At the end of the day

Whistlin' Dixie with South Carolina conservatives in mind, the Huckster flapped the Confederate flag. An "independent group" sponsored a "flag issue" radio ad that smacked McCain and poured a heaping helping of praise on how Huckabee "understands the value of heritage." On Huck's values, Joe Conason at Salon wrote about his religious extremism and his ties to it. His face was sharp as a butcher’s cleaver... Look away!

None of the above -- 19% of SC GOP voters are undecided. Is that big? No, it's "HUGE."

What's a GOP code word for heartless bastard? In, SC, Fred Thompson dissed Bush's global AIDS initiative because "Christ didn’t tell us to go to the government and pass a bill to get some of these social problems dealt with. He told us to do it... ...we need to keep firmly in mind the role of the government, and the role of us as individuals and as Christians on the other.” Countering Fred's criticism, Bush's former speechifier Michael Gerson said of Fred, "he clearly is playing to isolationist sentiments." TP offers more, um, insight.

Mr. and Mrs. Obama took a swipe at Hillary's voting record. When it comes to taking a stand on an issue, you're either fer it or agin it. Oh, wait...

Picking up from Manifesto Joe, the Bush-league economic stimulus plan refrains that one-hit wonder -- Tax cuts, baby! Via Sam Boyd at Campaign for America's Future, the CBO applauds the Democratic solution.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) "ain't buying" WH spokesman Tony Fratto's kooky denial, "We have no reason to believe that any e-mail at all are missing." Oh? Emptywheel explained why Tony should have kept his piehole shut and today connected a few dots to the Plame investigation. Way to go, Fratto! Fred Fielding must luv u.

The No. 3 U.S. diplomat -- R. Nicholas Burns -- will leave the State Department in March for personal reasons. Uh huh. He'll remain involved "as a special envoy on India." U.S. Ambassador to Moscow William J. Burns will replace Burns. The two are not related. Tomorrow's WaPo.

Bob Somerby aptly covered the truncated, bogus apology from Tweety. Transcript at Media Matters. Corpus Juris posted the video .

First, Lee Siegel called us blogofascists. Now he whines that we're Stalinists (h/t Avedon).

Passive-Aggressive: In today's NYT column, David Brooks compared presidential frontrunners, Democratic to GOP -- "...a daughter of the feminist movement, a beneficiary of the civil rights movement and a self-styled proletarian. These are powerful Democratic categories" vs. "a pastor, a businessman and a war hero. These are the three most evocative Republican leadership models." Is Bobo aware of his unconscious cognition? Doorknobs say maybe, maybe not.

[That's all...no more after the jump.]

There's more: "At the end of the day" >>

Iraq spending gap

GAO disagrees with State's fuzzy math

Buried on A16 of Thursday's WaPo, Walter Pincus reported of a dispute between the State Department and the Government Accountability Office on Iraq spending. Who you gonna trust? State run by Condi Rice, the enabling handmaiden of Bush, or the GAO? Follow the bouncing dollar signs (with emphasis added).

The Bush WH:

In a much-publicized September report on benchmarks in Iraq, the White House said that Iraqi ministries had spent about 24 percent of their capital budget through July 15, 2007, and that the government was making "satisfactory progress in allocating funds to ministries and provinces."

The administration touted the news "when Congress was debating fiscal 2008 funding for Iraq." Convenient timing, eh?

Now the GAO:

In a report this week, however, the GAO found that of their $6.4 billion budget for capital projects, the ministries "had spent only 4.4 percent of their investment budget as of August 2007," citing official Ministry of Finance reports. State Department officials told the GAO that they had relied on "unofficial" Ministry of Finance data that were more current.

[Keep reading...more after the jump.]

Clapping harder:

A senior State Department official said yesterday that more recent data collected in Iraq will show that the ministries spent far more than 24 percent of their budgets. "We are predicting that when the final tallies are done in a month or two from 2007, we will have hit and may have exceeded 60 percent of the capital budget," he said.

No, no, no! State is wrong said the GAO:

Joseph Christoff, the GAO official responsible for the report, said yesterday that his figures were reported by U.S. Treasury officials working with Iraq's Ministry of Finance. His latest numbers, which cover spending through October, show only a slight increase -- up to 8 percent of the total 2007 budget. He said the State Department is considering not just money spent on capital projects but also money allocated to such projects but not yet spent. "It is not just comparing GAO's apples to State's oranges," Christoff said. "State is including also bananas, apples and oranges."

"The discrepancies . . . highlight uncertainties about the sources and use of Iraq's expenditure data," the GAO report concluded. It added that the "strikingly large" gap between the different assessments required the U.S. Treasury to work with the Iraqi ministry "to reconcile these differences."...

...According to the GAO, the Bush administration reported that Iraq's Oil Ministry had spent $500 million of its $2.4 billion capital budget by mid-July. However, the GAO found that spending on oil capital projects reached only $270,000, according to Ministry of Finance data.

Seems everyone recognizes that Iraq's budgeting, purchasing, and accounting systems are flawed -- so FUBAR that it hinders capital projects from getting done. More curious: Deflecting the issue of what "spent" means, the anonymous State Dept. official claimed that projects are getting completed:

"Are we seeing the effects of these capital expenditures on the ground? And we are seeing it," he said. "Services are being delivered [and the] slow, downward spiral of worsening services has stopped and is starting to come back." Delivery of services, he said, is "our number one goal" in Iraq for 2008.

Someone's drinking a lot of Kool-Aid -- apparently not the GAO.

Is this a case of "falsifying" numbers to make a bad situation look better? Wouldn't be the first time that the administration employed a fuzzy math scam.

Condi's propaganda shop has obviously undertaken the mission to spin Iraq into a success story. Under the Bush WH, our State Department has transformed from a diplomatic corp into a public relations agency for its client, George W. Bush -- and by extension, the GOP during an election year.

The slap in the face to U.S. taxpayers: They're using our tax dollars to shine up Bush and the Iraqi quagmire.

There's more: "Iraq spending gap" >>

State Department Complicit In Blackwater Lawlessness

Blue Girl has previously supplied an excellent synopsis of the emerging roiling scandal surrounding the State Department's grant of immunity to the Blackwater contractors involved in the Nissour Square massacre. Deb-TUD has written about the contorted use of Garrity immunity agreements in the circumstances surrounding independent contractor incidents. The Supreme Court in Garrity v. New Jersey did not envision situations involving non-agency personnel, and the immunity agreement derived from that decision never anticipated application to such situations either.

Now comes the latest news courtesy of the LA Times, via the AP. It turns out that the state Department has blithely been handing out immunity to all Blackwater mercenaries involved in shooting incidents all along.

Limited immunity has been routinely offered to private security contractors involved in shootings in Iraq, State Department officials said Tuesday, denying such actions jeopardized criminal prosecution of Blackwater USA guards accused of killing 17 Iraqi civilians.
....

The shooting investigation was initiated by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security hours after the attack. The inquiry was turned over to the FBI in early October after Justice Department prosecutors realized that the Blackwater bodyguards' statements could not be used in court.

A second senior State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing inquiry, said the agency has for years required its security contractors to give written statements within hours of any so-called "use of deadly force" in Iraq.

Waivers granting a security worker limited immunity -- by barring those statements in a criminal case against the worker -- are a "routine part" of the investigations by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the official said.

The waiver given to Blackwater guards reads, in part: "I further understand that neither my statements nor any information or evidence gained by reason of my statements can be used against me in a criminal proceeding, except that if I knowingly and willfully provide false statements or information, I may be criminally prosecuted for that action."

It's not clear whether the waivers were ever authorized by the Justice Department, which decides whether cases are prosecuted. Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell declined comment about whether the immunity waivers were part of the security firm's contract with the State Department. ... (emphasis added)

So, the wholesale granting of immunity to any, and apparently every, Blackwater contracted mercenary involved in a shooting incident in Iraq, no matter how egregiously criminal, is not a bug, but rather a feature of State Department protocol. The rule of law simply does not apply to the Bush Administration and their hired guns. This is the way the State Department has run their little lawless operation all along. How nice.

The State Department has intentionally and routinely done this in an attempt to do everything they could to stop, and otherwise bugger up, any potential investigation and prosecution of their precious mercenaries. While it is true that there may not have been a good chance of a successful prosecution of these cases to start with thanks to Paul Bremer's Order 17, but the State Department sure did everything they could through delay, obfuscation, removal of evidence and witnesses, and, now we find, immunization, to screw up any possibility of prosecution. The pattern of conduct by State is neither that of an entity that thought the Blackwater conduct proper, nor that thought there was no potential culpability. The conduct of State screams cover-up and insolence to the rule of law, and the rights of humanity, from start to finish.

This is an insane way to investigate shootings that are clearly often questionable homicides. Immediately grant all the immunity you can to everyone involved? As a matter of routine? Amazing. The really interesting tidbit in the story is that Blackwater refuses to confirm it is part of their contract with the State Department. The bet here is that it is in the contract between Blackwater and the State Department. The whole State Department mercenary operation appears to have been designed to be completely lawless, and Blackwater won't even let it's high priced people talk to State without an even further grant of immunity. This is a sick setup.

There's more: "State Department Complicit In Blackwater Lawlessness" >>

Incompetence? Or Obstruction?

Justice Department officials grappling with bringing to account the Blackwater mercenaries involved in the murderous rampage in Nissour Square on September 16 got a nasty surprise. Investigators from the State Department - who lacked the authority to do so - offered Blackwater USA security guards immunity in exchange for their statements. State Department protocols require that Diplomatic Security agents investigate and report all incidents in which force is used. Last week, the chief of the Diplomatic Security Bureau, Richard J. Griffin, resigned abruptly. Presumably, his inability to control Blackwater was at the root of his sudden departure, but now it looks like he may have left in advance of this information becoming public.

FBI agents took over the State Department's investigation two weeks after the Sept. 16 killing spree, but the damage was already done. None of the information obtained during questioning of the guards by the department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the division of the State Department that oversees security contractors, will be admissible. (I believe that defense attorneys call this "fruit of the poisoned tree.")

Subsequently, some Blackwater guards have cited promises of immunity from State, and refused to even be interviewed by the FBI. The Justice Department is not precluded from bringing charges using other evidence, but the inadmissibility of their initial statements complicates matters significantly.

[keep reading]

From the New York Times:

Most of the guards who took part in the Sept. 16 shooting were offered what officials described as limited-use immunity, which means that they were promised that they would not be prosecuted for anything they said in their interviews with the authorities as long as their statements were true. The immunity offers were first reported Monday by The Associated Press.

The officials who spoke of the immunity deals have been briefed on the matter, but agreed to talk about the arrangement only on the condition of anonymity because they had not been authorized to discuss a continuing criminal investigation.

The precise legal status of the immunity offer is unclear. Those who have been offered immunity would seem likely to assert that their statements are legally protected, even as some government officials say that immunity was never officially sanctioned by the Justice Department.

Spokesmen for the State and Justice Departments would not comment on the matter. A State Department official said, “If there’s any truth to this story, then the decision was made without consultation with senior officials in Washington.”

This complicates an already-dicey legal situation. Blackwater and other mercenary outfits are immune from prosecution under Iraqi law under Order 17, signed by Paul Bremmer on his way out of town. The order still stands, the Iraqi parliament has not repealed it. They can't be tried in military courts (at least not yet.) And it is unclear what American criminal statutes apply to armed Americans operating in a war zone.

A review panel sent by State to investigate the incident determined that the legal standing to hold the Blackwater mercenaries to account under U.S. federal statute was lacking, and urged Congress to address this gaping loophole in accountability and oversight authority. To date, the House has passed a bill with an overwhelming majority that would hold all security contractors* liable under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act; the Senate is considering similar legislation. Some legal experts have suggested that the Nissour Square killings be the first cases prosecuted through the act once it is extended.

But...(Isn't there always a great big But...?)

For a case to be tried in federal court, evidence is only admissible when it meets a very high chain-of-custody bar, designed to put in place guarantees that evidence has not been tampered with. Evidence gathered by foreign investigators and turned over to U.S. investigators is reflexively seen as suspect on it's face, and the admissibility of the evidence would be contested by any first year law student. Additionally, the Constitutional guarantee of the accused to cross-examine witnesses is problematic in these instances, requiring foreign witnesses be transported to the United States to appear in court.

What was from the outset a brutally difficult case to bring was complicated further by the actions of the State Department investigators.

So was it incompetence? Could the Keystone Kops run a better State Department?

Or was it obstruction? Yet another instance of sand in the umpires eyes?


*security contractors = mercenaries

There's more: "Incompetence? Or Obstruction?" >>

Having Condi for Lunch

Condi took a trip up the Hill on Thursday to testify in front of Representative Waxman's Oversight committee about the State Departments massive failures mismanaging Iraq and concealing relevant information from Congress.

Like the fictional five-year-old Alexander, she had a terrible, horrible, no-good, very-bad day.

She was visibly frustrated and on the defensive as she was questioned about the lack of control over the mercenary forces under contract to the State Department, as well as corruption at the highest levels of the Iraqi government. They also grilled her extensively about the myriad problems with the still-unfinished embassy project.

She became visibly frustrated at several points, including one intense exchange with Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) about allegations of corruption that have been leveled against Nuri Kemal al-Maliki, the U.S. Puppet Prime Minister, who kaiboshed corruption investigations in April, when he decreed that all cabinet-level corruption investigations would only proceed with his approval. Critics say this amounts to blanket immunity for al-Maliki and his ministers.)

The most surreal moment of the whole spectacle had to be when Rice, pressed repeatedly to say whether she thought al-Maliki was covering up fraud and abuse, said she would not respond to rumors.

"To assault the prime minister of Iraq or anyone else in Iraq with here-to-date unsubstantiated allegations or lack of corroboration, in a setting that would simply fuel those allegations, I think, would be deeply damaging."

What a difference five years make, I guess.

In the run-up to the invasion, she had no qualms peddling "unsubstantiated allegations" to pave the way to invade the country and overthrow the government and unleash chaos. I'm not sure just how much more deeply the bitch could damage that country.

After it was over, Waxman was blunt in his assessment of her testimony. "I think there was a huge gap between what she said and reality."

--BG

There's more: "Having Condi for Lunch" >>

The State Department needs an "Office of Lessons Learned"

Determined as they are to make the worst possible choices, under the leadership of the most incompetent and inept Secretary of State in the history of the Republic, First Kuwaiti has been awarded additional contracts for construction of embassy and consulate facilities.

Apparently your mother was wrong and crime does pay.

The company that used counterfeit, sub-standard building materials, assembled by abducted third-world workers who are essentially slave labor, has benefited further.

Late last month, First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting Co. was part of a team that won a $122 million State Department contract to build a U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, according to contract documents.

That's one of at least three State Department jobs, in addition to the Baghdad project, that First Kuwaiti won in association with a U.S. firm, Grunley Walsh LLC of Rockville, Md.

Since 2006, by operating as a subcontractor to Grunley Walsh, First Kuwaiti has won contracts for work on a new U.S. Embassy in Libreville, Gabon; on a consulate in Surabaya, Indonesia; and on the Jeddah project.

Such partnerships are increasingly common as foreign companies try to win shares of embassy construction contracts that are worth hundreds of millions of dollars each year under the State Department's aggressive building program. Under a 1986 law, only U.S. firms can bid on embassy construction.

But industry analysts said that First Kuwaiti appears to be the financial muscle behind the partnership with Grunley Walsh. Lebanese businessman Wadih al Absi founded the company in 1996. News reports and Middle East experts say that Absi is a supporter of Lebanese Christian politician Michel Aoun, an ally of Syria and the Iranian-backed Islamic militant group Hezbollah. [emphasis added]

Henry Waxman is already investigating the Inspector General for State, who has facilitated malfeasance at the highest level. Maybe he needs to be looking into the OBO division of State, too.

There's more: "The State Department needs an "Office of Lessons Learned"" >>

Erik Prince can't catch a break...and doesn't deserve one...

Sometimes, when the proverbial chickens start coming home to roost, the truly black-hearted have a moment of reckoning as the sky grows dark and a massive murder of crows begins to descend, seemingly right on your head.

That moment of reckoning has either happened, or is imminent, for Erik Prince, the CEO of Blackwater, the mercenary outfit that murdered 17 civilians in Nissour Square in Baghdad on September 16.

The Iraqi government, desperate to prove that it is relevant in it's own right and not a puppet of the United States, is still insisting on kicking them out of the country, and the State Department isn't going to bat for them. Their current contract expires in May, and it is practically a given that it won't be renewed. "There will be some sort of disengagement process, but it won't be that they're shown the door," said a State Department official. "As one [mercenary outfit] builds down, another builds up."

That is gonna sting the old bottom line. Currently the ratio of State Department dollars that go to Blackwater -vs- all other companies is 8:1.

State isn't gonna be a lot of help to their hired guns. Their inability to control their mercs and Condi's general incompetence are enjoying the unwanted glare of the scrutiny spotlight in the form of two new reports on the State Department and the security situation in Iraq. What it boils down to is this: The idiots in charge could not organize a two-pony parade. They are inept and incompetent to the point of criminal complicity at least, and probably overt criminality.

But the schadenfreude just gets sweeter...Waxman is now on his ass for tax evasion.

Isn't that how they got Al Capone?

It's one thing to commit wanton murder - another entirely to screw Uncle Sam out of his cut.

Jeez - I thought everyone knew that!

There's more: "Erik Prince can't catch a break...and doesn't deserve one..." >>

FBI investigating Blackwater in wake of Sept. 16 rampage

The FBI is sending a team of investigators to Iraq to investigate the bloody September 16 rampage by Blackwater mercenaries against Iraqi civilians at a busy traffic roundabout in Nisoor Square in Baghdad. At least 11 civilians died, including a family of three that burned to death in their vehicle. The heat was so intense that the two-year-old child was melted to his mother’s body.

Special Agent Richard Kolko confirmed that the FBI is initiating the investigation at the behest of the State Department. "The results of the investigation will be reviewed for possible criminal liability and referred to the appropriate legal authority," Kolko said.

Blackwater has had a tremendous termination rate among their mercenaries in Iraq. 122 have been fired, or about one in seven Blackwater mercenaries have been terminated for various reasons, ranging from substance abuse to violent behavior and misuse of weapons. This low ratio raises serious questions about the character of the people hired by Blackwater. On Christmas Eve of last year, a Blackwater mercenary, drunk and belligerent, gunned down a bodyguard for Iraq’s Vice President, he faced no consequences and was spirited out of Iraq within 36 hours.

Officials in Baghdad and Washington then dickered with Blackwater on the compensation for the family of the guard, Raheem Khalif. An unnamed official in the State Department's Diplomatic Security service complained that the $250,000 payment proposed by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad was too much, because it might lead Iraqis to "try to get killed so as to set up their family financially," according to a State Department e-mail obtained by the committee.

When a Blackwater contract employee killed an Iraqi in Hillah in June 2005, the State Department asked the firm to pay $5,000 in compensation. "(W)e are all better off getting this case — and any similar cases — behind us quickly," a department official wrote.

A report prepared by the majority staff of the House Oversight Committee that was released today reveals that Blackwater has been involved in 195 shooting incidents since 2005 – approximately 1.5 per week. In 84% of the instances, Blackwater fired first – even though the contract the company has with the State Department calls for the defensive use of force only. Blackwater has been involved in more live-fire incidents than the other two *Security Contractor* companies combined.

"In the vast majority of instances in which Blackwater fired shots, Blackwater is firing from a moving vehicle and does not remain at the scene to determine if the shots resulted in casualties," according to the report.

The staff report paints Blackwater as a company that's made huge sums of money despite its questionable performance in Iraq, where Blackwater guards provide protective services for U.S. diplomatic personnel.

Blackwater has earned more than $1 billion from federal contracts since 2001, when it had less than $1 million in government work. Overall, the State Department paid Blackwater more than $832 million between 2004 and 2006 for security work, according to the report.

The report was presented to committee members today, in advance of testimony before the committee by Blackwater founder and chairman, Eric Prince, scheduled for tomorrow.

Anne Tyrrell, a Blackwater spokesperson, made the obligatory ‘we look forward to the opportunity to clear our name’ remarks in advance of the hearings: "We look forward to setting the record straight on this issue and others tomorrow when Erik Prince testifies before the committee." quoth Anne Tyrrell.

Several investigations are being undertaken into the incident,

The mercenary company has a few friends on the committee, who have requested that the hearings be postponed until the ongoing investigations are complete.

In a Sept. 28 letter, Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., and six other Republicans said the committee should wait until these investigations are complete.

"We feel it would be irresponsible for the committee to rush to judgment until all the facts are considered," the letter states.

Rep. Tom Davis or Virginia, the committee's top Republican, did not sign the letter.

Prince is just one of the witnesses scheduled to testify. Several State Department higher-ups are scheduled to appear as well, including the assistant secretary for logistics management and the assistant secretary for diplomatic security.

A spokesman for Davis said that the Congressman had no objection to the hearings moving forward because the State Department officials were scheduled to appear as well.

Lets hope that everyone appearing before the committee is asked to explain the apparent collusion between State and her Praetorian Guard to cover up incidents of Blackwater violence against Iraqi civilians.

There's more: "FBI investigating Blackwater in wake of Sept. 16 rampage" >>

Lots of stuff you wanted to know about Blackwater, but couldn't bring yourself to ask...

The fallout continues from the deadly rampage by Blackwater mercenaries against Iraqi civilians on September 16 that left at least 11 Iraqis dead. Blackwater insists that their employees fired in response to coming under attack. The Iraqis claim the Blackwater personnel were unprovoked when they opened fire on civilians at a busy traffic circle while escorting a State Department convoy through Baghdad.

The September 16 incident set off a firestorm and at one point the government of Iraq said all Blackwater personnel had to leave the country and the company had to cease operating inside Iraq. This edict did not stand and Blackwater is once again roaming the streets, terrifying the populace with their mere presence and undermining whatever the hell it is the mission is supposed to be, and sowing seeds of hostility with the populace that prompt attacks against all Americans, thereby putting American G.I.’s at heightened risk.

The DoD on Wednesday announced that the Pentagon has sent a team of investigators to Iraq to probe security contractors and their operations in Iraq. In addition, a memo was sent to the commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan reminding them that they have the prerogative to court martial mercenaries working under contract with the U.S. military if/when those mercenaries violate the Rules of Engagement that govern the U.S. military. Gates wanted to make sure that the mercenaries and commanders all understood that the military can prosecute their contractors. Gates, testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee, on Wednesday said he also wanted to know whether the military has the resources to investigate private security personnel under contract with the DoD for alleged crimes. "My concern is whether there has been sufficient accountability and oversight," Gates said.

In the memo, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England told military commanders that they're responsible for monitoring contractors under their control and charging those who violate rules of engagement.

"Commanders have UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice) authority to disarm, apprehend, and detain DoD contractors suspected of having committed a felony offense in violation of the RUF (Rules on the Use of Force)," Gordon wrote. The memo was dated Tuesday.

England said commanders should review contractors' standard operating procedures and make any necessary changes to the way they authorize force to "minimize the risk of innocent civilian causalities or unnecessary destruction of civilian property."

The State Department hasn't distributed a similar memo, and it is unclear what, if any, U.S. law applies to the actions of its contractors.

So far, no Defense Department contractor has been charged under U.S. law, and no security contracts have been suspended for violations, Morrell said.

Yeah. It really is as thoroughly and completely fucked up as it sounds.

Four and a half years into Iraq, and six years into Afghanistan, they have decided it’s time to determine what, exactly, to do with mercenaries who attack and murder civilians without provocation, or otherwise commit actions that undermine the efforts of the United States to salvage something – anything – from this clusterfuck so we can claim some sort of semblance of a shadow of a specter of a pale imitation of victory™ and get the hell out of there.

(Keep Reading)

The Iraqi Interior Ministry has sent the investigation of the incident to a magistrate and is looking at possible criminal charges, although they may be hamstrung by the ghost of Paul Bremer and the CPA, in the form of Order 17, which essentially gave mercenaries immunity to run amok, unencumbered by the rule of law. Under Order 17, mercenaries can kill at will, with little or no fear of legal, or even civil, repercussions.

This week, Iraqi lawmakers began considering a proposal that would withdraw the provisions of Order 17 from Iraqi law and make security contractors/mercenaries accountable under the Iraqi system of justice. Iraqis have complained bitterly for years that the mercenary army is unnecessarily aggressive and damages property with impunity and mistreats and kills Iraqis with reckless abandon.

Point of Clarification: The mercenaries involved in the September 16 violence were under contract to the State Department, and that incident is under joint Iraqi – State Department investigation. DoD has no authority to investigate or try the Blackwater mercenaries involved. Gates, being competent, and not beholden to nor under the sway of Cheney or Bush, is looking for problems before someone else finds them and uses them against him. (I don't like the man, but I can not help but respect the talent). At State, on the other hand, the inept and outpaced Condi is still carrying her bosses water, overtly and contemptuously stonewalling congressional oversight into the incident. While the DoD does have contracts with Blackwater, the State Department outspends the DoD on Blackwater contracts at a rate of approximately 8:1.

The private-army aspect of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been controversial since the first days in Afghanistan, and there has been no shortage of animosity between the professional military and the mercenary army. To date, no personnel under DoD contract have been charged under U.S. law, and no contracts have been suspended for violations. The military has been taken to task though. Two Air Force officers were brought up on charges of assault and conduct unbecoming following a run-in between the officers and Blackwater personnel on a road outside Kabul in September 2006. The charges were later dismissed.

***************

The bloodletting two weeks ago has set up a clash between the Pentagon and the State Department. The tensions have been long-simmering, and the events of September 16 turned up the heat. "The military is very sensitive to its relationship that they've built with the Iraqis being altered or even severely degraded by actions such as this event," said one senior military official in Iraq. "This is a nightmare. We had guys who saw the aftermath, and it was very bad. This is going to hurt us badly. It may be worse than Abu Ghraib, and it comes at a time when we're trying to have an impact for the long term."

In interviews involving a dozen U.S. military and government officials, many expressed anger and concern over the shootings in Nisoor Square, in Baghdad's Mansour neighborhood. Some worried it could undermine the military's efforts to stabilize Iraq this year with an offensive involving thousands of reinforcements.

"This is a big mess that I don't think anyone has their hands around yet," said another U.S. military official. "It's not necessarily a bad thing these guys are being held accountable. Iraqis hate them, the troops don't particularly care for them, and they tend to have a know-it-all attitude, which means they rarely listen to anyone -- even the folks that patrol the ground on a daily basis."

Most officials spoke on condition of anonymity because there are at least three ongoing investigations of Blackwater's role in the shootings. There are also sensitive discussions between various U.S. agencies and the Iraqi government over the future of Blackwater and other private security firms in Iraq.

Teddy Spain, a retired Army Colonel was willing to speak on the record. “I personally was concerned about any of the civilians running around on the battlefield during my time there. My main concern was their lack of accountability when things went wrong.”

Several commanding officers spoke frankly on condition of anonymity.

…"Given their record of recklessness," said the senior U.S. commander, "I'm not sure any senior military officer here would want responsibility for them."

…"They are immature shooters and have very quick trigger fingers. Their tendency is shoot first and ask questions later," said an Army lieutenant colonel serving in Iraq. Referring to the Sept. 16 shootings, the officer added, "None of us believe they were engaged, but we are all carrying their black eyes."

…"Many of my peers think Blackwater is oftentimes out of control," said a senior U.S. commander serving in Iraq. "They often act like cowboys over here . . . not seeming to play by the same rules everyone else tries to play by."

…"Many of us feel that when Blackwater and other groups conduct military missions, they should be subject to the same controls under which the Army operates," said Marc Lindemann, who served in Iraq with the 4th Infantry Division and is now an officer in the New York National Guard and a state prosecutor.

…"The deaths of contractors from Blackwater helped precipitate the debacle in Fallujah in 2004 and now the loss of Blackwater is causing disruptions in the war effort in 2007," a military intelligence officer said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Why are we creating new vulnerabilities by relying on what are essentially mercenary forces?"

The lousy reputation Blackwater has among members of the U.S. military has led to renewed debate over whether the DoD should handle State’s security contracts. The Department of Defense (understanding what security protocols should involve) has a more strident procedure for licensing and oversight of personnel under contract to their agency, the DoD also has more detailed incident reporting procedures when weapons are discharged. In addition, the military investigates promptly when incidents occur or allegations are made against mercenaries in their employ.

A Pentagon source insisted that "We are really making State respond, conduct an investigation and come up with recommendations." The source said that in Washington the atmosphere surrounding the confrontation between State and the pentagon is calm and professional but, referring to Iraq, said, "There is probably a bit more emotion going on in theater."

***************

As if Blackwater needed another revelation (they are also under investigation for smuggling weapons into Iraq that ultimately ended up pointed at American G.I.’s) the New York Times reported Thursday that mercenaries from Blackwater USA have been involved in a far higher rate of shootings while guarding and escorting American diplomats than other companies providing comparable services.

The rate of Blackwater violence is at least twice that of DynCorp International and Triple Canopy, the other security companies operating in Iraq. Blackwater’s hired guns are just that, discharging weapons, on average, twice every convoy. (The other companies frequently escort convoys completely without incident.)

“You can find any number of people, particularly in uniform, who will tell you that they do see Blackwater as a company that promotes a much more aggressive response to things than other main contractors do,” a senior American official said. “Is it the operating environment or something specific about Blackwater?” asked one government official. “My best guess is that it is both.”

While the bloody rampage at the Nisour traffic roundabout was the most shocking in the level of wanton killing, the modern-day Pinkerton's of Blackwater are under investigation in six other episodes that left ten people dead and at least 15 wounded.

Slowly, American officials are accepting the position that Blackwater's behavior in Iraq is counterproductive to the stated 'mission' by fueling resentment among the local population.

“They’re repeat offenders, and yet they continue to prosper in Iraq,” said Representative Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat who has been broadly critical of the role of contractors in Iraq. “It’s really affecting attitudes toward the United States when you have these cowboy guys out there. These guys represent the U.S. to them and there are no rules of the game for them.”

***************

Secretary of Defense Gates was in front of Congress asking for $190 Billion for the war effort for FY 2008. Congress is hammering out the budget now.

While the American public may not yet be ready to cut off funding to the U.S. military for the occupation of Iraq, I seriously doubt that there would be great wailing and bleating and rending of cloth and gnashing of teeth if, just for starters, the monies in the budget allotted to Blackwater fell victim to Congresses one true power.

There's more: "Lots of stuff you wanted to know about Blackwater, but couldn't bring yourself to ask..." >>

More questions about First Kuwaiti

First Corruption Kuwaiti is in trouble again, this time for a kickback scheme in which it is alleged that the company arranged to pay a $200,000 kickback for two additional, unrelated projects in Iraq.

...a now-sealed court document obtained by The Associated Press, allegedly involved First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting and a manager for Kellogg Brown & Root Inc. or KBR, a firm hired to handle logistics for the military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The document summarizes grand jury testimony from the former KBR manager, Anthony J. Martin, who pleaded guilty in July to taking kickbacks in 2003.

Although the government has tried to keep First Kuwaiti's name out of public records related to Martin's case, details from his grand jury testimony were found by a defense lawyer, J. Scott Arthur of Orland Park, Ill., who included a summary in a six-page document filed last Friday in an unrelated federal court case in Rock Island, Ill. The AP downloaded a copy of the document from the court's Web site shortly before a judge ordered the document sealed and removed from the public record.

According to the court document, Martin testified to a federal grand jury that he engaged in the kickback scheme with Lebanese businessman Wadih Al Absi, who controls First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting. The company is building the $592 million Baghdad embassy, the largest in the world with working space for about 1,000 people.

These questions come amid the House Oversight Committee investigating the Inspector General for State over allegations the IG stifled investigations into acts of malfeasance by First Kuwaiti. The company is closely tied to Kellogg, Brown & Root, which was a subsidiary of Halliburton, the war-profiteering company formerly headed by Dick Cheney. Amid investigations coming to light, Halliburton has divested itself of KBR.

There's more: "More questions about First Kuwaiti" >>

Blackwater hasn't skated away just yet

Survivors of Sunday’s bloody rampage in Baghdad by mercenaries employed by Blackwater USA maintain that they were fired upon without provocation. The company insists that their employees were firing in self defense.

An attorney who survived eight gunshot wounds in the conflagration said that he and other motorists were trying to clear a path when they saw the convoy approaching, when the mercenaries opened fire on the line of traffic.

A taxi driver who was shot twice said that he had stopped for the convoy when he saw the guards start firing on a car carrying a family of three that might have failed to stop, or might not have stopped fast enough. The car they were in burned, and the toddler melted to his mothers body in the intense heat.

Then, chaos erupted. The Blackwater mercenaries were firing on maintenance workers, stopped vehicles and a minibus full of girls.

Nine were killed and fifteen wounded in the chaos.

The survivors accounts are coming to light as Iraqi government officials are vowing to introduce legislation that would revoke the CPA edict that immunized mercenary outfits from prosecution under Iraqi laws.
Such a bold move could set up a clash between the government of PM Nuri Kemal al-Maliki and the United States, which relies on tens of thousands of hired guns to supplement the 160,000 American G.I.’s in Iraq.
The melee has had the immediate effect of confining all State Department employees have been ordered confined to the Green Zone until further notice. "In light of the serious security incident involving a U.S. Embassy protection detail in the Mansour District of Baghdad, the embassy has suspended official U.S. government civilian ground movements outside the International Zone (IZ) and throughout Iraq," the embassy said in a "warden's message" e-mailed to Americans in Iraq.
The investigation into the events that unfolded Sunday is still ongoing, but "The preliminary report shows there was no shooting against them," spokesman, Ali al Dabbagh said, referring to the Blackwater guards. "They should follow an Iraqi standard and Iraqi laws. They cannot have immunity…No country in the world would allow the way they are operating in Iraq," Dabbagh said.

On Monday, the Iraqi government announced that they were revoking the license of Blackwater to operate in the country, but that position was modified by Tuesday. Now, the revocation is temporary, pending a full investigation into the incident.

How it will eventually play out is still up in the air. But I would venture that Bremer's "Order No. 17" falls by the wayside, and hopefully there will be some accountability for the goon squads.

There's more: "Blackwater hasn't skated away just yet" >>

Waxman Investigating the IG for State

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform charged today in a 13-page letter that Howard J. Krongard, the Inspector General for the State Department has exhibited a persistent tendency to censor reports that might embarrass the administration, and has repeatedly thwarted investigations of the State Department. The letter was signed by Chairman Henry Waxman and released today by the committee.

The Oversight Committee based the charges on the testimony of seven current and former members of the IG’s staff, including two former senior officials who spoke on the record with no stipulation of anonymity. The letter clarifies that the charges are not limited to a single unit, but that the pattern is pervasive, affecting all three divisions of the IG’s office – audits, investigations and inspections.

…The letter charged that Krongard "interfered with ongoing investigations to protect the State Department and the White House from political embarrassment." It said that "your strong affinity with State Department leadership and your partisan political ties have led you to halt investigations, censor reports and refuse to cooperate with law enforcement agencies."

…Waxman accused Krongard of refusing to send investigators to Iraq and Afghanistan to investigate $3 billion worth of State Department contracts; preventing his investigators from cooperating with a Justice Department probe into waste and fraud in the construction of the U.S. embassy in Iraq; using "highly irregular" procedures to personally exonerate the embassy's prime contractor of labor abuses; interfering in the probe of a close friend of former White House adviser Karl Rove; censoring reports on embassies to prevent full disclosure to Congress; and refusing to publish critical audits of State's financial statements.

Inspectors General are supposed to be independent and objective investigators of waste, fraud and abuse, rather than ideology-driven agenda whores. Of course, the Bush maladministration has stood this notion on it’s head and applied a test of partisanship to everything. Prior to the appointment of Krongard, the IG for State had traditionally been a Foreign Service officer. Krongard was previously employed by an international law firm and had been general counsel for Deloitte & Touche

Emails of exchanges between staff members discussing Krongard’s decision to stonewall the Justice Department on the embassy investigation.

"Wow, as we all [k]now that is not the normal and proper procedure," an investigator wrote to Assistant IG John A. DeDona. DeDona forwarded the e-mail to the Deputy IG, William E. Todd, saying, "I have always viewed myself as a loyal soldier but hopefully you sense my frustration in my voicemail yesterday."

Todd wrote back: "I know you are very frustrated. John, you need to convey to the troops the truth, the IG told us both Tuesday to stand down on this and not assist, that needs to be the message."

DeDona responded: "Unfortunately, under the current regime, the view within INV [the office of investigations] is to keep working the BS cases within the beltway, and let us not rock the boat with more significant investigations."

The committee subpoenaed the work product for the embassy report which Krongard personally drafted, that exonerated the contractor building the new embassy in Iraq, First Kuwaiti General Trade and Contracting Co. The company was accused of horribly abusive labor practices, including holding employees against their will, but Krongard let First Kuwaiti off the hook with a mere six pages of vague, handwritten notes, showing that he interviewed only six employees – who were selected by First Kuwaiti. "Contrary to established investigative procedures, you allowed the subject of the investigation, First Kuwaiti, to select the employees you interviewed," Waxman charged. He added that the interview notes “did not show how thoroughly each employee was interviewed.”

Waxman charges that Krongard has, by his actions, created a “dysfunctional office environment” and that he routinely berated and belittled personnel, treated career government professionals contemptuously, and fostered an environment where people actually feared coming to work. The letter asserts that the high turnover in the department – which has resulted in only seven of 27 investigator positions currently filled – is due to the feckless leadership of Krongard.

There's more: "Waxman Investigating the IG for State" >>

West Bank First?

“A State Department! A State Department! My kingdom for a functioning, competent State Department!” Don’t you just want to shout it from the rooftops when you think about what has come to pass in Gaza?

It’s like Déjà vu or something…Haven’t I heard what they are peddling now – or a variation of it, anyway – before?

In the wake of the chaos in Gaza, we are being told that the focus now is the West Bank – they have gone so far as to say the words “West Bank First!” Apparently with no qualms about consigning Gaza to the ash heap and turning their faces away in denial (may their tongues cleave to the roofs of their mouths) - and without acknowledging that the operative principle from roughly 2002 forward was “Gaza First!”

This “new policy” is accompanied by a huge dose of hypocrisy and a furious editing of recent history.

This floundering about is no way to solve the problems in the Middle East, and it is doomed to failure as surely as the “Gaza First!” policies they were peddling a mere two years ago.

Right up to the minute they…stopped.

Lets retrace the events that led to this point.

First of all, the Bush administration pushed for the complete withdrawal of the Israelis from Gaza – and they pushed for elections to be held too soon in the wake. Hamas has a political arm as well as an armed insurrection arm. Like it or not they are a factor in the future of Palestine.

Case in point: Lots of folks were right pissed when Sein Fein was given a seat at the table, too, since they are the political arm of the IRA. But progress was only realized in Northern Ireland once Sein Fein was brought into the process. The same principle applies to Hamas and the Palestinians. Once a group takes up arms, they either have to be crushed outright, or brought into the process. As the outright crushing didn’t work out, maybe they should have considered honoring the elections and bringing Hamas into the process? The people who elected them knew who they were voting for. You lose a lot of credibility when you claim that you are bringing Democracy to Iraq, while simultaneously you embargo the folks who voted “wrong” and you are cool with the nullification of a democratically elected parliament because you dislike the folks that were elected, and you throw yourself behind the guy whose side lost the shooting war that erupted, as they are wont to do in situations such as those prevalent in Gaza.

"[S]eizing the moment," as Rice said, involves risk. It is inconceivable without some sort of good-faith engagement. There was no way that Gaza, a slither of impoverished territory crammed with 1.3 million Palestinians, driven into the ground by corrupt Fatah governance, was going to show Swiss moderation in its first election.

To believe otherwise is to inhabit an imaginary Middle East - a transnational Green Zone - and it is not in a world of the imagination that anything is going to get solved. Hamas, right now, represents a very large number of Palestinians, like it or not. "West Bank first" will not change that.

Condi’s stirring rhetoric and four bucks will get you a coffee at $tarbuck$. It was not hard to foresee how this was going to play out. Hell – it was writ large for anyone who cared to look.

I thought I was the only person who remembered that they were peddling Gaza First! – until I stumbled across a piece by Roger Cohen at the New York Times, and realized there are a grand total of three of us – Mr. Cohen, myself and former World Bank president James Wolfensohn, who remember. (Yes, there was a Wolfensohn before there was a Wolfowitz. Had you forgotten?) He went to the State Department in 2005 – to be Special Envoy for Gaza Disengagement. But a year later, he was gone, increasingly marginalized by the administration he tried to serve – like everyone else who truly understands the Middle East. "The view on the American and Israeli side was that you could not trust the Palestinians, and the result was not to build more economic activity, but to build more barriers," Wolfensohn said. "And I personally did not think that was the way forward."

When Wolfensohn went to the State Department he raised $15 million ($10 million of it from a single donor) to buy the greenhouses that the Israelis were leaving behind as they withdrew. Do not believe the plaintive wails of “We even gave them the greenhouses!” from the Israelis. But that is not how it happened. That ignores Wolfensohn’s role, and it ignores the money that changed hands.

But more importantly, it overlooks the fact that those commercial greenhouses were on the verge of becoming profitable, and that the opportunity they represented was an opportunity for peace to flower, too. "Once it was clear the business was viable, threats stopped and the community took tremendous pride in growing flowers, fruits and vegetables for export to Israel," Wolfensohn said. “The absolute tragedy was that within months of the commencement of that activity, issues of security at the border, some proven, some not, led to the border being sealed and everything getting wasted," he added. "There is one inevitable truth in the Middle East: Unless you provide economic activity to young people who are 70 percent of the population, you will have conflict. They will shoot the people they blame and in the end they will shoot each other.”

“Gaza First” failed, because Gaza was cut off. The produce and flowers rotted. Economic opportunity was truncated. Unrest was inevitable.

Wolfensohn seems almost dejected in his assessment. "I can only tell you that the Israeli closing of the Gaza borders was made with less consideration of the impact than needed. Aside from the military analysis, you have to consider the impact on a society, because social dislocation leads to anger and violence."

There's more: "West Bank First?" >>

Worldwide Terror Attacks Up 25%

What is it the President is so fond of saying? "We can fight them in Iraq or we will fight them here." The argument implies that we have the terrorists tied down in Iraq.

McClatchy's Washington Bureau is reporting that next week the State Department will release a report on terrorism indicating that in 2006 worldwide there were 14,338 terror attacks, up 29 percent from 11,111 attacks in 2005. Forty-five percent of the attacks took place in Iraq.

Worldwide, about 5,800 people were killed in terrorist attacks, also up from 2005.

The figures for Iraq and elsewhere are limited to attacks on noncombatants, and do not include strikes against U.S. troops in Iraq.

I don't recall Iraqis being asked if they want to die over there, so we can be safe over here. Frankly, I don't think the President's logic holds, but I do know that a lot of innocent people are dying when we should be talking peace.

Hint: If the terrorists really wanted to die here, they could do it for the price of an airline ticket. Considering what we did to them in Afganistan after 9/11, I don't think they want to attack us right now. The last think the terrorists want to do is piss off the American people.

There's more: "Worldwide Terror Attacks Up 25%" >>

Anti-Americanism on the March

About five pages into the GAO’s latest report on the image of America and Americans abroad, especially in the Muslim world, I was muttering aloud that it sure would be nice to have a functioning State Department about now!!!

The report is an indictment of a State Department in disarray; not merely understaffed, but with an existing staff that is largely unqualified for the positions they hold.. In May 2006, the GAO reported that approximately 15 % of the worldwide public diplomacy positions in the State Department were vacant. Updated information shows that this problem has worsened, with approximately 22 % of such positions currently vacant. Embassy officials indicated that insufficient numbers of staff (and the lack of staff time for public diplomacy activities) hinder outreach efforts. Keep in mind that key objectives of U.S. public diplomacy are to engage, inform, and influence overseas audiences. The department is in such disarray that recipients of American aid are often wholly unaware of the source of that benificence.

The State Department continues to experience significant staffing shortfalls in foreign language proficiency in embassies around the world. This is especially acute in the Muslim world. In May 2006 the GAO reported that 30% of language-proficiency-designated diplomatic positions are filled by officers who lack the level of language proficiency required for their jobs. The current report indicates this figure is up to 36%. Today. This has a negative impact on the ability of the diplomatic officers to engage with the public in the countries hosting our embassies.

In addition to communications deficits, the report highlighted a lack of strategic planning and inadequate coordination among embassy personnel pursuing various efforts and aims. Additionally; no standardized metric of measuring performance and results. This was first pointed out in a GAO report in 2003. Four years later, no strategy has been released, but State swears it will happen real, real, real soon...

State has not issued guidance on how its assorted public diplomacy activities will be coordinated to achieve these goals. In addition, posts’ public diplomacy efforts generally lack important strategic communication elements found in the private sector, which GAO recommended that State adopt as a means to better communicate with target audiences. Key steps in this approach include defining core messages, identifying target audiences, developing detailed communication strategies and tactics, and using research and evaluation to inform and re-direct.

A recent Pew Global Attitudes Project reports finding that favorable attitudes toward the United States in Indonesia (the worlds most populous Muslim country) declined from 75% favorable to a mere 30% between 2000 and 2006. The same time period saw favorable perceptions among citizens of Turkey decline from 52% to 12%. (Turkey, remember, is a NATO ally of the United States.)

Consistently negative polling data is significant because it reveals deeply seated perceptions that are difficult to palliate.

It must be pointed out that correlation is not causation, yet it is obvious that growing anti-American sentiment does nothing to help the United States achieve foreign policy, economic or security goals, and in fact bodes ill for the future of American interests in the Islamic world.

We know that the Iraq War has no singular military solution, that diplomacy will be a key component of the eventual solution.

So…Is anyone feeling inspired?

There's more: "Anti-Americanism on the March" >>