"First, the issue is not money dispersed, but projects set in motion."
I take it as a given though, that if money is not available for these 'projects', then the projects are not advancing very rapidly....
"Second, it makes sense that turf fighting and the security situation have been responsible for most of the delay,"
I don't dispute that there are reasons the allocated money hasn't been spent... ultimate 'blame' would seem to fall on the poor assumptions and decisions made for and about the occupation phase. (Throwing out the carefully devised and multi-years in development State / Pentagon plan for the occupation one month prior to the invasion... and then going with the 'neo's' fairly Pollyannaish improvised plan seems to have been a major mistake.)
"and the explanation is ignored in order to imply something more nefarious, namely, diversion of funds."
I don't know if 'diversion' has been alleged, but 'war profiteering' has been....
"Third, it makes sense the the oil funds have been easier to dislodge, and that their accessibility accounts for more having been spent or allocated."
I've got no problem with spending the Iraqi's money first, though maybe they do. (We are going to be on the hook for a massive expenditure as it is, and all run on on the 'national credit card', left for the kiddies to deal with.)
"Fourth, although the original story mentions inadequate accounting procedures, it does not suggest cooked books, merely sloppy books. Krugman spins this into a strong suggestion of malfeasance."
Seems like 'no books' would meet the popular definition for 'accounting malfeasance'. Also, packing up all records on the day we turned 'sovereignity' over to the appointed government... and spiriting all those records back to Washington, and then stonewalling the World Bank / UN's audit of those records give at least the impression of scandal.... |
