WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (IPS) - Three U.S. senators have called on Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to account for 8.8 billion dollars entrusted to the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Iraq earlier this year but now gone missing.

In a letter Thursday, Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon, Byron L Dorgan of North Dakota and Tom Harkin of Iowa, all opposition Democrats, demanded a "full, written account" of the money that was channelled to Iraqi ministries and authorities by the CPA, which was the governing body in the occupied country until Jun. 30.

The loss was uncovered in an audit by the CPA's inspector general. It has not yet been released publicly and was initially reported on the website of journalist and retired U.S. Army Col David Hackworth.

The CPA was terminated at the end of July to make way for an interim Iraqi government, which is in turn scheduled to be replaced by an elected body early in 2005.

"We are requesting a full, written account of the 8.8 billion dollars transferred earlier this year from the CPA to the Iraqi ministries, including the amount each ministry received and the way in which the ministry spent the money," said the letter.

The senators also requested that the Pentagon designate a date by which it will install adequate oversight and financial and contractual controls over money it spends in Iraq.

They accused the CPA of transferring the "staggering sum of money" with no written rules or guidelines to ensure adequate control over it.

They pointed to "disturbing findings" from the inspector general's report that the payrolls of some Iraqi ministries, then under CPA control, were padded with thousands of ghost employees. They refer to an example in which CPA paid the salaries of 74,000 security guards although the actual number of employees could not be validated.

The report says that in one case some 8,000 guards were listed on a payroll but only 603 real individuals could be counted.

"Such enormous discrepancies raise very serous questions about potential fraud, waste and abuse," added the letter.

This is not the first time that U.S. financial conduct in Iraq has come under fire, specifically over funds slated for reconstruction after the U.S.-led attack in March 2003, which then went unaccounted for.

In June, British charity Christian Aid said at least 20 billion dollars in oil revenues and other Iraqi funds intended to rebuild the country have disappeared from banks administered by the CPA.

You are the one arguing that the fact that lend-lease was a success 60 years ago proves that there has been no taxpayer money stolen in Iraq in the 21st century.

No. That one git by you. You said it 'disappeared', when demonstrably it does not.

Jetblue isn't raising prices or demanding minimum destination stays. Nor are many other airliners.

That's right enough Ari, but as James has pointed out they aren't nearly under the unions as far as United is. How do you suppose JB is able to save you that kind money, anyway?

Jetblue isn't raising prices or demanding minimum destination stays. Nor are many other airliners.

The success of lend-lease in WW2 has nothing to do with Iraq, validity of the LL concept or execution notwithstanding...

Lend-lease? Wrong war dude, a Democrat was running that one,

And thereby you automatically have no argument with the concept. And I'm suppsoedly simplistic about such matters? You do understand, don't you, that you strolled right into that one?

First, it doesn't simply vanish

Sorry to burst your bubble Skippy, but 8 billion dollars in cash has simply vanished in Iraq. And we are not even talking about the billions of dollars spent on projects that the government in Iraq has refused to accept hand-off of.

Lend-lease? Wrong war dude, a Democrat was running that one, and the money and weapons actually went to where they were intended. In either case, it does not have a damn thing to do with Iraq.

Well I see you are still obsessed with the concept of someone reaching into your pocket.

Look a little deeper. I'm more concerned with what's right and wrong. That's a qualification you simply refuse to admit exists. The easy way out of a problem is to reach into someone else's pocket, and to ignore the immorality of doing so. I've noted that you tend to lean in that direction.

One question, how do you feel about George Bush reaching into your pocket, taking out your money, and than adding it to the plane loads of cash that have been sent to Iraq, where they simply vanish?

Fisrst, it doesn't simply vanish as lend-lease once proved a few years back. Similarly, our investments in South Korea have proven to be well placed.

This does not seem to bother you a bit. But money going to improve the quality of life in our country makes you furious.

Because as a rule, it doesn't work as planned. How many trillions have been spent on (suppsoedly) the elimination of poverty since LBJ? If you look closely, the problem has gotten worse, instead of better.

And for someone who thinks Marx is so much drivel, you certainly seem to spend a fair amount of time defending his twisted ideals.

One question, how do you feel about George Bush reaching into your pocket, taking out your money, and than adding it to the plane loads of cash that have been sent to Iraq, where they simply vanish? Some is in off shore accounts of cronies, some has probably ended up in the hands of terrorists, many billions vanished to God knows where.

This does not seem to bother you a bit. But money going to improve the quality of life in our country makes you furious.

As for your above arguments, I am afraid they don't really merit a response. You are simply confirming that you viewpoint is completely one sided and dogmatic. Its simply the flip side of Marxist drivel...

And Ken Lay & Michael Milken and the like never screwed up people's lives, incomes, hopes & dreams?

Of course!
But look closely and you may note a rather stark difference between those two and the schemes run by government. They're not doing it anymore, apparently lacking the power. the force of government to back their actions.

Bit, your view of our society is one-dimensional and juvenile. Our government is deeply flawed, it has all kinds of issues. It is also probably the best

Only because as the founders designed it, it was the least intrusive. That's not true, anymore.

Capitalism is also probably, overall, the best economic system yet devised by man (or woman). It has created undreamed of prosperity, in this country and others. Like all things in our world, it has a downside. Left unchecked, it can become an agent of greed, inequity and destruction.

Wrong.Left unshakled, it was reponsible for people wanting to come here, and live, which in turn is what made us a country of immigrants.

To blame one for all problems, while attributing all good to the other, is simplistic, dogmatic thinking. Socialism is not evil, it is simply, like anything else, subject to corruption.

Again, wrong. Socialism IS evil. And both parties signing onto it, doesn't make it less so. As Walter Williams said not so long ago:

Republicans and right-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to farmers, banks, airlines and other failing businesses. Democrats and left-wingers support taking the earnings of one American and giving them to poor people, cities, and artists. Both agree on taking one American's earnings to give to another; they simply differ on the recipients. This kind of congressional activity constitutes at least two-thirds of the federal budget.

Regardless of the purpose such behavior is immoral. It's a reduced form of slavery. After all what is the essence of slavery? It's the forceful use of one person to serve the purposes of another person. When Congress, through the tax code, takes the earnings of one person and turns around to give it to another person in the forms of prescription drugs, social security, food stamps, farm subsidies or airline bailouts, it is forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another.

That is evil. That it is all very LEGAL, of course doesn't make it moral. To extend the metephor, slavery was legal. Was it moral?

And don't tell me how it's all to help our fellow man. There's a major difference between theft and charity. As Williams says in the same article:

An argument against legalized theft should not be construed as an argument against helping one's fellow man in need. Charity is a noble instinct; theft legal or illegal is despicable. Or, put another way: reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation.

Now, to tie this to the subject at hand, United, the mount of governmental control being exerted on the company is certainly socialism, and equally certainly nothing short of slavery.

And you... You don't find that evil. Why am I not surprised?

but I don't claim to have ownership of the truth, which as we see, you do.

And yet you argue like you got your information handed to you on two tablets while on a mountain climbing journey.

Well when I am working, about 97% of my brain is busy solving various problems, and I need to take a break now and then, so I use the other 3% to argue with you, which is about all that is needed :)

Ummm... no. It's clear more brainpower is needful. Some intellectual honesty would be handy, too.

Well, no, I just won't be bullied off of speaking the truth. It's that attempt that I've been reacting to. And truth, as you may be aware, can be irritating, sometimes.

So, you don't have a view of what is true and what isn't?

Of course I have a view of what the truth is (see above), but I don't claim to have ownership of the truth, which as we see, you do. Which makes you kind of silly, or perhaps just sad...

Why the hell are you arguing with me, then?

Well when I am working, about 97% of my brain is busy solving various problems, and I need to take a break now and then, so I use the other 3% to argue with you, which is about all that is needed :)

This isn't a game, pard. At it's most basic and broadly viewed point, these are people's lives, their incomes, their hopes and dreams we're talking about screwing up via micromanagement.

And Ken Lay & Michael Milken and the like never screwed up people's lives, incomes, hopes & dreams?

Bit, your view of our society is one-dimensional and juvenile. Our government is deeply flawed, it has all kinds of issues. It is also probably the best form of government in the history of the world.

Capitalism is also probably, overall, the best economic system yet devised by man (or woman). It has created undreamed of prosperity, in this country and others. Like all things in our world, it has a downside. Left unchecked, it can become an agent of greed, inequity and destruction.

To blame one for all problems, while attributing all good to the other, is simplistic, dogmatic thinking. Socialism is not evil, it is simply, like anything else, subject to corruption. An evil or an inept leader can use it to turn a nation into a chamber of horrors. In a country like Norway, it can be blended into the mix to create a pretty cool society.

We need to incorporate the strengths of government, the private sector and various political and economic philosophies, and work to eliminate their weaknesses. Republicans and Democrats have both provided leadership good and bad in our history, we need them both to have the society the founding fathers wanted us to have. To utterly reject either is to reject the core idea of America.

Well... the other 97% needs to get back to business...

Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth

So, you don't have a view of what is true and what isn't?

Why the hell are you arguing with me, then?

Apparently, not to Bit's life...

Hmmm. How best to explain this to you? I guess you'll have to figure this one out:

Consider the phrase "Ideas have consequences". We are talking about ideas, after all.

This isn't a game, pard. At it's most basic and broadly viewed point, these are people's lives, their incomes, their hopes and dreams we're talking about screwing up via micromanagement. At every occasion where government has been involved in micormanaging situations, it's gotten fouled up and the people living within the purview have had their lives fouled up to some degree. That's true of both parties, though IMV to a lesser degree among conservatives, who generally try to move away from governmental control.

That said, some focus, please;

Let's remember that these measures wouldn't ever be taken were it not for the fuel situation, also the creation of yet another governmental screwup in micromanagement, trying to control everything from the dead Dino statge to the fuel tank. (All in the name of the environment, of course)

Similarly, When the government is involved in every step of the process of running an airline, right to when and where planes from company A and company B can fly, etc, please explain to me how you have the sheer audacity to aver that the free market has anything to do with this process.

You're placing the blame on the wrong party, here. The problem here, as usual, is GOVERNMENT.

Well, no, I just won't be bullied off of speaking the truth. It's that attempt that I've been reacting to. And truth, as you may be aware, can be irritating, sometimes.

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

Albert Einstein

Wow, the gods be laughing their asses off...

Bithead, you really do yourself no good. I actually often agree with you policy-wise, but I don't know what you are trying to accomplish. If you are trying to annoy and irritate some liberals, then you are probably successful, but surely there's more to life than just that.

Well, no, I just won't be bullied off of speaking the truth. It's that attempt that I've been reacting to. And truth, as you may be aware, can be irritating, sometimes.