[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Bush's Veto: Let's Hold Blackwater Hostage Despite the dedicated efforts of journalists like Jeremy Scahill and the many diarists on this site, the MSM has not yet caught hold of this story: There are now something like 100,000 private 'contractors' in Iraq, essentially a mercenary army, largely on the payroll of Blackwater USA. Blackwater's presence in Iraq is largely funded through contracts with the Department of State. Without those contractors, Bush would not be talking about a 20,000 or 30,000 troop surge. Do the math. He would have long since demanded an escalation on the order of Vietnam, post-Tet. Many of us object in principle to the idea of these private armies -- whether on foreign or on domestic soil. The Declaration of Independence condemned George III's use of such armies, as we have condemned George the W's use of them in Iraq and in New Orleans. But it strikes me that Blackwater could be the soft underbelly of Bush's continued occupation of Iraq, as well as his plans for the rest of the region. I would propose, therefore, that the Democrats in Congress inform Bush that if he vetoes the emergency supplemental appropriation bill, then the Congress will take action to require that the Department of State immediately terminate its contracts with Blackwater. I see the following advantages to this course of action: 1. Bush cannot maintain our presence in the region without these contractors. A surge of 30,000 or 50,000 soldiers will be meaningless without the support, security, and 'policing' provided by Blackwater. And what will Bush say -- that democrats refuse to support our 'contractors'? I expect that less than 15% of the voting public even knows about these contractors and the extent of their involvement. I believe that the repos do not want to make an issue of this, either. 2. It will bring the issue of the contractors to the front pages. The MSM will actually have to learn and report what the blogosphere has been discussing for months. And I think that a lot of americans, when they find out about these contractors, who they are, how they are uncontrolled, and how they are compensated (particularly compared to their counterparts in the military) may experience a WTF moment. 3. It will very powerfully rebut any contention by the repo's that the problem with the supplemental appropriation is 'pork', because if there is any pork in Bush's budget, it is for the many contractors like Blackwater (and Halliburton), that have been raking in millions of dollars during this war. It will allow the democrats to gain maximum publicity for the oversight work that has been going on in the area of government contracts since the beginning of the new congress: "You want us to cut pork? We'll cut pork . . . ." 4. And as a totally gratuitous bonus, it will result in tremendous pressure on Lieberman to hold those Katrina oversight hearings that he promised in the Senate. You see, I would bet a small sum of money that the reason that Lieberman changed his mind about those hearings was that oversight of the Halliburton and Blackwater contracts along the Gulf coast would have led straight to their contracts in Iraq. I anticipate the following problems with this proposal: 1. I'm not a government contracts lawyer, and I am sure there will be issues with terminating contracts with suppliers. However, the government does terminate such contracts all the time, and there are undoubtedly very liberal termination provisions in them. The fact that some of the details of the contract terminations -- liquidated damages and such -- may end up in the U.S. Claims Court should not stop Congress from acting. I frankly care less about saving every taxpayer dollar than I do about sending these private armies packing. 2. This administration, under its unitary executive theory, will erect separation-of-powers roadblocks to attempts by Congress to force an agent of the executive -- the Secretary of State -- to terminate contracts funded through her department. If the relevant congressional committees who have been investigating these contracts (primarily Waxman's -- God, he's everywhere!) publicize the evidence of waste and fraud they have uncovered to date, however, I think the political heat can be turned up pretty high. 3. And Bush will try to keep repeating the refrain, "democrats are not supporting the troops." But it will be an attenuated argument, with more steps to explain, and Bush will ultimately have to admit why those contractors are there in the first place -- because we don't have a big enough army to fight all of his wars. I don't think the american people really understand that yet. Is this a half-baked idea? I think it could work. You decide.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: ... (#0)
More lies from the Liar in Chief. I would shoot Blackwater mercs on sight.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
BTP Holdings: I would shoot Blackwater mercs on sight. Here's the problem though. Our DC elites ( both parties) love doing wars - it's how they make $ and accumulate power. So even if Blackwater were taken out of the equation, the political war pigs would be determined to carry on as they always have done. They'd use the draft. So if the kossack thinks Mr.and Mrs. America would be aghast to learn about mercenaries on the payroll, he's badly mistaken. No doubt Mr. and Mrs. America suspect as much already. Because they know what the alternative is and they definitely don't want their 19 year old Johnnies being sent to the meatgrinder. Our gov't is out of control. Mr and Mrs America will choose the less of 2 evil alternatives when all is said and done. Except for christonutters and zionutters, no one wants a draft.
Bravo!
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||