State Department Report on Global Terrorism: Oops, we got it wrong.

In April, the US State Department released a report, Patterns of Global Terrorism," for the year 2003. It noted a considerable decrease in acts of terrorism over the previous years, and dramatic reducations in the numbers of people killed and injured in such attacks.

Of course, the State Department’s Co-ordinator for Counterterrorism, Cofer Black, was quick to attribute this success to the US-led war or terror, announcing in a press conference that:

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was also bullish on the terrorism issue, claiming that the report demonstrated that the battle was being won:

But it appears that Cofer and Armitage spoke too soon. Yesterday (6/22) the State Department released a revised report, announcing that the previous figures were incorrect, and presenting what it now says are the real numbers, which actually show increases rather than decreases from 2002 to 2003 in most of the relevant statistics:

Of course, when in political hot water, blame the technology first. From an article in the New York Times today:

Yeah, ok.

But i wonder if the esteemed administration spokespeople would now like to retract their statements suggesting that the “lower” figures provide evidence that the Bush administration’s strategies are working.

And, more importantly, show significant increases over the 2003 numbers released on April 29.

Personally, when I saw the “lower numbers” report originally, I just assumed that they had changed the definition of “terrorist attack” to be more exclusive. Never in my wildest dreams did I think that they’d actually admit to mucking up the records.

-lv

One thing about government agencies like the State Department is that, no matter which political partyy is in charge, those departments generally contain a bunch of good, professional employees who actually believe that their first task is to get the numbers right, and to leave the political spin to other people. That means that, once an error like this is discovered, it would be very hard to keep it covered up, even if the administration wanted to.

Note also that i’m not saying that Cofer Black or Richard Armitage or anyone else wanted to cover up the new figures, only that, even if they did, it might have been difficult because there’s always the chance of a leak or a whistleblower. Better to get out in front of it now.

All i’m wondering is, if the original figures were touted as a showcase for Bush’s anti-terrorism strategy, what can we learn from the new, accurate figures?

Well, if the Bush regime and their supporters here are honest they will draw the opposite conclusion, the rising figures show the strategy has failed, just as loudly as they used the figures to prove success.

I’m going to go out on a limb and predict they’ll do nothing of the sort.

Beginning holding my breath … Now!

Maybe, Tagos, but could “they” just say “it’s not working YET” and then recommend more money/troops/time/whatever to fight the war on terrorism?

Perhaps. My money is on “They are becoming desperate, as we roll up their networks and crush their resistance, and are flinging such terrorists act at us in a last gasp of despair!”

I hope that if any revised statement is forthcoming that it’ll be posted for us here and that, given an appropriate interval, if none develops that that’ll be noted as well. Thanks mehendo for a decidedly non-partisan assessment of the snafu.

Having commented on the significance of the numbers once, we’re certainly due the same after the revision.

egads mhendo, sorry!

I blame the Spanish.

Well, when the new figures were released yesterday, they trotted out poor old Colin Powell to present the bad news. Here’s an excerpt from the press conference, in which he becomes involved in an exchange over how Richard Armitage interpreted the original report (see my OP), and how this interpretation might change in light of the new numbers:

After Powell left for the White House, Cofer Black and John Brennan came out to provide a more detailed account of why the original report was incorrect. Reporters asked them similar questions to the ones they asked Powell, regarding what this meant for the success or otherwise of the war on terror.

(Note: this is a rather long excerpt, but government press conferences like this are in the public domain, and i don’t believe they are subject to copyright or fair use restrictions.)

Sounds like just about the usual amount of weaseling going on.

Wow, makes me want to lob a brick at my computer.

First impressions would suggest the numbers were used when they presented a compelling story but questioned (significant vs. non-significant) when they didn’t. This rambling early and singular assessment doesn’t represent the official version though. I’m still anticipating that particular read.

“Ooops, we did it again!
We lied through our teeth…”

Channeling Brutus and his ilk

“But imagine how much higher those numbers would have been without Bush on the job.”

Channeling Homebrew and Co.

“Uh, huhuhuhuh, uh, like, um, well, hahahahuh, Bushco! Cheney is a cyborg!, and uh, well, uhm…”

Channeling one of my cats
Miaaow?

Damn, Brutus is even less coherent when he’s pretending to be someone else, and I didn’t think Brutus could get any less coherent!

Much like the Bush Administration itself – just when you think things couldn’t get any worse…

Nonsense! Friend Brutus is clearly referencing the geo-political standing of the US in terms of our balance of payments trade status, and how this affects our capacity to induce Third World compliance with our strategic goals.

Either that, or its “Leftys are all poo-poo heads! Praise the Leader!”