It was a free-for-all of hogs at the trough, and you got stuck with the check

Pentagon auditors from the DoD Inspector Generals office testified before the House Oversight Committee on the results of an audit conducted in $8.2 Billion in spending in Iraq, and informed congress that there was no accountability, and no way to even be sure that any service was rendered in exchange for most of the payments rendered.

In addition to the $8.2 Billion American taxpayer dollars that have been mismanaged, the report also looked at $1.8 Billion in seized or frozen assets.

The auditors found that payments of hundreds of millions of dollars would be approved by a single signature and paid out on an invoice that simply says "Iraqi Salary Payment." In another breathtaking example of the lack of accountability, $11.1 million of taxpayer money was paid to IAP, an American contractor, on the basis of a voucher with no indication of what was delivered, or if, indeed, anything was. A deputy IG for auditing was flatly critical, telling members of the committee that the absence of anything beyond a voucher meant that “we were giving or providing a payment without any basis for the payment.” been

The new report is especially significant because while other federal auditors have severely criticized the way the United States has handled payments to contractors in Iraq, this is the first time that the Pentagon itself has acknowledged the mismanagement on anything resembling this scale.

The disclosure that $1.8 billion in Iraqi assets was mishandled comes on top of an earlier finding by an independent federal oversight agency, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, that United States occupation authorities early in the conflict could not account for the disbursement of $8.8 billion in Iraqi oil money and seized assets.

“This report is further documentation of the fact that the United States had absolutely no preparation to use contracting on the scale that it needed either at the military or aid level in going to war in Iraq,” said Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

“We had really allowed ourselves to become more and more dependent on contractors in peacetime,” said Mr. Cordesman, who spoke in a telephone interview on Thursday. “We were unprepared to use contractors in wartime, and all of this had an immense impact.”

The Pentagon report, titled “Internal Controls Over Payments Made in Iraq, Kuwait and Egypt,” also notes that auditors were unable to find a comprehensible set of records to explain $134.8 million in payments by the American military to its allies in the Iraq war.

The mysterious payments, whose amounts had not been publicly disclosed, included $68.2 million to the United Kingdom, $45.3 million to Poland and $21.3 million to South Korea. Despite repeated requests, Pentagon auditors said they were unable to determine why the payments were made.

“It sounds like the coalition of the willing is the coalition of the paid — they’re willing to be paid,” said Mr. Waxman, who later in the day introduced what he called a “clean contracting” amendment to a defense authorization bill being debated on the House floor. The amendment, which was accepted by voice vote, would institute a number of reforms, including new whistleblower protections and requirements on competitive bidding.

It has been a giant free-for-all on your dime, and a few people have gotten very, very rich off of this clusterfuck of a war. There has been a stunning lack of accountability, and we have been screaming about that for as long as there has been a war in Iraq, even when that got us slandered as unpatriotic.

Congress is deliberating the funding for one more year of war this very week. They need to attach accountability provisions to every fucking penny they authorize.

Truth in labeling is pro-consumer not anti-business

People need to get that through their thick heads.

Currently there is a bill in the ag committee in the Missouri House of Representatives that would mandate truth in labeling of dairy products that needs to be passed, business protestations aside. The bill was introduced by Rogersville Republican Mike Cunningham, and there was a committee meeting this morning. I happened to call his office to ask how the hearing went, just as he was walking in the office, and he talked to me himself and told me that it went pretty well, and I could hear him smile over the phone when he told me that he talked for about 45 minutes and didn't leave a lot of time for opposition, by the dairy industry.

I dunno about you, but I can't, for the life of me, figure out why the modest, common sense proposals in MO HB 2283 are even being protested. Here are the main points of the bill:

HB 2283 -- Dairy Product Labeling

Sponsor: Cunningham (145)

This bill specifies that a dairy product, except those produced
through organic farming, is misbranded if:

(1) A compositional claim cannot be confirmed through laboratory
analysis;

(2) A compositional claim is supported solely by sworn
statements, affidavits, or testimonials;

(3) The label contains false or misleading statements,
production claims, or production composition; or

(4) A statement indicates the absence of a compound not
permitted by the United States Food and Drug Administration but
it is found present in the product.

There is simply nothing there that would be onerous or represent an undue burden. Anyone put out of business by this piece of legislation that would simply demand truth in labeling of some of the foodstuffs we put in our bodies to sustain our very lives is most likely either a lousy businessman, or they are dishonest and shouldn't be in business anyway.

I would like to encourage encourage all Missouri voters to contact their state Representative, regardless of party, and encourage him or her to support this common sense piece of legislation.

In Which I say Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa

I will not be supporting Missouri HB 2283, I will be opposing it with full-throated protest. And I will not soon be forgetting that I was taken in by a bill that was written to do that very thing by deception.

It is a big wet kiss to big ag and specifically Monsanto.

And in future, I will refrain from posting on bills that sound good to a scientist at first blush until an attorney deciphers the legalese.




[Crossposted from Show Me Progress]

This round goes to Gates

The Department of Defense and the State Department agreed on Tuesday that the DoD would assume a greater role in the oversight and management of armed security personnel operating in Iraq.

The DoD has wanted greater control over the mercenaries who run in and out of the battle space wreaking havoc since the earliest days of the occupation. Blackwater alone has been involved in over 190 incidents in which they discharged their weapons since 2005, and have earned a reputation as trigger-happy thugs who undermine the mission (whatever it is this week). The most recent incident, on September 16, left 17 Iraqis dead and started a deluge of bad publicity for Blackwater, including charges of weapons smuggling, theft of military aircraft, and tax evasion.

The rate of Blackwater violence is at least twice that of DynCorp International and Triple Canopy, the other security companies operating in Iraq. Blackwater’s hired guns are just that, discharging weapons, on average, twice every convoy. (The other companies frequently escort convoys completely without incident.)

“You can find any number of people, particularly in uniform, who will tell you that they do see Blackwater as a company that promotes a much more aggressive response to things than other main contractors do,” a senior American official said. “Is it the operating environment or something specific about Blackwater?” asked one government official. “My best guess is that it is both.”

While the bloody rampage at the Nissour traffic roundabout was the most shocking in the level of wanton killing, the modern-day Pinkerton's of Blackwater are under investigation in six other episodes that left ten people dead and at least 15 wounded.

Slowly, American officials are accepting the position that Blackwater's behavior in Iraq is counterproductive to the stated 'mission' by fueling resentment among the local population.

“They’re repeat offenders, and yet they continue to prosper in Iraq,” said Representative Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat who has been broadly critical of the role of contractors in Iraq. “It’s really affecting attitudes toward the United States when you have these cowboy guys out there. These guys represent the U.S. to them and there are no rules of the game for them.”

Currently, there are approximately 10,000 armed mercenaries running around Iraq, under contract to various branches of the United States government and NGOs. I know it sounds bizarre, but there is no central oversight authority to which they must answer.

Pragmatically, it just makes sense to bring all armed civilians who are under contract to American government agencies and NGOs, as well as the American military under one authority. It would mean, effectively, that those armed civilians would no longer have multiple bosses at multiple levels and a disparate set of rules. Pentagon officials say it would allow for better coordination and communications between the American military and the private security personnel.

When contractors get in trouble, they call on the US military to bail them out. Fully 30% of the incidents in which the military was called on to save mercenary bacon involved movements and convoys that the military was not even aware had mobilized.

American commanders often perceive the private security personnel in an adversarial light. Civilian casualties, victims of mercenary gunfire, infuriate the Iraqi government and damage the American perception and image among the locals. This frustrates military officers who say the heavy-handed, shoot-first-and-don’t-even-bother-to-ask-questions-later tactics by mercenaries undermine the broader mission.

Also on Tuesday, the Iraqi parliament hammered out draft legislation that would repeal Order 17, the imperialistic, extraterritorial immunity granted to mercenaries by Paul Bremmer on his way out of town when the CPA turned over authority to the Iraqi government. Order 17 exempts mercenaries who commit wanton murder of Iraqi civilians (and any other crimes) from prosecution in Iraqi courts.

It was already a given that State was not going to be of much help to their hired guns. Indeed, it has been known for a while now that Blackwater is on it's way out of Iraq, and State will not be renewing their contracts. But the constant barrage of evidence pointing up the incompetence and fecklessness of the State Department under Condi Rice, including the revelation less than 24 hours before the agreement was made that State Department investigators had sanctioned Blackwater lawlessness by routinely issuing immunity to mercenaries involved in shooting incidents, Gates got less resistance from State than was expected.

Hayden Goes Hysterical

In an unprecedented move, CIA director Michael Hayden has ordered an internal inquiry into the work of the Inspector General over the agency. The IG, John L. Helgerson, has been dedicated to the investigation of the CIA’s detention and interrogation programs, and this stern oversight has rankled many operatives.

Helgerson’s willingness to look into the dark crannies has prompted Hayden to order an investigation of the IG’s office, focusing on complaints that the Inspector General’s office has not acted in a fair and impartial manner when judging agency operations. Hayden accuses the IG of embarking on a “crusade” against those who have gone along with the morally bankrupt Bush administrations detention and interrogation programs.

This move by Hayden has taken many aback, as it threatens to undermine the independence of the IG’s office. Former IG for the CIA, Frederick Hitz, who served in that capacity from 1990 to 1998, was astounded by Hayden’s order. In his opinion, any move by the agency’s director to examine the work of the inspector general would “not be proper.”

“I think it’s a terrible idea,” said Mr. Hitz, who now teaches at the University of Virginia. “Under the statute, the inspector general has the right to investigate the director. How can you do that and have the director turn around and investigate the I.G.?”

Current and former officials said that Hayden’s inquest had involved formal interviews with members of the IG’s staff, and his little inquisition is being headed up by a loyal minion to Hayden, Robert L. Deitz, who served as General Counsel to the NSA when Hayden ran that agency.

Inspectors General are not immune from accountability – but Hayden’s approach is astounding in it’s brazen nature. In a normal, sane administration, the proscribed grievance process would be followed. That would involve filing a complaint with the Integrity Committee of the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency, which oversees all the inspectors general. The second option is for the director of the aggrieved agency to plead his or her case directly to the President, and if the case is made, the President can remove the Inspector General from his post.

How quaint. These proscribed mechanisms afford accountability, and would have avoided the current awkwardness; while protecting the independence of the IG’s office.

The existing mechanisms just didn’t have the right element of authoritarian and histrionic theatrics about them to suit Hayden’s fancy, apparently.

And therein lies the rub…maybe the IG has been overreaching. I don’t know – But now it isn’t likely that we will find out. Another important issue has been reduced to political Kabuki, when what is needed is sober assessment.

Pale Rider on FISA (with an assist from yours truly)

Let’s cut to the chase: There was no compelling reason to "change" or modify any existing FISA laws. That is the LIE they are telling to justify this.

FISA has been amended as technology has changed. If someone invents a new way to communicate wirelessly, FISA can and will be amended and updated to adapt to that new technology, if it is needed.

The “security” angle was a figleaf. This was about removing the oversight, not increasing the ability to conduct surveillance. We have always had, under FISA, the ability to monitor communications for 72 hours without a warrant. We have always had the ability to surveil foreigners without a warrant. And, MOST IMPORTANTLY, if anyone talks to a terrorist, no matter who they are, those communications can be collected without a warrant.

This is irregardless of whether the communications are "routed" through US territory or through a telecommunications switch located in the US. This has nothing to do with the location of switches or anything like that. In fact, read up on how most of the world's telecommunications traffic is routed through a certain switch physically located in Northern Virginia and then perhaps you can explain why a certain intelligence agency and several hundred billion dollars worth of facilities, personnel and technology also happens to be located in that same general area of Northern Virginia.

The intercepted communications of anyone engaged in planning, supporting, financing or backing a terrorist against this country has not nor has it ever required to have any kind of a warrant so long as one of the parties involved is, in fact, a foreigner engaged in that activity. If that person talks to a US person, a FISA warrant most certainly is not required, but the communications are simply reviewed as part of the ongoing process of collecting and disseminating information. (Bet you didn't know that, did you? Because so long as one end of the conversation is a non-US entity, we have always been able to collect that information--something they simply don't want you to know.)

Now, warrantless surveillance can commence even when both parties are US Persons, and continue for 72 hours, until such time as the FISA court can convene and see the evidence. The operation will not be stopped unless ordered to stop by the FISA court. Anyone engaged in collecting on these persons has to ANSWER to a higher authority for their actions--this is called accountability. If an intel agent has legitimate reasons to conduct surveillance, the courts and the oversight personnel will gladly sign off on the work being done.

Please STOP viewing this through the media-and-popular entertainment filter.

There is no dastardly, unimaginative bureaucrat engaged in thwarting the efforts of an intrepid and dazzling young intel agent who just wants to stop the terrorists while the bean counters just want to save money. This is not a "plot line" and there is no correlation between this issue and whatever crap sandwich of a TV show you think you remember.

Oversight is of increasing and desperate importance, given that the US Attorneys in this country are now the political enforcement arm of the Republican Party. Any US Attorney can now indict a US citizen based on what they "discover" as evidence, thanks to the new FISA laws. How would that happen? With no oversight whatsoever, the surveillance capability of the United States of America can be used against any US citizen.

We now know that at least one judge resigned from the FISA court because of abuses of power. We have clear evidence that the FBI has abused the power of National Security Letters. Now we see that other intelligence agencies can combine that with the most technologically advanced surveillance capabilities in existence. They have the complicity of virtually every telecommunications company in this country and now no reason to comply with the wishes of any company that dissents. So if the full weight of the US government can now be wielded against a US citizen--with no oversight, no check on the overreaching power--what reasonable person could conclude that this system will not be abused?

It's not like there is no history of overreach and abuse. FISA was created out of the findings of the Church Committee in the 1970s, which discovered rampant abuse of surveillance abilities by the Executive Branch for political purposes. The abuse of power is not limited to the Republicans or Democrats. Therefore, we need oversight to keep all of them in line. The FISA court, was there to ensure these basic rules were followed and that there was a check on the power of the Executive should they attempt to collect communications outside of these basic rules.

This has a lot more to do with intimidation of political opponents than it does security. As their grip on the rudder of power slips further, they grow increasingly desperate.

The threat of terror is what is being used to scare you into giving them unprecedented access to the tools they need to intimidate their political enemies. They don't give a damn whether a terrorist kills you or not--if they did, would they really be in Iraq, creating more terrorists? Would they allow the northwest region of Pakistan to become the headquarters of al Qaeda? Would they reduce the numbers of first responders and leave the borders open? Would they spend billions to create a department of "Homeland Security" and then botch the job so completely as to allow this department to become the laughingstock of organized society? DHS can stop your Grandma from bringing a bottle of shampoo on an aircraft but it can't stop the people who test the system from showing, time after time, that the screening process misses guns, knives and bomb materials.

That's called "checks and balances" and your government just flushed that concept, along with your Fourth Amendment rights.

FISA has granted tens of thousands of warrants, blocked about 6 of them, and has served as a check on the power of the Executive to intimidate and collect information on its internal political enemies.

They want you to yawn and say, okay, I'll buy it, and they want you to go back to watching boobies on TV and to stop paying attention.

But they've always had the ability to stop terrorists. Always! And what they want you to do is act all scared and concerned and look the other way while they go about intimidating and marginalizing their political enemies.

Wake up. They don't give a shit about you. They care about holding on to power.

Waxman has reached his limit...

Representative Waxman’s patience is at an end. Condoleeza Rice has blown him off and ignored his respectful requests that she appear before the Oversight Committee he chairs and answer questions about the false claims of a Niger-Iraq connection that was used as justification for a pre-emptive war against Iraq.

Now that Condoleeza Rice has officially blown off the Oversight Committee (Rep. Waxman sent a letter last month, in which he requested she appear on April 17^th) the full Oversight Committee will convene on Wednesday, 25 April to consider compelling testimony with subpoenas.

If subpoenaed, will Ms. Rice ignore that, too? Will it go that far? (I would pay to see it.) Ignore a subpoena and the Capitol Police can arrest you and deliver you to the committee.

Next week is going to be very interesting indeed.