U.S. Corrects Report to Show Rise in Terrorism

[zimv20]

link (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Terror-Report.html?hp)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Correcting an inaccurate report, the State Department announced Tuesday that acts of terror worldwide increased slightly last year and the number of people wounded rose dramatically.

The department also reported a decline in the number of people killed -- to 625 from 725 during 2002. But in April, the department reported 307 people had been killed last year -- a much bigger decline.

The findings had been used by senior Bush administration officials to bolster President Bush's claim of success in countering terrorism.

Initially, 190 acts of terror were reported in 2003, a slight decrease from the 198 attacks reported for 2002. On Tuesday, the State Department said there were 208 acts of terror last year, a slight increase from 2002.

Thirty-five U.S. citizens died in international terror attacks last year. The deadliest incident was a suicide bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in May in which nine Americans were killed.

The report did not include U.S. troops killed or wounded in Iraq, or the incidents there, in its report ``because they were directed at combatants.'' Attacks against civilians and unarmed military personnel were included.

A total of 3,646 people were wounded worldwide in terror attacks last year, the report said. This represented a sharp increase from the 2,013 wounded in 2002.

In April, the department had said that 1,593 people were wounded in 2003, a sharp decline from the previous year.

Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to make a statement later Tuesday.

The initial report was issued April 28. On June 10, the State Department acknowledged the findings were inaccurate. Powell attributed the errors partly to a new data system and said there was no attempt to manipulate the figures to buttress Bush's argument.

When the report was issued, senior administration officials claimed that it showed Bush's counter-terror campaign was a success.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the report was based ``on the facts as we had them at the time. The facts that we had were wrong.''

(more)

[wwworry]

It is heartening to hear them admit a mistake. :)

[Neserk]

but they will never admit it was an intentional mistake... too many coincidences and "mistakes" with this administration...

[skunk]

but they will never admit it was an intentional mistake... too many coincidences and "mistakes" with this administration...
And they made an awful lot more noise with the original announcement than with the retraction. :mad:

[Neserk]

And they made an awful lot more noise with the original announcement than with the retraction. :mad:

Isn't that how it always works?

[mactastic]

So if the original report (falsely) was used by the Bush administration as evidence of success in the WOT, does the opposite now hold true? Can democrats claim it as evidence that the WOT is losing ground, or is the use of this report for political purposes limited to the GOP?

[IJ Reilly]

Check out this interview with Cofer Black at the State Department. It gets off to this inauspicious start:

MARGARET WARNER: The last time you all released this report in April, Secretary Armitage introduced you by saying, "in these pages, you'll find clear evidence that we're prevailing in this fight." Based on these new numbers, would you say that today?

COFER BLACK: I think the global war on terrorism is one that has witnessed a considerable amount of success, and we certainly should do a lot better job cataloging our successes. We have been able to catalog the significant loss of life and the injuries. In this report, Margaret, we just put out there. We list 625 dead and 3,646 injured.

I think to me the most significant statistic is that Islamic extremist terrorism is a prime factor in this. More than almost 50 percent of these casualties have taken place in 11 instances during the year. So we have both a few number of attacks with tremendous amounts of casualties, and at the same time we have an all-time high in the number of significant terrorist events, 175. The last time we had that was 1999 where there were 168. At the same time, we have 208 total instances.

So we have basically a mixed story in this -- the numbers of instances, the numbers of casualties. But I think the bottom line for your audience to consider is that of all these casualties and this considerable loss of life and injury, it's been mainly among non-Americans. Only approximately 1.5 percent of all these casualties are Americans. And so that means that 98.5 percent are foreigners. So the brunt of this global war on terrorism in terms of casualties so far in the year 2003 has been with non-Americans abroad.

Well just so long as they're just foreigners....

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june04/terror_6-22.html

[patrick0brien]

-Gents

You guys have far more faith in the abilities of this administration than I do. I, for one don't think they have their act together well enough to fake this. Frankly, I think it was what it was, a screwup.

[zimv20]

COFER BLACK: [chomp] But I think the bottom line for your audience to consider is that of all these casualties and this considerable loss of life and injury, it's been mainly among non-Americans.

jesus christ! i can't believe he said that!

anyone familiar w/ what happened in noonday, TX? if not, have a read (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/22/opinion/22KRUG.html?ex=1088896533&ei=1&en=90c6430ccecae7ce) and ask yourself how lucky we've been.

[patrick0brien]

-zimv20

Thank you for illustrating my point for me :D

[zimv20]

-zimv20

Thank you for illustrating my point for me :D
it is my pleasure :-)

[mactastic]

-Gents

You guys have far more faith in the abilities of this administration than I do. I, for one don't think they have their act together well enough to fake this. Frankly, I think it was what it was, a screwup.

If you do indeed feel that way then I have a couple of questions for you. One, do they have their act together enough to run this country for 4 more years in your opinion? And two, if the administration used a trumped up report (even by accident) to claim success in the WOT, should they also, in your opinion, accept blame for the increase in attacks?

[skunk]

And two, if the administration used a trumped up report (even by accident) to claim success in the WOT, should they also, in your opinion, accept blame for the increase in attacks?
And is it not extraordinary that, having had someone produce such dramatic figures, they did not bother to double-check? Reminiscent of reliance on Chalabi...
"If it suits your purpose, don't look twice."

[IJ Reilly]

And is it not extraordinary that, having had someone produce such dramatic figures, they did not bother to double-check? Reminiscent of reliance on Chalabi...
"If it suits your purpose, don't look twice."

Bingo. And if the figures no longer support the story-line, come up with a new story-line.

[radhak]

And is it not extraordinary that, having had someone produce such dramatic figures, they did not bother to double-check? Reminiscent of reliance on Chalabi...
"If it suits your purpose, don't look twice."
and that is the most galling to me. This administration has time and again revelled in proving itself incompetent (of course, the other option would have been to accept being part of a conspiracy). They have done (and not done) stuff that would get anybody else fired in similar situations, but they seriously believe that just by acknowledging errors they are are forgiven.

much less significant mistakes in the corporate world would stop careers short, but not here. Imagine a ceo / cfo trying to escape blame of mis-stated earnings statements with a 'it was a clerical / computer error'.

I am sure a lot republican party veterans are ruing the effect of such casual 'mea culpa' on their individual standing and in their constituencies.

[patrick0brien]

If you do indeed feel that way then I have a couple of questions for you. One, do they have their act together enough to run this country for 4 more years in your opinion? And two, if the administration used a trumped up report (even by accident) to claim success in the WOT, should they also, in your opinion, accept blame for the increase in attacks?

-mactastic

My answer to your (1): In a word, nope! But then Government isn't a pinnacle of organization efficiency or even best practices in general. The last thing a buiness wants to do when presenting a reorg plan, is to use government as an example. Government functions, but not as well as the private sector - and never really will. As for this current administration, no, I don't think they meet even the low standards of governance.

My answer to your (2): Ayep! The sword cuts both ways! And I dislike the fact they seem to feel immune. But then, that's politics.