It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by praxis
If this 'explanation' was any where near truth, it would prove beyond any doubt that the pentagon and civilian government were incompetent and incapable of running this circus.
2.3 trillion in entries either did not contain adequate documentation or were improperly reconciled or were made to force buyer and seller data to agree
Regardless of whether or not this 2.3 trillion was directly related to 9/11, it is still a massive issue as far as I am concerned, regardl;ess of the time frame. It shows the government holds itself to a lower, more lax standard of accounting than it holds the rest of the population.
Originally posted by Indigenous equity
I owned a manufacturing company in California from 87-2005. We made some of those components people love to single out and extrapolate misuse of funds.
However they never research why a hammer could cost 700.00. In our case it was actually 560.00, and it was due to the fact it would be used in ICBM silo's and therefore could not spark or by its operation create a spark. The fuel and other products contained within a Nuclear Silo could be adversely affected ( explosion).
Originally posted by Rewey
Both are non-sparking. Neither are $560. Did you charge the general public the same price, or just the government buffoons who bought from you?
Originally posted by Indigenous equity
I owned a manufacturing company in California from 87-2005. We made some of those components people love to single out and extrapolate misuse of funds.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
The Pentagon has been dealing with crap like that for years. The problem is too many bean counters sitting in offices going over contracts and not knowing a hammer from a precision hand-held.... Unfortunately, the solution from Congress is to always put more bean counters into the mix. Pretty soon you are making 7 trillion dollars worth of accounting corrections covering crap dating back to the Vietnam War.
I've been saying for years that if you really wanted to hold someone accountable, we needed to clean out the career politicians in Washington and start over. That still doesnt change the fact that the 2.3 trillion issue had absolutely no connection to 9/11/01.
Do you really expect people to swallow that the government just lost 2.3 TRILLION dollars over the course of x years?
Originally posted by Rewey
So to the layman, yes - it does look like a misuse of funds, and blatant profiteering from government buffoons.
Originally posted by Beefcake
Hilarious that Rummy did a press conference on Sept 10th 2001 day before 9/11 can't make this stuff up.
Pentagon's finances in disarray
By JOHN M. DONNELLY The Associated Press 03/03/00 5:44 PM Eastern .........The Pentagon could not show receipts for $2.3 trillion of those changes, and half a trillion dollars of it was just corrections of mistakes made in earlier adjustments.
January 7, 2001
The Defense Department's inspector general recently identified $6.9 trillion in accounting entries, but $2.3 trillion was not supported by adequate audit trails or sufficient evidence to determine its validity.
Another $2 trillion worth of entries were not examined because of time constraints, and therefore, the inspector general was able to audit only $2.6 trillion of accounting entries in a $6.9 trillion pot.
January 11, 2001
Senator Byrd: A recent article in the Los Angeles Times, written by a retired vice admiral and a civilian employee in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, accused the Department of Defense of being unable to account for the funds that Congress appropriates to it. The authors wrote, and I quote in part, quote, "The Pentagon's books are in such utter disarray that no one knows what America's military actually owns or spends." ...
That audit report found that out of $7.6 trillion in department-level accounting interest, 2.3 trillion in entries either did not contain adequate documentation or were improperly reconciled or were made to force buyer and seller data to agree. This DoD-IG report is very disturbing....
February 12th 2001
The inspector general of the Pentagon said there are 2.3 trillion dollars in items that they can't quite account for. That's not billion. That's trillion dollars. $2.3 trillion -- and the General Accounting Office said there are about $27 billion in inventory items that they can't find.
John Isaacs PBS Online NewsHour
June 3rd 2001
Secretary Rumsfeld Media Availability en route to Turkey
June 28, 2001 Thursday
DOBBS: Well, let me, if I may, go to a management by objective. We know what you want to do. How many months are you giving yourself to get it done?
RUMSFELD: Oh, it's years. It's years. This department didn't get like this in five minutes, and it's not going to get out of this in five minutes. It is an enormous task. It's like turning a battleship. It doesn't turn on a dime. And we'll have to work with the Congress and find a way inside this institution to fix our acquisition system, which is broken.
It takes 20 years to produce a weapon system, at a time where technology is turning over every 24 months. Our financial management systems can't account for $2.6. trillion worth of transactions, simply because the way they're arranged and organized...
Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999
Does it not occur to you that "insufficient paperwork" for 2.3 trillion dollars means "lost money"? How more obvious can it get You can provide me a million links but it won't change a single damm thing.