You can't provide oversight of the State Department, for example, without an Inspector General. Currently, the US State Department has no Inspector General.
Oh, the person left, like Hilda Solis is leaving her post as Secretary of Labor?
No.
Oh, the post is vacant because of Republican obstroctionism?
No.
Barack's never nominated anyone to be Inspector General of the State Department.
While claiming to support transparency and accountability, Barack made it through his first term without ever nominating an Inspector General. (The State Department's IG is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.)
And the 'acting' IG? Deputy Inspector General Harold W. Geisel?
He was appointed by Bully Boy Bush and the Senate back in June of 2008.
We don't want to give the impression that Barack's been appointing IGs elsewhere. This is a problem throughout his administration. For example, Ernesto Londono (Washington Post) reports that despite 22 indictments, 91 ongoing investigations and $67 million tax dollars recovered, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction is set to expire in March and there's no push to renew the office.
Maybe the White House is a little sore over the Congressional testimony Stuart W. Bowen's provided over the last two years? About how the State Department refuses to answer basic questions about spending or even goals?
Regardless, it's a serious problem and the money is not being tracked.
When the Defense Department was over Iraq, over the money, there was graft, corruption and theft. Who's over the billions of US tax dollars flowing into Iraq today? The State Department.
Human nature fundamentally changed in 2009?
No, it did not. So how does one claim that there's no need for an Inspector General?
You can't make that claim and be taken seriously.
