How the Pentagon Engulfed the World

Here are words to pin to the Bush years like a wilting corsage: "We don't know what we paid for."

That's a quote from Mary Ugone, the Defense Department's deputy inspector general for auditing, concerning massive Pentagon payments made during the occupation and war in Iraq for which there is no existing (or grossly inadequate) documentation. In fact, according to the inspector general for the Defense Department, "the Pentagon cannot account for almost $15 billion worth of goods and services ranging from trucks, bottled water and mattresses to rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns that were bought from contractors in the Iraq reconstruction effort." An internal audit of $8 billion that the Pentagon paid out to US and Iraqi private contractors found that "nearly every transaction failed to comply with federal laws or regulations aimed at preventing fraud, in some cases lacking even basic invoices explaining how the money was spent."

This is, admittedly, chump change for the Pentagon in the age of Bush. And even when "reform" is attempted, the medicine is often worse than the disease. Congressional critics and others have, for instance, accused the Houston-based private contractor KBR, formerly a division of Halliburton, of "wasteful spending and mismanagement and of exploiting its political ties to Vice President Dick Cheney" in fulfilling enormous contracts to support US troops in Iraq. Now, the Pentagon is planning to make amends by dividing the latest contract for food, shelter, and basic services in Iraq between KBR and two other large contractors, Fluor Corporation and DynCorp International. According to the New York Times, "[T]he new three-company deal could actually result in higher costs for American taxpayers and weak oversight by the military."

These telling details rose last week from the subterranean depths of a bloated Bush-era Pentagon. As Frida Berrigan, arms expert for the New America Foundation, indicates in "Entrenched, Embedded, and Here to Stay" at Tomdispatch.com, the Pentagon's massive expansion on just about every front during George W. Bush's two terms in office may be the greatest story never told of our time. It might, in fact, be the most important American story of the new century and, while you can find many of its disparate parts in your daily papers, the mainstream media has yet to offer a significant overview of the Pentagon in our time. This suggests a great deal about what isn't being dealt with in our world. How, for instance, is it possible to have a presidential election campaign that goes on for years in which the size of the Pentagon never comes up as an issue (unless the candidates are all plunking for an expansion of American troop strength)?

Berrigan outlines seven major fronts on which the Pentagon has expanded its power and its powers since George W. Bush took office -- in Washington, nationally, and globally. These include: The Pentagon as budget buster, diplomat, arms dealer, intelligence analyst and spy, domestic disaster manager, humanitarian caregiver, and global viceroy as well as ruler of the heavens. It's quite a list and, while some mainstream media attention has gone into the Pentagon's budget busting capabilities these last years, its mission creep and leap when it comes to the State Department, the U.S. Intelligence Community, and local, state, and civilian authorities involved in dealing with natural or other disasters has yet to be fully reckoned with.

Berrigan concludes: "As the clock ticks down to November 4, 2008, a lot of people are investing hope (as well as money and time) in the possibility of change at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But when it comes to the Pentagon, don't count too heavily on change, no matter who the new president may be. After all, seven years, four months, and a scattering of days into the Bush presidency, the Pentagon is deeply entrenched in Washington and still aggressively expanding. It has developed a taste for unrivaled power and unequaled access to the treasure of this country. It is an institution that has escaped the checks and balances of the nation."

Comments (52)

1. Like most things, Mr Engelhardt, Obama will be better...but not your Utopian dream.

   Best case scenario?....he holds defense spending or a modest increase over the next four years. And he makes some in-roads in cleaning up the procurement procedure and stop enriching HAPPY and the HBL stock-holders.

   But no, no massive cuts to pay for various and sundry domestic programs.

   Posted by Mask at 05/27/2008 @ 06:08am

2. I believe we're about to see fuel prices trump every issue that comes down the pike in a big way.

   Posted by Benchrest at 05/27/2008 @ 06:41am

3. checks and balances? don't make me laugh. there have been none since Bush and his know nothing congress.

   look for checks and balances revival when Obama becomes pres, THEN we'll need to rein in presidential power

   Posted by emile duBois at 05/27/2008 @ 06:44am

4. "After all, seven years, four months, and a scattering of days into the Bush presidency, the Pentagon is deeply entrenched in Washington and still aggressively expanding. It has developed a taste for unrivaled power and unequaled access to the treasure of this country. It is an institution that has escaped the checks and balances of the nation."

   This has been going on all along. Eisenhower.....beware of the military industrial complex.

   Taxpayers of this country are supporting an ongoing and monumental transfer of their wealth and future wealth to the Pentagon and its offspring. What is tragic is that this spending could have done some social good for refunding social security, providing health care, funding medicare and medicaid, improving our infrastructure, instituting alternative energy, etc., or just plain keeping wealth in the hands of those who produce it. Our standard of living continues to erode.

   What is even more egregious is that military spending is largely government welfare to not only the military itself, but also to multi-national corporations who seek favorable international market conditions by intervention in the affairs of other nations. These corporations have shown absolutely no gratitude to American taxpayers and instead are gouging American consumers, transferring our jobs overseas, paying CEOs 400X what the average worker earns, engaging in fraudulent behavior at the expense of stockholders, ............... Anybody paying $4.00/gallon at the pump ought to realize that they have only begun to pay for the excesses of MIC.

   Who knows what Obama will do or can do. A Congress clearly in the hands of MIC will fight him on virtually every attempt to limit its powers and disproportinate share of our treasury. Support the Troops is our national discourse on the subject of military spending. It is a grim scenario.

   We do know what a Clinton and McCain would do....both members of the armed services commitee. They would enable MIC at every opportunity....afterall, MIC has installed them and they owe their souls to MIC. Obama, it is my hope, may in some small measure slow the bleeding, but the patient will remain in critical and intensive care (lack of care would be an analogy) for the long term foreseeable future.

   It is ironic that our purveyors of the nation's security are the source of its greatest threat. It will remain a largely untold story.

   Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008 @ 06:54am

5. Obama may be better...but Mask is probably quite right here in saying there will not be a huge change in military spending. His current plan calls for thousands of troops stationed both within and near Iraq after the "pullout"?

   And while I would hope for a change in contract negotiations and procurement procedures within the DoD - I haven't heard any mention of it by the Obama camp.

   Posted by ErikDugger at 05/27/2008 @ 07:58am

6. "After all, seven years, four months, and a scattering of days into the Bush presidency, the Pentagon is deeply entrenched in Washington and still aggressively expanding. It has developed a taste for unrivaled power and unequaled access to the treasure of this country. It is an institution that has escaped the checks and balances of the nation."

   This has been going on all along. Eisenhower.....beware of the military industrial complex.

   Posted by OneVote

   Of course you're correct, OneVote, but as the full Dispatch by Berrigan indicates, the pace and purview of the increased spending at the "Defense" Department has been sped up alarmingly --we now spend TWICE as much as the rest of the planet combined on "defense". And we are, by a runaway, the number one seller of weapons to the rest of the world.

   There are plenty of alarm bells blaring from multiple directions (I recommend Chalmers Johnson's "Nemesis" as a primer) warning of the coming collapse of the American Empire --and with it a global economic crisis-- but the illustration provided in the essay (courtesy of Bob Herbert) of the amounts of money being torched to high heaven is a memorable one:

   If a stack of bills 6 inches high were to represent one million dollars, then one billion dollars would be as tall the Washington Monument, and one trillion dollars would be 95 miles tall!

   In the recent bombshell on the actual cost of the war in Iraq, former world bank chief economist Joe Stiglitz estimated the costs at $3 trillion and was careful to say that his estimate is very likely a conservative one.

   Since $ 1 million in $ 100 bills would be closer to 3 feet tall (250 bills per inch rough guess) the stack of $ 100's we're sacrificing to the God of War will approach 2000 miles before this debacle is over. That's high enough to reach to 10 times the space station's orbital altitude.

   All that to make us less safe, and grind the global economy --as well as our once great nation-- into a fine powder.

   We are rapidly creating the basis for a lost, destroyed civilization that perhaps archeologists of thousands of years hence will look back on in sheer wonder at the lunacy of it all.

   In a sense, one can only hope.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/27/2008 @ 07:59am

7. Of course you're correct, OneVote, but as the full Dispatch by Berrigan indicates, the pace and purview of the increased spending at the "Defense" Department has been sped up alarmingly --we now spend TWICE as much as the rest of the planet combined on "defense". And we are, by a runaway, the number one seller of weapons to the rest of the world.

   In a sense, one can only hope.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/27/2008

   No question Kool that Bush administration has absolutely raised the bar miles high on authorized outrageous military spending. Call the invasion and occupation of Iraq a "war." then we can continually use emergency funding provisions rather than scrutinized budget and whammo....you find your future and Country sold down the toilet.

   I wonder if archaelogists will remark that US had the shortest history of any once great nation, and that its people gave away constitutional rights and allowed their preselected rulers to flourish in corruption while destroying the Country? I wonder if political scientists will write a book...."how not to run a democracy....a study of the USA and its demise?

   All we have is hope. You are right for now.

   Posted by OneVote at 05/27/2008 @ 08:20am

8. Happy, His biography at tomdispatch.com says that Tom was working for Pacific News Service in the early 70's as an editor, he must be at least 50, hardly "wet behind the ears."

   Maybe you should spend your time actually refuting his arguments rather than engaging in ad hominem attack's based on his age.

   Posted by Guiles at 05/27/2008 @ 08:28am

9. Something about foxes and henhouses keeps crossing my mind...too many entrenched interests for any radical changes for the bloated Pentagon pig. What gets me are all the pet weapon system projects that have little to no contemporary applications. Cut those out of the budget as a start and maybe there's some hope.

   Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 @ 08:36am

10. the country has been on war footing since 1941.

    at one time the rich paid for this, remember 94% top tax bracket.

    after the soviet union collapsed, the congressional military industrial complex conveniently found another enemy and another war.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/27/2008 @ 08:53am

11. Yep, HAPPY. We should all hate the damn democrats and all their pork barrel spending. Why, that money could have been used to give you a tax break, or buy another 350 million dollar fighter plane. Why waste is on silly things like domestic spending?

    Posted by shadow master at 05/27/2008 @ 10:22am

12. Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/27/200

    Hmm could have used all that "misplaced" money from the Pentagon and payed most of the Pork Spending.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/27/2008 @ 10:25am

13. Military spending is NEVER wasted, don't you folks know anything? It's keepin' them towelheads away!

    /end sarcasm

    Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 @ 10:30am

14. Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/27/2008

    Also funny about this HAPPY. Is even though the Dems are spending a good amount of money. You are choosing to ignore that fact that pork barrel spending is DOWN since the Republicans controlled Congress. Look at the Pig Books and you will see that 2000-2006 while the Republicans controlled Congress Pork Barrel spending stayed above 20 Billion. With it's high point being 29 billion. After 2006, the year Democrats took over it dropped dramatically. 2007 was 13.3 billion. To 17 billion this year which is drastically down from the point it got to when Congress was under Republican control. So you and the article you are citing is intellectually dishonest in trying to say that Demo's are spending more than when your brethren were in control because they are actually spending much less than where you got us.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/27/2008 @ 10:37am

15. Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/27/2008

    The other funny thing is he top 3 spenders are all Republicans. I will at some point try to find a way to go through all the bills tally them up and see who actually asked for the most money.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/27/2008 @ 11:01am

16. Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/27/2008

    Wow, HAPPY, you mean McCain is that Republican who can cut taxes AND cut spending?!?!?!?

    Wow....and...uh.....how many Republican Presidents have promised that now and failed to deliver?

    But...oh...."Maverick John" will come through....the GOP wouldn't trick us FOUR times, would they?

    Posted by Mask at 05/27/2008 @ 1:08pm

17. Mask I gave up on the Hapster. He isn't capable of rational thought any more.

    I notice that no one is bothering to call bullpuckey on Jom. It's easy to rip on spending tat isn't occuring to try and justifty wasteful spending that is. Or just illogical.

    Posted by yutsano at 05/27/2008 @ 1:26pm

18. The US military budget is bound to come under intellectual scrutiny in the coming years. The sheer weight of it's effects on the economy, culture, and social interaction of this country is staggering... and I believe that the US economy is sagging under it's weight, especially with the war spending... both in dollars accounted for, and dollars not accounted for.

    It would be one thing if the Iraq War spending was 'out of pocket', per say, and was being put out in a 'necessary for survival' format... with Americans 'digging a little deeper' for a war cause that called on us all to sacrifice and fight, to put our lives on hold, and to come together with the common purpose of fighting a purposeful and deadly enemy on our shores, or invading an ally's country.

    But this is not the case. This has been a 'war of choice' from it's outset, and the cash outlays for it are being 'piped in' to the Pentagon from our children's tomorrows... via the National Debt. In other words... the repercussions of this unprofitable course of action will be felt for generations, right here at home...

    We are making a choice to overspend tomorrow's dollars today... not for tangible assets and technological advances that will greatly improve the daily circumstances of the American public right here in our own 'standard of living'... but for the exportation of 'Democratic goods' that can not return a profit or an increase in the American standard of living, even if they are perfectly implemented.

    This is not to say that we aren't showing significant economic gains from defense spending here at home. That we reap these benefits as Government subsidies... seems to overshadow the stark realities of proper budget prioritization... and ignores the simple fact that the majority of US tax spending should benefit it's citizenry directly... not by merely paying people to make, design and implement 'dead end' products and services, but by investing in the 'day to day' of profitable enhancements to our infrastructure and way of life here at home.

    It is easily overlooked... that tax dollars, spent on the public 'betterment' returns on the investment... by lowering general living costs, lowering public health care needs, improving overall literacy, setting the tone for 'effective and informed' democracy, and even... creating jobs... jobs that make profits... while simultaneously improving the daily lives of hundreds of millions of incredibly American people.

    It all starts at home.

    Posted by ttr at 05/27/2008 @ 3:24pm

19. I have long thought that this must be one of the all-time biggest scams of history. It ought to find a place in the Guinness Book of Records! These good old boys have looted the nation, but they haven't stopped there. They have looted the nation's future as well! And they have managed to convince a great many US citizens (perhaps the majority?) that it is a Good Thing that they are getting screwed. It's basically a protection racket, but the poor saps are so scared that they think it's for their good.

    Follow the money. Where did it go? Who got it? Remember that transfer of wealth to the top 0.5%?

    I wish you all good luck with this one. if 'National Security' trumps all other concerns, and the thieves are controlling the definition of what that is, then you are in BIIIIIIIIG trouble.

    Posted by mikecope at 05/27/2008 @ 6:14pm

20. Domestic spending bad

    military waste good

    neo-con logic 101

    Got it?

    I would have thought that the Good Gubment crowd would be totally offended at the use of their tax dollars in such a manner as this:

    ["the Pentagon cannot account for almost $15 billion worth of goods and services ranging from trucks, bottled water and mattresses to rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns that were bought from contractors in the Iraq reconstruction effort." An internal audit of $8 billion that the Pentagon paid out to US and Iraqi private contractors found that "nearly every transaction failed to comply with federal laws or regulations aimed at preventing fraud, in some cases lacking even basic invoices explaining how the money was spent."]

    but no!!

    They want us to look at other waste in gubment, which we all agree exists, and avoid the Chimp behind the curtain blowing so much of their (whine, whimper) hard earned (buwahahaha) money.

    BILLIONS wasted and unaccounted for. BILLIONS of Happys tax dollars. BILLIONS of Maaschs tax dollars.

    And what do they say about it? Any outrage at all? Any concern? No, just more "look over there!"

    So, lets make an agreement, next time these war mongers bitch and moan about their tax bill, we get to remind them that they don't care about keeping track of their money. It's all good.

    6:57am

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/27/2008 @ 10:44pm

21. "Wait till you see the loss,fraud,"disappearnce", and out right theivery in all forms(especialy in an efficient and beaurocratic largess) when you turn over the health and care to these same government models..forget military, (see Post Office)."

    Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/27/2008

    Nice job there, comparing something that has happened to something that has not.

    Posted by drhammer at 05/27/2008 @ 11:38pm

22. "So, lets make an agreement, next time these war mongers bitch and moan about their tax bill, we get to remind them that they don't care about keeping track of their money. It's all good."

    6:57am

    Posted by crabwalk at 05/27/2008

    Grover Norquist advocated shrinking the government down to the size where it can be drowned in the bathtub, all under the guise of fair taxation.

    In the end, Grover and his ilk simply sought to shrink the government by transferring all its resources back to those who really deserved it - the rich.

    Posted by drhammer at 05/27/2008 @ 11:45pm

23. McCain is the only hope to cut off the earmarks that hide spending and reform the budget process...like the Farm Bill....----Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/27/2008

    I'm sorry, did you use the word...

    "hope"?!??!?!

    LOL

    Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 01:10am

24. apropos a recent exchange about whether Bush lied us into the Iraq war:

    who accuses Bush of lying? why his own press secretary.

    who looks like a fool? why all those repugs here who have been in denial for half a dozen years, if not longer.

    BUSH LIED, and his cabinet lied. that is why you will never see Condi run for national office. she is a liar. they ALL are.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 01:16am

25. But no, no massive cuts to pay for various and sundry domestic programs.

    Posted by Mask

    read the full article.

    that's exactly what it says.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 02:49am

26. I believe we're about to see fuel prices trump every issue that comes down the pike in a big way.

    Posted by Benchrest

    watch this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-Cvg9deslg&fmt=18

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 02:50am

27. It is ironic that our purveyors of the nation's security are the source of its greatest threat. It will remain a largely untold story.

    Posted by OneVote

    i highly recommend reading the full tomdispatch story.

    very, very, troubling............

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 02:51am

28. after the soviet union collapsed, the congressional military industrial complex conveniently found another enemy and another war.

    Posted by emile duBois

    first they tried the war on drugs.

    but the stoners defeated them!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 02:54am

29. "In the Bush era, the Pentagon has overturned this model. According to a 2006 Congressional report by Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), Embassies as Command Posts in the Anti-Terror Campaign, civilian personnel in many embassies now feel occupied by, outnumbered by, and subordinated to military personnel. They see themselves as the second team when it comes to decision-making. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates is aware of the problem, noting as he did last November that there are "only about 6,600 professional Foreign Service officers -- less than the manning for one aircraft carrier strike group." But, typically, he added that, while the State Department might need more resources, "Don't get me wrong, I'll be asking for yet more money for Defense next year." Another ambassador lamented that his foreign counterparts are "following the money" and developing relationships with U.S. military personnel rather than cultivating contacts with their State Department counterparts."

    for example.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 02:58am

30. Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/27/2008

    Actually if you look at the actual bills he signed on to. He signed on to them with multiple Senators. He hasn't been asking for money himself he has been jumping onto other bills. Which is a difference a minor one but a difference none the less. On top of that you are contending to me that a man who has admitted to knows little to nothing about economy is the only person capable of saving the economy? He said himself "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. " Then of course tried to deny the comment but that's besides the point.

    You are also arguing for him being the great foreign policy expert. His resume has to three foreign policy departments. Vietnam, which doesn't really teach you foreign policy so much as how to survive. Senate Armed Services Committee, which isn't a foreign policy department but a military logistics Department. They don't oversee how our military is used they oversee how it runs internally. There is a little bit of foreign policy experience in here but not as much as military logistics which is useful but doesn't help us when it comes to dealing with global issues. Then he has also been apart of the Senate Committee in charge of Commerce, Science and Transportation. I'm sure there was a little bit of "foreign policy" there, in that he probably went places to look at the way other people are doing things in order to possibly learn from them.

    That's it. That's who you are advertising as better than everyone else. You are arguing that his resume is so great. Sure he has been around a long time which gives you a long time to accrue some credits but for as long as he has been around he doesn't have much of a foreign policy resume at all and he has admitted to knowing very little about economy. That's your great savior from the tyranny of the Democrats. A man, who while having served for many years and having accrued many good bills under his belt, has very little experience that will help him as our Commander in Chief other than having killed some Charlies and regrettably being captured and tortured.

    Now I grant you he has more experience in years. But at the same time I ask you how much of that is actually going to help him in the Presidency? He will be able to come up with some kick ass pet projects in Transportation, Commerce, and Science. He might be able to streamline some of our internal military operations. However he will put forth more crappy legislation that will cut taxes to the rich which in order to compensate he will have to leverage more taxes on the poor. He won't spend any less because he just because he doesn't ask for earmarks doesn't mean he has sound money practices. It just means he doesn't ask for earmarks, nothing more. He may cut peoples benefits in order to cut spending but he will funnel MORE into the military which means our expenses will go up at basically the same rate. Since he plans on keeping us in Iraq he will also have to keep asking for appropriations from Congress to pay for it which means our expenses will not go down at all. He will not be some great fixer of the economy. He is not even close to your last hope. All he will do is funnel money away from social services and into the military. He is like every other Big Military, Small Social Services Republican.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 03:59am

31. first they tried the war on drugs.

    but the stoners defeated them!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 |

    time to release the prisoners of that war.

    Goddamn you, Nelson Rockefeller and Reagan

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 12:41pm

32. The ONLY question left is: GOD, WHAT WILL IT TAKE FOR THIS ADMINISTRATION TO DO, FOR IT TO BE I-M-P-E-A-C-H-E-D ????!!!!!!! GW and his gang is making Nixon's crime look like a 'school prank' !!!!!!!!!

    Posted by Mad As Hell at 05/28/2008 @ 12:52pm

33. read the full article.

    that's exactly what it says.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008

    Yes....I was agreeing with him. But I also recognized that it was NOT what Tom Englehardt WANTED too.

    Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 2:22pm

34. time to release the prisoners of that war.

    Posted by emile duBois

    what?

    and cut the profits?

    notta chance......

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 2:23pm

35. Yes....I was agreeing with him. But I also recognized that it was NOT what Tom Englehardt WANTED too.

    Posted by Mask

    and you do?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 2:39pm

36. Posted by OneVote

    i highly recommend reading the full tomdispatch story.

    very, very, troubling............

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008

    Troubling is an understatement!

    Good read is also Berrigan's book "House of War: The Pentagon." Gives a good history of how we gave control of our democracy away to MIC.

    You have got to wonder the Repubs have planned prior to election. They are running on national security again and never surrendering in Iraq with Victory. This would certainly seem like a deadend platform for them.....but given a "change in circumstances" could be compelling for alot of voters. Maybe Clinton sitting on the armed services committee has wind of something big coming up that will change the dynamics. Another Operation Northwoods or 9/11? I am nervous.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2008 @ 2:44pm

37. Good read is also Berrigan's book "House of War: The Pentagon." Gives a good history of how we gave control of our democracy away to MIC.

    Correction: James Carroll's book.....

    Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2008 @ 3:11pm

38. You have got to wonder the Repubs have planned prior to election.

    Posted by OneVote

    october is going to be a VERY long month...

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 3:29pm

39. yes, october has 31 days, a long month indeed.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 7:43pm

40. time is relative, einstein.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 10:53pm

41. My favorite Einstein Is Alfred.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/29/2008 @ 09:08am

42. Did I hear right on Countdown last night that revisions to unaccounted for military spending in Iraq is now up to $158 billion??????????????????????and that each procurement auditor is charged with overseeing approximately $2 billion each (a staggering sum that takes an institution to track)??????????????

    Golly, of the $800 billion spent thus far (not to mention the > $3 trillion we will spend based on obligations calculated and estimated to date), I wonder what the real figure is? I would venture to say that that in excess of 25% will never be accounted for.

    I have been trying to find a link for this story - I can't believe my eyes and ears and want to verify!

    Posted by OneVote at 05/29/2008 @ 11:08am

43. frosty zoom at 05/28/2008

    My favorite Einstein Is Alfred.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/29/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person

    over your head?

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/29/2008 @ 2:41pm

44. Who cares about these tens of billions in unofficial rebates and kickbacks to our multinational friends? It'll all just trickle down sooner or later... OFFSHORE.

    Posted by winyahn at 05/29/2008 @ 7:35pm

45. My favorite Einstein Is Alfred.

    over your head?

    Posted by emile duBois

    nothing is over my head.

    i've got googleplexian knowledge.

    alfred is suspected of being albert's sixth cousin.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008 @ 10:16pm

46. but you hadn't heard of him or read him, right?

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/29/2008 @ 10:35pm

47. left.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008 @ 10:42pm

48. here,

    watch jake play the ukelele:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puSkP3uym5k&fmt=18

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008 @ 10:43pm

49. seen it long ago.

    did someone say Ukelele?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNFpOh2seqo&feature=related

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/29/2008 @ 11:07pm

50. the Ukelele is of course not Hawaiian, but rather portuguese, and is found everywhere they colonized.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/29/2008 @ 11:08pm

51. one more:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfK-UzQ48JE&feature=related

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/29/2008 @ 11:14pm

52. I lied

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLQ2eh5LfZY&feature=related

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/29/2008 @ 11:16pm