Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 08:55 PM
Original message
Bush Admin. Refuses To Tell Congress Number of Attacks in Iraq
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
2. even the ISG report was critical of the Pent/WH--misleading violence
numbers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Well, now they are REFUSING to give the information to congress
I'm glad the dems will soon be in control Subpoena Time
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jackpine Radical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Who enforces Congressional subpoenas?
The Executive Branch?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Well,
Edited on Fri Dec-15-06 09:31 PM by Jacobin
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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Can you imagine how bad it probably is?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-15-06 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Judging from the size of Rumsfeld's send-off
It is unimaginably bad in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Nov 27th 2014, 04:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC