US admits it wrongly Reported Drop in World Terrorism in 2003

aria

Former Moderator
Joined
Dec 4, 1977
Posts
39,546
For the sake of correcting future misinformation, I thought I'd share this -since so many have relied on this now admittedly wrong report.

------------
June 11, 2004
U.S. Wrongly Reported Drop in World Terrorism in 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON, June 10 - The State Department acknowledged Thursday that it was wrong in reporting that terrorism declined worldwide last year, a finding the Bush administration had pointed to as evidence of its success in countering terror.

Instead, the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department said. Statements by senior administration officials claiming success were based "on the facts as we had them at the time; the facts that we had were wrong," Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said.

When the report was issued April 29, senior administration officials used it as evidence that the war was being won. J. Cofer Black, coordinator of the State Department's Counterterrorism Office, cited the 190 acts of terrorism in 2003, down from 198 in 2002, as "good news" and predicted the trend would continue. Richard L. Armitage, the deputy secretary of state, said at the time, "You will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight." His office did not respond Thursday to a request for a statement on disclosures that some of the findings were inaccurate. The erroneous report, titled "Patterns of Global Terrorism," said that attacks declined last year to the lowest level in 34 years and dropped 45 percent since 2001, Mr. Bush's first year as president, when 346 attacks occurred.

Among the mistakes, Mr. Boucher said, was that only part of 2003 was taken into account.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Thursday that the errors were partly the result of new procedures for collecting data. "I can assure you it had nothing to do with putting out anything but the most honest, accurate information we can," Mr. Powell said said.

"Errors crept in that, frankly, we did not catch here," he said of the report, which showed a decline in the number of attacks worldwide in 2003.

Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, said this week that the administration had refused to address his contention that the findings were manipulated for political purposes. Mr. Waxman wrote to Mr. Powell in May asking for an explanation.

Mr. Boucher said the department was preparing a reply. "We wanted to make sure that we give the congressman the best and most accurate picture of what we know and what's going on as we can," he said.

"When we are sure we have the new facts, the right facts, we will prepare an appropriate analysis and give you our assessment at that moment," Mr. Boucher said.

He said the errors began to become apparent in early May. "We got phone calls from people who were going through our report and who said to themselves, as we should have said to ourselves: 'This doesn't feel right. This doesn't look right.' And who started asking us questions," he said.
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
So, how wrong was it?? How much of the year was not accounted for?? What was the final tally for the number of attacks? Is this an accounting error, or are the numbers significantly different as to imply unethical behavior? These questions will determine the validity/importance of this story. As it stands, the article seems rather inconclusive.
 

aria

Former Moderator
Joined
Dec 4, 1977
Posts
39,546
galfordo said:
So, how wrong was it?? How much of the year was not accounted for?? What was the final tally for the number of attacks? Is this an accounting error, or are the numbers significantly different as to imply unethical behavior? These questions will determine the validity/importance of this story. As it stands, the article seems rather inconclusive.

I had the same thought.

It's all been rather rapid. Basically the State Department said two days ago that it would probably make a correction, then made the statement that it "is" going to make a correction yesterday (which this news story reports).

As for the correction, I don't know if they still need to do research... or if they're not going to since it would involve a probably large audit of their own report (and they're probably already stretched on resources). I think they're taking the short cut by just acknowledging that independent inquires by private orgs and individuals have proven they were wrong. Of course, that would imply that they accept the independent figures -if those exist I don't know.
 

BlackSpy

Tsrgoihrea,
20 Year Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2002
Posts
2,959
I think it's a complete non story. Definitions of terrorism are so vauge as to be meaningless which means counting them is an exercise in picking the right answer and making the facts fit it.

I don't think the scandel is that a report on this was wrong, but that anyone thought it a sensible measure of global terrorism.
 

Loopz

Formerly Punjab,
Joined
Aug 16, 2001
Posts
12,871
OMG, the Bush administration used false information to bolster claims that would benefit them politically. :eek:

In other news, a bear shit in the woods. Somewhere.
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Posts
15
Not surprising.

This administration stands on two legs:
Lies, and Americans willingness to accept them.

Ironic that the conservative media spends so much of its time dwelling on the "immoral lies" of the Clinton administration to gather steam for the conservative machine.
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
Patrick Riot. said:
Not surprising.

This administration stands on two legs:
Lies, and Americans willingness to accept them.

Ironic that the conservative media spends so much of its time dwelling on the "immoral lies" of the Clinton administration to gather steam for the conservative machine.

Conservative media? :tickled:

What country are you living in? Since when has the media focused on the "immoral lies of the Clinton administration"?
 

SSS

neo retired
Joined
Sep 27, 2002
Posts
10,771
galfordo said:
Conservative media? :tickled:

What country are you living in? Since when has the media focused on the "immoral lies of the Clinton administration"?

:rolleyes:
 

Loopz

Formerly Punjab,
Joined
Aug 16, 2001
Posts
12,871
What country are you living in? Since when has the media focused on the "immoral lies of the Clinton administration"?

Goddamn you're dense.

The media is neither liberal or conservative. Let go of that ancient, stupid myth.
The media is simply concerned with pleasing viewers, and in doing so, offered extensive coverage of the Monica Lewinsky scandal (sex sells), as well as covering the debacle in Iraq. I think this entire week of endless touching tributes to Ronald Reagan should be the equivalent of a bullet in the head for that stupid 'liberal media' fallacy once and for all. Find a new crutch upon which to pin your beloved Bushies' troubles. The media run to whatever they think people wanna see, end of fucking story.
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
Loopz said:
Goddamn you're dense.

The media is neither liberal or conservative. Let go of that ancient, stupid myth.
The media is simply concerned with pleasing viewers, and in doing so, offered extensive coverage of the Monica Lewinsky scandal (sex sells), as well as covering the debacle in Iraq. I think this entire week of endless touching tributes to Ronald Reagan should be the equivalent of a bullet in the head for that stupid 'liberal media' fallacy once and for all. Find a new crutch upon which to pin your beloved Bushies' troubles. The media run to whatever they think people wanna see, end of fucking story.

Loopz, I'm not gonna respond to your melodramatic "i'm smarter than you" bullshit. You go ahead and have your delusions if they make you happy.

As a whole, I'd say that the media is slighltly liberal. You can't simply point to one event and say that that's conclusive evidence about the media's political stance. That's the statistical equivalent of finding one fat person and concluding that everyone's fat. In the end, it's just a judgement call - and both sides can make a case. However, Fox is the only network that I've seen to be rightward leaning, while CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the gang tend to slant leftward -- IMO.

I do believe, however, that the media will quickly cast aside its political leanings in favor of a big story - they're all ratings whores in the end.
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Posts
15
galfordo said:
Conservative media? :tickled:

What country are you living in? Since when has the media focused on the "immoral lies of the Clinton administration"?


AM Talk Radio---the entire band---is the voice box of conservatism.
A clear majority of it is owned by Clear Channel, who supports the Republican party [and in turn, its ideals] with the maximum campaign contributions allowed each year---going so far as to force their employees to donate. In turn, republican leaders lessen industry restrictions year by year, allowing Clear Channel communications to strengthen their stranglehold over all broadcasting. [Great for a capitalist society...right?]

Talk show hosts and DJs working for Clear Channel have been fired again and again for even hinting at liberal or anti-war views post 9.11.

It's mainly these stations...with conservative staples such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and to a lesser extent, Matt Drudge....that spend hours on end comparing this administration to the Clinton administration. There's constant vindication of Bush's lies using Clinton's sexual escapades and scandalous history.

I feel its important for me to listen to AM Talk Radio, and other blatantly conservative news outlets [such as FoxNews, Clear Channel owned FM stations, etc] to gather an educated opinion about politics---something most people, knee deep in their own Party Pride, fail to even attempt.
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Posts
15
galfordo said:
Loopz, I'm not gonna respond to your melodramatic "i'm smarter than you" bullshit. You go ahead and have your delusions if they make you happy.

As a whole, I'd say that the media is slighltly liberal. You can't simply point to one event and say that that's conclusive evidence about the media's political stance. That's the statistical equivalent of finding one fat person and concluding that everyone's fat. In the end, it's just a judgement call - and both sides can make a case. However, Fox is the only network that I've seen to be rightward leaning, while CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the gang tend to slant leftward -- IMO.

I do believe, however, that the media will quickly cast aside its political leanings in favor of a big story - they're all ratings whores in the end.

Do some research on what political party ALL media moguls belong to.
I'll help you: The Republican party.

It's their conservative ideals that help shape what the entire broadcast industry deems newsworthy. I'd be interested to know if you're even aware of where most news stations---local and national---get their headlines from?
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
Patrick Riot. said:
AM Talk Radio---the entire band---is the voice box of conservatism.
A clear majority of it is owned by Clear Channel, who supports the Republican party [and in turn, its ideals] with the maximum campaign contributions allowed each year---going so far as to force their employees to donate. In turn, republican leaders lessen industry restrictions year by year, allowing Clear Channel communications to strengthen their stranglehold over all broadcasting. [Great for a capitalist society...right?]

Talk show hosts and DJs working for Clear Channel have been fired again and again for even hinting at liberal or anti-war views post 9.11.

It's mainly these stations...with conservative staples such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and to a lesser extent, Matt Drudge....that spend hours on end comparing this administration to the Clinton administration. There's constant vindication of Bush's lies using Clinton's sexual escapades and scandalous history.

I feel its important for me to listen to AM Talk Radio, and other blatantly conservative news outlets [such as FoxNews, Clear Channel owned FM stations, etc] to gather an educated opinion about politics---something most people, knee deep in their own Party Pride, fail to even attempt.

Dude, don't listen to AM radio if you're a liberal - it'll just give you a distorted view of how the country thinks. Fox News gets pretty good ratings - but I people subverting the country through AM radio. Well, maybe it'll help 'em with FL, since they're all over 70.
 

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
Patrick Riot. said:
Do some research on what political party ALL media moguls belong to.
I'll help you: The Republican party.

It's their conservative ideals that help shape what the entire broadcast industry deems newsworthy. I'd be interested to know if you're even aware of where most news stations---local and national---get their headlines from?

Rush Limbaugh?
 
Top