Embassy Construction Follies - Davis and Issa Just Hate a Scandal

By: Catzmaw
Published On: 7/28/2007 2:50:36 PM

Today I stumbled across C-Span's rerun of the testimony of two civilian contractors who testified on Thursday before Congressman Waxman's House Committee about the scandalous treatment of workers involved in the construction of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.  The Washington Post article did not do justice to the horrifying details related by the two men, John Owens and Rory Mayberry.  Both men related how, in traveling to Iraq to begin work for their employer, 1st Kuwaiti Trading and Contracting, they each discovered that the dozens of foreign workers on their planes, mostly Philippinos, Indians, Pakistanis, and Africans, did not even know that they were going to Iraq rather than to Kuwait as Mr. Mayberry's planeload had been promised, or to Dubai as Mr. Owens's planeload had been promised.  They described the reaction of the workers who, being informed that they were flying to Iraq, almost rioted on the plane and had to be subdued by armed threats from a 1st Kuwaiti security person. 

The rest of the testimony was shocking.  Not only did one of the men note his surprise that almost no Americans were working on the job site, but he also noted that in his travels around the country he never saw any Iraqis on the job sites; just foreigners, the vast majority of whom could not speak English.  Each man related witnessing injuries to workers, horrid working and sleeping conditions, brutal treatment, and underpayment of workers.  Mr. Owens related how one night a group of about 15 workers broke away and left the Green Zone, only to be returned by 1st Kuwaiti officials who threatened any other contractors who hired them with lawsuits for interfering with their contracts.  In short, the workers had no choice but to remain in the Green Zone and keep working under slave-labor like conditions. 
There's more
Not to be outdone in their zealous pursuit of the "truth", Congressmen Davis and Issa subjected each of the witnesses to grueling interrogation during which their motives were impugned and each Congressman sought to impeach the testimony by demanding answers to questions which they knew the witnesses, being constrained by orders sealing their respective lawsuits against 1st Kuwaiti, were enjoined from answering.  Davis made a big point of noting that Mr. Mayberry had testified as a whistleblower against another contractor and implied that Mr. Mayberry is a serial whistleblower who cannot be trusted.  Mr. Owens was grilled by Issa, who inferred strongly that both witnesses had been coached and perhaps had words put in their mouths by the GAO.  Mr. Issa offered no explanation as to why the GAO, a government office, would feel compelled to elicit false testimony about the operations of the State Department, whose job it was to oversee the construction, but there were plenty of dark mutterings by both Congressman against the GAO's alleged complicity in besmirching the reputation of this contractor for reasons I cannot see.  Maybe it's just that I'm too stupid to get it.  I wish the witnesses had gone on the attack against the two Congressmen and asked them why exactly the GAO would target the State Department or a government contractor for false testimony, but again, that's just me. 

I'm still watching, but what's on now is the State Department IG, Howard Krongard, noting that he went to Iraq to investigate the charges, but admitting that his review was "necessarily limited."  I think I might find the testimony of people who were actually living there and dealing with workers every day more credible and would suggest that what the IG and others were seeing was the 1st Kuwaiti version of the dog and pony show. 

Comments



Really good diary. (Dianne - 7/29/2007 1:36:55 PM)


Geez when can we get rid of the likes of Davis and Issa? (Dianne - 7/29/2007 1:42:44 PM)
Still thinking about what you've reported to us (and again thanks for such a good diary).  You said "I wish the witnesses had gone on the attack against the two Congressmen and asked them why exactly the GAO would target the State Department or a government contractor for false testimony, but again, that's just me."

Did any of our side challenge Issa and Davis?  The GAO and it's employees are the definition of integrity, intelligence, and truth. I'm hoping a Dem on the committee challenged Issa and Davis for such slanderous and duplicitous language against GAO and ultimately the witnessses. 



The Congressman who was standing in for (Catzmaw - 7/29/2007 8:32:04 PM)
Henry Waxman in his absence from the Committee (his name escapes me, but I believe it starts with an M), pointed out for the record that it was his understanding that the two men were prohibited from speaking freely due to their lawsuits being sealed, that this was pointed out to Davis during his questioning of Mr. Owens, and that Issa was in the room when it was pointed out to Mr. Davis so he was perplexed as to why Issa would pursue a line of questioning which he KNEW the witnesses were not free to answer.  It was a pretty good smackdown.

Thanks for your kind statements.  It's amazing how much one can glean from C-Span testimony which often is not reported in the media or so sketchily reported it's impossible to see just how powerful the testimony was.  I spent a good deal of today  with C-Span on replaying the hearings with Korb and Keane, and the Gonzales hearings.  I would challenge anyone who buys into the assertions of Gonzales defenders like Hatch that he's been unfairly targeted to actually watch the proceedings and see the smirking refusal of Gonzales to answer questions.  There's no sense coming from him that he feels misjudged or misunderstood, no injured pride.  Instead, there's a smug arrogance daring his questioners to do something about his obvious falsehoods.

And as for Hatch, who gave an impassioned defense of Gonzales on This Week, I would say that only a few weeks ago I heard him defending the decision to hound Clinton mercilessly and impeach  him for his lie about having sex because "it was about telling the truth."  Mr. Hatch, in his eagerness to portray Gonzales as the victim in this case, appears not to care that Gonzales is obviously lying.  Different standards, I guess.