Or is it a different amount of money? This article talks about that, and all they have are excuses about how difficult it is to manage things in 'wartime'.
The $8.8 billion was reported to have been spent on salaries, operating and capital expenditures, and reconstruction projects between October 2003 and June 2004, Bowen's report concluded.
The money came from revenues from the United Nations' former oil-for-food program, oil sales and seized assets -- all Iraqi money. The audit did not examine the use of U.S. funds appropriated for reconstruction. (Full story)
Auditors were unable to verify that the Iraqi money was spent for its intended purpose. In one case, they raised the possibility that thousands of "ghost employees" were on an unnamed ministry's payroll.
"CPA staff identified at one ministry that although 8,206 guards were on the payroll, only 602 guards could be validated," the audit report states. "Consequently, there was no assurance funds were not provided for ghost employees."http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/I remember reading that they had sent over a bunch of 'young 20-somethings' to manage things, who were pretty obnoxious and wouldn't allow veteran press reporters to ask questions, unless they were from Fox News.
I also remember that Rumsfeld et al told the American people that this war would cost no more than, at first, '$5 billion, no more than $40 billion dollars'.
This waste of billions of dollars and the corruption in Iraq should be a huge issue in the 2006 elections ~ a Congress that asked NO questions about the hundreds of billions of dollars they have spent so far on this war, and called anyone who did 'traitors' needs to be fired and then prosecuted, imo.
'Duke' Cunningham is a perfect example (and probably not the only one) who pushed for getting that money without oversight, in order to funnel money to his friends in the Defense Contracting business.