meta-roj

State Dept.: Terror Report Incorrect [ap via fox news]

The State Department acknowledged Thursday it was wrong in reporting terrorism declined worldwide last year.

Instead, both the number of incidents and the toll in victims increased sharply, the department said. Statements by senior administration officials claiming success were based “on the facts as we had them at the time. The facts that we had were wrong,” department spokesman Richard Boucher said.

i wonder if this’ll have much traction on funeral day?

looking back a few weeks… someone knew the report was “faulty” at best back in mid-may…

Faulty Terror Report Card [washington post, may 16, 2004]

“You will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight,” said Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. As evidence, the “Patterns of Global Terrorism” report says that worldwide terrorism dropped by 45 percent between 2001 and 2003. The report even boasts that the number of terrorist acts committed last year “represents the lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks since 1969.”

….

So how did the report conclude that international terrorism is declining?

It accomplishes this sleight of hand by combining significant and nonsignificant acts of terrorism. Significant acts are clearly defined and each event is listed in an appendix, so readers can verify the data. By contrast, no explanation is given for how nonsignificant acts are identified or whether a consistent process is used over time — and no list is provided describing each event. The data cannot be verified.

the report is available in both html and pdf formats.

Correction to Global Patterns of Terrorism Will be Issued [us state department, june 10, 2004]

At our request, the Terrorist Threat Integration Center is revising the statistics for calendar year 2003. While we are still checking data for accuracy and completeness, we can say that our preliminary results indicate that the figures for the number of attacks and casualties will be up sharply from what was published. As soon as we are in a position to, we will issue corrected numbers, a revised analysis, and revisions to the report.

if this keeps up, will the american intelligence services ever get their credibility back? it’s one thing to miss a call about the future, but this is reporting with hindsight – isn’t that supposed to be, i dunno… easier?

Broadway’s Best Shows Too Risque for Republicans [reuters]

… Republican organizers, selling themselves as the family-values party, decided to buy tickets to tame shows like “42nd Street” and Disney productions like “Aida” and “The Lion King,” avoiding more offbeat fare.

Besides Tony winners such as the naughty puppet musical “Avenue Q” and best play “I Am My Own Wife,” about a German transvestite, other hits including Mel Brooks’ “The Producers,” were vetoed by those arranging Broadway outings.

“The Republicans were so desperate to escape Roger DeBris, the cross-dressing buffoon concocted by Mel Brooks, that they have gone and picked two shows set in France,” wrote New York Times columnist Frank Rich, referring to evergreen musicals “Beauty and the Beast” and “Phantom of the Opera.”

ah well… so the republicans are gonna miss some of the good stuff while they’re in new york….

the democratic national convention has an official blog. that’s not a big deal. what is the big deal is that several days ago, they posted this:

Three, if by WiFi

But we also hope this blog will be more – specifically, interactive. Consider this as version 1.0. As we get going, we’ll add more features like a comment board because we want to hear from you. We’ll have trackbacks and blogrolls that include, among others, our credentialed bloggers. We’ll offer links to interesting articles. And we’ll even have “guest bloggers” contribute their musings now and then.

emphasis is mine.

what makes that a big deal, you might ask? well, not too long ago, i said this about a little visa trouble that a particular journalist got into here in america…

read the fine print: you might be a terrorist

for you journalists, i guess this is the fine print. not sure where blogs fit into the journalist spectrum. i can’t very well get a “letter from my employer” as i’m unemployed.

which is a reference to this requirement from the state department web site:

I (Media) Visa Revalidation

A comprehensive letter from the journalist’s employer on the employer’s letterhead identifying the journalist and describing in detail the nature and function of the journalist’s position. The letter must be addressed to the Visa Office, Department of State. If the employer is abroad and the journalist is the only U.S. representative, the letter must be signed by the employer and give the journalist’s U.S. office address and telephone number.

lately we’ve been talking about banning cell phones in north korea, then a little trouble with visas for journalists, and bloggers as journalists. can blogs save the us constitution from ourselves, or are we just a little bit better than north korea? is this anything like how we’re a little bit better than saddam when it comes to abusing prisoners, because when we get caught, we “investigate”?

i thought we were supposed to be orders of magnitude different in this country. i thought we were supposed to at least attempt to live up to the ideals we try to bomb into other countries. i thought we were better than this.

the dnc thinks that bloggers are journalists now. does that mean i need a visa before i post this? i guess it’s probably not a visa, since i’m already technically in the united states. maybe i need some other paperwork. if you don’t hear from me for a day or so, i’ve probably been detained for failing to file the required forms and pay the required fees to be a journalist in the united states.

i doubt they’re offering wifi in the detention facilities yet…

coming to you in a few hours, a group of some 50 (or more) former united states diplomats have picked up the pen where their british colleagues left off.

think what you will about the potential motives, i applaud these people for speaking.

Thank you, Mr. President. In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you’d made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You’ve looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?

THE PRESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I’m sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just — I’m sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn’t yet.

I would have gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan. Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would have called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein. See, I happen to believe that we’ll find out the truth on the weapons. That’s why we’ve sent up the independent commission. I look forward to hearing the truth, exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm.

One of the things that Charlie Duelfer talked about was that he was surprised at the level of intimidation he found amongst people who should know about weapons, and their fear of talking about them because they don’t want to be killed. There’s a terror still in the soul of some of the people in Iraq; they’re worried about getting killed, and, therefore, they’re not going to talk.

But it will all settle out, John. We’ll find out the truth about the weapons at some point in time. However, the fact that he had the capacity to make them bothers me today, just like it would have bothered me then. He’s a dangerous man. He’s a man who actually — not only had weapons of mass destruction — the reason I can say that with certainty is because he used them. And I have no doubt in my mind that he would like to have inflicted harm, or paid people to inflict harm, or trained people to inflict harm on America, because he hated us.

I hope I — I don’t want to sound like I’ve made no mistakes. I’m confident I have. I just haven’t — you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I’m not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one.

i suppose it’s understandable to get stumped by a question like that…. could this be interpreted as having just too many biggest mistakes to pick from?

nawww….

anyway, if you want my opinion (and you certainly do, non?), it’s probably got something to do with nobody stepping up and taking responsibility. but that’s just my opinion.

bill moyers, “what now, ” 2004.03.26

mister bush clearly believes what he says: the war on terror is an inescapable calling of the generation now in charge. like many of you, i want to support him in that work, but the president makes it hard.

from american leftist, mirrored here (1890×2290), here (800×953) and here (400×463) and used as an entry page at michael moore, a portrait of an american president.

go here to read more about the piece.

[via boingboing]

the bushiad and the idyossey

amazing.

(and i didn’t even get that far before i had to quit and come present this here for you).

for what seems to have been an uncharacteristically generous phonecall to nominee-apparent kerry.

as super tuesday winds down, we find kerry in a strong position, and set up to begin the general election campaign in march. that means months of hardcore campaign ahead. it’s an unprecedented situation, and maybe calls for an unprecedented strategy. i’m going to suggest one: run the cabinet.

bush has more than $150 million on hand, and is reportedly planning a quarter-billion-dollar campaign. that’s more than $1.3 million dollars per day. personally, i think that is obscene, but i’m not talking about campaign finance today. this is strategy.

the democratic field represented an amazing array of committed, involved people, many of which campaigned on particular issues. now that the race is [essentially] over, it’s time to demostrate diversity as a strength and contrast it sharply with the binary-thinking bush approach to politics (with us or against us).

the cabinet comes with these jobs: vice president, attorney general and the secretaries of agriculture, commerce, defense, education, energy, health and human services, homeland security, housing and urban development, interior, labor, state, transportation, treasury and veterans affairs.

we also have nine current and former presidential candidates from the democratic party, many of which made significant contributions to the political debate: john kerry, john edwards, howard dean, wesley clark, al sharpton, dennis kucinich, dick gephardt, joe lieberman, carol moseley braun.

i suggest that kerry approach the candidates – his former competitors – and ask them if they would commit to serve in the new administration. there’s some wiggle room about who should be in which office, and some won’t do it at all, but if the kerry campaign can establish a good chunk of the cabinet now, they could run several people on particular issues with a unified vision of a new administration. build some or all of a cabinet now, and create multiple issue-focused fronts that the republicans have to address.

if kerry picks a vice president (perhaps edwards), a secretary of defense (perhaps clark), a secretary of education (perhaps sharpton), a secretary of labor (perhaps gephardt), a secretary of housing and urban development (perhaps braun), health and human services (perhaps dean), then each of these committed individuals can engage particular points of the bush administration record. if the democrats can find a few more non-candidates that are willing to commit to the cabinet, i think it would go very far in changing the nature of the campaign and, even more important, give the voters a person that speaks to some issue they consider important.

maybe a former clark supporter with a particular interest in isn’t convinced that kerry is the best man for the job, but if it’s on the record that clark has a place in the new administration and will play a significant role in both the campaign and the future government… well, that might be enough.

do that six more times, and the kerry campaign can give most voters someone to pay attention to (even if they disagree). if the republicans decide to go negative, the assault is greatly diluted.

what i don’t know is how well these people get along – if they can move past competitors and pull a unified campaign together – but if even a few people (beyond the president/vice president positions) are willing to continue to focus on some of the issues they brought to the primary campaign, i think it becomes a whole new kind of election.

a uniting, not dividing, election (to borrow a phrase)…

just a thought…