By Nate Hochman
August 07, 2022:
Information Clearing House
-- Yesterday,
Politico
reported that House Republican leadership
was “coming to regret” giving Representative
Victoria Spartz, a Ukrainian-born freshman from
Indiana’s 5th congressional district, “a coveted
platform to speak out against Russia’s war.”
Spartz was initially all-in for the war, but in
recent months, she has begun to raise concerns
about corruption in the Ukrainian government and
push for more oversight of U.S. aid. In
response, Politico reports, Spartz’s
senior counterparts have grown worried that her
criticisms “could portend future cracks in U.S.
support for Ukraine,” and “may damage cohesion
among the Western coalition in defense of Kyiv”:
Inside the House GOP Conference, there’s
a widespread fear that her posture is
damaging U.S.-Ukraine relations at the worst
possible time — and that she’s being played
by forces that aim to weaken the Western
alliance.
There’s no actual evidence offered for
who those “forces” are, or how Sparks’ concerns
about corruption and push for more aid oversight
— the same position, notably, as that of
the Heritage Foundation — are evidence that
she’s being “played.” (In fact, Politico
implicitly cedes that those concerns have a
basis in reality, but waves them away as harmful
to discuss: “Western nations’ longstanding
concerns about corruption in Ukraine, an element
of former President Donald Trump’s first
impeachment, have also been shelved in the
interest of fostering both domestic and
international unity against Russia’s invasion”).
Instead, unnamed House Republicans offer
anonymous quotes trashing their freshman
colleague for breaking with the party line:
“Her naiveness is hurting our own
people,” said a GOP lawmaker who serves on
the House Foreign Affairs Committee, granted
anonymity to speak candidly about a
colleague. “It is not helpful to what we’re
trying to do and I’m not sure her facts are
accurate … We have vetted these guys.” The
Republican warned that Spartz’s comments
could “hurt” the war effort.
Asked for comment on Spartz’s remarks,
one senior House Republican who was granted
anonymity for the same reason offered a
blunt reply: “What the fuck.”
A third House Republican granted
anonymity to speak candidly about Spartz
said she has a reputation for elbowing her
way into briefings and meetings for
committees she doesn’t belong to, like the
Foreign Affairs panel, where multiple
members have tried to address her comments
behind closed doors.
These top Republicans are too cowardly to
make such arguments in public — as Politico
notes, “none of them want to publicly rebuke
a colleague over Ukraine . . . as the Russian
attack itself becomes more politically thorny
within the GOP.” But they’re willing to actively
undermine her in the mainstream media, so long
as it’s on the condition of anonymity. And the
attacks themselves are completely devoid of
content: There’s no explanation for why Spartz’s
concerns are wrong, save for vague
aspersions about being “not sure her facts are
accurate.” Instead, the basis of the broadside
is that Spartz — by asking what, precisely, the
billions of American taxpayer dollars are
actually funding in Ukraine — is not
being “helpful to what we’re trying to do.” In
other words: “Shut up,” they explained.
Truth is the first casualty of war. If Spartz
is wrong, her colleagues should explain why —
and preferably not via anonymous quotes used for
smear pieces in the pages of the mainstream
media. What, exactly, is so unreasonable about
the congresswoman’s position? She’s obviously
not operating from a place of ignorance — she
has traveled to Ukraine six times since the
outset of the war and, unlike her unnamed
Republican critics, actually lived there for the
first 22 years of her life. At the very least,
the rationale she gave in her statement to
Politico merits serious engagement: “Growing
up in Ukraine and visiting six times since the
war started, I have a comprehensive
understanding of the situation on the ground.
The stakes are too high to be reactive without
deliberation — as intended for our institution.”
Why is she wrong? The anonymous House
Republicans don’t appear to have a real answer.
If they did, maybe they’d actually have the
courage to say so publicly.
