Vyvoda asks what "Bush supporters" have to say about this Reuters article, which in typical roto-Reuters fashion is headlined World Terror Attacks Tripled in 2004 by U.S. Count:
The U.S. count of major world terrorist attacks more than tripled in 2004, a rise that may revive debate on whether the Bush administration is winning the war on terrorism, congressional aides said on Tuesday.
The number of "significant" international terrorist attacks rose to about 650 last year from about 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides briefed on the numbers by State Department and intelligence officials on Monday.
Sounds pretty bad for the Bush Doctrine, and the Global War on Terror, no? Oh, but wait; let's dig a bit deeper, shall we? Elsewhere in the article, we find:
Waxman's letter said that of the about 650 significant attacks last year, about 300 reflected violence in India and Pakistan, leaving some 350 attacks elsewhere in the world -- double the total 2003 count.
He suggested this reflected enhanced U.S. efforts to monitor media reports of violence, thereby leading to the identification of "many more attacks in India and Pakistan related to Kashmir."
Okay, stop right here. Which is it? Terrorist attacks tripled, or we just weren't counting them in the first place? Is it even plausible that the number of terrorist attacks in Kashmir alone is double the total number of terrorist attacks in the entire world just a year prior? Obviously, this year's count reflects better information/intelligence gathering with respect to world terror. So, this story is really a non-story, right? Oh, no - Reuters can't end it without letting some Democrat hack take a cheap shot at Bush:
"What it effectively means is that the Bush administration and the CIA haven't been putting the staff resources necessary and have missed 80 percent of the world's terrorist incidents" in past years, said a Democratic congressional aide. "How can you have an effective counterterrorism policy from that?"
So, it's Bush's fault! Of course! But, wait; a little earlier in the article we read:
It later said the number killed and injured in 2003 was more than double its original count and said "significant" terrorist attacks -- those that kill or seriously injure someone, cause more than $10,000 in damage or attempt to do either of those things -- rose to a 20-year high of 175.
(Emphasis added)
So what's the implication? Roto-reuters would have you believe 1) Bush's counterterrorism policy has been an abject failure due to its inability to count terrorist attacks accurately, and 2) Bush's counterterrorism policy has been an abject failure due to its inability to prevent terrorism from spiraling to more than three times its 20 year high.
So what's the truth?
Congressional aides said about 10 full-time employees worked on the 2004 count, up from about three in past years, and that this produced a more complete count.
So, Bush put together the Department of Homeland Security, has made a good-faith effort to enact intelligence changes proposed by Congress, and is generally putting significantly more resources into HumInt than previous administrations ("previous administrations", referring directly to Clinton, is the correct translation of Reuters' misleading "past years") - and Roto-reuters manages to blame him at every turn.
A better analysis of this information is that world terrorism was higher all along, and the Bush administration should be praised for dedicating the manpower to track and count terrorist acts more accurately and completely.
