Comments on: A hidden cause of Benghazi tragedy Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:37:49 +0000 hourly 1 By: tx75202 Mon, 03 Dec 2012 16:31:42 +0000 Cher Mr ROHDE,
I was absolutly stun to read all the lies you wrote about Benghazi, you all love to tell the most incredible mensonges when it facilate your way of thinking, you should watch the documentary that was just on french television Canalplus by Kamal Redouani,the Arab Spring: Springboard for Radicals?
it goes with incredible detail how the Obama people new way before and during the murder of thoses incredible men, it explain exactly why all this happen,and it was design exactly the way Obama wanted,please the world today is very small,not like WW2 when W.Churcill warn america with proof of the mass muders Hitler was doing, and this famous paper you are proud off ,was calling Churchill a war munger.
Honesty is very important and fact can’t be change.

By: AlkalineState Wed, 21 Nov 2012 22:05:37 +0000 MSHAGAN asks: “How many people do you think are willing to go into a combat zone to cook, pump gas, haul garbage, do menial labor??”

Well, for most of U.S. history…. that’s what army privates were for. If you don’t have enough privates, don’t go to war. Or use cruise missiles. It’s really not that complicated. A land invasion of Iraq was a war of choice. We know now, that it was a cooked-up war of choice. The rush was completely fabricated. The decision to not initiate a draft was also a political one. If we were really in that much danger, Bush should should have asked Congress for a draft.

The contractor thing was a boondoggle that did not have to happen. You’d have to be extremely naive to think that a CEO of Halliburton in the White House, and Halliburton winning tens of billions in no-bid contracts was some kind of coincidence. We know now that the whole thing was pretty much treason. That’s why Bush still can’t show his face in public. The GOP did not bring him out once for the 2012 election. His endorsement would be poison.

By: AlkalineState Wed, 21 Nov 2012 21:55:14 +0000 Halliburton was a ‘special skills’ contractor in Iraq. And failed to ground the circuits in the shower rooms they built. Killed U.S. servicemen.

These things happen, but I certainly do not believe their arugument that they are special. They are expensive, they milk wars, and worst of all: they have no incentive to leave.

By: MSHAGAN Wed, 21 Nov 2012 00:38:48 +0000 The argument over contractors vs fulltime government employees has been debated by many way over my pay grade(!) – I’ll remain neutral on this discussion. Certainly, the “system” is far from perfect –abuses of the systems happen on both sides of this discussion (both, government employees and contractors have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar), and it’s probable there were many abuses throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan events (back throughout history for that matter). I can’t begin to address that as an individual writing on a blog. But, I do want to express that there is more than what meets the eye when it comes to contractor vs fulltime hire. Especially under hazardous-duty conditions.

That said, to keep things simple, I’ve included some links (below) that support my broad statement about costs and skillsets.

It’s all in the accounting. Sure, the contractor might seem to get more take-home money (and, with all the federal cuts, this isn’t necessarily the case anymore), but the federal employee will cost more because of things “other than salary.” Also, the federal employee is hard to get rid of – a contractor can be cut in the blink of an eye.

And, the “special skills” contractors will cost more and there are good reasons (“supply and demand,” for one).

There are many reasons behind the “big numbers” you see in the press – for example, of the contractors available, how many were willing and able to provide (fill in the blank services) under (fill in the blank conditions) and be able to accomplish this under (fill in the blank) restrictions?

Another thing to think about is “going into a war zone” – not all government contractors are willing/able to send their employees into harm’s way, they can’t afford to spend the money required to do so or can’t wait for the federal government to pay them (lots of trust involved in this relationship); not all companies can even afford the cost of the insurance required.

SO, what I’m saying is, contrary to popular belief, there aren’t always companies just lined up to provide necessary services and the impending crisis doesn’t allow for being picky…decisions must be made and there’s no time to waste. How many people do you think are willing to go into a combat zone to cook, pump gas, haul garbage, do menial labor?? – even with hazardous duty pay, it’s hard to find employees! Simply lining up personnel — often involving multi-national cooperation — can be overwelming and isn’t something an up-start company can pull off.

Move the clock forward, once the initial invasion (or whatever the high-risk event was) has occurred and people are able to see that whoever DID go in managed to come out pretty well, then everyone tries to sound like they could have under-bid the company that got the contract. By then, it’s too late, since the government made the commitment and the contractor that went in with them has already committed resources/assets/etc.. Would it be fair then to kick out the contractor who went in during the “worst of times” now that the “good time Charlies” are now willing to take the risks? ld-you-hire-a-contractor-or-a-full-time- employee/5033153 loyee-vs-independent-contractor-1077.htm l aws/a/contractor.htm ontractors-vs-employees s/398/cleared-professionals-preference-g overnment-contractor-or-government-emplo yee -eye/2011/02/government_shutdown_what_ab out.html

By: AlkalineState Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:01:21 +0000 MSHAGAN writes: “Keeping special security personnel trained and on-hand is expensive, so the government “out-sources” it to contractors.”

Huh? Can you give us an example of outsourcing being cheaper than just having your own people do it? Outsourcing adds a whole additional layer of overhead and administration. KBR was billing $124 per head per day to feed soldiers at Iraqi bases. The cost in WWII to feed soldiers in battle (in today’s dollars), was $7 per day. Only in Halliburton math does an 1800% increase equal a savings for taxpayers.

What is very clear is why the Iraq War lasted 8 years while World War II only only took us 4. The Iraq war was fought with many contractors on hand, and it was a milk-job from the start.

By: MSHAGAN Mon, 19 Nov 2012 21:18:47 +0000 RE: …why so much of these wars are outsourced to contractors

The primary reasons are cost and availability of skillsets.

The Federal government does not want to have war-specific skillsets on the payroll except when they are really needed — that is where contractors come in. Keeping special security personnel trained and on-hand is expensive, so the government “out-sources” it to contractors. Say what you will, but outfits like DYNCORPS protect their wards and do it well. Sure, noone is perfect so, occasionally, mistakes happen. Clearly, this is not “systemic,” otherwise there would be no contract support. What comes out in the media will be, by nature, a bit exaggerated or it wouldn’t be “news.” But as one who has served in hostile environments, I can say I felt more secure when the contractor security was around. The ones I had exposure to were completely professional and always alert — that is what they are paid to do, and they do it well. Will such intense people rock an occasional boat? Probably. Don’t know about you, but I for one appreciated them being there and that they had my back.

In order to keep our military and our Government personnel numbers down, contractors are necessary. When you consider paying for contract support over all the long-term costs associated with government/military employees, it comes out cheaper/more cost efficient.

FYI: Contractors are only allowed to do functions that do not qualify as “Inherently Government Function” (see: html/Subpart%207_5.html). Whatever the contractors do, it is under the oversite of Government personnel…Think about it.

By: upstater Mon, 19 Nov 2012 21:02:56 +0000 The hidden cause of the “Benghazi tragedy” is having the CIA entrenched in the city in the first place.

The US has long meddled and interfered in most every country in the world to insure the world remains safe for its corporations.

Withdraw from all these places. No foreign bases, period. Diplomatic relations based on equality.

By: AlkalineState Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:54:17 +0000 The real problem is, it’s illegal under international law for diplomatic missions to participate in espionage. Yet our four diplomats in Libya were 400 miles from their Tripoli Embassy…. near a CIA office in the middle of nowhere. Maybe they were just trying out the Benghazi Burger King. Or something.

Not that I care if our diplomats were spying on Libya. That place is barely a country. We should spy on Libya. But why can’t we just be honest about it now?

By: dotap Sat, 17 Nov 2012 13:45:52 +0000 Just a couple comments. No one should need reminding that Congress controls the purse strings. Bureaucrats ‘soldier on’ trying to make do with what they are given and being required to defend their performance with the means provided. Completely different, I note that Senator John McCain is ex officio member of the Senate committee on Intelligence. What did he know and when did he know it? Did he encourage other members of the committee and House colleagues to provide inadequate funding to protect brave Americans serving our country overseas? It looks like there is plenty of blame to go around and this is a minor problem coompared to the complete mismatch between government revenues and government needs established through desires of citizens. I would wish that all of our politicians would meditate only on that problem.

By: NeilKitson Sat, 17 Nov 2012 03:07:07 +0000 “Far more troublesome was the role of the Department of State. Knowing that the war could come to an end, sooner or later, the Department of State should have prepared a plan that had the concurrence of the War Department and the approval of the White House. By not having developed a plan, it was forced to acquiesce to the course of action proposed by the War Department. In other words, it subordinated itself to the wishes of the War Department in carrying out foreign policy.”

James M. Gavin
On to Berlin
“A fighting general’s true story of airborne combat in World War II”
Viking Press, 1978, pg. 355-357