« Anti-War Fantasy | Main | For the Spider's House is the Frailest of all Houses »

June 09, 2004

Comments

Edward,

I think that it is kind of silly to imply that politics could have led to claims that terrorist attacks were at a 34-year low, since the data was so obviously incomplete. More like good old government incompetence.

It also strikes me as rather odd that we can go from a 34-year low to a 20-year high with only another month and a half of data. I am assuming that the metric is numbers of separate incidents, and not numbers of dead and wounded.

I could not agree with you more Nathan. In fact, I thought that was clear in my post (perhaps I need to edit). I don't think it was politics (I think Waxman's off base there).

I do think it's incompetence.

But you bring up an interesting sidebar with regards to the metrics. From what I understand there's some question of whether to include casualties in Iraq.

Considering the WH keeps calling the insurgents "terroists" I think they should, but...

I'd also question that they were blaming Tenet; it's more likely (not to mention, plausible) that the fault lay with the new guys.

I'd also question that they were blaming Tenet; it's more likely (not to mention, plausible) that the fault lay with the new guys.

Fair enough...that last bit was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek...I'll edit...

I'd accept incompetence if the notion is those figures ought to have been heavily fact-checked before release, particularly in light of the shift change in those compiling them.

I've never heard of the report, myself, but it's a bit surprising that the rest of the world is letting us do their heavy lifting in this respect, given that we're dirty rotten fibbers.

Edward,

I must have misread regarding the 'politics'.

Off topic, have you guys ever thought of doing something to make the site load up faster? I want my free ice-cream faster, damnit!

Ugh. Right after I call for faster loading... it starts to load really fast.

Nathan S: It also strikes me as rather odd that we can go from a 34-year low to a 20-year high with only another month and a half of data.

And people wonder why there isn't more good news coming out of Iraq...

Slarti: I've never heard of the report, myself, but it's a bit surprising that the rest of the world is letting us do their heavy lifting in this respect, given that we're dirty rotten fibbers.

Really? I heard about it when it first came out; it got a thorough trolling on a number of lefty sites that I frequent. I'd assumed, perhaps erroneously, that it had been similarly (though more cogently and less, uh, trollishly) aired on the right side of the blogosphere too.

As to the world "letting us do their heavy lifting", I don't quite follow you. Was that just random snark, or was there something deeper?

Was that just random snark, or was there something deeper?

Depends on where you stand, I guess. Maybe the context of where it's considered an authoritative etc. was a bit unclear. I assumed it meant worldwide, but in hindsight maybe that wasn't warranted.

Well, a couple points. One is that Iraq still isn't included. You can't very well contend that, on the one hand, we're fighting terrorists, and on the other hand, bad things those terrorists do don't count as terrorism.

Another point I would make is that Latin American terrorist incidents seem to have fallen off a cliff since 2001. Wonder why?

More generally, it's clear from this report that we're still at war with a tactic. In my view, this is incredibly dumb. We are not at war with a tactic. We are at war with radical Islam and a bunch of drug lords.

Considering the WH keeps calling the insurgents "terroists" I think they should, but...

The CIA has a precise definition of terrorism, and it doesn't include the insurgents fighting US forces, no matter what the WH calls them.

so let's think about this for a second.

1. Acccording to numerous sources we're being attacked somewhere between 15-30 times a day in Iraq.

2. The people fighting us are terrorists (according to the Bushies).

3. Wouldn't that then mean in the last year there have probably been something like 5,000 - 7,000 terrorist attacks in Iraq alone?

so let's think about this for a second.

1. Acccording to numerous sources we're being attacked somewhere between 15-30 times a day in Iraq.

2. The people fighting us are terrorists (according to the Bushies).

3. Wouldn't that then mean in the last year there have probably been something like 5,000 - 7,000 terrorist attacks in Iraq alone?

The comments to this entry are closed.