They just can’t wait to tack up those “Mission Accomplished” banners, this White House…
Via Barry at Bloggy.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
April 29, 2004, the Bush Administration released a report called “Patterns of Global Terrorism” which indicated that the number of annual terrorist attacks had dropped. And not only dropped, but dropped to its lowest level in 34 years (declining by 45% since 2001). The Administration cited it as objective proof that they were winning the war on terrorism. In fact, in a high-profile rollout, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage noted: “Indeed, you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight.”
{{{{screeching sound of needle being dragged across an LP}}}}
Enter Congressman Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles).
Waxman, the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, told Powell that the number of significant terrorist attacks since 2001 hasn’t declined as the department claimed, but risen by more than 35%. And he cited an analysis by two independent experts who used figures provided by the State Department report in concluding that significant attacks actually had reached a 20-year high in 2003.
For example, the State Department report listed 190 terrorist attacks in 2003, including 169 “significant” ones. But Waxman said a review showed the report stopped counting terrorist incidents on Nov. 11, leaving out several major attacks, including bombings of two synagogues, a bank and the British Consulate in Turkey that killed 62 and injured more than 700.
In light of Waxman’s letter to Powell, the Adminstration had another look at their data. Sure enough, Waxman was right:
[O]n Tuesday, State Department officials said they underreported the number of terrorist attacks in the tally for 2003, and added that they expected to release an updated version soon.
Several U.S. officials and terrorism experts familiar with that revision effort said the new report will show that the number of significant terrorist incidents increased last year, perhaps to its highest level in 20 years. (emphasis mine)
So how does a very important report (“The report is considered the authoritative yardstick of the prevalence of terrorist activity around the world.”) that was celebrated as proof of a successful campaign (something you think they’d double check before making such a big deal out of it) get it so terribly wrong? Well, giving them the benefit of doubt that it wasn’t underhanded political shenanigans, we’re left with incompetence of course:
Several State Department officials vehemently denied their report was swayed by politics. “That’s not the way we do things here,” said one senior official.
Another senior official characterized the errors as clerical, and blamed them mostly on the fact responsibility for the report recently shifted from the CIA to the administration’s new Terrorist Threat Integration Center.
Ahhh….perhaps it’s Tenet’s fault…how convenient he’s gone.
UPDATE: That last bit was a poor attempt to be clever…this is damning enough, I don’t need to add some snarky epilogue. And just so it’s clear, I do give them the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think the April 29 celebration was politics…I think it was incompetence and perhaps a careless dose of wishful thinking.
Edward,
I think that it is kind of silly to imply that politics could have led to claims that terrorist attacks were at a 34-year low, since the data was so obviously incomplete. More like good old government incompetence.
It also strikes me as rather odd that we can go from a 34-year low to a 20-year high with only another month and a half of data. I am assuming that the metric is numbers of separate incidents, and not numbers of dead and wounded.
I could not agree with you more Nathan. In fact, I thought that was clear in my post (perhaps I need to edit). I don’t think it was politics (I think Waxman’s off base there).
I do think it’s incompetence.
But you bring up an interesting sidebar with regards to the metrics. From what I understand there’s some question of whether to include casualties in Iraq.
Considering the WH keeps calling the insurgents “terroists” I think they should, but…
I’d also question that they were blaming Tenet; it’s more likely (not to mention, plausible) that the fault lay with the new guys.
I’d also question that they were blaming Tenet; it’s more likely (not to mention, plausible) that the fault lay with the new guys.
Fair enough…that last bit was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek…I’ll edit…
I’d accept incompetence if the notion is those figures ought to have been heavily fact-checked before release, particularly in light of the shift change in those compiling them.
I’ve never heard of the report, myself, but it’s a bit surprising that the rest of the world is letting us do their heavy lifting in this respect, given that we’re dirty rotten fibbers.
Edward,
I must have misread regarding the ‘politics’.
Off topic, have you guys ever thought of doing something to make the site load up faster? I want my free ice-cream faster, damnit!
Ugh. Right after I call for faster loading… it starts to load really fast.
Nathan S: It also strikes me as rather odd that we can go from a 34-year low to a 20-year high with only another month and a half of data.
And people wonder why there isn’t more good news coming out of Iraq…
Slarti: I’ve never heard of the report, myself, but it’s a bit surprising that the rest of the world is letting us do their heavy lifting in this respect, given that we’re dirty rotten fibbers.
Really? I heard about it when it first came out; it got a thorough trolling on a number of lefty sites that I frequent. I’d assumed, perhaps erroneously, that it had been similarly (though more cogently and less, uh, trollishly) aired on the right side of the blogosphere too.
As to the world “letting us do their heavy lifting”, I don’t quite follow you. Was that just random snark, or was there something deeper?
Was that just random snark, or was there something deeper?
Depends on where you stand, I guess. Maybe the context of where it’s considered an authoritative etc. was a bit unclear. I assumed it meant worldwide, but in hindsight maybe that wasn’t warranted.
Well, a couple points. One is that Iraq still isn’t included. You can’t very well contend that, on the one hand, we’re fighting terrorists, and on the other hand, bad things those terrorists do don’t count as terrorism.
Another point I would make is that Latin American terrorist incidents seem to have fallen off a cliff since 2001. Wonder why?
More generally, it’s clear from this report that we’re still at war with a tactic. In my view, this is incredibly dumb. We are not at war with a tactic. We are at war with radical Islam and a bunch of drug lords.
Considering the WH keeps calling the insurgents “terroists” I think they should, but…
The CIA has a precise definition of terrorism, and it doesn’t include the insurgents fighting US forces, no matter what the WH calls them.
so let’s think about this for a second.
1. Acccording to numerous sources we’re being attacked somewhere between 15-30 times a day in Iraq.
2. The people fighting us are terrorists (according to the Bushies).
3. Wouldn’t that then mean in the last year there have probably been something like 5,000 – 7,000 terrorist attacks in Iraq alone?
so let’s think about this for a second.
1. Acccording to numerous sources we’re being attacked somewhere between 15-30 times a day in Iraq.
2. The people fighting us are terrorists (according to the Bushies).
3. Wouldn’t that then mean in the last year there have probably been something like 5,000 – 7,000 terrorist attacks in Iraq alone?