An obscure provision in a huge military authorization bill(H.R.5122) that President George W. Bush recently signed terminates the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.
The clause has generated surprise and some outrage among lawmakers who say they had no idea it was in the final legislation.
The federal oversight agency, led by Republican lawyer Stuart W. Bowen Jr., has sent U.S. officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed disastrously poor construction work by well-connected companies like Cheneys Halliburton Co. and Parsons Iraq Joint Venture, and discovered that the military did not properly track hundreds of thousands of weapons it shipped to Iraqi security forces.
Whats the benefit from disbanding the last office charged with exposing corruption in Iraq?
2006-11-11 19:18:17 · 3 answers · asked by big-brother 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
this is payback for all the fat cats who are connected to bush/cheney...yet ANOTHER reason it's good that the repubs have been knocked off their perch...they passed it...now, some of them (who voted for it) are hopping mad...it seems they were for it before they were against it...or against it before they were for it...or just ticked off that they got caught building a privacy fence around the cookie jar they had opened for their finincial backers...
2006-11-11 23:24:41 · answer #1 · answered by spike missing debra m 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Covering up corruption is the only reason why this agency was terminated by recent legislation signed by Bush.
Bottles is totally misinformed. The provision which axed the oversight agency was slipped into the final version of the bill by a loyal Republican staff member. Few legislators knew of it.
A sign that voters made the right choice on Tuesday:
"Democrats Aim to Save Inquiry on Work in Iraq "
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/12/washington/12oversight.html
2006-11-12 03:30:17 · answer #2 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I sincerely doubt that 'lawmakers/ Lawyers had no idea it was in the final legislation. Lawyers read EVERYTHING before they sign it. And if any of them did sign, before reading the final legislation, then that's an incredibly stupid thing to do.
2006-11-12 03:26:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋