By MICHAEL SCHENKLER

Regular readers of this column know my long-standing friendship with Gary Ackerman, the congressman whose newly redrawn district has him again representing primarily Queens constituents.

Gary – a child of Queens – and I attended Queens College together and began our friendship way back in 1962. As I continually remind anyone who knows us both, Gary is much, much older. Actually, it was Gary’s younger wife Rita who was a classmate of mine and also a friend for the past four decades.

Now, Gary is the ranking member of the Middle East subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee. As a matter of fact, after this election, Gary – who was elected in 1981 – will be seniority-wise, pretty close to the top 10 percent of the 432 member House of Representatives. That’s pretty heavy duty for my friend from Queens. Should the Dems retake the majority in the House, Gary becomes a true powerhouse and could be flirting with the chairmanship of the House Foreign Relations committee.

As a longtime friend, I can tell you that Gary is liberal — perhaps the word “progressive” has politically become  a less controversial descriptor. But we are children of the 60s – Gary, Rita and I were exposed to education and politics in a time and place, which gave birth to a movement that changed this nation. We traditionally oppose war and promote freedom. We are for civil rights and oppose oppression and force. My column last week told of one of our Queens College classmates, Andrew Goodman, who gave his life in Mississippi in 1964 during Freedom Summer. We are to the left of center.

Therefore, I was somewhat surprised when earlier this month, Gary and his friend Mike McNulty – congressman from the Albany area – were hanging out one evening in my office discussing their plans to vote in favor of President Bush’s Iraq resolution. My liberal friend Gary endorsing war?

With the same political roots, his wife Rita did not surprise me when she informed me of her email to Gary encouraging him to oppose war in Iraq. Sharing with you the thoughts of my friends who are in the epicenter of the decision, which may send our sons and daughters off to war might prove helpful to the critical debate. Rita’s email and Gary’s letter responding to her follow:

To: Rep. Gary Ackerman
From: Rita Ackerman
Subject: Iraq

When I couldn’t sleep last night I turned to CSpan to pass the time. Listening to the replay of the debate in the Senate and the House I came away with my own conclusions. There’s little doubt in my mind that Saddam has to go, but I think it’s horrific that Bush has boxed you in with the need for urgency. But by going along with his agenda, you’d be just as guilty of politicizing this grave decision. A vote against the resolution would not negate our need to take action, but it does preserve the integrity of a vote based on sound reason and not on the possible fallout on Nov. 5 [Election Day]. The resolution is too broad and Congress gives up too much power to participate in this war process. We know why Bush is in a rush and to go along with that, in my opinion, would be for all the wrong reasons. I remain, your respectful, favorite constituent who wants you to vote “NO” at this time.

To My Dearest Constituent:

Thank you for your thoughtful and deep-felt encouragement of a “no” vote on the proposal to authorize the President to use force, if necessary, in the case against Saddam Hussein.

I empathize with your loss of sleep, as I too have found this a restless and troubling issue, quite vexing and complex on the morality, on the justification, on the ramifications, on the timing, on the strategy, and on what you so articulately address, the politics.

To participate at any time, in a decision to put the lives of young Americans at risk is the antithesis of what lured me, drove me, to Congress. It is what neither of us is about. I will cast that vote with a hand that trembles, with a heart that aches, with a conscience that is troubled, but also with a mind that is clear.

After much thought and study and agonizing, I have satisfied myself using every argument I could conceive or that has been suggested, that in authorizing the President to use force, if necessary, to remove from a murderous tyrant the tools of mass destruction will save more lives by a multiple factor than might be lost otherwise.

The dictator we face is fully prepared to use unthinkable chemical, biological and excruciatingly painful weapons to annihilate hundreds of thousands of people. And he is predisposed to use those weapons. There is almost no controversy about this.

We continue to work the U.N., as it is of critical importance to do this as part of an international effort, so as not to give license to any nation or people that anyone can preemptively strike another because they unilaterally believe they have that right. We will work harder, and I believe the world body will be supportive. They will not vote unless we vote first. Many nations, especially those in the region, cannot publicly commit (as they have privately) unless we show our resolve. This will be, if force be needed, a multi-national effort.  The difference between Hussein and others who have weapons of mass destruction, is that while they may be very bad, he is evil. And he indeed is preparing to do something terribly, terribly evil. Of that be confident; but not of the timing. I’ve said as much as I can on that.

Which brings us to our timing, your chief complaint and my great frustration.

There remains in my mind little doubt that the President and his party greatly benefit by doing this now. It “changes the subject” and deflects public attention from the mess at home. They have tried to make Democrats look weak on national defense and raised questions about the patriotism of any who might challenge their decisions. Politicizing the issue is an attempt to take sole possession of the flag. All this to immunize themselves from criticism. To stifle public debate is the goal of tyrants, a constitutional breach for which I cannot forgive those in D.C. who lead us.

But even the politicization of an issue so serious as the empowering of the President to use force, if necessary, to rid the world and ourselves of an evil threat, must not deter me, and us, from doing what we believe must be done.

Yes, the President’s strategy has us “boxed in.” Yes, it is too bad we don’t have the luxury of time to do a better job getting the international ducks in a row. Yes, it’s frustrating when your party is handicapped in its ability to fight back by the self-imposed constraints of morality.

It’s frustrating when you know things that aren’t to be known by others, when those who have chosen you to exercise your best judgment on their behalf then question their choice and threaten to replace you, when those you love come to thoughtful but different conclusions and urge you to do things you cannot.

But the President is right on the merits, though pitifully wrong on the politics. The urge to fight the latter, though strong and necessary, must wait for its day. To rebuff the President on the decision to confront what is a very serious threat to our country would do damage to our ability to coalesce the international community to more openly support our effort (which, again, I believe will happen) and send the wrong signal about our resolve, causing Saddam Hussein to make more grave miscalculations, and jeopardizing our ability to eliminate this threat in the least painful way.

Pure evil must be confronted early, history tells us, if peace is ever to have a chance.

I’ve spent the early hours of this morning with the Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon in an attempt to see if there was a possibility that I might be wrong about the intent and threat of the Iraqi regime. Photos and facts sadly confirm the dilemma we face.

With a proclivity towards pacifism, with a philosophy that war is a defeat for a civilized process, with two fighting-aged sons that I love, with a constituency that seems to demand a different conclusion, with my life’s partner urging otherwise (the greatest angst of all), I nonetheless concluded that I would not be true to myself or my sworn obligations and my belief in all of the above if I do not cast my vote with an Administration that I generally distrust.

It is not a happy vote.

Love Always,
Gary

A Call For Miller Time

Scandals are not frequent in Queens, but when we have them, they can be beauts.

There’s the granddaddy of all Queens scandals: Donald Manes as Village Voice scribe Wayne Barrett described it in the title of his book “City For Sale.” There were several interrelated corruption misdeeds that were uncovered at that time. But since those terrible days of the mid 80s, Queens government has for the most part been scandal free except for occasional rumor — some pretty juicy.

In 2000, the disclosure of a computer purchasing scam in Queens School District 29 again shook the City.

Celestine Miller, then-superintendent of District 29, along with her husband William Harris, developer Thomas Kontogiannis and two others were indicted for bid rigging and bribery to acquire three NYC Board of Education contracts worth more than $6 million to supply computers to the School District. Miller received bribes including four houses with a total value of almost $1 million.

Last week, the “gang” which deprived the school district kids from utilizing properly functioning computers finally pled guilty. Miller acknowledged defrauding the City, the Board of Ed and therefore the kids out of more than $5 million.

The plea agreement calls for restitution of $4.85 million over six years which will, according to Schools Chancellor Klein, be put back into the classrooms.

Now if we understand it all correctly, Miller, Kontogiannis & Co. ripped the kids off for more than $5 million. Over six years they are repaying less than $5 million and no one is going to jail. That’s right, reports have the gang that stole from school kids not going to jail and paying back less than they stole.

We wonder what lesson about crime the kids in District 29 will learn from this one.

Steal from schools and go free?

If we didn’t oppose capital punishment, we’d be advocating that the Superintendent, who betrayed her trust, be hanged in the morning. The developer, turned computer gangster, should be stripped of all his wealth; the attorney, disbarred; and the whole damned lot of them ought to spend the rest of their lives deprived of computers or anything computer-assisted or generated.

Let the punishment fit the crime. We’re outraged.