Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

So here's the Bush administration talking point to defend the Iraq war

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 10:24 PM
Original message
So here's the Bush administration talking point to defend the Iraq war
The NIE says Iraq is manufacturing terrorists and making the world less safe. The talking point that just failed because of the NIE is the one you've heard a million times: better to have them all in one place than spread out, "over there" instead of "over here."

So much for that. Iraq is the training ground, and the extremism fueling and funding that training has an ever-swelling cadre of fighters to call on. There are more than two million Iraqi refugees in Syria, for starters, people who have fled the war. Some of them might be kinda angry, I think, and Syria has no love for us. Like effective soldiers, a lot of the people bombing and shooting our troops know the ground far better than we do, because they were born there.

The new talking point, therefore, is, "Yeah, but we've been at war with Islamojihadofascistoists since 1979. This isn't new." Pretty clever, if you think about it. 1979 was the year of the Islamic Revolution in Iran.

While there is truth to the fact that the 70s saw the first real eruption of this kind of terrorism - Munich being the first really astonishing attack and Iran being a huge instigator with the hostages - this new talking point is also an amazingly facile sidestep.

Nothing in the last 50 years has been as destabilizing to the Midest and the world than this occupation of Iraq. Anyone who thinks 9/11 was a good thing is rejoicing, because they have a recruitment poster for the ages. The world less safe because of the war over there - ask London - and we are less safe specifically because our military is falling apart.

But that's the talking point. Listen for it. James Woolsey rolled it out tonight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. So, why didn't the Great Communicator deal with it? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. There's at least an attempt at intellectual nuance involved.
He's not good at that. They'll boil it down for him after they road-test it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. She means St. Ronnie
If it was a problem in the 80's surely the Great and Powerful Ron would have solved it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Oh. Ron. He did take care of it.
Edited on Tue Sep-26-06 11:05 PM by WilliamPitt
His people rigged a secret deal to have the Iranian hostages released literally minutes before he was sworn in. That expanded to him selling missiles to the same Iranians who had the hostages, and then more than 200 Marines died in Beruit, so he invaded Grenada but still kept selling missiles to Iran because he needed that money down south, and at the same time he propped up Saddam Hussein and armed him to fight Iran, during which time he sold chemical and biological weapons to Hussein while giving Hussein battlefield coordinates to best use those WMDs against Iranian troops, while selling missiles to Iran to be used against Iraqi troops, and all the while he was arming, funding and training Afghan mujeheddin so they could fight the Soviets, and one of those guys was Osama bin Laden, and so we helped bin Laden learn how to defeat a superpower.

Yep. Ronnie was right on top of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. So, basically, we're cleaning up after Ronnie, aren't we?
Edited on Tue Sep-26-06 11:16 PM by sfexpat2000
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Been saying that for years.
Planet Reagan
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 07 June 2004

Buffalo Bill's
defunct
who used to
ride a watersmooth-silver
stallion
and break onetwothreefourfive pigeonsjustlikethat
Jesus
he was a handsome man
and what i want to know is
how do you like your blueeyed boy
Mister Death

- e.e. cummings, "Buffalo Bill's Defunct"


Ronald Reagan is dead now, and everyone is being nice to him. In every aspect, this is appropriate. He was a husband and a father, a beloved member of a family, and he will be missed by those he was close to. His death was long, slow and agonizing because of the Alzheimer's Disease which ruined him, one drop of lucidity at a time. My grandmother died ten years ago almost to the day because of this disease, and this disease took ten years to do its dirty, filthy, wretched work on her.

The dignity and candor of Reagan's farewell letter to the American people was as magnificent a departure from public life as any that has been seen in our history, but the ugly truth of his illness was that he lived on, and on, and on. His family and friends watched as he faded from the world of the real, as the simple dignity afforded to all life collapsed like loose sand behind his ever more vacant eyes. Only those who have seen Alzheimer's Disease invade a mind can know the truth of this. It is a cursed way to die.

In this mourning space, however, there must be room made for the truth. Writer Edward Abbey once said, "The sneakiest form of literary subtlety, in a corrupt society, is to speak the plain truth. The critics will not understand you; the public will not believe you; your fellow writers will shake their heads."

The truth is straightforward: Virtually every significant problem facing the American people today can be traced back to the policies and people that came from the Reagan administration. It is a laundry list of ills, woes and disasters that has all of us, once again, staring apocalypse in the eye.

How can this be? The television says Ronald Reagan was one of the most beloved Presidents of the 20th century. He won two national elections, the second by a margin so overwhelming that all future landslides will be judged by the high-water mark he achieved against Walter Mondale. How can a man so universally respected have played a hand in the evils which corrupt our days?

The answer lies in the reality of the corrupt society Abbey spoke of. Our corruption is the absolute triumph of image over reality, of flash over substance, of the pervasive need within most Americans to believe in a happy-face version of the nation they call home, and to spurn the reality of our estate as unpatriotic. Ronald Reagan was, and will always be, the undisputed heavyweight champion of salesmen in this regard.

Reagan was able, by virtue of his towering talents in this arena, to sell to the American people a flood of poisonous policies. He made Americans feel good about acting against their own best interests. He sold the American people a lemon, and they drive it to this day as if it was a Cadillac. It isn't the lies that kill us, but the myths, and Ronald Reagan was the greatest myth-maker we are ever likely to see.

Mainstream media journalism today is a shameful joke because of Reagan's deregulation policies. Once upon a time, the Fairness Doctrine ensured that the information we receive - information vital to the ability of the people to govern in the manner intended - came from a wide variety of sources and perspectives. Reagan's policies annihilated the Fairness Doctrine, opening the door for a few mega-corporations to gather journalism unto themselves. Today, Reagan's old bosses at General Electric own three of the most-watched news channels. This company profits from every war we fight, but somehow is trusted to tell the truths of war. Thus, the myths are sold to us.

The deregulation policies of Ronald Reagan did not just deliver journalism to these massive corporations, but handed virtually every facet of our lives into the hands of this privileged few. The air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat are all tainted because Reagan battered down every environmental regulation he came across so corporations could improve their bottom line. Our leaders are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the corporations that were made all-powerful by Reagan's deregulation craze. The Savings and Loan scandal of Reagan's time, which cost the American people hundreds of billions of dollars, is but one example of Reagan's decision that the foxes would be fine guards in the henhouse.

Ronald Reagan believed in small government, despite the fact that he grew government massively during his time. Social programs which protected the weakest of our citizens were gutted by Reagan's policies, delivering millions into despair. Reagan was able to do this by caricaturing the "welfare queen," who punched out babies by the barnload, who drove the flashy car bought with your tax dollars, who refused to work because she didn't have to. This was a vicious, racist lie, one result of which was the decimation of a generation by crack cocaine. The urban poor were left to rot because Ronald Reagan believed in 'self-sufficiency.'

Because Ronald Reagan could not be bothered to fund research into 'gay cancer,' the AIDS virus was allowed to carve out a comfortable home in America. The aftershocks from this callous disregard for people whose homosexuality was deemed evil by religious conservatives cannot be overstated. Beyond the graves of those who died from a disease which was allowed to burn unchecked, there are generations of Americans today living with the subconscious idea that sex equals death.

The veneer of honor and respect painted across the legacy of Ronald Reagan is itself a myth of biblical proportions. The coverage proffered today of the Reagan legacy seldom mentions impropriety until the Iran/Contra scandal appears on the administration timeline. This sin of omission is vast. By the end of his term in office, some 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, indicted or investigated for misconduct and/or criminal activities.

Some of the names on this disgraceful roll-call: Oliver North, John Poindexter, Richard Secord, Casper Weinberger, Elliott Abrams, Robert C. McFarlane, Michael Deaver, E. Bob Wallach, James Watt, Alan D. Fiers, Clair George, Duane R. Clarridge, Anne Gorscuh Burford, Rita Lavelle, Richard Allen, Richard Beggs, Guy Flake, Louis Glutfrida, Edwin Gray, Max Hugel, Carlos Campbell, John Fedders, Arthur Hayes, J. Lynn Helms, Marjory Mecklenburg, Robert Nimmo, J. William Petro, Thomas C. Reed, Emanuel Savas, Charles Wick. Many of these names are lost to history, but more than a few of them are still with us today, 'rehabilitated' by the administration of George W. Bush.

Ronald Reagan actively supported the regimes of the worst people ever to walk the earth. Names like Marcos, Duarte, Rios Mont and Duvalier reek of blood and corruption, yet were embraced by the Reagan administration with passionate intensity. The ground of many nations is salted with the bones of those murdered by brutal rulers who called Reagan a friend. Who can forget his support of those in South Africa who believed apartheid was the proper way to run a civilized society?

One dictator in particular looms large across our landscape. Saddam Hussein was a creation of Ronald Reagan. The Reagan administration supported the Hussein regime despite his incredible record of atrocity. The Reagan administration gave Hussein intelligence information which helped the Iraqi military use their chemical weapons on the battlefield against Iran to great effect. The deadly bacterial agents sent to Iraq during the Reagan administration are a laundry list of horrors.

The Reagan administration sent an emissary named Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to shake Saddam Hussein's hand and assure him that, despite public American condemnation of the use of those chemical weapons, the Reagan administration still considered him a welcome friend and ally. This happened while the Reagan administration was selling weapons to Iran, a nation notorious for its support of international terrorism, in secret and in violation of scores of laws.

Another name on Ronald Reagan's roll call is that of Osama bin Laden. The Reagan administration believed it a bully idea to organize an army of Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan to fight the Soviet Union. bin Laden became the spiritual leader of this action. Throughout the entirety of Reagan's term, bin Laden and his people were armed, funded and trained by the United States. Reagan helped teach Osama bin Laden the lesson he lives by today, that it is possible to bring a superpower to its knees. bin Laden believes this because he has done it once before, thanks to the dedicated help of Ronald Reagan.

In 1998, two American embassies in Africa were blasted into rubble by Osama bin Laden, who used the Semtex sent to Afghanistan by the Reagan administration to do the job. In 2001, Osama bin Laden thrust a dagger into the heart of the United States, using men who became skilled at the art of terrorism with the help of Ronald Reagan. Today, there are 827 American soldiers and over 10,000 civilians who have died in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, a war that came to be because Reagan helped manufacture both Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

How much of this can be truthfully laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan? It depends on who you ask. Those who worship Reagan see him as the man in charge, the man who defeated Soviet communism, the man whose vision and charisma made Americans feel good about themselves after Vietnam and the malaise of the 1970s. Those who despise Reagan see him as nothing more than a pitch-man for corporate raiders, the man who allowed greed to become a virtue, the man who smiled vapidly while allowing his officials to run the government for him.

In the final analysis, however, the legacy of Ronald Reagan - whether he had an active hand in its formulation, or was merely along for the ride - is beyond dispute. His famous question, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" is easy to answer. We are not better off than we were four years ago, or eight years ago, or twelve, or twenty. We are a badly damaged state, ruled today by a man who subsists off Reagan's most corrosive final gift to us all: It is the image that matters, and be damned to the truth.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Telly Savalas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. But the Islamofascistists in Afghanistan were good guys then.
Now they're bad guys.

Kind of like how Hulk Hogan was a good guy wrestler, then became a bad guy.

Watching professional wrestling is a really good way of understanding conservative foreign policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marnieworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #7
16. two things
1- I think it's funny that when she said "The Great Communicator" you thought she meant Bush sarcastically. We should all start calling him this for fun. :P

2- This post of yours makes me think I need a cigarette and it has been years since I had one. I guess I'll just bang my head against the wall instead. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laurab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
34. That was one LONG sentence.....
And I don't think there was a wasted word in it, either!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. the pride of simi valley...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoseyWalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. Blair sold his country
for what? I still can't figure it out.

The price of an English muffin? Has it also gone up 7.7% this past year?

(medical/pharaceutical costs)

There is no defense. That's why they use every weapon in their lying liars arsenal.

New talking point:

We're losing the war over there so we don't lose it over here.

rinse and repeat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 10:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. it has been clear that events have occurred since round that time-frame...
Edited on Tue Sep-26-06 10:39 PM by bridgit
even without Woolsey having paid lip service to the installation of a puppet 'peacock throne' and people being hell'ah pissed about that; other blips on other screens as well; i think the response should be "but in either event this so-called, as-such bush doctrine has made virtually no contribution toward stemming any tides whatsoever only irritating them, or resolving for that matter any issues long, or short term; bush is a failure plain & simple"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
4. Maybe they can go back to "It's World War III !"
That one stuck so well the first time they threw it against the wall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-26-06 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
8. Right. It's worse than a "recruiting" slogan -- It is a training ground
Edited on Tue Sep-26-06 11:06 PM by ConsAreLiars
The Corp(se) Media talk only about the "recruiting" aspect.

The imperialist acts of the PNACers, with the consequent mass slaughter of innocents, validates the most virulently extremist ideologies in those lands. But beyond the propaganda advantage, the hundreds of thousands of victims make the motivation of the recruits far more than ideological, it becomes deeply personal. And to cap it all, instead playing paintball games in some remote desert, they get real hands on training is real live warfare.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 06:06 AM
Response to Original message
12. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 06:23 AM
Response to Original message
13. morning kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 06:26 AM
Response to Original message
14. Then why insist the 9-11 commission stop at 1998? BCCI truths too scary
for the Bush family, eh, Georgie?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shugh514 Donating Member (274 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
17. First it was WMD
Then it was Saddam is a bad man. He has to go.
Now it is to draw in the "terrorists" and fight them over there.
That just doesn't cut it.
What right do we have to turn Iraqi into our battlefield for the "War On Terror"? We could have kept our troops in Afghanistan and fought the battle there. Instead we have created another "terrorist" state.
The excuses just get weaker and weaker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
18. '79 was also the year the communists overthrew the government
of Afghanistan, and then called upon the soviets to back up their revolution. the soviets, thinking they could capitalize on the disorder next door in Iran, moved in and we, in return, transformed the conflict from a nationalist struggle into a religious struggle by funding jihadists. We started that fight by backing religious radicals instead of a true democratic movement.

Within a matter of a year, the theocratic regime in Tehran was being attacked by the secular, and covertly US funded, Iraqi regime while jihadists were fighting a war against the secular communists next door. No wonder islam feels it is under attack.

As much as I admire Jimmy Carter, that was the one great mistake of his career - giving legitimacy to the religious extremists in Afghanistan. And it should be an object lesson to our current government,to those who see the religious right as nothing more than another electoral base to target - you cannot control religious extremists once they've been roused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
19. Numerical measures of global terrorism the WH has hidden support
your thesis overwhelmingly.

How plausible is the argument that the invasion of Iraq and subsequent mishaps there have caused terrorism to "metastaticize"? Numerical data on trends in measures of terrorism might help in deciding whether terrorism has accelerated since "Mission Accomplished".

IMO, for that very reason, Dubya's Dept of State has halted longstanding publication of annual measures of terrorism and substituted reports that have very few numbers in them (See the second URL below for details).

But, using obscure Congressional reports and other sources, it still is possible to bring the series up to date. Here it is:

TRENDS IN OFFICIAL US GOVERNMENT NUMERIC MEASURES OF WORLD TERRORISM

Year . . . Killed . . Wounded . . . . Acts

2005 . . 14,602 .. .. 25,398 .. . 11,111
2004 . . . 1,907 . . .. . 7,393 . . . 3,168
2003 . . . . 625 . . . . . 3,646 . . . . 208
2002 . . . . 725 . . . . . 2,013 . . . . 199
2001 .. . 3,547 . . . . . 1,080 . . . . 346
2000 . . . . 405 . . . . . . 791 . . . . 423
1999 . . . . 233 . . . . . . 706 . . . . 392
1998 . . . . 741 .. . . . 5,952 . . . . 273
1997 . . . . 221 . . . .. . 693 . . . . 304
1996 . . . . 311 .. . . . 2,652 . . . . 296

SOURCES: 1996-2002: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_of_Global_Terrorism
2003-2005: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/69479.pdf , page CRS-7

This table is very dramatic. IMO, what it shows is that

(1) 9-11 was a "blip" in historic deaths due to terrorist acts. While 3,547 were killed that year, overwhelmingly at the WTC, the number of deaths fell dramatically the following year, and continued to fall into 2003, when on May 1 Dubya declared "Mission Accomplished" in a photo-op aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

(2) Deaths from terrorist acts more than tripled from 2003 to 2004, and then increased more than sevenfold on top of that tripling.

Thus there seems to have been a dramatic acceleration in world deaths from terrorist acts since 2003.

OT questions (answer at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2231628 ):

(A) Does anyone have an explanation other than the US invasion of Iraq, and the deteriorating military situation there since 2003?

(B) Does anyone have an explanation for the obscurity and apparent deliberate obfuscation of these numbers other than a White House attempt to hide the terrorism consequences of the Iraq fiasco?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Can you better explain
how you came to your 2005 numbers? This is extremely interesting stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #20
24. Look at page CRS-7 of the Congressional Research Service
Edited on Wed Sep-27-06 11:36 AM by ProgressiveEconomist
report online at http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/69479.pdf :

"Data released by the NCTC concurrently with the Department of State's 2006 terror report indicate the following:

In 2005, the NCTC lists roughly 40,000 individuals wounded or killed in terrorist incidents as compared to 9,300 the previous year and 4,271 in 2003. Reported terror-related deaths in 2005 numbered 14,602 as compared to 1,907 deaths in 2004 and 625 in 2003. The report placed the number of total reported terrorist attacks in 2005 at 11,111 as compared to 3,168 in 2004 and 208 in 2003."

I did some subtraction to separate "killed" from "killed or wounded" to get "wounded" for 2003 - 2005.

The National Counterterrorism Center lists very few reports on its website (at http://www.nctc.gov ), but it has a data search engine that Raphael Perl -- Specialist in International Affairs -- Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division of the Congressional Research Service -- may have used to create this report. I don't know which member of Congress requested it. Senator Dianne Feinstein would be a good guess, since she's such a sharp pencil on the Intelligence Committee (Remember her July 1 2001 CNN warning of a major OBL attack inside the US "within the next three months"? See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2229776&mesg_id=2233555 )

The title of the report, dated July 21 2006, is "Trends in Terrorism: 2006". Note the almost humorous disclaimer at the bottom of the summary page (PDF2): "This report will not be updated"!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #26
33. A REPUBLICAN subcommittee chair appears the most likely member
to have requested the CRS report I cited for the 2003-2005 numbers. An unbroken series of annual terrorism report tables from State, dating from 1983, suddenly was truncated in 2005.

Royce (R-CA) of the House terrorism annual report review oversight subcommittee evidently did not realize the numerical measures were being dropped until he received his copy of the published 2005 report. Royce well may be the Congress member who requested the CRS report I cited for the 2003-2005 estimates from the very experienced Raphael Perl at the Congressional Research Service (google http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22raphael+perl%22+crs+terrorism&btnG=Google+Search ), after expressing outrage at the review hearing:

From http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa21207.000/hfa21207_0.HTM :

"REVIEWING THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S ANNUAL REPORT ON TERRORISM

HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM AND NONPROLIFERATION

OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION

MAY 12, 2005

Serial No. 109…50

Mr. ROYCE. The State Department's last two editions of its yearly report on international terrorism have been mired in some controversy. The 2003 edition had to be reissued after significant errors were detected, errors that underreported the number of terrorist attacks for 2003. This year the State Department issued its 2004 report, minus its traditional annex statistically reporting on the number of terrorist attacks worldwide. This change leaves us with two documents, Country Reports on Terrorism, produced by the State Department, and A Chronology of Significant International Terrorism, produced by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), where we used to have one: Patterns of Global Terrorism.

Patterns had been around since 1983. It was widely used throughout the world because it was authoritative and it was comprehensive. In truncating this document, a pretty good brand name was jettisoned. Post 9/11, when we are finding that much of what we have been doing for years in the terrorism field has been ineffective, it is an odd time to play with success. The new Country Reports on Terrorism is a bit like a one-sided baseball card. We have the terrorist picture on the front and we see what team he is on. What is missing are the statistics on the back. In this case, it is the grisly statistics of attacks committed and deaths, injuries and damage inflicted. Looking to next year, I would ask the Administration to revisit its decision to split this report in two. One report makes sense. ... I do not understand why the Committee was not consulted as the decision to alter Patterns was made.

To some, this may be just a report, but it is a congressionally-mandated report dealing with the central security challenge facing our Nation. ... This is not to This report is, or at least was, a useful tool, but again, it is not the ultimate scorecard in the battle against terrorism. ... My hope for this hearing is that we examine the issues and look ahead. A commitment from the Administration to work with Congress on producing the best possible report on international terrorism would be a good start.</blockquote>


LICAN chair (Royce, R-CA) of the oversight subcommittee, who evidently did not realize the numerical measures were being dropped until he received his copy of the published 2005 report. Royce well may be the Congress member who requested the CRS report I cited for the 2003-2005 estimates from the very experienced Raphael Perl at the Congressional Research Service (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22raphael+perl%22+crs+terrorism&btnG=Google+Search>), after expressing outrage at the http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa21207.000/hfa21207_0.HTM>:

<blockquote>REVIEWING THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S ANNUAL REPORT ON TERRORISM

HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM AND NONPROLIFERATION

OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION

MAY 12, 2005

Serial No. 109…50

Mr. ROYCE. The State Department's last two editions of its yearly report on international terrorism have been mired in some controversy. The 2003 edition had to be reissued after significant errors were detected, errors that underreported the number of terrorist attacks for 2003. This year the State Department issued its 2004 report, minus its traditional annex statistically reporting on the number of terrorist attacks worldwide. This change leaves us with two documents, Country Reports on Terrorism, produced by the State Department, and A Chronology of Significant International Terrorism, produced by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), where we used to have one: Patterns of Global Terrorism.

Patterns had been around since 1983. It was widely used throughout the world because it was authoritative and it was comprehensive. In truncating this document, a pretty good brand name was jettisoned. Post 9/11, when we are finding that much of what we have been doing for years in the terrorism field has been ineffective, it is an odd time to play with success. The new Country Reports on Terrorism is a bit like a one-sided baseball card. We have the terrorist picture on the front and we see what team he is on. What is missing are the statistics on the back. In this case, it is the grisly statistics of attacks committed and deaths, injuries and damage inflicted. Looking to next year, I would ask the Administration to revisit its decision to split this report in two. One report makes sense. ... I do not understand why the Committee was not consulted as the decision to alter Patterns was made.

To some, this may be just a report, but it is a congressionally-mandated report dealing with the central security challenge facing our Nation. ... This is not to This report is, or at least was, a useful tool, but again, it is not the ultimate scorecard in the battle against terrorism. ... My hope for this hearing is that we examine the issues and look ahead. A commitment from the Administration to work with Congress on producing the best possible report on international terrorism would be a good start."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
21. And to illustrate the point there is an upcoming TV documentary
on it. I don't remember the station. I remember that the big question in my mind back then was "How did raygun get them home on inaugural day? How did he have such power?" I now think that they *ss family crime group could probably answer that. Oil family links.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Read
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. Thank you. After reading this I have a sick feeling in my gut. I
tried reading Kerry's book about the BCCI but it scared me so much I couldn't finish it. The roots to these criminals are deep. I fear very much for our future. It took a whole world to defeat the evil of the nazi plans what will it take to defeat a world wide crime family?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
23. they're spinning in their own vortex of lies
they're simultaneously trying to make it look like they're winning, while they're asserting there's still a major threat from the same 'extremists'. Their own intelligence report says the threat is worse.

Moreover, they want us to believe they were dealing with the threat before 9-11, but they're falling all over themselves to say the threat in that same period was at the same level that it is now.

Snow is on now claiming they've made some progress in the face of the report which shows the thraet has spread and has been made worse by their own militarism and ineffectiveness.

Just capturing the perps of 9-11 could have stifled any movement or trend . . .

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
25. There are no terrorists in Iraq anymore ...it's just another lie
and more lies from the ass carrot and chief.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmondine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
27. What happened to the world changing on 9/11
Wouldn't saying "this isn't new" and "been going on since 1979" indicate a "pre-9/11 view of the world"?

One wonders, with the way the neo-cons shift their propaganda at the drop of a hat, about their true underlying motivation. What do they really care about, what are their true convictions? There is obviously a tremendous driving force within them, with their talking points proving time and again to be merely the latest convenient public rationalization for what they do.

Perhaps they themselves are not aware of what drives them. Or perhaps they know that their real motives are so machiavellian, immoral and un American, that revealing them would cause a groundswell of public opinion against them which could threaten their entire power structure.

Oh, wait. That's exactly what's happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. No, the world changed forever on January 20 2001
Edited on Wed Sep-27-06 12:15 PM by ProgressiveEconomist
when Dubya was inaugurated for the first time.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63896-2005Jan10.html for an interesting sidelight on Dubya's second inaugural. The city of Washington DC was directed to spend $17.3 million of its "Homeland Security" grant on inaugural expenses!

That same expenditure rationale may have been used for many other Homeland Security millions. Remember the Time magazine article that said an important Department of Homeland Security mission was to arrange "one photo-op a month" for the Commander-in-Thief?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Welcome to DU. "With us or against us"was created for domestic consumption
:hi:

This is a point that hit me like stepping on a rake just last week. David Gergen was on Anderson Cooper's show (this was a freak accident that I tuned in that night) talking about how an actual strategy in the Middle East would be to compartmentalize all of the elements (Hamas, Hez, Muslim Brotherhood AND each country) and manipulate their turf war to both gain information and keep them at bay. This could possibly still be done. He added that the worst possible thing you could do is to make it them vs. us-you cut off information and you bring them together. Then it hit me.

"With us or against us" was never meant for anyone outside the US. It isn't policy (they have none) it is politics that is all they do. The choice is made and repeated and repeated--it automatically turns a large portion of people into blind followers lest they be seen as being FOR the terrorists and at the very last moment just as people are about to flick the voting lever they think "Am I with US or with them?" or at least that is how it is supposed to work*.

That phrase was never meant for anyone but us. They don't care what anyone else says (obviously) because if they aren't in office nothing else matters.

*when I say that that is how it is supposed to work what I mean is not that it translates into votes it translates into making the voting results that come out of the machines seem more plausible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
civildisoBDence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
31. The NIE specifies that the war has made terrorists more "geographically
dispersed." The terrorists are more numerous, more dispersed, and more intense.

Heckuva job, DUUUUUHbya.

Newsprism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
32. A recurring theme of "that's old news".
Edited on Wed Sep-27-06 01:56 PM by louis-t
Sickening.

edit: What does "that's old news" mean? Doesn't mean anything. Repugs just like to hear their own heads rattle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wondermanus Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-27-06 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
35. They've admitted before that they've increased terrorists
The White House admitted in 2005 that terrorist attacks had tripled - why is this now such a huge shock for them? They run on fear, and they need more terrorists to help them win, so they make more



WASHINGTON — Terror attacks worldwide more than tripled last year, with much of the increase traced to incidents in Iraq, according to government figures released Tuesday by a senior House Democrat (search).

Based on a briefing federal officials gave congressional aides, Rep. Henry Waxman (search), D-Calif., said there were about 650 significant terror attacks last year. He said that was more than three times the record 175 tallied by the government in 2003.

In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (search) that his staff circulated to the media, Waxman said the 2004 figure may be underestimated significantly. Many incidents that most Americans would regard as terror attacks were excluded from State Department data, he said, because they did not meet the department's definition.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC