Keeping Iraq attack numbers under wraps – redux

About a month ago, we talked about how the Government Accountability Office tracks the number of per-months attacks in Iraq, based on Pentagon data. Unfortunately, the latest GAO reports have been incomplete — leaving out the reported attacks from September, October, and November. The funny part was, the GAO had the numbers, but couldn’t publish them because the Pentagon classified the data.

In other words, the number of attacks from August 2006, and every month prior, are publicly available, but the fall of 2006 has to remain classified, without explanation.

As Justin Rood explained, “They’re still at it.”

On Tuesday the GAO released a new report on Iraq, but its data on attacks is incomplete. Why? The Pentagon has continued to keep the attack numbers an official secret, GAO official Joseph A. Christoff told me. “They did not officially declassify the information,” he said.

Undaunted, Christoff said his staff reviewed testimony of Defense officials before Congress. Lo and behold, at a recent open hearing, a Defense Intelligence Agency official mentioned attack statistics for part of the missing period. The GAO inserted those numbers, covering September and part of October, in the report. November is still missing.

Remember, officials have the numbers, but because they paint an ugly, discouraging picture, which could effect the political debate, they’ve decided to classify them in order to keep the information hidden from public view and scrutiny.

Here’s the graph as it currently exists.

janattacks

The trend is pretty obvious, but abusing the classification process isn’t the answer; changing the policy is.

On a related note, using my post from December as a starting point, TPM Muckraker has been building a list of all the instances in which the Bush administration has hidden public information that officials found inconvenient. They’ve come up with quite a list — if you include today’s news, there are 31 examples.

Is it me or does it seem as if the administration would rather hide bad news than deal with it?

The change in policy will only come when Bush and Cheney go home. They will never let out data that will hurt them. This will all be done by historians starting in 2009.

  • I remember when they redefined attacks as anything that didn’t involve explosives, or some such drivel. They lowered the stats by half overnight.

    Figures don’t lie, but…

  • You know, there are valid reasons for all of these examples. They just can’t tell you because they’re classified.

    You’re feeling very sleeeeppppyy……

  • Is it me or does it seem as if the administration would rather hide bad news than deal with it? — CB

    Must be you 🙂

    I expect many of you here have, at some point, played the following game with an infant: look at the infant and say: “I see you”. What does an infant do in response? Closes his/her eyes (alternatively turns his/her head away).

    If he doesn’t see you, it stands to reason you don’t see him, either; it’s as if you didn’t exist. If the DoD closes it’s (and the population’s) eyes to the numbers they’ll cease to exist, too.

  • If you pretend nothing is wrong or bad, then you can be happy!

    Given Bush’s demeanor at the last speech, his pretend button must be tired of being pushed.

  • The old burying your head in the sand tactic.

    How bad are they is the real question, I mean it’s not like the released numbers are the picture of peace. They must be pretty damn dismal.

  • Change of subject: if a nation breaks into/invades the consulate or embassy of another nation and takes prisoners of the staff, isn’t that considered an act of war?

  • Is it me or does it seem as if the administration would rather hide bad news than deal with it?

    Ever meet a drunken failure who didn’t want to hide the evidence of both?

  • Thanks Pentagon, you just admitted to the world the other side is winning, and apparently by a lot.

  • Comments are closed.