For almost two years, I've continually updated Iraq Statistics & Results, to bring you a quick-reading snapshot of the impact of the Iraq War. As disclosed, the meat-&-potatoes of my article is extracted from a detailed statistical report generated by the respected Brookings Institute.

The Brookings Institute's Iraq Index is an "in-depth, non-partisan assessment of American efforts in Iraq, and is based primarily on U.S. government information." I use, and will continue to use, this data source precisely because of its presumed non-partisan nature, since our government is the prime reporter.

Skewed Statistics
It should be noted, though, that knowledgeable parties question the accuracy of U.S. government-reported data on Iraq.

For example, a U.N. report issued on September 20, 2006 admonished that Iraqi civilian casualties were significantly understated by the U.S. for many months in 2006. And the Iraq Study Group Report's recommendation #78 was:

The U.S. must "institute immediate changes in the collection of data about violence and the sources of violence in Iraq to provide a more accurate picture of events on the ground."

The discrepancy? The U.S. "estimates" Iraqi civilian casualities to be about 50,000. Educated estimates from other respected sources range from over 100,000 to upwards of 650,000 dead Iraqi civilians.

Another example is the quantity of U.S. "logistics personnel" present in Iraq. This misnomer includes all private contractors, from soliders and interrogators for hire, to Halliburton Corp. employees to God-only-knows-what... because we don't.

Since October 2005, the U.S. has refused to publicly update its figure of 84,105 private contractors in Iraq .And we haven't got a clue as to what this unregulated army of mercenaries is accomplishing on the U.S. taxpayers' dime.

Muddled Quality of Life Measures
Statistics on the quality of life for Iraqi citizens have likewise deterioriated to become inconsistent, and possibly unreliable.

In the latter half of 2006, previously-available statistics about Iraqis' access to clean water became muddled, and then largely disappeared.

And now we know why: the Department of Defense is now spinning the water shortage in Iraq. The truth is that at the end of 2006, "... the amount of potable water currently produced in Iraq is at less thanhalf the target amount."

Another example is that of the availability of electricity of Iraqi homes. Before the U.S. attack on Iraq, Baghdad homes had 16 to 24 hours daily of electrical service, and homes outside Baghdad had 4 to 8 hours daily.

As the Iraq War staggers on, reliable electrical service to Iraqis has become a precious commodity... and one that apparently is reported less and less accurately. Reported the New York Times on December 19, 2006:

"Last week even the official United States State Department figures, which many Iraqis contend lean toward the optimistic side, said there was an average of 6.6 hours of electricity per day in Baghdad and 8.9 hours nationwide."

Misstated Messages
And then there's media's mindless (or mindful?) misstatements of leaders' messages on the Iraq War.

For example, just a few days ago, Senator Hillary Clinton uttered one of her characteristic double-speak statements on the Iraq War: she's not for an expansion of U.S armed forces in Iraq... except when she's for it.

Almost without exception, the media simply, and inaccurately, trumpeted that Sen. Clinton opposes expansion of US forces in Iraq.

And on last Sunday's ABC This Week, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that he might support a short-term surge in the U.S. troops in Iraq. The media translated his single sentence into support for escalation of the Iraq War requiring a major, permanent troop increase.

To correct the media's misstatement, Sen. Reid was forced to issue the following statement:

"I don't believe that more troops is the answer for Iraq. It's a civil war and America should not be policing a Sunni-Shia conflict. In addition, we don't have the additional forces to put in there. We obviously want to support what commanders in the field say they need, but apparently even the Joint Chiefs do not support increased combat forces for Baghdad. My position on Iraq is simple:

1. I believe we should start redeploying troops in 4 to 6 months (The Levin-Reed Plan) and complete the withdrawal of combat forces by the first quarter of 2008. (As laid out by the Iraq Study Group)

2. The President must understand that there can only be a political solution in Iraq, and he must end our nation's open-ended military commitment to that country.

3. These priorities need to be coupled with a renewed diplomatic effort and regional strategy.

I do not support an escalation of the conflict. I support finding a way to bring our troops home and would look at any plan that gave a roadmap to this goal." Read the rest at Huffington Post.

The Truth as Iraq War Option?
On December 18, 2006, CNN reported that "support for Bush's handling of the Iraq conflict has decreased to 28 percent from 34 percent in a poll taken October 13-15."

Yet, the President is openly determined to do it his way... public opinion be damned. Colleagues and esteemed leaders' opinions be damned. And apparently, the generals' opinions be damned.

I have a hunch that if George Bush honestly and openly told our nation the whole, unvarnished truth about the Iraq War, and he made a hearfelt plea for the U.S. to fix what we broke in Iraq... that he might be surprised by the bipartisan wisdom and goodness of the American people.

What Will It Take to Get Bush to Listen?
But like parents of a recalcitrant teenager, we all instinctively know that George Bush is hiding the truth from us.

We know that he's obscuring urgent news, and that he's fearfully feeding us as few facts as he can. And that he's been doing it for a long, long time.

And to complicate matters, the media further twists the untruths emanating from our leaders on Iraq.

As all parents know, we must one day draw the line, and end the charade of lies. American voters did just that on November 7, 2006... threw dozens of Bush Administration enablers out of Congressional and state office.

But our stubborn President still either doesn't get or doesn't care about the American public's message.

What will it take to get the truth on Iraq from President Bush? What will it take to cause The Decider to move beyond his messianic belief in his own judgment?

I don't know. Clearly, no one does.

But under new Democratic-controlled 110th Congress set to take office on January 4, 2007, it feels as though the President's Day of Reckoning on Iraq is rapidly approaching.

Not a day, or a life, too soon.

Recommended Reading
Iraq War Results & Statistics as of December 17, 2006
President Bush on Iraq: Dithering, Confused, Deaf to Solutions
CNN, Dec 18, 2006: Poll: Approval for Iraq Handling Drops to New Low
Washington Post, Dec 20, 2006: On the War, Determined to Go His Own Way