Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Election 2008

Obama Will Not 'Rule Out' Private Security Contractors in Iraq

By Jeremy Scahill, TheNation.com. Posted February 28, 2008.


Blackwater might not be leaving any time soon.
Advertisement

Update from Jeremy Scahill: A day after this story went live on TheNation.com, Senator Hillary Clinton, whose staff refused for a week to answer my questions about her position on private security forces, released a statement announcing that Clinton is now co-sponsoring legislation to "ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq," saying, "The time to show these contractors the door is long past due." Read her full statement here.

Her timing was interesting, to say the least. Why February 28, in the middle of a tough political campaign? Why not after last September's Nisour Square massacre, when Blackwater operatives killed 17 Iraqi civilians? Or, better, before it? Regardless, this makes Clinton the most significant US political figure to date to issue such a call. We will be monitoring closely how much of a legislative priority this becomes for Senator Clinton.

*****

A senior foreign policy adviser to leading Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has told The Nation that if elected Obama will not "rule out" using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. The adviser also said that Obama does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009, when a new President will be sworn in. Obama's campaign says that instead he will focus on bringing accountability to these forces while increasing funding for the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the agency that employs Blackwater and other private security contractors. (Hillary Clinton's staff did not respond to repeated requests for an interview or a statement on this issue.)

Obama's broader Iraq withdrawal plan provides for some US troops to remain in Iraq -- how many his advisers won't say. But it's clear that Obama's "follow-on force" will include a robust security force to protect US personnel in Iraq, US trainers (who would also require security) for Iraqi forces and military units to "strike at Al Qaeda" -- all very broad swaths of the occupation.

"If Barack Obama comes into office next January and our diplomatic security service is in the state it's in and the situation on the ground in Iraq is in the state it's in, I think we will be forced to rely on a host of security measures," said the senior adviser. "I can't rule out, I won't rule out, private security contractors." He added, "I will rule out private security contractors that are not accountable to US law."

But therein lies a problem. The US Embassy in Iraq is slated to become the largest embassy in world history. If Obama maintains that embassy and its army of diplomats and US personnel going in and out of the Green Zone, which his advisers say he will, a significant armed force will be required for protection. The force that now plays that role is composed almost exclusively of contractors from Blackwater, DynCorp and Triple Canopy. And at present, these contractors are not held accountable under US law. Obama and a host of legal experts, including in the Justice Department, acknowledge that there may be no current US law that could be used to prosecute security contractors for crimes committed in Iraq, such as the killing of seventeen Iraqi civilians last September in Baghdad's Nisour Square.

Obama's proposed increase in funding to the diplomatic security division would ostensibly pave the way for a protective force composed entirely of US government personnel, but the process of building that force would likely take a long time. Short of dramatically reducing the US civilian and diplomatic presence in Iraq that necessitates such a security force, Obama may have no choice but to continue the contracting arrangements with firms like Blackwater if he is elected President.

The irony is that it was Senator Obama who sponsored a bill in February 2007 defining a legal structure to prosecute State Department contractor crimes in US courts. Obama staffers say they will "fight like hell to get it passed." But it may not pass before the next President takes power. Even if it does and Bush signs it, serious questions will remain unresolved about how contractor crimes can be monitored effectively. The senior adviser acknowledged that Obama could find himself in a situation where, as President, he continues using forces he himself has identified as "unaccountable." The Obama campaign, in other words, may have painted itself into a corner.

Obama campaign and Senate staffers characterize this as an inherited problem with no good alternatives. "We are in a situation where, because of bad planning and a series of disastrous policy choices by the Bush Administration, we're forced to rely on private security contractors," says the senior adviser. "What we're focused on at the moment is getting the legal architecture in place that will hold these guys accountable to the same standard that [applies to] enlisted US military personnel."

In Iraq right now, the number of private contractors is basically equal to the number of US troops. While Obama advisers say they plan to "have a serious look" at the role of contractors in Iraq, one adviser seemed to indicate that unarmed contractors would continue to operate at significant levels. "These contractors are not only providing private security functions like Blackwater. They're rebuilding schools, they are serving food, they're doing logistics, they're driving trucks, and the important question is, If you take those 100,000-plus contractors out of Iraq, what do you replace them with? Inevitably the answer is, You replace them with US military."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, obama, blackwater, mercenaries, private security contract

Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who reports frequently for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!, has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and Yugoslavia. He is currently a Puffin Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute. Scahill is the author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Corporate support is required for candidacy
Posted by: edgar_michel on Feb 28, 2008 1:31 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No matter who we get for candidates, they'll have to support corporate positions, Blackwater or Dyne Corp included, or we’ll never see them. The only real choice any of us has here is to choose the least ambitious of all the candidates, because the more ambition they have the more they'll need to support corporate positions. What I think all of us have to do is stop relying on candidates to our bidding for us and start relying on ourselves to understand the issues and the relevant remedies. Global warming is still the biggest issue that faces all countries currently and into the foreseeable future. It is ironic that U.S. policy is fixed on securing oil assets at the onset of peak oil instead of developing alternatives to oil to secure its long tern security, and it is so evident in the choice of candidates

For myself, I'm going to learn how to make alternative energy systems and I'm planning to study until I have answers. I don't believe that there will be any representative elected to federal office that will do anything other than secure dwindling oil assets for the United States at any cost, because only those candidates will realize corporate support. This is a loose loose scenario, of course, but all the big corporations are exclusively fixed on consolidation of power and oil is an absolute necessity for that to happen. The only scenario that really makes sense is to develop a viable alternative to oil of which none now exist, but that requires the injection of enormous amounts of capital in order to transform entire infrastructures which makes vulnerable plans for consolidation. No candidate is therefore addressing that issue; therefore it is up to us, we the people, to address it. Like I said vote for the least ambitious of the candidates and then begin working on finding solutions to the problems yourself, because no-one is going to do it for us; no-one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I didn't know what was proposed Posted by: edgar_michel
A no-win situation inherited from Bush
Posted by: Kym525 on Feb 28, 2008 1:33 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Obama, if he becomes president, will have to deal with the quagmire that is Iraq. There are no easy answers and for us to expect some is pure naivete on our parts. The first step though is the electorate (that's US, folks) making sure that we make any private security company accountable for their actions. We support any bill through our votes to make certain our lawmakers do it!

What? You guys thought making Obama our next president was the end? NOT! We've got work to do still.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A no-win situation inherited from Bush Posted by: left_libertarian
Obama sucks, Clinton sucks...
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Feb 28, 2008 2:37 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
& their backers just don't seem interested in
...
NEGOTIATING the Candidates to a PLATFORM which more accurately reflects a Populist View on the Issues

...& the problem is...??
Nader? riiiiiiiight...

or maybe its dumb people too stupid to realize if THEY are willing to take whatever they're offered by their Candidates...

...that the Candidates have a virtually FREE HAND to negotiate their own terms from their Corporate Backers & Lobbyists?

Get in the Game, Folks. Take a look @ Nader's PLATFORM & directly CHALLENGE THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES change their PLATFORM to REFLECT WHAT YOU WANT

it isn't a democracy if you just take whatever they hand out.


~~~
Spread Love...

BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
~~~
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
~~~
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama sucks, Clinton sucks... Posted by: herronsmith
» read that again, you sorta lost the plot Posted by: BlueBerry PickN
Get out!
Posted by: Rune on Feb 28, 2008 3:11 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama, for all his ability to sound erudite, shows little ability to break out of the perspectives that got us into the problems he is promising to clean up. The choices in this situation go well beyond (a) more use of outlaw contractors, (b) making contractors accountable to some law, or (c) halting the use of contractors to perform military and security duties that were once handled by government employed military and security personnel. However, to see such choices one must see beyond the ditch George Bush has driven into with his go it alone style of institutionalizing irrational and illegal choices.

As Obama just pointed out to McCain, the mere presence of U.S. forces (and the lawless U.S. contractors that accompany them) in Iraq is promoting the violence and instability the U.S. seeks to eliminate. It is not a particularly difficult leap of imagination or reason to move from that realization to the conclusion that a meaningful solution will involve removing U.S. agents of violence from Iraq as means of getting to a promise of peace, not as an after the fact response to its manifestation, but it seems to be a greater leap than Obama (or those competing against him for the presidency) can manage.

One of the original criticisms of the illegal invasion of Iraq was that it was, indeed, illegal inasmuch as the U.S. is constitutionally bound to abide international treaties against wars of aggression now given that the government ratified such treaties after being instrumental in drafting them. Again, one need not stretch one's imagination to see that returning to U.N. authorizations and forces as a way of dealing with the mess created in Iraq is worthy of serious exploration, but Obama shows no more awareness of such a possibility than does George Bush. Instead, he points out that U.S. forces in Iraq are the source of much of the trouble on one day, then refuses to commit to removing the source of the trouble the next day. Being able to identify a major source of trouble over which the president has significant control is a major step forward from Bush's abilities, but not being able to take the obvious next step to capitalize on such realizations is, perhaps, even more disturbing than Bush's refusal to acknowledge mistakes.

All that aside, at a minimum, it would be encouraging to see Obama note that Bush as accomplished a major role reversal between the State and Defense departments. Where the State Department once performed the bulk of diplomatic tasks during conflicts, now the military has taken the lead, and most of the budget, in that area. And where clear lines once existed to prevent the State Department from (overtly) projecting force and violence into international conflicts, it has now become routine for the State Department to not only use spy vehicles as deadly weapons, but they also employ large numbers of mercenaries that directly undermine the credibility and efficacy the Department might hope to regain as a diplomatic agency. Here, again, however, Obama seems to have no insight into how to undo some of the institutionalized ill that George Bush and his team have put in place.

How difficult is it to see obvious problems, ask what changed to create and perpetuate them. and contemplate going back to the way things were arranged before daily disasters became the norm, just as a starting point for undoing the wrongs of the worst president ever? Apparently it may be more than Obama can--or is willing to--attempt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama for Corporate Crime & phony Corporate War
Posted by: Mister_PsyOps on Feb 28, 2008 4:00 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is just more mealy-mouthed garbage from shill Obama pumped onto the DC campaign trail by a parasite ruling class. (Ditto for Hillary and McCain)

The fact Obama is someone of color only has meaning on the issue as a red herring. A naked decoy, Obama impresses gullible rubes desperate enough to believe virtually anything rather than the obvious fact we are saddled with a Fascist system owned by monopolist corporate crime.

If Martin Luther King were alive, he would no doubt have renounced this hollow pretender from day one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is precisely why I'm not going to vote for Obama
Posted by: animalleaderisgreat on Feb 28, 2008 4:10 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in the general election (assuming he's nominated, which isn't such a wild assumption at this point). We've seen what the law permits under Bush, and it's not pretty. Accountability, in this context, means absolutely nothing. Another election, another write-in. God Obama is a let-down. Bah.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Obama gets elected
Posted by: cindyn on Feb 28, 2008 4:20 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it'll be a worse disaster than Bush, if you can imagine that. This guy doesn't know what the hell he's doing. He's OK at doing monologues in arenas, but he has a dangerous tendency to be too willing to wing it. He's TOO GREEN and too willing to just pull shit out of his ass. Not good.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: If Obama gets elected Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: If Obama gets elected Posted by: greenman
Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Feb 28, 2008 9:26 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, we will

Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Direct Democracy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama's Sensible Draw-down - Why I'm voting for Obama
Posted by: AltB on Feb 29, 2008 3:33 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wait, back up.

I wish that none of this stuff had ever happened, but the reality is what it is. From what I've heard from Barack, he feels the same.

Think about it:

A logical and orderly draw-down I think would FIRST require bringing all forces under right law and justice as a first step otherwise you're looking at being open to SABATAGE with no remedy. Remember we're dealing with the NeoCon and other elements on many levels and in various entities.

Without this first step then war crimes continue, and the extra-judicial shenanigans continue. Without the first step, corporate-military alliance will continue to use humans as shields for its interests. This is what wanted and got the war in the first place.

An instant withdrawal from Iraq could leave all-out vacuum for regional war. This might not happen but it makes more sense to thoughtfully work your way out of this all-around tangled travesty. Iraq as a single nation might never happen again. However you can guarantee that the UN and Iraq's neighbors will look right to us if we leave them with the mess.

We have to submit to justice or we'll only have an instant, unjust and irresponsible exit of Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vote for Obama
Posted by: lesterliu on Feb 29, 2008 3:43 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
trops withdrawal is not the most effective way to bring about peace in iraq, what he proposed was one brigade every month. the first and the utmost iportance step is to re-establish trust amongst middle east, starting by repairing deplomatic ties in these regions. and he has plans to do just about that. I see no other presidential candidates have so much credibility in these issues than that of Obama.

If one person was shot with an arrow, the best medical procedure is not to pull out the arrow immdetiately..now thinking of him as iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» questions Posted by: happyhermit
humm
Posted by: lesterliu on Feb 29, 2008 3:59 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
he is not a saint, he is being washed in the system too, so you can't blame him for not being perfect, stop having these unrealistic expectations.

its true he seldom promise anything, but i never see him lied as other politicans so blatantly did.

bottom line, it will take a few good years before the reality can corrupt him. here you go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: humm Posted by: happyhermit
» Obama never lie??? Posted by: Zenobia
» RE: Obama never lie??? Posted by: babs
Bush/Cheney has WON!
Posted by: nobuko on Feb 29, 2008 4:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush and Cheney got what they wanted out of us Taxpayers, w/the exception of Social Security; and in a sense, they got that too, because they've borrowed and tagged the Invasion on to it! They're leaving our country with a Deficit beyond comprehension.

There is NO WAY whomever the new President will be, be able to UNRAVEL all the destruction and devastation this administration has left.

What he plans on doing with Blackwater makes complete sense; he just can't get rid of them, because our MILITARY is NO MORE, therefore, he has NO CHOICE but to change the RULES, and make them accountable to our government.

If any of you Nay Sayers, have a MAGIC WAND, PLEASE USE IT, and TAKE America back to January, 2000, before Bush and Cheney took over!

It only took them 6-7 years to loot the treasury, destroy our Infrastructure, WEAKEN and Destroy our Military; now it will take atleast 2 generations to recoup; if ever. For I am one who believe, they will NOT turn over the Government, come January, 2009! I don't believe for one second, if Obama is our next President, that he will ALLOW the Bush/Cheney Administration to get away with MURDER, TREASON, AND GRAND THIEF! Remember, we have, what, 935 Lies they told to invade Iraq?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bush/Cheney has WON! Posted by: herronsmith
» RE: Bush/Cheney has WON! Posted by: mclemens
And Haliburton moves its HQ to Dubai
Posted by: cognitorex on Feb 29, 2008 5:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You give no-bid contracts in the $billions to make a US Company an integral part of a war effort. Then, that company moves overseas leaving the military with a foreign entity comprising 10 to 20 per cent of the overall US military force in Iraq.
Bush withholds members of his administration from testifying often on National Security excuses while he turns a blind eye to Cheney and Haliburton tromping all over the American flag for profits and a corporate need to flee legal accountability.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So disappointed!
Posted by: Gravitas on Feb 29, 2008 5:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was an early supporter of Obama, but I am getting more disappointed in him. From support of private contracters to harping on childhood obesity, Obama has made it clear that he is willing to play the game! I would like to think he is only doing what to get elected, but it rarely works like that. Once you give a little of your soul, it is much easier to sell it completely. The sad thing is that there is a genuine momentium out there. Obama could use it to bring the corporations to their knees if he had the courage to use it. Oh well, as a nation, we will be brought to our knees one way or another. We can't keep flying in the face of universal decency without consequences!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So disappointed! Posted by: AltB
Withdrawal means ALL out!
Posted by: phindrup on Feb 29, 2008 6:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"These contractors are not only providing private security functions like Blackwater. They're rebuilding schools, they are serving food, they're doing logistics, they're driving trucks . . .”
Why are US personnel doing these jobs? Obviously it would be to the benefit the Iraqis if they were doing this work.
For the rest, if Obama is fair dinkum, pulling out means everybody! The US presence is the problem. Or at least the major part of the problem,. Get out! Go!
As for the security firms, put them under Iraqi law, retrospectively. Make the first pronouncement as President that all US forces and attachments are pulling out, forthwith.
Make the second pronouncement that all private security personnel are, and always have been subject to Iraqi law.
Get out so that others might begin to repair, rebuild the disaster that you have created.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Withdrawal means ALL out! Posted by: peacefullaim
Face it!
Posted by: Cybershaman on Feb 29, 2008 6:21 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There hasn't been an actual 'Liberal' in the White House EVER! Even when a Democrat is elected they come from the 'conservative' wing of the party. Carter was conservative as was Clinton. Actual progressives have never had a chance to try out their agenda. I'm not talking about stupid non-issues like abortion and gay marriage. I'm talking about hawkishness as opposed to dovishness, diplomacy as opposed to sabre rattling, legislation that rewards responsible behavior rather than legislation designed to punish irresponible behavior (and eventually all behavior thats non-white-christian). And so the dance continues and things only get worse and worse. Death is our future as a species. That is the only destination on this path.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Face it! Posted by: peacefullaim
» RE: Face it! Posted by: happyhermit
» RE: Face it! Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Face it! Posted by: babs
leveller
Posted by: leveller on Feb 29, 2008 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've just finished reading a book on the attempt in the 1930s by some businessmen and bankers to overthrow President Roosevelt and establish a fascist government, because Roosevelt was being too progressive and critical of greedy capitalists. The plotters were relying on a rag-tag group of disgruntled war-veterans to act as their storm troopers.The conspirators tried to get Major General Smedley D. Butler to act as a kind of Ernst Rohm to lead this army. Butler refused and exposed the plot, leaving the compliant media to deny there was ever a plot at all. In reading about Blackwater etc., and the right-wing leaders of some of these companies, wouldn't the very existence of these mercenary armies present a serious threat to American democracy should a real progressive become president?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yes!! Read AMERICAN FASCISTS Posted by: trappedintwilightzone
» RE: Yes!! Read AMERICAN FASCISTS Posted by: trappedintwilightzone
Unacceptable
Posted by: praedor on Feb 29, 2008 6:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first thing he should do is significantly downsize the US embassy "complex" into a standard, rather innocuous embassy rather than the Saddam-esque palatial monstrosity it now is. Downsize the embassy and significantly downsize the required security apparatus.

There, fixed. And saves a buttload of money too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Contractors are Unaccountable by Design
Posted by: somegirl on Feb 29, 2008 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The state department wants them to be able to kill indiscriminately to guard those they deem more important. it's totally disingenuous to suggest that it's some big deal to figure out how to bring them under US law. Hey, how 'bout bringing them under Iraqi law? That might get them behaving. More likely it will just get less of the mercenaries interested in going over there when they know they can't just kill at will.

And puh-leeze, I wish people would stop dumping service employees, who are really slaves, in with the mercenaries. The contracting corporations pay slave wages but get paid big bucks, costing taxpayers way more than than when the military itself did those jobs. And the Iraqis are still mainly unemployed because they're deemed too big of a security risk. Odd then that we are now arming former (yeah right) insurgents and giving them security jobs. My point is, it blurs the issues to dump them all in the same boat. Yes, they're all ripping off the US taxpayer at an unprecedented rate. But you don't hear anyone screaming about a poor cook or laundry worker from Nepal needing to come under US law because they killed a bunch of people. The crimes are not being committed by these lowly workers - it's all 'merkans, either killing, bribing, extorting or embezzling. And it's all by design!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

buyout - sellout
Posted by: QCao009 on Feb 29, 2008 7:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How much does a President cost? And while we're at it, can we thow in a few "journalists" like Russert to ask the really tough hypotheticals before we send a campaign donation check ?

The more the charisma, the bigger the check !!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama had to equivocate on this...no choice..
Posted by: scott.gregory on Feb 29, 2008 8:21 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is clearly not going to let the Iraq war continue. His stand on private contractors is irrelevant except that it KEEPS HIM ALIVE to win the Prsidency. No one for a moment believes HRC. She can say anything she wants. The private corporate armies know they are in the clear with her. Obama had to be careful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More of the same
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Feb 29, 2008 8:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sorry Mr. Obama,you fucked up again.
The fact is we are in the world mess we are in because we like to use underhanded measures to get what we want in the World. Study our history and you will see it's true. Not the history channel,they're to Orwellian. Go to the library and dig it up for yourself.
We,the Government, use the model set out in 'The Prince' by Macciavelli. I spelt the name phonetically so you could ask about it at the library. In short this clown outlines how government should work. Basically it says;
You can Love me...Buy I will control you
You can hate me...But I will control You
You can fear me...But I will control You
You can join me...Buy I will control You
If you don't Love me,Hate Me,Fear Me or Join Me..I will still control You.
This is how BOTH parties in this country work. It is their business model.
We must undo what we have wrought upon the World if we are ever to get anywhere near a Peaceful World. To do that we need a new government,new congress, a new will to see good done, over this rulership by the rich tyranny we have now, and truly advance civilization.
Draft Jeffrey7 for Prez '08

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More of the same Posted by: AltB
The real danger
Posted by: carbon-based on Feb 29, 2008 9:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Private contractors are not necessarily the problem - you cant try to rebuild a country without private contractors. And this isnt anything new..WW2 we had a number of private construction engineers throughout the war.

The Blackwater mercenary organization is the problem. A group of highly trained and paid ex military is a dangerous organization to have in this country. The fact that they are doing protection work at maybe 4 times the salary of our average military is a crime!

What is really frightening is the thought of a President trying to disband such a group. Could you imagine a Presidential candidate calling for a stop to all Blackwater contracts? His security better be better than their abilities to get at someone!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The real danger Posted by: peacefullaim
Not biting off a nose to spite a face - no Nader!
Posted by: CJC on Feb 29, 2008 9:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks to Jeremy Scahill for his Blackwater reporting. It's one of the many scandals of the Bush administration is that not only do we have mercenaries and private contractors doing the people's work, they are not accountable to us at all.

However, we will not be able to get out of this deep deep hole with a stroke of a new president's pen. Neither Clinton nor Obama will be able to fire Blackwater, Halliburton, KBR etc etc. And none of us should think that we can let down our own vigilance in monitoring what our government is up to. Voting for Nader is no solution.

It's good to bring these matters up for discussion in the campaign. The problem is that the MSM doesn't want to ask the hard questions either, so they write endlessly about which demographic group is more or less likely to support which candidate while the question of Blackwater remains hidden.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Blackwater out now
Posted by: Democritus on Feb 29, 2008 10:31 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now do we see why it's important that Ralph Nader enter the presidential fray? In waffling on the removal of private contractors, both Senators Clinton and Obama seem content to inherit Bush's war. (Senator Clinton has recently called for the removal of Blackwater from Iraq, but this looks like a campaign ploy to one-up Obama.)

Because Dennis Kucinich is fighting to retain his House seat, there seems to be no one else except Nader to tell both Clinton and Obama that we need to get our military out of Iraq safely--lock, stock, and Humvees, and to send those Blackwater people home first.

There is no need for us to stay until Iraq is "stabilized." That's the Bush team's mantra. Both Obama and Clinton need to realize that the price of human lives is too great to pay for the oil revenues that might eventually start flowing. That's right, "oil." That's the only reason we've built all those bases in Iraq--to protect the oil. That it's somebody else's oil seems to make no difference to candidates in either political party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No kidding...
Posted by: xbj on Feb 29, 2008 10:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WAKE UP!!!! The "O" in GOP stands for OBAMA!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: as in Rediculous Posted by: AltB
If this is true I won't vote for Obama
Posted by: Desalinator on Feb 29, 2008 11:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't need mercenaries on the battlefield. They are not in the military chain of command. At best, they get in the way. At worst, they get our troops killed.

Then there's the damage they do to our relations with locals whose support we are trying to win.

If the US doesn't have enough soldiers to meet its commitments, it should either:
- Re-institute the draft, or
- Scale back our commitments

/s/Retired army officer

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PROOF Rove has been directing the Obama Campaign SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING
Posted by: xbj on Feb 29, 2008 11:32 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Memo

I particularly like the loaded line "not that you have asked for advice..."

Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrright.

More...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama is not opposed to Mideast wars; he's opposed to DUMB Mideast wars.
Posted by: xbj on Feb 29, 2008 11:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, expect him once he gets in to SAY "THE SURGE IS WORKING".

And that "Now, because THE SURGE IS WORKING, the Iraq war is now suddenly A SMART WAR. Not a dumb war anymore. Trust me. I'm Obama, remember? Not Bush, not McCain, but Obama!"

And MORE SMART WARS would be nuking Iran. But first, Pakistan!

THOSE ARE HIS WORDS.

COUNT ON IT.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]