25 March 2004 | ||||||||
News,
Views, & Analysis Governments,
Lobbies, & the Corporate Media Don't Want You To Know
|
||||||||
"The
most honest, most comprehensive, and most mobilizing news
and analysis on the Middle East always comes from MER. It is indispensable!" - Robert Silverman - Salamanca, Spain
Pentagon finds Iraq
deals riddled with problems
By Sue Pleming WASHINGTON, March 24 (Reuters) - A report by the U.S. Defense Department's inspector general has found major problems with some of the early contracts to rebuild Iraq, including poor planning, pricing and a lack of oversight. According to the report on the inspector general's Web site, procurement rules were not followed in 22 of 24 deals awarded by the military on behalf of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad and its now-defunct Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA). In one example, a contractor was paid even though he was on vacation. In another, vehicles were airlifted into Iraq at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars without proper approval. And in a third, a media contractor was used to organize garbage removal.
"In each phase the ORHA/CPA and
DCC-W (Defense Contracting
Command-Washington) cut corners from generating the initial
requirements to surveillance of the contractor," said the March
18 report on the Web site (www.dodig.osd.mil).
The Iraq contracting process is
under investigation by
several government departments amid widespread allegations of
overcharging and cronyism.
A contract to equip the Iraqi Army
was canceled this month
after complaints over the bidding process. The contract is
being rebid, causing a delay in supplying the new army.
The latest Pentagon report covers
small contracts, mostly
for humanitarian assistance, totaling $122.5 million.
"DOD cannot be assured that it was
either provided the best
contracting solution or paid fair and reasonable prices for the
goods and services purchased," the report said of 22 deals.
It recommended "appropriate
administrative action" be taken
against officers who did not follow the rules.
MEDIA DEAL TARGETED
San Diego-based Science
Applications International
Corporation (SAIC), a private company, had eight contracts
valued at up to $108.2 million that were criticized.
Its contract to rebuild Iraq's
media has since been
competitively bid and awarded to Florida-based communications
equipment maker Harris Corp.
SAIC's media program manager
requested the purchase of an
H2 Hummer and a Ford C350 pickup truck and then chartered a
DC-10 cargo jet to fly them to Iraq, the report said.
When the military contractor
refused to allow these items
to be added to the contract, SAIC went to a different DOD
office and gained approval, the report said.
Contracting officers were unable
to pinpoint the exact
cost of the airlifted vehicle but one invoice entitled "Office
and Vehicle" totaled about $381,000.
"SAIC has worked very diligently
to ensure that we are
performing to the customer's satisfaction. When unanticipated
events occur, we immediately respond to address and resolve any
issues," said company spokesman Ron Zollars.
The SAIC media contract was also
criticized for employing
staff for one task and assigning them another. An extreme
example involved someone employed for the media contract who
was then put in charge of garbage removal.
An e-mail to the contracting
officer about the garbage
assignment read: "Sit down before you read this attachment! I'm
still in shock that 'Management' believes this is okay. I'm not
sure what to do ... besides cry."
The commander of the DCC-W acknowledged in replies to the
inspector general that his office had taken shortcuts, but
contended that the report "represented a serious injustice to
the personnel in his command, was riddled with faulty
assumptions, erroneous conclusions."
Clarke Grabs Center Stage at
9/11 Hearing
By KEN GUGGENHEIM WASHINGTON (AP) - For a dozen years, he worked quietly in the shadows of the White House. But Richard Clarke stole the spotlight at an extraordinary series of hearings into the Sept. 11 attacks, claiming President Bush hadn't done enough to protect the country from terrorists. A counterterrorism adviser to the past three presidents, Clarke accused the Bush administration Wednesday of scaling back the campaign against Osama bin Laden before the attacks and undermining the fight against terrorism by invading Iraq. But this time Clarke was appearing before the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, swearing to tell the truth before a packed Capitol Hill hearing room and a nationwide television audience watching the broadcast live.
Many of those attending were
relatives of Sept. 11 victims.
Clarke began his testimony by apologizing to them.
``Your government failed you,
those entrusted with protecting
you failed you and I failed you. We tried hard, but that doesn't
matter because we failed,'' he said. ``And for that failure, I
would ask - once all the facts are out - for your understanding and
for your forgiveness.''
Under questioning, Clarke said the
Clinton administration had
``no higher priority'' than combatting terrorists while the Bush
administration made it ``an important issue but not an urgent
issue'' in the months before Sept. 11, 2001.
Clarke's criticism contradicted
testimony given to the panel
Tuesday and Wednesday from Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George Tenet. All
said the administration grasped the threat posed by al-Qaida and
was working hard to fight it.
``All I can tell you is the
policy-makers got it because I
talked to all of them about it and they understood the nature of
what we were dealing with,'' Tenet said.
Clarke's appearance Wednesday
raised partisan tensions on a
commission that prides itself on being bipartisan. While Democrats
offered praise, Republicans questioned Clarke's integrity, morality
and candor. They also suggested his criticism was intended to spur
book sales or boost the candidacy of Bush's likely rival, Sen. John
Kerry, D-Mass.
The White House took the unusual
step of identifying Clarke as
the senior official who had praised Bush's anti-terrorism efforts
in an anonymous briefing for reporters in 2002.
``He needs to get his story
straight,'' said Condoleezza Rice,
Bush's national security adviser and Clarke's former boss.
At the hearing, Republican
commissioner James R. Thompson, a
former Illinois governor, held up Clarke's book and a text of the
briefing and challenged the witness, ``We have your book and we
have your press briefing of August 2002. Which is true?''
Clarke said both were true. He was
still working for Bush at the
time of the briefing and was asked to highlight the positive
aspects of the administration's counterterrorism efforts and
minimize the negative, he said.
Seeking to counter White House
suggestions that he is seeking a
job in a future Kerry administration, Clarke said he wouldn't
accept a position - and noted he was under oath.
Commissioners later sought to
minimize any concerns of
partisanship that could undermine the credibility of the final
report they expect to release this summer.
``Nobody has clean hands in this
one,'' said former New Jersey
Gov. Thomas Kean, a Republican and the commission chairman,
referring to the Bush and Clinton administrations. ``It was a
failure of individuals. The question now is whether or not we
learned from our mistakes.''
``One of the startling things that
I think came out of the
hearing ... is that virtually every witness, including Dick Clarke,
specifically, when asked indicated that even when everything had
been raised to the highest alert level when the new administration
came in, it was really too late then'' to avert an attack, said
former Navy Secretary John Lehman, a commission member, said
Thursday.
``So what we have is an open
system that lets terrorists in and
while we would never totally close that off, we still have a long
way to go to see that our immigration and our border security are
improved enough so that we can rest a little more securely,'' he
told Fox News. ``And we're not there yet.''
The commission's latest hearings
examined military and
diplomatic efforts to fight bin Laden in the years before the Sept.
11 attacks. Also testifying were President Clinton's Defense
Secretary William Cohen, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and
national security adviser Samuel Berger.
Many of the problems both
administrations faced were revealed in
a series of preliminary commission reports issued over two days. A
report Wednesday said CIA officials, including Tenet, believed the
agency lacked the authority to kill bin Laden unless his death
resulted from a capture. But they never discussed this with Berger
or other Clinton administration officials, who believed the CIA had
the OK to kill bin Laden.
The report also said the CIA had
depended too much on unreliable
indigenous groups in Afghanistan, where the al-Qaida leader was
running training camps under the protection of the Taliban rulers
in Kabul.
Officials from both
administrations largely agreed on the
obstacles they faced in pursuing bin Laden. They lacked
intelligence on bin Laden's whereabouts that was specific and
reliable enough to launch a missile attack.
They said an American invasion of
Afghanistan wasn't a serious
option because it would have been strongly opposed by the American
public and Congress.
U.S. officials debated how they
could use the unmanned Predator
aircraft to spy on bin Laden and whether it could be armed with
missiles to carry out attacks. They also questioned how much
support to give the Taliban's enemies, the northern alliance, which
had leaders linked to drug trafficking and other abuses.
Kean said commissioners ``have
experienced considerable
frustration these past two days. We keep wrestling with the
question: What could have been done and what should have been done
at some stage or other over the past eight years to prevent 9/11?''
Rumsfeld, Powell and Tenet all
expressed doubts that the attacks
could have been prevented if the Bush administration had captured
or killed bin Laden.
Former Republican Sen. Slade
Gorton asked Clarke if there was
``the remotest chance'' that the attacks could have been prevented
if the Bush administration had adopted his aggressive
counterterrorism recommendations upon taking office in January
2001.
``No,'' Clarke said.
To
receive MER
regularly
and free
click here
If you don't get MER, you just don't get it! To comment on this and other MER articles click here for the new MER FORUM |
||||||||
|
||||||||