Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label defense department. Show all posts
Showing posts with label defense department. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Afghani "Ghosts" Funded By Obama



Trump Discovers Obama Was Spending $300 Million on Fake Afghan Soldiers, Gives Pentagon New Orders


 Print

Millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars were being foolishly wasted paying for the salaries of non-existent “ghost” soldiers and policemen in Afghanistan under the Obama administration, but no more.
According to the special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, John Sopko, who recently sat down for an interview with Sharyl Attkinson of Full Measure, the ongoing problem may have been worse than anyone realized, but was being addressed by President Donald Trump’s Pentagon.
“We’ve been raising this concern about ghosts going back a number of years,” Sopko said. “Actually I want to say we heard about it from (Afghan President) Ashraf Ghani years ago, before he became president, he warned me about ‘ghosts,’ so we started looking three years ago.”

“What we’re talking about are policemen, Afghan policemen, Afghan military, Afghan civil servants who don’t exist or they have multiple identity cards and we’re paying their salaries,” he explained. “By ‘we’ I mean the United States and the international community. And we started finding out that we had no capacity to measure the number of soldiers, teachers, doctors, military people who we are paying their salaries.”
Fox News reported in October that the fraud could have amounted to more than $300 million annually.
Asked if this indicated fraud had been taking place, Sopko replied: “Major fraud. And what’s happening is the commanders or generals or other higher officials are actually pocketing the salaries of the ghosts.”
Trump Discovers Obama Was Spending $300 Million on Fake Afghan Soldiers, Gives Pentagon New Orders
00:00
01:13
“And I remember President Ghani again, at that time he wasn’t president, saying, ‘John, you the United States government are paying the salary of an Afghan who’s a teacher, he’s a civil servant, he’s a doctor, he is a policeman, and he’s a soldier. And it’s the same Afghan. And he doesn’t exist,'” Sopko explained.
“It’s not just the salaries,” he added. “But we’re funding schools based upon the number of students, so if you invent or inflate the number of students, you’re going to be paying more money. On the soldiers and the police, we’re paying for extra boots, for food, for everything else, logistics for numbers that don’t exist.”
Sopko had alerted the Pentagon on numerous occasions to what he had discovered in 2016, but little was done to address the issue by the administration of President Barack Obama, though Fox News reported that the Pentagon had stated at the time that they would soon implement certain measures to try and combat the rampant fraud bilking U.S. taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Guided by the new no-nonsense leadership of the Defense Department under Trump, it would appear that those measures, among many others, were being implemented in Afghanistan with measurable results.

According to the Independent Journal Review, Attkinsson noted that the Pentagon had implemented a biometric system that checked such things as fingerprints, photographs and even blood type in an effort to obtain “proof of life” of Afghan service members in order to weed out the non-existent “ghosts” that have cost taxpayers so much.
In fact, the Pentagon claimed that it had already enrolled in the program “up to 95 percent of the Afghan police and 70-80 percent of soldiers” in the Afghan National Army.
While it is highly doubtful that any of the taxpayer dollars lost through this fraud will ever be recovered, at least steps have been taken to ensure more dollars aren’t similarly wasted in the seemingly never-ending bid to reconstruct Afghanistan.
Please share this on Facebook and Twitter to help spread the word about the non-existent “ghost” soldiers in Afghanistan that have been bleeding American taxpayers dry for years.
What do you think of the "ghost" soldiers in Afghanistan defrauding American taxpayers?

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Is McConnell Working With Trump Or Against Him?

AP Interview: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is shooting down prospects for major parts of President Donald Trump's budget, rejecting proposed cuts to foreign aid and medical research

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky. answers reporters questions during a newsmaker interview at the Associated Press bureau in Washington, Tuesday, March 21, 2017. (AP Photo/J. David Ake)
By ERICA WERNER - Associated Press
Tuesday, March 21st 2017, 21:51 pm EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday shot down prospects for major parts of President Donald Trump's budget, rejecting proposed cuts to foreign aid and medical research.
"Every president sends up a budget, and with all due respect to the current president, I can't recall any time in which we have been sort of dictated to by either a Republican or a Democratic president," McConnell said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We'll put our own imprint on it, particularly with regard to overseas."
Trump's budget, which would boost military spending while slashing funds for the environment, the National Institutes of Health, public broadcasting and development projects like the Appalachian Regional Commission, was widely panned by fellow Republicans last week.
McConnell once headed the Senate panel responsible for foreign aid and stressed the importance of U.S. spending overseas. He also was a major force behind last year's Cures Act, a law that boosts spending on medical research, and he opposes any proposed cuts.
"America being a force is a lot more than building up the Defense Department," McConnell said. "Diplomacy is important, extremely important, and I don't think these reductions at the State Department are appropriate because many times diplomacy is a lot more effective — and certainly cheaper — than military engagement."
On another spending issue, McConnell said the politics of the moment mean Republicans controlling Washington won't touch benefit programs like Medicare and Social Security, known as entitlements.
On another big issue, in the interview McConnell warned fellow Republicans of political consequences if they oppose the GOP health care legislation coming up for a vote in the House this week.
"I would hate to be a Republican whose vote prevented us from keeping the commitment we've made to the American people for almost 10 years now" to repeal and replace former President Barack Obama's health care law, the Kentucky Republican told AP reporters and editors.
"I think the American people would be deeply disappointed that we were prevented from keeping our commitment by Republicans who in the end, in effect, voted for the status quo."
McConnell sounded confident that the bill will pass the House and come over to the Senate, where it is currently short of votes. He made clear the legislation will be changed in the Senate so it can pass, though he declined to predict what the final product will look like or guarantee ultimate success.
He indicated he expects Trump, who was on Capitol Hill Tuesday to lobby reluctant House members, to lean on wavering Senate Republicans and bring them in line.
"The president has been very effective in helping in the House with the health care bill," said McConnell, who was with Trump in Kentucky Monday night at a health care rally. "And we intend, once it comes over from the House, to have the president weigh in with our folks as well."
The GOP legislation would repeal the Obama law's requirement for nearly everyone to carry insurance or face fines, while phasing out an expansion of Medicaid and reducing tax credits that help consumers buy coverage. House GOP leaders are pushing toward a vote Thursday despite opposition from both left and right, and announced a package of changes overnight Monday aimed at luring wavering lawmakers with promises of more money for older Americans and other changes.
Several Republican senators have been loudly critical of the bill, including Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah. Combined with opposition from a couple of other lawmakers, McConnell does not presently have enough votes for the bill in a Senate split 52-48 between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats are unanimously opposed.
But McConnell attributed some of the turmoil to a "learning process" as Republicans turn to governing after spending years as the opposition party. And he said, "I'm optimistic that none of my members in the end want to be responsible for the status quo on Obamacare."
McConnell also addressed the Supreme Court, with the Senate Judiciary Committee in Day Two of hearings on Judge Neil Gorsuch, Trump's nominee to fill the 13-month high court vacancy.
He criticized Democrats who might oppose Gorsuch, saying "This is a futile gesture, it's playing to the mob, saying resist to everything."
While saying he hoped Gorsuch would get Democratic votes in the end, McConnell seemed ready to change Senate rules, if necessary, to confirm him with a simple majority rather than the 60 votes now required to move forward. "Gorsuch will be confirmed; I just can't tell you exactly how that will happen, yet," McConnell said.
___
Associated Press writers Alan Fram and Andrew Taylor contributed.

Monday, February 20, 2017

Pentagon Appointees Pace Is Far Behind Previous Administrations Thanks To Democratic Blocking, A Fact Missed By The Press

Share This Post
 14
www.israel-commentary.org
Trump left with scores of Pentagon vacancies to fill after Obama team flees (and the one’s left leaking classified information to harm US)
By Rowan Scarborough – The Washington Times – February 8, 2017
The Pentagon has been stripped of almost all of its political appointees from the Obama administration, but an uncertain Senate future awaits the candidates whom President Trump will nominate to remake the armed forces in his image.
Of Mr. Obama’s 163 political appointees at election time, who included Senate-confirmed service secretaries, undersecretaries and assistant secretaries, only 16 remain at the Defense Department, according to a Pentagon statement to The Washington Times.
The exodus might be considered normal in the transfer of power: Political appointees are required to turn in their resignations in December. But Washington’s bitter political climate is far different today from the last transfer of power in 2009.
Senate Democrats are resisting Mr. Trump and his agenda via the confirmation process. There is a chance that some of the Defense Department’s 53 appointed positions requiring Senate confirmation will be vacant for a long time.
The vacancies give Mr. Trump an opportunity to select men and women who will provide the leadership, policies and catalyst for his two main priorities: rebuilding the military and defeating the Islamic State terrorist group.
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said the Trump team has been wise in giving a cold shoulder to the “NeverTrump” advocates in the Republican Party. “Loyalty to the president, especially one who was as courageous as President Trump on his position against radical Islam, is important,” Mr. McInerney said.
The 163 political appointees account for a smidgen of the Pentagon’s 25,000 employees, yet can, in the case of President Obama, drive the ship. They developed polices that led to openly gay troops, women in direct land combat, a new war in Iraq and climate change as a national security threat.
Senate Democrats did fast-track confirmation of Defense Secretary James N. Mattis, a retired four-star Marine Corps general widely respected on both sides of the aisle.
“President Trump and Secretary Mattis need their team to be in place,” said Jim Dolbow, a former Republican Senate defense aide. “I would advise Democrats to be more like the late Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson, who put his country first instead of resorting to politics of personal destruction and delaying tactics.”
Both parties have histories of blocking nominees on tangential issues, such as a dispute with the White House or a government department. The “hold” is a perfect example of the power that one lone senator can exert.
In his third week, Mr. Trump, thanks to Democrat obstruction,  has only one Senate-confirmed Pentagon official in place: Mr. Mattis. In 2008, the Pentagon put out the figure of 250 political appointees, a larger number than the one provided to The Times this week. A spokesman said there is no set number and some jobs go vacant.
Mr. Obama kept more than 150 of President George W. Bush’s political appointees in 2009, including Mr. Bush’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, who wanted them all to stay.
Mr. Trump has picked what appears to be establishment types, not conservative revolutionaries, for Navy secretary (venture capitalist and former Army officer Philip Bilden) and for Air Force secretary (former Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico, an Air Force Academy graduate).
Mr. Mattis’ ruling roundtable will be the Defense Department’s five undersecretaries for acquisition, budget, intelligence, personnel and policy.
Below them are key appointments for assistant secretaries for policies on Asia, Europe and the Middle East, as well as for the top civilian for special operations forces.
“People are policy,” said Elaine Donnelly, who directs the Center for Military Readiness. “President Trump and Defense Secretary James Mattis will not be able to strengthen our military and improve readiness unless they replace Obama-era holdovers with people who will end political correctness in the military.”
Mrs. Donnelly believes Mr. Obama shifted the Pentagon emphasis to his social agenda and political correctness at the expense of readiness. Listing senior posts, she said, “All of these positions should be filled by qualified people who share Secretary Mattis’ stated paramount goal: mission readiness and lethality in battle.”

Monday, January 9, 2017

The Obama Clones Are Coming Out Against Trump. Panetta Is The Latest. Remember, He Oversaw Obama's Desire To Emasculate The Military.



Ex-CIA chief on Trump's distrust in intel: 'I've never seen anything like this'

Leon Panetta, the former CIA director, aired concerns with Donald Trump’s public resistance to the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia sought to disrupt the election through cyberattacks, calling it “unheard of and unprecedented.”
“I've never seen anything like this in my lifetime,” Panetta told NBC’s Matt Lauer in an interview taped Thursday and aired Friday on the "Today" show. “The fact that the president-elect is tweeting on this issue and taking it to the public, and in many ways undermining the credibility of the very intelligence agencies that have to provide information to him in order for him to be president of the United States, this is just unheard of and unprecedented, and I think we all have to be concerned about this.”
“This is not the kind of bickering that ought to be going on in public,” he concluded.
Panetta, a Democrat who led the CIA and later the Defense Department during the Obama administration, was blunt in his interview with Lauer. He sounded dismayed that Trump has taken to Twitter to question intelligence officials’ conclusion from October that Russia was behind cyberattacks on top Democratic Party officials during the presidential campaign.
The hacks of private emails from the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, were published on the website WikiLeaks, embarrassing the Clinton campaign. Trump has repeatedly declined to accept the intelligence that the Russians hacked the emails, despite offering no alternative evidence, and claimed that it is an attempt to delegitimize his victory.
“Very frankly, if a president is going to be successful, this is no way to start,” Panetta said, when asked about Trump’s tweets sowing doubt on the intelligence community’s conclusion. “The president has to work with the intelligence community. ... I'm concerned that it really is damaging the credibility of our intelligence agencies and the morale of those men and women who serve in our intelligence agencies.”



Trump is scheduled to be briefed on the intelligence community’s most recent report on the hacking on Friday afternoon. Officials testified on the report before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday.
Panetta told Lauer that he thinks Trump is “going to realize that this is a very important issue that must be dealt with seriously” when he receives the briefing.
“He’s going to find that it’s easy to tweet about reactions to all kinds of issues, but to seriously deal with our national security and deal with the threats to our country is a business that ought to be done in the confines of the Oval Office,” Panetta said.

Saturday, December 24, 2016

Waste In Afghanistan--Sickening



The Watchdog





It began with a gas station in Afghanistan that should have cost less than $500,000 but reportedly cost $43 million U.S. tax dollars. The deal was cut by a federal agency that has spent $800 million tax dollars to date. When the Inspector General who polices all that spending started to dig inhe became the target of a campaign to discredit his work.
John Sopko: Part of this was to develop a market in Afghanistan for compressed natural gas automobiles.
John Sopko is talking about this $43 million dollar compressed natural gas station in Afghanistan. Impractical and overpriced, he found, by about $42 and a half million dollars.
Sopko: They really didn’t do any market surveys. They really didn’t see if there was enough liquefied natural gas or compressed natural gas.
It’s one of the most notorious boondoggles Sopko has uncovered as the Inspector General policing the billions of U.S. tax money spent to rebuild Afghanistan. He’s shown here on a recent inspection in Kabul.
The gas station, it turns out, was the brainstorm of an arcane federal agency: the Defense Department’s Task Force on Business and Stability Operations or TFBSO.
It spent an astounding $800 million American tax dollars over five years to kick start the Afghan economy.
Sopko: We received more allegations about TFBSO than we have about any other government entity. We heard allegations that uh they didn’t do any due diligence they wasted the money and basically the program didn’t succeed.
Appointed by President Obama, Sopko--a former mafia prosecutoris widely-considered an effective watchdog of a government culture resistant to oversight. Which may be why he’s now been targeted by efforts to discredit him and his work.
One sign came earlier this year. On the eve of a Congressional hearing about the gas station,
the Defense Department gave Congress and select reporters - entirely new figures on the supposed cost and suggested Sopko’s team had it all wrong.
Sopko: The night before, the Defense Department said oh, by the way, all those data all that data is wrong. Which it may have been but -- we got it from them.
At the hearing, the Defense Department’s Brian McKeon claimed the true cost of their military funded gas station was far less than $43 million dollars. As proof, he referred to a new memo supposedly written by military consultant Robert Schraven.
Brian McKeon: The consulting firm that conducted the assessment has also reviewed its work, and we have sent a copy of their memo to the committee staff indicating that total costs of the station are likely well under $10 million.
And the hearing on government misspending suddenly seemed to put Inspector General Sopko, the IG, in the hot seat.
Sen. Tim Kaine: There are also some questions about the IG
Senator Tim Kaine challenged Sopko’s accounting methods and accused him of waffling on the gas station’s price tag.
Sen. Kaine: But the fact that the IG is putting out material with two different numbers is something that I definitely want to dig into today and understand.
Sharyl Attkisson: When you were sitting there and hearing the Defense Department redefine the numbers they had given you, and in essence blaming your agency as some dishonest broker, what was going through your mind?
Sopko: Welcome to Washington. (laughs) I’ve seen this before.
Sopko vigorously defended his work.
Sopko: I would remind all of the members, our requirement is to report the best number available. We do not make numbers up. In the end, whether it is $43 million or $20 million or $10 million, it is still a lot more than should have been spent in Afghanistan.
Sopko: So if they’re now claiming it’s wrong well then, what’s going on with your recordkeeping?
Attkisson: I watched that hearing to me it was remarkable. They made it look like you were the guy that got everything wrong. That you had some axe to grind.
Sopko: But I felt certain we had the right numbers we were right. As long as you’re right the truth will come out. And I think a number of members on the committee also realized that this totally unfair and totally bogus.
Senator Claire McCaskill wasn’t buying the military’s new memo on the gas station’s lower cost.
Sen Claire McCaskill: The argument that has been put forth in the press that somehow the figures in this are not correct, I mean frankly, all you did was fan the flames that somehow it was not $43 million when you cannot even say where the $30 million went. This is a terrible waste of taxpayer money when we have so many other uses for it.
After the hearing, Sopko continued his investigation of TFBSO and he remained in the crosshairs. Some in the press advanced the theme that he’s “overzealous” and “sloppy.” Stories quoted anonymous critics at the federal agencies where he’s found waste, fraud and abuse.
Attkisson: This is the Politico article that I know you’ve seen that talked about you as if you were the guy that made all the mistakes.
Sopko: Yep. There was one where they referred to me as the Donald Trump of Inspectors General.
Sharyl: Meaning what?
Sopko: Well I think back then they thought it was a criticism, but in light of the election it may not be a criticism.
Sopko’s critics usually quoted anonymously appear to come from the ranks of those he’s overseeing. One anonymous ex-military official told reporters “Sopko has turned his office into a cheap media operation that does real damage to due process and U.S. policy.” None of the critics we contacted would speak with us for this report.
Neil Gordon of the watchdog Project on Government Oversight says Sopko is exactly what the public needs.
Neil Gordon: Certainly Sopko is fairly aggressive, very outspoken, but we think that aggressiveness is important in an inspector general because they need to safeguard taxpayer money in this case tens of billions of dollars that have been spent in Afghanistan.
He says if the military is engaged in PR warfare to undermine Sopko, it’s not the first time.
In 2014, USA Today obtained inside evidence of an “aggressive spin campaign” by the military against Sopko. The “Plan of Action” reportedly involved the Pentagon going public to blunt Sopko’s findings before he could release them.
Gordon:. It was likened to a duck hunt where they said that the military will be out bagging its share of ducks while Sopko was still waking up and putting his boots on.
There are lots of reasons why federal agencies and contractors would be unhappy with Sopko’s work.
He exposed $150 million tax dollars spent on luxury villas in Afghanistan to house a handful of workers who could have lived at a military base or the Embassy for next to nothing.
He uncovered $36 million dollars wasted on a giant US military headquarters in Afghanistan that generals on the ground said they didn't want or need.
And he unearthed $600 million dollars spent on a fleet of Afghan airplanes that never flew and were scrapped for pennies on the pound.
As Sopko continued his probe into the overpriced military funded gas station, he discovered a new surprise. Shraven, the consultant whose name was on the memo the Defense Department gave Congress, claiming the gas station really didn’t cost that muchsaid he didn’t write the memo.
Sopko: We took a look at it and we actually talked to the person who had allegedly, I say allegedly (quotes) wrote the report because the person denied authoring it We didn’t really find out who did author that report. But you know nobody likes an IG who is trying to find out the truth. I won’t say nobody. There are a lot of people in town who don’t like it because a lot of people in town made their careers or made a lot of money on some of these stupid programs.
Sopko says he now has a host of new questions about TFBSO.
Sopko: We have now been asked by Senator Grassley and Senator Ayotte and others to do a full blown audit of the entire 800-million-dollar program. And what we are basically finding is the records are horrible. They didn’t keep records. And so we’re finding waste, fraud and probably abuse throughout the program
As for that compressed natural gas station, Senator McCaskell
Sen. McCaskill: No metrics, no cost-benefit analysis, no sustainability analysis, a program that is dumb on its face. The average person in Afghanistan, their annual income is $690. It costs $800 to convert a car to natural gas. Did anybody in the room sit there and say, is there anybody in Afghanistan that can afford this?
Sopko: Inspectors Generals are nonpartisan. I was appointed by President Obama to ferret out fraud waste and abuse and I will continue doing that job under President Trump. The way I view it is: fraud is not Republican or Democrat, it’s not red or blue, but we’re talking about green. You know I’m here to protect the taxpayers’ green. The taxpayers’ money. And we’ll continue doing that.