For the same reasons Hadley himself would not get administrative access. He doesn’t know jack about IT and would be a fricking danger to himself and the entire organization if left to his own devices to make the changes we’re talking about. But given the wide-open nature of the system, Hadley only has to call a friendly contractor/subcontractor and ask them to do it; the contractor or sub already has all the clearance and access they need to get it done, and Hadley has all the authority he needs based on his role.

We just can’t wrap up a ribbon and tie a bow on Hadley about this, though, because this surely took at least one other point of contact to get it done.

So BAH specs out the contractors which do the work, employs other subcontractors on an as-needed basis, and there may be little difference between the contractors and subs.

Look at the info about Chenega in thread upstairs; guess which firms subcontract telecom/IT infrastructure/data work to Chenega? You’ll be able to spit out the names quite readily.

Hadley rubbed shoulders with former Booz Allen Hamilton folks all the time (like ret. Adm. John McConnell and James Woolsey); BAH also worked closely with contractors like Lockheed-Martin, whom Hadley once represented as a lobbyist. It was very incestuous and likely easy for Hadley to simply snap his fingers and tell one of the BAH-selected contractors to get him what he wanted in the way of IT services.

“Rove and Libby” did not write Tenet’s statement in response to teh SOTU claim.

Libby was involved, as was Hadley and Cheney, but ultimately Mclaughlin and Tenet wrote it (by all appearances Rove was not involved). The day it went out, Cheney declared it “unacceptable.”

All of this was introduced as evidence at the trial.

The claim that Rove was involved appears to have been part of Rove’s disinformation campaign during the summer 2005.