Henry Waxman reveals that the level of money lost to fraud in the War on Terror sets record lows for government or private business.
According to a report from the BBC the War on Terror has operated with a remarkably low level of loss to theft, accounting errors and waste of less than 1% since the start of conflict in Afghanistan; a level of spending efficiency which any successful business would be proud of. Out of a total expenditure for the War on Terror which currently runs almost $600 million a year, and has likely cost more than $2 trillion to date with more than another $2 trillion to come in the next 10 years, so far only a remarkably tiny $23 billion has gone missing, mostly in the hands of inefficient or corrupt local and international contractors.…
Article comments
26 - Pablo
Dave, Dave, Dave, Your so funny, and pitiful at the same time. :)
27 - Dave Nalle
Baritone, I was never kidding. Making a point humorously does not invalidate the point. This ought to be clear even to you.
Before this article was even published I sent a query to the editors asking if it was satire and got no commitment one way or another. I don't believe it fits the definition of satire. It's more like irony or sarcasm. It's mainly just a different way of looking at the situation.
Plus my thesis hasn't been disproved and my data is accurate. The only argument against my point is that wasting money is bad, which I don't dispute. But which is easily countered with the point that if that's the case why aren't they going after Medicare/Medicaid fraud.
Dave
28 - zingzing
clavos: "it's all relative"
money is relative? pure dollars and cents?
you're on a roll today.
or did i just spend too much time away?
29 - Mark Saleski
...and my data is accurate
right. and water isn't actually wet. etc. etc.
30 - troll
Dave - this one is a true stinker
the implication (as has already been questioned in the comments I'm sure) is that there has been no corruption or graft in the WOT except in Iraq - highly unlikely
'don't you worry son - the elections will all be over soon'...and with luck you'll regain some of your facilities
31 - Cindy D
Clav was merely pointing to his own post as satire.
32 - bliffle
Who cares about efficiency, anyway? Who cares about corruption?
At the worst it just leads to deficits and Reagan proved that Deficits Don't Matter and Bush proved it all over again.
So we should immediately have Universal Health Care.
We should move the homeless and indigent into all those empty houses created by foreclosures.
Everyone should have a minimum income.
It can't cost more than a couple trillion dollars.
Let's see, this administration started off with a trillion dollars worth of tax gifts to our favorite rich people. We spent a trillion (or two) on a pointless war. Now we're spending a trillion (or two) bailing out Wall Streets bad casino bets.
Seems like enhancing the lives of our citizens can be done with the change that falls behind the sofa cushions of this administration.
33 - DaveNalle
once again, since troll seems not to be able to grasp it, the 'point' of this article is primarily that the great and terrible criminal defrauding of the American people in the War on Terror amounts to enormously less than the amount of waste and fraud the government or private business experiences every day, so making it your primary target for outrage means you're really concerned about something other than the actual waste and fraud.
Frankly, I'd rather have an American company like Halliburton benefit from bad bookkeeping and fraud than Robert Mugabe who gets more than his share of stolen aid money.
Dave
34 - troll
the 'point' of this article is primarily that the great and terrible criminal defrauding of the American people in the War on Terror amounts to enormously less than the amount of waste and fraud the government or private business experiences every day
...and the point of the criticism of your piece which you seem incapable of understanding is that the numbers are not in on this claim as yet
35 - troll
and oh yeah - the big H is an American Co in name only
36 - Baritone
"...the great and terrible criminal defrauding of the American people in the War on Terror amounts to enormously less than the amount of waste and fraud the government or private business experiences every day,..."
But you DIDN'T establish that. You compared apples to oranges. You compared $93M in losses solely in Iraq, to all of the supposed expenditures in the "war on terror" which is a demonstrably larger undertaking.
I assume no one here supports government waste and fraud. But your "point" is defused when the basis of your argument is proven wrong in its construct.
B
37 - DaveNalle
and oh yeah - the big H is an American Co in name only
Solely because like a lot of companies they were forced offshore by our rapacious corporate tax rates.
And Baritone, I never said one word about losses in Iraq. Read the article. The comparison is of losses in the war on terror with spending on the war on terror. Nothing about Iraq.
Both you and troll seem not to have actually read what I wrote.
Dave
38 - Mark Saleski
Both you and troll seem not to have actually read what I wrote.
ah, that old reply.
again, the bbc article does not even mention "terror", but only iraq. and it does not even come to the same conclusion you use when referencing it.
then, your link to the war on terror spending uses a figure projected ten years into the future.
go ahead and tell us we don't know what we're talking about. you'll be wrong again.
39 - Baritone
God Dave, wake up! Check out your very first link to the BBC report. What does it say? YOU READ IT BUBBA! I'm not a fucking idiot. It says $93b lost in IRAQ, not in the overall war on terror. Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. Duh!
B
40 - DaveNalle
Guys. I link to the BBC article as a starting off point. I then link separately to other sources for most of the data. Most sources which report this story say that losses in Iraq and Afghanistan add up to $23 billion. The BBC article is inaccurate in assigning that figure solely to Iraq.
If I just wanted you to read the first link and nothing else then why would I bother to write an article? For that matter, why do I bother to read multiple neutral sources and do research when it just gets ignored?
Dave
41 - zingzing
maybe your writing this time out is unclear if your message is this easily confused.
i dunno.
42 - Jordan Richardson
why would I bother to write an article?
That's a helluva question.
The fact of the matter is that your loosely arranged premise fell apart and now you're constantly moving the goalposts to make it seem like you had this grandiose underlying plot to your article all along and none of the rubes understood it.
Fess up, Dave. You fucked up.
43 - zingzing
wait, where did this "$93b" figure pop up? god, so many numbers... i thought it was $23b. 2017, 2.4, 23, 93...
44 - Mark Saleski
why do I bother to read multiple neutral sources and do research when it just gets ignored?
i have read your "data" and commented on it multiple times (as have others) and you choose to ignore it.
45 - troll
Most sources which report this story say that losses in Iraq and Afghanistan add up to $23 billion. The BBC article is inaccurate in assigning that figure solely to Iraq.
fine - why don't you correct the problem by linking to one in the article rather than the erroneous BBC...problem of communication solved and the criticism goes away
(Jordan - Dave does not fess up)
46 - Lisa Solod Warren
Cindy:
I dunno. Dave was wondering whether his piece was Satire or Opinion. He obviously got his facts wrong. No one got his humor. Clav was defening Dave's humor. And Clav doesn't seem to believe in anything much. So....
47 - Clavos
Just for the record, my labeling one of my comments on this thread as "satire," was a private joke, and had nothing to do with Dave or this article.
48 - Lisa Solod Warren
Well, Clav, I certainly hope, after all that, the private person to whom the joke was directed, got it and appreciated it.
49 - a bookkeeper
Interesting to compare your account with the one in Eurocritics. While overall the finances of war have been handled well (according to Dave), losses could have been further reduced by due diligence and audit reviews (according to BBC, and Eurocritics).