The Political Chase

NBC identifies contractors in passport passport

The two State Department contractors who looked at Barrack Obama’s passport records and were subsequently fired worked for Stanley, Inc. The third contractor who breached the secure records, but was not fired, worked for The Analysis Corporation.

From NBC News:

Two of the government contractors who accessed Sen. Barack Obama’s passport records worked for a Virginia-based firm called Stanley, Inc., the company said in a statement. A third contractor who looked at passport information for Sen. Obama and Sen. John McCain worked for a company called The Analysis Corporation, the State Department said.

"Two Stanley subcontractor employees were involved in the unauthorized access of Senator Barack Obama’s passport files," a Stanley, Inc., spokeswoman said. "In each of these instances the employee was terminated the day the unauthorized search occurred…"

Stanley, Inc., is headquartered in Arlington, Va. The State Department awarded it a contract for $164 million in 2006, to print and mail millions of new U.S. passports. Stanley announced on Monday that it was awarded an additional $570 million contract to "continue support of the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs/Passport Services Directorate."

One Stanley, Inc., contractor looked at Obama’s passport records on January 9, and then a second Stanley employee accessed similar Obama records on February 21, U.S. officials familiar with the controversy told NBC News. The Stanley spokeswoman would not identify the workers or explain why they had accessed Obama’s passport data. The State Department Inspector General is now investigating.

Another contractor, who worked for The Analysis Corporation of McLean, Va., gained unauthorized access on March 14 to the passport records for Obama and McCain, a State Department spokesman said. That employee’s employment status is pending.

Passport security breached for Obama, McCain, and Clinton

As most know by now, news broke last night that Barack Obama’s passport records were breached on three separate occasions by State Department contract employees over the past three months. The State Department did not notify Obama until sometime late yesterday afternoon or early evening or early evening.

While investigating the breach of Obama’s records today, State discovered that John McCain’s and Hillary Clinton’s records had been breached as well. However, the State Department has obviously gone into damage control mode because they will not release any information about the breaches discovered today except to say they occurred in 2007.

Barack Obama’s passport records were breached on January 9, February 21, and March 18. Interestingly enough, that would be the day after the New Hampshire primary, the day of the Texas debate, and the day the Jeremiah Wright story exploded. However, with the advent of the other candidates’ records being breached, it lessens the immediate speculation of opposition research targeted at Obama only. But it does not remove the possibility by any means.

The State Department says they are investigating the events, which according to procedure means it must be turned over to the Inspector General. However since two of the individuals involved have already been fired, the Inspector General has no authority to investigate them. State will have to turn the matter over to the Justice Department, which they have not done as of yet. That’s a big problem.

Congressional watchdog Henry Waxman fired off a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice this morning demanding “identities of the [contracting] companies” be made available by Monday. Waxman also demanded that the information be made publicly available.

Big firestorm to watch in this already politically charged environment. At minimum, we know the administration has a long history of breaking the law and spying on citizens.

State Dept. Institutes Draft

If you’re a State Department employee, you can now "be all you can be."

Facing staff shortages in Iraq, the U.S. State Department announced on Friday that diplomats would have no choice but to accept one-year postings in the hostile environment or face losing their jobs.

In what is likely to be an unpopular move with staff, State Department human resources director Harry Thomas said about 250 "prime candidates" for vacant Iraqi posts would be notified on Monday of the decision.

He said they would have 10 working days to respond to the demand that they go to Iraq in summer, 2008, and only those with valid reasons such as a medical problem, would be exempt.

Until now postings to Iraq have been on a voluntary basis and often hard to fill.

"We have all taken an oath to serve our country and so if someone decides they do not want to go, then we would then consider appropriate actions," Thomas said in a conference call with reporters.

"We have many options, including dismissal from the foreign service," added Thomas, who returned on Thursday from a visit to Iraq where he assessed staffing needs for next year.

What a great motivation and recruiting tool. This policy will ensure potential new hires will be standing in line at HR Monday morning.

State’s scapegoat for Blackwater

After 36 years of service, Condoleezza Rice suddenly discovers incompetence that no one preceding her deemed intolerable?

State Department Official Resigns in Wake of Blackwater Criticism

The assistant secretary of state, who oversaw diplomatic security, submitted his resignation in the wake of a report critical of his handling of Blackwater security contractors, according to State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

Ambassador Richard Griffin told his staff earlier today he would be submitting his resignation to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Griffin’s resignation follows the release yesterday of a State Department review that found serious problems with the operations of the Diplomatic Security Service, which Griffin oversaw, including lax oversight of private security contractors, including Blackwater USA.

The review panel found the Diplomatic Security Service did not have enough agents and needed better Arabic language skills and cultural awareness.

The panel was appointed by Secretary Rice to review “the State Department’s handling of security practices in Iraq,” following a Sept. 16, 2007 incident involving Blackwater security guards in which 17 Iraqi civilians died.

The root cause of State Dept. contractor problems

I am not convinced the proper message is getting through as the press continues to report on the poor results achieved as a result of the State Department hiring contractors to provide security services. Today the New York Times focuses on Dyncorp, and in a somewhat broader sense, the Bush administration’s use of contractors for various functions and services throughout the government. While none of the allegations made about Dyncorp and the State Department today should be trivialized, they are unquestionably a subset of a systemic issue throughout the Bush administration with respect to privatizing government services. The real issues are privatization policies in general and how efficiently they are managed throughout the administration.

At this late date in the Bush administration, there is relatively little that can be done to address the systemic issues because the root cause is quite simply George Bush’s catastrophic management of bad decisions and policies.

As the Times reported, George Bush has outsourced an incredibly large segment of the government, but has not managed the outsourcing, which always results in failure. That’s a very broad and strong indictment that I cannot possibly support in the confines of a single post; however, many years of successful outsourcing experience qualifies me to render that opinion.

The administration has obviously outsourced government operations and services to contractors such as Dyncorp and Blackwater, and basically walked away from those functions with an expectation they will be properly managed by the contractor simply because a contract exists between the two parties. Successful outsourcing simply does not work that way. These few passages from today’s article support my argument.

State Department contracting officials complain that they do not have nearly enough people to properly oversee the more than 2,500 contractors now under their informal command around the world.

The Bush administration has doubled the amount of government money going to all types of contractors to $400 billion, creating a new and thriving class of post-9/11 corporations carrying out delicate work for the government. But the number of government employees issuing, managing and auditing contracts has barely grown.

The only real solution is to fire the incompetent president, but since the government is not Acme Corp. firing the incompetent manager is not an option — plain and simple. This is what we get for electing an idiot with a long-standing history of failure after failure. Congress can only approach these issues tactically as they arise, deal with them to the extent possible, and wait for the Decider to go back to Crawford, unless he is impeached otherwise .

Republicans ask Waxman to postpone Blackwater hearing

(Update below)

This past Friday, seven House Republicans asked Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-MI) to postpone a Blackwater USA hearing scheduled for tomorrow until the State Department and the U.S.-Iraq Joint Commission release their reports.

I bet they do want the investigation delayed until after those reports are “revealed.” Cheney probably needs a little time to stamp every document that is remotely related (or not) classified and vet the reports. Indeed. For Waxman to have even considered having a hearing before Cheney had an opportunity to complete Unitary Executive Oversight was unconscionable and reprehensible.

Waxman was apparently not impressed with their request since he sent a memorandum to the committee (pdf) today outlining the objectives of the hearing and details of newly discovered information about Blackwater.

Previously undisclosed information reveals (1) Blackwater has engaged in 195 “escalation of force” incidents since 2005, an average of 1.4 per week, including over 160 incidents in which Blackwater forces fired first; (2) after a drunken Blackwater contractor shot the guard of the Iraqi Vice President, the State Department allowed the contractor to leave Iraq and advised Blackwater on the size of the payment needed “to help them resolve this”; and (3) Blackwater, which has received over $1 billion in federal contracts since 2001, is charging the federal government over $1,200 per day for each “protective security specialist” employed by the company.

The Republicans requesting the delay are: Representatives Dan Burton (IN), Christopher Cannon (UT), Darrell Issa (CA), Patrick McHenry (NC), John Mica (FL), Mark Souder (IN), and Lynn Westmoreland (GA).

Witnesses at tomorrow’s hearing will include:

• Erik Prince, Chairman, the Prince Group, LLC and Blackwater USA
• Ambassador David M. Satterfield, Special Adviser, Coordinator for Iraq, Department of State
• Ambassador Richard J. Griffin, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Diplomatic Security and Director of the Office of Foreign Missions, Department of State
• William H. Moser, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Logistics Management, Department of State

Late Update: The hearing has begun and Chairman Waxman has decided to not to address the shooting incidents of September 16 “in a public forum” today.

The emerging details of the Blackwater shootings

The New York Times and the Washington Post published separate reports today providing details on the September 16 Blackwater shooting incident, however the two reports are not reconcilable, but that may be directly related to the Post’s more detailed account and the quality of the Post’s reporting, which is one of the poorest written news articles I’ve ever read and is confusing at best.

The New York Times account is derived from multiple third-party sources and seemingly provides a summarized outline of events based on combining the information obtained from all sources. It also seems to coincide more with the details provided by witnesses of the shootings and the Iraq Ministry’s description of the incident.

Considering the relative differences in the two pieces, one would have to conclude there is much we still do not know, however the publishing of these articles from confidential sources can hardly be dismissed as coincidental. Who leaked the information and why?

While the two articles focus on details of the shooting, the Times briefly mentions an issue that may have more significance than the actual details of the September 16 shootings.

The American official said that by Wednesday morning, American investigators still had not responded to multiple requests for information by Iraqi officials investigating the episode. The official also said that Blackwater had been conducting its own investigation but had been ordered by the United States to stop that work. Ms. Tyrrell [a Blackwater official] confirmed that the company had done an investigation of its own, but said, “No government entity has discouraged us from doing so.”

What could possibly be so important that it required the government to order Blackwater end its investigation unless it was a simple matter of ensuring no further contact with the Iraqis? And would that be to mitigate hostilities between Blackwater and Iraq or something more complex? Maybe both?

Furthermore, someone is obviously not telling the truth. Is Blackwater so bold as to defy an order from the government, and if they are, that does not by default mean their reasons are wrong. AT&T and Verizon should have followed Qwest’s refusal to comply with the government’s demands to conduct warrantless eavesdropping.

The Times’ report provides a reasonably understandable, but less detailed outline of the events, however their sources are hearsay and not an official document(s), which means the information may be limited and subjective. The Times cites “an American official who was briefed on the American investigation by someone who helped conduct it, and by Americans who had spoken directly with two guards involved in the episode.”

There are only five notable items that are reconcilable between the accounts given by the Times and the Post:

1. The Iraqi government’s assertion that Blackwater was not provoked;
2. The approximate time the shootings occurred;
3. Individuals were killed in a car that was approaching Blackwater’s security convoy;
4. The location of the shootings;
5. Some Blackwater employees did not stop shooting until forced to do so at gun point by other Blackwater employees.

The Times reports the detonation of an IED in close proximity to a diplomatic meeting resulted in a quick decision to evacuate the facility and a “Blackwater convoy began carrying the diplomats south, toward the Green Zone.” The Post reports, “three Blackwater teams moved to escort one “principal” back to Baghdad’s Green Zone.”

The shootings occurred at Nisour Square, but the details of what happened there are either limited, as is the case in the NYT account, or confusing based on the WaPo account. The Times reports one Blackwater convoy (three to four vehicles per convoy) escorted the diplomat, and one convoy served as an advance team driving to Nisour Square to clear passage for the diplomatic convoy. The advance convoy was apparently the focal point of the shootings — provoked or not.

From the Times:

At least four sport utility vehicles stopped in lanes of traffic that were entering the square from the south and west. Some of the guards got out of their vehicles and took positions on the street, according to the official familiar with the report on the American investigation.

At 12:08 p.m., at least one guard began to fire in the direction of a car, killing its driver. A traffic policeman said he walked toward the car, but more shots were fired, killing a woman holding an infant sitting in the passenger seat.

…After the family was shot, a type of grenade or flare was fired into the car, setting it ablaze, according to some accounts. Other Iraqis were also killed as the shooting continued.

The Post provides multiple accounts — Iraqi ministry, Blackwater’s report to the Embassy immediately after the shootings, and witness interviews — but given how poorly the piece was written, at various points in the article it is not readily discernable which specific activities are derived from what account. This is an attempt to summarize the U.S. Embassy report (Blackwater’s account).

• Three Blackwater teams were dispatched to escort “one ‘principal’ ” back to Baghdad’s Green Zone - Team 4, TST 22, and TST 23. A single team normally consists of three to four armored vehicles.
• The principal/diplomat was in the Team 4 convoy. TST 22 was an additional convoy dispatched to accompany Team 4. It appears the two-team convoy configuration was planned or standard procedure.
• After the car bomb detonated outside the meeting facility, TST 23 was dispatched to provide additional protection.
• Team 4 (includes principal) and TST 22 left the meeting location before TST 23 arrived and returned to the Green Zone unharmed.
• On its way to meet the diplomatic convoy, TST 23 arrived at Nisour Square and became engaged in “small arms fire.” One of the vehicles in the TST 23 convoy became disabled during the shooting.
• After returning the diplomat(s) to the Green Zone, TST 22 was sent back to Nisour Square to assist TST 22, however TST 23 left Nisour Square before TST 22 arrived.
• When TST 22 arrived at Nisour Square, they were “confronted by an Iraqi quick-reaction force” and shortly thereafter, “Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police units arrived and began to encircle TST 22 with vehicles, [and] had large caliber machine guns pointed at TST 22.”
• TST 22 requested help from the U.S. Embassy’s regional security office, which dispatched helicopters from the U.S. Army Quick Reaction Force (QRF) to provide “route reconnaissance and additional coverage.”
• The U.S. Army’s QRF “mediated” the situation, allowing TST to return to the Green Zone.

One point is clear and common to both the Times and the Post, and at face value illustrates Blackwater was out of control. From the Post:

…Participants in the shooting have reported that at least one of the Blackwater guards drew a weapon on his colleagues and screamed for them to “stop shooting.” This account suggested that there was some effort to curb the shooting, with at least one Blackwater guard believing it had spiraled out of control. “Stop shooting — those are the words that we’re hearing were used,” the official said.

Given the recent allegations of corruption in the Iraqi government and the proven history of corruption in the Bush administration, these press accounts have to be accepted for what they are. The Iraqis could easily be motivated by the desire to replace U.S. private contractors with Iraqi contractors, and who knows what motivations the Bush administration may have beyond ensuring Bush cronies put all the money in their pockets.

Late Update: I’m not sure what the accurate spelling of Nisour/Nisoor is. The Times has “Nisoor” and the Post has ‘Nisour.” Go figure.

It’s all a big misunderstanding

The State Department issued a statement late yesterday in response to Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-MI) letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice regarding Blackwater’s scheduled

There seems to be some misunderstanding with regard to this matter. All information requested by the committee has been or is in the process of being provided.

Blackwater has been informed 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.

The statement strongly implies State intends to fully comply with the House Committee on Oversight and Reform’s requests, with the possible exception of ambiguity regarding who may testify, which may possibly be centric to the State Department’s response. If not, someone is either backpedaling (viz. State) or has not been completely forthright. Consider what Stephen M. Ryan, Blackwater’s counsel, wrote (pdf) to Committee Chairman Waxman on Monday.

In the fluid setting of a Congressional hearing it may become difficult, if not impossible, for Blackwater personnel to meet the terms of [the State Department's demands], unless the Chairman or Ranking Member take action both in advance of the hearing and at the hearing to obtain [the State Department's] approval for disclosures that Blackwater would need to make for its testimony to be complete.

Ryan’s letter to Waxman and State’s statement, on the surface, are in stark contrast with each other. Moreover, I find it hard to believe Blackwater’s lawyer would respond to the Committee’s requests, much less declare it may not comply, without consulting with the State Department first.

Furthermore, with respect to Condoleezza Rice’s testimony, it is hard to believe Waxman would simply lie and say he was told Rice would not testify. While it is clear in Waxman’s letter to Rice that he had not received confirmation from Rice regarding her scheduled testimony, one can only assume Waxman was led to believe by a source he deemed credible that Rice would not testify.

The money statement from State is: “We have offered to make available for testimony those officials in the best position to respond to the specific issues…”

State to Blackwater: Talk to No One Including Congress

The Bush-Cheney administration continues its rampage to unconstitutionally obstruct, obfuscate, deceive, and distract whatever may be in its wake. State Department officials and Blackwater, the private U.S. security company providing security in Iraq, have been ordered to not talk with anyone — not even Congress.

From the House Committee on Oversight and Reform:

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.

On September 20, Kiazan Moneypenny, a State Department contracting officer, sent a letter (pdf) to Blackwater’s Fred Roitz ordering the security company to not discuss or reveal any information about Blackwater’s operations in Iraq, any information or documents the security company may have obtained while performing services for the Department, nor about Blackwater’s contract with the State Department. In other words, say nothing except what we tell you to say.

Yesterday, Blackwater’s attorney, Stephen M. Ryan of McDermott Will & Emory, wrote Waxman (pdf) and politely told him to stuff it, that State hard ordered Blackwater to not do or say anything without their prior approval.

Apparently Waxman was unaware of the State Department’s order and another surprise, Condi Rice’s refusal to testify before Congress, which resulted in a love letter from Waxman to Rice (pdf), informing her that State had no authority to compel Blackwater to obstruct a congressional investigation.

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.

Of course George Bush will view Executive Privilege extending to Blackwater. In April, he claimed Executive Privilege over the Republican National Committee, so why not Blackwater? What’s next? The Dairy Queen and McDonalds?