D'oh! Terrorism numbers manipulated

[billvon 3,111]

Remember a while back how some of the right-wing press was trumpeting the 2003 State Department report that "we were winning the war on terror?" Well, it turns out they were fibbing. From Yahoo:

----------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON — The State Department is scrambling to revise its annual report on global terrorism to acknowledge that it understated the number of deadly attacks in 2003, amid charges that the document is inaccurate and was politically manipulated by the Bush administration.

When the most recent "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report was issued April 29, senior Bush administration officials immediately hailed it as objective proof that they were winning the war on terrorism. The report is considered the authoritative yardstick of the prevalence of terrorist activity around the world.

"Indeed, you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight" against global terrorism, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said during a celebratory rollout of the report.

But on Tuesday, State Department officials said they underreported the number of terrorist attacks in the tally for 2003, and added that they expected to release an updated version soon.

Several U.S. officials and terrorism experts familiar with that revision effort said the new report will show that the number of significant terrorist incidents increased last year, perhaps to its highest level in 20 years.
----------------------------------------------

Hard to believe our government would exaggerate facts to try to sway public opinion and win elections!

[PhillyKev 0]

*gasp*

Totally unexpected. Who would think mistruths, manipulation, and witholding information from the public in order to further their agenda would be tactics practiced by GWB and friends?

[markd_nscr986 0]

Dont be so naive......democrats spin their numbers too.......everyone spins their numbers to make their "side" "position" viewpoint look better than everyone elses....welcome to washington politics( which last I heard still had 2 parties calling all the shots)

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[billvon 3,111]

>Dont be so naive......democrats spin their numbers too.......

Absolutely! But that doesn't mean it's OK for our government to publish intentionally false information, no matter whose side the fibber is on.

[markd_nscr986 0]

I truly think you are giving them more credit than they are due,I think bureaucratic bungling and incompetence probably contributed to the situation more than anything else

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I truly think you are giving them more credit than they are due,I think bureaucratic bungling and incompetence probably contributed to the situation more than anything else

sometimes intent and incompetence make for happy partners. You just decide to pull back a bit on the oversight when the numbers are going your way.

Incident count is just one metric anyway. There are other counting methods that will make any accounting of 2003 look far better than 2001.

[Zenister 0]

not to split a fine hair, but is it really "intentionally false" to define your interval in a manner that gives the results you wish? misleading perhaps, but anyone who read the fine print would see what was really being said..

not much different in the way voting regions are continually redefined to one political advantage or another..

i dont see how anyone can really be appalled at what has been 'par for the course' in political dealing for the last 100 years or so...

edit: The numbers for the "War on Drugs" have been just as (perhaps more so) massaged by the government to garner support for that position as well. Noone really seems to be up in arms about it, or the rights that have been relinquished using that 'data' as justification.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Keith 0]

Quote

Totally unexpected. Who would think mistruths, manipulation, and witholding information from the public in order to further their agenda would be tactics practiced by GWB and friends?

Naw, this is just left wing propaganda to sully the impeccable record of the best president the good ol' U S of A has ever seen.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[markd_nscr986 0]

***i dont see how anyone can really be appalled at what has been 'par for the course' in political dealing for the last 100 years or so...



all to true unfortunately....until we have more representation than a 2 party business as usual system in place

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

edit: The numbers for the "War on Drugs" have been just as (perhaps more so) massaged by the government to garner support for that position as well. Noone really seems to be up in arms about it, or the rights that have been relinquished using that 'data' as justification.

I am.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Dont be so naive......democrats spin their numbers too

Ohhh, much more subtle than the typical defense of "But Clinton did it".

[billvon 3,111]

>not to split a fine hair, but is it really "intentionally false" to define
>your interval in a manner that gives the results you wish?

Well, you tell me. If a dealer disconnects the odometer on a rental car, and sells you a used car that has 10,000 miles on the odometer and 30,000 miles in actuality, is that intentionally false? Or has he just defined his measurement interval a little differently than most people?

[freakbrother 0]

Quote

not to split a fine hair, but is it really "intentionally false" to define your interval in a manner that gives the results you wish? misleading perhaps, but anyone who read the fine print would see what was really being said..

not much different in the way voting regions are continually redefined to one political advantage or another..

i dont see how anyone can really be appalled at what has been 'par for the course' in political dealing for the last 100 years or so...

edit: The numbers for the "War on Drugs" have been just as (perhaps more so) massaged by the government to garner support for that position as well. Noone really seems to be up in arms about it, or the rights that have been relinquished using that 'data' as justification.

Tell me, do you habitually log 20-way skydives with only 12 skydivers participating?

.
.
www.freak-brother.com

[Deuce 1]

Quote

>not to split a fine hair, but is it really "intentionally false" to define
>your interval in a manner that gives the results you wish?

Well, you tell me. If a dealer disconnects the odometer on a rental car, and sells you a used car that has 10,000 miles on the odometer and 30,000 miles in actuality, is that intentionally false? Or has he just defined his measurement interval a little differently than most people?

It would depend on what the meaning of "his" is.

I don't know how relevant it is, but when we'd do neighborhood watch stuff, the crime rate always went up. Nothing changed but the level of reporting done by the neighbors.

I suspect with the renewed interest in terrorism reporting has gone up, and events which were classified as other stuff before are now being recorded as terrorism.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I suspect with the renewed interest in terrorism reporting has gone up, and events which were classified as other stuff before are now being recorded as terrorism.

And that would explain why the manipulated the numbers?

[kallend 2,146]

Quote

Quote

>not to split a fine hair, but is it really "intentionally false" to define
>your interval in a manner that gives the results you wish?

Well, you tell me. If a dealer disconnects the odometer on a rental car, and sells you a used car that has 10,000 miles on the odometer and 30,000 miles in actuality, is that intentionally false? Or has he just defined his measurement interval a little differently than most people?

It would depend on what the meaning of "his" is.

I don't know how relevant it is, but when we'd do neighborhood watch stuff, the crime rate always went up. Nothing changed but the level of reporting done by the neighbors.

I suspect with the renewed interest in terrorism reporting has gone up, and events which were classified as other stuff before are now being recorded as terrorism.

Right on! A kid flying a model rocket in the local park is now a suspect.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

>not to split a fine hair, but is it really "intentionally false" to define
>your interval in a manner that gives the results you wish?

Well, you tell me. If a dealer disconnects the odometer on a rental car, and sells you a used car that has 10,000 miles on the odometer and 30,000 miles in actuality, is that intentionally false? Or has he just defined his measurement interval a little differently than most people?

thats a cumulative total, not the same as saying the vehicle has 10,000 miles in the last year, (when last year has been predefined as oct-oct and so the 2000 mile trip in dec is this year.

misleading? yes if your not paying attention. (most are not) intentionally false? not quite. common practice when using statistics to justify political agendas? absolutely.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

not to split a fine hair, but is it really "intentionally false" to define your interval in a manner that gives the results you wish? misleading perhaps, but anyone who read the fine print would see what was really being said..

not much different in the way voting regions are continually redefined to one political advantage or another..

i dont see how anyone can really be appalled at what has been 'par for the course' in political dealing for the last 100 years or so...

edit: The numbers for the "War on Drugs" have been just as (perhaps more so) massaged by the government to garner support for that position as well. Noone really seems to be up in arms about it, or the rights that have been relinquished using that 'data' as justification.

Tell me, do you habitually log 20-way skydives with only 12 skydivers participating?

No. what exactly are you implying that i'm not supposed to be offended by?

are you a habitual liar? or just have trouble reading fine print?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Deuce 1]

Quote

And that would explain why the manipulated the numbers?

I couldn't care less about the numbers. Hunting down people and killing them is no more or less justified if the accounting is off by any percentage.

I suspect that the numbers were generated to sate the carpers about the "why" of what our government is doing. The government isn't doing it based on math, so they did a shitty analysis and tossed it to the carpers. The carpers did a good analysis of the data and shot the original analysis full of holes and the government said "whatever".

Vote them out. Get your guys in there, and they'll do the same thing. But you will feel better, cause it's your guys.

[billvon 3,111]

>I don't know how relevant it is, but when we'd do neighborhood watch
> stuff, the crime rate always went up. Nothing changed but the level
> of reporting done by the neighbors.

Agreed there. But if the number of cops killed every year went up, that's a hard number you can't put under the "we just notice it more" category. The state department, not some anti-Bush organization, is revising the number of terrorist killings upwards; hopefully they'll publish enough info so people can decide for themselves if the deadly attacks they list were indeed terrorist attacks.

[billvon 3,111]

Quote from Powell today. It impressed me because it is what we have to do to fix things, but also the one thing we will never hear come out of Bush's mouth:

"Based on the data we had within the report, there was a suggestion that the number of incidents had dropped and it was the lowest since 1969. That turns out not to have been correct. We were wrong. We will correct it."

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Vote them out. Get your guys in there, and they'll do the same thing. But you will feel better, cause it's your guys.

Maybe that's how you work, but not me. I will be just as watchful of corruption lies and deceit from anyone. That's the duty of the American public. It just so happens that the current guy is really blatant about it.

[Deuce 1]

Kev, I think it just seems more blatant to you because your philosophy diverges so strongly from the current admin.

Politicians are all students of people, and they "write to the test" "write to the instructor" rather than follow their own consciences. That, I think is what people found so interesting about Reagan, Perot, Nader and Dean.

Statistics lie. And whenever they are stated, there will be some bent or slant to them. When the bend or slant is aligned with one's philosophy, it's easier to read. The same raw data when compiled by Kerry's camp, will likely be accepted more easily by sceptics like yourself when they are more in line with that sceptics worldview.

[PhillyKev 0]

Generally speaking, you are correct. But we're talking about deliberately under-reporting the number of terrorist attacks to make themselves look good. I would have a problem with that no matter who did it. Has nothing to do with their political party.

[PhillyKev 0]

U.S. Revises Up 2003 Terrorism Deaths to 625