Posted by D. Cupples | At yesterday's House Oversight Committee, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was mostly cucumber-cool, but she didn't give many direct answers. This forced some committee members to use up part of their alloted 5 minutes repeatedly repeating their questions. (Hearing video.)
For example, Rice acknowledged a "lacuna" (loophole) in
regulations, which allowed security contractors to dodge legal consequences for potential crimes, like shooting Iraqi civilians. (New York TImes)
The loophole was created 3+ years ago.
Rep. Paul Hodes (D-NH) repeatedly asked: Why did you wait until now to work on closing the loophole? Hodes pointed out that incidents of questionable contractor violence have been reported since at least 2005.
In response, Rice kept repeating that the State Department acknowledges the loophole and agrees that it should be closed.
Everyone at the hearing clearly spoke English, yet Rice's answers suggest that the admirably articulate Secretary of State didn't even hear some questions. That's how it went with most issues....
Another example: Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) referred to an audit report, which said that much of the $1.2 billion paid to contractor DynCorp was unaccounted for -- due largely to poor State Department oversight. DynCorp was hired in 2004 to train Iraqi police. The report also said that the Iraqi police force was so ineffective that it should be disbanded. Maloney essentially asked Rice: How did we get such poor results AND lose track of so many tax dollars?
Rice's answer: we've reconciled the money through mid-2006, and we'll work on reconciling the rest.
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN) said that a State Department official told the public in July that the $592 million U.S. Embassy in Iraq was under-budget, on schedule, and would open in September. McCollum read from a report, stating that the embassy had major problems: e.g., defective wiring, bad insulation, defective fire-safety systems....
McCollum's simple question: Why did the State Department hype the embassy's completion when it knew there were major problems?
Rice's answer: the State Department certainly wouldn't open the embassy, given all its problems.
When pressed, Rice said that corruption is "pervasive" in the Iraqi government, but she wouldn't directly address a written order from Prime Minister Maliki declaring that high-level officials could not be investigated without his permission. One Oversight Committee member held up the order, read from it, and asked Rice to comment.
Rice merely repeated that the Bush Administration does not support immunity for corrupt Iraqi officials.
When asked about the State Department's heavy reliance on private contractors, Rice -- without citing numbers -- asserted that paying contractors for "short term" service costs less than creating full-time career positions for diplomatic security guards.
How "short term" will the U.S. occupation of Iraq be? We just erected a $592 million embassy there. In June, Bush Administration officials said they "envision" a long-term occupation, like Korea -- where we've been for 50+ years.
And what about the profits that we taxpayers are handing to contractors? Blackwater, alone, made an estimated $100 million in profits from government contracts -- just for a few years' work, and that's only one contractor. How many State Department security guards could contractor profits pay for, and for how long? Again, Rice didn't offer numbers.
Speaking of the troubled contractor, the New York Times reported that Blackwater recently sent an email to employees, fellow contractors, and political allies:
"The e-mail message noted that the Blackwater 'family' was working vigorously to defend American interests. 'In this tumultuous political climate,' Blackwater 'has taken center stage, our services and ethics aggressively challenged with misinformation and fabrications.... While we can’t ask that each supporter do everything, Blackwater asks that everyone does something. Contact your lawmakers and tell them to stand by the truth.”
Apparently, certain Republican lawmakers on the Oversight Committee were contacted, which may explain why some of them knee-jerk defended the State Department during yesterday's hearing (e.g., Chris Cannon (UT), Chris Shays (CN), Tom Davis (VA), Patrick McHenry (NC). Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) apologized to Sec. Rice, saying basically this:
"Now that the surge is working, this committee has to target someone -- usually Republicans or successful businessmen. I guess you fall into that."
It was downright bizarre. Republicans style themselves as fiscal "conservatives." They're supposed to care about whether our tax dollars are wasted, whether contractors overcharge us.
Yet, most Republicans on the committee expressed a desire to close down the investigations and go home. It's as though they were the Department's advocates instead of overseer.
The Oversight Committee had real reports about real incidents and problems. How can it, or we taxpayers, ever learn whether things are working well if the investigations cease?
Few major newspapers adequately covered crucial details of yesterday's hearing. Truthout's Matt Renner did cover details, including some not covered in this BN-Politics post.
Related BN-Politics' Posts:
* Waxman Wages War on Waste, Fraud & Abuse
* Blackwater Uses Fuzzy Math to Justify Costs
* Govt. Contractors: Driving up War's Costs?
* Blackwater Took Iraqi Airplanes, CEO Misled Congress?
* Blackwater Hearing: Poor Media Coverage
* State Dept.'s Odd & Untimely Reactions to Blackwater Scandals
* State Dept. Staff Threatened for Cooperating with Congress re: Blackwater
* Inspector General Blocked Investigations re: Waste and Fraud?
* Have U.S. Officials Protected Blackwater?
* DynCorp Joins Blackwater as Probe Target, State Dept. Stonewalls
* Probe re: Embassy in Iraq & State Dept. Officials
* Embassy in Iraq: Waste, Bad Planning, and Contractor Fraud?
NY Times article found at Memeorandum.
Comments