Bush Administration Under Fire for Iraq Spending

[bluedog]

oh oh.bushy in trouble....LOL




WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration is under fire from U.S. lawmakers who complain that only a tiny portion of the $18.4 billion to rebuild Iraq (news - web sites) has been allocated and some funds are being diverted for security and administration costs.





As of March 24, only $2.24 billion has been earmarked according to an early April report prepared for Congress by the White House.



"They appropriated $18.4 billion for Iraq and precious little of it is being spent for reconstruction," said Dave Helfert, a spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee said on Friday.


snip


According to the report, $184 million is being diverted away from the water sector to pay for the costs of operating the successor to the Coalition Provisional Authority. A further $29 million is being reallocated "from various lines" to pay for administrative expenses at the U.S. Agency for International Development.

snip



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm...

[Tempest]

1. Your link doesn't work n/t

[Jim Sagle]

3. This one should.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N30246807.htm

[Tempest]

4. Thanks, Jim. n/t

[stellanoir]

2. whoops. . .

the first Prez to have an MBA has absolutely nor regard for fiscal solvency.

Pssst. . .we're going broke.

Just like the Soveits did in Afghanistan. . .and as Stalin predicted so long ago. . ."the U.S will implode from the inside. . ."

[Eye and Monkey]

6. "we're going broke" - much worse - BushCo taking us into massive debt -

- at the same time BushCo is slashing away massive sources of income.

Killing the goose while promising the eggs.

[Just Me]

8. I thought it was Karl Marx who predicted an "implosion".

Oh, well. Maybe Stalin did, too. All I know is that concentration of power and wealth is always bad for humanity.

[Tinoire]

5. Just not a good week for Georgie is it?

Good... Cause it's going to get a lot, lot worse.

[central scrutinizer]

7. what did they expect?

What part of no-bid "cost-plus" contracts did they not understand?

[MO_Dem]

9. Hmmmm,

so they have this big old "slush fund"?

[chelsea0011]

10. Even if the media will never report it, isn't this the reason Kerry voted

against the 87 billion? There was no accounting of how the money would be distributed between troops and military. This is a giant sinkhole of spending that Bushco wraps around the moniker.."for the military". Where's the GAO?

[Gloria]

12. I think it might have been...if so, then Kerry should begin to

campaign on this fact!! It's important to undermine the Bushitas' handling of this with facts like these...he keeps saying they haven't done the job right....Also, it deflects the false accusations in that awful ad about the vote against the $87 billion....

Kerry should have gone after this, namely, correcting that ad, a lot earlier.....

[bvar22]

11. $29 million is to pay for administrative expenses????

:shrug: