the three areas of law or regulation that govern lobbyists' behavior: the congressional rules that limit gifts to lawmakers and the laws that dictate the amount of disclosure that lobbyists must give the public.
A third major area -- campaign finance laws -- would go untouched, an omission that amounts to a gaping loophole in efforts to distance lobbyists from the people they are paid to influence.
Anything that members of Congress can now do in the pursuit of money for their reelections will still be permitted in the future -- including accepting lobbyist-paid travel and in-town meals -- unless campaign finance laws are altered.
"Political contributions are specifically exempted from the definition of what a gift is in House and Senate gift rules," said Kenneth A. Gross, an ethics lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. "So, unless the campaign finance laws are changed, if a lobbyist wants to sponsor an event at the MCI arena or on the slopes of Colorado, as long as it's a fundraiser it would still be fine."
The result, he added, "may well be more out-of-town fundraising events than there are at the moment."
Paul A. Miller, president of the American League of Lobbyists, said of the loophole: "You may see a shift from what we're able to do now to the political fundraiser side where it is legal."
Currently, lawmakers and staff members are permitted to take "fact-finding" trips paid for by private groups, including lobbying organizations and corporations. These excursions, whose destinations are often major cities and warm resorts in wintertime, need only be disclosed and include official functions to be acceptable under the rules.
Yesterday, Hastert and high-ranking Senate Republicans, led by Rick Santorum (Pa.) and John McCain (Ariz.), said they would eliminate these privately funded fact-finding trips as part of a comprehensive ethics package that they hoped would begin moving through Congress early next month. The senators also said they would restrict gifts to lawmakers but apparently would not go as far as to ban meals, as Hastert said he intended to propose.
None of the lawmakers, however, said they would end travel and meals supplied by lobbyists as part of fundraising events, which, at least for now, would leave the loophole open. Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), who is Hastert's emissary on the lobbying issue, said he was tasked to deal with lobbying laws, not campaign-finance laws, which he declared a separate issue.
McCain, who has been a leader on matters dealing with lobbyists and campaign fundraising, said he was aware of the problem. In an interview after his news conference with Santorum, McCain said he knows the loophole exists and vowed to close it before the bill becomes a law."
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 18, 2006; Page A04
Lawmakers are about to bombard the American public with proposals that would crack down on lobbyists. Several prominent plans, including one outlined yesterday by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), would specifically ban meals and privately paid travel for lawmakers.
Or would they?
According to lobbyists and ethics experts, even if Hastert's proposal is enacted, members of Congress and their staffs could still travel the world on an interest group's expense and eat steak on a lobbyist's account at the priciest restaurants in Washington.
The only requirement would be that whenever a lobbyist pays the bill, he or she must also hand the lawmaker a campaign contribution. Then the transaction would be perfectly okay.
"That's a big hole if they don't address campaign finance," said Joel Jankowsky, the lobbying chief of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, one of the capital's largest lobbying outfits.
The plans offered by Republican leaders yesterday would change two of the three areas of law or regulation that govern lobbyists' behavior: the congressional rules that limit gifts to lawmakers and the laws that dictate the amount of disclosure that lobbyists must give the public.
A third major area -- campaign finance laws -- would go untouched, an omission that amounts to a gaping loophole in efforts to distance lobbyists from the people they are paid to influence.
Anything that members of Congress can now do in the pursuit of money for their reelections will still be permitted in the future -- including accepting lobbyist-paid travel and in-town meals -- unless campaign finance laws are altered.
"Political contributions are specifically exempted from the definition of what a gift is in House and Senate gift rules," said Kenneth A. Gross, an ethics lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. "So, unless the campaign finance laws are changed, if a lobbyist wants to sponsor an event at the MCI arena or on the slopes of Colorado, as long as it's a fundraiser it would still be fine."
The result, he added, "may well be more out-of-town fundraising events than there are at the moment."
Paul A. Miller, president of the American League of Lobbyists, said of the loophole: "You may see a shift from what we're able to do now to the political fundraiser side where it is legal."
Currently, lawmakers and staff members are permitted to take "fact-finding" trips paid for by private groups, including lobbying organizations and corporations. These excursions, whose destinations are often major cities and warm resorts in wintertime, need only be disclosed and include official functions to be acceptable under the rules.
Yesterday, Hastert and high-ranking Senate Republicans, led by Rick Santorum (Pa.) and John McCain (Ariz.), said they would eliminate these privately funded fact-finding trips as part of a comprehensive ethics package that they hoped would begin moving through Congress early next month. The senators also said they would restrict gifts to lawmakers but apparently would not go as far as to ban meals, as Hastert said he intended to propose.
None of the lawmakers, however, said they would end travel and meals supplied by lobbyists as part of fundraising events, which, at least for now, would leave the loophole open. Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), who is Hastert's emissary on the lobbying issue, said he was tasked to deal with lobbying laws, not campaign-finance laws, which he declared a separate issue.
McCain, who has been a leader on matters dealing with lobbyists and campaign fundraising, said he was aware of the problem. In an interview after his news conference with Santorum, McCain said he knows the loophole exists and vowed to close it before the bill becomes a law."
Monday, January 09, 2006
Philadelphia Inquirer | Santorum is lieing About His Close Associate Jack Abramoff and the Money
Philadelphia Inquirer | 01/07/2006 | Santorum donating Abramoff money: "Posted on Sat, Jan. 07, 2006
Santorum donating Abramoff moneyThe Pa. senator, seeking to "set an example," will give away contributions received from the lobbyist.By Carrie BudoffInquirer Staff WriterU.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) will shed the remaining $9,000 of his contributions from tribes connected to lobbyist Jack Abramoff - a decision that Santorum's campaign said was prompted by his plans to take a lead in tightening lobbying rules.
"He wanted to set an example by donating all the contributions to charity," Virginia Davis, Santorum's campaign spokeswoman, said yesterday.
Santorum's move to return the money and put forward lobbying bills underscores the potential potency of ethics issues in the 2006 campaigns here and across the country.
Within hours of Abramoff's guilty plea Tuesday in a federal influence-peddling case, dozens of Republican and Democratic lawmakers started giving away campaign donations tied to the Washington lobbyist.
At first, Santorum returned only $2,000 from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, a former Abramoff client, because the tribe was specifically mentioned in Abramoff's plea agreement.
"Because we are having difficulty determining the role Jack Abramoff may or may not have had in these contributions, we are going to err on the side of caution," Davis said yesterday of the remaining $9,000, which came from two other tribes.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist asked Santorum, the No. 3 Republican Senate leader, in November to write legislation that could address some of the excesses exposed by the Abramoff case. For years, Abramoff showered lawmakers with trips, entertainment and millions of dollars in contributions.
"It is a very real possibility" Santorum could work on an agreement with Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), who already has drafted lobbying legislation, said Robert L. Traynham II, Santorum's Senate spokesman.
By involving himself in the ethics debate at a time when incumbents seem vulnerable on the issue, Santorum "can insulate himself and say he is ahead of the curve," said Berwood Yost, a Franklin and Marshall College pollster.
But already, Santorum's leading Democratic opponent, state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., is questioning the senator's standing on the issue.
Larry Smar, Casey's spokesman, said Santorum should first sever his ties with the K Street Project, an effort led by Santorum and other GOP lawmakers to build strong ties with the lobbying community and persuade those firms to hire Republican job applicants. K Street is a Washington address favored by lobbyists.
"If you talk about lobbying reform, that is a pretty good first place to start," Smar said. "Until he ends his association with the K Street Project, he has no credibility."
Traynham said the senator would continue the gatherings, which occur as many as 10 to 15 times a year. "He has no intention to stop meeting with, bouncing ideas off of or seeking advice from strategists based in D.C. that can further advance the agenda of moving this economy forward, protecting our homeland, and helping Pennsylvania's interests," Traynham said.
It was at one of those gatherings in 2001 that Santorum apparently encountered Abramoff, according to articles that year in National Journal and Roll Call that reference a meeting between the senator and more than a half-dozen lobbyists and lawmakers.
However, Davis said Santorum, who meets with hundreds of people every week, "does not recall being personally introduced or meeting Jack Abramoff.""
Santorum donating Abramoff moneyThe Pa. senator, seeking to "set an example," will give away contributions received from the lobbyist.By Carrie BudoffInquirer Staff WriterU.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) will shed the remaining $9,000 of his contributions from tribes connected to lobbyist Jack Abramoff - a decision that Santorum's campaign said was prompted by his plans to take a lead in tightening lobbying rules.
"He wanted to set an example by donating all the contributions to charity," Virginia Davis, Santorum's campaign spokeswoman, said yesterday.
Santorum's move to return the money and put forward lobbying bills underscores the potential potency of ethics issues in the 2006 campaigns here and across the country.
Within hours of Abramoff's guilty plea Tuesday in a federal influence-peddling case, dozens of Republican and Democratic lawmakers started giving away campaign donations tied to the Washington lobbyist.
At first, Santorum returned only $2,000 from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, a former Abramoff client, because the tribe was specifically mentioned in Abramoff's plea agreement.
"Because we are having difficulty determining the role Jack Abramoff may or may not have had in these contributions, we are going to err on the side of caution," Davis said yesterday of the remaining $9,000, which came from two other tribes.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist asked Santorum, the No. 3 Republican Senate leader, in November to write legislation that could address some of the excesses exposed by the Abramoff case. For years, Abramoff showered lawmakers with trips, entertainment and millions of dollars in contributions.
"It is a very real possibility" Santorum could work on an agreement with Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), who already has drafted lobbying legislation, said Robert L. Traynham II, Santorum's Senate spokesman.
By involving himself in the ethics debate at a time when incumbents seem vulnerable on the issue, Santorum "can insulate himself and say he is ahead of the curve," said Berwood Yost, a Franklin and Marshall College pollster.
But already, Santorum's leading Democratic opponent, state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., is questioning the senator's standing on the issue.
Larry Smar, Casey's spokesman, said Santorum should first sever his ties with the K Street Project, an effort led by Santorum and other GOP lawmakers to build strong ties with the lobbying community and persuade those firms to hire Republican job applicants. K Street is a Washington address favored by lobbyists.
"If you talk about lobbying reform, that is a pretty good first place to start," Smar said. "Until he ends his association with the K Street Project, he has no credibility."
Traynham said the senator would continue the gatherings, which occur as many as 10 to 15 times a year. "He has no intention to stop meeting with, bouncing ideas off of or seeking advice from strategists based in D.C. that can further advance the agenda of moving this economy forward, protecting our homeland, and helping Pennsylvania's interests," Traynham said.
It was at one of those gatherings in 2001 that Santorum apparently encountered Abramoff, according to articles that year in National Journal and Roll Call that reference a meeting between the senator and more than a half-dozen lobbyists and lawmakers.
However, Davis said Santorum, who meets with hundreds of people every week, "does not recall being personally introduced or meeting Jack Abramoff.""
The Sentinel Online - Santorum's "MAFIA" Tactics
The Sentinel Online - Archived Story: "Play nice with neighbors
By The Sentinel, Jan 08, 2006
What’s the matter with New Jersey?
Nothing, actually, as far as we can ascertain. But a couple of Pennsylvania’s best known politicians think otherwise.
Both Gov. Ed Rendell and Sen. Rick Santorum, two men not particularly well known for singing from the same songbook, have issued public threats to their counterparts in New Jersey over a proposed dredging project for the Delaware River.
The plan is to make the river five feet deeper through the Philadelphia-area shipping channel so that bigger deep-sea container ships and oil tankers can dock in the City of Brotherly Love, and probably on the New Jersey side of the river as well. The proposal is intended to boost the regional economy and create more jobs.
Not everyone is on board with the dredging plan, however. Labor organizations in the region are of two minds about the plan, and environmentalists believe dredging will upset the river’s ecosystem.
Now you might assume that there was some way for two adjacent states to discuss issues of interest to both, and you’d be right — the dredging plan is under discussion between the governor’s offices of both states. Indeed, a spokeswoman for outgoing N.J. Gov. Richard Codey said she’s “optimistic” that an agreement will be reached in the near future, though Rendell’s spokeswoman said there have been no “substantive” talks on the issue.
It may be that talks are going slowly since Codey is soon to be replaced as governor by just-elected Sen. Jon Corzine. And the price tag for this venture, estimated at $300 million in a recent Associated Press story, will almost certainly require negotiations in regard to which state will pay what amount.
We’re not sure why, but Rendell and Santorum were both motivated to blow their stacks over the status of this project in the past week. Rendell went first, suggesting a failure to make a dredging deal might be fatal to the PATCO commuter rail line that carries New Jerseyites to work in Philadelphia.
Santorum followed up a few days later with his own personal threat to stall any federal programs earmarked for New Jersey unless the dredging project goes forward.
Ed and Rick sound like they’re auditioning for “The Sopranos.” We doubt their counterparts in New Jersey will appreciate their impressions of Tony, Uncle Junior, Paulie Walnuts and the gang. Perhaps their families should switch the channel to “West Wing” on Sunday nights until they remember what it means to negotiate in good faith with their equals."
By The Sentinel, Jan 08, 2006
What’s the matter with New Jersey?
Nothing, actually, as far as we can ascertain. But a couple of Pennsylvania’s best known politicians think otherwise.
Both Gov. Ed Rendell and Sen. Rick Santorum, two men not particularly well known for singing from the same songbook, have issued public threats to their counterparts in New Jersey over a proposed dredging project for the Delaware River.
The plan is to make the river five feet deeper through the Philadelphia-area shipping channel so that bigger deep-sea container ships and oil tankers can dock in the City of Brotherly Love, and probably on the New Jersey side of the river as well. The proposal is intended to boost the regional economy and create more jobs.
Not everyone is on board with the dredging plan, however. Labor organizations in the region are of two minds about the plan, and environmentalists believe dredging will upset the river’s ecosystem.
Now you might assume that there was some way for two adjacent states to discuss issues of interest to both, and you’d be right — the dredging plan is under discussion between the governor’s offices of both states. Indeed, a spokeswoman for outgoing N.J. Gov. Richard Codey said she’s “optimistic” that an agreement will be reached in the near future, though Rendell’s spokeswoman said there have been no “substantive” talks on the issue.
It may be that talks are going slowly since Codey is soon to be replaced as governor by just-elected Sen. Jon Corzine. And the price tag for this venture, estimated at $300 million in a recent Associated Press story, will almost certainly require negotiations in regard to which state will pay what amount.
We’re not sure why, but Rendell and Santorum were both motivated to blow their stacks over the status of this project in the past week. Rendell went first, suggesting a failure to make a dredging deal might be fatal to the PATCO commuter rail line that carries New Jerseyites to work in Philadelphia.
Santorum followed up a few days later with his own personal threat to stall any federal programs earmarked for New Jersey unless the dredging project goes forward.
Ed and Rick sound like they’re auditioning for “The Sopranos.” We doubt their counterparts in New Jersey will appreciate their impressions of Tony, Uncle Junior, Paulie Walnuts and the gang. Perhaps their families should switch the channel to “West Wing” on Sunday nights until they remember what it means to negotiate in good faith with their equals."
Thursday, January 05, 2006
ABC News: Santorum's Close Associate Jack Abramoff Pleads Guilty
ABC News: Abramoff Pleads Guilty to Fraud in Fla.: "Abramoff Pleads Guilty to Fraud in Fla.Lobbyist Abramoff Completes Second Half of Guilty Plea in Gambling Boat Fraud Case
Jack Abramoff arrives at the federal justice building in Miami where he is expected to plead quilty to criminal charges stemming from the 2000 purchase of SunCruz Casinos Wednesday, Jan. 4, 2006. Abramoff plead guilty in federal court Washington Tuesday to mail fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion charges. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)
By CURT ANDERSON Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
MIAMI Jan 5, 2006 — With two sets of guilty pleas in as many days, once-powerful Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff now must cooperate with federal prosecutors in a broad Congressional corruption probe if he wants a lighter prison sentence.
Abramoff, 46, completed the second half of his plea deal Wednesday, admitting conspiracy and wire fraud connected to his purchase of a gambling boat fleet.
"Guilty, your honor," Abramoff, 46, somberly told U.S. District Judge Paul C. Huck, dressed in a dark double-breasted suit and tan baseball cap. When the hearing was over, he swiftly and silently ducked out a side courthouse door, into a waiting car.
White House Told NSA Briefings Broke Law
Political Effects of Abramoff Deal Emerge
Wartime Support
The plea came a day after Abramoff entered guilty pleas to three other federal charges as part of an agreement with prosecutors requiring him to cooperate in a wide-ranging corruption probe that could involve up to 20 members of Congress and aides, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.
President Bush joined several lawmakers, including DeLay and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, in announcing plans to donate Abramoff's campaign contributions to charity. Bush's re-election campaign is giving up $6,000 in campaign contributions connected to Abramoff.
The plea agreement calls for a maximum sentence of just more than seven years, but the sentence could be reduced if he cooperates fully. It would also run simultaneously with whatever sentence is imposed in the Washington corruption case, in which he pleaded guilty to conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud Tuesday.
Like a former business partner did last month, Abramoff pleaded guilty to concocting a false $23 million wire transfer that made it appear as if the pair contributed a sizable stake of their own cash into the $147.5 million purchase of SunCruz Casinos.
Abramoff's ex-partner in the SunCruz deal, 41-year-old Adam Kidan, pleaded guilty on Dec. 15 to two charges and faces sentencing on March 1. Both admitted using the fake wire transfer to secure $60 million in loans they used to buy SunCruz."
Jack Abramoff arrives at the federal justice building in Miami where he is expected to plead quilty to criminal charges stemming from the 2000 purchase of SunCruz Casinos Wednesday, Jan. 4, 2006. Abramoff plead guilty in federal court Washington Tuesday to mail fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion charges. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)
By CURT ANDERSON Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
MIAMI Jan 5, 2006 — With two sets of guilty pleas in as many days, once-powerful Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff now must cooperate with federal prosecutors in a broad Congressional corruption probe if he wants a lighter prison sentence.
Abramoff, 46, completed the second half of his plea deal Wednesday, admitting conspiracy and wire fraud connected to his purchase of a gambling boat fleet.
"Guilty, your honor," Abramoff, 46, somberly told U.S. District Judge Paul C. Huck, dressed in a dark double-breasted suit and tan baseball cap. When the hearing was over, he swiftly and silently ducked out a side courthouse door, into a waiting car.
White House Told NSA Briefings Broke Law
Political Effects of Abramoff Deal Emerge
Wartime Support
The plea came a day after Abramoff entered guilty pleas to three other federal charges as part of an agreement with prosecutors requiring him to cooperate in a wide-ranging corruption probe that could involve up to 20 members of Congress and aides, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.
President Bush joined several lawmakers, including DeLay and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, in announcing plans to donate Abramoff's campaign contributions to charity. Bush's re-election campaign is giving up $6,000 in campaign contributions connected to Abramoff.
The plea agreement calls for a maximum sentence of just more than seven years, but the sentence could be reduced if he cooperates fully. It would also run simultaneously with whatever sentence is imposed in the Washington corruption case, in which he pleaded guilty to conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud Tuesday.
Like a former business partner did last month, Abramoff pleaded guilty to concocting a false $23 million wire transfer that made it appear as if the pair contributed a sizable stake of their own cash into the $147.5 million purchase of SunCruz Casinos.
Abramoff's ex-partner in the SunCruz deal, 41-year-old Adam Kidan, pleaded guilty on Dec. 15 to two charges and faces sentencing on March 1. Both admitted using the fake wire transfer to secure $60 million in loans they used to buy SunCruz."
Monday, December 26, 2005
ELECTION YEAR RICK - Santorum's flip-flops, back-flips and political 180s
ELECTION YEAR RICK AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN: "ELECTION YEAR RICK AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Chuck Muth
December 26, 2005
I sure hope Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, has a good chiropractor. 'Cause he's gonna need one by the time this election year is over - what with all his flip-flops, back-flips and political 180s. Either that, or he's got a great future as an Olympic gymnast if his senatorial career comes to an end next November.
I'm trying to keep track of all the strange things Santorum has said and done since kicking his base in the teeth last year when he aggressively stumped for liberal Republican incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter, who was being challenged by conservative Rep. Pat Toomey. But the list is just getting too long - including supporting Specter for Judiciary Committee chairman and calling for a hike in the minimum wage..
Nevertheless, social conservatives have stood by their man, through thick and thin. He hasn't been able to shake their loyalty. Call it "Battered Conservative Syndrome." But maybe some of them will now finally have had enough. Perhaps the latest from Sen. Santorum will be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back.
As I'm sure you've read, a federal judge ruled last week that an updated version of "creationism," now called "intelligent design," could not be taught in the Dover School District as science. Social conservatives are, as you would expect, outraged by the decision. As surely Sen. Santorum must be, right? After all, Santorum wrote an op/ed in 2002 declaring that intelligent design "is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."
Ah, but that was in 2002. This is an election year. And "Election Year Rick," as his Democrat opposition is now calling him, is singing an entirely different tune now.
An organization called the Thomas More Law Center defended the Dover School District's decision to teach intelligent design in its science classes. Santorum is on the advisory board of the Thomas More Law Center.
Or I should say, WAS on the advisory board. He quit last week, telling the Philadelphia Inquirer, "I thought the Thomas More Law Center made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did."
Huh?
If Santorum thought intelligent design was "a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes," why is he now resigning from a Christian-rights organization which defended the school district that said intelligent design was a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes?
Santorum's election-year political rush to the middle just might leave his base behind. It's a high-risk gamble on his part. He's betting there's nothing he can do to cause his conservative supporters to stay home on election day or vote for another candidate. I hope he's not betting the farm on it.
Or at least has Olga Korbut as his campaign manager.
# # #
Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Outreach. He may be reached at chuck@citizenoutreach.com."
Chuck Muth
December 26, 2005
I sure hope Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, has a good chiropractor. 'Cause he's gonna need one by the time this election year is over - what with all his flip-flops, back-flips and political 180s. Either that, or he's got a great future as an Olympic gymnast if his senatorial career comes to an end next November.
I'm trying to keep track of all the strange things Santorum has said and done since kicking his base in the teeth last year when he aggressively stumped for liberal Republican incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter, who was being challenged by conservative Rep. Pat Toomey. But the list is just getting too long - including supporting Specter for Judiciary Committee chairman and calling for a hike in the minimum wage..
Nevertheless, social conservatives have stood by their man, through thick and thin. He hasn't been able to shake their loyalty. Call it "Battered Conservative Syndrome." But maybe some of them will now finally have had enough. Perhaps the latest from Sen. Santorum will be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back.
As I'm sure you've read, a federal judge ruled last week that an updated version of "creationism," now called "intelligent design," could not be taught in the Dover School District as science. Social conservatives are, as you would expect, outraged by the decision. As surely Sen. Santorum must be, right? After all, Santorum wrote an op/ed in 2002 declaring that intelligent design "is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."
Ah, but that was in 2002. This is an election year. And "Election Year Rick," as his Democrat opposition is now calling him, is singing an entirely different tune now.
An organization called the Thomas More Law Center defended the Dover School District's decision to teach intelligent design in its science classes. Santorum is on the advisory board of the Thomas More Law Center.
Or I should say, WAS on the advisory board. He quit last week, telling the Philadelphia Inquirer, "I thought the Thomas More Law Center made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did."
Huh?
If Santorum thought intelligent design was "a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes," why is he now resigning from a Christian-rights organization which defended the school district that said intelligent design was a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes?
Santorum's election-year political rush to the middle just might leave his base behind. It's a high-risk gamble on his part. He's betting there's nothing he can do to cause his conservative supporters to stay home on election day or vote for another candidate. I hope he's not betting the farm on it.
Or at least has Olga Korbut as his campaign manager.
# # #
Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Outreach. He may be reached at chuck@citizenoutreach.com."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)