Good morning.
What a novel experience to see, as between the State Department and the Department of Defense, the Pentagon wearing the whiter hat. But since these are George W. Bush‘s State and DoD — Condi Rice’s shop as opposed to Bob Gates’s — the situation, though novel, is no real surprise.
Yesterday we learned that Rice is not only stonewalling Congress’s probe of Iraqi corruption but also trying to obstruct its investigation of Blackwater. The Washington Post‘s Karen DeYoung dates the Iraqi-corruption strand (okay, yeah, a pun) from
late last month when the Nation magazine published an account of an internal memo by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. The 82-page draft document, which was subsequently widely leaked, said the Iraqi government was “not capable of even rudimentary enforcement” of its own anticorruption laws and would not meet “any reasonable timeline” for improvement.
On Sept. 10, [House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Henry] Waxman requested copies of all State Department reports on the subject and interviews with “knowledgeable” department officials. Saying it received no response, the committee then issued subpoenas on Sept. 20 for the documents and three officials.
Interviews with the officials were finally scheduled for yesterday, but on Monday night, Waxman’s letter said, the State Department sent an e-mail warning the committee of “redlines” that should not be crossed in the unclassified sessions. They included: “broad statements/assessments which judge or characterize the quality of Iraqi governance or the ability/determination of the Iraqi government to deal with corruption, including allegations that investigations were thwarted/stifled for political reasons; [and] statements/allegations concerning actions by specific individuals, such as the Prime Minister or other [Government of Iraq] officials, or regarding investigations of such officials.”
David Kurtz provides the State-Blackwater/Waxman timeline here. Yesterday, in receipt of Waxman’s 6-page letter urging Rice “to reconsider the unusual positions you are taking” (also described therein as “absurd,” leaving interviews with the officials under restriction “virtually worthless”), Foggy Bottom tried another lie parry. "There seems to be some misunderstanding with regard to this matter,” spokesman Tom Casey soothed (if not Waxman, at least DeYoung and the New York Times‘ James Risen, who quotes but doesn’t name him). “All information requested by the committee has been or is in the process of being provided. "
"Blackwater has been informed [Risen further quotes him] that the State Department has no objection to it providing information to the committee. We have offered to make available for testimony those officials in the best position to respond to the specific issues the committee has raised. "
According to Henry Waxman’s hometown paper, the Los Angeles Times,
In response to Waxman’s letter, Kiazan Moneypenny, a senior contracting officer in the State Department’s office of acquisition management, appeared to soften the department’s stand, saying later Tuesday that it would allow Blackwater to hand over unclassified documents. …
A company spokeswoman said Tuesday that Blackwater interpreted the State Department’s apparent shift Tuesday as permission to release documents sought by Waxman.
By the way, the best (and funniest) view of the Congress/Rice dance you’re apt to find is Mary2002‘s at Daily Kos. But if Condi is wobbling a little here (let’s keep this jury out awhile longer, given BushCo’s usual tricks with “classification”), it may not be the height of her Manolos this time, but the pushback she’s getting from Bob’s chaps.
Front-paging at WaPo, Sudarsan Raghavan and Thomas E. Ricks report,
A confrontation between the U.S. military and the State Department is unfolding over … Blackwater …, bringing to the surface long-simmering tensions between the military and private security companies in Iraq, according to U.S. military and government officials.
In high-level meetings over the past several days, U.S. military officials have pressed State Department officials to assert more control over Blackwater …, said a U.S. government official with knowledge of the discussions. “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,” the official said.
“This is a nightmare,” said a senior U.S. military official. “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.” [Emph. mine]
Raghavan and Ricks’s multiple sources — officer and enlisted; Washington, Baghdad, and El Cerrito, CA — uniformly (okay, that’s two; I’ll not go for three) describe Blackwater pejoratively:
“Iraqis hate them, the troops don’t particularly care for them, and they tend to have a know-it-all attitude”
“lack of accountability”
“oftentimes out of control”
“act like cowboys over here”
“immature shooters [with] very quick trigger fingers … we are all carrying their black eyes”
Etc.
Though a Pentagon source tells WaPo that “private” discussions have gone on for some time over whether Defense, rather than State, should oversee Blackwater, DoD has put no great energy into the turf battle. “Given their record of recklessness,” a “senior U.S. commander” explained, “I’m not sure any senior military officer here would want responsibility for them.”
But WHY won’t Raghavan and Ricks name the bald-faced liar who wondered why the military is leaning so hard on State now, “since the DOD has more Blackwater contractors than we do . . . They’ve basically got contracts with DOD that are larger than the contracts with State”? The next sentence reports that, according to FedSpending.org, since 2004 Blackwater has collected over $833 million from State, $101 million-and-change from Defense. But of course there’s a strong possibility that whoever this innumerate Foggy Bottom liar is, s/he’s someone high up and useful to BushCo, so don’t let’s name a name . . .
You know, I think there’s an established term for this syndrome. I believe we can call such BushCo/MSM collaborative coverups “very Abu Ghraib.”
lotus
UPDATE: Meanwhile, according to AP, the Iraqi Interior Ministry has drafted and submitted for legal review a bill that would, if approved by Maliki’s cabinet and parliament, put American private security companies under Iraqi government supervision.
"This legislation will cover all aspects of these companies’ operations and bring them all under Iraqi law and the mechanisms of the Interior Ministry, " [an IM spokesman] said. "They will be strictly accountable for all actions committed on the streets. "
I wonder whether any cabinet or parliament members will oppose this invitation to deeper national humiliation . . .
UPDATE II: Ooopsy, Bob just trod on Condi’s toe.
