State Dept. accused of fudging (terrorism) numbers for political gain

[CShine]

Washington -- 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 that the report, considered the authoritative yardstick of the prevalence of terrorist activity around the world, has had to be revised. When the most recent "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report was issued 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 during a celebratory rollout of the report.

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

<snip>

On Tuesday, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, 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 Waxman said the Bush administration so far has refused to address his allegation that it manipulated the terrorism data to claim victory in the U.S.-declared war on terrorism.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/09/MNGUG734ER1.DTL

[cosmicaug]

1. Human erorr.

Quoting article:

Several U.S. officials and terrorism experts familiar with that revision effort said the new report could well show that the number of significant terrorist incidents actually increased last year, perhaps to its highest level in 20 years.

Quoting article:

Among the original report's highlights: The annual number of terrorist attacks had dropped to its lowest level in 34 years, declining by 45 percent since 2001.

How does one make an error such that we have possibly the highest levels of terrorism in 20 years and it comes out as the lowest level in 34 years?

That's some mistake!

[Cronus Protagonist]

2. Yeah, it was human error - greed for a better story

Someone cooked them thar books and they need to go. I think it's time for a clean out.

BLAME BUSH FIRST!

Click here for "BLAME BUSH FIRST", and other fair and balanced yet stunning buttons, magnets and stickers

[Owsley]

3. What really bugs me...

...is that the original report on global terrorism was a front page kind of thing...big deal, etc. Where did I find this article in my local paper (Denver Post)? Last page of the A section, sandwiched in between advertisements.

It's easy to get away with fudging stats in a big way when the retractions are essentially hidden.

Owsley

[Journeyman]

5. Back in the mid-seventies, Owsley. . .

I remember a front page, banner headline article in the LA Times that boldly declared the Soviet Union was in direct violation of SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) Agreements because they had detonated an underground nuclear device. It got all sorts of peopled riled and letters to the editor flooded in denoucing Soviet perfidy and demanding they be held to account.

About a week later, when this article had accomplished whatever it was the State Dept/Pentagon wanted to incite, an article appeared buried in the back of section 1, sandwiched between the panty hose ads and the depilatory pitches, a small article that explained how the Soviets had not been in violation of any agreements, and that, in fact, the SALT terms gave them permission to do exactly what they had done.

I guess what I'm saying is, journalism /government manipulation of the people is a long-standing practice. The bastards.

[denverbill]

4. I'm sure the revision will be front-page news, like the original.n/t

[struggle4progress]

6. Colin, Colin, Colin. Have you at long last no shame?

[really-looney]

7. BIG STORY KICK

BIG STORY