Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Blackwater to take on Big Defense Contractors for More Lucrative Contracts (Media Blitz)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 08:53 AM
Original message
Blackwater to take on Big Defense Contractors for More Lucrative Contracts (Media Blitz)
*Prince is prepping his company for even more lucrative contracts than the billion dollars Blackwater has received from the U.S. government since 9/11

*Blackwater recently outbid big defense contractors for a 5 year, $15 billion contract to "fight terrorists with drug ties."



Today's Must Read
By Spencer Ackerman - October 15, 2007, 9:10AM
Blackwater's once-reclusive Erik Prince has launched a PR offensive, bringing the press to the private-security firm's Moyock, N.C. compound and showing up on TV chat shows. (More on that in a moment.) The strategy is clear enough: Prince wants to debunk Blackwater's image as out-of-control mercenaries in the wake of the Nisour Square shootings. And that's because Prince is prepping his company for even more lucrative contracts than the billion dollars Blackwater has received from the U.S. government since 9/11. As The Wall Street Journal reports today, Prince is looking to take on the biggest defense contractors in the country.

According to the Blackwater founder and CEO, private security -- guarding U.S. personnel in war-torn countries, as Blackwater does in Iraq -- shouldn't be what defines the company. "We see the security market diminishing," he told the paper. Instead, Blackwater wants to grow its training and logistics work, placing Blackwater in the center of what the WSJ terms "missions to which the won't commit American forces." For example, Blackwater recently outbid Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman and Raytheon for a five-year, $15 billion contract to "fight terrorists with drug ties." Get ready to see a lot of Blackwater in Colombia.

Signs of Blackwater's expansion -- even amidst the Nisour Square controversy -- are evident, the paper reports:

The company has a fleet of 40 aircraft, including small turboprop cargo planes that can land on runways too small or rough for the Air Force. The company's aviation unit has done repeat business with the Defense Department in Central Asia, flying small loads of cargo between bases.
Also in the North Carolina compound: an armored-car production line that Mr. Prince says will be able to build 1,000 of the brutish-looking Grizzly vehicles a year. The project arose out of a need for Blackwater to protect its security convoys in Iraq. Drawing on Mr. Prince's family history in the automotive industry, Blackwater made sure that the vehicles are legal to drive on U.S. highways.
Mr. Prince bought a 183-foot civilian vessel that Blackwater has modified for potential paramilitary use. Mr. Prince sees the ship as a possible step into worlds such as search-and-rescue, peacekeeping and maritime training.


http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004453.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. This makes my eyes glaze over. Really. Is there no other company
that can competitively bid for these jobs, or did they sole source themselves here with the help of this admin?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Loyalty comes first with this cabal. I think bu$h is setting up his own private army
by rewarding them with these lucrative contracts, despite their absymal record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLib at work Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
3. Shouldn't Blackwater be prosecuted for war profiteering?
Halliburton should be prosecuted as well.

I thought it was illegal to cash in on a war...Didn't they do this to Brown Bros Harriman during WWII..one of the Bushes were in on the money-making deal.

Senate Judiciary Holds Hearing on Combating War Profiteering
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200703/032007.html

The 10 Most Brazen War Profiteers
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/41083/



War Profiteering
<snip>
But where's the outrage? Where is the leader with the courage to say, as Franklin Roosevelt did during World War II, "I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster"? Democrats in Congress--and Republicans who have not placed their conscience in a blind trust for the duration of the Bush/Cheney years, a group we hope still includes Arizona's John McCain in the Senate and Iowa's Jim Leach in the House--should borrow a page from past wars, when the nation's elected leaders knew what to call businessmen who used hostilities abroad as an excuse to raid the federal treasury. Senator Robert La Follette tagged them as "enemies of democracy in the homeland." During World War II Harry Truman referred to some forms of war profiteering as "treason."

When he heard rumors of such profiteering, Truman got into his Dodge and, during a Congressional recess, drove 30,000 miles paying unannounced visits to corporate offices and worksites. The Senate committee he chaired launched aggressive investigations into shady wartime business practices and found "waste, inefficiency, mismanagement and profiteering," according to Truman, who argued that such behavior was unpatriotic. Urged on by Truman and others in Congress, President Roosevelt supported broad increases in the corporate income tax, raised the excess-profits tax to 90 percent and charged the Office of War Mobilization with the task of eliminating illegal profits. Truman, who became a national hero for his fight against the profiteers, was tapped to be FDR's running mate in 1944.

How about authorizing a contemporary "Truman Committee" to oversee Iraqi war contracts? There's a strong issue here for candidates John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, Bob Graham, Dick Gephardt and all the other Congressional Democrats who would lead their party in 2004 against a President who will be rolling in corporate dough, some of it from companies that profit from war. Voters will respond to a Democrat who is willing to battle the profiteers. Like most Iraqis, most Americans want to see an end to the looting.
<snip>

more at............

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20030512/editors
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elspeth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
4. "Terrorists with drug ties"?
So that means that every environmentalist activist who smokes a joint will be targeted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I thought more of protecting the big boys (recent Gulf Stream crash):
Remember that Gulf Stream plane crash with tons of Coke and ties to CIA rendition flights?

****
-snip

Still, some facts have come to light, thanks to reporting done mostly by the McClatchy News Service. (The Sun-Sentinel has failed to so much as mention the crash, and the McClatchy-owned Miami Herald has given it only brief attention.) O'Connor and Smith reportedly bought the Gulfstream from a pair of Brazilian businessmen on September 16. That same day, according to logs available on www.flightaware.com, the plane was flown from Clearwater to Fort Lauderdale Executive, which is operated by the city that bears its name.

Two days later, at 7:22 p.m. September 18, according to the logs, the 80-foot-long jet with tail number N987SA took off from Fort Lauderdale for Cancun. It's not clear precisely who piloted that flight. O'Connor has never been certified to fly a jet like the Gulfstream.

The plane picked up the cocaine in Colombia and was en route to El Chapo's gang when it ran into trouble over the town of Tixkokob, on the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexican authorities said. The Gulfstream apparently flew over Tixkobob for two hours before the Mexican military was notified and sent helicopters to chase it. That led to the crash in the countryside. There were no reported injuries. The pilot was arrested, as were two other men who allegedly tried to bribe officials at the crash scene.

The jet had its own mysteries. Between 2003 and 2005, it was flown from Guantanamo, the U.S. base in Cuba, to Washington, D.C., and Oxford, Connecticut, leading to speculation that the CIA might have used it for the "rendition" of terrorism suspects.

-snip

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/2007-10-11/news/dogging-a-high-flying-bird/print
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elspeth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Ah. That makes more sense
"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. California is loaded with "drug terrorists" carrying medical MJ cards.
Edited on Mon Oct-15-07 09:21 AM by tridim
They're not going to Columbia, they're going to stay right here and fight evil terrorist pot smokers. That's much more profitable for everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 07:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC