Since you never get tired of reporting the same old rubbish, Arjay, I won't get tired of putting you right. Maybe - just maybe - you'll eventually discover that you have been working a barren seam all this time, and give up.

>>Where did the $2.3 trillion go from the military budget that Donald Rumsfeld admitted to the day before 911?<<

For at least the dozenth time, it didn't "go" anywhere.

Because it never existed, except in a huge mass of data files that didn't balance.

What he actually said was:

"The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions. We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible."

And for the full context, read the full speech.

http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430

Let me explain it in terms that you might actually understand.

Let's imagine for a moment that there are only two systems, not the "dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible", that are supposed to track expenditure.

One says that the budget is $1 trillion under-allocated. The next one say that the budget is $1.3 trillion over-allocated. Since the systems don't talk to each other, there is no way to balance out the anomalies. So the first agency reports that "we are unable to track $1 trillion in transactions." The other reports "we are unable to track $1.3 trillion in transactions".

In total, that's "$2.3 trillion in transactions".

Is the light starting to get through the haze?

Rumsfeld did not say "$2.3 trillion has gone missing".

And to be fair to the guy, he was none too pleased.

Rubbish Pericles? The evidence is here in Rumsfeld's own words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlnQTcLHaMM The annual defence budget was only $312 billion.7 times their annual budget? This amount gets allotted annually and spent on that basis.Why would Congress allot this huge sum in one year,just to be lost? Rumsfeld did not say he made a mistake.Rumsfeld has not corrected himself since that day.Why not? No one in the media dares ask him that question.

The financial centre where these records were destroyed was hit by a plane or missile.So many co-incidences Pericles.

OK, Arjay, one more time, from the top.

$2.3 trillion was not lost.

Let's read again, together, what Rumsfeld actually said. Without moving your lips, please...

"According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions."

That does not mean that it was lost.

In fact, if you insist that a discrepancy exists between the budget amount and the actual expenditure (which is of course a mis-reading), then the amount of $2.3 trillion could equally be under-spent, not over-spent.

Understand?

Here's where you start to go wrong:

>>The annual defence budget was only $312 billion.7 times their annual budget?<<

Where is there any indication that this tracking problem only occurred in the one year? Clearly - especially given the amount involved - the systems problems had been going on for a number of years, and the amount that was inadequately tracked accumulated over time.

And this is where you completely lose the plot:

>>This amount gets allotted annually and spent on that basis.Why would Congress allot this huge sum in one year,just to be lost?<<

The fact is that they did not allocate this amount. So by definition a) it could not be lost and b) we are left with a tracking problem, not a "missing trillions" problem.

And finally, here is where you veer off into conspiracy-fabulist territory.

>>Rumsfeld did not say he made a mistake.Rumsfeld has not corrected himself since that day.Why not? No one in the media dares ask him that question.<<

Simple fact is, he didn't make a mistake, he described a systems problem, accurately. Which is why he has not corrected himself.

Also, it is why the media doesn't raise the issue: even journalists don't like looking that stupid.

So, which part of this does not make sense to you, Arjay?

Or can we at long last rely upon you not to bring it up again?

Pericles,Is not the Military budget balanced on an annual basis? You mean to say they let 7 yrs pass before tracking missing money? At the very least is total incompetence.

Can you find records of this $2.3 trillion being accounted for? At that time the GDP for the whole of the USA was $ 10 trillion.It was almost 25% of their GDP!Perhaps Rumsfeld is a fool and does not know the difference between a trillion and a billion.George Bush wanted to know how much was a Brazillian? I think the furry bits got stuck in his brain.

You're still not listening, Arjay, are you.

>>Is not the Military budget balanced on an annual basis? You mean to say they let 7 yrs pass before tracking missing money?<<

There is no money missing. If you check, you will not find Rumsfeld, or anyone, claim that there is. The budget was allocated, it was spent on keeping the army, navy and airforce doing whatever it is that they do. But the systems that were supposed to keep track of the transactions, didn't.

It is so simple to understand, that I can only assume that you are wilfully ignoring the obvious, simply in order to provide yourself with some perverse form of enjoyment.

Find another means to keep yourself amused, Arjay, if you keep on doing this it will turn you blind, you know what they say.