Political cover up isle 3 please..
04-29-2005, 02:39 PM
#32
VIP Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Least Coast :(
Posts: 8,159
Car Info: 08 sti
Just for the retards of the bunch (hella dumb)
2000
2001
ahh **** it
here is another article that i mentioned previously about powell and how the administration accidently forgot about a bunch of terror events..
2000
2001
ahh **** it
here is another article that i mentioned previously about powell and how the administration accidently forgot about a bunch of terror events..
U.S. raises figures for 2003 terrorist attacks
'Significant attacks' at 21-year high, revised data show
From Elise Labott
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. government restated its 2003 accounting of terrorist attacks Tuesday, reporting a sharp increase in the number of significant attacks and more than doubling its initial count of those killed.
The State Department's annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report now counts 208 terrorist attacks as having occurred in 2003, with 625 dead. When the report was released in April, it counted 307 deaths in a total of 190 terror attacks.
The number of people killed in terrorist attacks worldwide still declined in 2003 when compared with 2002, when 725 people were killed. But the decline was much less steep than originally reported, and the number of "significant attacks" -- those involving large numbers of casualties or property damage -- increased from 138 in 2002 to 175 in 2003, a 21-year-high.
"We have 18 more total events, five more significant events and 13 more nonsignificant events than originally reported," said Cofer Black, the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator. "These new figures are accompanied by a dramatic increase in the numbers of casualties originally calculated."
The number of attacks originally reported was the lowest total since 1969, but Secretary of State Colin Powell said earlier this month that the reported decline was incorrect.
Researchers Alan B. Krueger of Princeton University and David Laitin of Stanford University reported in May that the number of significant attacks represented a 36 percent increase over 2001, up from 124 that year.
Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California has suggested the numbers were being "manipulated" to serve the Bush administration's political interests.
The State Department eventually conceded that the original report failed to include a number of deadly attacks in the latter part of 2003, including a car bomb that exploded in a housing compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and a series of attacks in Istanbul, Turkey, all of which took place in November.
"For the past two weeks now, we have had a major effort under way within the State Department to get to the bottom of the data error and determine what corrections were appropriate and to make those corrections so we could show those corrections to the American people," Powell said Tuesday.
Powell previously blamed the erroneous conclusions on mistakes, not political pressure.
Black said the report was "marred by significant errors" when it was originally released. But he said those errors were the result of "honest mistakes, and certainly not deliberate deceptions."
The information was compiled by the CIA and the Terrorist Threat Information Center, which includes officials from the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and the CIA.
John Brennan, director of the federal Terrorist Threat Integration Center, said a database error caused his agency to provide incomplete statistics to the CIA. The CIA then passed those incomplete numbers along to the State Department.
Brennan said he took responsibility for the error, but "Anyone who might assert that our numbers were intentionally skewed is mistaken."
'Significant attacks' at 21-year high, revised data show
From Elise Labott
CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. government restated its 2003 accounting of terrorist attacks Tuesday, reporting a sharp increase in the number of significant attacks and more than doubling its initial count of those killed.
The State Department's annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report now counts 208 terrorist attacks as having occurred in 2003, with 625 dead. When the report was released in April, it counted 307 deaths in a total of 190 terror attacks.
The number of people killed in terrorist attacks worldwide still declined in 2003 when compared with 2002, when 725 people were killed. But the decline was much less steep than originally reported, and the number of "significant attacks" -- those involving large numbers of casualties or property damage -- increased from 138 in 2002 to 175 in 2003, a 21-year-high.
"We have 18 more total events, five more significant events and 13 more nonsignificant events than originally reported," said Cofer Black, the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator. "These new figures are accompanied by a dramatic increase in the numbers of casualties originally calculated."
The number of attacks originally reported was the lowest total since 1969, but Secretary of State Colin Powell said earlier this month that the reported decline was incorrect.
Researchers Alan B. Krueger of Princeton University and David Laitin of Stanford University reported in May that the number of significant attacks represented a 36 percent increase over 2001, up from 124 that year.
Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California has suggested the numbers were being "manipulated" to serve the Bush administration's political interests.
The State Department eventually conceded that the original report failed to include a number of deadly attacks in the latter part of 2003, including a car bomb that exploded in a housing compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and a series of attacks in Istanbul, Turkey, all of which took place in November.
"For the past two weeks now, we have had a major effort under way within the State Department to get to the bottom of the data error and determine what corrections were appropriate and to make those corrections so we could show those corrections to the American people," Powell said Tuesday.
Powell previously blamed the erroneous conclusions on mistakes, not political pressure.
Black said the report was "marred by significant errors" when it was originally released. But he said those errors were the result of "honest mistakes, and certainly not deliberate deceptions."
The information was compiled by the CIA and the Terrorist Threat Information Center, which includes officials from the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and the CIA.
John Brennan, director of the federal Terrorist Threat Integration Center, said a database error caused his agency to provide incomplete statistics to the CIA. The CIA then passed those incomplete numbers along to the State Department.
Brennan said he took responsibility for the error, but "Anyone who might assert that our numbers were intentionally skewed is mistaken."
04-29-2005, 08:24 PM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,556
See that Jr and company are not on the up and up about a lot of things and do not take responsibilty for their actions.
That this war on terrorism was a mistake in the way it was handled and that if anything it has made things worse like I stated it would since the start. Oh and this is the highest number ever in the history of 19 years of these reports. And it doesn't include Iraq, (like I stated before) so this should be an eye opener for all of you.
What can you do? Write your Senators and Reps. Don't email, write. Emails get filed away for the most part and ignored. While written ones are usually read, then filed. I would suggest calling but even then that is not very personal, and doesn't get to the Senator or Rep. Your best bet is to go to their office and explain your distaste at what is happening, in a intelligent manner. Usually if the Senator or Rep has time they will actually talk to you, as long as they represent you.
That this war on terrorism was a mistake in the way it was handled and that if anything it has made things worse like I stated it would since the start. Oh and this is the highest number ever in the history of 19 years of these reports. And it doesn't include Iraq, (like I stated before) so this should be an eye opener for all of you.
What can you do? Write your Senators and Reps. Don't email, write. Emails get filed away for the most part and ignored. While written ones are usually read, then filed. I would suggest calling but even then that is not very personal, and doesn't get to the Senator or Rep. Your best bet is to go to their office and explain your distaste at what is happening, in a intelligent manner. Usually if the Senator or Rep has time they will actually talk to you, as long as they represent you.
05-02-2005, 11:43 AM
#35
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Originally Posted by Salty
So what are we supposed to do?
You're supposed to stop defending a worthless 'war on terror' and admit that the BushJr admin has made more mistakes than ought to be allowed for the leader of the most powerful country on earth.
05-02-2005, 12:04 PM
#37
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Originally Posted by Salty
Were you against OEF too?
No, I was against going in the first place. Once we went, however, it would be ludicrous to NOT have OEF.
05-02-2005, 12:16 PM
#38
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Guess what! OEF was worthless 'war on terror' too.
Here's my problem with people that are against Bush in these respects. They seem to be more concerned about what he once said in a speech than actual results.
You can attack the fact Bush said 'war on terror' which was immediately associated with the entire world and numerous cells we're not focusing on in Colombia (etc). Then it goes back to our 3ft of space -or- taking our world police force to the 20th degree! It wouldn't matter if we hit every country in quest for terrorist groups other than the Taliban because you'd find a way to ***** about the astronomical cost then and the draft (which would be reinstated then). The Taliban attacked us in 2001 and we crippled the entire network. If you look at those charts the USA has been clean since.
Same thing with WMDs. You can attack and smear bush's words all day long but what about the results? Doesn't this mean anything?
Here's my problem with people that are against Bush in these respects. They seem to be more concerned about what he once said in a speech than actual results.
You can attack the fact Bush said 'war on terror' which was immediately associated with the entire world and numerous cells we're not focusing on in Colombia (etc). Then it goes back to our 3ft of space -or- taking our world police force to the 20th degree! It wouldn't matter if we hit every country in quest for terrorist groups other than the Taliban because you'd find a way to ***** about the astronomical cost then and the draft (which would be reinstated then). The Taliban attacked us in 2001 and we crippled the entire network. If you look at those charts the USA has been clean since.
Same thing with WMDs. You can attack and smear bush's words all day long but what about the results? Doesn't this mean anything?
05-02-2005, 12:23 PM
#39
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Originally Posted by Salty
Here's my problem with people that are against Bush in these respects. They seem to be more concerned about what he once said in a speech than actual results.
I wouldn't have brought up results in this thread. Since this thread is about confirmed poor results, after all.
05-02-2005, 01:23 PM
#40
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wherever Sucks the Most
Posts: 8,675
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Then you obviously missed my point about additional costs, the draft and what world police power we'd further become.
If you think OEF was necessary then all you seem to have a problem with is Bush’s vauge usage of the term “war on terrorism.” You see, had it been "war on the Taliban" then everything would be accounted. After all it "would be ludicrous to NOT have OEF." It’s safe to say that we went after the Taliban under good pretenses, right? It was the right thing to do and obvious that we crippled their organization from what it was pre-2001. Surely we couldn’t turn our back on what had happened.
But I want to see you type in your next post that you would have backed Bush’s generalized “war on terror” statement if he took the fight to every country in the report. I’m talking a full attack on the FARC, ELN, AUC, Hamas, Ugandan guerillas, Afircan Islamists ASG, MBG etc.
Even if it meant a debt that puts our current figures to shame, expedentially more deaths on every front than we’re facing now and the inevitable fact your number got drawn for service. Tell me you wouldn’t have complained anyways.
At this point you're thinking Bush should have ONLY stuck to the tailban as a rebuttal. Unfortunately for your argument that would make this entire report irrelevant.
When you realize I’m right I want you to present a solution to the war on terrorism even if it means backing down to them.
If you think OEF was necessary then all you seem to have a problem with is Bush’s vauge usage of the term “war on terrorism.” You see, had it been "war on the Taliban" then everything would be accounted. After all it "would be ludicrous to NOT have OEF." It’s safe to say that we went after the Taliban under good pretenses, right? It was the right thing to do and obvious that we crippled their organization from what it was pre-2001. Surely we couldn’t turn our back on what had happened.
But I want to see you type in your next post that you would have backed Bush’s generalized “war on terror” statement if he took the fight to every country in the report. I’m talking a full attack on the FARC, ELN, AUC, Hamas, Ugandan guerillas, Afircan Islamists ASG, MBG etc.
Even if it meant a debt that puts our current figures to shame, expedentially more deaths on every front than we’re facing now and the inevitable fact your number got drawn for service. Tell me you wouldn’t have complained anyways.
At this point you're thinking Bush should have ONLY stuck to the tailban as a rebuttal. Unfortunately for your argument that would make this entire report irrelevant.
When you realize I’m right I want you to present a solution to the war on terrorism even if it means backing down to them.
Last edited by Salty; 05-02-2005 at 01:37 PM.
05-02-2005, 01:33 PM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Blue-faced in a red state
Posts: 2,256
Car Info: 04 Silver WRX Wagon
Originally Posted by Salty
Same thing with WMDs. You can attack and smear bush's words all day long but what about the results? Doesn't this mean anything?
05-02-2005, 01:48 PM
#43
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Salty, first off I misunderstood OEF. I thought that was Op Enduring Freedom, and I thought that's what we were calling the continued occupation of Iraq. Apparently OEF was our fight against the Taliban. My bad.
But, to keep the discussion up, I think we should have gone after the Taliban...but we should have killed ObL and then left the network to collapse. Should have gone after him as an international public enemy #1, gone in with forces from all of our allies (instead of leaving out most of them), and actually gotten him. Instead, we have this war on terror that hasn't stopped any terror (according to the report in this thread that you have already agreed is from a reliable source), and ObL is still alive. The war on terror has so far accomplished this: -given the gov't the ability to violate civil rights if it chooses (especially for people of certain heritages), -cost more money than would be needed to overhaul the education system, -made Jr look like a world hero in his speeches, when in fact the war against the Taliban and the war on terror have done virtually nothing, -changed conservative view point from 'we should downsize gov't and let the international community be' to 'we should spend gov't money, create new gov't agencies, and be the world's police'. I would think a fiscal conservative like yourself would be mad at Jr for this move.
My comment in the other post about OEF was meant as this. After we started a war in Iraq, we should definatly stay to make sure the effort we gave is not lost immediatly. Sorry I got confused with all the little names that are given to make these police activities more media friendly.
But, to keep the discussion up, I think we should have gone after the Taliban...but we should have killed ObL and then left the network to collapse. Should have gone after him as an international public enemy #1, gone in with forces from all of our allies (instead of leaving out most of them), and actually gotten him. Instead, we have this war on terror that hasn't stopped any terror (according to the report in this thread that you have already agreed is from a reliable source), and ObL is still alive. The war on terror has so far accomplished this: -given the gov't the ability to violate civil rights if it chooses (especially for people of certain heritages), -cost more money than would be needed to overhaul the education system, -made Jr look like a world hero in his speeches, when in fact the war against the Taliban and the war on terror have done virtually nothing, -changed conservative view point from 'we should downsize gov't and let the international community be' to 'we should spend gov't money, create new gov't agencies, and be the world's police'. I would think a fiscal conservative like yourself would be mad at Jr for this move.
My comment in the other post about OEF was meant as this. After we started a war in Iraq, we should definatly stay to make sure the effort we gave is not lost immediatly. Sorry I got confused with all the little names that are given to make these police activities more media friendly.
Last edited by MVWRX; 05-02-2005 at 01:54 PM.
05-02-2005, 02:00 PM
#44
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: location location
Posts: 1,661
Car Info: 98 Impreza Outback Sport
Originally Posted by HellaDumb
Do you honestly believe that terrorist attacks have increased 5 fold if you subtract Iraq and Afghanistan? Even if it were true, don't you think you'd be doing your buddy Bin Laden a favor in pointing it out? I mean really, what side of the war on terror are you on?
That's about as weak as the commercial that says when you buy a dime-sack of weed you're helping to fund terrorism.
It appears as if they're embarrassed about what the report may imply. Facing the facts and trying to find the real numbers, whatever they are, would look alot better to the public than abrupty putting an end to these reports.