• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • Podcast
  • Full Measure
  • Blog
  • Donate
  • "Slanted" Preorder here

Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

  • US
  • World
  • Business
  • Health
    • Vaccine, Medical links
  • Special Investigations
    • Attkisson v. DOJ
    • Benghazi
    • "Collusion v. Trump" TL
    • Fake News
    • Fast and Furious
    • Media Mistakes on Trump
    • Obama Surveillance TL
    • Obamacare

Sharyl Attkisson

Keep one thing we've done right in Afghanistan: SIGAR

The following is a news analysis.

The Afghan War is the longest war in U.S. history. It has claimed the lives of thousands of U.S. soldiers and wasted billions of our tax dollars.

Out of all that money being spent, there is pretty much only one independent force uncovering fraud, waste and abuse: the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction or SIGAR. The office is headed by Inspector General John Sopko, an Obama appointee who has stayed on the job under President Trump.

So it was pretty surprising to recently read someone seriously advocating to abolish the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). From a taxpayer perspective, the office is arguably one of the things the U.S. has done responsibly regarding our involvement in Afghanistan.

Only because of SIGAR do we have even a vague sense of how much of our money has been wasted or abused.

And maybe that's exactly why SIGAR and Inspector General Sopko are taking arrows.

It's not the first time.

U.S. military interests, defense contractors and politicians are among those who have attempted to smear Sopko and disparage his work on behalf of taxpayers.

Without Sopko's investigations, I do not think we would know about all the U.S. tax money spent on non-existent Afghan "ghost soldiers." Out of more than 300,000 collecting salaries, only about half actually existed. This implies rampant fraud. New systems to count actual soldiers were put in place as a result of Sopko's findings.

Sopko flagged a 64,000 square foot U.S. military headquarters built in Afghanistan for about $36 million U.S. tax dollars-- that was never occupied. The military was none too happy that Sopko demanded accountability and named names.

Sopko and his investigators also uncovered a fleet of airplanes bought for the Afghan Air Force, at U.S. taxpayer expense, that were scrapped for pennies on the pound.

The list goes on and on. (See additional story links below.)

More recently, Sopko raised hackles among military interests by objecting to the military's classification of certain statistics regarding our performance in Afghanistan. These statistics had previously been regularly reported in the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) reports, and the stats may not reflect well on how things are going in Afghanistan.

The classifiers who now moved to keep the information secret, and some in the Trump administration, argued that they didn't want our enemies could get their hands on it and somehow use it against us. However, Sopko countered that our enemies already know the stats, and so does the Afghan government-- so the only ones being kept in the dark by the classification are the American people. Perhaps, one might argue, the classification was nothing more than the Pentagon's attempt to tamp down public criticism of our efforts in Afghanistan.

And now, there is a public case being made to "wind down" the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) and fold its duties into other office. The argument says that the SIGAR budget, upwards of $54 million a year, is itself a waste of taxpayer money.

From a taxpayer perspective, the better time to wind down the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) is when we are no longer spending taxpayer money to rebuild in Afghanistan.

But as long as our tax money is going out the door as part of the longest war in U.S. history, we need an independent advocate watching out for waste, fraud and abuse. Whether U.S. defense contractors and other military interests like it or not.

Particularly, in fact, if they don't.

You can review some of the stories and investigations I've done on the topic by clicking the links below.

Exiting Afghanistan, Jan. 13, 2019

War Waste, July 1, 2018

The Watchdog, Dec. 18, 2016

AWOL, Feb. 11, 2018

Afghan Air, July 2016

Afghan Oasis, August 2016

Ghost Soldiers, July 30, 2017

Read the argument for abolishing SIGAR at The Hill, written by Daniel F. Runde is a senior vice president and William A. Schreyer chair in Global Analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, by clicking the link below:

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/450397-its-time-to-sunset-sigar

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Social Media Strike: July 4-5

Interests who are fed up with what they believe to be censorship, undue control over Internet information, free speech, and unfair exploitation of our data are organizing a social media strike for July 4 and 5.

According to organizer Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia (who has since split with the project):

This means we will not use social media on those days, except to post notices that we are on strike. We’re going to make a lot of noise. Nobody will be able to ignore what’s happening. We’re going to flex our collective muscles and demand that giant, manipulative corporations give us back control over our data, privacy, and user experience.

Larry Sanger

Do you have a grievance that will prompt you to go on strike?

More from the July 4-5 Social Media Strike organizers:

Who: You. The more, the merrier! We’re urging you to go on strike with us. (“We” means nothing more than “all the rest of us who have serious grievances about social media—privacy, free speech, or something else.”)

What: A collective pause in our use of social media, except to post notices and memes that:

  1. Declare that we are on strike. Use hashtag #SocialMediaStrike. 
  2. (Optional.) Point to a copy of the Declaration of Digital Independence (preferably, your own; see “How” below). Invite others to sign the Declaration. 
  3. Urge others to join the strike. Ask your friends, family, and followers to sign and strike. If you see them posting anything other than calls to strike, tell them, “Don’t be a scab!” 

Hashtag: #SocialMediaStrike

Read more at the link below:

https://larrysanger.org/2019/06/social-media-strike/

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Exiting Afghanistan

Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction John Sopko (center)

Refugees continue to flee Afghanistan more than 17 years after the U.S. began pouring billions of U.S. taxpayer money into the Muslim country to help.

Where has all the money gone? We asked the man tracking it on behalf of all of us: John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.

The following is from the latest episode of Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson. Watch the video by clicking here.

We begin with Afghanistan: our longest war in U.S. history. President Trump recently ordered thousands of US troops to be pulled back from Afghanistan and said he’s thinking about withdrawing entirely. The Afghan War has claimed the lives of thousands of US soldiers and wasted billions of our tax dollars. Our newest assessment comes from John Sopko, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction. 

When U.S. Inspector General John Sopko is on site in Afghanistan it’s not for sightseeing.

Sopko: But the contract said this should be tile and the walls should be tile and there should be working stoves. Were there any working stoves? 

Afghan official: Ever since we inspected, we never found one.

On this day, he’s inspecting yet another building our tax dollars paid for. 

Sopko: Was this supposed to be air conditioned? 

Afghan official: Yes, sir. 

...And wondering where all the money went. 

Sopko: See Lieutenant, when we built this building there was supposed to be tile up the walls, there was supposed to be working stoves. 

17 years long into America’s War in Afghanistan— one thing is clear: there’s more frustration than progress. 

Sopko: But we paid for tile for your government and you didn't get it. It was not installed, okay. 

Sharyl: In the Afghanistan conflict going on now, why is it we’re there and what is it we're trying to do? 

Sopko: It goes back to the attack of 9/11. And we went in there because of the fact that was a training ground for terrorists who attacked us and later attacked our allies. So we went in to help the Afghans kick the terrorists out as well as developing government that could keep them out. And that's why we've been there for 17 years. 

In 2017, President Trump approved the Pentagon’s request to add thousands of soldiers to the 11,000 troops already in Afghanistan. US commanders were given more leeway to strike the Taliban, al-Qaeda and ISIS terrorists. Last July, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the changes seemed to be effective. 

Pompeo: My conclusion from this visit is that the president’s strategy is indeed working. Taliban momentum is slowing. 

But four months later, America’s top general— Joseph Dunford—admitted the Taliban are “not losing.” In all, more than 2,400 US soldiers have been killed. The Islamic extremist Taliban remain dominant and spreading. The Afghan government is mired in corruption. And billions of US tax dollars has been lost to waste, fraud and abuse. 

Sharyl: How much US tax money has been spent on Afghanistan reconstruction? 

Sopko: Reconstruction alone is $132 billion dollars. 

Sharyl: You said in a report to Congress that billions of dollars in western foreign aid to Afghanistan has been lost due to widespread waste, lax oversight and endemic corruption. That sounds bad. 

Sopko: That’s correct. We have wasted billions of dollars. And not just us, but also our coalition partners have wasted billions, too.

Sharyl: You found that money is being allocated for equipment and salaries for people in Afghanistan who don't actually exist, so someone must be taking it? 

Sopko: Absolutely. What happens is the commanders or some corrupt official will take the money and it's supposed to be going to a police officer who doesn't exist and this is an endemic problem throughout Afghanistan. 

Sharyl: Are there any new examples of projects that you're taking a look at that you feel are perhaps ripe for waste, fraud or abuse? 

Sopko: A senior military officer for the US government warned me that NATO is now planning to build a six story, 120,000 square foot headquarters for the NATO military there. Now just stop for a second. That sounds good on its face, but we haven't had a new headquarters there for 17 years. We had 140,000 NATO troops there over 17 years. But now when our troop population has gone down, we're thinking about trying to eventually get out— Why do you need a new headquarters? And this goes back to things we have identified before, that the way the government works— and it's not just the US government, it's also NATO— once the process starts, once military construction starts, it doesn't stop even if you don't need it. So we're going to be looking into that. 

Sopko’s job as inspector general is made all the more difficult because it’s so dangerous in Afghanistan. He and his team can’t move around freely to inspect all the projects they need to. Last November, more than 50 people were killed when a suicide bomber attacked a wedding party in the Afghan capital, Kabul. 

Sharyl: What did you see on your last trip? What will we see in those photographs and images? 

Sopko: We went out to a major construction project that we did for the Afghan military. It's called the General Fahim a training center. It's for the senior officers and technical officers of the Afghan military. And what you will see is a major problem we have. We build buildings but the Afghans can't maintain them. We don't consider the training for the Afghans. A wastewater treatment plant that is no longer functioning, raw sewage is flowing into streams and it's all because the Afghans don't know how to fix it. You will see a second wastewater treatment plant we built. Brand new, never been turned on because no one taught the Afghans how to turn it on. You will see a water treatment plant that hasn't been functioning for years because the Afghans are incapable of designing or working with the system we gave them to input the chlorine. So none of the waters being cleaned. 

Sopko: It hasn't been working since when? 

Afghan official: 15. 

Sopko: So for three years it hasn't been working, but we built it, contracted it to have a working, chlorinating system. 

Sopko: So these are millions of dollars of, of uh, programs and millions of dollars of construction that are not being used. So what you're seeing is a constant problem. We give them buildings, we give them programs, we give them equipment, but we don't plan for sustaining it, how they can sustain it either through training, money, or the will to sustain these programs. So there's a lot of waste. 

One final point of failure has to do with opium trade. Afghanistan is the world’s leading producer of illegal opium, and is still churning out record amounts despite the US presence. 

Sharyl: You reported that since 2002, the US government has spent more than $8.8 billion dollars on counter narcotics efforts in Afghanistan. Despite this, Afghanistan's opium trade is as robust as ever. 

Sopko: That's correct. And I think it's approximately 30 to 40 percent of their GDP is now narcotics related. 

Sharyl: How can that be? 

Sopko: Poorly designed programs, unwilling partnership by the Afghans. We don't have a strategy. To this day, we still don't have a strategy. And what we reported in our last quarter of the report is the way we see it, no efforts being made on counter narcotics anymore. 

Sharyl: Do you ever feel like you're banging your head up against a wall? 

Sopko: Almost every day. You should probably ask my wife about that. I come home a lot frustrated, but it's not an easy job; if you want an easy job, don't become an inspector general and uh, and if you want a lot of friends, don't become an inspector general, but that's the job I was assigned to. That's the job. Everybody who's working for me and it's a tremendous group. I got 200 people, investigators, police officers, uh, engineers, auditor's analysts, they're all doing a tremendous job. It's the best group I've ever worked with in the government, but we do get frustrated. People forget there's a war going on. Americans are dying, um, money's being wasted. And people also forget that fraud kills and we've documented that. So fraud and corruption will kill Americans. It'll kill allies and kill Afghans. And that's why we're doing the job. And that's a little bit of the frustration as you don't have people focusing on is anymore. That's why we appreciate coming over here talking to you. There are very few reporters in this town who are spending as much time as you do on Afghanistan, which I think is so critical as we go forward. 

In another development, President Trump said it’s quote “insane” that Sopko’s reports are made public, because it allows the enemy to see them. But watchdogs say making the reports public helps prevent the Pentagon and defense contractors from hiding waste, fraud and abuse.

Click the link below to watch the video investigation on Full Measure:

http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/exiting-afghanistan

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Reality at southern border clashes with partisan narrative

President Trump on a visit to the southern U.S. border

On the Sunday Fox News program "Media Buzz," host Howie Kurtz asked me if I'd learned anything from reporting on border stories that is different than the partisan media narrative.

He also asked about news coverage of President Trump's banter with Russia President Putin, and the New York Times' mea culpa over its coverage of a rape allegation against Trump.

Click the link below to hear the discussion.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/attkisson-reality-at-us-southern-border-clashes-with-medias-partisan-narrative

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Sinclair stock outperforms rivals

According to an analysis by The Hollywood Reporter, the stock of television news conglomerate Sinclair is up "an impressive 106 percent, besting all of the major media companies."

Here's the breakdown:

  • Sinclair: up 106%
  • Disney: up 27%
  • Comcast (NBCUniversal): up 25%
  • Sony: up 9%
  • AT&T (WarnerMedia): up 21%
  • Viacom: up 18%
  • CBS: up 15%
  • Fox: down 23%
  • Netflix: up 37%
  • Amazon: up 26%
  • Apple: up 27%
  • Facebook: up 47%
  • Twitter: up 21%

Of the 50 stocks tracked by The Hollywood Reporter, only two are outperforming Sinclair in the first half of 2019: Snap, the parent of Snapchat, is up 160 percent and streamer Roku is up 196 percent.

The Hollywood Reporter

Read the story in Hollywood Reporter by clicking the link below:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sinclair-stock-outperforming-major-media-rivals-year-1221548

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Smearing WikiLeaks

How three men affiliated with WikiLeaks were hit with false or unproven sexual assault accusations — amid a secret PR plan to discredit WikiLeaks. 

To some, Julian Assange and his "WikiLeaks" website went from being hero-- to zero-- when they began publishing internal emails that reflected poorly on then-candidate for President Hillary Clinton had her campaign team.

But even before that, WikiLeaks was seen as damaging to some powerful interests.

In 2010, some of those interests launched a secret public relations campaign to disparage and discredit WikiLeaks, Assange, and other WikiLeaks associates.

Three men affiliated with WikiLeaks were then hit by false or unproven sexual assault charges.

Read more about the strange smearing of Wikileaks below.

The following is an excerpt from my Full Measure investigation

There’s little doubt there are powerful efforts to smear WikiLeaks and its supporters. Government contractors circulated this dossier (below) in 2010, a wide-ranging strategy to combat “The WikiLeaks Threat,” to “sabotage or discredit” WikiLeaks supporters using “social media exploitation” and “disinformation.”

Trevor FitzGibbon: It shows the photos and the names of the individuals that were supportive of WikiLeaks or worked with WikiLeaks.

Sharyl Attkisson: And the PR documents specifically discussed going after these people?

Trevor FitzGibbon: Ways to discredit to target to smear them.

Several targets were FitzGibbons’ clients. Two were discredited by sex claims alleged in the media but never prosecuted just like FitzGibbon: WikiLeaks’ Assange and a key WikiLeaks associate Jacob Appelbaum.

With Assange, two women told a journalist that consensual sex with him when he was in Sweden for a speech, turned into rape. A rape investigation hung over his head for seven years—before it was dropped.

Anonymous accusers started a website to publicly accuse Appelbaum of groping and rape. He was forced out of his job, but also never charged.

FitzGibbon was cleared of the false rape allegation against him and sued the lawyer who'd accused him: Jesselyn Radack. Radack subsequently retracted all of her accusations against FitzGibbon.

In the end, a smear campaign can often take advantage of the uncertainty surrounding a case of 'he said she said.' And that’s the problem. FitzGibbon asked a lawyers’ disciplinary body to punish Radack for alleged false allegations. They declined, saying the “question was close” but “The truth about what occurred in private is sometimes hard to prove.” Even if someone isn't ultimately prosecuted, they may find they’re tainted just because this aura of inappropriateness or criminality lingers over them regardless of what the outcome is in the court of law.

Three men affiliated with WikiLeaks appear to have been on the receiving end of that lesson.

Watch the entire Full Measure investigation by clicking the link below:

http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/shades-of-grey-07-24-2018

Fight government overreach and double-standard justice by supporting the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund for Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI for the government computer intrusions. Click here.

The Declaration of Digital Independence

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, now with Everipedia

Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, has parted ways with his original creation because -- as it is now often said -- 'the inmates are running the asylum.'

Wikipedia has become a conflicted platform where many pages are largely controlled by special interest agenda editors and deeply-entrenched ideological parties.

Beyond Wikipedia, there are also serious and growing issues with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and other platforms controlling information, profiting off the personal data of users, and more.

Sanger is among those who believe it's time for a "Declaration of Digital Independence."

Using new technology, he and others believe it is possible for members of the general public to regain control of their own personal data and of the information they wish to access on the Internet.

Learn about the new Wikipedia alternative: Everipedia

They believe it is a battle for the ages; a battle for our technological human rights.

If you're interested in learning more, you can read about it here:

The Declaration of Digital Independence

Humanity has been contemptuously used by vast digital empires. Thus it is now necessary to replace these empires with decentralized networks of independent individuals, as in the first decades of the Internet. As our participation has been voluntary, no one doubts our right to take this step. But if we are to persuade as many people as possible to join together and make reformed networks possible, we should declare our reasons for wanting to replace the old.

We declare that we have unalienable digital rights, rights that define how information that we individually own may or may not be treated by others, and that among these rights are free speech, privacy, and security. Since the proprietary, centralized architecture of the Internet at present has induced most of us to abandon these rights, however reluctantly or cynically, we ought to demand a new system that respects them properly. The difficulty and divisiveness of wholesale reform means that this task is not to be undertaken lightly. For years we have approved of and even celebrated enterprise as it has profited from our communication and labor without compensation to us. But it has become abundantly clear more recently that a callous, secretive, controlling, and exploitative animus guides the centralized networks of the Internet and the corporations behind them.

Read the rest of the "Declaration of Digital Independence" by clicking the link below.

https://larrysanger.org/2019/06/declaration-of-digital-independence/

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Why all world maps are wrong

This six minute video by Vox, "Why all world maps are wrong," is one of my favorite learning videos I've run across.

I think it would be great as required viewing in middle school. The information contained in it helps explain why I was so surprised when I flew over Greenland for the first time some years back...and it wasn't nearly as big as I'd imagined.

See what you think and leave your comments!

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.
« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Coming Soon

Subscribe

Get the Latest Stories Straight to Your Inbox

Follow Sharyl Attkisson

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Recent Comments

  • Mickey Pullen on Hydroxychloroquine: Politicizing Medicine (PODCAST)
  • Mike Marinak on Hydroxychloroquine: Politicizing Medicine (PODCAST)
  • Debunking “The Hotchkiss Republicans Report” - The Hotchkiss Record on "Collusion against Trump" timeline

Subscribe

Get the Latest Stories Straight to Your Inbox

Footer

Pages

  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Support
  • Contact

2ndary Pages

  • Full Measure Stations
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Subscribe to SharylAttkisson.com

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS

  • Attkisson v. DOJ/FBI
  • Benghazi
  • Fake News
  • Fast & Furious
  • Obamacare

Ad

Ad