The money is available, which is why it is called "allocated". But it is not dispersed until fulfillment. You do not seem to understand what is being described: allocation is different from authorization, it is like putting the money in escrow until contract fulfillment.
Look, if there is something to look into, I have no objection to it being looked into, but Krugman definitely had an axe to grind (no surprise there), and ignored portions of the story to have matters seem worse than they needed to. No real case for profiteering is made out, for example, in either piece. There is one mention of a Halliburton subsidiary in the Post piece, but no explanation of how the issue of expenditure might bear on any allegation of profiteering.
Krugman hides behind his status as a columnist to evade ordinary journalistic standards, under the pretense of offering opinion. Really, he offers gossip, of about the same credibility as a supermarket tabloid. |
