Kahn, why do all conservatives have such selective memories?
Remember just last year when the US State department issued a memo showing that the war in iraq caused a sharp increase in terror
From 175 before the war to over 600 in 2003 and now over 11 000 incidents
Now since bush took over, there has been a 650-700% increase in terror worldwide. Sure signs that the war on Terror is a resounding success right conservatives?
-------------------------------
U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism
State Dept. Will Not Put Data in Report
By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A01
The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.
Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.
Terrorist incidents in Iraq also dramatically increased, from 22 attacks to 198, or nine times the previous year's total -- a sensitive subset of the tally, given the Bush administration's assertion that the situation there had stabilized significantly after the U.S. handover of political authority to an interim Iraqi government last summer.
The State Department announced last week that it was breaking with tradition in withholding the statistics on terrorist attacks from its congressionally mandated annual report. Critics said the move was designed to shield the government from questions about the success of its effort to combat terrorism by eliminating what amounted to the only year-to-year benchmark of progress.
Although the State Department said the data would still be made public by the new National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which prepares the information, officials at the center said no decision to publish the statistics has been made.
The controversy comes a year after the State Department retracted its annual terrorism report and admitted that its initial version vastly understated the number of incidents. That became an election-year issue, as Democrats said the Bush administration tried to inflate its success in curbing global terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"Last year was bad. This year is worse. They are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on terrorism internationally, we're losing," said Larry C. Johnson, a former senior State Department counterterrorism official, who first revealed the decision not to publish the data.
After a week of complaints from Congress, top aides from the State Department and the NCTC were dispatched to the Hill on Monday for a private briefing. There they acknowledged for the first time the increase in terrorist incidents, calling it a "dramatic uptick," according to participants and a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.).
The administration aides sought to explain the rise in attacks as the result of more inclusive methodology in counting incidents, which they argued made year-to-year comparisons "increasingly problematic," sources said.
In his letter urging Rice to release the data, Waxman said that "the large increases in terrorist attacks reported in 2004 may undermine administration claims of success in the war on terror, but political inconvenience has never been a legitimate basis for withholding facts from the American people."
Both Republican and Democratic aides at the meeting criticized what a GOP attendee called the "absurd" explanation offered by the State Department's acting counterterrorism chief, Karen Aguilar, that the statistics are not relevant to the required report on trends in global terrorism. "It's absurd to issue a report without statistics," said the aide, who is not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. "This is a self-inflicted wound by the State Department."
Aguilar, according to Hill aides, told them that Rice decided to withhold the statistics on the recommendation of her counselor, Philip D. Zelikow. He was executive director of the Sept. 11 commission that investigated the terrorist attacks on the United States.
The terrorism statistics provided to the congressional aides were not classified but were stamped "for official use only." Last week, State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher said the government would publish "all the facts," but at Monday's session Aguilar told the staff members that even if the NCTC decided not to release the data, the State Department would not reconsider and publicly do so itself.
A State Department spokesman said last night that he is confident the data will be officially released. He said the government is committed to "providing the public all the information it needs to have an informed debate on this issue."
Under the standards used by the government, "significant" terrorist attacks are defined as those that cause civilian casualties or fatalities or substantial damage to property. Attacks on uniformed military personnel such as the large number of U.S. troops stationed in Iraq are not included.
The data provided to the congressional aides also showed terrorist attacks doubling over the previous year in Afghanistan, to 27 significant incidents, and in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, where attacks rose to about 45, from 19 the year before. Also occurring last year were such deadly attacks as the seizure of a school in Beslan, Russia, by Chechen militants that resulted in at least 330 dead, and the Madrid train bombings that left nearly 200 dead.
The State Department did not disclose to the aides the overall number of those killed in incidents last year. Johnson said his count shows it was well over 1,000
Mark, there are not two realities.
msm ignored extract:
"The jihadists' greatest vulnerability is that their ultimate political solution - an ultraconservative interpretation of Shariah-based governance spanning the Muslim world - is unpopular with the vast majority of Muslims.
Exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists' propaganda would help to divide them from the audiences they seek to persuade."
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments_092606.pdf
once women are excluded, the jihadist audience is under 50% of muslims as a starting point.
The President released his own select key points to contest the Democrats, which is a political move, something Bush claims to detest so much from Democrats and accuses of them constantly. It is impossible for the public to make any understanding of it since the ones in power are controlling what gets seen by the public by using politically motivated censorship. Kind of like you Mark.
I would just contend that since the report stated that the war in Iraq became a recruiting poster for terrorists and contributing to their cause, while our leaders were telling us otherwise, is a pretty "bleak" situation.
I have not seen another blog or media source out there in which the cast is so right about everything.
There's a very fine line between fishing and just standing on the seashore like an idiot. Those that think they are fishing rarely can ascertain the difference.
Don't you wish there were a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence? There's one marked 'Brightness,' but it doesn't work
I'd be interested in any of you finding an instance where the Bush Administration claimed the war in Iraq was not being used by Islamofascists to recruit.
In fact, the typical argument I've seen is it's drawing them into Iraq, where we can fight them "there" instead of "here."
What USA says:
The President released his own select key points to contest the Democrats, which is a political move, something Bush claims to detest so much from Democrats and accuses of them constantly. It is impossible for the public to make any understanding of it since the ones in power are controlling what gets seen by the public by using politically motivated censorship. Kind of like you Mark.
What the world hears:
Waaaaah!
We leaked incomplete information as a political ploy and the mean nasty president screwed us to the wall with it! Waaaah! Mommy! Make him stop hitting me back!
What doesn't become a recruiting poster for these guys? Cartoons, Pope comments, Iraq, false desecration of their holy book etc, etc. I imagine if we withdrew and left them alone, that would tick them off too.
*Chuckles*
Too true MagicalPat. Because then they could say they "drove off the evil invaders" and rally more to their cause. There's NOTHING we can do that won't be turned (at least attempted) to their advantage. Just like politicians. :)
I'll ask again....WHAT IS THE PLAN LIBERALS?
What are you planning on doing...what is your plan?
Step One: change leadership so we get access to all the Intelligence, not only the cherry picked.
Step Two: assess the Intelligence; consult military leaders; consult foreign policy specialists; consult allies.
Step Three: change the course because the current ‘plan’ (if there is one in the first place) is certainly not working.
While I await the true release of this estimate and plenty of other documents, the Herald seems to quote two sentences and then leave off an important third sentence that does suggest a problem:
From: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1708787/posts
The 2 sentences the Herald quotes:
"The Iraq conflict has become the .cause celebre. for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."
The 3rd unpublished (by the Herald) sentence:
"We assess that the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities and are likely to do so for the duration of the timeframe of this Estimate."
While I'm not sure of the timeframe of the estimate, that third sentence is troublesome in that it states that the terrorists drive/structure/mission outweigh the things that can be/are being done to try to stop them. That suggests changing the way the fight against the terrorists and terrorism is being waged. And other quotes I've seen from this estimate suggest that one way to do that is get out of Iraq and fighting terrorism in ways that doesn't cause it to increase.
"Step One: change leadership so we get access to all the Intelligence, not only the cherry picked"...willem the Orange
Are you naive, uniformed or just plain stupid, or all three?
ho is 'we'???? The Democrat leadership ALREADY has access to this info. How do you think it was leaked?
"Step Two: assess the Intelligence; consult military leaders; consult foreign policy specialists; consult allies."
wow!! This is original, now one has even thought of it before much less actually done it. Brilliant!!
"Step Three: change the course because the current ‘plan’ (if there is one in the first place) is certainly not working."
Change course??? what does that mean? Phased pullout? cut and run? strategic withdrawl? what??? Care to add some specifcs? Cause if its any of the above you must not have read the other sections which were declassified by the President. These sections state that a withdrawl will be perceived as our failure in Iraq and lead to MORE TERRORISM Got that???...MORE!!!!
What a twit!! Do you read anything besides talking points??
Anybody think that D-day led to new recruits in Germany? Anybody think that attacking Saipan led to increased recruiting activites in Japan?
Yes - we are killing Islamic extremists and other extremists are rallying to the fight. Plan.... kill them also.
One reason they continue to fight is that they think that if the Democrats win in November, then they will have won. It will just be a question then of how fast we can run away. They read the talk from the Democratic leadership and imagine victory is just around the corner.
That IS your plan isn't it? This do it smarter consult our allies be honest talk is nice, if superficial. Honest now - you want to pull out of Iraq don't you? I mean, you aren't REALLY proposing that "doing it smarter" would mean sending MORE troops to Iraq are you?
Willem...why do you say the current plan isn't working? Is there a timeclock? Is there a scoreboard? Did year 3 of the US Revolution not work because it took us 8 years?
I love how you guys expect immediate results on something that has taken years in every other historical case.
Now, on the intelligence information...what information is being denied? Afterall, your Senators see the same stuff as Republican senators and you leak everything anyway...exactly what are you not seeing?
Finally...consult military leaders....wow is that one laughable. Last time I checked that's exactly what we've done for the last 3 years. Do you think there will ever be 100% agreement from generals on how to go about things? You're a fool if you think that is the case.
Crap there you have it the typical liberal "solution" to terrorists trying to kill us. Now let me see what is it? Oh yeah:
1) Continue to push boldface lies
2) Consult, consult, consult
and
3)Change the course of the current plan.
Now that should make is all sleep well at night eh?
Oranjeboom you sir are completely stuck on moronic...
Kahn, why do all conservatives have such selective memories?
Remember just last year when the US State department issued a memo showing that the war in iraq caused a sharp increase in terror
From 175 before the war to over 600 in 2003 and now over 11 000 incidents
Now since bush took over, there has been a 650-700% increase in terror worldwide. Sure signs that the war on Terror is a resounding success right conservatives?
-------------------------------
U.S. Figures Show Sharp Global Rise In Terrorism
State Dept. Will Not Put Data in Report
By Susan B. Glasser
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 27, 2005; Page A01
The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.
Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir.
Terrorist incidents in Iraq also dramatically increased, from 22 attacks to 198, or nine times the previous year's total -- a sensitive subset of the tally, given the Bush administration's assertion that the situation there had stabilized significantly after the U.S. handover of political authority to an interim Iraqi government last summer.
The State Department announced last week that it was breaking with tradition in withholding the statistics on terrorist attacks from its congressionally mandated annual report. Critics said the move was designed to shield the government from questions about the success of its effort to combat terrorism by eliminating what amounted to the only year-to-year benchmark of progress.
Although the State Department said the data would still be made public by the new National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), which prepares the information, officials at the center said no decision to publish the statistics has been made.
The controversy comes a year after the State Department retracted its annual terrorism report and admitted that its initial version vastly understated the number of incidents. That became an election-year issue, as Democrats said the Bush administration tried to inflate its success in curbing global terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"Last year was bad. This year is worse. They are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on terrorism internationally, we're losing," said Larry C. Johnson, a former senior State Department counterterrorism official, who first revealed the decision not to publish the data.
After a week of complaints from Congress, top aides from the State Department and the NCTC were dispatched to the Hill on Monday for a private briefing. There they acknowledged for the first time the increase in terrorist incidents, calling it a "dramatic uptick," according to participants and a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.).
The administration aides sought to explain the rise in attacks as the result of more inclusive methodology in counting incidents, which they argued made year-to-year comparisons "increasingly problematic," sources said.
In his letter urging Rice to release the data, Waxman said that "the large increases in terrorist attacks reported in 2004 may undermine administration claims of success in the war on terror, but political inconvenience has never been a legitimate basis for withholding facts from the American people."
Both Republican and Democratic aides at the meeting criticized what a GOP attendee called the "absurd" explanation offered by the State Department's acting counterterrorism chief, Karen Aguilar, that the statistics are not relevant to the required report on trends in global terrorism. "It's absurd to issue a report without statistics," said the aide, who is not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. "This is a self-inflicted wound by the State Department."
Aguilar, according to Hill aides, told them that Rice decided to withhold the statistics on the recommendation of her counselor, Philip D. Zelikow. He was executive director of the Sept. 11 commission that investigated the terrorist attacks on the United States.
The terrorism statistics provided to the congressional aides were not classified but were stamped "for official use only." Last week, State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher said the government would publish "all the facts," but at Monday's session Aguilar told the staff members that even if the NCTC decided not to release the data, the State Department would not reconsider and publicly do so itself.
A State Department spokesman said last night that he is confident the data will be officially released. He said the government is committed to "providing the public all the information it needs to have an informed debate on this issue."
Under the standards used by the government, "significant" terrorist attacks are defined as those that cause civilian casualties or fatalities or substantial damage to property. Attacks on uniformed military personnel such as the large number of U.S. troops stationed in Iraq are not included.
The data provided to the congressional aides also showed terrorist attacks doubling over the previous year in Afghanistan, to 27 significant incidents, and in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, where attacks rose to about 45, from 19 the year before. Also occurring last year were such deadly attacks as the seizure of a school in Beslan, Russia, by Chechen militants that resulted in at least 330 dead, and the Madrid train bombings that left nearly 200 dead.
The State Department did not disclose to the aides the overall number of those killed in incidents last year. Johnson said his count shows it was well over 1,000
Willem van Oranje must be from the Netherlands. Smoking too much crack and pot.
Hahaha! Yeah right, NY Slimes for president!
LiberalNightmare: Did you forget like the President that this is politics?
Thank God for me your words are mere Psychological Projection of the insecurity of your own child-like mind.
Bob Arctor a.k.a. Keefer: finally figured out how to change your profile? What took you so long?
LiberalNightmare: Did you forget like the President that this is politics?
Thank God for me your words are mere Psychological Projection of the insecurity of your own child-like mind.
Posted by: USA at September 28, 2006 01:48 AM
Thats funny, I thought it was about the defense of our nation. Of course, you liberals have been known to confuse the two now and then.