Kerry campaign responds to revised terror report

[Cocoa]

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=140-06222004


WASHINGTON, June 22 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following release is from John Kerry for President:

"This revised report is just the latest example of an Administration playing fast and loose with the truth when it comes to the war on terror. The White House has clearly tried to blur the lines between 9/11 and Iraq, exaggerated the threat of WMD and has now been caught trying to inflate its success on terrorism. We're fighting the war on terror and we need a President who hasn't exhausted his credibility." -- Kerry Spokesman Phil Singer said.

BUSH TEAM SAID REPORT SHOWED SUCCESS IN WAR ON TERROR

Report Claims Terrorism Sharply Declined In 2003. The State Department's original report said, "There were fewer terrorist attacks in 2003 that in any year since 1969." According to the AP, "The April report said attacks had declined last year to 190, down from 198 in 2002 and 346 in 2001. The 2003 figure would have been the lowest level in 34 years and a 45 percent drop since 2001, Bush's first year as president." (AP, 6/21/04; United Press International, 4/29/04)

State Department Says Report Shows Progress In War On Terror. The day the report on global terrorism was released, Deputy Secretary Of State Richard Armitage said it showed "clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight (against terrorism)." (State Department Release, 4/29/04)

MISTAKES IN THE REPORT ON TERRORISM WERE OBVIOUS

Congressional Research Service, Scholars and Member Of Congress Said Report Was Flawed. The Congressional Research Service "urged a review of the report's 'structure and content,'" Representative Henry Waxman sent a letter to Powell saying that that the report's misrepresentation of data was "deplorable" and two professors, Alan B. Krueger and David Laitin, wrote that the data proved the opposite of what the State Department claimed. (Washington Post, 6/10/04, 5/17/04)

Expert Says A "Third Grader" Could Have Found Report's Mistakes. Former CIA analysts and former deputy director of the State Department's counterterrorism office, Larry Johnson said "When you read the report, TTIC did not add (the data) properly. Even a third-grader could have found this. The body counts in 2002 and 2003 were at the highest levels in history." (Washington Post, 6/10/04, 5/17/04)

State Department Failed To Include Significant Number Of Terrorist Attacks. The report "does not list a single significant terrorist act occurring after Nov. 11, 2003, despite averaging 16 such acts a month in the rest of the year. The representation that no terrorist events occurred after Nov. 11 is patently false, it is unambiguous that the number of significant international terrorist acts is on the rise." (Washington Post, 5/17/04)

Powell: "The numbers that were in the report were in error, and we are analyzing where the errors crept in. It's a very big mistake, and we are not happy about this big mistake."
(ABC, "This Week," 6/13/04)
<http://www.usnewswire.com/>
-0-
/© 2004 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

[louis c]

1. Third Grader Could have Found This (report's mistakes)

I guess that puts Bush in the role of "Chauncey Gardner".

[mike_c]

2. AARRGGHH!! Kerry buys into the WOT meme yet again....

Memo to the Kerry campaign: the WOT is a sham, a Bush administration marketing ploy, a taxpayer rip off, and the rationalization for war crimes and an imperialist PNAC foreign policy! WHY CAN"T WE STOP REPEATING THIS CRAP?! The war on terror meme needs to be discredited at every opportunity, NOT reinforced by democrats.

[Cocoa]

3. not a chance

I suggest you get used to Kerry referring to the war on terror, because there's no way he's not.

Nor should he, imo. The conflict is not just a PNAC construct. What Bush and the neocons are about is not an imaginary conflict, but a radical policy of preemption and unilateralism, which Kerry doesn't share.

[mike_c]

5. but then why doesn't he repudiate them...

...if he doesn't share them? And saying that the WOT is not an imaginary conflict is disingenuous at best-- of course it's a real conflict, but it's NOT a war in any rational sense, e.g. it cannot be "won", has no clear strategic or tactical objectives, etc. It's perpetual war for the PNAC and their neo-con hangers-on. It's Bush's single best marketing ploy. We should not be buying into it.

[Old and In the Way]

4. This administration is consistant.

There isn't a single set of published government data that isn't filtered, manipulated, squeezed, cooked, blown dried, microwaved, or strained to support their agenda objectives.