Some newspapers today gave readers no idea of what happened at yesterday's House Oversight Committee hearing involving Blackwater USA . One salient comment came from Republican Congressman John J. Duncan (yesterday's version of a WaPo article and hearing video):
"... [Duncan] observed that Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, earns about $180,000 a year, less than half the salary of a Blackwater official in charge of a 34-member security team.
"The war in Iraq has produced some of the most 'lavish' and 'excessive' contracts in U.S. history, Duncan said. 'Fiscal conservatives should feel no obligation to defend this kind of contract.... In fact, fiscal conservatives should be the ones most horrified by this.'"
This is a Republican talking to Republicans. Today's online version of WaPo's article doesn't contain Duncan's comments. Today's New York Times article also failed to emphasize important points.
Instead, both newspapers focused on Blackwater CEO Erik Prince's pre-written statement, which defended his company's shooting of Iraqi civilians on September 16 -- though that topic was deemed off limits after Prince spoke.
The hearing brought out thought-provoking details and bizarre comments, which said more about the commenters than the issues. For example,...
Rep. Pat McHenry (R-GA) dismissed the Committee's probe into the cost and accountability of government contractors (not just Blackwater) as the "liberal cause du jour."
Well, since he put it that way, I guess there's absolutely no need for our well-paid representatives to find out whether contracting is a good deal for us taxpayers.
McHenry also strangely protested that it's irresponsible to hold the hearing while the Justice Department is investigating Blackwater's September 16th shooting -- just minutes after the committee had agreed to NOT DISCUSS the shooting.
Perhaps McHenry ideologically opposes contributions of relevant input. I suppose that's one way to keep people guessing.
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA ) said that Democrats in Congress simply don't want private companies to make a profit -- though Dems benefit as much as Republicans from companies that make enough money to send donations to congressional campaigns (see Center for Responsive Politics).
Maybe McHenry's aversion to relevant commentary was contagious, like chicken pox in a kindergarten classroom. Westmoreland also mentioned that 9 Oversight Committee members (Dems) had voted against a resolution condemning MoveOn.org's ad that criticized General David Petraeus.
Then there's Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), whose website proudly features the following statements, (which mirror what I heard him say):
"'MoveOn.org’s recent smear campaign against General David Petraeus failed so now anti-war Democrats are targeting Blackwater as a political stand-in for direct attacks against General Petraeus and our military,' said Issa.
“'This is not about Blackwater,' Issa stated during the hearing. “What they couldn’t do to our men and women in uniform, they’ll simply switch targets.'”
Yesterday's hearing did touch on certain Blackwater-related issues, for example:
1) The drunk contractor's shooting of the Iraqi vice president's guard last Christmas eve;
2) The crash of Blackwater Flight 61, which was crewed by inexperienced contractors and killed 3 U.S. military personnel who were passengers; and,
3) How much profit does Blackwater make off us taxpayers?
Yesterday's hearings did not answer those questions. But how will we taxpayers ever know if our money is well spent unless our politicians continue probing?1) Are we taxpayers paying contractors too much?
2) Are contractors giving us good service, given what we pay them?
3) Are contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan truly accountable?
Unfortunately for voters in some congressional districts, most Republican committee members seemed more interested in knee-jerk defending contractors than in finding out whether we taxpayers are getting their money's worth.
That's probably why Rep. Duncan reminded his Republican colleagues that they shouldn't feel obligated to defend expensive contracts and implied that if they'd be outraged if they were true fiscal conservatives.
If you're interested in getting what most news media hasn't covered, see the following:
- House Oversight Committee's relevant-document links
Related BN-Politics' Posts:
* New Evidence of Blackwater's Bad Behavior
* State Dept. Staff Threatened for Cooperating with Congress
* Have U.S. Officials Protected Blackwater?
* State Dept. Inspector Blocked Investigations?
* Justice Official Turned Blind Eye to Contractor Fraud?
* Interior Officials Allowed Oil Companies to Underpay Royalties
Comments