1115.org

(1)
NYT reported that the FBI investigation of the September 16 Blackwater shootings has concluded that 14 of the 17 deaths were “unjustified”.

AP has put out a story whose first paragraph is so thoroughly misleading that one is forced to wonder if it was dictated by Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell. (I wonder idly what the going rate is for letting someone dictate your first paragraph. And what currency that rate is paid in. I would email Judith Miller and ask, except that she may not know. She, if you will recall, specialized in letting people dictate complete stories. A whole series, in fact.)

A Blackwater Worldwide spokeswoman says the company supports “stringent accountability” for any wrongdoing in the wake of a New York Times report that federal investors have found that the shooting deaths of at least 14 Iraqi civilians by Blackwater guards in Baghdad nearly two months ago violated rules of deadly force.

I read that, and I went “No effing way!” Blackwater would never in a thousand years support stringent accountability when it comes to Blackwater’s shenanigans. Not even in my dreams, and certainly not in theirs.

(I hope it crossed your radar at some point that Blackwater has changed its name from Blackwater USA to Blackwater Worldwide. I wonder if it was because the U.S. government protested that the earlier name was needlessly blackening the USA brand?)

But I’m always prepared to learn something new, so I read on. And what I found was that I didn’t even have to go to other sources to determine whether AP’s first paragraph was justified by the facts. Just their own story seems to undercut their lead para.

Responding to the Times report, Anne Tyrrell, a Blackwater spokeswoman, said the company “supports the stringent accountability of the industry. If it is determined that one person was complicit in the wrongdoing, we would support accountability in that. The key people in this have not spoken with investigators.”

I don’t know if there are different ways to read that. To me it says that Blackwater supports stringent accountability for other firms in the industry. It is confident, though, that no one person will be found complicit in the Blackwater shootings. If one person is found complicit in the “wrongdoing” — what a lovely word for the wanton mowing down of innocent civilians — then Blackwater “would support accountability in that”. They don’t now, though.

And in any case the FBI investigation is hogwash, because the “key people in this” (the translation, presumably, is the “Blackwater guards who did the shooting”) have refused to speak with FBI investigators. Apparently, the claim of the accused to be entirely innocent of what they are accused of doing has evidentiary value in the eyes of Blackwater. Ironic, of course, given that their own corporate philosophy seems to be summed up by the timeless dictum: “Shoot first, and don’t ask questions even afterwards.” Blackwater seems to believe that if you proclaim your innocence to the press, and then refuse to speak to investigators, you cannot be found guilty. All other evidence is trumped by your silence.

(Elderly members of my army of undercover flies-on-the-wall assure me that Humpty Dumpty also used to believe that the laws of gravity applied only to other royal eggs.)

One of these days the Prince of Blackness and Anne Tyrell and Blackwater Worldwide will learn that not all of Condi’s horses nor all of her men can put them back together again. Till then we can keep throwing rotten tomatoes at them, and jeering lustily.

(2)
Anne Tyrell, having seduced or suborned at least a major wire service if not other media representatives, was clearly on a roll. And when you’re feelin’ it, nothing can hold you back.

“Without a doubt, the teams were faced with deadly force that day,” the Blackwater spokeswoman said.

Presumably, Tyrell is aware that the U.S. military has publicly announced that they found no evidence that “the teams were faced with deadly force that day”, and they don’t believe that hogwash for one damn minute. So I guess Tyrell is saying that the official finding of the U.S. military doesn’t constitute any doubt in the eyes of Blackwater Worldwide.

Presumably, since this is what Tyrell is ostensibly responding to, she is also aware that the NYT has reported that the FBI investigation finds no evidence that “the teams were faced with deadly force that day”:

No evidence supports assertions by Blackwater employees that they were fired upon by Iraqi civilians, but the FBI has concluded that three of the deaths may have been justified under rules that allow lethal force in response to an imminent threat, the paper reported.

I guess it is not clear whether Tyrell is saying that the NYT has no credibility and hence their story doesn’t create any doubt in the eyes of objective observers, or whether she is saying that the FBI is full of sh*t, and no one believe them anyway.

I very strongly suspect that in the eyes of Blackwater, nothing counts but what the State Dept. says. And the State Dept. seems to be fully bought and paid for. And so Blackwater is supremely confident that there will ultimately be no doubt that Blackwater did no wrong.

(3)
The AP story has one detail I don’t remember seeing before:

State Department officials have said it has offered limited immunity to private security contractors involved in shootings in Iraq. They disagreed with law enforcement officials that such actions could jeopardize prosecutions in the Sept. 16 incident.

Does the State Dept. have a special talent for denying obvious truths? How out of touch with reality can anyone be? You offer limited immunity to all the prime accused. And you stand up and argue with a straight face that this doesn’t jeopardize prosecutions? Must be all the practice State Department officials get lying abroad for their country. At some point, it allows you to turn around and lie at home against your country (for your contracted mercenaries).

(4)
Yes, I am accusing Condi Rice, Ph.D., Secretary of State, of putting Blackwater above country.

And I challenge anyone to look at the evidence on the public record, and dispute that charge.