A Strange Claim in today's news from Iraq (Reading between the lines?)

[markses]

Today's suicide attack on the US compound in Ramadi killed 1 US soldier, and wounded 14 others, 3 of those seriously enough for evacuation. This we know. Now, here's the strange claim that keeps popping up:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?0cv=CB10

"There were no U.S. deaths in the previous two suicide attacks this week, which had led U.S. officials to believe that massive defenses they erected at U.S. facilities were paying off."

Notice that the AP writer is so insistent on this point that he or she repeats it again a mere three paragraphs later, describing Tuesday's attacks:

"Most of the soldiers were slightly hurt by debris and flying glass, indicating the defenses around U.S. facilities — sand barriers, high cement walls and numerous roadblocks leading to the entrances of bases — were having an effect."

OK. OK. We get it: Because there have only been slight injuries, the security at US bases was having an effect. Now, here's why this repeated claim is utterly bizarre:

There have been NO PREVIOUSLY REPORTED suicide attacks on US bases, much less any reported deaths from the same. Not once have we heard: "Suicide Attack on US base kills X soldiers." It simply hasn't happened - or hasn't been reported. Now, of course we have seen suicide attacks on other targets (the infamous "soft targets" of the UN and Red Cross and Iraqi police stations and Italian forces), but none on US bases. So, how could we say that the increased security seems to be having an effect, since these attacks are *only* wounding people, rather than killing them. there have been no attacks until this week, or so we are told!

So, one wonders about the nature of this statement. Innocently, one can read it as pure propaganda - it derives a benefit (increased effectiveness of secutrity) without warrant, in order to cover up the fact that the bases are now being targeted by suicide attacks, which would indicate worsening security and increasing boldness of the attackers.

More troublesome is the reading that takes the statement as true, since that would indicate improving security, but imply that not only have there been previous attacks, but those attacks were effective in killing Americans in their base camps - and that implication would mean we're being lied to about either the form or number of casualties. Either way, strange statement.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. No dinner for you!

You are thinking.what is wrong with you.

[izzie]

2. Something does seem wrong.

All these bombs we drop do not kill Iraq people only hit war stuff and their bombs do not kill any one in the army or Americans. These must be the smart bombs they are always talking about. It could be they are doing what they did in Vietnam. It is not good for the GOP to have Americans hurt or killed so they are not hurt or killed. Oh I do believe all this stuff.