411 Poltics Fact or Fiction 10.01.07: Week 62
Posted by Brandon Crow on 10.01.2007
Does anyone expect the Pentagon investigation into Blackwater to produce any credible results? Should Blackwater USA be renamed Hessian Force 2000? Was the Jena 6 incident racially motivated? And finally, is Ahmedinejad's comment on the US reaction to 9/11 valid?
After a slight stint of "cold" weather in the mid 60's last week, it's another bright and beautiful Monday out here on the California coast. Personally, I liked the cold spell and can't wait for some fall chill to start rolling up in here.
Alright, enough about California. It's Monday again which means it's time to get your week started off right! It's Week 62 of Fact or Fiction in the politics zone. This week, we have Jeff Modzelewski, a self-described "occasional contributor" to 411 Music, going up against a long-time politics reader, Krunchy Law. And yes, that is his real name. Or so he tells me… Where's the NSA when you really need them?
Well then, let's dispense with the idle chit-chat. Let's head to the ring as Jeff and Krunchy walk that aisle!
Ding, Ding!
1. The joint "investigation" between the Pentagon and Iraq's "central government" into the Blackwater USA massacre two weeks ago will not produce any truthful and/or credible results or conclusions.
Jeff Modzelewski: FACT. I was actually typing up a response for saying "fiction" on this question when I read a new report stating that the State Department is already telling Blackwater not to cooperate with the House Oversight Committee investigation into the incident. I'd honestly like to believe that people are interested in getting to the bottom of what happened and why an under-regulated "security firm" caused the death of 11 Iraqis for apparently no reason, but that just doesn't seem to be the case.
We've seen time and time again that any investigation that is headed up primarily by this administration will yield little or no results. The Pentagon and the Iraqi government are both arms of the White House, so the administration has no desire to hold anyone accountable for anything. We'll get some half-truths from the joint Pentagon/Iraqi "investigation," but without someone that's independent of the White House leading the investigation, there will be no real answers.
Krunchy Law: FICTION. Nice way to paint both sides of a rooster Jeff, if that is indeed your "real" name. There will be credible results and conclusions made in this investigation, however, it will be spun as a positive by the administration. How many reports in the last few years have come out, and when looked at, you say, "WHOA, what was Bush smoking when he said that those results were positive and/or proper procedures were done?" Global warming, 911 report, WMD's, Katrina aftermath, etc … Don't expect Iraq's "government" to do much either; they have a hard enough time getting a quorum to vote on anything. If you dig around, you'll always find the "hard data" but who wants to read thousands of pages of documents. We all want it in bullet points.
As someone with math skills ("Really? You seem like such a "normal" person!") I can manipulate data however the people paying me would like it to read. The report will probably have 50 pages of numerical raw data as an appendix, and 1000 pages of paragraphs that syntactically sound like "with the amount of missions conducted by Blackwater USA, the ratio of sorties to indigenous force reductions is in line with projections of the Department of Defense. As Blackwater USA monitors major ‘hot-spots', we expect there to be more incidents per capita then other companies that monitor sites already cleared and secured by the US Military. The consultants have consistently acted in accordance with all guidelines in a proper way, as per the original contract." (Side note: I am available to write resumes; Alberto Gonzales, give me a holler!)
0 for 1. Wow, Krunchy really could write some "good" resumes. Perhaps he put together Bush's back in 2000?
2. Using private security companies in Iraq to handle the jobs that our military personnel are also paid to do is an insanely horrible idea.
Jeff Modzelewski: FACT. We're putting the security of American diplomats in the hands of trumped-upped rent-a-cops with machine guns. How is this a good idea? Due to rules that have been put into place by U.S. commanders in Iraq, security firms such as Blackwater are not subject to Iraqi law.
Please, read that again. Iraq, which is, according to the Bush Administration, a sovereign nation, does not have the power to arrest, prosecute, or do anything at all to U.S. private security firms simply because we say so. How in the world can we push Iraqi's to accept "freedom" and "the rule of law" when they are being shot at by a non-governmental "security firm" that is not accountable to anyone?
If our military doesn't have the ability to handle the situation in Iraq (which they don't), then hiring out a private company to do the government's work isn't the answer.
Krunchy Law: FACT. You've got to give it up for our capitalistic society. Not only have we outsourced our tech support, toy making, and defense of home ports (Oops, we weren't supposed to know about that!) we are now outsourcing our security forces. I'm really surprised they didn't call the company Hessian Force 2000.
What I would like to know is what other missions were these consultants doing in Iraq. Since many of them were former military operatives, were they doing secret missions, so that if they are killed, they aren't listed on the casualties? How many "consultants" are there in Iraq right now? I'm guessing they aren't considered part of the ground forces either.
Besides, why join the military with all that discipline and marching around and crap, when you can just join a company that will pay you 3 times what the military does, and get vacations, and other benefits. Hey, go home anytime you'd like! AND, you still get to carry guns and shoot at bad guys! Leave the military, Joe Soldier, and sign on with us.
Hey, our Mission Statement says "*Blackwater is committed to supporting national and international security policies that protect those who are defenseless and provide a free voice for all. We dedicate ourselves to providing ethical, efficient, and effective turnkey solutions that positively impact the lives of those still caught in desperate times." Doesn't that sound like fun? I'm pretty sure though that you still can't be gay. * = actual mission statement from BlackwaterUSA.com.
1 for 2. Salient points from both respondents. I like that Krunchy drew the connection to outsourcing and privatization that this administration is in utter love with. I especially like Jeff's point about the perception of Iraq's "sovereignty." It's all lip service paid by Bush.
Time for the switch-a-roo!
3. The arrests and charges involved in the Jena Six incident are in fact racially motivated.
Krunchy Law: FICTION. Especially when the question was phrased the way it was. When you look at it, you have six teenagers (all football players), all around 16-17 years old, who beat another boy until he was unconscious. A few of them have prior arrests. Mychal Bell, with this incident, has been involved in 3 separate issues with the law SINCE he went on probation, and 5 total incidents in all. The charges of attempted murder were levied so they could be tried as adults, as per Louisiana law, although most of them were lowered to lesser crimes, as is to be expected in legal cases. Should he be let out? HELL NO! What good is probation if you keep letting them out when they f@#$ up again? When you've had multiple problems in your past, you waive your right to walk around free until the trial.
You can't have law and order in this country if you are going to enforce the laws differently because of the gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity of the attackers or attacked. The penalty for driving a van full of explosives into (a) a busload of puppies and nuns, or (b) a busload of NAMBLA members with Hitler moustaches SHOULD be the same! An assault is an assault is an assault.
Unfortunately, Rev. Al Sharpton is too busy with this to offer his apology to the Duke students for falsely implicating them of rape or to call for the release (or at least retrial) of the West Memphis 3.
Jeff Modzelewksi: FACT. We're dealing with a bunch of kids who got involved in a schoolyard fight. There had been racially charged fights at the school preceding this incident. So six kids beat up one kid. Instead of suspending the kids, instead of taking them to juvenile court and giving them some community service, 5 of the 6 kids are then charged for attempted murder.
For a schoolyard fight.
Even though the victim was able to go to a school function later that evening. How is this not racially motivated?
Yes, there needs to be law and order. And I agree that people need to be dealt with in the same way regardless of race, sex, religion, etc... If one of these kids has a past record, then he should
potentially get a stiffer sentence. But how can this be considered attempted murder? How can a schoolyard fight lead to an adult conviction and a potential prison sentence of years? The fact of the matter is that this is a situation where these 6 black kids that beat up a white kid were dealt with differently then if it had been 6 black kids beating up a black kid, 6 white kids beating up a black kid, or 6 white kids beating up a white kid.
1 for 3. Again, powerful arguments on both sides. This is turning out to be another good week with two more savvy participants. I do wonder though, if Krunchy found the irony and sad truth in commentary when he said there could be no law and order when laws are enforced differently. Um, looked at the Bush Administration recently?
And why puppies? The NAMBLA folks and the nuns…okay…but DAMN IT, puppies are innocent!!
4. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad's comments at Columbia University stating that we (The US) need to study the root causes of 9/11—"why it happened, what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it,"—is both a valid and an insightful point.
Krunchy Law: FACT. This was not a good day for the US or Columbia University, as pretty much this affair offended EVERYONE. Regardless of where George W. Bush goes in the world, he is usually welcomed at least cordially onto the dais. Might as well have had Don Rickles as a translator, the way [Ahmedinejad] was introduced. The president of Columbia University whacked Mahmoud at the knees as if he was going for the gold medal in figure skating (damn, I'm still topical … for 1994).
Then M-Jad pisses in everyone's corn flakes by stating a bunch of things that Bush has done wrong in his war against terror—which is all well and good apparently when it comes from Candidates for the US Presidency, but doesn't go down as well when it comes from a visiting terrorist wackjob. It even offended the Iranians, believe it or not, and his treatment here plays directly into his base of support in Iran, making him look like a man wearing a meat suit in Michael Vick's favorite kennel and emerging unscathed. Hmmm, perhaps he can do that on the Iranian version of Jackass?
Jeff Modzelewski: FACT. 9/11 didn't happen in a vacuum. It wasn't a case a bunch of nut jobs woke up one morning and said "Hey, let's go kill some Americans." There were reasons behind their hatred that led to 9/11. Some reasons are legitimate, some are not. Of course, their biggest mistake was in not realizing that, by their actions, they were overshadowing any legitimate grievances that the Arab world has with the U.S.
Don't misconstrue this as a "blame America" statement. As real as some of their problems with the U.S. may be, their actions completely eliminated any claim to legitimacy. However, we shouldn't ignore the fact that our government is engaged in activities that many others around the world have a problem with, and many of these grievances are legitimate.
Unfortunately, the Administration's response to 9/11 wasn't to deal with the issues that led to it. It wasn't even to deal with the people who committed these acts. Instead, it was used as a reason to settle a grudge against Iraq, which the Bush administration was going to do anyway. We would've been much better served by continuing to dismantle terrorist networks, setting up a working government in Afghanistan, hunting Bin Laden, and examining why, in general, the Arab world hates the U.S.
2 for 4. For the second week in a row, we end with a split. I'll take this as a sign that the questions being asked are just edgy enough to push buttons.
Big thanks to both Jeff and Krunchy for bringing both knowledge and a little punch to this week's responses. Come back and participate again soon.
STAY CURRENT