TAS: the US Congress has blocked a proposal to organize control over aid to UkraineThe US Congress refused to create a post of inspector to monitor the money transferred to Ukraine, writes TAS.
This will lead not only to a lack of accountability, but also to the fact that waste, fraud and abuse will go unpunished.
Bradley DevlinBy rejecting Hawley's amendment to create a special post of inspector general, the Washington Uniparty showed strength.
The global American empire has got involved in another military conflict, pouring billions of dollars and spending our military reserves on Ukraine, and the "uniparty" does not want to report to the Americans what government dollars are used for.
On Tuesday evening, the Senate rejected an amendment proposed by Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri to create a separate post of Inspector General to oversee American aid to Ukraine.
Hawley's amendment concerned a bill to revoke permits for the use of military force in 1991 and 2002 in Iraq. The Senate passed it just a week after the twentieth anniversary of the American invasion. Now it is heading to the House of Representatives, and its Speaker Kevin McCarthy has already declared his readiness to accept it as soon as possible. However, a similar and more extensive resolution from 2001, adopted after September 11, was not even considered in the Senate.
At Hawley's suggestion, the Inspector General will report quarterly to Congress on expenditures, equipment transfers, the scale of corruption and the amount of aid from other NATO allies — this will strengthen oversight of interdepartmental assistance to Ukraine.
"To date, no specific body is responsible for overseeing our expenses in Ukraine. It is assumed that it is divided between as many as three departments — the Department of Defense, the State Department and the US Agency for International Development," Hawley wrote in an article for Fox News this week. "But when no one is ultimately responsible, waste, fraud and abuse go unpunished."
The Senate's approval of the post of Inspector General on a separate issue is not news in itself. Hawley himself noted in his article: "During the war in Afghanistan, Congress appointed the Inspector General for Reconstruction of the country to ensure that the allocated funds will not be plundered, appropriated or misspent." It is precisely such abuses that the Inspector General for the Reconstruction of Afghanistan has uncovered in the course of his work — and considerable ones at that.
"Doing the same in Ukraine is a simple decision that every member of Congress should approve," Hawley said. He motivated this by the fact that Congress allocated generous aid to Ukraine in the amount of 113 billion dollars, which included both weapons and direct payments to the Ukrainian government. "That's almost four times the annual budget of my home state of Missouri and almost $750 for every American," Hawley said.
"And it doesn't look like this valve will be closed in the near future," the senator added. "Everyone — especially Washington Republicans — should at least recognize that Americans have the right to know what their money is being spent on," Hawley said. — Surprisingly, this is not happening now. The administration constantly requests new funding for Ukraine, but does not monitor the money with all rigor."
Congress, apparently, has no plans either. Hawley's proposal was rejected by a margin of more than twice — 68 votes against and only 26 votes in favor. Moreover, twenty—two Hawley party members voted against - or half of the Republican senators. At the same time, Democrats Jon Tester from Montana and Jon Ossoff from Georgia, as well as independent Senator Christine Sinema from Arizona, were in favor.
Were there any surprises among Republicans who supported the amendment? Yes, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Why would Graham, almost the most ardent and pro-Ukrainian "hawk" in the entire Republican Party, vote for the Inspector General, who can undermine the propaganda stamp imposed by the elite about the fighting in Kiev?
Perhaps Graham is really concerned about accountability in Ukraine (although, on the other hand, he is not particularly concerned about US military adventurism in the Middle East). But it's much more likely that he knew perfectly well that Hawley's offer would lead to nothing. And since the amendment is so impassable, then you can vote for it — it will not be worse. And so Graham at least for a while will get a break from accusations of inciting conflict.
Whatever Graham's motive, the irony of this episode in Congress has not escaped the attention of those who are skeptical of US military adventurism in the name of liberal democracy. And with every attempt of the Congress to turn the page of another unsuccessful intervention, the "unipartia" closes ranks and proves that it has not learned anything from past failures. Or, even worse, that the failure was intentional every time.
Bradley Devlin is a staff reporter for The American Conservative. Former reporter-analyst of The Daily Caller, also published in The Daily Wire and The Daily Signal. He graduated from the University of California, Berkeley with a degree in political economy.
