Bush Admin. Refuses To Tell Congress Number of Attacks in Iraq

[Jacobin]

Bush Admin Won't Release Iraq Attack Numbers
By Justin Rood - December 15, 2006, 4:55 PM

Sometimes numbers tell a story better than any amount of words can. But that's only if the public gets to see them.

This chart was just produced by Congress' watchdog, the Government Accountability Office. It shows the number of attacks in Iraq, month by month, based on statistics kept by the military. It was contained in correspondence released today:



It was produced in December, but it's missing data for the months of September, October and November of this year -- a period of increased violence, according to news reports. What gives?

I called Joseph A. Christoff, the GAO official who produced the document. "I have all data" for those months, he told me. But the military stamped it classified, he said. And despite making weeks of phone calls, he can't convince anyone there to declassify the numbers.

"They give conflicting reasons," Christoff told me. "For some reason, they haven't gotten through their bureaucracy."

News accounts from the period indicate that violence has increased since August, and the rate of U.S. casualties has accelerated. October was said to be particularly bloody.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002169.php

[orpupilofnature57]

1. The November surprise was no matter how much things changed,

nothing was going to change.To be dealt with in a condescending way by the brilliant is bearable ,but to have information held by the Idiot ,is dangerous.

[rodeodance]

2. even the ISG report was critical of the Pent/WH--misleading violence

numbers

[Jacobin]

3. Well, now they are REFUSING to give the information to congress

I'm glad the dems will soon be in control Subpoena Time

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Who enforces Congressional subpoenas?

The Executive Branch?

[Jacobin]

8. Well,

In federal courts ( I realize congress is not a cout), the U.S. Marshall enforces subpoenas.

I'm trying to remember from Watergate days who enforces congressional subpoenas. Will google

on edit:
The Constitution vests all legislative authority in Congress. U.S. Const., art. I, § 1. Although the Constitution does not expressly authorize Congress to issue subpoenas, the Supreme Court has stated that the authority to subpoena is an "indispensable ingredient" of Congress' legislative power. Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 505 (1975). In McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927), the Court declared that "the power of inquiry-with process to enforce it-is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function." According to the Court:

A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information-which not infrequently is true-recourse must be had to others who do possess it. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.

So, clearly they have the right to issue subpoenas and require compliance. In the congressional context, a refusal to comply would result in contempt of congress, I suppose leading to a constitutional showdown and maybe more impeachment grounds, but I'm guessing

[pinto]

4. If there's muzzling going on w/GAO, it seems a desperate ploy. They're historically pretty impartial

in the scheme of things federal.

[orpupilofnature57]

5. Can you imagine how bad it probably is?

[Jacobin]

7. Judging from the size of Rumsfeld's send-off

It is unimaginably bad in Iraq.