If Blackwater Couldn’t Keep Benazir Bhutto Safe, Why Is State Still Contracting with Them?
When Erik Prince testified before the Oversight Committee on October 2, 2007, he boasted that no one under Blackwater’s protection had ever been seriously hurt or killed.
No individual protected by Blackwater has ever been killed or seriously injured. There is no better evidence of the skill and dedication of these men.
At precisely the same time as Prince was making that boast, Blackwater was negotiating a protection deal that would not end so successfully.
The Nation has previously reported on Blackwater’s work for the CIA and JSOC in Pakistan. New documents reveal a history of activity relating to Pakistan by Blackwater. Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto worked with the company when she returned to Pakistan to campaign for the 2008 elections, according to the documents. In October 2007, when media reports emerged that Bhutto had hired “American security,” senior Blackwater official Robert Richer wrote to company executives, “We need to watch this carefully from a number of angles. If our name surfaces, the Pakistani press reaction will be very important. How that plays through the Muslim world will also need tracking.” Richer wrote that “we should be prepared to [sic] a communique from an affiliate of Al-Qaida if our name surfaces (BW). That will impact the security profile.” Clearly a word is missing in the e-mail or there is a typo that leaves unclear what Richer meant when he mentioned the Al Qaeda communiqué. Bhutto was assassinated two months later. Blackwater officials subsequently scheduled a meeting with her family representatives in Washington, in January 2008.
This detail–though not surprising–raises more questions than offer answers. Like what the hell word is that is missing before “communique”? Was Blackwater proposing to mitigate the PR problem of public association with Bhutto just as scrutiny over the Nissour Square massacre was most intense by inventing a fake communique, of some sort, from al Qaeda? (Elsewhere in Scahill’s piece, he describes a training course Blackwater offered on al Qaeda tactics, including propaganda. So presumably, they considered themselves experts in creating fake al Qaeda propaganda.
And if Blackwater had a previously unrevealed failure–a really costly, spectacular one–then why is State Department still contracting with them for such protective services? Not least given that Blackwater would presumably be protecting people in Afghanistan against some of the same creeps who presumably bested Blackwater when they assassinated Bhutto?
Moreover, given that the State Department gave Blackwater follow-on contracts after Blackwater failed to keep Bhutto safe, then have they at least done a real assessment of what went wrong? Last we heard from Blackwater publicly, they had a purportedly perfect record. But they don’t. And no one told us that. If we’re going to give another $120,000,000 to Blackwater, have we at least studied, first, what went wrong with Blackwater’s notable failure with Bhutto?
Might the missing word be “forge””? No that would be too direct. “Create” “obtain” “negotiate” “purloin”?
And might Blackwater be receiving contracts for the same reason that J. Edgar Hoover was FBI Director-for-life. Or might it be extortion instead of blackmail?
I was sort of thinking the same. Only how would that fix the PR disaster of having the Nissour Square shooters protecting Bhutto?
Just totally bizarre. Why would Benazir trust BW? Could her family sue BW for negligence?
Bob in AZ
Condi Rice was behind the effort to ease Musharraf out of the presidency by having Benezir Bhutto run a popular campaign to restore (at least for a while) confidence in the government. I believe that Bhutto trusted that Blackwater was working for US interests and consequently would do their jobs.
Trusting Condi on anything is a mistake.
Another possibility is “intercept”. If it became public knowledge that Blackwater was the security detail for Bhutto, likely Blackwater thought that the danger from its enemies could destroy its reputation by creating incentives that otherwise wouldn’t be there for an attack on Bhutto.
In other words, elefino.
So is every future Prez and administration stuck with these guys?
Only the ones who refuse to look backwards.
Blackwater, Xe, Cheney’s hit squad, now Barry’s so called “executive privilege” to assassinate American citizens, with drone attacks and collateral murder here and there. This is getting outa hand by golly.
Excellent question.
Eerie, too, the way those Osama bin Laden videos hit the US just the week before the 2004 election, in view of this passage.
The missing word is “issue”. I’ll put $50 on it. “Issue” is almost the only verb anyone ever uses with the noun “communique”.
When I first read Scahill’s piece, my brain filled in the missing word with “expect”, so I’m going with 25 cents on that. Yeah, I know, a big spender.
Unless it is “receive”.
Issue was my first thought too, although I think you could make an argument for receive.
Oops, should have finished the thread first, you beat me to it. My initial reaction was receive. Admittedly that suggests either that they were in cahoots with Al Qaeda (tin foil territory) or it was a tongue in cheek manner of saying they could expect to be on the receiving end of an attack.
I left more info on the Pentagon child porn story for you back on the “Women Enjoying Sex . . . ” thread, Mary.
OT…
I told you Obama was a progressive (anti-corporatist– whatever the hell that means) (grin)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/13/white-house-to-tap-warren_n_715291.html
Then why did they give her the empty title “special adviser” instead of making her acting directer?
Apparently, this title enables her to speak freely to the public. Those who are formally nominated for a position that needs to be approved by Congress traditionally enter a “zone of silence” during the confirmation process. As an adviser, she can participate in campaign appearances and advocate for consumers while she staffs up her office.
I’m not sure what the difference is if Obama were to make her an interim appointee, however.
Bob in AZ
“Special advisor” is not an empty title. It may place her among Obama’s top twelve advisers. See David Dayen’s blog today.
Bob in AZ
What a sick joke. It is not that I do not appreciate whatever Warren could get accomplished, I truly do. It is the flailing limp dick bullshit contortions the Obama White House is going through to NOT install Warren with any power of her own, coupled with their sheer desperation to find some avenue to fraudulently sell linkage with Warren to morons that might fall for it. It is really stunning at the root level. Warren should tell them to go fuck themselves.
It is really stunning at the root level. Warren should tell them to go fuck themselves.
It is, and she should. But I found myself wondering whether by playing out the lame spectacle where everyone can see it, she’s not doing a small service. Had she just walked before it became “necessary” to leak this trash, some would never have believed it was Obama’s fault.
(Whether it’s his unwillingness to take on the GOP assholes in the Senate or a refusal to strut the courage of his own convictions matters not at this point, the time for such niceties is over.)
Warren is one nifty lady.
Political processes are the great white whales on the Potomac.
Obama just harpooned Moby Dick…
Resist the Captain Ahab approach…
What they had that contract heck they were probably in on it the CIA has no reason to want a popular leader in Pakistan.
“release” a communique?
How do we know that Blackwater’s real job was keeping Bhutto safe? Maybe it was the opposite and they were wildly successful. How the hell are we, the great unwashed, ever to know what the real agenda of the USG is.
I don’t think Cheney had much use for Bhutto, except perhaps as a temporary distraction. Like Dick Said, sometimes Yoo got to go to the Dark Side.
I have no idea what the agenda is. All I know is that it is highly unlikely to be what the USG sez it is.
Cheney and Condi were on opposite sides on this decision. Since Blackwater was Cheney’s friends, what better way to undercut Condi’s policy.
Bhutto wasn’t wanted, she would have created a democratic government. ‘Nuff said.
Bhutto said that Bin Laden was dead. It must be on youtube.
Cheney was tired of the Pakistani chick.
The “security” racket (at every level) exists to a) fuck up b) create more insecurity thereby c) further profit thereupon.
I always wondered who it was who told Bhutto to stand up again as was reported in the initial accounts of the murder.
Present State Department #3 man, Pat Kennedy, holds these answers. Pat is a career civil service official at State and has risen to heights under Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and now Hillary Clinton.
Pat was called up to do damage control after Nisour Square and his panel produced what appeared to be a whitewash.
I’ve worked with Pat. I respect Pat. But I believe he was enlisted to clean up a nasty bag of tricks and I hope he hasn’t become the David Marguiles of State.
Well, State set the table for those very conclusions by intentionally walling off the shooters and complicitly injecting Garrity Statements into the equation so that the shooters were effectively immunized.
Bhutto broke the news that Bin Laden was dead. That signed her fate. BW wasn’t there to protect her as much as they were likely there to make sure the deed was done.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8120236576648647371#
Froomkin: Oversight Of Private Security Contractors Still A Concern Three Years After Massacre In Iraq
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/15/three-years-after-massacr_n_718397.html
Human Rights First: STATE OF AFFAIRS: THREE YEARS AFTER NISOOR SQUARE
ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT OF US PRIVATE SECURITY AND OTHER CONTRACTORS
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/State_Of_Affairs.pdf
Because the State Department paid Blackwater to assassinate Bhutto.
I bet they know a lot of the same people…
‘Washington’s bureaucratic turf wars are a dismal reality of politics in Beltwayistan, but are now threatening national policy, as competing agendas threaten policies extending far beyond the continental U.S.
In two of the most notable recent examples, the Kazakh “Giffengate” corruption case and attempts to extradite notorious “Lord of War” Viktor Bout to the United States, eager federal officials in both cases are running up against other government elements content to let both cases lie fallow, notably the CIA and Pentagon.’
http://oilprice.com/Geo-Politics/North-America/Washington-Turf-Wars.html
As others have already suggested, that Bhutto was the only one paying Blackwater, and that her safety was their highest business priority, are both unfounded assumptions.
But in general, the answer to most questions “why does X continue to brazenly steal $10**n’s from the taxpayers by funding their business associate Y’s illegal/immoral/inept/ineffective Z?” is the same as “why does a dog lick his balls?”
Why would elements of the Pakistani government not be able to protect Mrs Bhutto without XE being involved ? How much might former and current elements of the Pakistani government who hold a grudge still against Mrs Bhutto’s Daddy want to have a ‘fall guy ” for her successful assasination? Its long been considered ‘conventional wisdom ” that elements of the Pakistani government (ISI ) not only support Taleban & al Qa’ida activities all over the AFPAK operational area -but that these same elements would not want the Bhutto clan back in power especially if Mrs Bhutto was bringing democratic governance . And perhaps this would be away to have a ‘twofer” for the Pakistani opposition elements -in that Mrs Bhutto was removed and that a strategic asset for the West ie XE was to be made the scapegoat for her killing. Its worth remembering that much of what happens in the “Stans” is directly attributable to the long term struggle for regional dominance between Pakistan & India -and some elements of the Pakistani government ( either current of former) look at the Taleban/alQa’ida as tactical means to a strategic end -to frustrate Indian aspirations- Kashmir being one example.
But really “WTF” over- who really knows why XE was potentially left holding the bag for Mrs Bhutto’s untimely demise .
Wasn’t the UN supposed to be doing an investigation of the Bhutto assasination – if so was a report issued ?
Failure? I’m not so sure.
I asked myself the same question. Would want to know who suggested she hire BW for her security?
I do not think she woke up one morning and said, I’ll hire BW to protect me.”
At the time, I read something that seemed to implicate Cheney. (But, of course!)
protecting whom? I think after reading the article it’s pretty clear that our shadow government is working for people “formerly known as prince”. Symbols, XE, Monsanto…Bhutto was not a failure. I think it ended exactly as our shadow government wanted. We are in deep doo doo.
Maybe it was Blackwater’s ultimate job not to protect Bhutto.
Serves several purposes. Gets her out of the way for the ISI. Sends a message back to politicians in the US.
Maybe some smart eWheelie will understands what this signifies: Imran Farooq murdered outside London home
Prominent Pakistani politician found with head injuries and stab wounds in north London.