In a Monday, July 21, 2008 file photo, Blackwater Worldwide's headquarters is seen in Moyock, N.C. The New York Times is reporting that the security company Blackwater Worldwide formed a network of 30 shell companies and subsidiaries to get government business after the company faced strong criticism for its conduct in Iraq. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome, File)
The newspaper said that it was unclear how many of the created companies got American contracts but that at least three of them obtained work with the U.S. military and the CIA.
Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has asked the Justice Department to see whether Blackwater misled the government when using the subsidiaries to gain government contracts, according to the Times.
It said Levin's committee found that North Carolina-based Blackwater, which now is known as Xe Services, went to great lengths to find ways to get lucrative government work despite criminal charges and criticism stemming from a 2007 incident in which Blackwater guards killed 17 Iraqi civilians. A committee chart outlines the web of Blackwater subsidiaries.
Messages left late Friday with spokespeople for the Michigan Democrat and Xe were not immediately answered.
The 2007 incident and other reports of abuses by Blackwater employees in Iraq led to criminal investigations and congressional hearings, and resulted in the company losing a lucrative contract with the State Department to provide security in Iraq.
But recently the company was awarded a $100 million contract to provide security for the agency in Afghanistan, prompting criticism from some in Congress. CIA Director Leon Panetta said that the CIA had no choice but to hire the company because it underbid others by $26 million and that a CIA review concluded that the contractor had cleaned up its act.
Last year, Panetta canceled a contract with Xe that allowed the company's operatives to load missiles on Predator drones in Pakistan, and shifted the work to government personnel.
However, the Times quoted former Blackwater officials as saying that at least two Blackwater-affiliated companies, XPG and Greystone, obtained secret contracts from the CIA to provide security to agency operatives.
The newspaper said the network of subsidiaries, including several located in offshore tax havens, were uncovered as part of the Armed Services Committee's examination of government contracting and not an investigation solely into Blackwater. But Levin questioned why Blackwater would need to create so many companies with various names to seek out government business, according to the Times.
The report quoted unidentified government officials and former Blackwater employees as saying that the network of companies allowed Blackwater to obscure its involvement in government work from contracting officials and the public, and to ensure a low profile for its classified activities.
Refresh my memory, I don't remember that one but he had to be talking about Palin, correct?
LOL, cracky71 is about whacked out.
cranky71 wrote: "The Blackwater corrution stunk 4 years ago..."
You are also Cap, correct?
You people have inexhaustible reserves of shamelessness.
A few rebuttals, then I am done. Do some research (and so will I).
1)"Elephantwhip keeps calling the Iraq war Bushes fault, and he lied about why we were there (WMD's) when, in fact, the whole thing had been brewing for quite some time before Bush was in office. Bill Clinton and British intelligence were on this WMD, and Bin Laden case years ago."
Bill Clinton and British intelligence were on his WMD and determined that he had not been developing them since Iraq I, and considered him contained with the no-fly zone.
2) "You said Bush failed to get him, and you're right, but you leave the impression that Clinton did. No, he did not."
You are now arguing that I said Clinton successfully got bin Laden? And then you straighten up my facts? What a strech...not even a good straw man.
And, yes, Clinton tried to kill bin Laden based on some information he had and the Republicans called it an attempt to divert attention from impeachment/Monica Lewinski.
In general, the US needs to learn from Russia (you know, back when Rumsfeld et al were funding bin Laden and shaking hands with Saddam). Afgans will win their wars, because if there's anyone they hate more than a rival tribe, it is another country imposing itself upon them. And their geography exceptionally easy for the indigents to defend and hard for the invader to police.
We need to back out of Afghanistan and keep it under close surveillance, i.e. satellite, CIA, informants, regional allies.
(3) "Please go into detail. I can't wait to hear this. So, where's the oil now? If we had all this oil, I would think gas prices would be a little lower. Seriously, we would be swimming in oil right now if that were so."
I wouldn't be surprised if some of it was in your car. I am pretty sure most of it is not Alaska/Texas/Gulf oil. As for where the oil from Iraq is going, this is where I have not done my research to tell you what companies have already contracted on the oil, but I am sure they have.
And, yes, gas is $1.50 to $2.00 cheaper over the last two years. Maybe it's our weak economy, or maybe there is less profit in speculating on the price due to our extensive efforts to control the region.
And no, I have never tried to paint the picture that the middle east was contained under any administration. Again, you are making up an argument I did not make.
"If Bush lied, he got it from Clinton. Now, YOU stop lying, and get off your liberal high horse."
Completely illogical and erroneously presumptive.
Your first sentence suggests that Bush lied; therefore, based on that premise in your argument, I was not lying if I said Bush lied.
Also, I have not defended Clinton on anything. He was a liar, too. And I think Democrats are deluded if they think he had much to do with the good economic times during his administration (and the Republicans are deluded if they think a Republican congress had anything to do with it); it was mainly the technology boom.
As far as foreign affairs, Clinton was conservative; he sought to take care of bin Laden through espionage and assasination, which adds up to far fewer lives lost. He employed NATO and UN allies during the Kosovo Crisis. He and the UN contained Iraq and let Saddam deal with holding that pseudo-nation together, while monitoring his behavior.
Bush, on the other hand, failed to get bin Laden and only pushed Iraq toward complete dissolution. The only thing he successfully achieved was usurping existing governments and setting up puppet governments/chaos so that we can go in and get the oil.
The most Bush can be credited with, and I do indeed give him credit, was toppling the Taliban and attempting to stop radical sharia law (the one that executes women for not wearing a vale, etc.)
Right wingers. This is probably one of the better minds of the right. Their answer to handling truth is to attack and distract with this type of nonsense. The rest of us don't have to "get prepared for the worst" when viewing the right as we have seen it before many times. Now back to sanity and truth.
From the article above: "But recently the company was awarded a $100 million contract to provide security for the agency in Afghanistan, prompting criticism from some in Congress. CIA Director Leon Panetta said that the CIA had no choice but to hire the company because it underbid others by $26 million and that a CIA review concluded that the contractor had cleaned up its act."
This is sad when Democrats have to honor a bid because it was low when the first contracts awarded to some of the same outfits were no bid contracts awarded by Republicans, namely the Bush administration. Of course they were the low bid, find out why.
Clinton: "Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraqscapability to retain, create and use weapons of massdestruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuildthat capability. ; The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago atthe end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroyits arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire."
Seems that what Clinton did was effective since five years later in 2003 Bush it found no WMD.
Cap, you admitted yourself that libs are much the wiser when you said "get off your liberal high horse". Yep, much higher horse.
cranky71 wrote: "I hated the war, but I was fully supportive of our troops."
Tell us all about it cranky, how you went about this. The yellow ribbon "Support Our Troops" magnetic sign is still on my vehicle too.
Oh we all are partly guilty of not supporting them for our not doing something about Bush when the truth was found as stated in ElephantWhip's 3 points below. Impeachment was probably too good for him and we were at war. The answer is not clear.
Still I think our Iraq troops have been supported. Better than those that were spit upon when they returned from Vietnam to face the biggest battle of their life.
The support does not end when the war does. War vets often live on in agony and many from the Vietnam war became homeless because support was almost nil.
Ask any vet that was a victim of Agent Orange how it has went for the last 35 to 40 years.
not only is Blackwater greedy, the are thieves.
Problem was that "trouble [didn't] come[] along" from Iraq. Iraq was contained and was almost transparent. Bush and his administration consistently lied to justify involvement in Iraq for three reasons: (1) revenge for daddy, (2) establishing US military bases in the region, (3) securing oil interest with the army and private mercenaries.
If you think that justifies the loss of American life out of lock-step loyalty to higher command, you are the fascist/imperialist. America was born questioning authority. If you cannot blame a corrupt administration for its atrocities just because they wave ol' glory, then just keep your mouth shut when others do. We already know your position...it's whatever the military-industrial-imperialists have propagated on FOX, etc.
It's Bush's fault.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO3Wob0WoIM
The Bush administration's ties to Blackwater
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/02/blackwater_bush
Why is Bush not in prison?