Billions lost thru corruption & fraud in Bush government

Interview with Henry Waxman, Chairman of Oversight and Government Reform Committee:

Here’s Doan being questioned about the use of her department for illegal partisan activities and no-competition sweetheart contract handouts:

Sound familiar? How many Bush officials have we heard this line from? Where is the outcry about “character” and “responsibility”?

[quote]REP. HENRY WAXMAN: It’s unusual for me to ever call for the resignation of a federal official. But in your case, I don’t see any other course of action… I would urge you to resign.

BILL MOYERS: But Ms Doan is still in office, isn’t she?

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: She’s still in office, and I think we’ve got to ask that question again of the administration. Why is she still there if she violated the law? And why is she still there if she gave sweetheart contracts, misusing taxpayers’ dollars?

BILL MOYERS: It’s one of the mysteries Waxman hopes to solve this year. There are many more.

BILL MOYERS: You turned over a lot of rocks last year. Was there a pattern to what you kept discovering?

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: I think what we found that was most dramatic to me was that there has been a huge increase in the amount of activities that the government has contracted out. I-

BILL MOYERS: We call that outsourcing?

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Well, outsourcing. And there’s nothing with it if we’re getting a better deal. Often times we can contract out the work and pay a lower price and get good quality. But we’re now at the point of four hundred billion dollars contracted out each year. Two hundred billion dollars of which goes to contractors without any competition.

BILL MOYERS: How can that happen? Why no competition?

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Well, when we first asked that question about Halliburton’s activities in Iraq, they said, “Oh, we didn’t have time to have competition.” We later found out that some of the potential competitors complained that they would have like to have bid. And they could’ve bid for the work. And if we had competition we would have had better price and better quality. But it got to the point where the government was contracting out the-- trying to figure what work should be done. And then they wanted to contract the work itself. Now, they needed to oversee whether the money was being used effectively. So, they wanted to get a private contractor to do that as well. Well, that’s an invitation to a lot of fraud, waste and abuse of–

BILL MOYERS: Did you find fraud, waste and abuse in that process?

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Yes. We found billions of dollars that cannot be accounted for. That cannot be justified. And it’s a scandal.[/quote]

Here’s Waxman drilling Secretary Rice in hearings. Hard to believe she’s one of the most powerful figures in our country!

[quote]BILL MOYERS: Secretary Rice finally appeared to testify under oath last October. After 8 letters of request and a subpoena.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: And it was clear from Sec. Rice’s testimony she didn’t see any reason why she was supposed to keep people honest in her department. Because she didn’t see that as her job. Well it was her job and ultimately became our job to make sure that they’re acting with integrity and with openness and accountability.

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY D-NY: My question, Madame Secretary, is for you to put yourself in my shoes. I’m home in my district; I’m standing in front of a town hall meeting of hardworking American men and women who are paying their taxes. Many of them punch a clock for their time. They’re accountable for their time and for their money. And how do I explain that the IG says that $1.2 billion is missing that was supposed to train the police, the most critical of our missions to help stand up –

SEC. CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Well –

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY D-NY: And how do I explain $4.2 million –

SEC. CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Congresswoman – Congresswoman Maloney –

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY D-NY: – for a swimming pool that has never been used?

SEC. CONDOLEEZZA RICE: You can tell your constituents this is not a matter of having “lost” the money. This is a matter of invoices, as I am told by the people who are doing this. This is a matter of invoices and records that were not solid enough for us to be confident that the goods and services were being billed properly. This was a Department of State audit of its own procedures that came under new management because there were problems with the Bureau of INL. And that’s very often the case with many of the things that have been mentioned here. It is the Department that finds problems and then seeks to fix them.

BILL MOYERS: When Condoleezza Rice came before your committee, she said, “That-- that’s-- the money’s not really missing. It’s an accounting problem.”

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: She’s very skillful. And she is knowledgeable that members have five minutes to ask questions. And if she can stall for five minutes, she’ll get to somebody who might be friendlier in the next line of questioning. But she was evasive

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Secretary Rice, one of my concerns, as we look at Iraq, is that our troops are sacrificing their lives, our nation’s spending hundreds of billions of dollars to prop up a regime in Iraq that looks like it’s fundamentally corrupt. Our committee held a hearing on the corruption in Iraq. And at this hearing, we heard from Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi. Judge Radhi described a rising epidemic of corruption inside the Maliki government that is even funding the insurgency and undermining our – any efforts of political reconciliation.

BILL MOYERS: The Iraqi Judge Radhi Hamza al-Radhi, was appointed by the United States Government to root out fraud and corruption in the Iraqi Government.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: I assume you are aware, Secretary Rice, that Judge Radhi told us his investigators had identified an enormous sum, $18 billion, that corrupt Iraqi officials have stolen. Are you aware of that?

SEC. CONDOLEEZZA RICE: I’m aware of Judge Radhi’s testimony to you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Thank you. He also told us that 31 people on his staff were brutally assassinated when they tried to investigate these corrupt officials. Were you aware of that?

SEC. CONDOLEEZZA RICE: I’m aware of his testimony to you, Mr. Chairman. .

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Judge Radhi raised He told this committee that Prime Minister Maliki used secret orders to stop investigations of corruption of top Iraqi ministers, including al-Maliki’s own cousin, Salam al-Maliki, the former minister of transportation. Do you know whether this is true?

SEC. CONDOLEEZZA RICE: Let me say that everything that has been brought to the attention of either various boards in Iraq, or to our people, is being investigated.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: So you’re aware that – of this allegation and you’re aware that –

SEC. CONDOLEEZZA RICE: I am not personally following every allegation of corruption in Iraq, Mr. Chairman. But I am certain that we are tracking these allegations of corruption, because no one is more concerned about allegations of corruption because no one is more concerned about what is, in fact, a pervasive problem of corruption than we are.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN: I was so stunned when finally she admitted that somebody at the State Department should have been looking after these things. And I said to her, “But you’re the Secretary. You’re in charge of the State Department. You’re the one who should be making sure that the job is being done.” But I think it was a rare moment of candor. [/quote]

There’s plenty more in the full transcript of the interview - concerning everything from Blackwater to use of slave labor by US contractors! I strongly recommend the streaming video to get the full impact:

pbs.org/moyers/journal/02012008/profile.html

A very well-constructed one-sided presentation.

Is the GAO pursuing with an investigation? Charges?

Gee TC. I posted that about 2 minutes ago. You had time to read the full interview? Amazing! However, you didn’t read very thoroughly, apparently - your question is answered therein.

I’m supposed to actually read all of your posts?

Won’t that make my brain explode or something?

You guys need a hobby.

Corruption in government. Gollygee, I have never heard of that before. And Bush is a bad man, you don’t say? First time to hear everything I guess.

Seriously. New hobby. How many friends do you have who do something besides sit around and whine about Bush? And why do you think that is?

TC, aren’t you a moderator?..so YES! you ARE supposed to read every post. :banana: If you find yourself going a little stir crazy, you can always split.

[quote]I’m supposed to actually read all of your posts?

Won’t that make my brain explode or something?[/quote]

I certainly don’t think you’re “supposed to” read any of my posts unless you want to. However, if you decide to respond to a post I make about an article (or, in this case, a transcript of an interview), it seems reasonable to expect that you’d actually read that article before responding to my post!

I worry that you don’t even accept the possibility of the veracity of the charges made in this interview. Or worse yet, perhaps you wouldn’t care even if you knew they were true. I refer you to Carl Sagan:

[quote]In science it often happens that scientists say, “You know that’s a
really good argument; my position is mistaken,” and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. -Carl Sagan, astronomer and writer (1934-1996)[/quote]

TC is not a mod.

So, what’s your point?

[quote=“spiritguide”]TC, aren’t you a moderator?[/quote]No, I am not a modulator here. Its just my imposing, well-balanced stance, steely gaze and calm but powerful demeanor which gives that impression.[quote=“spiritguide”]…so YES! you ARE supposed to read every post. :banana:[/quote]Impeccable logic I admit. To intelligently comment in a cognizant manner one should read the entirety of each post one responds to. But sometimes we must take off those rose-colored glasses Candide.[quote=“spiritguide”]If you find yourself going a little stir crazy, you can always split.[/quote]And miss all the fun?

Vay thus spaketh:

[quote]I worry that you don’t even accept the possibility of the veracity of the charges made in this interview.[/quote]Calm your spirit. I sometimes have my doubts that you accept the veracity of your posts.
Rest assured, I am aware of the gist of your postings…each and every one…:smiley:

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]I’m supposed to actually read all of your posts?

Won’t that make my brain explode or something?[/quote]
[in response to below]

Vay wrote:

Clearly, you don’t read at at all, or in this case, a couple of sentences.

Are you just pulling my chain, or what? I began to suspect so during our last exchange in a different thread. Of course I know you think you know the “jist” of my posts. Let me paraphrase for you: “Bush is the devil. Big corporations are taking over the world! Save the spotted owls!” Something like that, right?

However, I was not questioning whether or not you think you know where I’m coming from. I was questioning whether you even consider the possibility that the allegations of widespread misappropriation of funds via sweet-heart deals to contractors, utterly inept management, and mis-use of government agencies for a partisan agenda are TRUE. If they are, you ought to care! Republicans are supposed to be all about “responsibility”, “character”, “small government”, “protecting our tax dollars from Washington bureaucrats” aren’t they?

Thus, if you even at least considered the possibility that the content of this interview is true, then your “take” on wherever you think I’m coming from ought to be irrelevant.

What you ought to do is READ IT before you start trying to defend your “side” and shoot me down!!!

However, the fact is, you either A) don’t think it’s possible that your beloved Bush is running such a corrupt, opaque and mis-managed government NO MATTER HOW MUCH EVIDENCE IS PLACED BEFORE YOU or B) don’t care, as long as your side wins.

Someone wants one-sidedness but the only defense is inept sarcasm or avoiding details altogether.

Accountability ought to apply evenly. Regardless of which 8-year term someone supports.

[quote=“Vay”][quote]REP. HENRY WAXMAN: I think it’s much different. In fact, I think this administration is more secretive than the Nixon administration, which was obviously very, very secretive and didn’t want to be held accountable and fought all the way to the US Supreme Court not to make information available to the Congress. They use the term executive privilege. When Nixon used it, people were shocked. Now, they just throw around executive privilege quite-- quite-- easily to say, “No, Congress isn’t entitled to that information.”
Ref. same transcripts
[/quote][/quote]
To some, corruption may be boring, until another Enron or Worldcom makes headlines. In reality, there are so many directions to point to if someone wants to cry out for honest governance and justice. We’ll just have to keep sharing…

billions have always been lost through government corruption and fraud despite who the president is.

and water is wet.

Yeah, sure. When it comes to describing Democrats, Republicans are always like “big government, tax and spend, bureaucratic waste blah blah blah”.

But when we point out that their own bureaucracy is huge, opaque, secretive, inept and wasteful to the EXTREME, it’s “Well all governments are like that. Deal with it.”

Can anyone say HYPOCRISY?

I mean, if all governments are like that, you guys have pretty much just lost all your selling points, haven’t you? Why should anyone vote for you? It certainly couldn’t be for your forward-looking environmental and energy policies, your enlightened foreign policy or your heart-felt concern for health care reform!

you do know, calling some one a hypocrite only works when it affects their conscience. these are politicians we are talking about.

it was corrupt when my grandpa walked the earth, it was corrupt when my father walked the earth, and it is corrupt while i walk the earth, and it will be corrupt when my children walk the earth.

nobody is actually leading the charge to do anything about it.

[quote]you do know, calling some one a hypocrite only works when it affects their conscience. these are politicians we are talking about.

it was corrupt when my grandpa walked the earth, it was corrupt when my father walked the earth, and it is corrupt while i walk the earth, and it will be corrupt when my children walk the earth.

nobody is actually leading the charge to do anything about it.[/quote]

Okay, then don’t bother voting. In fact, don’t bother posting on political discussion forums!

But the fact is, Republicans DO talk about character, fiscal responsibility, dis-empowering big Washington bureaucrats and so forth when running their attacks on Democrats. The fact that they are far MORE corrupt and have created a much BIGGER and what’s worse absolutely secretive Washington bureaucracy leads me to think that, given the limited choices we have, we AT LEAST have the option of not supporting THEM!

As for “leading the charge”, sure there are. Ron Paul. Dennis Kucinich. Mike Gravel. To mention a few.

[quote=“Vay”][quote]you do know, calling some one a hypocrite only works when it affects their conscience. these are politicians we are talking about.

it was corrupt when my grandpa walked the earth, it was corrupt when my father walked the earth, and it is corrupt while i walk the earth, and it will be corrupt when my children walk the earth.

nobody is actually leading the charge to do anything about it.[/quote]

Okay, then don’t bother voting. In fact, don’t bother posting on political discussion forums!

But the fact is, Republicans DO talk about character, fiscal responsibility, dis-empowering big Washington bureaucrats and so forth when running their attacks on Democrats. The fact that they are far MORE corrupt and have created a much BIGGER and what’s worse absolutely secretive Washington bureaucracy leads me to think that, given the limited choices we have, we AT LEAST have the option of not supporting THEM!

As for “leading the charge”, sure there are. Ron Paul. Dennis Kucinich. Mike Gravel. To mention a few.[/quote]

democrats talk about character as well. you dont see them having commercials saying " hey we know we are socialist dirtbags, but at least we aint bush, VOTE FOR US!!"

i can agree with you that gravel and paul are attempting to lead the charge, but they aint promising milk and honey as rewards like the main stream media canidates that we have now.

Perhaps they mention them in passing, but unlike the Republicans they certainly don’t use “character” (or trivial wedge issues like illegal immigration, prayer in schools and gay marriage, for that matter) as a selling point to the voters.

Generally our (since I’m basically a Democrat, the choices being what they are) selling points are things like environmental policy (as opposed to an absence of one!), health care reform, freedom of choice and so on.

However, none of the top tier candidates has DARED to propose we go to a single-payer universal healthcare system, in spite of the fact that something like 66% of voters support this - so please don’t suggest we are a bunch of socialists.

[quote=“Vay”]Interview with Henry Waxman, Chairman of Oversight and Government Reform Committee:

Here’s Doan being questioned about the use of her department for illegal partisan activities and no-competition sweetheart contract handouts:
[/quote]
This lady was forced to resign today. That’s good news.
Bushes chickens are coming home to roost.

rense.com/general70/trill.htm

I think the $2.3 trillion question is: What are they doing with all that loot?

Here’s a possibility:
theforbiddenknowledge.com/ha … orders.htm

Or two: nytimes.com/2008/04/01/science/01patc.html