Bengh– Blackwater!
You should definitely read the James Risen story describing how the head of Blackwater’s operations in Iraq threatened to kill an investigator into the company’s practices in the period before the Nisour Square. It definitely confirms every concern that has been raised about mercenaries generally and Blackwater specifically.
But I want to look at the frame Risen gave the story, which I suspect few will read closely.
His memo and other newly disclosed State Department documents make clear that the department was alerted to serious problems involving Blackwater and its government overseers before the Nisour Square shooting, which outraged Iraqis and deepened resentment over the United States’ presence in the country.
[snip]
Condoleezza Rice, then the secretary of state, named a special panel to examine the Nisour Square episode and recommend reforms, but the panel never interviewed Mr. Richter or Mr. Thomas.
Patrick Kennedy, the State Department official who led the special panel, told reporters on Oct. 23, 2007, that the panel had not found any communications from the embassy in Baghdad before the Nisour Square shooting that raised concerns about contractor conduct.
“We interviewed a large number of individuals,” Mr. Kennedy said. “We did not find any, I think, significant pattern of incidents that had not — that the embassy had suppressed in any way.”
The reason this is coming out — aside from the fact the government is trying to try the Nisour Square killers again — is to show that contrary to what Patrick Kennedy said after having done a review of security practices in 2007, there had been a pattern of incidents, and they had been suppressed by the Embassy.
Now consider how that reflects on the GOP’s second favorite scandal, Benghazi. Not only was Kennedy the key judge about the events leading up to that event (which is normal — he’s been a key player in State for a very long time; I’m beginning to believe he’s State’s institutional defender in the same way David Margolis was at DOJ), but the question of security oversight is important there: Blue Mountain Group appears to have done its job inadequately (and there are some sketchy things about its contract and contractors).
Benghazi is actually not a bigger scandal than that State suppressed knowledge of Blackwater’s problems. But there does seem to be continuity.
One of the major aspects of the Benghazi coverup is: Why was Ambassador Chris Stevens even in Benghazi, far from the nation’s capital, at a critical time of government formation in Tripoli. All we have, the only time it’s been mentioned, is Obama’s humorous lies.
.
President Obama at the UNGA:
Chris Stevens loved his work. He took pride in the country he served, and he saw dignity in the people that he met. And two weeks ago, he traveled to Benghazi to review plans to establish a new cultural center and modernize a hospital. That’s when America’s compound came under attack. Along with three of his colleagues, Chris was killed in the city that he helped to save. He was 52 years old.
.
Stevens was at the CIA cell playing (again) secret agent, coordinating arms shipments to Syria via Turkey. His last official act in Benghazi was a visit with the Turkish ambassador. This took precedence over the US-instigated regime change in Libya, and it took Stevens’ life.
cover stories are a necessary fact of life. they are part of official,public lying. some are useful and undersyandable.
would you have gone before a mike at the white house and said this:
“..Stevens was at the CIA cell playing (again) secret agent, coordinating arms shipments to Syria via Turkey. His last official act in Benghazi was a visit with the Turkish ambassador. This took precedence over the US-instigated regime change in Libya, and it took Stevens’ life…” ?
there are plenty of consequential presidential lies to criticize, but do you really think the following is truly a lie or truly a consequential lie:
“…President Obama at the UNGA:
Chris Stevens loved his work. He took pride in the country he served, and he saw dignity in the people that he met. And two weeks ago, he traveled to Benghazi to review plans to establish a new cultural center and modernize a hospital. That’s when America’s compound came under attack. Along with three of his colleagues, Chris was killed in the city that he helped to save. He was 52 years old….” ?
So the Democratic response to the Benghazi attack is both (1) Move along, there’s nothing to see here; and (2) Duh, obviously everyone knows it’s a coverup of covert CIA operations!
just what is the cover-up that concerns you re “benghazi”?
in your mind who specifically is conducting (or did conduct) this cover-up?
just exactly who, and for what transgression, should congressman issa be focusing on in his on -and on – going investigation?
The trial ended in a hung jury in 2011. A re-trial was indicated, but I see nothing.
Anyone?
Slated…..http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7-years-later-blackwater-guards-go-trial
The tension between State and Embassy makes Benghazi a little clearer.
As some of your commentators have suggested, the Benghazi incident probably was the result of an arms transaction for Syria’s rebels gone bad (despite the phony posturing to the contrary by politicians in both parties). But the Benghazi incident is even more emblematic of the cesspool that Washington politics has become and illustrates how outside security companies have become more powerful in the years following 9/11. What has received scant attention in the MSM is the fact that the State Department had previously entered into a multi-billion dollar contract with a security company called Aegis LLC to provide security at various State Department properties around the world, including the consulate at Benghazi. The CEO of this company at the time of the incident was Kristi Clemens Rogers, the wife of Congressman Mike Rogers, the principal defender of the NSA in the House of Representatives. Supposedly, this inconvenient relationship is behind his decision not to seek reelection.
very interesting part of the story.
The life and times of Patrick Kennedy are worth a look.
He spent a year in Baghdad – May 2004 to April 2005 – first as chief of staff for the Coalition Provisional Authority and then, after Bremer vaporized, as chief of staff to the transition unit. In July 2004, the State Department hired Blackwater to provide protective services in Iraq. The ratio of State Department security people and Blackwater contractors there was 1:10. Kennedy served out the rest of his time in Baghdad among those contractors, dependent on them for security.
In 2010, in a letter to President Obama, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) challenged Kennedy’s maneuvering to select and control the State Department’s acting inspector general, short circuiting independent oversight of the Department’s dealings with contractors. POGO also noted concerns that were circulating about how Kennedy awarded contracts to poorly performing companies. Also, the 2011 POGO follow-up on the acting IG’s recusal from an investigation of Kennedy.
Spencer Ackerman in Wired the following year: “This is a crucial moment for the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. When it doesn’t depend on local guards to protect embassies, it depends on private security contractor in dangerous places. Numerous internal State Department studies have faulted the bureau for lax oversight of those contractors, which has led to dead local civilians and wasted money. And it’s not just the bureau: its ultimate boss, Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy, blocked Congress’ Iraq watchdog from learning even basic facts about its hired army in Iraq. The bureau may have been burned by the Benghazi commission, but it’s about to have a lot more cash on its hands.”
There’s more, of course.
thanks for this very informative comment.
kennedy sounds like another of the barnacle incrusted bureaucratic dreadnaughts who can have more influence and practical power within their sector than a senior congressman or a president.