House Panel Critical of Iraq Contractors

advertisement

WASHINGTON — Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House oversight committee, said Thursday that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has issued an order requiring his approval of any corruption investigations of himself or senior ministry officials.

Waxman, D-Calif., said the order essentially grants immunity to al-Maliki and his ministry at a time when fraud and abuse is rampant and hurting reconstruction efforts.

"These are not unfounded allegations," Waxman said. "This is Nouri al-Maliki's edict that no one will be referred to court unless he approves it."

In testimony before the panel, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she was not aware of the specific order, but that the U.S. would oppose any policy shielding senior officials from criminal prosecution or investigation.

"It would not be the intention of the United States of America that any official of Iraq ... would be immune from investigations of corruption," she said. If the prime minister were to demand immunity from corruption charges, "that would not be an acceptable policy from the view of the United States."

The issue prompted a tense exchange between Rice and Democrats on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, who demanded that Rice publicly denounce the al-Maliki order they described. At one point, the usually unflappable Rice became visibly frustrated when Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., cut short her answers and repeatedly asked whether President Bush would call on Iraq to repeal the order.

"To assault the prime minister of Iraq, or anyone else in Iraq" with unsubstantiated allegations would be "deeply damaging, and frankly I think it would be wrong," she said.

Rep. Tom Davis, the top Republican on the committee, said he thought the order was not as sinister as suggested and only meant to consolidate corruption investigations. Democrats seemed to be trying "to drill enough small holes in the bottom of the boat to sink the entire Iraqi enterprise, while still claiming undying support for the crew about to drown," Davis, R-Va., said.

Al-Maliki has said the Integrity Commission, the country's top oversight agency, does seek his approval before it investigates a Cabinet member or senior members of his staff. But the Iraqi Parliament can open an investigation into the prime minister or any non-elected official without approval. Parliament members have immunity from prosecution, as in most countries.

The hearing comes after several weeks of wrangling between Waxman and the State Department. Waxman says the State Department has made gross missteps in its management of the war, including lax oversight of contractors and not doing enough to curb government fraud and abuse.

One particular issue has been the classification of specific corruption investigations by the United States. The State Department says such information should be classified because it could expose sources and hurt U.S.-Iraqi relations.

"I think there are a lot of things that ought to be made public," including whether money siphoned from corruption has funded attacks on U.S. troops, Waxman said. "We ought to know that information."

Rice said militias are being funded by multiple sources, including possibly corruption. But, she added, a bigger problem was money from Iran.

On a separate matter, Congress is moving to put all armed contractors operating in combat zones under military control, acting on a Pentagon recommendation that could run into resistance at the State Department.

The Senate this month included such a requirement in its 2008 defense authorization bill. Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters Wednesday he is confident the House will go along with the idea and include it in a final bill sent to President Bush.

Rice has ordered new rules for the private guards who are hired to protect U.S. diplomats. They include increased monitoring and explicit rules on when and how they can use deadly force. The steps were recommended by a review panel that Rice created after a deadly Sept. 16 shooting involving Blackwater USA guards.

Rice also called for better coordination with the military, but did not explicitly act on a suggestion by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that combatant commanders have control over the contractors.

Levin, D-Mich., said he was not sure if Rice expressly opposed the idea. "Whether she likes it or not, we expect to get this language" to emerge in the compromise with the House.

"It's not slapdash" and "is something we've been working on a long time," Levin said.

In her testimony Thursday, Rice said she and Gates have asked their No. 2 officials to study the issue further and make additional recommendations, if necessary. She also said legislation is needed to ensure "appropriation action" can be taken against any armed contractors involved in killings.

In more fallout from the Blackwater shooting, the State Department's security chief resigned Wednesday. Rice accepted the resignation, which is effective Nov. 1, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. Richard Griffin will be replaced on an acting basis by one of his deputies, Gregory Starr.

  • 17 Votes
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
6.6
5.1
3.0
{"commentId":1127260,"authorDomain":"eviefalcon"}

I made a comment on another website about 6 months ago that we were looking at the $1 Trillion milepost in the near future, and was told how ignorant my statement was by the Right-Wing Bushies lurking about.

What do they have to say now?

{"commentId":1127260,"threadId":"166601","contentId":"1047158","authorDomain":"eviefalcon"}
  • 5 votes
Reply#1 - Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:00 PM EDT
{"commentId":1128002,"authorDomain":"gpolya"}

A recent article in the highly respected humanitarian UK journal The New Statesman quoted an estimate of the accrual cost (i.e. the long-term committed cost) of the Bush War on Terror at $2.5 TRILLION – and the estimate came from 2001 Economics Nobel Laureate US Professor Stiglitz (Columbia) and Professor Linda Bilmes (Harvard) (for discussion see "The Cost of War": link ).

{"commentId":1128002,"threadId":"166601","contentId":"1047158","authorDomain":"gpolya"}
  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:30 PM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":1127293,"authorDomain":"Catch22"}

"Fool me once... cant get fooled again." -George W. Bush

This White House has played Americans as fools over and over again.

The White House brushed off the analysis as "speculation."

The same White House that keeps America in the dark as much as it can and which dismissed estimates of 100 - 200 billion as very very high.

January 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the budget office had come up with "a number that's something under $50 billion."

The White House has no credibility at all on this issue. I challenge anyone to provide a rational basis to conclude otherwise given the history of this White House.

BTW: Is it that hard to seperate out the cost of the two wars? Is it too much to ask for the cost of the Iraq war? It at least appears they are intentionally puting them together despite the fact they have little to do with one another.

{"commentId":1127293,"threadId":"166601","contentId":"1047158","authorDomain":"Catch22"}
  • 8 votes
Reply#2 - Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:11 PM EDT
{"commentId":1127342,"authorDomain":"jdoyle"}

Let those who support this war pay for it.

{"commentId":1127342,"threadId":"166601","contentId":"1047158","authorDomain":"jdoyle"}
  • 3 votes
Reply#3 - Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:34 PM EDT
{"commentId":1127756,"authorDomain":"aine"}

Send the bill to the Carlyle Group. hehe

{"commentId":1127756,"threadId":"166601","contentId":"1047158","authorDomain":"aine"}
  • 3 votes
#3.1 - Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:52 PM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":1127443,"authorDomain":"Rapubakin"}

When then-White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey suggested six months before the war that the mission could cost $100 billion to $200 billion total, he was stoned by the Bush junta and fired.

"He's not a team player, let's just kill him." -- dick Cheney

"It's just a ton of speculation," said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "We don't know how much the war is going to cost in the future. I taught my big manly dog to growl when you say Al Gore; am I f***** or what?"

{"commentId":1127443,"threadId":"166601","contentId":"1047158","authorDomain":"Rapubakin"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#4 - Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:17 PM EDT
{"commentId":1127462,"authorDomain":"barry-rutherford"}

jdoyleNow there is a thought. Also how many twin towers could be build with 2.4 trillion dollars. Without loss of life. Or alternatively how many industries could be built in Afghanistan with 2.4 trillion dollars to replace the cocaine crops ? Just a thought ?

{"commentId":1127462,"threadId":"166601","contentId":"1047158","authorDomain":"barry-rutherford"}
  • 4 votes
Reply#5 - Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:23 PM EDT
{"commentId":1127499,"authorDomain":"spookybf"}

...uhm, heroin crops

{"commentId":1127499,"threadId":"166601","contentId":"1047158","authorDomain":"spookybf"}
  • 1 vote
#5.1 - Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:38 PM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":1127508,"authorDomain":"eddiefrench"}

Some figures:
Vietnam war = $80b per year.
Apollo era = $24b in total (9 years)
Zubrins Mars plan $100m

And 5 years worth of US oil consumption? Any-one?

{"commentId":1127508,"threadId":"166601","contentId":"1047158","authorDomain":"eddiefrench"}
  • 2 votes
Reply#6 - Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:43 PM EDT
{"commentId":1127527,"authorDomain":"cbfleury"}

A starting number, even though it was apparent the war would cost this country a lot of money, but this is almost unfathomable. Plenty of fighter jets, and yet no money for Children's Health Insurance, how fair.

{"commentId":1127527,"threadId":"166601","contentId":"1047158","authorDomain":"cbfleury"}
  • 2 votes
Reply#7 - Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:50 PM EDT
{"commentId":1127846,"authorDomain":"djehuty"}

Let's say there are 1 billion people on the planet in serious poverty. That would mean these wars cost the equivalent of giving each person in extreme poverty US$2400. That's almost certainly enough for each of those people to do something pretty major to improve their conditions. Put in wells, reforest, set up cottage industries, buy cows and pasture... just look at what Grameen Bank has done and it's clear how effective grassroots stuff like that can be.

And the effect is cumulative. Those people now are not only not starving they are more productive and bigger consumers of other goods. They save up and buy a radio and a fridge. They buy furniture produced by the woodcarver in the next village (who bought his tools with some of his $2400). Eventually the benefits even reach the US where the money originated - because there is now a greated demand for highly manufactured goods and knowlege based services. Like the Marshall Plan.

It's an insane, disgusting, criminal amount of money to waste on killing people.

Clipped story to Peace Ideas group as a counterexample. @!$%#.

{"commentId":1127846,"threadId":"166601","contentId":"1047158","authorDomain":"djehuty"}
  • 4 votes
Reply#8 - Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:01 PM EDT
{"commentId":1127879,"authorDomain":"schnoo"}

Yeah, but some would just take that $2400 and get drunk or high. Like dubya used to. So, we can't have that.

{"commentId":1127879,"threadId":"166601","contentId":"1047158","authorDomain":"schnoo"}
  • 3 votes
#8.1 - Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:19 PM EDT
{"commentId":1127987,"authorDomain":"djehuty"}

Ya know, Schoo, even though you were joking there's an element of truth in that. If you give $2400 to someone who's rich (or worse yet someone who feels their pappy will always look after them and they never had to earn their own money) then they're likely to piss it up against a wall. But if you give the same money to someone who's always been poor, and whose family depends on them for the meagre livelihood they can eke out... then they're likely to take good care they spend it wisely. After all they know it's the one chance they (or their whole family) may ever get to escape poverty.

As a further aside: this is why you should give the money to women, not their husbands. In sexist societies (even ours, to a lesser extent) the men are lazy and suffer from a sense of entitlement. The women carry most of the burdens and responsibilities. Grameen understands this.

And as an even further aside (*grin*) the worst thing to do, on this principle, is to give $2.4 trillion to a spoilt rich brat, because he'll waste it on stupid wars designed to make himself look like some "commander guy" and do favours for his greedy friends in the oil and defence industries. After all, it's too much even for the most profligate prodigal son to waste of booze and cocaine and women.

{"commentId":1127987,"threadId":"166601","contentId":"1047158","authorDomain":"djehuty"}
  • 2 votes
#8.2 - Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:22 PM EDT
Reply
{"commentId":1127969,"authorDomain":"TeddRi"}
$2.4 Trillion

I wonder what lifetime free medical costs would add up to ? I am sure this would make one heck of a big dent in the system !

{"commentId":1127969,"threadId":"166601","contentId":"1047158","authorDomain":"TeddRi"}
  • 2 votes
Reply#9 - Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:14 PM EDT
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"166601","isPrivate":false}
Leave a Comment:
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
{"threadId":"166601","contentId":"1047158"}
Start TrackingStart Tracking
Stop TrackingStop Tracking