In testimony to Congress Tuesday, Blackwater USA chairman Erik Prince defended his employees against charges they’re acting like trigger-happy cowboys, saying his company “performs only defensive security functions” in Iraq.
But that doesn’t square with a blistering report released Monday by congressional staff charging that “the vast majority of Blackwater weapons discharges are pre-emptive, with Blackwater forces firing first at a vehicle or suspicious individual prior to receiving any fire.”
That seems to fit initial descriptions of the Sept. 16 incident in Baghdad in which 11 Iraqi civilians were killed allegedly by Blackwater guards firing indiscriminately at cars.
The FBI is investigating the shooting. Congress needs to get to the bottom of this and other loose-cannon incidents involving private security forces. One problem seems to be shoddy or nonexistent State Department oversight: After a notorious 2006 incident in which a drunken Blackwater employee shot to death an Iraqi security guard, the State Department aided the employee’s flight from the country and arranged a paltry $15,000 compensation for the victim’s family.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- DorisKing on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
89 Comments
Who would have seen a bunch of mercenaries who were given carte blanche in Iraq would actually be a source of problems? Any kwinkydink that Blackwater CEOs are big donors to the Bush regime? Nah, couldn’t possibly be a connection.
This is why Iraqis do not have any respect or pay any heed to their own government. If the Iraqi government cannot charge or deport CIVILIANS in their own country, they are not a real government.
You know Kev that thought has occurred to me too, these mercs are being used as military personnel.That would mean the actual count of U.S. troops is over two hundred thousand. And early on Cheney did point out that by using these paid mercs that they are not subject to the same rules as our military. They could perform task that our troops can not perform by law. Also the numbers could be artificially held down so it would give the appearance of lower troop numbers.
You know Kev that thought has occurred to me too, these mercs are being used as military personnel.That would mean the actual count of U.S. troops is over two hundred thousand. And early on Cheney did point out that by using these paid mercs that they are not subject to the same rules as our military. They could perform task that our troops can not perform by law. Also the numbers could be artificially held down so it would give the appearance of lower troop numbers.
What I find strange is that Democrats are on full assault to bring Blackwater USA down. The Democrats think it’s a great way to blast the war and slam the Bush Administration and bring things political.
The vast majority of the Blackwater security contractors are veterans of our military. So by attacking them, you are attacking our vets!
You are so right Joe, the mercs were merely conducting a preemptive strike against the Iraqi men, women and children. Just in case they were thinking about doing something evil and dastartly.After all they are muslims and all muslims are terrorists.
Blackwater is a group of crazies who love to murder people, thus any excuse to preempt a slaughter. Their crazy supporters also love to murder people so the two groups get along just fine.
If only two crazies made a “sane” things would workout so much better.
This is not good at all. This outfit is accountable to no one. Their free rein allows them to commit attrocities that bring the enlisted troops under more fire.
Too? I’m not crazy about the idea of an army for hire getting on the job experience at occupation. What, are they in practice for something closer to home? Not good.
Gotta quit dropping my Rs like that.
This policy of using “contractors” in roles that should be performed by our military personnel should not be allowed to continue. These guys can just about do anything, and it directly impacts the image that foreigners have of the U.S. They are not under any military command, so no oversight! Doesn’t that make anyone wonder what the hell is going on? Why has this even been allowed by our Congress? It’s just another example of Bush/Cheney not providing proper leadership for our country. If the United States goes to war, we better have sufficient troops to provide ALL needed services.
This and other attedant problems is what you get with the privatization of the military amd making war a for profit enterprise.
Seems that by using expensive mercenaries the administration is showing a lack of confidence and some contempt for our military —
Shaddow government anyone?
Tin Foil hat anyone?
Charging the taxpayers many times what uniformed service personnel cost, anyone?
CF
When you consider the total cost of having service personel do the same job there may not be much difference.
Consider the cost of training, equipment, support, housing, medical, etc….
I don’t know what that cost is but it has to be substantial. It’s far more than just the wage they are being paid.
Is there anything moral about war? Why is anyone even surprised or outraged that these atrocities happen? Just the fact that we’re there is the biggest atrocity of all. Soldiers often act like animals when given power and a free reign to do whatever they want, whether they’re hired soldiers or part if the military. It’s the nature of man to be inhuman to his fellow man. History bears this out time after time..frankly I’m getting sick of the way anyone in the military is portrayed as a hero. They’re part of the war machine no matter how you spin it.
When you use service personnel, you have Command and Control capabilities. What do you have in that regard using 3rd party guys?
Rambos?
Blackwater is a State Department contractor, not a DOD contractor.
Heckler,
Um, no.
“A single Blackwater security contractor costs the government $1,222 every day to guard U.S. civilian personnel, or $445,000 per year. That’s six times the cost of getting a U.S. Army soldier to perform the same function.”
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004337.php
Mary
So there is no morally justifiable war?
gster,
Exactly. Blackwater exists in a legal black hole that was carved out to enable them to do whatever they like. No accountability, no Uniform Code of Military Justice, no nothing.
Eric Prince is a creepy son of a bitch. Big time Fundo, related to the De Vos family (Amway) through marriage, former intern at the Family Research Council.
And now, mercenary pimp to the Fundos.
CF2K,
Included in that cost is providing their own logistical support, which is very expensive. They have to provide their own weapons, ammunition, transportation, etc. etc.
The experience of Blackwater personnel is usually much higher than your average soldier. The U.S. is paying for very specialized experience which is very expensive.
CF
“A single Blackwater security contractor costs the government $1,222 every day to guard U.S. civilian personnel, or $445,000 per year. That’s six times the cost of getting a U.S. Army soldier to perform the same function.”
I can’t buy those numbers. That’s only $75,000 per year to field a US troop in a combat environment, fully equipped. That’s WAY to low.
Heckler,
Well, if you don’t buy the numbers, then take it up with the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, because these numbers come from THEM.
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071001121609.pdf
If we have to go to “Manpower” to fill in the gaps of personnel shortages, what does that say about the management of troop levels in DOD? Are we overwhelmed by engaging in both Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously?
“Mary
So there is no morally justifiable war?”
Yes, Heckler…war is sometimes necessary, but war is still immoral. There is nothing moral about us killing each other, even if there is no other choice. War isn’t glorius, brave, rightous, or anything else…it’s just an action or reaction that mirrors man’s inhumanity to each other.
And I don’t believe the Iraq war is justified.
I think people are misinformed about what Blackwater does. They are hired as security/protection force personnel for dignitaries and employees of the U.S. and allies.
They are not hired as direct combat troops or strike forces.
The defensive/protection role is why they are hired by the State Department rather than the Department of Defense.
CF
Some staffer grabbed a number out of thin air.
Think about it. You have to train, transport to theater, equip with personal weapons ammo and comm gear, clothe, feed, house, pay salary. And that’s just the cost for the individual troop. Then throw in cost of vehicles, logistic support etc.
Bogus number CF, apply a little logic.
Mary
“but war is still immoral”
Would going to war to end genocide in Darfur be immoral?
Heckler,
When numbers disagree with your uninformed opinion, try to discredit the source. “Some staffer grabbed a number out of thin air.”
Riiiiiiiight. Maybe that would be plausible if they were as unaccountable for their words as you are for yours.
So, by your logic, each US serviceman makes $75,000 per year BEFORE any of the aforementioned costs. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Frankly, Heckler, $75,000 sounds like a FINE number that’s inclusive of the predictable costs. Ever heard of an economy of scale? That means when you buy lots of stuff, it gets cheaper.
$75,000 sounds more reflective of the cost of equipping a single soldier than does $445,00 / year. If it weren’t the case, we’d have been out of Iraq long ago because staying would have cost too much.
CF
Uninformed opinion? Hehehehe.
Whatever. Believe what you want if it feels good.
It’s just to low a number pal.
Blackwater likes to prep the route with pre-emptive fire, let folks know they mean business! Bush Admin. appreciates it, keeps their employees safer.
I thought America was supposed to be bringing democracy to Iraq?
In a free and democratic society, do we have mercenaries like Blackwater going around and shooting people?
America is supposed to represent law and order. This Blackwater gang of thugs sounds just like a gang in any city pretending to be the ‘big guys’ because they have ‘big guns’. When will this mentality be stopped?
Bush’s credibility in the entire Iraq War fiasco is already on thin ice. So, any sign of the Bush Administration sweeping the Blackwater investigation under the rug will only give the Muslims (radical and otherwise) fuel for their Holy War.
Whatever happened to Bush’s promise of restoring honesty and integrity to the White House?
Oh yeah, that went the way of the promise to capture Bin Laden – Bush does not even think about the self-admitted mastermind of 9/11 anymore.
So much for moral leadership from Bush.
Blackwater meets all the criteria to be listed as an international terrorist organization. They constitute foreign fighters in Iraq and operate outside the jurisdiction of any state.
IF Iraq is a sovereign state they will be allowed to prosecute the Blackwater personnel in Iraqi courts. If they are not allowed to prosecute them it will show that the claim of Iraqi sovereignty is a sham.
I think people are misinformed about what Blackwater does. They are hired as security/protection force personnel for dignitaries and employees of the U.S. and allies.
They are not hired as direct combat troops or strike forces.
The defensive/protection role is why they are hired by the State Department rather than the Department of Defense.
Posted by: Kansas
If this is true, then it makes the investigation into this Blackwater bunch even more imperative to find exactly what they are doing.
And, if they are going around acting like a bunch of thugs who are shooting first, then the appropriate actions should be taken. Such as criminal charges, etc.
But you seem to have no problem with any of this because they are paid by the State Department and not the DOD?
Would going to war to end genocide in Darfur be immoral?
Posted by: Heckler
But Bush does not to go war in Darfur. Why? No OIL!
Kansas is correct; Blackwater is a contractor to the Department of State, to provide security for the civilian personnel of DOS in Iraq.
My problem with this is, as I believe I’ve earlier posted, the contracting to a civilian firm which operates, as nearly as I can ascertain, without many of the traditional checks imposed on the military, to perform duties traditionally performed by the military, namely the provision of security to the DOS employees in a foreign country.
As also earlier posted, another problem I have which is peculiar to this situation is the immunity from Iraqi law granted to all contractors (IIRC) of the U.S. government issued by the Coalition Provincial Authority (again, if my recollection is correct) prior to the formation of the current Iraqi government. It seems logical to me that once a duly constituted government is in place, any occupying authority orders would become null and void, with issues of jurisdiction, etc., subject to negotiations between the U.S. government and the government of said nation. The fact that this order still exists raises a question concerning how “sovereign” the country of Iraq is considered by the U.S.
VT – counselor – If the private security guard at Dillons breaks the law he gets a bit more than just fired by Dillons. I think he is subject to the laws of Wichita, KS, USA. That is why I make my comment above if Iraq is a sovereign state.
Agreed, Ben. There seems to me to be a jurisdictional “black hole” concerning the activities of the employees of Blackwater, USA in Iraq. That also underlies my thoughts on the continuing viability of the “occupation” order under which Blackwater and other private contractors continue to operate.
maidmairon,
The State Department also has staff CIA agents as well. They are “Re-assigned” to the State Department for other duties.
If you think DOD does sneaky stuff, you should read up on what the State Department encompasses.
It’s not just a department of diplomacy. If it was, the Department would be much smaller than it is. :)
Yep – and it puts out puppet regime in a tight spot. If they don’t bring these guys to justice they expose themselves as puppets; if they do try to do so their puppet-masters will tighten the strings.
Heckler, since you don’t like the government’s cost estimates, what number are you pulling out of thin air?
Now show of hands everyone. Who wants to put together a private army, make them completely above the law, remove all oversight of their operations, and then trust that they won’t abuse that power?
Would going to war to end genocide in Darfur be immoral?
Posted by: Heckler
–
No, but I think the Bible is full of crap, what with that “thou shalt not kill” malarkey. I like your moral relativism better. Killing can be moral, relatively.
Keep in mind what private security firms face when escorting diplomats.(be they Iraqi or US).
They face the same dangers that a convoy of troops face. Roadside bombs, suicide bombers in cars, on foot, or bicycle. RPG attacks and general ambushes with small arms. They are transporting diplomats in bulletproof SUV’s for the most part, although some are purchasing Cougar armored trucks.
If an RPG hits or a suicide bomber gets too close they have not only failed in protecting their charge but they are most likely dead themselves.
By necessity they end up following the same type of guidelines our own troops use when convoying. To do otherwise would be suicidal.
Accidents happen. Unnecessary shootings occur. The nature of the job practically guarantees it. But to classify these events as “atrocities” is at best naive and at worst a deliberate exploitation of tragedy for political purposes.
The fact that this order still exists raises a question concerning how “sovereign” the country of Iraq is considered by the U.S.
Posted by: Vaughn Tolle
Hehehe, so diplomatic!
Shooting unarmed Iraqi citizens who pose absolutely no threat and then walking away without even a police report tells us all we need to know about BushCo’s desire to build a soverign, democratic Iraq.
They don’t.
This is like the humiliating “extra-territoriality” laws that was one reason for the Boxer Rebellion in China.
Heckler is right.
The shootings aren’t atrocities and the needless murders aren’t atrocities.
The torture of the prisoners, most who are innocent is not an atrocity.
The rape of women and children by mercenaries in our hire are not atrocities.
These are all natural consequences of the one single atrocity–the illegal and immoral invasion and occupation.
lc
Moral reletivism? Not me.
The Hebrew word used in the sixth commandment does not refer to killing in general but to malicious and unlawful killing.
Ah, the old “translation” trick.
Good thing the Bible wasn’t written in English.
It would be so much harder for the CONs to minimize its pacifistic and communal message . . .
Blessed are the peacemakers.
Show me where it says, blessed are the killers of children, even children who were just “in the way.”
Heckler you make a good point that these private contractors face the same dangers our troops face when they perform these missions.
That is exactly why they should not be there, these missions should be performed by our troops.
This is our country doing these things, you and me. We have an army with a long and noble history for this very reason. If someone in the army commits murder, they face the consequences.
Bush put these private contractors above the law and beyond accountability. If a Blackwater employee shoots someone in the head just for fun, he cannot be prosecuted under any law. That’s a fact jack.
Heckler, I need a better translation of the Bible. Where can I find your more accurate version that says, “Thou shalt not kill, unless the guy deserves it?”
If you think DOD does sneaky stuff, you should read up on what the State Department encompasses.
It’s not just a department of diplomacy. If it was, the Department would be much smaller than it is. :)
Posted by: Kansas |
Again, my point here is that if the Bush Administration sweeps the Blackwater investigation under the rug and then goes out on the global stage and pretends that we are such a ‘Christian’ nation and we are nation of law and order; it just makes Bush and the US look like liars.
Perhaps because the STate Department has been doing all their ’sneaky stuff’, that is why our credibility is lacking?
Do as I say and not as I do?
If the US would get off the Middle East oil teat and start being self-sufficient, then we would not need to be in Iraq doing all this ’sneaky stuff’.
Heckler – what you are calling unnecessary shootings is what some reports are calling pre-emptive shooting by Blackwater.
Whatever really happened, the US has the moral obligation to go in and find out exactly what happened. We do not need to look like we approve of a bunch of gun-toting, gun-happy thugs walking through Iraq being ‘above the law’.
How hard is that to understand? This is not a movie where the side with the most guns wins. This is war and, like it or not, we are being scrutinized by the rest of the world as to how we conduct ourselves.
Ever heard of the phrase ‘win the battle but lose the war’?
lc
I’m no student of the bible and I don’t know Hebrew, but as I understand it the Hebrew word for kill is “harog”. The Hebrew word for murder is “retzach”.
Since the original commandments were handed down in the Hebrew language and the oldest versions written in Hebrew say “retzach” I think I’ll go with that. Especially since it squares better with a lot of the killing that went on in the Old Testament.
*I am not an expert on the Bible and I don’t play one on TV.
You know when I was in the Air Force and saw a lot of aircraft flying in and out.
Do you know which aircraft slipped in and out the most with the most secrecy?
It wasn’t stealth – it was wasn’t surveillance aircraft.
It was State Department aircraft.
Welcome folks, to the real world. :)
Kansas- just because they have done and continue to do so- does it make it right?
maidmarion
I agree 100% with everything you said in your 11:27 post!
I do however object to how quickly many folks on the Left are to believe ANYTHING negative they hear about the war if it makes Bush look bad.
Keep in mind, one of the favored tactics of insurgents(and Al Quaeda as demonstrated in several different countries) is to attack American troops or contractors from the cover of non-combatants, making it look like we opened up on a bunch of unarmed civilians for no good reason.
We don’t know the facts yet in this particular instance, the FBI is going to check it out. I applaud that!
It wouldnt be the first time something like this has turned out to be something entirely different from the early reports from a media that is all to willing to believe anything that makes America and Bush look bad.
Heckler,
Here are some interesting numbers from a Congressional Research Service report entitled “The costs of Iraq, Afghanistan, and other global war on terror operations since 9/11.”
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
I direct your attention to Table 7, “Average Annual Cost per Deployed Troop FY2003-FY2006.” (pg.28). The table lists a number of categories: ‘number of deployed troops,’ ‘average annual obligations in 1000’s of U.S. $,’ ‘operational costs,’ and ‘investment costs.’
‘Operational costs’ appears to just the cost of feeding, transporting, equipping individual troops. ‘Investment costs’ refers to acquisition of force-protection gear, uparmoring, and equipment breakdown and replacement (see pages 22-23 for an explanation of what falls under these categories).
Look at the figures:
Number of deployed troops:03-225,800
04-219,600
05-258,800
06-269,300
Average annual obligations in1000s of $
03-$320,000
04-$340,000
05-$350,000
06-$390,000
Operational costs
2003-$300,0002004-$300,0002005-$270,0002006-$325,000
Investment costs
2003-$20,0002004-$40,0002005-$80,0002006-$65,000
I can’t say where or what the previous figure of $75,000 did or didn’t include. But here, the most that DOD has EVER paid for a fully-operational and invested-in combat troop is $390,000. This is still $55,000 cheaper than Blackwater. The least for the same troop has been $320,000–a full $125,000 less.
Another point is that, really, the comparable number is the ‘operational’ number, since Blackwater doesn’t have anything approaching the infrastructural needs of the Army. Given that fact, the comparison b/t Blackwater’s billed $445,000 and the CRS’s number look even worse. The lowest operational figure was $270,000, which is a difference of $175,000 between what DOD pays the Army for a troop versus what it pays Blackwater. At the highest US military operational, Blackwater still makes $125,000 more per troop than does the Army.
Furthermore, it isn’t clear to me whether or not Blackwater is FULLY self-contained, or whether they’ve offloaded some of their own “investment costs” to the taxpayers. I strongly suspect this is the case, given the total lack of DOD billing oversight up until this point.
So, thanks for the challenge, Heckler. I believe I’ve proven my point that Blackwater is a bad, bad deal for the U.S. taxpayer, but a good, good deal for Eric Prince and his Republican benefactors.
maidmarion,
I wasn’t inferring anything by the secrecy of the aircraft. I’m just saying that the State Department does more than the public knows about.
The State Department has carte blanche when it comes to shuttling goods, services and personnel from country to country.
If you think Blackwater is mean, you should see some of the middle eastern countries and their protective guard. Equipped with automatic weapons, they will take out upon the hearing of “the snapping of a twig” any Joseph or Jezebel, cat, bat, rat or camel coming within their sights. :)
Heckler,
Ooops, sorry, Blackwater is billed through State. But that’s no less interesting a fact, since it explains what the above report never even MENTIONS private contractors.
The report also is a valuable read for its explanation of how the Administration has used supplemental funding bills to avoid accountability and oversight. Very interesting.
CF2K, I would also point out that much of the “basic training” of the Blackwater employees, given their former status as military personnel, was done on the taxpayer’s dime, which would reduce the overall costs per troop. Again, Blackwater is under contract to DOS, not DOD.
Good post, CF.
‘Course don’t you think it’s kind of unfair to use actual FACTS, especially when the other side has no facts?
Here’s a new translation of the Beatitudes done by a team of CONservatives:
Blessed are
the rich for they have a lot more money than you dothey who hunger and thirst after power, for they shall be satisfied.
the cruel and arrogant for they shall be called patriotic.they who make God into their own image, for they shall be called pious.the war-makers, for they will be called the children of liberty and freedom.
“This is not a movie where the side with the most guns wins.”
Actually in the movies the good guys win despite their lack of guns. In the real world, the side with the most guns wins just about every time.
And Kansas, we all know the mideast countries have state security far more brutal than most anything we do. We don’t want to move in that direction, or give our people the right to do so without consequences.
If a Saudi guard does something evil, nobody hears about it. If an American guard does something wrong, he faces the consequences. That is what makes us the good guys. At least it was until Bush abrogated that rule.
CF
The source you originally cited put the cost of Blackwater people at SIX times the cost of the same service performed by a US troop.
Your own research seems to show that that is hogwash.
And that cost of basic training given that most contractors are former military? SOOO! It costs us that much then if the guy went to work selling tires instead of going to Iraq with Blackwater.
Heckler,
I’m not defending the earlier figure. I don’t need to. The numbers from this report tell the story.
Blackwater is a bad deal for American taxpayers, but a very good deal for the contracting agency and the Republican officials who receive Eric Prince’s political contributions.
Not much of a budget hawk, eh, Heckler? Some “conservative” YOU turned out to be.
I guess I must have missed something here. If we are fighting an ongoing war on terrorism on two foreign fronts and yet these terrorists are still perceived as a threat here at home then why isn’t the State dept employing Blackwater here at home. Obviously our federal entities were inadequate to protect us from 911?
Also if these private contractors need their own security over there why aren’t they paying for it as they would here at home?
If Blackwater was hired here would phred protest at a State Dept funeral?
If the media has hyped the reports of Blackwater shootings to just be negative about Bush, then an open investigation would prove that.
What I find troubling here is that the Bush Administration is willing to sweep any investigation under the rug. This smacks of arrogance and terrorism. And isn’t terrorism the thing we are fighting in Iraq, according to Bush?
“I wasn’t inferring anything…”
One more time…the speaker implies,the listener infers.
And you’re claiming to have gone to college. Hmmmmm…
An industrial conglomerate that hijacked a primary, stole an election and put their puppet in power.
A private army working with and protecting that same corporate interest schooling itself alongside the balance of the battle troops of the nations military in matters of occupation and control.
And those same corporate interest working behind the scenes as more and more power is accumulated to their puppet pResident.
Time may be ahort.
Also, TIME may be short.
Don’t wanna tick off the spelling police.
BE FAIR! That is my whole issue with the media, and both the left and right wing!
1st, the huge money blackwater soldiers make. Well, they do not have 12 support troops for every combat troop. That makes their job more dangerous. They are not a huge bureocracy like our military is. Yes, they may be able to call on the military to back them up, but I don’t think they do very often. They put their A$$’s in the breeze and fight it out. They are like cowboys, and Iraq is like the old wild west!
2nd Military personal make less money NOW, BUT they have a pension that is out of this world. For anyone else to have such a pension and life long medical care, they would need to invest 50k/year for 20 years. Blackwater soldiers are getting the money upfront. It would be F-ing cheaper to pay our soldiers upfront, train the h@ll out of them like Blackwater agents, then turn them loose and say “do this, go get that, but when your cornered in an alley, your on your own, you have to fight your way out of it!” Pay no pensions and life long medical care!
THESE BLACKWATER WARRIORS ARE THE BEST OF THE BEST! They are former Marine Recon, Army Airborn-light infantry-mountain warfare, Navy Seals, Air Force Security Forces, and the best of the best trained law enforcement agents with extensive SWAT and urban combat training-experience. In other words, THEY ARE WAY BETTER THAN YOUR AVERAGE SOLDIER. They are the cream of the crop!
WE ARE AT WAR PEOPLE!@#$% A war I feel we shouldn’t be, YES, a war based on lies…MAYBE. But we are there, and as long as we are, we need to be brutal. We need to be feared. WAR IS H&LL!
I heard Seymour Hersh yesterday on NPR. He had written a piece for the New Yorker on our shifting justifications and plans on attacking Iran. He noted that in retaliation, Iran planned to bomb and disable many oil producing areas all over the middle east in an effort to raise the cost of oil to over $100 per barrel.
Hersh also compared our nuclear weapon negotiations with North Korea (giving them incentives to disarm and assurances we wouldn’t attack them) versus what we’ve offered Iran (nothing).
Hersh’s inside sources say Cheney is chomping at the bit to attack Iran. To me, it did not sound like a very smart idea. Also the latest justification that Iran is supplying insurgents in Iraq is not supported by any documentation that has been offered. We’re supposed to “trust them” on this assessment.
It is hard to see how Bush, Cheney, et al. can think they can pull another Iraq — the country does not trust these characters to operate with any degree of sanity on this subject.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14892365
Not to pick nits, but if we’re in a war based on lies, a war that shouldn’t be, then doesn’t that mean we need to stop it?
I mean, if we start a war based on lies and then tell ourselves we need to be brutal because we’re at war. that’s circular logic and we could invade any country for any reason and be just as brutal as we can possibly be. Is that really a road you want us to travel down?
Semper Fi71,
Really? The ‘best of the best?’ Not according to this 2004 story from the Guardian regarding CACI, who supplied a number of troops implicated in Abu Gharib.
“I was interviewed in September 2003 in a very short telephone conversation, which was more like a sales pitch of how great the company was, than a typical interview for a professional job,” Mr Nelson said. “I never met anyone from CACI until I landed in Fort Bliss [an army induction centre in Texas], and then it was some other new hires.”
CACI website entries show increasingly frantic efforts to attract interrogators, with the qualifications required being reduced from seven years’ interrogation experience, to five years, to two.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1218370,00.html
If the paramount consideration is that “we need to be fearer,” you’ll understand why the Iraqi insurgency enjoys such popular support. Winning hearts and minds? Bah!
SemperFi71,
Though, to be fair, here’s a recent job posting from Blackwater. The requirement? Eight years of elite military service.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/054961.php
Do you think for one minute our diplomats and politicians are going to entrust their security to the military? LOL
But a group of gun-toting, shooting pre-emptively is a gang of thugs – not protecting our people in Iraq.
What separates us from the rest of the world should be that we are a democracy that believes in law and order. No man/woman is above the law.
A complete, thorough and OPEN investigation needs to be don about the Blackwater situation (and NOT by the Bush Administration!).
We need to demonstrate to the rest of the world that we are not thugs but we are law-abiding citizens that will bring criminals to justice.
Much like my assertion as to why Bush stopped looking for Bin Laden. If the US had gone after Bin Laden and found him to bring him to justice. THEN we would have more credibility in this global world.
As is today, when Bush utters anything, it is met with suspicion. Why – lack of credibility, that’s why.
Steven–
As someone who has contact with delusional people, you know how it works.
When a plan fails to a delusional person, it’s not because the plan was at fault.
It’s because the plan was pursued with enough vigor!
So . . . we lost Vietnam because we didn’t kill and bomb and maim more. Ten years wasn’t enough.
We’re losing Iraq, not because we refuse to give Iraqis the power to run their own government, but because we haven’t cowed them into submission sufficiently. And also there’s the political left giving aid and comfort to the enemy (as if without the left, the insurgancy would fade away).
Bombing Iran is a good plan. IF one is insane.
was NOT pursued . . . typo
“They are like cowboys, and Iraq is like the old wild west!”
Yep – and in the old wild west the whites murdered Native Americans for sport. Now I guess the same thing holds for Iraqis.
If Iraq is the wild west, it’s because we made it so.
Yep – and in the old wild west the whites murdered Native Americans for sport. Now I guess the same thing holds for Iraqis.
Posted by: Ben | October 03, 2007 at 05:30 PM
Not true… They were MURDERED, but for money and power not for sport; which is also true for Iraq. We certainly would not invade a Christian country; correction.. a “born again” Christian country. However, since we are the only “born again” Christian country than I guess we would invade anybody for money and power.
Also noteworthy is that with Native Americans those “pieces of paper” called treaties were worthless as is today with the Constitution.
Capn,
You’re right. What’s interesting with the new justifications for bombing Iran is that according to Bush/Cheney Iran is one responsible for our shortcomings in Iraq. So, if things are not working in Iraq, it is time to attack Iran – and I say, but of course, why didn’t anyone think of that sooner!?
Cue up fleetty saying I hate America…
Iran is THE one… error
Yep – and in the old wild west the whites murdered Native Americans for sport. Now I guess the same thing holds for Iraqis.
Posted by: Ben | October 03, 2007 at 05:30 PM
You conveniently forgot to mention that the not so noble, red skinned savages killed, raped and mutilated thousands os Whites, including women, children and babies! I guess that doesn’t matter to people like you. The injuns fought and lost, get over it.
One day those Blackwater boys will be called upon to deal with ragheads and other undesirables here in America and I will be joining them!
PS: Did any of you effeminate liberal crybabies utter a peep when clinton bombed Serbia killing thousands of White, Chritian women a children and elderly? I gather that you are only concerned with your pet miniority parasites, criminal and terrorists.
Hey Druid, or Shepherd, or whatever you’re calling yourself tonight. Why not just come right out and say you hate blacks, hispanics, women and jews?
Do you really wear pointy white hats still?
One day those Blackwater boys will be called upon to deal with ragheads and other undesirables here in America and I will be joining them!
Posted by: Kansas Druid | October 03, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Why wait. Get a passport and go now. Or would you rather wait until you can hang out in the crowd behind them.