Anticlimactic Hearing on New Blackwater Contract

The WaPo's Spy Talk column promised that Blackwater's new contract will be buzz of hearing today - that's the Commission on Wartime Contracting hearing - but, after watching the hearing on C-SPAN, I feel cheated out of excitment.

When hearings on war-zone security contractors continue Monday, representatives of the best known -- or most notorious -- firm in the business will not be at the witness table.

The firm's controversial track record in Iraq, from where it was recently evicted, won't be on the official docket either.

But the federal Commission on Wartime Contracting is going to be talking about Blackwater Worldwide (now known as XE Services) nevertheless, given word late Friday that the State Department had just awarded it a $120 million contract for work in Afghanistan.

Officials of the companies that lost out to Blackwater/XE are all scheduled to testify Monday afternoon on Capitol Hill. The commission is also going to take up new problems with private security guards in Iraq.

The Afghanistan contract, to provide “protective security services” at new U.S. consulates in Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif, comes only four months after the Iraqi government expelled Blackwater/XE. Individuals from the firm are being prosecuted by the Justice Department for allegedly shooting unarmed civilians in Baghdad.

The company won the contract over two other American firms — Triple Canopy and DynCorp International, the Associated Press reported from Kabul, quoting U.S. embassy spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden. The one-year contract can be extended twice, for three months each, for a maximum of 18 months, the A.P. said.

-- snip --

Blackwater's expulsion from Iraq did not prohibit U.S. Training Center, a unit of Moyock, N.C.-based XE Services, from bidding on the Afghanistan contract, an unidentified State Department spokeswoman told CBS News, which broke the story Friday night.

"Under federal acquisition regulations, the prosecution of the specific Blackwater individuals does not preclude the company or its successive companies and subsidiaries from bidding on contracts," the spokeswoman was quoted as saying.

"On the basis of full and open competition, the department performed a full technical evaluation of all proposals and determined the U.S. Training Center has the best ability and qualifications to meet the contract requirements."

The hearing's first panel included Diplomatic Security's Deputy Assistant Director for International Programs Charlene Lamb (read her opening statement here), and she was able to provide a simple answer to the Commission's snarky question about why the U.S. Training Center, a unit of XE Services nee Blackwater, was the best qualified competitor for a contract to provide high-threat protection for the staffs of two new U.S. Consulates in Afghanistan. The reason is that they were the only company that could get people in place within the very short time frame State required in order to open those consulates on schedule.

I'm satisfied. Hey, security contracting is a competitive industry, and if Blackwater's competitors could match its performance then they wouldn't have to throw a pity party for themselves on Capitol Hill.

Blackwater Charges Rightly Dismissed, But Accountability Questions Remain

So all charges have been dismissed against the five former Blackwater protection contractors who killed 17 Iraqis in Baghdad's Nisour Square on September 16, 2007, due to the U.S. Justice Department's improper use of debriefing statements the contractors were compelled to make to their State Department supervisors. (See one of those statements here.) OK. I think that's a just decision, although a bitter outcome.

What's more, even if Judge Ricardo M. Urbina had permitted use of the statements, the charges still ought to have been dismissed for the reason that the law the defendants were charged under, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdication Act, applies only to Defense Department contractors overseas and the defendants were contractors to the State Department, not Defense. The prosecutors were forced into the ridiculous contortion of pretending that the defendants' employment by the State Department "related to supporting the mission of the United States Department of Defense in the Republic of Iraq," as it says in the first paragraph of the indictment, as if the State Department were a subsidiary of Defense.

Which begs the question why wasn't there any applicable U.S. law, or Iraqi law, or Status of Forces Agreement, or any other legal means of redress? The State Department had employed protection contractors in Iraq for three years at the time of the Nisour Square incident, but the following day the State Department's spokesman was unable to answer a direct question about legal accountability:

QUESTION: Many Iraqis think that these security contractors operate outside the law and that they're not held accountable when incidents such as -- such as these happen. Under what law would they be held accountable? Would it be U.S. law because they're operating --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: I mean, what are the rules of engagement? Sorry, that's three questions. What are the rules of engagement here and under what law would they be held accountable? Iraqi --

MR. MCCORMACK: It's a good question. You know, I could -- I could probably give you an answer that is a common sense, man-in-the-street answer, but that wouldn't necessarily have been run by our lawyers first, so I'd want to actually consult with the lawyers before I give you a definitive answer.

QUESTION: Can you check that?

QUESTION: Yeah, can you find that out?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MR. MCCORMACK: I'll be happy to, yeah. Yeah.

The spokesman never could come up with a clear answer to the question in the next few days and weeks, which is indication of a failure on the part of the State Department to plan for the eventuality that one of the many heavily armed contractors it employed in extremely high threat activities might actually shoot someone someday.

To make matters worse, the State Department had been employing private contractors to handle protective security details in dodgy jurisdictions for 17 years at the time of the Nisour Square incident. In 1994, State contracted with MVM to protect Haitian President Aristide when he returned to Haiti after being deposed three years earlier. After that, more contractors from other firms were hired for protection assignments in the former Yugoslavia (2000), the West Bank and Gaza (2002), Afghanistan (2002) and finally Iraq (2004). My memory is hazy on this, but I think there was a questionable shooting incident in the former Yugoslavia that was not legally resolved before the contractors were hurriedly sent out of the country. For State to be caught flat-footed on the question of legal accountability in 2007 was, frankly, deplorable.

I understand that a system of accountability has now been provided for private security contractors in Iraq. But has the lesson been learned and applied to all the other foreign locations where we employ private citizens in protection assignments? We owe them as well as the host governments a better answer than "Hum ... good question ... I'll check on that ... yeah."

Good Solution to the Blackwater Problem

Posted on USAJobs today: the U.S. State Department is hiring Foreign Service Security Protective Specialists on five-year contracts to handle the high-threat personal protection jobs that have been performed mostly by contractors up to this point.

Here's the job summary:

The Department of State, Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), is seeking highly qualified and motivated men and women with extensive experience in protective security operations to serve as Foreign Service Security Protective Specialists at certain U.S. Embassies, Consulates and regional offices abroad. This workforce will be deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel, and possibly other Foreign Service posts, to supplement DS Special agents in the supervision of contractor personnel. The specific number to be hired will depend on the needs of the Foreign Service.

As members of a diplomatic team, Security Protective Specialists (SPS) not only help to accomplish the mission of the Department of State but also represent the United States to the people of other nations.

DS will create SPS positions initially at the following locations: Embassy Baghdad; Iraq Regional Embassy Offices Erbil, Al Hillah, Tallil and Basra; Embassy Kabul and Consulate General Jerusalem.

SPSs will work in tandem with DS Special Agents (SA) to ensure that a DS supervisor is always present and involved with every protective motorcade element. The SPS or SA may act as the Detail Leader and may supervise other DS or contractor personnel.

Appointment as a Security Protective Specialist will be in the Limited Non-Career Appointment category. This category is based upon an annually renewable appointment with a 5-year maximum. Extensions beyond five years are not permitted. At the conclusion of the appointment, SPSs may apply for any Department position for which they are qualified, to include the Special Agent position. Federal retirement benefits accrue during time spent as a DS Security Protective Specialist.

All assignments will be at the needs of the service. After the initial tour, SPSs may be transferred to other high threat posts overseas for two consecutive 2-year tours of duty. There is no provision for election of post of assignment.

A limited, non-career appointment to the Foreign Service involves uncommon commitments and occasional hardships along with unique rewards and opportunities. A decision to accept such an appointment must involve unusual motivation and a firm dedication to public service. The overseas posts to which SPSs will be assigned may expose the employee to harsh climates, health hazards, and other discomforts and where American-style amenities may be unavailable. Assignments to Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel are particularly challenging and may result in bodily injury and death. However, a limited appointment to the Foreign Service offers special rewards, including the pride and satisfaction of representing the United States and protecting U. S. interests at home and abroad.

As Personal Service Contractors, the protection specialists will be direct government employees and therefore much easier to manage and discipline than private contractors. The need for lots of protection specialists at high-threat diplomatic posts might go away someday, but not someday soon, so I think State is doing the right thing by bringing the knuckle draggers (and I use that term with affectionate regard) in-house in order to get them under better control. State can still bring on more private contractors as necessary for short-term surges.

I suspect this will be an attractive opportunity for many private contractors, especially those who are younger and want to turn the PSC job into a full time gig later on with accrual of retirement benefits for time spent as a PSC.

Blackwater Defendants Start a Blog

The Blackwater defendants in the Nisoor Square case - minus the sixth BW contractor, the one who has plead guilty and will be a witness against the other five - have started a blog where you can follow their statements and court filings. See Raven 23, which takes its name from the radio call sign of the detail the defendants were manning.

Thanks to the Blackwater Facts blog for pointing that out. Thanks also for the hat tip.

Bill Clinton and Erik Prince: Three Degrees of Separation

I haven't seen the Clinton Foundation donors list for myself yet, since their website is still jammed and inaccessible. Anyway, the list is reportedly 2,922 pages long and not searchable, and no one with a normal home life will stay on his computer late into the night clicking "next" 2,922 times. So I'm relying on news media stories like this one in the Washington Post for the details of today's surprising revelation that one of ex-President Bill Clinton's donors was the Blackwater Training Center, home base of Blackwater Worldwide and its CEO, Erik Prince.

By the way, if you click on that story, dig deep; the WAPO buried the Blackwater item in paragraph 14 of a 19-paragraph story. I'm not sure whether that means they rated it low in news interest, or whether they were confused about how to report something that seems to implicate Bill Clinton and cause a problem for incoming SecState Hillary Clinton.

Granted, Prince was among the lesser fatcats on Clinton's list - in for only $10,001 to $25,000, rather than for millions like the Saudi Arabians and Barbra Streisand - nevertheless, there he was. So the question of the hour is: What was Erik Prince, the man liberals love to hate, doing on the list of Bill Clinton's 205,000 closest friends?

The controversies that have plagued Blackwater in Iraq, and it's main customer there, the U.S. State Department, are all too well-known. I find plenty of fault with Blackwater's operations in Iraq, and with the inadequate management provided by it's employer, as well. However, Prince has been demonized beyond what the facts justify and out of all sense of proportion. In the left-wing mind, Prince is the conservative Condottieri, the entrepreneur of mercenary mayhem, the impresario of death and destruction, the Praetorian protector of corporate interests, the commander of the Fundamentalist Freikorps, and - for all I know - the personal bodyguard to Dick Cheney himself. The picture presented by much of the news media and by various politicians is just too lurid and hyperventilating to be true.

So far as I can see, Erik Prince is just a former Navy SEAL who came from a wealthy family. When his father died, he left the Navy, put on a different kind of blue suit, and went into business for himself by founding and financing Blackwater Training Center, a place where he could employ a few Navy buddies and make some money training corporate security and law enforcement types. A remarkable biography, but really nothing extraordinary until the Iraq and Afghanistan wars created a huge demand for private protection contractors, resulting in Blackwater collecting over $1 billion in U.S. Government contracts between 2002 and 2008.

Prince appears to be the polar opposite of Bill Clinton. He's very private, very right-wing, and very religiously devout, a straight-laced military businessman and father of six who is hip-deep in Republican causes. What in the world led him to donate money to the Clinton Foundation? Which of Bill's worthy causes attracted Prince's interest? Was it health security, economic empowerment, leadership development and citizen service, or racial, ethnic and religious reconciliation? Or maybe HIV/AIDS, climate change, or fighting childhood obesity? Frankly, none of them sound like Prince's cup of tea. Maybe it was tsunami relief.

Bill Clinton and Erik Prince. Who or what could possibly bring this odd couple together? Could it be ... Hillary's political strategist Mark Penn ?

Last year, when the Democratic Party primary battle was getting started, some people pointed out the connection between Blackwater and Mark Penn. John Edwards was one. Bill Moyers was another. The below transcript from a PBS interview is typical:

BILL MOYERS: I was intrigued to learn that the PR-agency that is handling Prince, Burson-Marsteller , is also the guy who heads - the CEO is also Hillary Clinton's top strategist, Mark Penn.

JEREMY SCAHILL: Mark Penn.

BILL MOYERS: Mark Penn. Sort of-- he's been called Hillary's Rove. What-- I know something about how this system works. How a PR company comes to you and says hey I've got this client that would like to be on air here. Here's how we'd like to do it. And then, you see the same thing in being repeated from show to show to show — like Hillary Clinton was on all five of the Sunday morning talk shows recently. What have you learned about how the system works between the political and media elites?

JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, I mean, PR-companies are also mercenaries and I know oftentimes work for the highest bidder. I think it's interesting that--

BILL MOYERS: They're not shooting people though.

JEREMY SCAHILL: No, no, no. But they're mercenaries in the sense that they'll rent their services out to anyone. And once you're defending Erik Prince, you're working for him, then you become part of his sort of mercenary operation. I also think that it was a strategic choice to go with the company with Mark Penn because of his connection with the democrats and Hillary Clinton.

But let's, lets remember here we're talking about Blackwater right now because we have a Republican administration. For so many years, we had a Republican dominated Congress. Blackwater is certainly the beneficiary of the Republican monopoly in government. But this system has been bi-partisan for a very long time.

When Hillary Clinton's husband was in the White House, he was an aggressive supporter of the privatization of the war machine. Bill Clinton used mercenary forces in the Balkans. Who do we think gave Dick Cheney's company all of those contracts during the Nineties? We talk about Halliburton. It was Clinton. It was the Clinton administration. And, and, Blackwater may be an extraordinary Republican company. But they're gonna be around when there's a Democrat in office.

It makes sense to me. Why not give Bill Clinton a little cash (and pay lots more to Hillary's chief political aide) when your government contracting business is going to be around long after the Bush Administration is gone?

Sixth Blackwater Defendant Proffers the Facts (and One Falsehood)

The Smoking Gun has posted the "Factual Proffer in Support of Guilty Plea" (here) that was signed last month by a sixth Blackwater contractor who was indicted for manslaughter and weapons violations in connection with the 2007 shooting incident in Baghdad's al-Nisoor Square. The other five aren't taking a plea deal, but will go to trial.

The sixth contractor, Jeremy Ridgeway, pleaded guilty last month. As part of his plea deal, he provided prosecutors with a sworn "proffer" of the facts surrounding the incident, all of which he acknowledged could have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt had the government taken him to trial. His narrative of the incident isn't pretty - it sounds like a live action version of Grand Theft Auto being played by overly hyped-up teenage boys without adult supervision - but it's about what I expected. However, the proffer also includes a whopping lie, although I can't fault Ridgeway for that, since the government made him say it.

Note the last sentence in the first paragraph of the document posted at The Smoking Gun: "Defendant Ridgeway's employment as a Blackwater contractor related to supporting the mission of the Department of Defense in Iraq." Of course, his employment was not at all in support of Defense, since Blackwater in Iraq was not contracted by or working for the Defense Department. Wishful thinking on that point is crucial to the government's case since they have no real, vice fanciful, basis in law for charging the Blackwater contractors, and evidently the prosecutors think gratuitous assertions like Ridgeway's will help maintain the suspension of disbelief they have created regarding the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act.

If the prosecutors can't come up with an actually convincing legal basis for manslaughter charges, Mr. Ridgeway might end up being the only one of the Blackwater Six to ever see the inside of a prison.

DOJ, You Can't Handle the Truth (Blackwater Was Not a Defense Contractor)

It's been 15 months since the shooting in Baghdad's al-Nisoor Square and today, December 8, five Blackwater contractors surrendered themselves to a U.S. Federal Court, and a sixth is reportedly in negotiations for a plea deal, in connection with charges finally brought against them by the Justice Department (DOJ). Yesterday's Washington Post story has the few details that have been released so far.

The most interesting part of the story is the imaginative legal basis for the charges. DOJ is actually going to attempt to prosecute under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (18 USC Chapter 212) even though it applies only to Defense Department contractors and the defendants were employed under a State Department contract. And, as if that weren't already enough of a stretch, they are adding more charges under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 that carry a mandatory 30-year minimum sentence for using machine guns in the commission of a crime.

The strategy of using the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) was hinted at last August (see this), and I find it simply preposterous. The premise appears to be that Blackwater, by working for the State Department, was really supporting the Defense Department without benefit of contract since, absent Blackwater, State would have had to call on Defense Department resources for personal protection. Therefore, DOJ will pretend that the MEJA applies to Blackwater even though, really, it doesn't. All that's left for DOJ to do is to find a jury willing to suspend disbelief about the MEJA.

Of course, State did have options for protection other than using Blackwater or DOD. Blackwater was only one of three companies that State used, and uses, for personal protection in Iraq. Not to mention that State has its own internal security service, or that State customarily uses host country police and security personnel to staff protective details in most countries.

Beyond those objections, isn't there also a fundamental objection to the implication that the State Department itself is merely supporting the Defense Department in Iraq, and not carrying out its own mission? Or at the very least, that the State Department is unable to support its own operations in Iraq? If the defense lawyers are really on the ball, they will get an affidavit from Ambassador Crocker on that point. I can see it now:

Q: Ambassador Crocker, it has been asserted by the prosecution that you and your embassy are in Iraq to support the Defense Department. Is that your understanding, as well?

A: No. I am the Chief of Mission and the representative of the President in Iraq. I am not subordinate to anyone else.

Q: You don't report to the Pentagon, or to CENTCOM, or to some military commander or other?

A: No, of course not.

Q: But is that little embassy operation of yours self-suporting? Do you have your own contracting authority, or do you go to the Defense Department when you need products or services?

A: We have our own separate contracting authority, as well as our own security resources.

Q: If you didn't have Blackwater, or any other security contractor, available in Iraq, would you be able to remain in operation without calling on Defense for your personal protection needs?

A: Yes, of course, just as the embassy in Afghanistan does, and all 275 of our other embassies and consulates do.

Q: Thank you.

Nissor Square Shooters Might be Charged in U.S. Court

The Washington Post had a story today (Justice Dept. Moves Toward Charges Against Contractors in Iraq Shooting) that suggests the Department of Justice (DOJ) might actually try to overcome the great legal difficulties of putting on trial some of the Blackwater crew that fired up Nissor Square in Baghdad last September, killing 16 Iraqi citizens.

That's going to be quite a challenge. Just finding a U.S. law to charge anyone under will be difficult enough. The story quotes an optimist suggesting the DOJ might try pretending that Blackwater was sort of, kinda, almost in a way, a Defense Department rather than State Department contractor, since then there would be a clear basis for charges. Maybe it will, and maybe DOJ will find a judge and jury willing to pretend along with it. But I wouldn't bet on that.

Hillary Would Ban "Mercenary Firms" in Iraq

Senator Hillary Clinton's office announced today that "she has cosponsored legislation to ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq ... The legislation requires that all personnel at any U.S. diplomatic or consular mission in Iraq be provided security services only by Federal Government Personnel."

Now, I take it for granted that this bill is mostly about election season politics. Still, I wonder where State would find enough Feds to protect those diplomatic and consular missions since there are almost as many Blackwater, Triple Canopy, and DynCorp protection personnel working for the State Department in Iraq as there are special agents in the Diplomatic Security Service (1395 vs. 1450). Not to mention that Blackwater also provides State with specialized aviation assets that could scarcely be matched even by the U.S. military, and I suppose those BW aircraft and pilots would be banned along with the shooters.

Obviously, all DSS agents can't be assigned to Iraq. And if they were, it would be a misapplication of human resources to use DSS agents, all of whom have four-year degrees and law enforcement-related backgrounds, to do bodyguard duty full time. That kind of protection work is a basic security function that younger agents do for a few years to pay their dues before moving on to higher responsibilities.

State should change some of its practices with high-threat protective detail contractors in Iraq and elsewhere, in my opinion. In particular, the legal environment must be clarified so that contractors can be properly managed and held accountable. But private protection contractors fill an important niche, and I don't see them going away anytime soon.

Sworn Statement by Blackwater Shooter Leaked to News Media

ABC News is running a story about the 9/16 shooting incident in Baghdad based on a statement given by "Paul," a turret gunner in the Blackwater convoy, to State Department officials two days after the incident: "A guard from the US security firm Blackwater says his motorcade came under fire and that he feared for his life in a deadly shootout in Iraq, ABC television reported on Wednesday."

ABC even posted a copy of Paul's statement.

There has been no mention of this matter so far on the Blackwater Facts Blog, which I interpret as meaning that the leaked statement either didn't come from "Paul" or, if it did, it wasn't coordinated with the other Blackwater employees under investigation.

Bad News for Blackwater; FBI Concludes the 9/16 Shooting Was Unjustified

"Federal agents investigating the Sept. 16 episode in which Blackwater security personnel shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians have found that at least 14 of the shootings were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq, according to civilian and military officials briefed on the case."

It doesn't look good for Blackwater, according to today's New York Times story. The full report hasn't leaked yet, but that will come.

Latest Twist in the Blackwater Saga: Immunity for the Shooters?

There seem to be two competing versions of today's story about Blackwater and the "immunity" its employees received for the September shooting incident in Baghdad. In one version, the bumbling State Department stupidly granted immunity to the Blackwater cowboys and now because of that screw-up those mercenaries might escape justice for their crimes. In the other version, those Machiavellian passive-aggressives at the State Department deliberately sabotaged the FBI's investigation in order to protect their Blackwater henchman while maintaining deniability.

Critics and commentators were having so much fun that almost no one noticed that no immunity from prosecution had, in fact, been granted. See the New York Times story here: "A Justice Department spokesman, Dean Boyd, said in a statement that Blackwater employees could be prosecuted despite the immunity deals, which were not authorized by federal prosecutors. He said that neither the Justice Department nor the F.B.I. could discuss the case, but said "any suggestion that the Blackwater employees in question have been given immunity from federal criminal prosecution is inaccurate."
What the Blackwater operators received from Diplomatic Security officials in Baghdad was a so-called "Garrity" statement, a common practice in internal police or security investigations when an employee is mandated to make a statement in connection with an on-the-job incident. Since the employee is compelled to make the statement on pain of being fired, it can't be used against him later without violating his Constitutional right against self incrimination, as recognized in the Garrity vs. New Jersey court decision, among others.

The "Garrity" statement doesn't prevent the employee from being prosecuted, however, the prosecutor can't use the statement or anything resulting from it. Here's an example of a Garrity statement, courtesy of a local Virginia police organization:

"On ___________(date) ___________(time) at _____________(place) I was ordered to submit this report (give this statement) by _____________________(name & rank). I submit this report (give this statement) at his order as a condition of my employment. In view of possible job forfeiture, I have no alternative but to abide by this order."

"It is my belief and understanding that the department requires this report (statement) solely and exclusively for internal purposes and will not release it to any other agency. It is my further belief that this report (statement) will not and cannot be used against me in any subsequent proceedings. I authorize release of this report to my attorney or designated union representative."

"I retain the right to amend or change this statement upon reflection to correct any unintended mistake without subjecting myself to a charge of untruthfulness."

"For any and all other purposes, I hereby reserve my constitutional right to remain silent under the FIFTH and FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and any other rights PRESCRIBED by law. Further, I rely specifically upon the protection afforded me under the doctrines set forth in Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), and Spevack v. Klien, 385 U.S. 551 (1956), should this report (statement) be used for any other purpose of whatsoever kind or description."

My guess is that prosecution will not be possible, but that will be due to a lack of evidence, principally a lack of witnesses who can be brought to the U.S. and cross-examined in court. The "Garrity" statements will have nothing to do with it. Nonetheless, State and Diplomatic Security will get a certain amount of unfair blame.

Erik Prince and Congressman Waxman: Strange Bedfellows?

If you're old enough to remember Watergate, you'll no doubt recall John Erlichman's description of being abandoned by the White House and left to the mercies of a televised Congressional committee investigation. He said he was left to "twist slowly, slowly in the wind." Today, it's Blackwater's CEO, Erik Prince, who is twisting in the wind of Rep. Waxman's committee, but Prince, unlike Mr. Erlichman, apparently intends to do something about it.

See today's Washington Times story, in which Blackwater points the finger of blame at State for turning down it's proposal to install dashboard cameras on convoy vehicles back in 2005: Here

Blackwater's CEO has recently expressed his resentment about the lack of any public support from the State Department for Blackwater. Evidently he is now starting a media campaign of his own, complete with leaks of e-mails. The e-mail leak, and the naming of two of my fellow bureaucrats in the above story, suggest to me that Mr. Prince must see the writing on the wall about the renewal of his contract with State (which I believe is due in May, 2008). Evidently he's cutting loose from State, and trying to salvage his company's reputation for future clients.

Part of that defensive media campaign is this Blog, Blackwater Facts.

The Blog was created in September, 2007, purportedly by "friends of Blackwater," but it's pretty obviously a corporate front. Today's Washington Times story was discussed in a post Blackblawg published yesterday, before today's Times edition came out.

This new twist might just make for Washington's latest pair of strange bedfellows. Is Blackwater's CEO passing tidbits of insider info to Rep. Waxman for him to use against the State Department and the administration? I've noted Waxman's occasional asides to State Department witnesses before his committee to the effect that he gets better cooperation from Blackwater than from State. I'd thought it an odd thing for him to say, but maybe there was more truth to those remarks than I'd supposed.

P.S. - As I was posting this, I heard the news that Ambassador Griffin, State's Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, has decided to resign. No reason has been given but, of course, the whole Blackwater issue and State's lack of adequate supervision of its protective details in Baghdad are the cause.