Lies About the War on Terror

Happy Friday.

The current administration loves to bandy about two bits of propaganda concerning the war on terror:

(1) The assertion that there hasn't been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.
(2) The participation of our "allies" in the war on terror especially those participating in the "coalition of forces" in Iraq; for example, Spain (now withdrawn) and Britain.

But, if our wartime allies are under attack aren't we, by definition, under attack as well? Was the Battle of Britain, in World War II, of no consequence to the United States because it happened on British soil and not here?

In truth, there have been more terrorist attacks since 9/11 than before, regardless of location. The current administration is losing their war. Last year the State Department's report Patterns of Global Terrorism was harshly criticized by a professor of economics at Princeton University and a professor of political science at Stanford University. In their article, Faulty Terror Report Card they revealed that, contrary to the current administration's claims of success:

The number of significant terrorist acts increased from 124 in 2001 to 169 in 2003 --36 percent -- even using the State Department's official standards. The data that the report highlights are ill-defined and subject to manipulation -- and give disproportionate weight to the least important terrorist acts. The only verifiable information in the annual reports indicates that the number of terrorist events has risen each year since 2001, and in 2003 reached its highest level in more than 20 years.

In stark contrast, relying on the same report, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage contended: "You will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight [against terrorism]."

As the professors explained, the report's attempt to "spin" the war on terror was accomplished:

... by combining significant and nonsignificant acts of terrorism. Significant acts are clearly defined and each event is listed in an appendix, so readers can verify the data. By contrast, no explanation is given for how nonsignificant acts are identified or whether a consistent process is used over time -- and no list is provided describing each event. The data cannot be verified.

As a result of these criticisms, the current administration was forced to acknowledge it had "undercounted" and issued an amended report. This year, however, although publication of the report is required by law (22 U.S.C. § 2656f), the current administration determined to eliminate the report. This blatant failure of governmental transparency and honesty is exacerbated by the fact that:

"statistics that the National Counterterrorism Center provided to the State department reported 625 "significant" terrorist attacks in 2004. That compared with 175 [as amended] such incidents in 2003, the highest number in two decades."

In short, it's getting a lot worse. And yesterday was just one more example. Oh wait, the attacks on London don't count ... they didn't happen "here".