SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (759335)2/15/2007 2:13:01 PM
From: pompsander  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
This really ticks people off, because it looks so incompetent...and doesn't seem to be getting better! And why did Bush rescind Clinton's rule on not awarding contracts to bad actors...can anyone explain that one to me?
__________________________________________

Auditors: Billions wasted in Iraq By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer
17 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The U.S. government is at risk of squandering significantly more money in an Iraq war and reconstruction effort that has already wasted, overcharged or poorly tracked $10 billion in taxpayer money, federal investigators said Thursday.

The three top auditors overseeing contract work in Iraq told a House committee that Defense and State department officials condoned or otherwise allowed poor accounting, repeated work delays, bloated expenses and payments for work shoddily or never done by U.S. contractors.

That problem could worsen, the Government Accountability Office said, given limited improvement so far by the Department of Defense even as the Bush administration prepares to boost the U.S. presence in Iraq.

David M. Walker, comptroller general of the GAO, Congress' auditing arm, said his agency has been pointing out problems for years, only to be largely ignored or given lip service with little result.

"There is no accountability," Walker said. "Organizations charged with overseeing contracts are not held accountable. Contractors are not held accountable. The individuals responsible are not held accountable."

"People should be rewarded when they do a good job. But when things don't go right, there have to be consequences," he said.

A spokeswoman for the Army, which handles most of the Iraq contracting, did not have immediate comment.

Senate Democrats, calling recently cited cases of waste "outrageous rip-offs of the American taxpayer," quickly moved to introduce legislation Thursday to stiffen punishment for war profiteers and cut down on cronyism in contracting.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan (news, bio, voting record), D-N.D., and 22 other senators, would impose penalties of up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million for war profiteering and restore a rule that prohibits awarding federal contracts to companies exhibiting a pattern of breaking the law in performance of government contracts.

That rule, put in place by President Clinton, was dropped by the Bush administration upon taking office, Dorgan said.

The auditors' joint appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee comes as Congress is preparing for a showdown with President Bush next month over his budget request of nearly $100 billion to pay for more U.S. troops in Iraq.

Also testifying Thursday were Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, and William Reed, director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency.

According to their testimony, the investigators:

_Found overpricing and waste in Iraq contracts amounting to $4.9 billion since the Defense Contract Audit Agency began its work in 2003, although some of that money has since been recovered. Another $5.1 billion in expenses were charged without proper documentation.

_Urged the Pentagon to reconsider its growing reliance on outside contractors to run the nation's wars and reconstruction efforts. Layers of subcontractors, poor documentation and lack of strong contract management are rampant and promote waste even after the GAO first warned of problems 15 years ago.

_Pointed to growing Iraqi sectarian violence as a significant factor behind wasted U.S. dollars. Iraqi officials must begin to take primary responsibility for reconstruction efforts, an uncertain goal given widespread corruption in Iraq and the local government's inability to fund projects.

Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., who chairs the panel, has pledged scores of investigations of fraud, waste and abuse — with subpoenas if necessary — on the Bush administration's watch. He decried the overpricing identified by the DCAA, a figure that has tripled since last fall.

Of the $10 billion in overpriced contracts or undocumented costs, more than $2.7 billion were charged by Halliburton Co., the oil-field services firm once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.

"According to the Pentagon auditors, more than one in six dollars they have audited in Iraq is suspect," Waxman said.

Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the top Republican on the panel, pointed to ongoing, "systemic" problems in Iraq contracting.

"This much is clear: Poor security, an arcane, ill-suited management structure, and frequent management changes have produced a succession of troubled acquisitions," he said.



To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (759335)2/15/2007 7:22:50 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
"I don't believe there's any civil war going on,"

REALLY???????????

(Well, who really cares what word you choose to use to describe the reality on the ground. It is what it is. Locals are bent upon fighting each other --- and anyone else in their way --- to capture wealth, power, control, and for religious/tribal/ethnic reasons.)

One thing that I believe is likely, though: If the US would smartly remove our troops' blocking position from the middle of the war zone, there *would be* increased violence (Hell, even Bush says this all the time! :-), and then even you, GZ, would have NO REASON AT ALL to not call what is going on a 'civil war'... possibly even (if it then escalates as I expect), it would be something *larger* then a mere 'civil war': it would be a major regional conflict pitting the mostly Arab Sunni/Saudi side against the mostly Persian Shiite/Iranian side.

All to the LONG-TERM benefit of America and the West!

"if so, then how come the leaders of one side or another don't claim victory for one or another attack?"

What? (Oh, pls... who judges anything by the propaganda?????? Suggest you look at the rising death tolls, or rising attack numbers, or rising funding for the conflict... when you are deciding whether you want to call it a 'civil war'... or something different, like 'heavy traffic with a strong hint of ethnic cleansing and murder/rape/mayhem. :-)

"The troops in the field are largely up beat and gungho about their missions, and they feel very solid about what they're doing..."

Of course... they are the best in the world.

(But, that says NOTHING about whether the war they have been committed to represents a WISE or a FOOLISH and HARMFUL policy for America to follow.... That is an ENTIRELY different matter.)

"The insurgent terrorists, by and large, are coming from iran and this has already been proven..."

Here you choose to DISAGREE with the United States Government, it's Intelligence services, and the US Military's *official positions* (not to mention such commonsense matters as *actual body counts*, and other verifications).

What all have said (& what evidence shows) is that '80%+' of the 'insurgents' are ALL IRAQIS... and most of them are from the Sunni community which is rebelling against the Shia-dominated government that holds power now.