« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Email Shows State Officials Doing Blackwater Damage Control
In addition to Blackwater's Erik Prince, the House oversight committee will hear testimony from top State Department officials -- including the Iraq coordinator, David Satterfield -- about Blackwater's contracts with State. Material found by the committee's Democratic staff suggests that State officials helped create an environment where Blackwater guards could use deadly force with minimum reprisal.
After an infamous December incident wherein a drunken Blackwater contractor shot and killed a bodyguard for Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mehdi, one U.S. embassy official wrote to another:
Will you be following in up Blackwater [sic] to do all possible to ensure that a sizable compensation is forthcoming? If we are to avoid this whole thing becoming even worse, I think a prompt pledge and apology -- even if they want to claim it was accidental -- would be the best way to assure the Iraqis don't take steps, such as telling Blackwater that they are no longer allowed to work in Iraq.
In State's defense, an embassy cable from Secretary Condoleezza Rice argued "strongly" that "justice had to be done." But justice is a relative thing. When embassy officials proposed the price for the guard's life be pegged at either $100,000 or $250,000, a State diplomatic-security official countered with $15,000. The figure needed to be lower, the diplomatic-security official contended, so Iraqis wouldn't "try to get killed to set up their family financially." Two days after the shooting, Blackwater and State agreed that the guard's family should receive $15,000. Ultimately, Blackwater got the shooter out of Iraq and back to the U.S., with the assistance of State's diplomatic security service.
Comments (18)
Bill wrote on October 1, 2007 3:41 PM:"...even if they want to claim it was accidental...."
The only straight way to read this is that it wasn't accidental.
Avorrio wrote on October 1, 2007 3:53 PM:Isn't this rhe most corrupt, low-class, calculating, disgusting administration ever. I believe it is unparalelled in disceit, propaganda, lies, bad acts in the history of the US and we do have a chequered histoty as a nation. All of the members deserve scorn.
steve duncan wrote on October 1, 2007 4:07 PM:Yeah, well, they oughta be glad we got rid of Saddam. When he was around Iraqis were getting killed for all kinds of crazy reasons. At least now they're safe and sound. No, wait.....um....nevermind.
Anonymous wrote on October 1, 2007 4:31 PM:"... Two days after the shooting, Blackwater and State agreed that the guard's family should receive $15,000..."
That's going to play really well on Al-Jazeera. I'm sure Karen Hughes is all over it. Winning hearts and minds.
Bill in Chicago wrote on October 1, 2007 4:46 PM:$15,000. That Iraqi family probably got paid less than the Blackwater psychopath who shot their father. Yes, the inmates are now running the asylum.
Been watching that Ken Burns documentary, and I just thank God we are not facing the kind of threat today which our grandfathers faced. We'd probably all be goose-stepping down Main Street singing Deutschland Uber Alles by now if that were the case.
Julian Fondren wrote on October 1, 2007 5:03 PM:"The only straight way to read this is that it wasn't accidental."
Wrong. A straight way to read this is to read it as it is -- or, slightly expanded for you: "Even if Blackwater ultimately defends this incident as accidental (based on evidence or testimony not available to me now), a prompt pledge and apology are still wise actions." This excerpt doesn't depend on the writer having *any* knowledge of the incident, beyond "A Blackwater employee shot a bodyguard of the V.P."
Wm wrote on October 1, 2007 5:08 PM:Congress needs to get to work and stay at work and bring things to light faster.The Damage done to this country is happening a an alarming pace. Send a few of these liers to jail.
KG wrote on October 1, 2007 5:51 PM:Wm
Julian Fondren wrote on October 1, 2007 5:03 PM:
This excerpt doesn't depend on the writer having *any* knowledge of the incident, beyond "A Blackwater employee shot a bodyguard of the V.P."
Isn't that "A DRUNK Blackwater employee shot a bodyguard of the V.P."
KG
KG wrote on October 1, 2007 5:54 PM:Julian Fondren wrote on October 1, 2007 5:03 PM:
This excerpt doesn't depend on the writer having *any* knowledge of the incident, beyond "A Blackwater employee shot a bodyguard of the V.P."
Isn't that, "A DRUNK Blackwater..."
Julian Fondren wrote on October 1, 2007 6:21 PM:>Isn't that, "A DRUNK Blackwater..."
This is among possible additional information; my "This except" statement still holds.
Julian Fondren wrote on October 1, 2007 6:23 PM:"Isn't that, 'A DRUNK Blackwater...'"
This is among possible additional information; my "This excerpt" statement still holds.
Julian Fondren wrote on October 1, 2007 6:25 PM:pah. Advice for future commentors: this site is slow update comments.
nolo wrote on October 1, 2007 7:40 PM:to see several more full-
color graphics derived from
today's staff memo -- click
on my name. . . it is simply
sickeneing. and we need to
stand as one, and say so.
p e a c e
KG wrote on October 1, 2007 8:15 PM:Ok Julian,
That is a pretty broad exception. We are talking about someone who is directly involved in the situation and charted with helping to resolve said situation. I think we can all agree that such a person would have knowledge that the shooter was drunk. After all this is a fact that would come to light much sooner than later.
The tone of the email seems clear to me,
parrot wrote on October 1, 2007 9:25 PM:"to do all possible to ensure that a sizable compensation is forthcoming?" - If the author has no knowledge of the details of the situation as you would like to believe why would they be advocating for a sizable compensation? That just doesn't add up.
Who is that drunk Blackwater employee going to shoot next? And who is would be responsible in that case? Responsible?
And by-the-way, has anyone else noticed the parallels between Busholini's fiasco in Iraq and the invasion of Ethiopia prior to WWII? Just sayin'...
CFSO wrote on October 2, 2007 7:22 AM:The Bureau of Diplomatic Security under Richard Griffin and Don Reid has long considered expediency far more important than any regulation or law which would alter its intentions. this is just one of many examples of DS's "above the law" mentality. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of others.
CFSO wrote on October 2, 2007 7:22 AM:The Bureau of Diplomatic Security under Richard Griffin and Don Reid has long considered expediency far more important than any regulation or law which would alter its intentions. this is just one of many examples of DS's "above the law" mentality. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of others.
CFSO wrote on October 2, 2007 7:23 AM:The Bureau of Diplomatic Security under Richard Griffin and Don Reid has long considered expediency far more important than any regulation or law which would alter its intentions. this is just one of many examples of DS's "above the law" mentality. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of others.