Cincy Vigilante said:
This is from the Department of State web site
There were 190 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight decrease from the 198 attacks that occurred in 2002, and a drop of 45 percent from the level in 2001 of 346 attacks. The figure in 2003 represents the lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks since 1969.
A total of 307 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, far fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 1,593 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, down from 2,013 persons wounded the year before. In 2003, the highest number of attacks (70) and the highest casualty count (159 persons dead and 951 wounded) occurred in Asia.
Pull your heads out of Dan Rathers and Michael Moores ass and you will discover all kinds of shit out. The liberal media won't tell you about this or the economic recovery because A, they are bed wetters and want to support their liberal agenda and B, bad news sells better than good news.
I am voting for Bush for many reasons.
1. I LOVE tax cuts. I pay to much of my money in taxes as it is. I'll take a 300 tax cut all day long. When dems are talking about "they are only for the rich" well by rich they mean a family that makes 90 grand a year. well that aint rich my friend. The top 25% of income earners pay 82.9 percent of taxes the bottom 50 percent of wage earners pay 4 percent of the taxes. But think about it, if the taxes to P&G go up who pays really? The company? No, they are not going to cut profits they will raise the price of Tide to us in order to cover the cost of more taxes. So I'm all for tax cuts for those who pay taxes.
2. In the war on terrorism I would rather be proactive than reactive.
3. I am not a fan of abortion. In the case or rape or incest or saving the mothers life is the only exception.
4. I think he stands by his beliefs and makes choices based on what he thinks the best thing to do is.
So tell me, why are you voting for Kerry?
WASHINGTON - The State Department acknowledged Thursday it was wrong in reporting terrorism declined worldwide last year, a finding used to boost one of President Bush (news - web sites)'s chief foreign policy claims success in countering terror.
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.
The April report said attacks had declined last year to 190, the lowest level in 34 years, and dropped 45 percent since 2001, Bush's first year as president. The department is now working to determine the correct figures.
Rep. Henry A. Waxman, who had challenged the findings, said he was pleased that officials "have now recognized that they have a report that has been inaccurate, and based on the inaccurate information they tried to take self-serving political credit for the results that were wrong."
Among the mistakes, Boucher said, was that only part of 2003 was taken into account.
Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said Thursday the errors were partly the result of new data collection procedures. "I can assure you it had nothing to do with putting out anything but the most honest, accurate information we can," he said.
"Errors crept in that frankly we did not catch here," Powell said. The report showed both a drop in the number of attacks worldwide in 2003 and the virtual disappearance of attacks in which no one died.
Waxman said this week the administration had refused to address his contention that the findings were manipulated for political purposes. Waxman asked Powell for an explanation.
On Thursday, Powell called Waxman, D-Calif., who said he accepted the secretary's explanation that the mistakes were unintentional.
"He says it wasn't politically motivated so I will accept that," Waxman said. Still, he said, "We are still left with the fact that this report is useless until it is corrected."
Boucher said the errors began to become apparent in early May. "We got phone calls from people who were going through our report and who said to themselves, as we should have said to ourselves: 'This doesn't feel right. This doesn't look right.' And who started asking us questions," he said.
One of Bush's major foreign policy claims is that his post-Sept. 11 strategy to counter terror was showing success.
Ken Mehlman, the president's campaign manager, said in April, "Ultimately the most important thing that people want to see on the war on terror is, what is your vision for dealing with it and what is your record."
"Obviously one of the most important issues in this election is the question of how do we continue to fight and win the war on terror so we keep our homeland safe," Mehlman said.
At the same time, Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) and Mehlman have questioned whether Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) was qualified to conduct a war against terrorism.
When the annual report was issued April 29, senior administration officials used it as evidence the war was being won under Bush.
J. Cofer Black, who heads the State Department's counterterrorism office, cited the existence of only 190 acts of terrorism in 2003 as "good news" and predicted the trend would continue this year.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said at the time, "Indeed, you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight."
His office did not respond Thursday to a request for a statement in light of disclosures some of the findings in "Patterns of Global Terrorism" were inaccurate and understated.
.....
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...0610/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/powell_terror_report_6
Looks like somebody in the Bush adminstration screwed the pooch once again, first the WMDs, then the ties between Al-Queda and Hussein, now this. Just another reason why I will be voting for Kerry, the Bush administration is becoming a comedy of errors. Sure, Bush makes decisions based on what he believes but when it comes to cold hard facts, well, thats another story altogether. Now, pull your head out of Rush Limbaughs' and Bill O'Reillys' Ass and maybe you will find something out.
