|
While I don't think our current politicians are necessarily terrorists, I do think that some of them are corrupt and intent on lining their pockets by dipping into the public dole.
I think you are confusing 2 separate issues here: the war in Iraq being one issue - the corruption of american politicians an entirely separate issue. Thrown into this particular story, and probably what makes it seem so juicy to the red-meat crown, was Doan's nebulous, maybe/possibly/kinda/sorta usage of the word "terrorist" to describe a government oversight group. I don't see any definitive information here to back up this assertion, and even if there was, it sounds to me more like petty bickering than anything else.
When a bureacrat like Doan is characterized as "trying to reduce wasteful spending" within a governmental agency, which is a legitimate part of any bureaucrat's job, I would bet it not uncommon that it is a signal for oversight committes to start getting suspicious. What is inherently wrong with Doan funneling some of the workload to private independent audit contractors to save a few bucks?
What's the beef here?
Is it government oversight?
Is it no-bid contracts?
Is it governmental use of private firms to spread out the workload?
Is it a racial and/or gender issue?
Is it backroom deals between government players?
Is it erosion of civil rights?
Is it the war in Iraq?
Is it entrepreneurship?
Is it affirmative action?
Is it terrorism?
Have you read about the alleged no-bid french/turkish satellite contracts recently in the news, or russian firm ASE's shady contract bids for Chinese energy contracts? Interesting stuff.
|