The Breach Of Obama's Passport File

I'm going to try not to speculate on this, as every newscaster I've seen so far has done, but I may highlight a few sentences or words and make a few comments throughout the article.

However I am, firstly, off on a rant about ideological nut cases.

First of all, I just sat in amazement as both Joe Di Geneva and Tucker Carlson, on MSNBC, blamed this breech on, among other things, big government and the much hated, by them, bureaucracy. Are they saying that we should have no passports in this country?

Are they saying that we should be able to go wherever we want, whenever we want and it should be none of the state departments business?

Just try that, Tucker and Joe. You won't get very far because other countries demand that you have a passport.

(Tucker was also visibly upset that this had blown Jeremiah Wright off the TeeVee for at least a day or so and what's-her-face as well. Problem is, What's-her-face seems to have "spoken and she can't shut up.")

I have a libertarian streak in me that's about a mile wide, but even I'm not that stupid. Passports are necessary for many reasons, quite a few of those reasons are for the protection of Americans abroad. However, the information on those passport files should never be used against an American citizen, unless there is other evidence of a crime; a big crime. This is the kind of thing that keeps me from being Libertarian. More knee jerk, thoughtless plugs for your ideology. It's every bit as aggravating as the gun-hating far left using every school shooting to decry the existence of guns in America., when my question is "where the hell are these kid's parents?"

Besides, Americans should be encouraged to travel abroad (not the ugly American, please, but the curious, courteous kind.) I have witnessed an ignorance in this country about other cultures and countries that even I have found shocking and in people I knew and believed to be more informed and open to learning more. When that many people are that ignorant, you can tell them anything and they will believe you, especially if they are ignorant, frightened and looking for an authority figure who will protect them. That, my brothers and sisters, is one super dangerous combination for a Democratic Republic, that is if we still have one.

I grew up in the deep south with a father who had an arsenal, practically. I was never really sure how many guns he had until he died, and I didn't really care. My father wouldn't have shot a bird, let alone a human being, unless that bird or that human was threatening his daughter and/or wife, not to mention himself, by entering our house unbidden and in the middle of the night, through a window with a ski mask.

When will we learn? We should not frighten each other, on purpose.

Nevertheless, I did know where two of the guns were. My father showed me where they were and made a big deal of it. He didn't do that often, so I was always impressed when he did. He told me that I should never touch those guns unless he was with me. The calm, firm tone in his voice was all it took. I never touched the things. I wouldn't even open the sock drawer where his pistol was. When I did the laundry, on occasion, I laid his socks, neatly folded, on the top of the dresser.

Later, my grandfather taught me to shoot, on a farm we had back then, with Dad's permission, of course. No, not even that made me want to pick up a gun for any other reason than shooting those tin cans off the rock fence and even then, as a teenager, my grandfather was with me. We had contests by then. I would try to out shoot him. I don't think I ever did. But it was fun, like shooting arrows, which I also did, at a big stack of bailed hay with a homemade target on it. I would most certainly learn to shoot arrows, as that was a part of my heritage.

I realize that that rant had absolutely nothing to do with the real point of this article, but there is nothing that will bring on a rant from me like concrete-minded, knee jerk babbling of ideology, even when its absolutely stupid in the context.

So, I still ask, where are the parents? You all know who I'm talking about, those Americans who are held in such high regard that they get tax breaks, apparently whether they are doing their jobs or not.

WASHINGTON — The State Department says it is trying to determine whether three contract workers had a political motive for looking at Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's passport file.

Two of the employees were fired for the security breach and the third was disciplined but is still working, the department said Thursday night. It would not release the names of those who were fired and disciplined or the names of the two companies for which they worked. The department's inspector general is investigating.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said that for now it appears that nothing other than "imprudent curiosity" was involved in three separate breaches of the Illinois senator's personal information, "but we are taking steps to reassure ourselves that that is, in fact, the case."

BWAhahahaha. Couldn't help it! Excuse me while I get the coffee of my monitor

It is not clear whether the employees saw anything other than the basic personal data such as name, citizenship, age, Social Security number and place of birth that is required when a person fills out a passport application.

It's enough for identity theft, which could lead to all kinds of mischief!

Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama's presidential campaign, called for a complete investigation.

"This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an administration that has shown little regard for either over the last eight years," Burton said. "Our government's duty is to protect the private information of the American people, not use it for political purposes."

"This is a serious matter that merits a complete investigation, and we demand to know who looked at Senator Obama's passport file, for what purpose and why it took so long for them to reveal this security breach," he said.

The breaches occurred on Jan. 9, Feb. 21 and March 14 and were detected by internal State Department computer checks, McCormack said. The department's top management officer, Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy, said certain records, including those of high-profile people, are "flagged" with a computer tag that tips off supervisors when someone tries to view the records without a proper reason.

I feel it necessary to add this: When an employee attempts to look into the passport records of certain high profile people, not only is there an immediate notification to the supervisor, but a warning appears on the screen that the file cannot must not be pulled up unless for certain necessary reasons and only with permission from higher-ups at state. This warning is immediate and given before a person commits the "error" of "imprudent curiosity." Ask yourself, would you let your own curiosity get the best of you in such a situation? In this economy would you risk losing your well-paying job over curiosity? Maybe the old saying is right; curiosity killed the cat. But cats don't have pre-frontal lobes which make executive decisions for us and, hopefully, keep us from ignoring warning signs.

The firings and unspecified discipline of the third employee already had occurred when senior State Department officials learned of the breaches. Kennedy called that a failing.

Therefore there can be no full investigation of this incident as two of the employees are gone, having been fired and beyond the reach of the State Department, though not beyond the reach of the FBI. If I were them, I would be camping out in Congress, begging to tell their story for immunity if a real crime has been committed.

"I will fully acknowledge this information should have been passed up the line," Kennedy told reporters in a conference call Thursday night. "It was dealt with at the office level."

In answer to a question, Kennedy said the department doesn't look into political affiliation in doing background checks on passport workers. "Now that this has arisen, this becomes a germane question, and that will be something for the appropriate investigation to look into," he said.

Nor should the State Department routinely check the political affiliation of any potential employee. That would be illegal. But political affiliation should have been checked immediately after all three breaches. Why are the names of the contracting companies being released. They have no right to privacy in this issue that I am aware of, especially since they have been accused of nothing.

The department informed Obama's Senate office of the breach on Thursday. Kennedy said that at the office's request, he will provide a personal briefing for the senator's staff on Friday. No one from the State Department spoke to Obama personally on Thursday, the officials said.

And say what, exactly? Mr Kennedy doesn't know anymore about this issue than I do, if he is telling the truth about when upper level management knew about it. The fate of the contracted employees was decided by the janitor it seems and no investigation was done. There is no one to investigate since the guy who would have done that left his position at State ahead of congressional subpoenas. (Remember Old Cookie Krongard?) He did have an assistant, but as I say, the two fired employees are out of the reach of the State Department now and as we all know referring anything to Justice is like shooting it toward a black hole from which no information ever emerges. They still do have the third "curious employee." Perhaps, she he should be called before a congressional ASAP, even if they have to offer immunity.

Obama was born in Hawaii and lived in Indonesia for several years as a child before returning to the United States. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has traveled to the Middle East; the former Soviet states with Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind.; and Africa, where in 2006 he and his wife, Michelle, publicly took HIV tests in Kenya to encourage people there to do the same.

Obama's father was born in Kenya, and the senator still has relatives there.

The disclosure of inappropriate passport inquiries recalled an incident in 1992, when a Republican political appointee at the State Department was demoted over a search of presidential candidate Bill Clinton's passport records. At the time he was challenging President George H.W. Bush.

Maybe they learned a lesson from that; don't use political appointees for your political dirty work. Use contractors. It seems to work in Iraq. Joe Di Geneva, far right lawyer, said last night that the Clinton investigation, which he ran as a special "independent" counsel said that that the GHWB stunt was just stupid, but not a crime because none of Clinton's information could be used politically it was not "disseminated." Had it been, it would have been a felony. Let's face it, it wasn't disseminated because there was nothing there that would prove harmful to Clinton's campaign and I imagine that the Bush campaign, if not the W.H., was in formed of that.

But we can't help but wonder. Like father, like son?

The State Department's inspector general said the official had helped arrange the search in an attempt to find politically damaging information about Clinton, who had been rumored to have considered renouncing his citizenship to avoid the Vietnam War draft.

Not a very bright move for a man who had wanted to be president almost his entire life.

It seems to me that the use of government agencies against the political opposition, elected or rank and file, should be a felony in itself, whether such an effort bears fruit or not. Is my memory failing me or isn't that what finally did Nixon in; the use of executive branch agencies against people who were on his "enemies list"? (We are talking the IRS and other agencies, plus the use of rogue elements who came to be known as the Plumbers.) It wasn't the secret bombing of Cambodia and therefore the broadening of the war, and sending our soldiers and sailors into Cambodia, unknown to the American people or Congress that did him in any more than the war crimes of this administration will be the reason for their down fall. Presidents always get in trouble for what they do to the American people and the political opposition, unless, of course, the people are scared witless of an outside enemy and allow breaches of their own personal security, by allowing their own government to shred the constitution and throw their rights out the widow.

We hapless, stupid Americans: like lambs to the slaughter.

Just imagine Hillary with all the new powers afforded the new president under the unitary executive theory of government.

The State Department said the official, Steven Berry, had shown "serious lapses in judgment."

After a three-year, $2.2 million probe, a federal independent counsel exonerated officials in the incident, saying that while some of the actions investigated were "stupid, dumb and partisan," they were not criminal. The independent counsel also said that Berry and others who were disciplined for their involvement were treated unfairly.

What do you think should have happened to them, Mr. Di Geneva? Perhaps a medal of freedom?

Doug Hattaway, a spokesman for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former first lady who is challenging Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, said of the current breach: "It's outrageous and the Bush administration has to get to the bottom of it."

Yeah right, Hillary. Are you going to keep pushing for the truth on this one, are are you going to wait until it happens to you and it will. Oh boy, is it going to happen to you and it won't matter one bit whether it's the truth or a lie.

You and your campaign are using the kitchen sink strategy against Obama. McCain will use the airborne and special forces against you, Dear Lady, all the while saying he isn't doing it and he may be telling the truth. It may be the Rovian forces, now in darkness, who come after you.

Kennedy and McCormack said it was too soon to say whether a crime was committed. The searches may violate the federal Privacy Act, and Kennedy said he is consulting State Department lawyers.

Too soon? Given how long it's been going on and how many times it's happened, it may well be too late.

The State Department inspector general's power is limited because two of the employees are no longer working for the department. McCormack said it was premature to consider whether the FBI or Justice Department should be involved.

McCormack said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was informed of the breaches on Thursday.

I don't doubt that. Why on earth involve her?

For anyone who is interested, there are some curious correlations between the time of the breeches and what was going on concurrently on the political landscape.

But, here is what I don't get and what may make it clear that this was not political. Obama is now a presidential candidate, surrounded by secret service and the press. How could he have gotten out of the U.S. and come back in without everyone knowing any way on or around the dates of the breaches. Why did it take three times, if it is political. Admittedly, Obama's passport file is probably pretty long. But these days it's all on computer, easily pulled up and read.The contractors who committed the beaches were data entry people. Was there a plan afoot to alter Obama's file in some way in order to scare Americans, again?

Passport files contain much more than most Americans think they do. They are not simply a record of where one went and when, especially when one is an official in the U.S. or people who are being watched by the government for whatever reasons. Like maybe they are Quakers or other dangerous pacifists. (snark)

I wonder why no one finds McCain's or Hillary's file all that interesting, or even Bill's file, these days. God only knows what he's been up to! LOL

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Stop Blackwater Investigation Immediately!

WASHINGTON — The State Department's acerbic top auditor wasn't happy when Justice Department officials told one of his aides to leave the room so they could discuss a criminal investigation of Blackwater Worldwide, the contractor protecting U.S. diplomats in Iraq.

The episode reveals the badly strained relationship between Bush administration officials over the probe into whether Blackwater smuggled weapons into Iraq that could have gotten into insurgents' hands.

As a result of the bureaucratic crosscurrents between State's top auditor and Justice, the investigation has been bogged down for months.

A key date was July 11, when Howard Krongard, State's inspector general, sent an e-mail to one of his assistant inspector generals, telling him to "IMMEDIATELY" stop work on the Blackwater investigation. That lead to criticisms by Democrats that Krongard has tried to protect Blackwater and block investigations into contractor-related wrongdoing in Iraq.

"Instead of cooperating, Mr. Krongard apparently created a series of obstacles to the inquiry," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee examining Krongard's performance as the State Department official responsible for stamping out waste, fraud and abuse.

Krongard, whose credibility was damaged by the recent disclosure that his brother had a business affiliation with Blackwater, has disputed the charge, though he recused himself from Blackwater matters after the potential conflict of interest emerged.

His aide, Terry Heide, who was kicked out of the July 31 meeting, also says she's been unfairly blamed for slowing the Blackwater probe. Her role was to collect State Department documents for the investigators - a job she did well, according to her lawyer. But even Krongard's own staff saw her as a hindrance.

Brian Rubendall, a senior State Department investigator, has questioned the halt in the inquiry, telling the oversight committee in an October interview that there was no justifiable "reason for us to stop that investigation. None."

Krongard said he put the brakes on because he was concerned a separate audit of Blackwater contracts might "contaminate" the Justice Department's work.

Blackwater has called the smuggling allegations baseless. However, earlier this year two former Blackwater employees pleaded guilty to possession of stolen firearms that were shipped in interstate or foreign commerce. They are cooperating with federal agents. Blackwater said the two were fired after it was learned they were stealing from the company.

Altogether, the trail of internal e-mails, testimony from a Nov. 14 oversight hearing and interviews with participants form a picture of bureaucratic infighting with consequences far beyond Washington.

The State Department's role in the Blackwater weapons probe began months before the Sept. 16 Baghdad shootings by Blackwater guards that killed 17 Iraqis and escalated public scrutiny of the company.

In March, Ron Militana, a special agent in the investigations unit, received Rubendall's approval to interview State Department personnel and meet with Blackwater attorneys about allegations the company was illegally transporting arms into Iraq. Militana also discussed potential criminal proceedings in the case with a federal prosecutor.

In late June, John DeDona, then chief of the IG's investigative unit, e-mailed Krongard and his deputy, William Todd, to alert them to the probe. Krongard responded cryptically: "Please do not treat anything in the e-mail below as having been seen by me, advised to me, or understood or approved by me. If there is something significant in the message below, please come and tell me about it."

Two weeks later, as Militana was trying to obtain copies of Blackwater contracts from the department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, DeDona sent another message to Krongard telling him of Militana's work.

In a July 11 e-mail to DeDona, Krongard told him Militana was to "IMMEDIATELY" stop the work. Krongard said he wanted a briefing from the U.S. Attorney's office in North Carolina on its Blackwater investigation before his agents went farther.

Waxman and other critics say Howard Krongard's order to halt came at the same time Blackwater CEO Erik Prince was considering whether to offer his brother, Alvin "Buzzy" Krongard, a spot on the company's newly forming advisory board.

On July 26, Prince invited Alvin Krongard to join Blackwater's advisory board. A week later, Robert Higdon, chief of the criminal division in the U.S. Attorney's office for the eastern district of North Carolina, and James Candelmo, Higdon's deputy, were in Washington for the July 31 meeting with Krongard and his investigators.

Blackwater is based in Moyock, N.C.

Howard Krongard initially said his brother had no ties to Blackwater. But during the Nov. 14 oversight hearing, he recused himself from inquiries related to the company, explaining that Alvin Krongard had just told him he had attended an advisory board meeting. Alvin Krongard resigned from the board two days later because of the uproar the arrangement created.

While Democrats claimed a glaring conflict of interest, Krongard said he pulled his staff off the Blackwater probe so they wouldn't step on work being done by Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

Bowen had sought help from Krongard's office to audit two Blackwater contracts _ the same ones Militana was helping the U.S. Attorney's office examine, according to Krongard, who said alarms went off when he realized the potential overlap.

"To be assisting a criminal investigation into the exact same two contracts that we were already assisting a civil audit into, raised a question of parallel proceedings, which needed to be deconflicted before one infected or contaminated the other," he said.

Krongard did not say what the contracts are for or give their value. The State Department pays Blackwater and two other firms $570 million a year for security services.

In a deposition to the oversight committee, Todd, the deputy inspector general, supported Krongard. "We had basically several of the same organizations looking at the exact same stuff," Todd said.

But Waxman rejected the rationale. "You halted an investigation, demanded a personal briefing from the Justice Department, (and) assigned your congressional affairs director to keep tabs on the investigation," Waxman said to Krongard at the hearing. Waxman called the moves "highly unorthodox."

Heide, the congressional affairs director Krongard called his "alter ego," was collecting the documents needed by Bowen and the U.S Attorney's office, e-mails show.

But members of Krongard's own staff, along with Higdon and Candelmo of the U.S. attorney's office in North Carolina, saw her as a roadblock. Rubendall told the committee Candelmo and Higdon planned in advance to raise grand jury information during the July 31 meeting in order to force Heide out of the room.

"We weren't going to discuss grand jury material, but that was the ruse that they were going to use to get her out of the meeting," Rubendall said.

Heide referred questions to her attorney, David Laufman, who said an e-mail exchange between Krongard and Heide indicated she was doing as directed.

"I am trying to stay only situationally aware," she wrote Aug. 8, "so I can keep any conflicts at bay."

Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd would not comment on the investigation, but said, "The suggestion that the Justice Department engaged in a ruse in this matter is flatly incorrect."

According to Waxman, the problems hampering the Blackwater probe persist. Justice investigators have been unable to get needed documents. Militana has not been allowed to give his full attention to the criminal investigation even though Krongard said he would.

"I think that the State Department is responsible for investigating crimes perpetrated against the State Department," Militana said in an October interview with the committee. "The (Justice Department) can do it, of course, but there has to be some involvement by the State Department."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Just How Sorvergein Is Iraq, Mr. Bush?

If Iraq is a sovereign nation, they can ask anyone to leave any damn time they please for improper use of a pea-shooter, wearing the wrong color skin color, any color turban, or for any freakin' reason, for that matter...or they can not allow them in to begin with.

If you can recall, Mr Bush, we do that all the time.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's prime minister wants private military contractor Blackwater out of his country after an Iraqi probe found Blackwater guards randomly shot civilians without provocation in a Baghdad square last month, an aide said Tuesday.

Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and most Iraqi officials are "completely satisfied" with the findings and are "insisting" that Blackwater leave the country, al-Maliki adviser Sami al-Askari told CNN.

The U.S. State Department and the FBI are conducting their own investigation into the September 16 killings in western Baghdad's Nusoor Square, and a joint U.S.-Iraqi commission is reviewing the results of both probes. Mirembe Natango, a U.S. Embassy spokeswoman, said policy recommendations would be up to that commission.

"We need to let the joint commission do its work," Natango said.

The State Department relies on Blackwater contractors to provide security for U.S. Embassy staff and has paid the company more than $830 million for its services since 2004, according to the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee. In Washington, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said the department has received "no specific request" from Iraq to withdraw the company's contractors.

Iraqi officials said 17 people, including women and children, were killed and 27 were wounded when Blackwater guards fired on motorists around Nusoor Square. The Iraqi investigation has concluded the shootings were an act of "premeditated murder" and recommended that Blackwater pay $8 million to families of each of the people killed.

Blackwater founder and CEO Erik Prince said Sunday the team was attacked and was defending itself at an intersection not far from the heavily guarded Green Zone.

"There was definitely incoming small arms fire from insurgents," Prince said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer." There was no "deliberate violence," he added. Watch more on the Blackwater investigation »

Don't Miss

• Blackwater CEO: Guards were 'definitely' fired on
• Survivors of Blackwater shooting in Iraq tell FBI their stories
• Source: Soldiers found no evidence gunmen fired on Blackwater

But survivors have told FBI investigators harrowing stories of being shot at by the guards despite presenting no threat. And the first U.S. soldiers to arrive on the scene have told military investigators that they found no evidence the contractors were fired upon, a source familiar with a preliminary U.S. military report told CNN.

The soldiers found evidence suggesting the guards fired on cars that were trying to leave, and found that weapon casings on the scene matched only those used by U.S. military and contractors, the military source said.

The shootings placed new scrutiny on the operations of Blackwater and other security firms in Iraq, where an estimated 25,000 private contractors protect diplomats, reconstruction workers and government officials. Under a provision put into place in the early days of the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, security contractors have immunity from Iraqi law.

Earlier this month, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly voted to place private contractors overseas firmly under U.S. law, allowing American courts to prosecute crimes committed in a war zone. E-mail to a friend

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Blackwater: Cans open, freakin' worms everywhere...

Report Depicts Recklessness at Blackwater

By DAVID STOUT and JOHN M. BRODER

WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 — Guards working in Iraq for Blackwater USA have shot innocent Iraqi civilians and have sought to cover up the incidents, sometimes with the help of the State Department, a report to a Congressional committee said today.

(Can them mercenaries because that's what they are!)

The report, based largely on internal Blackwater e-mail messages and State Department documents, depicts the security contractor as being staffed with reckless, shoot-first guards who were not always sober and did not always stop to see who or what was hit by their bullets.

In one incident, the State Department and Blackwater agreed to pay $15,000 to the family of a man killed by “a drunken Blackwater contractor,” the report said. As a State Department official wrote, “We would like to help them resolve this so we can continue with our protective mission.”

The report was compiled by the Democratic majority staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which is scheduled to hold a hearing on Blackwater activities on Tuesday. That hearing is sure to be contentious now that the chairman, Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, and other members have the staff’s findings to study.

A Blackwater spokeswoman, Anne Tyrrell, had no immediate comment. “We look forward to setting the record straight,” she told The Associated Press. Erik Prince, Blackwater’s founder and chairman, is to testify before Mr. Waxman’s panel. The State Department said several of its senior officials would address the issues in the report at the hearing on Tuesday.

The report is likely to raise questions not only about the wisdom of employing private security forces in Iraq, but also about the basic American mission in the country.

Blackwater guards have engaged in nearly 200 incidents of gunfire in Iraq since 2005, and in the vast majority of cases Blackwater people fired their weapons from moving vehicles without stopping to count the dead or assist the injured, the report found.

The shootings logged by Blackwater were more than those by the other two private military contractors combined, the committee found. Blackwater has more than twice the number of contractors than the other two combined. The other contractors are DynCorp International and Triple Canopy.

“Blackwater also has the highest incidence of shooting first, although all three companies shoot first in more than half of all escalation-of-forces incidents,” the staff report said.

And the State Department’s own documents “raise serious questions” about how department officials responded to reports of Blackwater killings of Iraqis, the report said.

“There is no evidence in the documents that the committee has reviewed that the State Department sought to restrain Blackwater’s actions, raised concerns about the number of shooting incidents involving Blackwater or the company’s high rate of shooting first, or detained Blackwater contractors for investigation,” the committee staff wrote.

Moreover, contrary to the terms of its contract, Blackwater sometimes engaged in offensive operations with the American military, instead of confining itself to its protective mission, the staff found.

The report also raised questions about the cost-effectiveness of using Blackwater forces instead of United States troops. Blackwater charges the government $1,222 per day per guard, “equivalent to $445,000 per year, or six times more than the cost of an equivalent U.S. soldier,” the report said.

The incident involving “a drunken Blackwater contractor” arose when the employee killed a bodyguard for the Iraqi vice president, Adil Abd-al-Mahdi, in December 2006. State Department officials allowed Blackwater to take the shooter out of Iraq less than 36 hours later.

Then the State Department charge d’affaires recommended that Blackwater make “a sizable payment” and an “apology” in an effort to “avoid this whole thing becoming even worse,” the report went on. The State Department official suggested a $250,000 payment to the guard’s family, but the department’s Diplomatic Security Service said that was too much and could cause Iraqis to “try to get killed.” In the end, $15,000 was agreed upon. The report adds credence to complaints from Iraqi officials, American military officers and Blackwater’s competitors that company guards have adopted an aggressive, trigger-happy approach and displayed disregard for Iraqi life.

In late March 2004, four Americans working for Blackwater were ambushed and killed, and an enraged mob then jubilantly dragged the burned bodies through the streets of downtown Falluja, hanging at least two corpses from a bridge over the Euphrates River.

The Congressional report, based on 437 internal Blackwater incident reports as well as internal State Department correspondence, says that that Blackwater’s use of force “is frequent and extensive, resulting in significant casualties and property damage.” It notes that Blackwater’s contract authorizes it to use lethal force only to prevent “imminent and grave danger” to themselves or the people they are paid to protect.

“In practice, however,” the report says, “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.” Among the incidents cited in the report:

On Oct. 24, 2005, Blackwater guards fired on a car that failed to heed a warning to stop. In the gunfire, a civilian bystander was hit in the head with a bullet, but Blackwater personnel did not stop. Blackwater officials reported the incident as a “probable killing” but there is no evidence the company offered compensation to the victim’s family.

On June 25, 2005, a Blackwater team in Hillah fatally shot an Iraqi man, a father of six, in the chest. The victim’s family complained to the State Department, which said in an internal report that the Blackwater gunmen initially failed to report the killing and tried to cover it up.

On Sept. 24, 2006, a Blackwater convoy with four vehicles was driving the wrong way on a road in Hillah when a red Opel failed to get out of the way. The Opel skidded into one of the Blackwater vehicles, disabling it. The Opel then hit a telephone pole and burst into flames. The Blackwater team scooped up its people and equipment from the disabled vehicle and fled the scene without attempting to help the occupants of the burning car.

On Nov. 28, 2005, a Blackwater motorcade traveling to and from the Iraqi oil ministry collided with 18 different vehicles. According to an internal Blackwater report of the incident, the statements from employees were “invalid, inaccurate, and at best, dishonest.” Two Blackwater employees were dismissed, but there was no other apparent action taken as a result.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Is There Anyone Who Hasn't Committed A Crime?

In my 58 years I have never seen such corruption, and I live in the deep south where corruption has been a way of life since reconstruction.

Congressman: State Dept. official threatened investigators

By Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers

• Posted on Friday, September 28, 2007

WASHINGTON — Aides to State Department Inspector General Howard Krongard threatened two investigators with retaliation this week if they cooperate with a congressional probe into Krongard's office, the chairman of a House of Representatives panel and other U.S. officials said Friday.

The allegations are the latest in a growing uproar surrounding Krongard. Current and former officials in his office charge that he impeded investigations into alleged arms smuggling by employees of the private security firm Blackwater and into faulty construction of the new U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

Krongard has denied the charges and is due to appear before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee next month.

In a statement e-mailed to reporters Friday, his office said it was cooperating with investigators.

"The Office of the Inspector General has cooperated with and will continue to cooperate with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's investigation," the statement said. "Furthermore, the OIG will continue to make any OIG employee available to speak with the committee, if they choose."

Officials at the State Department and other agencies said support for Krongard appeared to be slipping and that it remained uncertain whether he could keep his job. They spoke on condition of anonymity, because Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hasn't made a final decision in the matter.

The probe into Krongard's office is being led by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House oversight committee.

The two investigators said they were threatened with retaliation — perhaps including losing their jobs — if they cooperated, Waxman said in a letter to Krongard.

According to the letter, Krongard's congressional liaison told one of the two, Special Agent Ronald A. Militana, "Howard can fire you. It would affect your ability to get another job."

In a telephone interview, Militana confirmed that he's filed a complaint with Waxman's panel and said the congressman's letter quoted him accurately. He declined to comment further.

Militana and the other investigator, Assistant Special Agent in Charge Brian Rubendall, were among those pressing for an investigation into whether employees of Blackwater were illegally shipping automatic weapons and other military goods to Iraq without a license. Rubendall couldn't be reached for comment.

McClatchy Newspapers reported last week that two Blackwater employees have pleaded guilty in Greenville, N.C., to weapons charges and are cooperating with federal officials.

Blackwater, which has received roughly $835 million in State Department contracts, mostly to guard U.S. civilians in Iraq, is under intense scrutiny after a series of violent incidents involving its contractors. In the most recent, Blackwater teams were involved in a shooting at a busy Baghdad traffic circle Sept.16 that killed 11 Iraqis.

According to an e-mail obtained by Waxman's committee, Krongard intervened when federal prosecutors asked for help from his office in investigating the Blackwater arms-smuggling allegations.

The investigations division of the inspector general's office "is directed to stop IMMEDIATELY any work on these contracts until I receive a briefing from the (assistant U.S. attorney) regarding the details of this investigation. SA Militana, ASAIC Rubendall and any others involved are to be directed by you not to proceed in any manner until the briefing takes place," Krongard wrote to a subordinate July 11.

Krongard denied those allegations on Sept. 18 and said he'd made "one of my best investigators" available to help the Justice Department.

That investigator, Waxman wrote Friday, was Militana.

Several current and former State Department officials have sought whistleblower protection after complaining about Krongard conducted the inspector general's office, according to a U.S. official who requested anonymity.

In a related development, members of a panel that Rice set up to review State Department security operations in Iraq are due to depart for Baghdad this weekend.

The department announced that the panel, led by Patrick Kennedy, State's director of management policy, will be composed of retired Army Gen. George Joulwan, who served as NATO's supreme allied commander, Europe; former Ambassador to China Stapleton Roy; and retired Ambassador Eric Boswell, who served as assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security.

ON THE WEB

Read Waxman's letter.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

Coverups, Coverups, Coverups

The most appallingly corrupt administration we have ever seen in the U.S. Seems like nothing will ever be done about it either, at least not officially.


Lawmaker: State Dept. Muzzling Officials
The Associated Press

Tuesday 25 September 2007

Washington - A House lawmaker on Tuesday complained to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about the alleged muzzling of State Department officials in inquiries involving Blackwater USA and Iraq's government.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the State Department had informed the committee that State employees could not discuss potential corruption in the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki unless the information was treated as a national security secret.

Blackwater USA, the North Carolina-based security contractor involved in the deaths of civilians in Iraq this month, has also claimed that the State Department had banned company communication with Waxman's investigators, the lawmaker said.

"I urge you to reconsider the unusual positions you are taking," Waxman wrote to Rice. "You are wrong to interfere with the committee's inquiry."

The State Department said it was cooperating with the committee and is providing the information requested.

"Blackwater has been informed that the State Department has no objection to it providing information to the committee," said Tom Casey, a State Department spokesman. "We have offered to make available for testimony those officials in the best position to respond to the specific issues the committee has raised."

Waxman said his staff was told Monday that State Department officials with what he called "direct knowledge of corruption within the Maliki government" were barred from giving the committee "assessments which judge or characterize the quality of Iraqi governance," or Baghdad's ability to address corruption, unless the material was withheld from the public.

In the Blackwater matter, Waxman said the company claimed that the State Department insisted on reviewing and approving any documents the company gave to the committee. He also said Rice has refused to testify before his committee about the status of political reconciliation in Iraq, potential corruption or the Blackwater incident.

Rice has ordered a review of security practices for U.S. diplomats in Iraq following the killing of 11 Iraqis this month while Blackwater guards were protecting a U.S. Embassy convoy.

Waxman and Rice tangled earlier this year when she refused to appear in person to answer questions about the Bush administration's prewar intelligence. Rice said she already has addressed claims that Iraq had sought uranium from the African nation of Niger.

---

Go to Original

Chairman Waxman Writes to Secretary Rice on State Department Stonewalling
The Gavel

Tuesday 25 September 2007

Today Chairman Henry Waxman of the Oversight Committee wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about three extraordinary communications the Committee has received from the State Department regarding corruption within the Iraqi government, the operations of Blackwater USA, and the status of political reconciliation in Iraq. The State Department has instructed its officials that they cannot communicate with the Committee about corruption in the Maliki government unless the Committee agrees to treat all information, including "broad statements/assessments," as national security secrets. Other points of growing contention between the Committee and the State Department include Blackwater's assertion that the State Department has instructed the company to withhold information from the Committee and the refusal of Secretary Rice to testify.

Letter From Blackwater's Attorney (pdf)

Letter From Department of State to Blackwater (pdf)

Full letter to Secretary Rice (pdf):

September 25, 2007 The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary
US Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520 Dear Madam Secretary: I am writing about three extraordinary communications the Committee has received from the State Department regarding corruption within the Iraqi government, the operations of Blackwater USA, and the status of political reconciliation in Iraq. First, Committee staff were informed yesterday that State Department officials with direct knowledge of corruption within the Maliki government would not be allowed to provide the Committee with "assessments which judge or characterize the quality of Iraqi governance or the ability/determination of the Iraqi government to deal with corruption" unless the Committee agreed to treat this information as classified and withhold it from the public. Second, Blackwater has informed the Committee that a State Department official directed Blackwater not to provide documents relevant to the Committee's investigation into the company's activities in Iraq without the prior written approval of the State Department. Third, the Committee staff were informed that you have refused to testify at any hearing called by this Committee to examine the progress of political reconciliation in Iraq, the impact of corruption in Iraq, and the Blackwater incident. I urge you to reconsider the unusual positions you are taking. Congress has a constitutional prerogative to examine the impacts that corruption within the Iraqi ministries and the activities of Blackwater may have on the prospects for political reconciliation in Iraq. You are wrong to interfere with the Committee's inquiry. The Corruption Investigation As part of the Committee's investigation into corruption in Iraq, I sent you a letter on September 10, 2007, requesting interviews with State Department officials knowledgeable about reports of corruption within the Iraqi ministries and seeking copies of State Department reports on the status of anti-corruption efforts in Iraq. Initially, the State Department refused to allow the Committee to speak with two officials, Vincent Foulk and Christopher Griffith, who worked in the State Department Office of Accountability and Transparency, which is responsible for monitoring corruption within the Iraqi ministries. As a result, the Committee issued subpoenas on September 20 for the deposition of these individuals. Now the State Department is taking the position that investigators for the Committee may speak with these individuals, but that the investigators may not ask them questions that could embarrass the Maliki government unless the Committee agrees to refrain from any public discussion of their answers. State Department officials explained that any information about corruption within the Maliki government must be treated as classified because public discussions could undermine U.S. relations with the Maliki government. This absurd position was confirmed in an e-mail sent to Committee staff last night at 6:55 p.m. In the e-mail, the State Department provided a description of the "redlines" that its employees may not cross in unclassified interviews scheduled for today. According to the State Department, the following information is now classified:

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; Statements/allegations concerning actions by specific individuals, such as the Prime Minister or other GOI officials, or regarding investigations of such officials.

The scope of this prohibition is breathtaking. On its face, it means that unless the Committee agrees to keep the information secret from the public, the Committee cannot obtain information from officials in the Office of Accountability and Transparency about whether there is corruption within the Iraqi ministries, how extensive the corruption is, or whether the corruption is funding the insurgency and undermining public confidence in the Iraqi government. The Committee also cannot obtain information about whether Mr. Maliki himself has been involved in corruption or has intervened to block corruption investigations of Iraqi officials close to Mr. Maliki. The scope of the restrictions is so broad that my staff inquired yesterday whether Ambassador Ryan Crocker violated these restrictions when he testified to Congress earlier this month about the functioning of the Iraqi ministries. State Department officials responded that those statements were not classified because they would not complicate the State Department's relationship with the Maliki government. This morning, Committee staff conducted a transcribed telephone interview with Mr. Foulk. Because of the restrictions placed on Mr. Foulk by the State Department, the interview was virtually worthless. The State Department officials participating on the call would not let Mr. Foulk answer whether there is large-scale corruption in Iraq, whether Iraqi ministers are blocking corruption probes, or whether corruption in Iraq is undermining U.S. efforts. Mr. Foulk stated that he was informed of these new restrictions just this morning and that he had never heard of them before. At one point, Mr. Foulk was read a statement that you made in October 2006, in which you praised Prime Minister Maliki's efforts to combat corruption at the Interior Ministry. In this statement, you said:

I think he's a very good and strong prime minister. And you know, they're really starting to take actions.... [W]e've said many times that the Interior Ministry in the prior government before the permanent government was put in place was not active enough in really rooting out potential corruption and potential violence within the Ministry itself, or of the Ministry forces. And so they are starting to really take some actions of that kind. So I think this is a strong prime minister.

Mr. Foulk was asked whether he agreed or disagreed with this public statement. He said he could not answer this question under the ground rules established by the State Department because his opinion would be considered classified. In effect, your position seems to be that positive information about the Maliki government may be disseminated publicly, but any criticism of the government must be treated as a national security secret. I suppose this would be an effective way for the Bush Administration to control the facts and debate about Iraq, but it has no place in our democracy. The State Department has also refused to turn over to the Committee official reports on corruption in Iraqi ministries. The Committee requested these reports after reading press accounts that assert that the reports depict extensive corruption within the Iraqi ministries. The State Department initially informed Committee staff that the reports were designated "sensitive but unclassified." After receiving the Committee's inquiry, however, the State Department retroactively classified the documents and refused to provide them voluntarily to the Committee. The Committee subpoenaed the documents last week, but they still have not been provided to the Committee in either classified or unclassified form. Obviously, the State Department's position on this matter is ludicrous. Over 3,790 American soldiers have been killed in the Iraq War and another 28,000 have been wounded. The American people have already spent $450 billion on the war. If there is widespread corruption within the Maliki government, this is information that both Congress and the public are entitled to know. The Blackwater Investigation The Committee is also investigating the recent incidents involving Blackwater and as part of this investigation made a request to the company for relevant documents last week. This morning, however, the Committee received a letter from Blackwater stating that the company has received a letter from the State Department that "directs Blackwater USA not to disclose any information concerning the contract without DOS pre-authorization in writing." Blackwater attached a copy of the letter it received from the State Department. In this letter, the State Department contracting officer writes: "I hereby direct Blackwater to make no disclosure of the documents or information" sought by the Committee without written authorization from the State Department. Earlier today, my staff contacted a member of your legislative affairs staff, who agreed to look into this matter and attempt to reverse the position taken by the contracting officer. This should happen without delay. Any interference with the Committee's documents request would be wholly inappropriate. Unless the President is prepared to make an assertion of executive privilege over the Blackwater documents, the State Department has no authority to prevent their transmission to Congress. Testimony Before the Committee As Secretary of State, you have a preeminent role in fostering political reconciliation in Iraq. Although much attention has been paid to the role of the U.S. military in Iraq, most military leaders agree that the key to success in Iraq is political progress rather than military victories. As General Petraeus has stated:

There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq. Military action is necessary to help improve security ... but it is not sufficient. There needs to be a political aspect. Similarly, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has stated: [T]his is not going to be solved by the military. It has to involve political reconciliation in Iraq among Iraqis. We're basically buying them time. That's the whole purpose of this strategy.

You have recognized the significance of your role. As you stated in October 2006:

I'm really here and more on the political side because obviously the political side and the security side are linked. The ability to get a national reconciliation plan, to get everybody to understand precisely how their interests are going to be represented and how their interests are going to be served in this political process, to pull more people into the political process and out of the insurgency, more people into the political process and out of connections with militias, that's why the political process is so central. So I'm really more focused on the political process.

Because of your responsibility for promoting political reconciliation, I asked my staff to work with your staff to arrange a mutually agreeable date for you to testify before the Committee regarding these matters. In numerous telephone calls and e-mails, my staff offered a host of possible dates to accommodate your schedule. Last night, however, your staff informed the Committee that you are "unavailable" for such a hearing. The only rationale offered by your staff was some unspecified "other interest" in having you testify elsewhere on Capitol Hill. I appreciate that you may not want to answer questions about political reconciliation, corruption in Iraq, and Blackwater. But that is not a legitimate basis for refusing to appear before the principal oversight committee in the House about matters within your purview as Secretary of State. Conclusion I urge you to give these matters your immediate attention, to direct your staff to cooperate with the Committee's inquiry, to instruct Blackwater to comply with the Committee's document request, and to arrange a mutually convenient time in October for your testimony before the Committee. Sincerely, Henry A. Waxman
Chairman cc: Tom Davis
Ranking Minority Member

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.

More On Blackwater....

State Dept. ‘Discounts’ Iraqi Report, Clings To Blackwater Line Of ‘Defensive Fire’

On Sunday, employees of an American private security company were involved in a shoot out in central Baghdad that left at least 11 civilians dead, including a mother and her child. A spokeswoman for the firm, Blackwater USA, told reporters that the “independent contractors acted lawfully and appropriately in response to a hostile attack.”

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack supported Blackwater’s version of events, saying yesterday that “the basic fact is that there was an attack on the convoy.” This version of the events, however, was contradicted today by “a preliminary Iraqi report” obtained by the New York Times:

“There was not shooting against the convoy,” said Ali al-Dabbagh, the Iraqi government’s spokesman. “There was no fire from anyone in the square.” […]

American Embassy officials had said Monday that the Blackwater guards had been responding to a car bomb, but Mr. Dabbagh said the bomb was so far away that it could not possibly have been a reason for the convoy to begin shooting.

Instead, he said, the convoy had initiated the shooting when a car did not heed a police officer and moved into an intersection.

“The traffic policeman was trying to open the road for them,” he said. “It was a crowded square. But one small car did not stop. It was moving very slowly. They shot against the couple and their child. They started shooting randomly.”

Witnesses of the incident who spoke to McClatchy on Monday support the Iraqi report. “Three people who claimed to have witnessed the shooting said that only the Blackwater guards were firing.” But in a press briefing today, State Department spokesman Tom Casey dismissed the preliminary report while sticking to the Blackwater line:

QUESTION: But you still maintain that this was a defense action in response to an attack. This is — that’s not, apparently, what the Iraqis are saying.

CASEY: You know, what I know and what Sean said yesterday is the convoy came under attack and there was defensive fire as a result of that.

There are various — there are eyewitness accounts that say a whole variety of different things as to what the sequence was and where fire came from and all that. That’s what the investigation has to figure out.

And I don’t — I don’t want to try and assert for you that things happened in a specific order of events, because I just don’t know that’s true.

QUESTION: OK. This is different from an eyewitness account. This is the Iraqi investigation. So you’re discounting their investigation…

As Spencer Ackerman of TPMmuckraker reports, the State Department has a vested interest in whether Blackwater acted offensively or defensively during the shootout, since their rules of engagement “are set by State” and are more aggressive than “other security contractors who use the Military Rules of Engagement and Rules of Force.”

Additionally, the State Department “rarely” conducts thorough investigations of such incidents in Iraq. “We get almost weekly reports of such shootings,” a State Department official told The Blotter. “But it is close to impossible to go the crime scene and interview witnesses.”

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.