Those pesky facts getting in the way aga in.....

“State Dept. Concedes Errors in Terror Data

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 10, 2004; Page A17

Two months ago, the Bush administration released its annual report card on counterterrorism and gave itself an A. The number of terrorist attacks around the globe, according to the State Department report called "Patterns of Global Terrorism," was at the lowest ebb in the past 34 years.

Unfortunately they left out data AFTER 9/11......ooops
Complete story”

“gotta register for this one, Mtnsteve. You did get my curiosity up though!”

“By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 10, 2004; Page A17

Two months ago, the Bush administration released its annual report card on counterterrorism and gave itself an A. The number of terrorist attacks around the globe, according to the State Department report called "Patterns of Global Terrorism," was at the lowest ebb in the past 34 years.
Ambassador at Large for Counterterrorism J. Cofer Black, citing the existence of only 190 acts of terrorism in 2003, called it "good news" attributable in part to unprecedented U.S. collaboration with foreign partners. He predicted the trend would continue in 2004. Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage cited the data as "clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight."

Not long afterward, however, the report was pilloried by academics, a lawmaker and others. They said its math defied the reality of a steady growth in the number and significance of terrorist attacks in 2003, as well as the worst type of attacks spreading from just a few countries to at least 10.

The Congressional Research Service cited the complaints in a June 1 report urging a review of the report's "structure and content." Rep. Henry A. Waxman (Calif.), senior Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, said in a May 17 letter to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell that "it is deplorable that the . . . report would claim that terrorism attacks are decreasing when in fact significant terrorist activity is at a 20-year high."

Yesterday, after reviewing the matter more carefully, the department formally conceded it made a few mistakes.

"At our request, the Terrorist Threat and Integration Center is reviewing and revising the statistics for 2003," spokesman Adam Ereli said. "We anticipate that a correction to the 'Patterns of Global Terrorism' will be publicly issued as soon as possible."

Officials declined to detail the errors to be corrected by the center. It was created last year from elements of the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and the Defense Department, with the goal of becoming the authoritative administration voice on terrorism.

But one senior official, speaking on the condition that he not be cited by name, said the corrections could fill eight pages, including a revised chronology of events, "a list of some things that should have been put in or left out," and various explanatory notes. Word of the State Department's decision was first reported yesterday by the Los Angeles Times.

Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA analyst and former deputy director of State's counterterrorism office, is among those who have urged a wide-ranging correction. He said that even using the report's own data, as presented in its statistical tables, the total number of terrorist incidents in 2003 rose, not fell, compared with 2002.

The number of deaths in the tables was 390, not 307 as department officials asserted in public comments; the number of wounded was 1,895, not 1,593, Johnson said. He said the number of significant incidents -- involving victims who were killed, injured or kidnapped -- rose from 60 percent of incidents in 2002 to 89 percent in 2003.

He also noted, as did Waxman and scholars at Princeton and Stanford universities, that the report omitted acts of terrorism after Nov. 11, 2003. The department attributed this to a cutoff date for printing the report in time for its release on April 29. At a result, a Nov. 15 suicide bombing in Istanbul that killed 61 people and injured more than 300 was omitted.

Johnson said the report also omitted from the list of significant acts of terrorism, for unknown reasons, the 13 terrorist attacks in Russia attributed to Chechens in 2003, which he said caused the deaths of 244 people. Although most significant attacks occurred in just two countries in 2002 -- Israel and India -- they occurred in 10 in 2003, Johnson said: Afghanistan, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Morocco, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Turkey.

"When you read the report, TTIC did not add [the data] properly. Even a third-grader could have found this," Johnson said. "The body counts in 2002 and 2003 were at the highest levels in history."

© 2004 The Washington Post Company”

“I truly believe that this administration is incapable of telling the truth.”

“Who needs truth if it doesn't promote the agenda?”

“Thanks, Steve. Sometimes you just have to c & p. No problem.

Yeah, I remember reading that report when they published...


...only I forgot to put on my rose colored glasses!”

“I'd like to be able to see what incidents were left out and why.

"Unfortunately they left out data AFTER 9/11......ooops"

Where did you get this? it's not in the article you cut and pasted.”

“mtnsteve: Unfortunately they left out data AFTER 9/11......ooops

You misread the report, by over two years. They reported statistics up to a date in this past November based on deadlines (real or imagined) in their reporting/publishing process.

It does sound like there was some real incompetence here, but not the way your first post made it sound.”

“I miss read the dates from this line....

"He also noted, as did Waxman and scholars at Princeton and Stanford universities, that the report omitted acts of terrorism after Nov. 11, 2003. The department attributed this to a cutoff date for printing the report in time for its release on April 29. At a result, a Nov. 15 suicide bombing in Istanbul that killed 61 people and injured more than 300 was omitted."”

“Lying sacks of poop!”

“I goofed...

But it doesn't change the point that this administration twists facts to suit their agenda.”

“That must be it Fritz, mtnsteve's original post made it seem like administration incompetence. From what I read in the article this sounds like beauracratic incompetence. I have no problem with them using a cut off date if that was part of an established procedure, and as long as that was noted or was obvious in the original report.”

“What about all the other missing data?”

“Thats right...just bureaucratic incompetence. Kinda like the problems in the prisons in Iraqi.”

“Criminals”

“Kinda like when liberals leave out the facts when it comes to gun control.”

“Literally speaking (in terms of Bsuhie), MtnSteve was right the whole time. Some facts were left out after 9/11, it just so happens those facts were left out from 11/31 to 1/04, which is "after 9/11/01".

Sucks to be a dittohead!”

“They didn't even mention in that report the biggest terrorist attack of all. The one that started in March of 2003. The invasion of Iraq, that killed many thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians armed with AK-47's.

8)”

“"What about all the other missing data?"

That's what I want to know, is it a case of basic incompetence? - whoever was responsible for data collection missed sources etc... Is it a question of reviewers or data collectors deciding to leave some information out? And if so why? Was there disagreement as to what should be included within the scope of the report? and if that was the case were the reasons that led to certain data being left out legitimate? The article doesn't answer these questions, all it tells me is the Henry Waxman (shocker) and some academics decided that information that should have been in there was missing. Are they making this determination based on their understanding of the scope of the report? Is their understanding different from those who made the report?

Since the article does state that they are editing the report I'd like to know if those who are now in control of the process are different people from those who created it and if so has the idea of the scope of the report evolved?

The math being wrong seems to be clearly incompetent, but guess what, gov't beauracrats don't get fired, and the writers and editors would most likely all be at the beauracratic level.

One thing seems certain, reports like this should be subject to an external review process before publication. Although that will probably never go over well due to the possibility of leaks politically influencing the final product.”

“Buddha, the way I (and probably everyone else) understood that first post, is entirely different from what was actually left out. So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

I don't think MtnSteve was being deliberately misleading, nor do I wish to defend the report itself, but...if you want to criticise them for having facts wrong, you should have the facts right in your criticism, and not make it sound worse than it actually was.”

“In the future mtnsteve, I’d appreciate it if you check with me before posting articles of this type. I’m in a competition with bitpusher for ‘foremost purveyor of crap on this forum’ and your scooping me does nothing for my numbers.”

“It seems that I should be letting the pros handle the crap until I can get a better grip on the facts myself.



Naaaaaaaaaaaaa phuck em


The facts that is.”

“Scared me for a minute there.

:)”

“;-)”

“"The April decline was an understatement."

-- Dick Boucher
Bush Press Guy”