Dr. Lester M. Crawford, the former commissioner of food and drugs, is under criminal investigation by a federal grand jury over accusations of financial improprieties and false statements to Congress, his lawyer said Friday.
Before Dr. Crawford’s confirmation, the secretary of health and human services, Michael O. Leavitt, promised that the F.D.A. would act on the Plan B application by September 2005, a promise that led two Democratic senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Patty Murray of Washington, to relent in their efforts to delay the nomination. But after he was confirmed, Dr. Crawford announced an indefinite delay that has remained in effect.
Harman, one of the few House members to receive briefings on the NSA program, said she believes in the program’s approach but argued unsuccessfully on the floor Wednesday for a measure requiring greater congressional review.
“I do not support violating the law or the Constitution,” she said. “Enhanced security without respect for law gives away the very values we are fighting to defend, and I believe that the program . . . can and must fully comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and with our Constitution.”
In case you’re interested, Randy “Duke” Cunningham is in the news again as the FBI investigates how weird his bribery involvement got:
Wade is cooperating with investigators as part of his plea agreement in February. He has told them that Brent Wilkes, a San Diego defense contractor who has been identified as a co-conspirator, secured prostitutes, limousines and suites at two Washington hotels for Cunningham, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is continuing.
Republican government. It’s all just wacky fun!!!
Posted by James at April 29, 2006 1:54 PMGosh. "Personal responsibility" sure is complicated.
Posted by: Julie at April 30, 2006 1:23 PMThe whole Dr. Crawford thing is troubling. I understand greed. I don't condone it, but I understand it. The whole issue of slow rolling approvals because of potential lobbying bothers me a great deal. That his attorney is instructing him to take the Fifth is even more troubling.
I had not followed this story -- only caught a snippet. Thanks for the heads-up.
You're now on my Pluck list!
Posted by: George at April 30, 2006 11:18 PMGlad I'm on your list. My blog is where I let it all hang out. And I even get hyperbolic now and again.
Posted by: James at May 1, 2006 2:07 PMAs long as you don't get hyperbaric, I think we're okay. :)
I wish I could say I was shocked by all these stories, but corruption with respect to this administration has become so commonplace. It would take something big to shock me, like Bush admitting he made a mistake and specifying what it was.
By the way, the Republican $100 check idea is incredibly lame, but the Democratic alternative is not much better from a monetary perspective. From a logic perspective and a symbolism perspective, it's top notch. But rolling back a tax of less than 20 cents a gallon for two months is going to put less in people's pockets.
To me, it is a way of the Democrats saying, "We're doing everything in our power. For the rest of the equation, look to big oil, which equals the Republican party."
It's also a good way of rolling back some of the oil company giveaways.
Posted by: briwei at May 1, 2006 2:45 PMThe oil company giveaways are a problem, for certain. But I don't know that the government can do anythign directly right now abotu oil prices. What should be done is to stop giving the oil companies breaks and to start encouraging research into alternative sources of energy rather than just talking about it.
Yeah - the Democrats' proposal was no better as far as its effectiveness, but it was far better from the standpoint of not being an attemt to buy votes. Sending taxpayers a check is a joke.
Posted by: James at May 1, 2006 4:55 PMQuite so. Their attempt was closer to the subject at hand, but still smacked more of making the other side look bad than solving the problem.
I have some concrete things that could be done to move us in the right direction.
* Shift the tax breaks oil companies get to alternatve energy development. If Exxon wants to develop a wind farm or some underwater turbines, there may be money in that.
* Close the gas guzzler loophole.
* Tighten up the rules about businesses being allowed to write off SUV purchases as "trucks"
I have other ideas too, but some of those could be abused to infring on rights, so I don't see them as viable just yet.
Posted by: briwei at May 1, 2006 11:43 PMSounds like a good start. You have my vote.
Posted by: James at May 1, 2006 11:57 PM