Saif al-Islam Gaddafi to Run for President of Libya in 2018

A family spokesman has broken the news on Egyptian television

by  Adam Garrie

Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the second son and erstwhile heir apparent to revolutionary leader Muammar Gaddafi has confirmed to Egyptian television, through a family spokesman, Basem al-Hashimi al-Soul, that he seeks to run in next year’s tenuous Presidential elections in Libya.

While Libya remains a failed state in the wake of the 2011 NATO war against the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, many have pinned their hopes on Saif al-Islam Gaddafi who since his release from captivity this year, has been touring the country and buildilng support among Libya’s many tribal factions.

According to his spokesman,

“Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of the former Libyan president, enjoys the support of major tribes in Libya so he can run for the upcoming presidential elections due in 2018. Saif al-Islam plans to impose more security and stability in accordance with the Libyan geography and in coordination with all Libyan factions”.

Libya is currently locked in a multi-dimensional power struggle without a single unifying government. Saif al-Islam plans to change this through reunifying the country as his father did in 1969. However, after years of western meddling, he has his work cut out for him.

For years, they have contended with multiple factions. At present, the leading factions are the broadly pro-western Government of National Accord in Tripoli and the Egypt backed and generally Russia friendly Libyan House of Representatives in the eastern Libyan city of Tobruk. 

The strongest armed forces in Libya and frankly the only united one, is the Libyan National Army led by House of Representatives loyalist Khalifa Haftar. By contrast, the fledgling Government of National Accord is constantly besieged with a rival Tripoli faction, the National Salvation Government, while all forces are battling (or in the case of the Tripoli factions, failing to battle) terrorists associated with al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS.

The NATO effect

Resurrecting Libya as any kind of state is a monumental order. In a few short years, a NATO war turned Libya from a wealthy, united state with high standards of living and near-universal literacy to an open air terrorist training camp, built on top of a failed state.

Thus far, the only signs of salvation have come in the form of military victories by Haftar’s Army which has successfully cleansed Benghazi of many terrorist forces. The problem however is that while Haftar’s Libyan National Army has found success, the Libyan House of Representatives for whom he fights, has struggled to put forward a cohesive nation wide political programme.

This is where Saif al-Islam could come in. When Saif was released from prison, many scenes of supporters waving the Green flag of the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya took to the streets. Unlike Iraq for example, which has genuine and difficult ethno-religious sectarian divides, Libya is almost all Sunni Muslim, although the very small Christian minority which received protection under Gaddafi, has been decimated since the 2011 NATO war.

While the western backed Government of National Accord does not acknowledge the amnesty granted to Saif al-Islam by competing factions, this weak government is in reality, far less popular in parts of the country than Saif al-Islam personally and the tribal factions over which he once again commands loyalty.

Ethnically, most Libyans are either Arabs or Arabised Berbers. While under Gaddafi, Libya had a sizeable black-African minority, sadly many of these people who lived well in Libya have been either killed or chased into neighbouring states by Takfiri terrorists.

All of this amounts to a country that does not so much have ethnic nor religious divides, but instead, deep tribal divides. Prior to Gaddafi’s revolution, Libya was economically retarded and in the grip of local tribes who had little interest in forming a unified modern country. This old Libya, was ruled by the lethargic King Idris who was overthrown by the  young Gaddafi in 1969.

Gaddafi changed all of this, bringing modernity, unity, world-class healthcare, public wealth, irrigation to the desert and technological amenities to Libyans. Sadly, since 2011, Libya has returned to a dark ages.

Many increasingly feel that because of his lineage and apparent intelligence (though not intelligent enough to see through the west’s betrayal of his father), Saif al-Islam could become a unifying figure in the country.

While bringing any unity to Libya is a tall order, Saif would likely have to deal with Haftar, especially as Haftar’s support could be crucial in what would pass for an election in post-NATO Libya.

Khalifa Haftar was once a loyal officer in Gaddafi’s Libya but in the late 1980s, during the war with Chad, he fell out with Gaddafi and ran to the US where he became an American citizen. Upon returning to Libya, his secular political programme, proven military skill and his backing by secular Egypt, has made him a moderate in a failed state undulating between various Takfiri extremes.

It is not clear how Saif al-Islam would be able to work with a man who was viewed as a failure and traitor by his father, but it would be almost impossible if two men with a theoretically similar political programme for Libya could not at least attempt to work together in some capacity.

Haftar has just stated that the western backed Government of National Accord has now lost all its legitimacy as its official mandate expired on the 17th of December. Haftar said,

“With the onset of December 17, 2017, the so-called political agreement ends, and all bodies formed according to it automatically lose their legitimacy, which is controversial from the first day of their work.

…We strongly reject the method of threats and intimidation and promise to the Libyan people that we vow to protect them and their capabilities and institutions to the last soldier in our ranks, and also declare our refusal to submit… to any party, whatever source of its legitimacy, if it was not elected by the Libyan people”.

This is a clear indication that Haftar is not seeking to reach a compromise with the fledgling and corrupt body in Tripoli, but may be looking either to lead the country himself, or else partner with another body or leader.

A clear choice for Haftar, if personal/historical differences can be ironed out, would be to partner with Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, as both leaders represent a similar ideology and  usually among political aspirants in Libya, actually have experience and credibility. Crucially, both Saif al-Islam and Haftar have a common opponent in the form of western governments which have been keen to prop up the effectively powerless and incapable Government of National Accord.

Saif’s lawyer and public representative, Khalid al Zaidi has taken an optimistic tone in respect of Saif’s ability to re-unite Libya in a recent public statement.

After calling Saif Libya’s “only hope”, his lawyer said, “the current situation in Libya, the absence of dialogue and the misunderstanding of the actual state of affairs there make it essential that Saif al-Islam Gaddafi returns to politics to try to reach a political settlement”.

He continued,

“There have been frequent reports that Saif al-Islam has left Libya, but this is not true. He is communicating with Libyan leaders, representatives of tribes to reach a political solution and appease the conflicting parties”.

While the discredited International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Saif in 2011, in 2013, the UN stated that his incarceration was “arbitrary”.

Clearly, if there is anything Saif is too guilty of, it is being too trusting of the western partners of his father who eventually invaded and destroyed Libya in 2011, less than a decade after the very public Libya-US rapprochement in 2003.

Libya has gone from a shining light in Africa’s constellation to one of the most dangerous and depressed places on earth. Such a country needs all the help it can get to recover. Saif al-Islam owes it to himself and his country to at least try and see if he can manage to do that which no one has thus far been capable of achieving.

This is both hopeful and frightening! Another Gadaffi, one with a very large, personal ax to grind against the west, could be very dangerous. He could, however, stop the flow of migrants through Libya to Europe. And yet, NATO will certainly oppose him and perhaps even use him as an excuse for another war front to justify their existence.

People Smuggler Gets 1,489 Year Sentence for Trafficking Syrians, Iraqis to Greece

Refugees and migrants protest outside refugee camp in Athens © Alkis Konstantinidis / Reuters

A smuggler in has been sentenced to 1,489 years in prison for bringing Iraqi and Syrian refugees into Greece from Turkey. He is one of 23 people sentenced for smuggling on Monday.

The Thessaloniki court found the 54-year-old Greek man guilty of running a smuggling ring that saw hundreds of refugees trafficked into Europe from Turkey between 2015 and 2016, iefimerida reports.

Despite the more than 1,000-year sentence, Greek law states that the maximum prison term that can be served is 25 years. Many of the other sentences handed out were for between 200 and 300 years, EleftherosTypos reports.

The smugglers were rounded up as part of a July 2016 police operation. The indictment includes 46 cases of trafficking migrants, largely Iraqis and Syrians. The refugees paid the traffickers to bring them from parts of the Evros river, which they crossed by boat before being brought to Thessaloniki in trucks with special hiding places.

Once they made it to Thessaloniki, they would wait in fields before being taken by taxi to the police station to be registered, Seleo reports. Once they had been registered, they were taken to Edonmei and onwards to Central Europe.

A further 23 people were acquitted. They were largely taxi drivers. One of the taxi drivers was convicted, as he was found to have played a significant role in the operation.

The War on Christmas

The War on Christianity naturally extends to all

things Christian, especially Christmas

The Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center is pictured during the lighting ceremony in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York, U.S. © Carlo Allegri / Reuters

While ostensibly a season of celebration and gift-giving, Christmas has found itself embroiled in number of controversies over its Christian character involving college campuses, figurines and the US president himself.

Though its roots can be traced back to midwinter festivities of pagan and Roman Europe, Christmas has been celebrated by Christians worldwide on December 25 (or January 7 if you are Orthodox) as the birthday of Jesus Christ. Recent decades, however, have seen the religious aspects of this holiday chipped away both by secularism and rampant consumerism, and some conservative commentators have declared there is a “War on Christmas.”

As yuletide draws nearer, RT looks back on a few of the controversies that have erupted over the past few weeks.

No Christmas on campus!

Santa Claus, Christmas trees, wrapping gifts and jingle bells are all regular fixtures of the season, but not, apparently, at the University of Minnesota, where a newsletter from the Dean this week informed students that “specific religious iconography” is “not appropriate for gatherings and displays at this time of year” and advised students to “consider neutral-themed parties such as a ‘winter celebration’” instead. Jewish symbols of Hanukkah such as dreidels were also listed as undesirable.

The U of M (@UMNews) shared this letter with some faculty and student employees this week The colors red & green, blue & white/silver are verboten during the "winter celebration" period. Images of Santa, wrapped gifts, and bells are also deemed "religious iconography." #BahHumbug

The handout also encouraged students to report any dissident decorating to the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action. However, university spokeswoman Emma Bauer told Fox News that the letter was a “conversation piece to facilitate dialogue at a voluntary, internal college event on respecting religious diversity in the workplace,” and not official college policy.

Of course, banning religion is hardly respecting religious diversity. 

Happy Holidays?

Among the self-proclaimed defenders of the Christmas tradition is US President Donald Trump, who has decried the role “political correctness” has had in dampening the festive spirit, and has made a point of saying “Merry Christmas” instead of the more neutral expression, “Happy Holidays,” favored by the Obamas.

“They don't use the word 'Christmas' because it's not politically correct,” he said in a speech in October. “We're saying 'Merry Christmas' again.”

True to his word, the Trump family’s Christmas card this year read “Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year,” and is signed by Melania Trump, her son Barron and the POTUS himself.

But there might be some discord in the First Family’s household as daughter Ivanka Trump tweeted “Happy Holidays!” on Tuesday, inadvertently inviting a wave of sarcasm. Ivanka is married to Jared Kushner, who is Jewish, and herself converted to Judaism in 2009.

While over half of Americans don’t mind whether they are greeted with a “Merry Christmas” or a “Happy Holidays,” according to a recent Pew survey, the latter can be deeply offensive to conservative Christians who consider it an attack on their beliefs.

Nativité? Non, merci

Across on the other side of the Atlantic, France’s fiercely secular tradition of "laïcité" forbids the expression or proselytizing of religion in many public places, leading to court rulings against local authorities putting up nativity scenes in their town halls. But earlier in December Laurent Wauquiez, the president of the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region and contender for the leadership of the right-wing Republicans party, found a way to get around the ban by claiming his nativity set-up was in fact a celebration of the work done by local artisans.

“Judges have banned us from displaying a nativity scene in the town hall and other public buildings,” Wauquiez said. “And so this year, we have organized an exhibit about the art of making santons [nativity figures].The aim is to put forward this extraordinary savoir-faire, and for people to find out more about how the traditional figurines are made.”

M Wauquiez’s “exhibit” was criticized by local left-wingers, who accused him of acting “like a child.”

No Christmas in the classroom!

Parents, officials and politicians alike complained to the Gribskolen primary school in Graested, Denmark, earlier this week after it chose to cancel the traditional Christmas service, in an effort not to exclude pupils from different religious backgrounds.

"We took the decision because we have children who are not Protestant,” Marianne Vederso Schmidt, the head of the school, wrote in an intranet posting earlier this month, adding that “it must be left to the individual families whether they want to privately attend a service.”

A group of 10 parents were the first to criticize the decision, which was quickly picked up by the national media.

“I don’t see why our tradition has to be taken away from us, just because someone else at the school believes in something else,” Mette Brüel-Holler, the mother of two enrolled daughters, told TV2. “I come from a small community, where the church is important, and these traditions are beautiful. I remember enjoying them myself as a child, and they are a fundamental part of Christmas.”

Some speculated that the move was made to avoid offending the sensibilities of Muslim students, and right-leaning politicians too weighed in on the argument. “We are a Christian country with our own traditions,” Marie Krarup of the Danish People's Party wrote on her Facebook. “We should not sacrifice this in the name of multiculturalism.”

However, the chairman of the School Leaders Association, Claus Hjortdal, has said that there is no rule saying that there must be a Christmas service at the end of term, and pointed out that many schools do not have one at all.

Christmas banned for real

In the past, Christmas celebrations have been banned by Puritan Christians in both England and America, as well as by communist regimes such as Cuba and Albania. These days an actual ban on festivities is only observed in a handful of mostly Muslim countries.

In 2015, Somali officials declared that public celebrations on Christmas have no place in a Muslim society, and may provoke an attack by militant group al-Shabaab. The few Christians remaining in the country, mostly foreigners, are allowed to practice their beliefs in private. Around the same time the sultanate of Brunei in Southeast Asia also outlawed Christmas, and anyone caught wearing a Santa hat there could face five years in jail.

The same year, the majority-Muslim but officially secular ex-Soviet republic of Tajikistan passed laws banning Christmas trees, gift-giving, dinners, fundraising and fireworks, having already banned Father Frost, the Russian version of Santa Claus, from TV screens in 2013. The measures apply to both Christmas time and New Year's, and are intended to guard Tajikistan’s cultural traditions from foreign influences.

Christmas is banned in communist North Korea, where the nation's Christians are forced to practice their beliefs in secret. In 2014, Pyongyang threatened to hit a Christmas tree erected on the South Korean border with an artillery strike.

Suicide Bombers Kill 8 in Attack on Pakistan Church

War on Christianity - Pakistan Style

Unlike civilized countries where the War on Christianity is fought in the courts and the media, in Pakistan, and many other Islamic countries, stupid people are wrapped in bombs and blow themselves up in Christian churches. They think they are heroes, but they will spend Eternity in Hell. 

John 16:2 -  Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God.

By ABDUL SATTAR / AP 

(QUETTA, Pakistan) — Two suicide bombers attacked a church in the Pakistani city of Quetta on Sunday, killing eight people and wounding 42 others, officials said. The Islamic State group later claimed responsibility for the attack.

Sarfaraz Bugti, home minister for the southwestern Baluchistan province, said hundreds of worshippers were attending services at the church ahead of Christmas. He said the attackers clashed with security forces, with one assailant killed at the entrance while the other made it inside.

Baluchistan police chief Moazzam Ansari praised the response of security forces guarding the church, saying the attacker who made it inside was wounded and unable to reach the main building. “Otherwise the loss of lives could have been much higher,” he told reporters.

Quetta police chief Abdur Razzaq Cheema said a search is underway for two suspected accomplices who escaped.

The Islamic State group later claimed responsibility for the attack on their Aamaq news agency, saying two “plungers” from their group had stormed the church, without providing further details.

Wasim Baig, spokesman for Quetta main hospital, confirmed the attack’s toll, updating earlier accounts from officials.

Local television showed ambulances and security patrols racing to the scene while women and children were being led out of the church’s main gate.

Hospital officials said two women were among the dead while another five women and two children were among the wounded.

A young girl in a white dress sobbed as she recounted the attack to Geo television, saying many people around her were wounded.

Aqil Anjum, who was shot in his right arm, told The Associated Press he heard a blast in the middle of the service, followed by heavy gunfire. “It was chaos. Bullets were hitting people inside the closed hall.”

Dozens of Christians gathered outside a nearby hospital to protest the lack of security.

Pakistan’s president and other senior officials condemned the attack.

Peru's President Kuczynski Refuses to Resign over Corruption Allegations

Corruption is Everywhere - Certainly in Peru

Lawmakers said they have documents that prove Kuczynski was paid $780,000 from Odebrecht while he was a government minister

By Susan McFarland 

President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski of Peru looks on during a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House. Lawmakers on Thursday have called for Kuczynski to step down for his connection with a corruption probe but he refused to resign, denying the allegations. Pool Photo by Olivier Douliery/UPI | License Photo

See also:
Peru's Ex-President Toledo Denies Taking $20M in Bribes

UPI -- Despite lawmakers calling President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski to step down for his connection with a corruption probe, he refused to resign on Thursday.

Lawmakers said documents received from Brazil-based Odebrecht prove that before Kuczynski became president, from 2004 to 2007 the company paid $780,000 to a financial-consulting business set up by Kuczynski, the company's sole director.

Kuczynski denies any contact with Odebrecht and refutes claims that he received money from the company while he was a government minister. The president also said he would allow investigators to examine his bank accounts.

During a video statement Thursday, Kuczynski acknowledged owning the company, Westfield Capital, but said a business partner dealt with Odebrecht contracts during that time.

"I'm not going to abdicate my honor, my values or my responsibilities as president of all Peruvians," Kuczynski said. "I won't run. I won't hide. I have no reason to do so."

In a plea deal with the United States Justice Department last year, Odebrecht acknowledged it paid nearly $800 million in bribes to secure infrastructure contracts, including $29 million to Peru during 2005 to 2014. The company was fined $2.6 billion over its role in the scandal.

Lawmakers from the Popular Force party said Kuczynski should immediately step aside; the Broad Front party said Congress should force the president out.

Dead Billionaire Being Sued for Pharmaceutical Price-Fixing and Other Stuff

Canadian billionaire couple die in suspicious way, bodies found ‘hanging side by side next to pool'

Honey and Barry Sherman © Reuters

The owner of the Canadian pharmaceutical giant Apotex, Barry Sherman, and his wife were found dead at their home under suspicious circumstances. Reports say their bodies were “hanging side by side” next to their pool.

The bodies of Bernard Sherman, 75, also known as Barry, and his wife, Honey, 70, were found around Friday noon in their mansion in the North York district of Toronto by the police, who arrived in answer to a 911 call.

Police did not say who made the call, while the National Post reported that the bodies were initially discovered by a real estate agent, who came to the couple’s luxury mansion, which is currently up for sale.

The paper also said that the bodies were “found hanging side by side next to their indoor pool,” something that other Canadian outlets later repeated, citing police sources. Local media also said police were looking into whether it was a murder-suicide.

Meanwhile, none of these facts have been confirmed by police, who have remained tight-lipped about the case. A police detective, Brandon Price, described the deaths only as “suspicious.”

However, he also said that the police are not treating the case as homicide. The detective added that the police were still trying to “determine if there is foul play involved or not,” as reported by CBC. Later on Friday, police also issued a statement, in which it particularly pointed out that they are not looking for any suspect.

Police also said that there appeared to be no “forced entry” or any intrusion into the couple’s house. “Forensics need to be done and post-mortems on the bodies, but at this stage it appears there was no forced entry and no evidence of anybody else in the house,” a police source told the National Post.

Sherman was a successful businessman and one of the richest people in Canada. His wealth amounted to about $3 billion, according to Forbes magazine, which lists Sherman as the 12th richest Canadian businessman.

Apotex, which was founded and owned by Sherman, is one of the world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies. It sells 260 types of generic drugs in more than 115 countries, while its medicines are used to fill over 89 million prescriptions a year in Canada alone, Forbes reports, adding that the company’s revenues account for $ 1.5 billion. It also produces non-prescription drugs, disposable plastics and fine chemicals for medical use.

Sherman had the image of someone with a happy family life. He and his wife recently welcomed a new grandchild, according to the Canadian Globe and Mail. The couple also had four children. The family was also known for its philanthropy.

The Shermans made numerous multimillion-dollar donations to hospitals, schools and charities and had buildings named in their honor. They also had close ties to the Jewish community as they donated roughly $50 million to the United Jewish Appeal - a Jewish philanthropic umbrella organization that later changed its name to the Jewish Federations of North America.

However, Sherman was also involved in several scandals. In October, his company Apotex was hit with a lawsuit filed by 45 US states and the District of Columbia. The states’ attorneys accused Apotex, along with 17 other companies and their subsidiaries, of price-fixing.

The states said the companies divided customers for their drugs among themselves, agreeing that each company would have a certain percentage of the market. The companies also agreed on price increases in advance, the states added. The price of such drugs as doxycycline hyclate skyrocketed from $20 to $1,849 in less than in a year in 2014. A total of 15 medicines were listed in the lawsuit.

For years, the family has been plagued by another scandal. In 2007, three of his cousins and the widow of the fourth filed a lawsuit against Sherman arguing that he owed them $1 billion in damages and a 20 percent stake in Apotex. Sherman acquired the company named Empire Laboratories – the predecessor of Apotex – from his uncle after the death of the latter. His uncle’s children then claimed that he should have paid them royalties over a 15-year period as well as give them a right to obtain employment through the company and a 5 percent stake in its shares.

The initial cousins’ lawsuit was dismissed by a court in 2015. It was, however, reinstated in 2016 but, in September, an Ontario court once again ruled in favor of Sherman and his cousins then appealed the decision.

Has Our Government Spent $21 Trillion Of Our Money Without Telling Us?

Curious, confusing numbers, but they are your tax dollars

Laurence Kotlikoff , CONTRIBUTOR

Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

I am co-authoring this column with Mark Skidmore, a Professor of Economics at Michigan State University. 

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.” ~ Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, The US Constitution

On July 26, 2016, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a report “Army General Fund Adjustments Not Adequately Documented or Supported”.  

The report indicates that for fiscal year 2015 the Army failed to provide adequate support for $6.5 trillion in journal voucher adjustments.  According to the GAO's Comptroller General, "Journal vouchers are summary-level accounting adjustments made when balances between systems cannot be reconciled. Often these journal vouchers are unsupported, meaning they lack supporting documentation to justify the adjustment or are not tied to specific accounting transactions…. For an auditor, journal vouchers are a red flag for transactions not being captured, reported, or summarized correctly."

(Note, after Mark Skidmore began inquiring about OIG-reported unsubstantiated adjustments, the OIG's webpage, which  documented, albeit in a highly incomplete manner, these unsupported "accounting adjustments,"  was mysteriously taken down. Fortunately, Mark copied the July 2016 report and all other relevant OIG-reports in advance and reposted them here. Mark has repeatedly tried to contact Lorin Venable, Assistant Inspector General at the Office of the Inspector General.  He has emailed, phoned, and used LinkedIn to ask Ms. Venable about OIG's disclosure of unsubstantiated adjustments, but she has not responded.)

Given that the entire Army budget in fiscal year 2015 was $120 billion, unsupported adjustments were 54 times the level of spending authorized by Congress.  

The July 2016 report indicates that unsupported adjustments are the result of the Defense Department's "failure to correct system deficiencies." The result, according to the report, is that data used to prepare the year-­end financial statements were unreliable and lacked an adequate audit trail. The report indicates that just 170 transactions accounted for $2.1 trillion in year—end unsupported adjustments.  No information is given about these 170 transactions. 

(That averages out to more than $12 billion per transaction). That's a lot of money to not be accounted for - 170 times in one year, or every second day). And that's only one-third of the unaccounted for money.

In addition many thousands of transactions with unsubstantiated adjustments  were, according to the report, removed by the Army. There is no explanation concerning why they were removed nor their magnitude. The July 2016 report states, "In addition, DFAS (Defense Finance and Accounting Service) Indianapolis personnel did not document or support why DDRS (The Defense Department Reporting System) removed at least 16,513 of 1.3 million feeder file records during the Third Quarter."

An appendix to the July 2016 report shows $2 trillion in changes to the Army General Fund balance sheet due to unsupported adjustments. On the asset side, there is $794 billion increase in the Army's Fund Balance with the U.S. Treasury.  There is also an increase of $929 billion in the Army's Accounts Payable. This information raises additional major questions. 

First, what is the source of the additional $794 billion in the Army's Fund Balance? This adjustment represents more than six times appropriated spending.  

Second, do these transfers represent a flow of funds to the Army beyond those authorized by Congress? 

Third, were these funds authorized and if so when and by whom? 

Fourth, what is the source of these funds? 

Finally, the $929 billion in Accounts Payable appears to represent an amount owed for items or services purchased on credit. 

What entities have received or will receive payment?

This unfortunate article fails to explain its title; $21 trillion is never mentioned again. Something was either edited out or they dropped a decimal from the title. But considering these numbers relate only to the Army, - Air Force, Navy, Marines, etc, etc are not included. Total defense expenditures are about $600 billion dollars according to various studies. But that number is barely a quarter of the Army's actual expenditures. Is the $21 trillion an estimate of unaccounted expenditures of all branches of the military/defense?

My next question is: Why does Congress not appear to be the least bit interested in where $21 trillion per year is going, or coming from, for that matter?

Obviously it is inevitably coming from taxpayers. There are about 122 million payers of US federal taxes, which means it costs each of those taxpayers more than $172,000. That's a lot of money, more than most Americans make, so there is a problem here. We know that many wealthy Americans pay little or no taxes so that calls into question the veracity of this article.

Even if there is just $6.5 trillion unaccounted for, that's still $60,000 per tax payer. 

I think there is a lot of 'slpainin to do here Lucy.