The Pentagon’s Chief Financial Officer, Undersecretary of Defense Robert Hale, today conceded that the Congressionally mandated auditing requirements are “more of a challenge than I expected.”
That’s putting it mildly. Congress required full financial accountings of Pentagon spending in the 1990s, and in 2010 ordered the Pentagon to be ready for a “full audit” by 2017. The halfway point to 2017 is here, and the Government Accountability Office says the Pentagon is well short of where it would need to be to meet those goals.
20 solid years of work by military financial managers hasn’t amounted to much in the grand scheme of things, and while Undersecretary Hale says he is determined to “eventually” get the military ready for an audit, eventually is starting to add up to an awfully long time.
Navy comptroller Susan Rabern says she is “cautiously optimistic” about meeting the goals sometime next year, but that the cultural shift in the US military’s “worldwide business operations” has been enormous, and getting old data on decades of unaccounted-for spending has been a formidable task.
The initial push to get the Pentagon’s financial house in order came from the notorious reports of $640 toilet seats and $435 hammers. Interest in reining in Pentagon spending slowed after 9/11, however, when budgets soared again to record highs, and interest in where hundreds of billions of dollars ended up was minimal, at best.
The GAO’s latest report warns that military reports to Congress remain “inconsistent and sometimes unreliable,” and that the Defense Department simply has no ability to produce a full accounting of all of its assets, let alone tracking whether payments they’re making to contractors are appropriate.
On Sept. 10th, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced that $2.3 trillion had been "lost" by DoD. More than ten years later, the DoD still can't "produce a full accounting of all of its assets, let alone track whether payments…are appropriate." And no one has been fired yet. I'd suggest the DoD hire a private sector firm to do their accounting, but that would just multiply the opportunities for further corruption.
Interest in reining in Pentagon spending slowed after 9/11, however, when budgets soared again to record highs, and interest in where hundreds of billions of dollars ended up was minimal, at best.
——–
Perhaps this was the whole idea of 9/11, or certainly one of them!?! No matter what you believe about what actually happened that day, 9/11 caused trillions of dollars to change hands. Why have we not taken a real hard look at exactly whose hands the money actually went to? When a crime is committed aren't we supposed to ask who benefited from the crime? Aren't we supposed to ask who had the motive, means and opportunity to carry out the crime?
Why do the people whom should be the first suspects get to run the investigations into what happened that day? You have the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commisson, Philip Zelikow, who co-authored a book together in the 1990's with Condolezza Rice, who herself was a witness before the investigation. You have the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) that admits in it's final report that Building 7 fell at free fall acceleration, which means it encountered zero resistance, and yet fails to reconcile that fact with that basic laws of physics and motion.
You have AntiWar.com a web site I admire and respect that does not want to go there? Why is that?
"You have the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) that admits in it's final report that Building 7 fell at free fall acceleration"
Not unless it's been revised. The NIST report noted that the collapse was observed to begin at a little after 2pm and completed after 5pm. Unless the building was many, many thousands of miles tall, that's nowhere close to "freefall acceleration."
Indeed, antiwar.com's sad allegiance to the impossible 9/11 story that is promoted by the government guarantees I'll never donate a penny here.
see: http://www.ae911truth.org
What ever happened to 'question everything'?
Frank,
I sure hope you're not lying about Antiwar.com, because it's not nice to lie about Antiwar.com. For the moment, I am going to just assume that you're ignorant instead of dishonest or a War Party agent provocateur. My patience, however, is limited. So:
– Antiwar.com has no "allegiance" to ANY of the 9/11 stories. Everyone here has his or her own opinion.
– Among our more prominent personnel, Justin Raimondo not only has no "allegiance" to the government version of the story, he literally wrote the book on possible Israeli foreknowledge of the attacks.
– As for myself, I try to keep an open mind and have significant problems with the government's official account. Among other things, while I do not know firsthand what it looks like when a commercial airliner hits reinforced concrete, I DO know firsthand what it looks like when a JDAM bomb hits reinforced concrete (because I looked out through the holes they made in the reinforced concrete bunkers at Al Jabr air base in Kuwait in 1991), and the hole in the Pentagon looks very similar.
If you were just honestly mistaken about Antiwar.com, no hard feelings. If you're a shill for the forces of evil, don't count on the welcome mat remaining out.
[moderator’s note: Hey, I tried to play nice, on the assumption that “Frank” was merely a well-meaning ignoramus rather than a War Party mole or just some kind of mindless vandal. Sigh … no good deed goes unpunished, I guess. But I do my best to make sure no bad deed does either. Buh-bye, “Frank” – TLK]