Story Comments
Posted by: fsev41 7 months, 2 weeks ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
100%
fsev417 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And the privatization of services to our military (Haliburton) and State Department security(Blakwater), how have they worked out. It seems we got fraud, outright theft, murder and rape all at the same time Cheney's buddies were getting rich. And that was under the "fiscally conservative Republicans".
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And Obama is different?
Reply
You really like to bury your head in the sand, don't you?
Obama's Blackwater?
Federal records obtained by AlterNet reveal a multi-million dollar contract for a private U.S. paramilitary force operating out of Jerusalem.
On the campaign trail, Barack Obama's advisers said he "can't rule out [and] won't rule out" using mercenary forces, like Blackwater. Now, it appears that the Obama administration has decided on its hired guns of choice: Triple Canopy, a Chicago company now based in Virginia. It may not have Blackwater's thuggish reputation, but Triple Canopy has its own bloody history in Iraq and a record of hiring mercenaries from countries with atrocious human rights records. What's more, Obama is not just using the company in Iraq, but also as a U.S.-government funded private security force in Israel/Palestine, operating out of Jerusalem.
Beginning May 7th, Triple Canopy will officially take over Xe/Blackwater's mega- contract with the U.S. State Department for guarding occupation officials in Iraq. It's sure to be a lucrative deal: Obama's Iraq plan will inevitably rely on an increased use of private contractors, including an army of mercenaries to protect his surge of diplomats operating out of the monstrous U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_5538...-
Neutral
nostalgia7 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Blackwater got a new $22.2 million deal from the State Department
Reply
Days after the Baghdad government decided it no longer wanted the company then known as Blackwater in Iraq, the State Department signed a $22.2 million deal in February to keep the embattled contractor working there through most of the summer, contract records show.
The decision keeps Blackwater - since renamed Xe - in Iraq months longer than anyone has suggested publicly, while raising questions about why the U.S. would pay a contractor for work in Iraq if it may not be able to operate there legally.
The State Department has been under pressure from Blackwater critics, including several in Congress, not to renew the company’s contracts in Iraq. Much of the concern stems from a 2007 incident that left 14 Iraqi civilians dead and six former Blackwater guards facing manslaughter charges. One of the guards pleaded guilty, but the company was accused of no wrongdoing in the incident.
In late January, the Iraqi government said it would not renew Blackwater’s operating license and that the company would have to leave as soon as a joint Iraqi-U.S. committee completes its work on guidelines for the operation of private security companies. State Department officials said they would honor the decision.
On Feb. 2, a department spokesman was asked whether officials planned to renew one of Blackwater’s contracts past May. The spokesman, Robert Wood, said the department had told Blackwater “we did not plan to renew the company’s existing task force orders for protective security details in Iraq.”
But records available through a federal procurement database show that on that same day, the State Department approved a $22.2 million contract modification for Blackwater “security personnel” in Iraq, with a job completion date of Sept. 3, 2009.
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2009/03/18/blackwat...-
-
Neutral
fsev417 months, 2 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your sources seem to confirm that these contracts worked out poorly. The second cite speaks of a contract renewed Feb 2 which was just two weeks after Obama took office. He hadn't had time to get a full cabinet in place let alone revising major procurement policies. No where in my comment did I say that such contracts were no longer in place.
Reply
My point was that privatization frequently does not work well, as the original article claims also. I suspect that you will be seeing less privatization and fewer no bid contracts over the next four years.
My eyes are wide open.
-
-
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (4)
quicksilver0602
Pupi
gamahuche
CaptainLucidPeople Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.