Blackwater Seeps Into the Campaign
Hillary Clinton has just become the most significant US political figure to come out in favor of banning Blackwater and other armed private security contractors from operating in Iraq. “When I am President I will ask the Joint Chiefs for their help in reducing reliance on armed private military contractors with the goal of ultimately implementing a ban on such contractors,” she declared in a major policy speech on Monday.
Her position is a welcome development for those in the Congress, such as Illinois Democratic Representative Jan Schakowsky and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who have long sought to rein in private security contractors.
In her speech, Clinton slammed Obama on this issue, saying, “Senator Obama and I have a substantive disagreement here. He won’t rule out continuing to use armed private military contractors in Iraq to do jobs that historically have been done by the US military or government personnel.” The Clinton campaign wants voters to believe it is that simple. It is not.
First, Clinton’s timing is suspect. She has served for five years on the Senate Armed Services Committee and has done nothing to end the use of Blackwater and other private security forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. In the aftermath of the September 2007 Nisour Square massacre, during which Blackwater operatives gunned down seventeen Iraqi civilians, Clinton condemned the company’s conduct but declined to sign on as a co-sponsor to legislation introduced by Sanders and Schakowsky in November 2007 seeking to ban Blackwater and other mercenary companies.
Instead, she chose to do it in late February, after The Nation published the comments of a senior foreign policy advisor to Obama who said, “I can’t rule out, I won’t rule out, private security contractors” in Iraq if Obama becomes president and that Obama does not intend to sign onto the Sanders-Schakowsky legislation. The next day, after refusing for over a week to provide a comment to The Nation on the issue, Clinton’s staff released a statement saying she would endorse the Stop Outsourcing Security Act to “ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq.” Clinton declared, “The time to show these contractors the door is long past due.” The statement was released five days before the make-or-break primaries in Texas and Ohio, when the New York Senator was on the ropes.
On Monday, Clinton said, “I believe what matters in this campaign is not just the promises we’ve made to end the war; what matters is what we’ve actually done when it came time to match words with action. Because more than anything else, what we’ve done is an indication of what we’ll do.” On the issue of Blackwater, Clinton has been MIA for years.
Clinton’s campaign is well aware that Obama has been ahead of the curve on the issue of armed private contractors in Iraq–and certainly ahead of her. In October 2007, Clinton claimed she was unaware that Bush had granted Blackwater and other contractors immunity in 2004. “Maybe I should have known about it; I did not know about it,” she said.
On Monday, Obama struck back. “Now, let me be clear: I actually introduced legislation in the Senate before Senator Clinton even mentioned this that said we had to crack down on private contractors like Blackwater because I don’t believe that they should be able to run amok and put our own troops in danger, get paid three or four times or ten times what our soldiers are getting paid. I am the one who has been opposed to those operators. Senator Clinton is a late comer to that. But you know this is what happens during political season and I understand it.”
In February 2007, Obama introduced contractor reform and oversight legislation that has become the Democrats’ major plan in the Congress. Obama’s bill seeks to make all contractors subject to prosecution in US civilian courts for crimes committed on a foreign battlefield. The bill is not without its problems. In theory, FBI investigators would deploy to the crime scene, gather evidence and interview witnesses, leading to indictments and prosecutions.
Apart from the fact that it would be impossible to effectively police such an enormous deployment of private contractors (at present basically equal to the number of active duty US troops in Iraq), the legislation would give the private military industry a tremendous PR victory. The companies could finally claim that a legally accountable structure governed their operations, yet they would be well aware that such legislation would be nearly impossible to enforce. Perhaps that is why the industry has passionately backed this approach.
But despite the measure’s significant flaws, Obama did introduce it eight months before Nisour Square, at a time when Clinton was largely inactive on the issue, despite her significant Congressional influence.
In response to Clinton’s speech Monday, Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said, “Hillary Clinton is attacking Barack Obama on an issue where he has led and she did nothing until her campaign fell behind.”
Beyond the rhetoric, how serious is Hillary Clinton about stopping Blackwater and other armed private security forces in Iraq? Obama’s campaign made a difficult admission, likely at odds with many of his supporters, by saying he wouldn’t rule out using these forces because they will be needed, at least at first, to implement his Iraq plan. The State Department does not have the official security agents available to protect the massive army of diplomats in Iraq, which Obama intends to maintain and, perhaps, increase. The campaign says Obama wants to change that and to make all security personnel official US Diplomatic Security agents, but that could take years, according to the State Department.
Like Obama, Clinton has an Iraq plan that will keep thousands of officials and others who require diplomatic security in Iraq. If she thinks the military wants to do that job, she hasn’t been reading the papers. If she thinks there are enough official State Department agents to do it right away, she hasn’t been looking at the numbers: Blackwater has almost as many security operatives working in Iraq (nearly 1,000) as the State Department has available in the rest of the world combined (1,450).
At the end of the day, both Obama and Clinton have Iraq plans that for the foreseeable future will necessitate using private armed security forces. While Obama’s campaign has acknowledged that fact, Clinton has seized it as an opportunity to attack Obama. Short of dramatically shrinking the size of the US civilian and diplomatic presence in Iraq, the next president may have no choice but to continue the current contracting arrangements. If, as President, Obama or Clinton did order the military to take over the protection of diplomats, that would result in an increase of US military convoys on the streets of Iraq, regularly placing US soldiers in direct–and likely lethal–contact with Iraqi civilians and vehicles.
In the bigger picture, the most disturbing aspect of this is that neither Clinton nor Obama have real plans to end the occupation. Their “withdrawal” plans will keep thousands of US military forces in Iraq, along with the Green Zone, the massive US embassy and the Baghdad airport. This could add up to as many as 80,000 troops, not including the armed security for diplomatic convoys currently provided by Blackwater, Triple Canopy and DynCorp.
If Hillary Clinton expects any credibility on this issue, especially after her recent condemnation of Blackwater and the pledge to ban private security forces in Iraq, it would mean radically revising her Iraq plan to one of complete withdrawal. That means no residual forces, “strike forces,” or the army of “diplomats” necessitating security, which regularly proves fatal for Iraqi civilians. At the same time, if either Obama or Clinton really wants to end the occupation, it means a pledge to swiftly withdraw all US troops and contractors. At this point, neither seems willing to do that.
Jeremy Scahill is the author of the New York Times bestseller Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. He is currently a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at the Nation Institute.
Copyright © 2008 The Nation
Sounds like somebody’s lying. Clinton claims she had no idea Blackwater was unaccountable until November of 2007, yet in February of 2007 Obama introduced a bill holding them accountable, which Hillary declined to support. All of a sudden she’s trying to become the accountability leader? Geez. She’s as slippery as a greasy snake and just as trustworthy.
kathyodat
Clinton is a classic flip-flopper who does whatever is necessary to get elected even if it means LYING to people. Typical politician.
Senator Clinton sez: “When I am President I will ask the Joint Chiefs for their help in reducing reliance on armed private military contractors with the goal of ultimately implementing a ban on such contractors.”
A helpful first step might have been to vote to implement a ban on funding such contractors while in your current job.
Just another twist of words by Clinton.
I said I would vote for the democratic nominee,
but now I’m not sure I could vote for Hillary.
She continues to twist words
and show herself as someone willing to use
the Republican strategies of attack, spin, and abuse.
We shouldn’t vote for politicians who lower the quality of our democracy.
Come on, sassysue, please explain Hillary to us on this one. Why do the Hillary apologists disappear whenever she gets caught out?
kathyodat
We have to bug the hell out of these candidates NOW, before anymore primaries to commit to get all of us out immediately. It can be completed in 6-9 months. The Iraqis have been around for 7000 years. They can figure it out. The longer we stay there the more damage we do.
HillaryClintonStoleYourBicycle.com
I like a ticket with Kucinich and Paul as co-presidents. The ends of the political spectrum are closer to each other than to the middle—it’s not a straight line with two ends—its a broken circle. And I think 60% 0f American voters would put these guys in office! They would both end empire and balance the budget and that’s enough for me—how about you?
After Obama’s speech yesterday, we should feel sorry for Hillary. Deep in her heart she must know that Obama is the best chance America has had in many years to change the basic direction of this country, because he has a very different perspective than she or McSame could possibly have. Hillary Clinton is a smart woman, and beneath her colossal ego and unbounded personal ambition is a spark of integrity which might very well inform her that she really offers much less than what Barack Obama brings to the table.
She has every right to be proud of Bill’s presidency and the surplus he was able to generate, and the delicate path of peace that he negotiated, for the most part. But she is not her husband, no matter how much she claims about her experience in the White House.
George Bush is in huge denial about the disaster he has been as President. But, he has been delusional for many years. As an oil man, he has done very well for the lobbies that put him in power. Their profits have been quite extraordinary. He can maintain his fantasy as he wanders down the halls of the presidential library that they will build for him, but in any other library his real legacy will be that of the worst president ever.
I hope Obama wins, because we will have his terms in office to really begin the change needed for America to progress in adopting a sane foreign policy, and an economic policy that is directed towards goals other than concentrating the wealth. But I will not be horribly distraught if he loses, because he has been unique in his ability to speak to wisdom and hope. Maybe things have to get a lot worse for angry white women, who consider gender as the most important issue, and angry white men, who see military solutions for every problem and cling to dreams of empire, to realize that more of the same doesn’t work.
Things could be a lot better, but they won’t be, unless much of what Obama says comes true. It has to come from the people. Obama’s grassroots movement is built on a different understanding that empowers people to work to make change happen. We have to overcome the politics of fear and division that is the status quo. If elected, Obama has the charisma that can go a long ways towards erasing the horrible stain that George Bush has left on the American image abroad.
It is amazing how far Obama has come to significantly challenge the corporate controlled Clinton-Lieberman wing of the party. He has shown that a grassroots movement can’t be dismissed by errant exuberance. He beat the system in Iowa that derailed Howard Dean and allowed the important questions about George Bush to be shouted down by the swift boaters, when the Washington Democrats got John Kerry nominated.
Finally, the country is ready, perhaps, for a candidate that respects and honors an intelligent electorate. If, we are lucky enough to nominate Obama, he will question the folly of the failed Iraq invasion. Unlike McCain, Obama knows the status quo needs to be really challenged. Imagine a debate with McCain when Obama asks him what does victory look like? What side does McCain back in the civil war unleashed by Bush’s war? (McCain still isn’t exactly clear that the Shia in Iran are not helping the Sunni factions in Iraq. Is he going to rely on Joe Zion to inform him about the Moslem middle east?) Exactly how does McCain occupy Iraq for 100 years as a champion of Israel, and how does he keep the Kurds and its neighbors happy? Will we, like other long term occupiers, have to continually brutalize the population to fight insurgencies?
Reality suggests going to Iraq was a bad idea. Why does McCain cling to the problems created by more years of occupation? Does he think more occupation is the answer? Why can’t the people in Iraq work this out? They seem to be sorting it out now in some fashion. Most all the ethic cleansing has been done in most neighborhoods. Will McCain actually come clean on the real reason for staying–oil? Can’t we just buy the oil? Why do we have to install the Government over there?
All of these kinds of questions can be raised by an Obama campaign, in a civil and reasonable manner. The more you understand how MaCain thinks, the more you understand that he doesn’t think, at least in ways that solve problems. The history of botched neocolonial policy has, in a generation, produced Iraq and Vietnam, two remarkable failures, all of our own doing. The politics of division forged by Nixon, perfected by Reagan, and practiced by the Bushes has created a reality that places our nation and the world near the brink of disaster. Obama is the only one who has articulated a vision of what can be done to avert the looming reality of global warming, economic meltdown, and a slide toward a fascist America. He may not be able to provide every detail as a candidate, but, at least, he knows what we need to start to solve problems and stopping digging the hole we are in.
Of course, underlying racism and slogans instead of issues will help McCain, but in the end Obama can win. Even Hillary will come to see that the hope that Barack Obama has generated for our country. I know her defeat will be hard for her, and I can empathize with her pain, but I would rather it come at the hands of Obama, than at the hands of McCain.
**********************BOTH ARE FLIP FLOPPERS !!!
Obama gave a speech against the war - once elected to the Senate (probably based on that speech) he began to support the occupation by voting to fund it and is now promoting an increase in defense spending, military bases, Blackwater mercenaries, and the huge US Embassy in Iraq. Obama is the Senate’s fourth highest recipient of defense industry money. Hillary gets even more. IT’S TIME TO WAKE UP.
Obama used to be for single payer health care - now he’s against it and promotes the “healthcare for corporate profit” plan.
You tell me: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? (please, something besides personality) When you check their voting records, Obama and Clinton are virtually the same. IT’S TIME TO WAKE UP.
SCARE ‘EM - Support the message of the GREEN PARTY OR RALPH NADER! Send them money so that they can bring the REAL TRUTH to the American voters. Otherwise it’s going to be a sad, sad election with no one seriously challenging the two war party candidates.
IF NOT NOW … WHEN WILL YOU BAIL FROM THE SMARMY DEMOCRATIC PARTY WHO HAS ALL THE BEST TRICKS TO GET AMERICANS TO SHOOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT …. IN THE HEART.
Again, Mr. Scahill bring reality into the propaganda. Both candidate are less than credible on this issue, and McCain would be a disaster.
I do believe that Obama has less ties to the DLC and corporation that give me a slight hope that he would act differently. It’s hard, however, to see how a Democrat or Republican will change the system enough until the economy collapses and they have to protect their necks from being lopped off.
That said, Ralph Nader is joke! There are so many better candidates in the green party. Nader could be doing so much good talking out against the war and uranium tipped weapons, or deadly toys coming from China, but he wastes his time running for president. What a waste of talent.
Tex Shelters
Good post, damnliberal.
And Hank Fur, I would rather have Obama who was once for single payer than Hillary who was once for invading Iraq. Just in case people once in office revert to form, you know?
Obama’s never actually come out against single payer, he just doesn’t think it can be done right now. But, how about tomorrow? It’s true, he’s more pragmatic than I am, but maybe he can accomplish more than I could. I’m willing to give him a chance. And after all, Hillary has never ever been for single payer. And I agree with his point that’s it’s unreasonable to force people to pay insurers for insurance they can’t afford. And I’m insulted by the “policy for every pocketbook” idea. Just what we need, to throw money away on worthless policies that cover little with astronomical deductibles and high copays.
kathyodat
Goodness, looks like the Hillary apologists are all out of tongue on this topic. Can’t blame them. She got caught outright in a lie.
kathyodat
What is McCain’s take from Blackwater? Eric Prince has spread lots of money around the GOP. His freind and operative, Coffer Black, was Romney,s advisor for national security. Scary!
Hillary will say and do anything to get elected. As she said, “Talk is cheap.”
It is well past time that Blackwater be separated from the government tit post haste. Their war profiteering is amongst the more shameful of episodes in a fiasco that has produced shame beyond measure. At this point in time, which candidate was more proactive is a minor factor as opposed to separating Prince from the taxpayer spigot ASAP.
BeForKids, Hey Kathyodat, you hit a home with bases loaded on this article. First post A1!
Gotta go for our fifth anniversary march against the “blitzkreig” of 2003, and the continued American style of murder and mayhem in Iraq.
Later
Great discussion. With your permission, damnliberal, I’d like to copy your contribution and send to family & friends. Insightful, objective, fair.
Until this week I’ve had serious misgivings about all candidates, past and present. Kucinich had the most positive platform but never a prayer of being nominated, much less elected. All others have brought heavy baggage ranging from terrifying prospects for our future (all the Republicans), to deception & subterfuge on many levels for the Democrats. All the other parties are nonstarters.
Finally, this week I’m beginning to come, late, to the Obama party. Not a bandwagon-jumper-on-er, I have been underwhelmed by his flowery prose empty of substance. Not to mention plaguing inconsistencies. But, in addition to Senator Clinton’s personal issues, the vicious, take-no-prisoners Republicans will swift-boat her into oblivion. So it has been obvious for a long time that if we have a snowball’s chance of not having at least eight more years of Bush/Cheney, just under other names, Obama has to be the candidate. But there has been no joy in the prospect — no hope for a better tomorrow, ironically, contrary to his campaign theme — despite the throngs of people telling me how much hope he gives them and how inspired they are by him, including quite a few white men.
Now, at last, I am beginning to feel a little of that myself. Skepticism remains. He is, after all, a mere mortal and a politician. But of those left standing, President Obama is the only one who can immediately, upon taking the oath of office, restore a little bit of respect and credibility for the US in the eyes of the world. He would have to work (HARD) to build on that new-found “benefit of the doubt” the world would give us for putting a biracial, bi-continental person in the White House. I have not heard anything remotely specific from him as to foreign policy or domestic programs. I hope that is strategy, artifice.*
*”artifice” sounds bad but isn’t, according to my 1963 Funk & Wagnalls dictionary anyhow. Look it up.
Your statement is not true, BeForKids: “…Hillary has never ever been for single payer”. The massive health-care reform she set out to enact at the beginning of Bill’s first term, the effort for which she has taken a non-stop drubbing ever since, was originally to be single payer. The Republicans sliced and diced her until she was an unrecognizable bloody pulp for it, too.
Blackwater, Whitewater, Badwater has poisoned our Liberty Tree. It’s time to rip it with it’s three rotten branches out of the Earth and start all over again. If at first we don’t secede…
to whatfools
I don’t know where I heard or saw this but it seems appropriate. “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time with the blood of patriots of tyrants.”
“Obama’s campaign made a difficult admission, likely at odds with many of his supporters, [not with those who understand military history], by saying he wouldn’t rule out using these forces because they will be needed, at least at first, to implement his Iraq plan.”
The issue is logistics more than State Department security. Less bases + less troops = less private military contractors needed. The best thing to do is to withdraw and analyze where the military is after that occurs.
“Iraq Contractors Face Growing Parallel War”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/15/AR2007061502602_pf.html
“Barack Obama on Military Contractors”
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/03/17/response_to_clinton_attacks_on.php
The Sanders bill won’t change the situation on the ground and would only reveal the Senate for the paper tiger it is once it uses its War Power to authorize war.
Which is why it is critical to hold Hillary accountable for her vote in 2002 that invoked the War Power.
Judgment Matters on Day One.
What H.J. Resolution 114 “To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq” actually says:
“Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.”
[Section 8(a)(1): SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred–(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution.” http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm]
“The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/october02/houseres_10-10-02.pdf
“When I am President I will ASK the Joint Chiefs for their HELP in REDUCING reliance on armed private military contractors with the GOAL of ultimately implementing a ban on such contractors,”
So she is going to ASK not tell? not leadership qualities.
She wants them to HELP? does she really think they would help her?
REDUCING? ya, I would like a reduction in my waistline, 5% would be fine.
GOAL? Shit gurl, you’d be presdent, you’d be th’ decider, you don’t set a goal, you just do it.
as we can see from her own words, she would not be a strong leader and would give her power over to others for them to do what they want.
I am really starting to hate Hillary.
Hillary is being pulled to the left kicking and screaming. This is unfamilar territory for her and it shows .
I’m concerned about Blackwater’s close association with the Republican party. They could be used as a private domestic police force subcontracting for the FBI or the ATF. No thanks. I’m wondering who will occupy the six hundred prisons being built to hold 20,000 people each. Will Blackwater be contracted to arrest and imprison dissenters. Hillary said nothing about stopping their domestic use.
ukidnme, where’s your information coming from? That plan was never intended to be single payer. Even before Bill Clinton was elected he was meeting with the top five insurers at Jackson Hole Wyoming creating a health care plan that they could live with and that’s what Hillary put together. A humongous boondoggle, even without the Harry and Louise attack ads. She has never let single payer cross her lips. Don’t forget, she’s DLC, she and Bill founded it to compete with the Republicans for corporate money. And that is my main objection to her. At least it was until she started using such low campaign tactics when Obama pulled ahead of her.
kathyodat
spartacus, your comments on Hillary’s physical appearance are unbecoming and ungentlemanly. I would think more highly of your opinion if you left out such remarks (realizing you may well not give a rat’s ass what I think of you, although I’m probably not alone in that regard).
kathyodat
[In her speech, Clinton slammed Obama on this issue, saying, “Senator Obama and I have a substantive disagreement here. He won’t rule out continuing to use armed private military contractors in Iraq to do jobs that historically have been done by the US military or government personnel.” The Clinton campaign wants voters to believe it is that simple. It is not.]
It just goes to show, greedy racist frauds will say anything and do anything to get from point a to point b. You cannot undo these private armies who were incubated in the east coast near Virginia, Maryland and Washington D.C.
We remember when one of our websites was visited by someone we tracked to a nuclear powered submarine off the coast of Virginia. We thought visits from remote Iceland were interesting but from a nuclear powered sub was funny. The point is this economy is based on war and intelligence and she will have a hard time dismantling these huge monsters. What are those mercenaries going to do when they come back? Serve as armed security guards patrolling the disney world grounds and deliver pizza at gun point? (They don’t have any other skills, they’re lazy and living in a video game fantasy world).
SRD
http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html
Hillary makes empty promises and Obama says what we want to hear; what great choices we have.
http://www.ryanhartman.wordpress.com
If Hillary asks the joint chiefs for help on this one, they will give her two choices:
1) more Blackwater, or
2) reinstate the military draft
Take your pick !
Grappa,
“Hillary is being pulled to the left kicking and screaming. This is unfamiliar territory for her and it shows.”
That’s an astute observation. I certainly agree.
Old Hippy…The quote is from Thomas Jefferson
“The Nation published the comments of a senior foreign policy advisor to Obama who said, “I can’t rule out, I won’t rule out, private security contractors” in Iraq if Obama becomes president and that Obama does not intend to sign onto the Sanders-Schakowsky legislation.”
What part of that statement don’t you understand??
I trust Sanders, a whole lot more then Obama! What’s the difference in the bills??
As for Barack’s Insurance vs healthCARE! What he’s promoting (and Hillary) is Giving our Tax Dollars, (that’s what a subsidy is) to Insurance Co. for (NOT) providing healthcare!!Insurance Co. make money (BIG MONEY) by denying YOU the benifit you thought you were paying for, until you needed it!
There was a non-partisan study done, about a year ago, I wish I’d saved it! It run models of different types of Healthcare vs. Insurance care! What we have 1.(Free Market) you or your employer pay for Insurance, 2. a Hybryd, (what Barack and Hillary prepose) If you or your emplyer doesn’t provide it, the ‘government’ will help you ‘afford’ to buy Insurance 3. A Government run, single-payer Basic Care for All, Healthcare Plan!
The result of analyzing many different forms of the three basic ideas above, always came out the same! The WORST case senerio is Government Subsidizing Insurance (look at the Medicare Advantage Program, & it’s run away costs). The LOWEST cost, and best outcome, is ALWAYS a Government run program, with it’s low 3% overhead! With what we currently spend on healthcare, (the highest per capita, over 6k in the world, yet we rank 38th in outcome) we could cover every American citizen, Right Now, just by eliminating the parisitic Insurance Companies!
Another reason to support the Green (non-corporate)Party!!!Single-payer Non-Profit Healthcare for All!!
Clinton is a liar and she will say or do anything to win Bill’s favor, in this case, whore herself to an election regardless of the damage it does to our country and the Democratic Party.
Clinton has been behind in this election the entire time. She came in third in Iowa. Obama came in first, and he has led in delegates from then on, and will continue to lead in delegates and the popular vote until the convention.
Clinton needs to bow out and throw her support unreservedly to the leader of the Democratic primaries and caucuses, Barak Obama. She can’t win.
But will she (and Obama) oppose the use by the State Dept. of private military contractors to “help” the entire continent of Africa become peaceful and prosperous. Or perhaps help make American corporations more prosperous. Something like that.
AFRICOM is the name of our plan, with the U.S. military supposedly becoming more humanitarian and State becoming ever more militarized. Africa does not like AFRICOM and nor should we.
This must NOT be funded by Congress.
If we get Barack Obama into the White House, I think that you’ll find that the troops (and contractors) are removed much quicker from Iraq than you might expect. Barack Obama and his administration will not be made up of chicken hawks, defense contractors and oil men. They definitely want peace and justice, not a barbaric occupation and ridiculously huge profits.
ukidnme
This summary of Hillary’s healthcare plan sure doesn’t contain a single payer provision:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Clinton_health_care_plan
In fact, there’s this:
Starting on September 28, 1993, Hillary Clinton appeared for several days of testimony before five congressional committees on health care. Opponents of the bill organized against it before it was presented to the Democratic-controlled Congress on November 20, 1993. The bill was a complex proposal running more than 1,000 pages, the core element of which was an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees through competitive but closely-regulated health maintenance organizations (HMOs). The full text of the November 20 bill (the “Health Security Act”) is available online.
=====
Hillary Clinton is full of it. Senator Obama addressed the problem of Blackwater and other contractors last year without a peep of public support from her.
Here are Obama’s statements accompanying his amendment to 2007 Senate Appropriations Bill which requires oversight and accountability of military and security contractors like Blackwater. (It passed unanimously.)
Mr. President, the recent incident in which Blackwater USA reportedly killed at least 11 Iraqis and wounded several others has prompted a long overdue examination of the role that private security contractors are playing in Iraq. An article in today’s Washington Post titled “U.S. Pays Steep Price for Private Security in Iraq” helps to highlight the exorbitant mark-up that private security contractors are reportedly charging the U.S. Government.
Last week, the Senate accepted an amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill that I offered that will require Federal departments to report information to Congress on the total number of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, the companies awarded these contracts, and the cost of the contracts. The provisions of the amendment are drawn from the Transparency and Accountability in Military and Security Contracting Act, S. 674, that I introduced in February.
The American people have a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent in Iraq and the role that security contractors are playing in that conflict. We need to make sure that security contractors in Iraq are subject to adequate and transparent oversight and that their actions do not have a negative impact on our efforts to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end.
Hillary speaks to voters as though they are total ignoramuses who don’t know anything other than what she tells them.
In her own way, she’s a narcissist, just as GW Bush is, truly believing that she can create a reality just because that’s what she wants and others will fall right in line with it.