About that decline in terrorism we told you about....

[wvrevy]

...um.....Nevermind...But it was just an honest mistake, there were no political motives at all....

From Yahoo News:


Politics - AP
Powell: Terrorism Report a 'Big Mistake'

WASHINGTON - A State Department report that incorrectly showed a decline last year in terrorism worldwide was a "big mistake," Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said. "Very embarrassing. I am not a happy camper over this. We were wrong," the secretary told NBC's "Meet the Press."


Powell said Sunday that he was working with the CIA (news - web sites), which helped to compile the data, to determine why the errors got into the report. He said he planned a meeting on the issue Monday and that the intelligence agency was working through the weekend in preparation.

"I'm not saying it is responsible until I sit down with all of the individuals who had something to do with this report: CIA, my department, members of my department, other agencies that contributed to it," Powell said.

"It's a numbers error. It's not a political judgment that said, `Let's see if we can cook the books.' We can't get away with that now. Nobody was out to cook the books. Errors crept in," he told ABC's "This Week."

He pledged to release a corrected report as quickly as possible.

"I am regretful that this has happened. And we're going to get it fixed, we're going to get it corrected, and that's the best I can do," Powell said.

A leading House Democrat, Rep. Henry Waxman of California, had challenged the findings, contending they were manipulated for political purposes. The conclusion that terrorism was on the decline was used to boost one of President Bush (news - web sites)'s chief foreign policy claims, success in countering terror.

Waxman asked Powell for an explanation and the secretary called last week to say the mistakes for unintentional.

"He says it wasn't politically motivated so I will accept that," Waxman said after their conversation. Still, the lawmaker said, "We are still left with the fact that this report is useless until it is corrected."

The April report said attacks had declined last year to 190, down from 198 in 2002 and 346 in 2001. The 2003 figure would have been the lowest level in 34 years and a 45 percent drop since 2001, Bush's first year as president.

The report also showed the virtual disappearance of attacks in which no one died.

"There's a new terrorist threat information center that compiles this data under the CIA. And we are still trying to determine what went wrong with the data and why we didn't catch it in the State Department," Powell said Sunday.

"It's a very big mistake. And we are not happy about this big mistake," he added.

The department has said that one of the mistakes was that only part of 2003 was taken into account.

When the annual report was issued April 29, senior administration officials used it as evidence the war was being won under Bush.

"We weren't saying terrorism has gone away. The report clearly says terrorism is a main problem facing the world today. We've got to continue going after terrorists," Powell said.

"But based on the data we had within the report, there was a suggestion that the number of incidents had dropped and it was the lowest since 1969," he added. "That turns out not to have been correct. We were wrong. We will correct it."

 

[barbeml]

At least we know Powell is still alive.

 

[jrydberg]

If Henry Waxman, not exactly noted for keeping his partisan feelings aside, is satisfied that it wasn't politically motivated, I think I'll go with that.

 

[wvrevy]

I think the bigger point may just be that those of you trumpeting Dubya's success in the war on terror might want to reassess that conclusion, since terror attacks apparently increased rather than decreasing as we were previously told. If "national defense" is supposedly such an important issue to some people, then perhaps the information that we are no safer and, in fact, have actually become LESS safe should figure into your decision on who to vote for in November.

 

[jrydberg]

That information does not indicate that we are less safe. It indicates merely that there were more terrorist incidents around the world. There could be lots of reasons for that. I suspect part of the reason is that Iraq, whether it was before or not, has become the front line in the war on terrorism. Terrorists now flock to Iraq to get a shot (or a bomb) at US troops. That doesn't necessarily mean we are less safe.

It probably also indicates that Israel had some problems with terrorism. Again, doesn't necessarily mean we are less safe.

I understand you have a different perspective on it and think that we are less safe. That does not make it the factually correct position. It is a matter of opinion. I think President Bush has done a fine job where the war on terror is concerned. While I don't think we are particularly safer now, I do think we will be a lot safer in the future because of President Bush's actions.

I reassess my conclusions every day. It will figure prominently in my decision on who to vote for in November.

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
I think the bigger point may just be that those of you trumpeting Dubya's success in the war on terror might want to reassess that conclusion, since terror attacks apparently increased rather than decreasing as we were previously told. If "national defense" is supposedly such an important issue to some people, then perhaps the information that we are no safer and, in fact, have actually become LESS safe should figure into your decision on who to vote for in November.

Exactly how many terrorist attacks have occurred in the U.S. since 9/11/2001?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Exactly how many terrorist attacks have occurred in the U.S. since 9/11/2001?

How many occurred in the three years prior to 9/11 ?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by jrydberg
That information does not indicate that we are less safe. It indicates merely that there were more terrorist incidents around the world. There could be lots of reasons for that. I suspect part of the reason is that Iraq, whether it was before or not, has become the front line in the war on terrorism. Terrorists now flock to Iraq to get a shot (or a bomb) at US troops. That doesn't necessarily mean we are less safe.

It probably also indicates that Israel had some problems with terrorism. Again, doesn't necessarily mean we are less safe.

I understand you have a different perspective on it and think that we are less safe. That does not make it the factually correct position. It is a matter of opinion. I think President Bush has done a fine job where the war on terror is concerned. While I don't think we are particularly safer now, I do think we will be a lot safer in the future because of President Bush's actions.

I reassess my conclusions every day. It will figure prominently in my decision on who to vote for in November.

So, even though there were more attacks, that doesn't actually mean we're less safe ?

That's pretty impressive spin, even for this board

As for the terrorists "flocking to Iraq" to get a shot at our troops...and just who was it that put those troops there in the first place ?

 

[Eeyore1954]

Originally posted by wvrevy
How many occurred in the three years prior to 9/11 ?

Cute answer, but it proves my point nonetheless. People can whine all they want about not being safer today, but the facts still remain.

 

[4cruisin]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Exactly how many terrorist attacks have occurred in the U.S. since 9/11/2001?

Every day, we lose at least 1 soldier in Iraq...I consider that a "terrorist attack". We have made a mess over there because of poor planning, lack of troop support and a rush to judgement by this administration about how much of a threat Iraq posed to us. Do I believe there had to action taken against Iraq...absolutely...do I think we did it the wrong way....absolutely. We now look like fools to the rest of the world and what's worse, we look like liars.

That is one major reason I will be voting for John Kerry in November...he will not rush into a war that we have no business at to begin with. Kerry has fought in a war and knows the harshness of it, that's more than GWB can say.

 

[jrydberg]

That is correct. The fact that a larger number of terrorist incidents occurred does not necessarily indicate that we are less safe.

It's not spin at all. If there were a zillion terrorist attacks in the middle of the Sahara desert, frankly, I wouldn't care. Has very little relevence to my life. There are *many* places in the world that suffer from terrorism that has little impact on us.

If there were a zillion non-lethal terrorist attacks, while that's still not acceptable, it's much better than a few highly lethal attacks.

I base my judgements on the facts, not political spin.

As for Iraq, you seem to be missing my point. President Bush has decided to fight a war on terror. He made the judgement that he'd rather fight it abroad with US military personnel instead of at home with civilians. You can debate the wisdom of that choice, but terrorist attacks in Iraq are not particularly indicative of the safety of this country as a whole.

 

[izzy]

Originally posted by wvrevy
How many occurred in the three years prior to 9/11 ?

Weren't the 9/11 terrorists in our country during that 3 year timeframe planning the attack - all under the Clinton administration's "watchful" eye?

 

[4cruisin]

jrydberg,
I'm sorry (really) if I missed your original point. I just feel that we are losing a "war" that we never should have started and I hate to see our troops at risk for the wrong reasons. You are correct, there have not been any terrorist attacks here since 9/11, but I'm concerned there will be a "hum-dinga" soon. I pray to God I am wrong but terrorists have one trait that we do not...patience.

Thanks for bringing me back to your original point.

Nancy

 

[jrydberg]

4cruisin, sorry, I should've been more clear. That was meant in response to wvrevy's comment about Iraq.

I can understand the position you have on the situation in Iraq. I disagree, but hey that happens in politics

Actually, I do agree that there has been some really poor planning. No one should have been surprised at what transpired after the end of combat operations.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Eeyore1954
Cute answer, but it proves my point nonetheless. People can whine all they want about not being safer today, but the facts still remain.

You're right, the facts do remain...And the facts are that the number of terrorist attacks around the globe has INCREASED, not decreased. It's not whining to laugh at people too politically blinded to know a FACT when it's presented to them.

And by the way, my answer was no more "cute" than yours was...and just as relevant.

From izzy: Weren't the 9/11 terrorists in our country during that 3 year timeframe planning the attack - all under the Clinton administration's "watchful" eye?

Umm...yes, they were...And that has exactly WHAT to do with this conversation ? I mean, I KNOW the kneejerk reaction is to blame Clinton, but could we at least try to make it relevant to the current discussion ?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by jrydberg
That is correct. The fact that a larger number of terrorist incidents occurred does not necessarily indicate that we are less safe.

It's not spin at all. If there were a zillion terrorist attacks in the middle of the Sahara desert, frankly, I wouldn't care. Has very little relevence to my life. There are *many* places in the world that suffer from terrorism that has little impact on us.

If there were a zillion non-lethal terrorist attacks, while that's still not acceptable, it's much better than a few highly lethal attacks.

I base my judgements on the facts, not political spin.

As for Iraq, you seem to be missing my point. President Bush has decided to fight a war on terror. He made the judgement that he'd rather fight it abroad with US military personnel instead of at home with civilians. You can debate the wisdom of that choice, but terrorist attacks in Iraq are not particularly indicative of the safety of this country as a whole.

From the original report:

The report also showed the virtual disappearance of attacks in which no one died.

That doesn't much make it seem like this is just some little annoyances out in the middle of nowhere.

The rest of your argument ceters around Iraq being part of the "war on terror", but that's arguable (at best) - and another topic entirely.

 

[jrydberg]

That doesn't much make it seem like this is just some little annoyances out in the middle of nowhere.

The rest of your argument ceters around Iraq being part of the "war on terror", but that's arguable (at best) - and another topic entirely.

First off, many of those terrorist attacks are occuring in "the middle of nowhere" as far as this country is concerned. While any terrorist attack is cause for concern, terrorist attacks in Israel, for example, do not make us less safe. My point is there is A LOT more to terrorism than numbers.

As to Iraq, I don't think it's really debateable that Iraq is now a battleground for the war on terror. As I said, you can argue about whether it was before or not, but now it most certainly is.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by jrydberg
First off, many of those terrorist attacks are occuring in "the middle of nowhere" as far as this country is concerned. While any terrorist attack is cause for concern, terrorist attacks in Israel, for example, do not make us less safe. My point is there is A LOT more to terrorism than numbers.

As to Iraq, I don't think it's really debateable that Iraq is now a battleground for the war on terror. As I said, you can argue about whether it was before or not, but now it most certainly is.

So, unless it happens here, it's in "the middle of nowhere" and doesn't matter ? In that case, we've only ever been the victim of, what, 4 or 5 terrorist attacks (at least one of which was completely domestic) ? I'd beg to differ, because terrorist attacks in Israel DO make us less safe, if they're done by those targeting Americans. Not to mention the fact that Israel is an ally, so an attack on them is very MUCH an attack on the US, just as an attack on Britain would be.

 

[jrydberg]

Well, since terrorist attacks in Israel that target Americans are rare (can't think of any, to be honest), I think that point is moot.

It's not that it doesn't matter when it happens elsewhere... but it needs to be put in perspective. Of course, I think it's despicable and we ought not tolerate it anywhere. But terrorist attacks in Israel do not have any bearing on US security. That doesn't mean I think we should ignore such attacks. Not at all. But they don't make us less safe.

The report did not detail attacks on US citizens... it detailed terrorist attacks worldwide. That does not equate to US security. That's all I'm saying.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Well, since terrorist attacks in Israel that target Americans are rare (can't think of any, to be honest), I think that point is moot.

It's not that it doesn't matter when it happens elsewhere... but it needs to be put in perspective. Of course, I think it's despicable and we ought not tolerate it anywhere. But terrorist attacks in Israel do not have any bearing on US security. That doesn't mean I think we should ignore such attacks. Not at all. But they don't make us less safe.

The report did not detail attacks on US citizens... it detailed terrorist attacks worldwide. That does not equate to US security. That's all I'm saying.

About a year ago we had a local Jewish student who went to Israel to study get killed in one of the terrorist suicide bombings. (Philly area). Such a senseless thing to happen!

We don't wage wars with civilians do we? You mentioned something to that effect in your other post.