US State Department pulls an "Enron" hides real cost of war in Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Jul 30, 2006.

  1. Audit Finds U.S. Hid Cost of Iraq Projects

    By JAMES GLANZ, The New York Times






    The United States Embassy in Baghdad referred questions about the audit to the State Department in Washington, where a spokesman, Justin Higgins, said Saturday, "We have not yet had a chance to fully review this report, but certainly will consider it carefully, as we do all the findings of the inspector general."

    Bechtel has said that because of the deteriorating security in Basra, the hospital project could not be completed as envisioned. But Mr. Higgins said: "Despite the challenges, we are committed to completing this project so that sick children in Basra can receive the medical help they need. The necessary funding is now in place to ensure that will happen."





    The rest was reclassified as overhead, or "indirect costs." According to a contracting officer at the agency who was cited in the report, the agency "did not report these costs so it could stay within the $50 million authorization."

    "We find the entire agreement unclear," the inspector general wrote of the A.I.D. request approved by the embassy. "The document states that hospital project cost increases would be offset by reducing contractor overhead allocated to the project, but project reports for the period show no effort to reduce overhead."




    That is just 0.8 percent overhead in a country where security costs are often staggering. A contracting officer told the inspector general that the agency adjusted the figures "to stay within the authorization for each project."

    The overall effect, the report said, was a "serious misstatement of hospital project costs." The true cost could rise as high as $169.5 million, even after accounting for at least $30 million pledged for medical equipment by a charitable organization.

    The inspector general also found that the agency had not reported known schedule delays to Congress. On March 26, 2006, Bechtel informed the agency that the hospital project was 273 days behind, the inspector general wrote. But in its April report to Congress on the status of all projects, "U.S.A.I.D. reported no problems with the project schedule."

    In a letter responding to the inspector general's findings, Joseph A. Saloom, the newly appointed director of the reconstruction office at the United States Embassy, said he would take steps to improve the reporting of the costs of reconstruction projects in Iraq. Mr. Saloom took little exception to the main findings.

    In the letter, Mr. Saloom said his office had been given new powers by the American ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, to request clear financing information on American reconstruction projects. Mr. Saloom wrote that he agreed with the inspector general's conclusion that this shift would help "preclude surprises such as occurred on the Basra hospital project."

    "The U.S. Mission agrees that accurate monitoring of projects requires allocating indirect costs in a systematic way that reflects accurately the true indirect costs attributable to specific activities and projects, such as a Basra children's hospital," Mr. Saloom wrote.

    07-30-06 09:06 EDT
  2. Another example of this adminstration's lousy stewardship of taxpayer money. Really, would someone explain to me why the U.S. taxpayer is shouldering the burden to rebuild Iraq, a country with the world's second or third largest oil supply? Ditto for Lebanon. If it is so important, let the Saudi's and Kuwaiti's pay for it. If they aren't prepared to support their Arab brothers, why should we?
  3. bsmeter


    You don't know why?

    It's because your government is controlled by greedy Zionists. Saddam was a thorn in their side and the American taxpayer was made to foot the bill.
  4. So zionists want to rebuild Iraq and Lebanon? Zionists want a shia government in Iraq?

    I actually would prefer your explanation because it implies that someone is at least planning this stuff.
  5. duh... follow the pipeline.