There was a story about this on NPR. They stopped counting in November. But State is quite offended by the claim that this was done for political reasons. With the revised numbers, the number of terrorists incidents went up instead of going down.
If they really think the insurgents in Iraq are terrorists, the incidents should go way, way up in 2004. Well, with any luck there will be new leadership when the counting is done.
The reason for the under count is immaterial as far as I’m concerned. They were apparently undercounting and the administration was using it to show their methods are working.
The question of whether or not to call guerillas “terrorists” is sticky. If civilians, like those who support the US by accepting office from Bremer, are targeted I suppose they should be scored as terror attacks. Roadside bombs used against military convoys being called terror would mean we need to go back and redefine the operations of French, Dutch, Norwegian and all other ‘resistance’ groups.
Right. That was exactly my point. How is it fair to use statistics to claim success but then decry the use of statistics when it shows failure? I can think of nothing more hypocritical.
–
Of course, there is more to the GW failure than just the counting of the incidence of terrorist incidents.
There is the apparent failure of anyone in the administration to understand anything about Iraq or what would be needed in the ultimate war aim of ‘bringing democracy to the Middle East’ which was finally arrived at after all the others turned out to be a bunch of crap.
A story in the Los Angeles Times this morning (10 June) deals with a mortarattack in Fallouja.
The story also mentions with another pipeline blowup and the infighting between factions of the body politic (ethinc?) in Iraq. For example there is this: “A political rift between ethnic factions in the interim government deepened Wednesday as a key Kurdish official threatened to boycott his Cabinet post until his duties were more fully defined.”
Earlier in this thread a poster mentioned my use of the word ‘plan’ in the title as being a pipedream since there wasn’t any plan. That complaint seems to be true. There was an aim - to bring democracy. However, the administration apparently has no one who had any conception of the complexity of the Iraqi tribal society and the steps needed to achieve the aim, or the proper sequence of those steps, or any reasonable timetable for accomplishing the sequence or much of anything else. And if there were any Iraq experts in State or DOD they must not have been consulted.
It was a typical GW fuckup, like his oil company ventures from which I suppose he was rescued by his father’s friends buying him out. Now I see that after having told the rest of the world to kiss off he is begging for more outside help in Iraq. In other words, “Please, somebody, anybody, help!”
I just can’t understand how anyone can support such an incompetent approach to such a vatal question as starting a war. And if anyone says how wonderful it will be when democracy is established in the Middle East and we can all live happily ever after I’m going to puke.
“Stay the course” indeed. There never was any clearly outlined course.
And, of course to top it all off. The Iraq mess takes resources and attention away from world-wide terrorism which was the stated objective in the first place. For the life of me, I can’t see why the election should even be close.
Well, I can think of a few things more hypocritical. But I agree that such actions would be hypocritical. Can you point out to me anyone who has done this?
Point taken, pervert. The way the search engine is working these days, it’d be a pretty tall order for me to find cites for one particular doper who both lauded the supposed decrease in terrorism when Bush was trumpeting it, AND decried the use of statistics when it appeared damning for Bush. If I had a week free to do research, maybe. But I certainly remember several SDMB pundits bringing up the subject as purported proof that the War on Terror was working. And I don’t remember any of the pro-Bush camp objecting to the use of statistics when they thought it was in their favor. :dubious:
Oh, and by the way - are you being this frickin’ literal just to be annoying?
Sorry, I left off the smiley. But since you ask, were you being so hyperbolic just to be annoying? 
Fair enough. As I have said, any use of those statistics would be premature at best in claiming the war was over. Certainly they could be used to claim that things were better (when they appeard to show that) just as they could be used to show that things are worse now. The only point I keep harping on is that they did not then, nor do they now show that “Bush’s plan is failing, we need a new crew”.
Sorry it bothered you so much. I thought it was a pretty normal amount of hyperbole. 
I’ll try to write all future posts in a monotone:
[robot voice]
It…is…logically…inconsistent…to…cite…statistics…in…ones…favor…and…also…decry…statistics…when…not…in…ones…favor.[/robot voice]
Thank you. That was quite funny. I am imagining the voice from the Lost in Space robot. Perhaps we could invoke him from now on as a hyperbole detector. We could certainly use on these days.
[robot voice]
Danger SMDB! Danger SDMB! My sensors detect an unusually high concentration of hyperbole and invective arguments. Warning!
[/robot voice]