Perhaps the Inspector is too busy fighting all manner of crime and thus lacks the necessary time to browse through a dictionary once in a while

It's really is only the denizens of internet chat rooms and message boards who have the time to browse dictionaries.

though hardly surprising. There are government agencies that perform the actual investigations, and the legislature's main job should be to provide encouragement for success. Personally, I believe quiet praise, and financial rewards for prevention* rather than prosecution should be the norm, but apparently the chance for attention, fame even, inspires investigators more than a temporary bonus, or even a raise.But that's human nature for ya . . .
    While there's always been fraud in wartime- I believe there were prosecutions even for the War of Independence- keeping it as low as possible seems even more important today then ever. Napoleon's comment that armies march on their stomachs seems to have changed to "armies march on their wallets" in the 20th century. (Not that war was ever cheap, mind you.) In a better world, defrauding your army would be treated on par with cowardice in battle, or even treason, in public perception, but alas that doesn't seem to be the case; my sense is that folks think of it as just another type of white collar crime, though anyone can feel free to disagree. The Cunningham conviction seemed to sink out of sight very, very quickly, IMO, for as serious as it was, and that would be my guess as to why.

    *Think about it-- should police departments not also get funding hikes because of falling crime rates? This leads to a big can of worms in practice, but under the current system (giving money when crime rates go up) provides a perverse incentive for police to make things out as worse than they are.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

"there's nothing to be gained politically by keeping problems from happening"

Really? You see how safe America has been since we passed the Patriot Act over the objections of the Democrat Party who keep trying to weaken it? We've been able to keep America safe, but along the way we've learned a lot. That's why we've proposed The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 to give law enforcement the tools they need to continue keeping America safe. 9/11. Bin Ladin. 9/11.

Encouraging whistleblowers sounds great in a press release, but it's rare in practice. Check wikipedia's entry on famous whistleblowers, you'll note how many of these honorable people who tried to do the right thing were pilloried, fired, and had their careers ruined. For the extreme example, read the entry for Karen Silkwood.

On the other hand, we are at war. Surely pointing out corruption that saps the war effort is a patriotic act, one that would be welcomed by the Department of Defense. When even minor graft can cost American Soldiers their lives, surely it's in the government's best interest to make sure that people feel safe to report instances of corruption. After all, we're all in this together, right? Wrong. George W. Bush has gone out of his way to remove protections for whistleblowers, even going so far as to threaten a veto of Whistleblower Protection Act of 2007, just to make sure no one ever finds out about the dirty little secrets at the heart of the war.

-=Logan
Research, facts, a Republican needs not these things.