Knight-Rider breaks the story that the Pentagon withdrew the agency responsible for insuring accountability in Iraq, over a year ago, and hasn't bothered to replace it. After all, the U.S. has unlimited funds to spend on illegal and immoral wars. Who cares if $142 billion is audited or not? Petty change, right?
Agency charged with spending oversight in Iraq left country in '04
The chief Pentagon agency in charge of investigating and reporting fraud and waste in Defense Department spending in Iraq quietly pulled out of the war zone a year ago - leaving what experts say are gaps in the oversight of how more than $140 billion is being spent.
The Defense Department's inspector general sent auditors into Iraq when the war started more than two years ago to ensure that taxpayers were getting their money's worth for everything from bullets to meals-ready-to-eat.
The auditors were withdrawn in the fall of 2004 because other agencies were watching spending, too. But experts say those other agencies don't have the expertise, access and broad mandate that the inspector general has - and don't make their reports public.
That means that the bulk of money being spent in Iraq doesn't get public scrutiny, leaving the door open for possible waste, fraud and abuse, experts say...the Defense Department inspector general, whose responsibility includes reviewing the $142 billion earmarked for the military, doesn't have a single auditor or accountant in Iraq tracking spending, Knight Ridder has found.
Of course, everyone isn't so glib:
“Our Iraq presence isn't going away; the only thing going away is the people watching how the money is being spent,” said Keith Ashdown, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “If you don't have anyone watching it, the precedent is that the money will be wasted.”Lynch said the Defense Contract Audit Agency - an internal group of auditors in the Defense Department - has issued 622 reports, questioning costs and referring some cases for investigation of possible fraud. But nearly all those reports are classified. Most inspector general reports are public.
In addition, there's a big difference between the inspector general's office, which looks for broad issues and fraud, and the Defense Contract Audit Agency, which looks narrowly at specific pricing and contracting issues, experts said.
The inspector general is required to make sure that programs and equipment work properly, such as the quality and existence of armor for vehicles, said former Defense Department Inspector General Eleanor Hill.
“In terms of taxpayer dollars, in terms of efficiency of running the operation, IG audits can do all sorts of things,” Hill said. “They shouldn't be absent in terms of oversight.”
Others agree.
“The IG is probably the best-equipped office to look at the broad range of problems and possible misconduct that will arise in Iraq,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight. “It's really hard to fathom how the IG could have thought how it wasn't worth having his people on the ground in Iraq scrutinizing the situation
Link from Cursor
Tags: corruption, /Impeachment, /Iraq
