Yawn...More Lies

Under pressure from Congress, the Bush administration reversed gears yesterday and released a report showing an upsurge in terrorist attacks worldwide in 2004 after first withholding the statistics from the public.

The number of "significant attacks" grew to about 651 last year, from 208 in 2003, according to statistics released by the National Counterterrorism Center. The 2004 total includes 201 attacks in Iraq.

But senior officials said the threefold increase was a result of changes in methodology and urged reporters not to compare this year's terrorism numbers with previous ones. [...]

"The numbers can't be compared in any meaningful way," said John Brennan, acting head of the center, which compiled the statistics. He said his agency had revamped the process of counting terrorist attacks after last year's embarrassment in which the State Department withdrew its first report and admitted it had significantly understated what turned out to be a record number of attacks.

That's a lot of lies per word, even by Bush Administration standards.

First of all, if we'll recall last year's fiasco, it had nothing to do with methodology. Rather, it was caused by the Administration's having "neglected" to include the final two months of 2003 in its 2004 report. Honest "mistakes", not political pressure, were to blame for the undercounting, according to Colin Powell. Either way, there wasn't any need to "revamp the process" -- just to include the entire year under study in the yearly report.

Secondly, even supposing the "process" were in need of being "revamped", one might -- just might -- think that rather than scotching the entire report (which report is, after all, mandated by law) without even telling anybody until the news is leaked on a former analyst's blog, it could simply have been announced at some point in the following year that the "process" had been "revamped".

Note too that Colin Powell was, at the time of last year's brouhaha, quick to point out that the report is not just a compilation of statistics, but rather a narrative -- and that the statistics could only be fully understood when taken in the context of the narrative. So if you've nothing to hide, why not release the report this year, with the same proviso?

Thirdly, even if the "process" has been "revamped", it'd be extremely easy to compare the "numbers" in a "meaningful way": simply retroactively apply the new methodology to the previous twenty years' data, et voila!, the "numbers" have now been normalised -- a solution that any fucking third-grader would be able to produce in a moment's time.

Fourthly, the Administration wants us to believe that it "revamped the process of counting terrorist attacks after last year's embarrassment". Yet when the story first broke (all of twelve days ago) we were told that:

Several U.S. officials defended the decision, saying the methodology used by the National Counterterrorism Center to generate statistics had flaws, such as the inclusion of incidents that may not have been terrorism.

So, if we assume that the Bush Administration is not lying to us (har har), that means that the new methodology -- instituted to correct for last year's "flawed" report -- has flaws in it (necessitating the scotching of this year's report)! If they're not lying (har har), they're perhaps the most incompetent boobs in the history of counting. In which case, if there aren't some god damned medals handed out in the aftermath of this SNAFU, we'd better get to writin' some outraged letters!

This year, Brennan said, 10 full-time intelligence analysts -- up from three part-timers -- searched for terrorist incidents to include, resulting in a much higher total than met the government's criteria for classification as a "significant" attack.

Uhhhh...wow. That, right there, is some seriously incompetent lying. Forget third-graders: are there any kindergartners that couldn't see through this? More analysts searching for terror attacks "results" in a much higher total that meet the criteria for classification as attacks (including, apparently, some "incidents" that "may not have been terrorism", yet meet the criteria anyway)? Who the fuck is supposed to believe this shit? Seriously, if these motherfuckers are not lying, could we maybe get some fucking pre-school class to compile the report next year? A fucking pack of rhesus monkeys? Fuck, we could probably even get some niggers to do the job, and still be relatively confident that they'd be able to figure the damned thing out.

In the meantime, expect the Bush Administration to soon announce that as a consequence of more people having been invited to this year's Whitehouse Easter Egg Hunt than in previous years, more eggs were found than were actually hidden (including some eggs that may not have been eggs despite their meeting the government's criteria for classification as eggs).

Although the officials called the data seriously flawed, they said they issued the report to avoid criticism that the State Department was trying to avoid admitting setbacks in the fight against terrorism by not publishing the data.

"If we didn't put out these numbers today, you'd say we're withholding data. That's why we're putting them out," said Philip Zelikow, counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Understand? We're not putting out "these numbers" because we're genuinely interested in informing the public of what we're up to, nor even because it's mandated by law -- we, after all, are above the law -- but only because we, the Republican Party, the absolute bedrock of ethical administration, don't want our name dragged scurrilously through the mud.

And, oh yeah, the other only reason we're putting "these numbers" out is because we got caught trying to sweep them under the rug, so we really don't have much choice.

The totals raised questions about the administration's claims that it is winning the war on terrorism.

That's right: before this there weren't any questions concerning that matter. At least not in the media. But back here in the "reality-based" world, one might well ask for one single piece of evidence to indicate that the Bush Administration is winning the "War On Terrorism".

Here's Tom DeLay's brilliant analysis (circa December, 2003):

If we don't find weapons of mass destruction -- and I think we will, and we've already found evidence that not only did he have it, but he violated United Nations resolutions all along the lines, particularly when it comes to weapons instructions. So, you know, we are winning this war on terror.

And here's Dick Cheney's brilliant analysis (via his "Winning The 'War On Terror' Tour" undertaken last year):

The tour highlights John Kerry's inconsistent support for our troops and his troubling record on national security.

To his credit, Dubya did, during last year's Republican National Convention, attempt to quantify the Administration's supposed success :

President George W. Bush said on Tuesday he would tell the Republican convention that three-quarters of known al Qaeda leaders have been captured or killed, an increase from an earlier estimate of two-thirds.

For months, the CIA had privately advocated switching to the 75 percent figure, though the White House balked at using it publicly. Critics say the estimate is meaningless as losses by a decentralized al Qaeda are ever harder to estimate.

Notice, though, what he didn't say. He didn't say, "And therefore, the 'War On Terror' is 75% finished. We should have it wrapped up by next summer, after which we'll no longer need to worry about terrorism, and we can spend the rest of our days vacationing on our respective ranches."

Uh-uh. In fact, Dick Cheney has predicted that the "War On Terror" will "not end in our lifetime", and Dubya hisself has allowed that he does not think that "you can win it".

So, yeah, his flight-suit-strutting and "Hoo-ah!"-speechifying antics are indeed pretty meaningless.

Meanwhile, not only are terrorist attacks on the rise (including, it must be stated, those perpetrated and/or funded and/or supported by the United States), but so is terrorist recruitment -- in sharp contradistinction to U.S. military recruitment. So the Bush Administration is getting its ass kicked ten ways from Sunday. But of course, this failure of execution (and, much more importantly, philosophy) hasn't affected his ability to vacation at the ranch.

Rather, it redounds to the rest of us in the form of crumbling infrastructure, sharp cuts in social programs, and increased global instability. But that's okay: it'll all be worth it so long as Dubya will receive a medal or two for his magnificent stewardship of the "GWOT".

Posted by Eddie Tews at April 28, 2005 04:59 PM