Evading Oversight

by hilzoy

Via Kevin Drum and the Carpetbagger Report, an article in the WSJ (sorry, subscription wall):

"The Senate last week approved $109 billion in additional spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including $1.5 billion in added Iraq reconstruction money. The administration has spent $20.9 billion to reconstruct Iraq's infrastructure and modernize its oil industry, but the effort hasn't restored the country's electricity output, water supply or sewage capabilities to prewar levels.

A behind-the-scenes battle among legislators has made a crucial distinction between the new reconstruction money and that already spent: The new funds won't be overseen by the government watchdog charged with curbing the mismanagement that has overshadowed the reconstruction.

The administration's main vehicle for rebuilding Iraq has, in the past, been designated "Relief and Reconstruction" funds, which by law are overseen by a special inspector general, Stuart Bowen. The new money going toward similar reconstruction goals will be classified as coming from "Foreign Operations" accounts. The State Department is responsible for spending both pools of money.

By law, Mr. Bowen can oversee only relief and reconstruction funds. Because the new money technically comes from a different source, Mr. Bowen, who has 55 auditors on the ground in Iraq, will be barred from overseeing how the new money is spent. Instead, the funds will be overseen by the State Department's inspector general office, which has a much smaller staff in Iraq and warned in testimony to Congress in the fall that it lacked the resources to continue oversight activities in Iraq.

Exactly how and why the change was made isn't clear. Republican Appropriations Committee aides say legislators shifted the Iraq money to the foreign operations accounts at the request of the White House, not to curb oversight. They say administration officials sought the change to streamline accounting so the Iraq reconstruction would be incorporated into the State Department's operations and budget rather than kept in stand-alone accounts. (...)

A fight in Congress over the money flared in the final hours before the spending bill was approved, when a group of senators wrote an amendment that would have given Mr. Bowen oversight responsibility for the new money.

What happened next is a matter of dispute. The measure's sponsors say they asked Republican Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, to allow the measure to be brought to a vote but were turned down. Mr. Cochran denies receiving such a request and says the amendment's sponsors could have formally introduced the measure but chose not to, according to his spokeswoman, Margaret Wicker.

The bill passed the Senate without the amendment. As the House version of the spending bill makes the State Department inspector general responsible for the new money, it is likely the funds ultimately will be treated that way. "This is nothing more than a transparent attempt to shut down the only effective oversight of this massive reconstruction program which has been plagued by mismanagement and fraud," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D., Vermont)."

Some background on Bowen (from the WSJ again):

"Mr. Bowen is a Texas lawyer who parlayed a job on George W. Bush's first gubernatorial campaign into senior posts in Austin and Washington. He began the Iraq war lobbying for an American contractor seeking tens of millions of dollars in reconstruction work. Last October, California Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman singled him out in a report on "The Politicization of Inspectors General" in the Bush administration. The report suggested that such auditors wouldn't be "independent and objective."

Instead, Mr. Bowen has become one of the most prominent and credible critics of how the administration has handled the occupation of Iraq. In a series of blistering public reports, he has detailed systemic management failings, lax or nonexistent oversight, and apparent fraud and embezzlement on the part of the U.S. officials charged with administering the rebuilding efforts."

So, to recap: Bush appoints someone from his campaign to an important job: auditing Iraq reconstruction funds. That person turns out to be surprisingly independent, and discovers a lot of fraud. I discussed one of his reports earlier; here's a summary of what it found:

"A new audit of American financial practices in Iraq has uncovered irregularities including millions of reconstruction dollars stuffed casually into footlockers and filing cabinets, an American soldier in the Philippines who gambled away cash belonging to Iraq, and three Iraqis who plunged to their deaths in a rebuilt hospital elevator that had been improperly certified as safe."

Our government's response? Recategorize Iraqi reconstruction funds so that he doesn't get to audit them anymore. Opponents try to introduce an amendment that would prevent this; it vanishes under suspicious circumstances. Result: no more of those inconvenient reports about what this administration is doing with our money.

Which brings us to the question of investigations.

For about a week now, I can't turn on my TV set or open a newspaper without finding some pundit or other telling me, in the usual sorrowful tones, how dreadful it is that Democrats plan to hold hearings to investigate things if they take over the Congress. Oh no, they say in their usual unctuous way: if Democrats hold hearings, they will seem partisan and vindictive. And we can't have partisanship in Washington DC! It would probably give that nice Richard Cohen an aneurism; and we can't have that!

Nonsense. Hearings have been going on in Washington forever. Most of them are not partisan and vindictive at all; they involve looking into things like the effectiveness of this or that regulation, or whether some program would achieve its desired results. Hearings are a very good thing: they are the means by which Congress exercises oversight over the executive branch, and informs itself on topics it needs to know about.

Some hearings are, of course, purely partisan and vindictive. For instance:

"Back in the mid-1990s, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, aggressively delving into alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration, logged 140 hours of sworn testimony into whether former president Bill Clinton had used the White House Christmas card list to identify potential Democratic donors."

Who can forget the endless hearings into faux scandals that went nowhere: Whitewater, Filegate, Travel Office-gate, and so on and so forth, or the time Rep. Dan Burton shot a pumpkin in his backyard in an attempt to reenact the alleged murder of Vince Foster? And who would want to repeat them?

Not me. But I think it's wildly implausible to think that the Democrats would do anything of the kind. This is, much to my annoyance, the same Democratic party whose leadership seems to think that criticizing a flagrant violation of law and the Constitution will make them seem 'weak on security'; who rush to Bush's defense when his own party is cutting him loose; who couldn't even bring themselves to make an issue of Abu Ghraib in the last presidential election. The idea that these timorous souls will somehow turn into ravening beasts if they take over one house of Congress is risible.

It's much more likely that they will hold hearings only on issues that they think will be clearly in their favor. Given their horror of seeming partisan, this probably means: issues in which there is clear and compelling evidence of wrongdoing, and where the wrongdoing in question is not hard to understand, the way some people might think the NSA scandal is, but easy to understand. Wrongdoing like this:

"Agents from the inspector general's office found that the living and working quarters of American occupation officials were awash in shrink-wrapped stacks of $100 bills, colloquially known as bricks.

One official kept $2 million in a bathroom safe, another more than half a million dollars in an unlocked footlocker. One contractor received more than $100,000 to completely refurbish an Olympic pool but only polished the pumps; even so, local American officials certified the work as completed. More than 2,000 contracts ranging in value from a few thousand dollars to more than half a million, some $88 million in all, were examined by agents from the inspector general's office. The report says that in some cases the agents found clear indications of potential fraud and that investigations into those cases are continuing.

Some of those cases are expected to intersect with the investigations of four Americans who have been arrested on bribery, theft, weapons and conspiracy charges for what federal prosecutors say was a scheme to steer reconstruction projects to an American contractor working out of the southern city of Hilla, which served as a kind of provincial capital for a vast swath of Iraq under the Coalition Provisional Authority. (...)

"It does not surprise me at all," said a Defense Department official who worked in Hilla and other parts of the country, who spoke anonymously because he said he feared retribution from the Bush administration. He predicted that similar problems would turn up in the major southern city of Basra and elsewhere in the dangerous desert wasteland of Anbar province. "It's a disaster," the official said of problems with contracting in Anbar."

This is exactly what we should want hearings to focus on: cases in which there is clear evidence of wrongdoing, corruption, or incompetence. In a normal world, the Congress would be holding these hearings already. But the Republicans in Congress have proven unwilling to investigate almost anything. We have not yet had the hearings they promised into the misuse of intelligence in the runup to the Iraq war, and if the current maneuverings are any indication, as long as the Republicans are in control of both houses of Congress, we will never have hearings into Iraqi reconstruction spending.

No organization works well when it can do whatever it wants with impunity. By abdicating its responsibility for oversight, the Republicans in Congress have not done either the country or the administration any favors. The idea that Democrats might actually try investigating something for a change should make us all jump for joy. And 'all' includes Republicans, who should not want their party to cover up for criminals.

Comments

[Ugh]

Opponents try to introduce an amendment that would prevent this; it vanishes under suspicious circumstances. Result: no more of those inconvenient reports about what this administration is doing with our money.

I wouldn't be so sure about that last part. I don't know if State's IG issues public reports, but I have it on good authority ( very good authority), that State's current IG has an issue with spending money period, much less wastefully spending money. So, the only obstacle to him being able to conduct effective oversight is his budget, which, alas, may be insurmountable.

Not that oversight should have been taken away from Bowen, mind you, just that it might be a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire.

[Ugh]

Of course, his aversion to spending money may lead him to not spend money on Iraq oversight, and so down the rabbit's hole it goes. Though if it's budgeted for that purpose I imagine it'll get spent (and wisely if the IG has any say).

[cleek]

oh, sheesh. all administrations do this. it's precisely why conservatives distrust government in all its forms and never stop working to lessen its power, reach and budget. that's why real conservatives have been working so hard to defend Bush: he's the antithesis of government corruption, nepotism and machine politics. he's a rugged individualist cowboy.

whew. did i get that right ?

[CaseyL]

Oh, I get a major kick out of conservative justifications of Bushist kleptocracy. It's almost a tautology:

1. Taxes are evil because they penalize financial success.
2. The government can't do anything right.
3. Therefore, the best thing to do with taxpayer dollars is NOT to spend it on programs for the needy, the dispossessed, the storm-shaken, or soldiers' benefits.
4. Instead, the best thing to do with taxpayer dollars is give them back to your friends and relatives in the private sector -
5. - because, since your friends and relatives are the wealthiest people in the country, most of those taxpayer dollars belong to them, anyway.

Voila!

[hilzoy]

cleek: downright eerie ;)

[Steve]

hilzoy prompts me to note the most outrageous thing I have read in quite some time (even by Powerline standards):

JOHN adds: Actually, I think the theory that the Bush administration was somehow behind the September 11 attacks is going mainstream. I think that, with increasing frequency, we'll see that claim reported non-judgmentally in the mainstream media. It wouldn't surprise me if, in a few years, a great many Americans believe that the administration was complicit in the attacks--God knows how or why--just as, today, many millions of Americans are irrationally convinced that some government agency was behind the Kennedy assassination. If the Democrats take control of either branch of Congress in November, I think it's entirely possible that we'll have committee hearings on this "issue."

That's right, Time Magazine's Blog of the Year says that if the Democrats win back either branch of Congress, it's "entirely possible" they will hold hearings on whether Bush planned 9/11. Seriously, I know things are looking tough for the GOP, but can't these people just stick to claiming Democrats will ban the Bible?

[cleek]

anyone know if Time has revisited their honorees to see how they're doing, what they're up to, what kind of insights they're onto these days?

it'd be nice if Time could print a few passages from their Chosen Ones to highlight just what it is they do, day to day. Steve's quote above would be ... informative.

[bleh]

If it weren't for your moonbat Bush-hatred, you would realize that all these Democrat investigations are undermining the Nation in a Time of War and distracting the Commander in Chief from facin' down th' axis o' evil.

(Cue wind machine and wailing harmonica.)

And very much on topic, has anyone else read the story at Kos that NSA has refused clearances to DOJ OPR lawyers who were investigating the role of other DOJ lawyers in the NSA spying scandal? No clearances, no investigation. How conveeeenient.

Core principle of conservative governance: IOKIYAR.

[John Thullen]

I nearly did a postus interruptus to point out that Bowen is a down-home, stalwart Republican, but luckily read on and Hilzoy, natch, nailed it.

See, Bush and company are something else. What are they? Who are they? (as the Wall Street Journal editorial page asked constantly of EVERYONE in the Clinton White House). Are they Americans?

Steve: I'll give the idiots this. Figuring out who Osama Bin Laden's paymasters are and were will be a study in ominous ambiguity. I mean, how is it that identical rhetoric issues from the mouths of Ann Coulter AND the cave-dweller?

Yeah, folks get to keep the Bibles.

I'm trying to decide whether Oliver Stone or DaveC. (if I can crash the gated neighborhood) gets to write the script for the movie.

Maybe a joint effort.

[John Thullen]

Sorry, forgot to add:

McManus, like Merlin, knows the answers to the questions "What are they?" and Who are they?"

I'm just the opening act. Seriously. -:-

Bob?

[Frank]

OT to bleh I just read your 6:49 pm comment in the top post at Digby's and I have to say very good point. I recommend the Digby post as well as the diary but I thought bleh's posts were the stand out response.

[Pooh]

(Cue wind machine and wailing harmonica.)

Much of what goes on these days would make for a perfect stop-time blues song (Think "Mannish Boy" or "Bad to the Bone")

[Francis]

does anyone besides me just get sad at hearing this, or is it the red wine talking?

for yahweh's sake, are there any limits on the corruption this administration will tolerate [encourage?]?

[bob mcmanus]

"McManus, like Merlin, knows the answers to the questions "What are they?" and Who are they?""

Bourbons

Kevin Phillips hinted;Michael Lind misdirects. The answer lies with Prescott, of course, before the war. Just a hint:Anyone seen "The Boys from Brazil?"
But it is not what you are thinking. Study Franklin Pierce, Bab's ancestor. Go see or read the "Da Vinci Code" Ask yourself what secret Brown was trying to cover up by planting such ideas. Where are the missing Templars? The lost tribes of Israel? Who really paid for the DNA mapping? Meaningless extra sequences, sure, right.

Has anyone done numerical analysis of Bush's speeches? The hump, the hump, has anyone seen out President shirtless? I can say no more.

[French Swede the Rootless Vegetable]

...hearings to focus on cases in which there is clear evidence of wrongdoing, corruption, or incompetence...

That might not be enough.

They might very well berlusconise the whole thing:

It is difficult to exaggerate the degree of popular support for the investigations of public corruption that took place in 1994 when Berlusconi first "entered the playing field." The magistrates who conducted the investigations were highly trusted; and Antonio Di Pietro, the most prominent of the prosecutors, was literally the most popular person in the country—far more so than Berlusconi himself. [...] In order to reverse the seemingly irresistible momentum of the corruption investigation, Berlusconi conducted an all-out attack against the judges of Milan and Palermo that changed the Italian political landscape even more radically [...]

From The New York Review of Books: The Berlusconi Show
Excellent sum-up of the the Berlusconi saga. Definitely a must-read.

Of course, the major question is if what occured in Italy is possible in the US.

There are many arguments against, how the US isn't as politically dysfunctional, but I don't think it should be taken as granted that they would neither try nor succeed with it.
I hope that all those scandals (that seem worse in both magnitude and calibre than everything all together since the Civil War) are like a magma conduct obstructed by a mountain of spin and obfuscation, waiting to explode like the Krakatoa.
In a normal administration it would... in a normal one...

[John Thullen]

Well, I had to ask.

[Donald Johnson]

Just to add to Bob's points, I've spent the morning trying to decipher messages in the clouds, as usual, but all I see is this uniform gray overcast. No discernable information content at all.

Damn Republican censorship.

[Charles Bird]

One more reason why Bush is at 31%. Jeez.

It would be implausible if Democrat-led hearings were not partisan and vindictive, even purely so. It happened before, it'll happen again.

[hilzoy]

CHarles: I truly meant what I said about the Democrats. A party that thinks it can't talk too loudly about the violation of law that is the NSA program, or about Abu Ghraib, is not a party you need to fear. I really think they will pick their targets carefully, for maximal chance of extremely obvious (and easy-to-understand) malfeasance. And cracking down on obvious malfeasance is an unqualified good.

[dmbeaster]

One more reason why Bush is at 31%. Jeez.

It would be implausible if Democrat-led hearings were not partisan and vindictive, even purely so. It happened before, it'll happen again.

I thought that as leader of the Party of Ideas, Bush was doing poorly because he was not The Great Communicator, as opposed to, you know, the ideas sucking.

If you have great ideas, you do not fear oversight nor even partisan reviews of your policies. You welcome them -- funny how the Party of Ideas thinks its so frightful that Democrats might have the opportunity to shine the spotlight on their record. Maybe that's because the Ideas suck, and they fear oversight.

As for Democratic led hearings being partisan and vindictive; let's look at the Republican record to date concerning questions of oversight (both Clinton era when Repubs were doing the oversight and recently when Democrats tried to get some oversight of Bush). Oh, that's right -- extremely partisan and vindictive.

So yes, the Republican party will do all that it can to turn Democratic oversight hearings into something partisan and vindictive. Anything to avoid actual reasoned scrutiny of their Ideas.

[bob mcmanus]

"...is not a party you need to fear."

To the great shame of the nation and pending the judgement of history, hilzoy is correct. Charles Bird and Rumsfeld and Bush have nothing to fear from the leadership of the Democratic party. And very little to fear from its base.

"Sorrow and the Pity" ...the sequel. Probably made in Europe in a decade, by refugees.

Don't bait me, Thullen, I am so far beyond civility you wouldn't believe it.

[John Thullen]

Bob:

My weak little parodies are merely cover for increasing incivility on my part. When they don't seem effective at pointing to what I think is the truth, I think to myself "Who could explain this better?", and invariably I think of you.

Let's say we both wish to strangle Ann Coulter with our bare hands (not that you do, but bear with me). I want Ann to wonder right up until the moment of blacking out from strangulation: "It's odd, but when that clown was standing over there saying he wanted to strangle me with his bare hands, I thought it was kind of funny, but now he is strangling me and he's still laughing. What gives?"

Then I refer her over to you to explain the precise reason why her windpipe doesn't seem to be functioning.

As usual when I attempt to clear the waters, I muddy them, probably.