The Secret Handshake

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Looks like Blackwater USA attained Most Favored Contractor status in Iraq the same way as everyone else. They earned it, the old-fashioned way. Just like Halliburton, for example.

You might remember the recipe. Get a no-bid contract. Over-bill. Get caught. Get rewarded with a huge explosion of new contracts.

Blackwater CEO Erik Prince might have been unable to shed light on it. (He first said Blackwater had never received a no-bid contract. Then corrected himself to say they did get one no-bid contract but “he didn’t know anything further” and so could not provide any further details.) But William H. Moser, the deputy assistant secretary for logistics management, confirmed that in 2004, Blackwater received a “sole-source” contract for security — in other words, a no-bid contract.

It was an “urgent situation,” Moser explained. In 2004, the State Department had to make a rapid transition to assume diplomatic responsibilities with the demise of the Coalition Provisional Authority, and so “we decided to do a sole-source contract for Blackwater’s services.” He said that State was uncomfortable with the award, and asked the inspector-general to perform an audit at the end of 2004 — which found that Blackwater had overbilled State for an undisclosed amount of money. (The company charged the government separately for “drivers” and “security specialists” who were in fact the same people.)

It’s instructive to go back to the check-mark graph I recommended so highly this morning. They get the no-bid contract in 2004. They are caught over-billing at the end of 2004. And the size of their government contracts goes right through the roof. Uncanny, huh?

http://www.1115.org/2007/10/02/secret-handshake/

[Dan J 277]

Looks like Blackwater USA attained Most Favored Contractor status in Iraq the same way as everyone else. They earned it, the old-fashioned way. Just like Halliburton, for example.

You might remember the recipe. Get a no-bid contract. Over-bill. Get caught. Get rewarded with a huge explosion of new contracts.

Blackwater CEO Erik Prince might have been unable to shed light on it. (He first said Blackwater had never received a no-bid contract. Then corrected himself to say they did get one no-bid contract but “he didn’t know anything further” and so could not provide any further details.) But William H. Moser, the deputy assistant secretary for logistics management, confirmed that in 2004, Blackwater received a “sole-source” contract for security — in other words, a no-bid contract.

It was an “urgent situation,” Moser explained. In 2004, the State Department had to make a rapid transition to assume diplomatic responsibilities with the demise of the Coalition Provisional Authority, and so “we decided to do a sole-source contract for Blackwater’s services.” He said that State was uncomfortable with the award, and asked the inspector-general to perform an audit at the end of 2004 — which found that Blackwater had overbilled State for an undisclosed amount of money. (The company charged the government separately for “drivers” and “security specialists” who were in fact the same people.)

It’s instructive to go back to the check-mark graph I recommended so highly this morning. They get the no-bid contract in 2004. They are caught over-billing at the end of 2004. And the size of their government contracts goes right through the roof. Uncanny, huh?

http://www.1115.org/2007/10/02/secret-handshake/

You don't save money privatizing, when you limit the competition to one company.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You don't save money privatizing, when you limit the competition to one company.

Henry Waxman was making that very point today. He asked why are we contracting out for US Diplomats when that was traditionally a role for the military, if we're spending more money?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You don't save money privatizing, when you limit the competition to one company.

Henry Waxman was making that very point today. He asked why are we contracting out for US Diplomats when that was traditionally a role for the military, if we're spending more money?

Because the enrichment of the few is what this is all about.

[natty bumppo 297]

You don't save money privatizing, when you limit the competition to one company.

Henry Waxman was making that very point today. He asked why are we contracting out for US Diplomats when that was traditionally a role for the military, if we're spending more money?

Because the enrichment of the few is what this is all about.

thanks for the Signature ... some of us made a life choice and live here because of our S.O. It's not about the State or a company ... it's about a single person or corporation ... so for equal billing ...

Cuck Your State .... and the horse it rode in on

Edited October 3, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This goes under...#######???

House GOP connects Blackwater, Petraeus

...the Blackwater controversy offers the GOP a terrific opportunity to take a credibility-building hard line against incompetence, recklessness, mismanagement, a lack of accountability, and misspent funds. Republican lawmakers could have used the hearing today at the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to make a straightforward conservative case: “We shouldn’t cut and run, but we shouldn’t support possible crimes committed by a private army, either.”

Alas, some House Republicans are just too far gone to act like lawmakers. Take Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), for example, who decided the Blackwater hearing should be about MoveOn.org and Gen. David Petraeus. Seriously.

Issa explained to the committee and the hearing audience that he wasn’t there to defend Blackwater, but rather to “defend Gen. Petraeus and the men and women who do their job.”

In fact, as far as Issa is concerned there shouldn’t even be a hearing into the alleged crimes committed by Blackwater private contractors, because the hearing itself is “a repeat of the MoveOn ad.”

And lest anyone think this jaw-dropping stupidity was limited to just one House Republican, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) relied on the “Betray Us” ad during his allotted time, before telling to Blackwater CEO Erik Prince, “There is a party in Congress that doesn’t like companies that make a profit.”

There will be plenty more to say about the Blackwater hearings in the coming hours and days, but in the short term, here are a few items to keep in mind:

* Blackwater’s Prince doesn’t want to talk about how much money the company has made from Iraq-related contracts. “I’m not a financially driven guy,” the CEO said.

* Prince doesn’t know if there are any laws governing Blackwater’s activities in Iraq.

* Issa helped prove that Blackwater is a Republican company … shortly before concluding that Blackwater is not a Republican company.

* Prince isn’t clear on whether he received no-bid contracts.

* The State Department is playing the role of Blackwater’ “enabler.”

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13087.html

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You don't save money privatizing, when you limit the competition to one company.

Henry Waxman was making that very point today. He asked why are we contracting out for US Diplomats when that was traditionally a role for the military, if we're spending more money?

Because the enrichment of the few is what this is all about.

thanks for the Signature

My signature addition is actually to address my frustration with the TSC. It's a worthless facility within the USCIS construct. No need to take it personally.

[natty bumppo 297]

You don't save money privatizing, when you limit the competition to one company.

Henry Waxman was making that very point today. He asked why are we contracting out for US Diplomats when that was traditionally a role for the military, if we're spending more money?

Because the enrichment of the few is what this is all about.

thanks for the Signature

My signature addition is actually to address my frustration with the TSC. It's a worthless facility within the USCIS construct. No need to take it personally.

Suggestion ... please consider ... take it out on the Service Center ... not the rest of us ...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You don't save money privatizing, when you limit the competition to one company.

Henry Waxman was making that very point today. He asked why are we contracting out for US Diplomats when that was traditionally a role for the military, if we're spending more money?

Because the enrichment of the few is what this is all about.

thanks for the Signature

My signature addition is actually to address my frustration with the TSC. It's a worthless facility within the USCIS construct. No need to take it personally.

Suggestion ... please consider ... take it out on the Service Center ... not the rest of us ...

Read my signature carefully and you might just notice that I did.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You don't save money privatizing, when you limit the competition to one company.

Henry Waxman was making that very point today. He asked why are we contracting out for US Diplomats when that was traditionally a role for the military, if we're spending more money?

Because the enrichment of the few is what this is all about.

thanks for the Signature

My signature addition is actually to address my frustration with the TSC. It's a worthless facility within the USCIS construct. No need to take it personally.

Suggestion ... please consider ... take it out on the Service Center ... not the rest of us ...

I agree.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You don't save money privatizing, when you limit the competition to one company.

Henry Waxman was making that very point today. He asked why are we contracting out for US Diplomats when that was traditionally a role for the military, if we're spending more money?

Because the enrichment of the few is what this is all about.

thanks for the Signature

My signature addition is actually to address my frustration with the TSC. It's a worthless facility within the USCIS construct. No need to take it personally.

Suggestion ... please consider ... take it out on the Service Center ... not the rest of us ...

I agree.

See above.

[natty bumppo 297]

You don't save money privatizing, when you limit the competition to one company.

Henry Waxman was making that very point today. He asked why are we contracting out for US Diplomats when that was traditionally a role for the military, if we're spending more money?

Because the enrichment of the few is what this is all about.

thanks for the Signature

My signature addition is actually to address my frustration with the TSC. It's a worthless facility within the USCIS construct. No need to take it personally.

Suggestion ... please consider ... take it out on the Service Center ... not the rest of us ...

I agree.

See above.

oh ... we need to read the "fine print" ....

make the TServiceCenter comment as bold as the rest of the Sig .... be brave and really make a statement.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You don't save money privatizing, when you limit the competition to one company.

Henry Waxman was making that very point today. He asked why are we contracting out for US Diplomats when that was traditionally a role for the military, if we're spending more money?

Because the enrichment of the few is what this is all about.

thanks for the Signature

My signature addition is actually to address my frustration with the TSC. It's a worthless facility within the USCIS construct. No need to take it personally.

Suggestion ... please consider ... take it out on the Service Center ... not the rest of us ...

I agree.

See above.

oh ... we need to read the "fine print" ....

make the TServiceCenter comment as bold as the rest of the Sig .... be brave and really make a statement.

done

[natty bumppo 297]

You don't save money privatizing, when you limit the competition to one company.

Henry Waxman was making that very point today. He asked why are we contracting out for US Diplomats when that was traditionally a role for the military, if we're spending more money?

Because the enrichment of the few is what this is all about.

thanks for the Signature

My signature addition is actually to address my frustration with the TSC. It's a worthless facility within the USCIS construct. No need to take it personally.

Suggestion ... please consider ... take it out on the Service Center ... not the rest of us ...

I agree.

See above.

oh ... we need to read the "fine print" ....

make the TServiceCenter comment as bold as the rest of the Sig .... be brave and really make a statement.

done

okay ... looks a little better ... thanks

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No problem. You folks are host to a shitty service center, you folks gave us arguably the most crappy President and some of your towns apparently like to keep the paths open for the illegal immigrants. But other than that, I don't have much of a problem with Texas. I actually considered moving there once. I'd still prefer it (well, certain parts of it) as a place of residence over a lot of states.

Edited October 3, 2007 by Mr. Big Dog