Clinton sponsors bill to outlaw private contractors in Iraq...Why does Obama not support this?

[candice]

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27117

[sandnsea]

1. Because he's not a lying conniving political opportunist

What a bunch of idiots to fall for this shit. Talk about Bush being able to blow smoke up the ass of his followers with all kinds of lying promises, that's all this is. We do not have enough troops to outlaw companies like Blackwater. We'd have to completely revamp the military.

[rodeodance]

5. at the debate: "I agree with Hillary"----HE is a "lying conniving political opportunist"

[zulchzulu]

2. Obama has his OWN plan (Security Contractor Accountability Plan) ...not sponsoring someone else's...

His plan:
http://obama.3cdn.net/df53e8d8441bb5673b_iaibmvp6o.pdf

"Most contractors act as if the law doesn't apply to them," he said. "Under my plan, if contractors break the law, they will be prosecuted."

In announcing his "Security Contractor Accountability Plan," Obama said he would like to see greater transparency on contractor hiring and costs.

"I've proposed tougher government reforms than any other candidate in this race – reforms that would eliminate the kind of no-bid contracts that this administration has given to Blackwater," he said.

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/obama_goes_after_blackwater.html

[rodeodance]

4. Its a much weaker plan

[zulchzulu]

19. Thanks for informing us why it's a "weaker plan"

:shrug:

Don't waste your time with details.

[bigtree]

11. His way or the highway?

. . . so much for the unifier.

[zulchzulu]

18. The point is that Obama is a leader with a plan and not a hanger-on sponsor of someone else's

Obama's plan was written by him and he has his sponsors. Hillary again proves she can't write a plan and lets someone else do the work and then claim it is her own.

That's not a leader. That's a follower. Like when she followed George Bush with her vote for the Iraq War and the possible war in Iran.

[MojoMojoMojo]

3. I sincerely hope its not because he doesnt intend to end their Iraq occupation

He usually copies Hillarys platform.

[redstate_democrat]

6. He doesn't support

this bill because it turns out we actually need these contractors. I read in The Nation that we have approximately the same number of contractors as Military over there. They operate trucks, work in cafeterias, do other work besides security. Hillary's bill will just completely outlaw them and I don't think that is a good idea. But Barack wants them to be held criminally responsible here in the U.S. I think that's a good idea.

[davidinalameda]

7. I love that cartoon!

[redstate_democrat]

8. lol!

I laugh every time I see it!

[AtomicKitten]

9. Because Hillary is an irresponsible opportunist.

http://www.polimom.com/2008/02/29/hillary-puts-some-daylight-between-them/
Hillary puts some daylight between them
Posted on Friday 29 February 2008

Wednesday, The Nation came out with an interesting article about Barack Obama’s position on the use of private security on Iraq. Essentially, Obama’s position is that we’re pretty much stuck using them at the moment, but they must be answerable to US law.

“If Barack Obama comes into office next January and our diplomatic security service is in the state it’s in and the situation on the ground in Iraq is in the state it’s in, I think we will be forced to rely on a host of security measures,” said the senior adviser. “I can’t rule out, I won’t rule out, private security contractors.” He added, “I will rule out private security contractors that are not accountable to US law.”

I think Obama’s position is correct here. US forces are tapped out, and thus our military must rely on this support… at least for a while.

In Iraq right now, the number of private contractors is basically equal to the number of US troops. While Obama advisers say they plan to “have a serious look” at the role of contractors in Iraq, one adviser seemed to indicate that unarmed contractors would continue to operate at significant levels. “These contractors are not only providing private security functions like Blackwater. They’re rebuilding schools, they are serving food, they’re doing logistics, they’re driving trucks, and the important question is, If you take those 100,000-plus contractors out of Iraq, what do you replace them with? Inevitably the answer is, You replace them with US military.”

Unfortunately, due to the massive downsizing following the Cold War, we don’t have military personnel with which to replace them.

Yes, it’s incredibly problematic that we have contractors operating without accountability, and while Obama has a bill in the works to create a legal structure to handle contractor crimes, it may not pass by the time a new president takes office.

Of course, both Clinton and Obama have said they’ll begin a withdraw from Iraq if they become president — but it’s painfully obvious that we have to view these contractors as part of the larger organization, and integrate both their supporting and security roles into the removal.

Because simply banning them will create a vacuum we cannot fill.

So what, then, is this?

Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced today that she has cosponsored legislation to ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq.

This legislation — the Stop Outsourcing Security (SOS) Act — “mandates that US personnel undertake all diplomatic security in Iraq within six months of enactment”. It was also described in the Nation’s article, and the author has now updated to wonder why Clinton has signed on in the midst of a heated campaign.

I think it’s pretty obvious… but if this passes, then by default we’re going to be out of Iraq very very quickly — so quickly, perhaps, that our departure will be damagingly chaotic. These private firms are part and parcel of the current configuration in Iraq, and nothing we’re doing there is sustainable without them.

I think Hillary has finally managed to put some serious daylight between herself and Obama.

[MonkeyFunk]

12. You guys crack me up

now you support outsourcing the military just because Obama says it's OK. Last year not one person on this site would've defended it.

[casus belli]

10. Probably because he intends to bring them ALL home...

Just bringing home contractors would require doubling our military presence there. And anyone who has ever served in the military can tell you that deployments are a pretty good chunk of the change. Why would he phase out Blackwater, bring in troops to take their place and then bring them back home. If anything, this should be a bill to call for inquiries into how these companies are spending the money they've been given and how they have been charging taxpayers for their services. If we're going to bring anyone home, let it be our troops.

[Recursion]

13. The military fired all its cooks

Seriously, at least in the Marine Corps there are no cooks anymore; the NCO's got lateral transfers and everybody else got up-or-out'ed in a frozen MOS.

How are they going to eat?

[Iceburg]

14. He will in a month ... he always follows Hillary's lead. /nt

[sendero]

15. why does HRC..

... float ridiculous plans SHE KNOWS FULL WELL cannot be enacted?

The only way the contractors can be removed it to END THE WAR. If that 's what she is going to do, why not just say so instead of sponsoring a bill that has LESS THAN ZERO chance of passing either branch, much less getting signed.

[HamdenRice]

16. Hillary is coming late, claiming credit. Jeremy Scahill: Obama leader on mercenary issue

This is a bullshit issue. Obama has been a leader on the mercenary issue. Hillary is coming late to this as a primary stunt and "daring" Obama, who has been working on this issue for a long time, to now support her symbolic measure and publicity stunt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4843336

It's very transparent, as are most of her stunts.

[Divernan]

17. Obama ahead of Clinton on this issue: he sponsored legislation in Feb. of 2007

Jeremy Scahill on DemocracyNow: Obama has been at forefront on Blackwater issue in the Congress
Edited on Sun Mar-02-08 08:24 AM by HamdenRice
I just wanted to post this because I felt the "*NEW* Clinton Cosponsors Legis to Ban Use of Priv. Sec. Contr..." post presently on the Greatest Page is disingenuous.

It gives the false impression that Hillary is on the forefront of this issue and that Obama has no position and has merely voted present on her proposal.

According to Jeremy Scahill, author of "Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army," and hence probably the country's leading expert on Blackwater and Bush's mercenary armies, Obama has been at the forefront on this issue. To be fair, in the interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales, Scahill criticizes both Hillary and Obama for refusing to rule out the use of mercenaries if elected. But this is in the context of acknowledging that Obama had already sponsored legislation extending the rule of law and legal liability to mercenaries in Iraq, making him one of Congresses few leaders on this issue:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/28/jeremy_scahill_de...

And the reason I focus on Obama instead of Hillary on this is because Barack Obama has actually been at the forefront of addressing the mercenary issue in the Congress. In February of 2007—this was way before the Nisour Square massacre, where Blackwater forces killed seventeen Iraqis and wounded twenty others—in February of 2007, Barack Obama sponsored legislation in the Senate that sought to expand US law so that—

JUAN GONZALEZ: This is just after he got into the Senate, right?

JEREMY SCAHILL: This was in 2007. This was a year ago. And so, this was a major piece of legislation by Obama, and it was done in concert with Representative David Price from North Carolina in the House, a Democrat. And Obama’s legislation basically said we realize that there are loopholes in the law that allow Blackwater and other contractors to essentially get away with murder, and so what we need to do is make it so that US law applies to not only Defense Department contractors, but State Department contractors like Blackwater. If they murder someone in Iraq, we can prosecute them back in the United States.

Now, that legislation hasn’t passed at this point, and it may never pass. I mean, the fact is that the Bush administration actually issued a statement opposing that legislation, and I want to read to you what Bush said. He said that law would have, quote, “intolerable consequences for crucial and necessary national security activities and operations."

<end quote>

The remainder of the article is a BALANCE AND FACTUAL look at whether Obama or Hillary will be able to reduce troop levels in Iraq. But it doesn't play stupid games, as Hillary's camp seems to be doing, coming late to the issue in the middle of crucial primaries, and pretending to be a leader on the issue.