Debunked: Rumsfeld says $2.3 Trillion missing from the Pentagon

The difference between unaccounted for and missing is hardly a difference at all. If your child went unaccounted for since 9/11/2001, would you consider her missing?
 
The difference between unaccounted for and missing is hardly a difference at all. If your child went unaccounted for since 9/11/2001, would you consider her missing?

It's not unaccounted for though. It's just not tracked to accepted accounting standards.

So in your analogy it's more like if you don't know everywhere your child has been in the last year, does that mean she's missing now?
 
The difference between unaccounted for and missing is hardly a difference at all. If your child went unaccounted for since 9/11/2001, would you consider her missing?
It is exactly like you gave you kids 10,000 dollars for college expenses and required accounting for the spending for that year... And your kid, she gives you a mess of nonsense, no clear accounting, and you can't figure out what she spent the money for. Rumsfeld was upset with accounting, and this accounting issue has no ties to the mythical 9/11 truth alt theory of 9/11. (oops, it is part of a fantasy version of 9/11 with does not make sense)
 
Last edited:
Maybe I missed it on other threads, but.... Has anyone ever tried to spell out what the missing 2.3 Trillion went to? It seems to me that it would be nice and tidy to say that it went to all of the pay-outs for the inside job. 2.3 Trillion divided by a million or so per head would buy a lot of hushed mouths. Maybe.

I don't agree with it, I just wonder why I haven't heard that used.
 
It is exactly like you gave you kids 10,000 dollars for college expenses and required accounting for the spending for that year... And your kid, she gives you a mess of nonsense, no clear accounting, and you can't figure out what she spent the money for. ....

although you do know the fees have been paid and the kid survived for the year......
 
It's not unaccounted for though. It's just not tracked to accepted accounting standards.

So in your analogy it's more like if you don't know everywhere your child has been in the last year, does that mean she's missing now?

So, it's fixed? They accounted for this, since you infer "your child is home now. No, they found more was unaccounted for. years worth of budgets not properly accounted for.
It's not unaccounted for though. It's just not tracked to accepted accounting standards.

So in your analogy it's more like if you don't know everywhere your child has been in the last year, does that mean she's missing now?

You comment would totally work if they the military had since accounted for that money and it hadn't tripled to 6.5 trillion missing. Now you other kids are gone too. ;)
 
You comment would totally work if they the military had since accounted for that money and it hadn't tripled to 6.5 trillion missing. Now you other kids are gone too. ;)

It's not missing. It's just the total of transactions that did not have adequate accounting standards. Your other kids also went places and did not tell you exactly where, but they are home now, most of the time.

You can't lose 6.5 trillion. Where would you lose it FROM?
 
It's not missing. It's just the total of transactions that did not have adequate accounting standards. Your other kids also went places and did not tell you exactly where, but they are home now, most of the time.

You can't lose 6.5 trillion. Where would you lose it FROM?

A Ft Knox sized piggy bank?
 
and again I think it to be critical, whether you agree with the government or not that it's pointed out that not only was it the government who claimed that number to be reality but to better understand just how much money that was in 2001, the amount added to more the the ENTIRE NATIONAL DEFICIT!!! [...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
and again I think it to be critical, whether you agree with the government or not that it's pointed out that not only was it the government who claimed that number to be reality but to better understand just how much money that was in 2001, the amount added to more the the ENTIRE NATIONAL DEFICIT!!! [...]

Yes, and that is why the first post has a diagram that compares the size of the "missing" money to the Federal budget


(Note the budget is obviously generally much bigger than the deficit, and in 1999 the deficit did not even exist, as there was a $126 Billion surplus. But I suspect you meant budget, not deficit?)

It is the size of the supposed "missing" money relative to the budget that should make it clear that it can't actually represent a missing amount - especially as it supposed came from the National Defense expenditures, which is only 15% of the budget.
 
The core of your argument is that the DoD – the very same DoD upon which the safety of the free world depends – simply does not have sufficient accounting capability or the know-how; taught in Jr. High School's across the planet; that is needed to record the simple, however voluminous, transactions made within its own organization?!
 
The core of your argument is that the DoD – the very same DoD upon which the safety of the free world depends – simply does not have sufficient accounting capability or the know-how; taught in Jr. High School's across the planet; that is needed to record the simple, however voluminous, transactions made within its own organization?!
No, that's not it at all. The problem is the DoD encompasses numerous different organizations and accounting systems that are not interoperable to an acceptable certified level.
 
Back
Top