Remember how back on September 16, 2007, a bunch of mercenaries-for-hire from Blackwater Worldwide shot up Nisoor Square, killing 17 people? That the incident was straight-up wrongdoing doesn't seem to be subject to debate at this point. If it were, why would the U.S. Embassy be disbursing cash settlements to the families of the victims? An investigation into the incident was promised, but that investigation took a curious and unsettling turn yesterday. We'll let the lede from the AP do the talking:
The State Department promised Blackwater USA bodyguards immunity from prosecution in its investigation of last month's deadly shooting of 17 Iraqi civilians, The Associated Press has learned.
So this was the backdrop for today's presser with White House Press Secretary Dana Perino. And, as you might expect, the press had a simple question they wanted answered:
Q Dana, why did the Bush administration give immunity to the Blackwater guards, and is the administration going to hold these guys accountable for what transpired?
MS. PERINO: This is what I can tell you: Secretary Rice has made it very clear that she takes the situation very seriously. It is under review. She said that anyone who has engaged in criminal behavior will be prosecuted. I don't have additional detail that I can provide for you, and I'll have to refer you to the State Department and Justice Department for more.
Uhm...so wait. Were the Blackwater guards given immunity or not? If they were, then clearly, they cannot be prosecuted, whether their "behavior" was "criminal" or not. Time to back up, and ask an even simpler question.
Q Were they given immunity or weren't they?
MS. PERINO: Helen, as I said, it's a matter that's under review.
But, wait. Is the case under review, or is the potential for making an immunity deal under review? Back up, slow down, and try an even easier question:
Q What do you mean "under review"? Why don't you say yes or no?
MS. PERINO: The State Department is the one that is looking into this and they are the ones answering questions on it.
Q So the administration hasn't decided whether or not the reports of that are true? You're still looking into whether or not they actually were?
MS. PERINO: I am going to refer you to the State Department on that, who is looking into it.
So Perino thus succeeds in doing what she does best--deflecting a simple, yet potentially damning question into the bureaucratic wormhole of the administration.
Still, if someone's feeling game, they might reframe the original question into something so basic and generalized that you'd look like a fool dodging it:
Q As a general question, how could you both be offered immunity and promised prosecution?
MS. PERINO: Again, this is being -- this is under review. It's not something that I can talk about from here. Obviously, anyone who is engaged in criminal activity would be of a great concern and it's very serious and it should be prosecuted. Let me let the State Department and the Justice Department answer further questions on it.
And, Perino ends where she begun: the matter is being taken seriously, someone should be prosecuted maybe, and you'll have to go and talk to some other agencies for more information, because they don't tell us anything.
Incidentally, where does the President stand on the decision to grant the Blackwater guards immunity? Perino does not know "if the President has been briefed on it specifically."
That's too bad. We hear that he is the "decider" or something.