Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: US red faced over terrorism report

  1. #1
    Inactive Member Piña's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12th, 2001
    Posts
    1,022
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    <font size="1">Decided to post this as a new topic as it's kinda long. This rolled off the free archives so I'm posting a saved copy.</font>
    ----------------------------

    US red faced over terrorism report
    By Josh Meyer
    Washington
    June 10, 2004

    The State Department is scrambling to revise its annual report on global terrorism to acknowledge that it understated the number of deadly attacks in 2003, amid charges that the document is inaccurate, dangerously outmoded and politically manipulated by the Bush Administration.

    The department said it was the second time the report, considered the authoritative yardstick of the prevalence of terrorism worldwide, has had to be revised. When the most recent Patterns of Global Terrorism report was issued on April 29, senior Bush Administration officials immediately hailed it as objective proof that they were winning the war on terrorism.

    "Indeed, you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight" against global terrorism, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said.

    But on Tuesday, State Department officials said they underreported the number of terrorist attacks in the report on 2003, and said they expected to release an updated version soon. Several US officials and terrorism experts familiar with that revision said the new report could show the number of significant terrorist incidents increased last year, perhaps to its highest level in 20 years.

    "It will change the numbers," said one State Department official who declined to comment further or be identified. "The incidents will go up, but I don't know by how many."

    Among the original report's highlights: The annual number of terrorist attacks had dropped to its lowest level in 34 years, declining by 45 per cent since 2001. Overall, fewer people were being killed, injured and kidnapped, and the US-led global coalition had taken the fight to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations with great success.

    Minor terrorism events - typically those in which nobody dies - had almost disappeared, declining by more than 90 per cent from 231 incidents in 2001 to 21 in 2003, the report said.

    The report was first ordered by Congress two decades ago as the US government's reference tool on terrorist activity, trends and groups.

    Since then, Administration officials and Congress have come to rely heavily on the so-called Patterns report in formulating counter-terrorism policies and strategies. In recent years, it has been translated into five languages so that US allies around the world can scrutinise the hundreds of pages of data, which are based on US and allied intelligence.

    On Tuesday, congressman Henry Waxman applauded the State Department for deciding to reissue the report, a step he requested in a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell three weeks ago. But Mr Waxman said the Bush Administration so far has refused to deal with his allegation that it manipulated the terrorism data to claim victory in the US-declared war on terrorism.

    "This manipulation may serve the Administration's political interests," Mr Waxman wrote in his May 17 letter to Mr Powell, "but it calls into serious doubt the integrity of the report."

    Several State Department officials denied their report was swayed by politics. "That's not the way we do things here," said one senior official.

    - Los Angeles Times

  2. #2
    Inactive Member Piña's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12th, 2001
    Posts
    1,022
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    <font size="1">And this from the 14th.</font>
    -------------------------------

    <font size="4">Powell Says Politics Were Not Behind
    Flawed Terror Report</font>
    By Josh Meyer
    Times Staff Writer

    THE WORLD
    June 14, 2004

    WASHINGTON ? Secretary of State Colin L. Powell on Sunday blamed mistakes in data collection, not political considerations, for a "very embarrassing" State Department report that said terrorist attacks worldwide had decreased in 2003 when, in fact, they had risen significantly.

    On Sunday TV talk shows, Powell acknowledged that the State Department's annual "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report, issued with great fanfare April 29, was badly flawed.

    He said he was convening an interagency meeting today to determine why the 199-page report contained so many mistakes and omissions, including several terrorist attacks on Nov. 11 that killed 62 people in Turkey.

    "Very embarrassing. I'm not a happy camper on this," Powell said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "We were wrong?. We're going to get to the bottom of it tomorrow" and reissue the report as soon as possible.

    "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," Powell said on ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos. "Nobody was out to cook the books. Errors crept in."

    The Times reported Wednesday that State Department officials were scrambling to revise and reissue the report after questions were raised about errors that were apparent from the department's own data.

    The turnabout represented the first time the State Department has had to significantly rewrite the report since it was first ordered up by Congress two decades ago as the government's authoritative reference tool on worldwide terrorist activity, trends and groups.

    As issued, the report said the number of terrorist attacks had declined by 45% since 2001, dropping to its lowest level in 34 years. At the time, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said the report offered "clear evidence" that the Bush administration was prevailing in the fight against global terrorism.

    Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) said in a May 17 letter to Powell that the report had excluded several major attacks and other readily available information that, when added, showed terrorist attacks were at their highest levels in decades, not their lowest.

    "This manipulation may serve the administration's political interests," Waxman wrote, "but it calls into serious doubt the integrity of the report."

    Powell said the revised report would reflect a sharp increase in terrorist acts in 2003. And he said he had called Waxman personally to assure him that the Bush administration's efforts to publicize successes in its counter-terrorism policies had no influence on the report's contents.

    Powell said State Department and CIA staffers worked through the weekend to determine what went wrong in the data collection process. He said he would meet with his staff and representatives of the CIA and other counter-terrorism agencies today "to find out how these numbers got into the report."

    Powell said the State Department had received its terrorism statistics for 2003 from the new Terrorist Threat Integration Center, which brings together analysts from the CIA, FBI and other agencies. In prior years, the CIA provided the data.

    "When you look at it in hindsight now ? all sorts of alarm bells should have gone off. All sorts of, as I say to my staff, circuit breakers should have dropped when we saw this data, and they didn't," Powell said on "Meet the Press." "But I don't think there was anything political or policy driven about it."

    Powell stopped short of blaming the CIA. "I'm not saying it is responsible until I sit down with all of the individuals who had something to do with this report," he said.

    A State Department official said Powell was unhappy with the CIA and the threat center for providing faulty information ? and even angrier at his senior aides for the report's omissions.

    "There's a lot of blame to go around," the official said. "The question he's asking is, 'Why didn't you guys question this?' "

    Powell also declined to comment on whether his department's release of the flawed report undermined his own credibility, particularly in conjunction with his embrace of the CIA's prewar intelligence on Iraq, which he now concedes was also flawed and inaccurate.

    Tim Russert, the host of "Meet the Press," asked Powell: "Why shouldn't the American people lose all confidence in the information their government is giving them from the CIA about weapons of mass destruction, about terrorism, and who knows what else?"

    Referring to the prewar intelligence on Iraq, Powell said, "Well, we've got to get to the bottom of that.?

  3. #3
    Sheriff jumper69's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13th, 2001
    Posts
    1,950
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    1 Post(s)

    Post

    Regardless of which political affiliation you subscribe to, if you accept ANYTHING our government states as fact, AS FACT, then you need your head examined.

    What are those big lies again????

    The checks in the mail
    I won't cum in your mouth
    I'm fromt the government and I'm here to help... [img]graemlins/whatever.gif[/img]

  4. #4
    Inactive Member Piña's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12th, 2001
    Posts
    1,022
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    Originally posted by Jumper69:
    Regardless of which political affiliation you subscribe to, if you accept ANYTHING our government states as fact, AS FACT, then you need your head examined.
    <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Agree for the most part. I'd change it by just one word though to: If you accept unchallenged anything our government states as fact you need your head examined.

    And, just curious but, what branch of government were you dealing with when they told you "I won't cum in your mouth"? I know the training for special ops must be tough but that's a bit over the top. [img]biggrin.gif[/img]

  5. #5
    Inactive Member travelinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 19th, 2001
    Posts
    2,440
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quoted
    0 Post(s)

    Post

    Originally posted by Pi?a:

    And, just curious but, what branch of government were you dealing with when they told you "I won't cum in your mouth"?
    <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's a Navy thing, don't you know?

  6. #6
    Emperor Napoleon
    Guest Emperor Napoleon's Avatar

    Post

    Originally posted by Pi?a:
    </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Jumper69:
    Regardless of which political affiliation you subscribe to, if you accept ANYTHING our government states as fact, AS FACT, then you need your head examined.
    <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Agree for the most part. I'd change it by just one word though to: If you accept unchallenged anything our government states as fact you need your head examined.

    And, just curious but, what branch of government were you dealing with when they told you "I won't cum in your mouth"? I know the training for special ops must be tough but that's a bit over the top. [img]biggrin.gif[/img]
    </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hahahahahahaha.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •