An ‘undeclared war’ on Stuart Bowen

The ultra-conservative Washington Times reports today on one of the rare Bush-appointed heroes in Iraq — and why the administration is doing whatever it can to undermine him.

There is a battle going on between Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction (SIGIR), and bureaucrats responsible for thousands of rebuilding contracts in Iraq.

But it’s an undeclared war. As is his mission, Mr. Bowen simply puts out a series of reports detailing failings in the reconstruction effort. The bureaucrats, who don’t dare publicly speak against an IG who has wide support in Congress, fire back by issuing a stream of press releases recounting accomplishments in Iraq.

Privately, Bush administration officials tell us that Mr. Bowen’s quarterly reports and audits are too negative and that he glosses over what they have been able to achieve in the face of an extremist enemy who will kill anyone, at any time, to stop a project.

When the Times refers to “bureaucrats” who are at war with Bowen, they’re referring to Bush administration officials who wish Bowen was never tapped for the job in the first place.

But he was. In fact, if you haven’t already heard the background, it’s an interesting story.

The president chose Bowen to lead the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction in January 2004. At the time, it seemed like a typical set-up job for the Bush gang: the president needed to respond to criticism about corruption and mismanagement, but instead of asking an independent voice to begin serious oversight, Bush chose Bowen, a loyal friend, senior member of Bush’s gubernatorial campaign team in 1994, a Bush attorney during the Florida recount debacle in 2000, and an associate counsel in Bush’s White House. For Dems hoping for a strong, independent voice to exercise real oversight of Iraqi reconstruction, Bowen’s resume offered little encouragement.

But Bowen surprised everyone — including, presumably, the White House. Bowen has not only taken his job as inspector general seriously, he’s been the leading figure in exposing fraud and corruption in Iraq. The Wall Street Journal reported in July that Bowen “has become one of the most prominent and credible critics of how the administration has handled the occupation of Iraq,” and considering his record, it’s a more-than-fair description. The guy even took on Halliburton.

Today’s article in the Times said Bowen has “wide support in Congress,” but that’s not quite the whole story. Congressional Republicans, taking marching orders from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, quietly made it easier to circumvent Bowen and his tenacious efforts by putting new Iraq spending where Bowen couldn’t see it.

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.

When the secret change that allows more corruption came to light, everyone naturally asked how and why this measure was included in the Pentagon spending bill. In fact, the WSJ reported that a group of senators, upon learning about the provision that would circumvent Bowen, offered an amendment that would have kept his oversight duties in place. For reasons that are not altogether clear, sponsors of the amendment were denied the chance to bring their measure to the floor for a vote.

So, who wanted the change? Who else? “Republican Appropriations Committee aides say legislators shifted the Iraq money to the foreign operations accounts at the request of the White House,” the WSJ reported.

As Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) put it at the time, “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.”

And now we hear that administration officials have “an undeclared war” going on against Bowen. I know who I hope wins.

“The president chose Bowen to lead the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction in January 200.”

Wow! That long ago. I didn’t even know Bush was in office at the turn of the 3rd century AD. 😉

This is a horrible example of the other side of the Republican’t coin. Any Bushite shown to actually be competent has to be undermined by all the incompetent for the benefit of the corrupt. After all, Bowen is costing Dick Cheney stock option money, and that republiCAN’T be allowed.

  • The fact that it’s a shock that someone in the Bush Administration takes his job seriously and does it competently really sums up this administration in a nutshell. The fact that this competent public servant then find himself under all-out attack for doing his job shows just how evil this gang really is. Incompetence isn’t occuring by accident, it’s happening by design and there is hell to pay for anyone who does their work with any virtue whatsoever. I’d be happy if Grover Norquist would drown this government in the bathtub. It deserves it.

  • CB, it’s no fun if you don’t admit to the correction 🙁

    I’d be happy if Grover Norquist would drown the Bushites. Unfortunately, he wants to target the real Government, like the people I work with to keep America safe.

  • I’m afraid I don’t get the Bush Administration’s strategy to smear Bowen. Bowen reports fraud and waste in reconstruction efforts. The Bush Administration replies: “Yeah, but we supplied water to 60,000 people last month.” That doesn’t address the fact the project could have been completed at less cost to the U.S., in less time, and with resources to complete another project.

    Frankly, I’m surprised he’s lasted this long. Anyone else who shows the slightest glimmer of intelligence or competence is quickly shown to the door.

    And the last line of the Washington Times’ story caught my attention:

    “We should point out that Mr. Bowen’s latest report does include praise for the reconstruction effort. Little of those comments, however, make it into the press or the congressional debate.”

    Ummm, guys? The Washington Times is a newspaper. You are the press.

  • CB, it’s no fun if you don’t admit to the correction

    Just for the record, I corrected the typo before I saw Lance’s amusing mockery.

  • “And the last line of the Washington Times’ story caught my attention:

    “We should point out that Mr. Bowen’s latest report does include praise for the reconstruction effort. Little of those comments, however, make it into the press or the congressional debate.”

    Ummm, guys? The Washington Times is a newspaper. You are the press.” – prm

    But why should they have to waste column inches on such an unimportant story. They have papers to sell and death and destruction sells so well for Faux News and the Times. No, clearly it’s the job of the liberal media to tell the good story. After all, the liberal media (NPR and PBS?) doesn’t have stockholders demanding ever increasing profit margins (from one of the most profitable industries in America).

    I think you have just discovered something prm. The Corporate media doesn’t tell the good story of Iraq because it doesn’t sell, and the non-corporate media does tell the good story because they are all liberals who don’t really want Boy George II and the Bushites to get any credit for doing anything right. Of course, once some corporation buys out a liberal media outlet and changes the editorial policies of the media outlet to be conservative, but being conservative and corporate, they naturally go for flashy blood and guts stories about death and destruction that sells ads, and ignore the reconstruction stories.

    Thanks for the insight 😉

  • It appears that the SIGIR is aiding the terrorists by doing the job Bush appointed him to do. So, one might conclude Bush was aiding the terrorists when he appointed Bowen in the first place — or would that be pre 9/11 thinking? I get so confused by all these newly created realities.

  • “It just FEELS like it’s been [since 200 AD that Bush has been President].” – Kathy

    That is so LOL. Thanks Kathy.

  • “We should point out that Mr. Bowen’s latest report does include praise for the reconstruction effort. Little of those comments, however, make it into the press or the congressional debate.” – WaTimes

    Why is it news when people are doing their job as they are expected to? …Only in Bush’s America would it be news that they didn’t screw something up.

    Lance – I agree about Norquist. I just liked the idea of W being done in by one of his own attack dogs.

  • “Little of those comments, however, make it into the press or the congressional debate.”

    Ummm, guys? The Washington Times is a newspaper. You are the press.

    I like their having cleverly and self-referentially excluded themselves from “the press”. A real press outlet would have written, “Few of those comments. . .” instead of the semi-literate, grocery store wording they used.

  • Another example of Republican fiscal conservatism.

    Hey CB, How many articles are there now from the Moonie Times that skewer Bush? This is very good stuff. Did they hit their head or what?

  • For reasons that are not altogether clear, sponsors of the amendment were denied the chance to bring their measure to the floor for a vote.

    So, who wanted the change? Who else? “Republican Appropriations Committee aides say legislators shifted the Iraq money to the foreign operations accounts at the request of the White House,” the WSJ reported.

    These are the unseen(by the majority) moves that the Bush Administration makes that leaves me frustrated when trying to convey to people how bad this Administration has been for this country. I usually just say, “You don’t even know how many changes they have made to federal rules and regulations that benefit the rich and hurt the rest.” Too list the changes would take a long time, and then to explain why these changes are bad even longer.

  • Here’s one reason they’re undermining him: (from an article I found last week)

    ” A comprehensive U.S. government audit of a Bechtel project in Iraq has exposed gross mismanagement by the company. As a result, the $50 million contract has been canceled.

    SIGIR’s exhaustive (and much overdue) review in April of a $243 million contract held by the Parsons Corp. [a Bechtel partner] to construct primary health care centers across Iraq revealed that after more than two years and $186 million, only six of the planned 150 centers were complete. Parsons’ contract for the facilities was canceled (as was a $99.1 million contract to build a prison north of Baghdad after it fell more than two years behind schedule). More importantly, the work was turned over to the Army Corps of Engineers, who then handed the contracts directly to local Iraqi companies.

    San Francisco-based Bechtel was one of a select handful of U.S. companies that received a quiet “request for proposals” from the Bush administration more than a month before the invasion of Iraq. Thus, without any competition, on April 17, 2003, Bechtel was awarded a $680 million contract for work in Iraq. In September of that year, an additional $350 million was added to the first contract, and then, on Jan. 6, 2004, it received a second contract—bringing Bechtel’s combined total to more than $2.8 billion.

    Nobody at Bechtel or in the U.S. government denies that the water and electricity reconstruction has failed. According to SIGIR, while $3 billion has been paid out, only half of the projects planned in the electricity, water and sewage sectors have been completed, while nearly a third in the electricity sector have not yet been begun. Many of the systems that have been built are poorly run or have not been connected to peoples’ homes. In fact, one of the biggest problems plaguing the electricity system today is the failure to build transmission and distribution lines. Bechtel and some Bush administration officials lay the blame squarely with the Iraqis. ”

    Blame the Iraqis? For what, not wanting it badly enough?

    Damned thieves and fraudsters, all of them!

  • Comments are closed.