June 13, 200422 yr http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/13/powell.terror.ap/index.html Nice to see the administration admit to mistakes... Except that if Waxman hadn't questioned the report, it likely would have been taken as fact. .... A leading House Democrat, Rep. Henry Waxman of California, had challenged the findings, contending they were manipulated for political purposes. The conclusion that terrorism was on the decline was used to boost one of President Bush's chief foreign policy claims, success in countering terror. Waxman asked Powell for an explanation and the secretary called last week to say the mistakes for unintentional. "He says it wasn't politically motivated so I will accept that," Waxman said after their conversation. Still, the lawmaker said, "We are still left with the fact that this report is useless until it is corrected." 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. The report also showed the virtual disappearance of attacks in which no one died. "There's a new terrorist threat information center that compiles this data under the CIA. And we are still trying to determine what went wrong with the data and why we didn't catch it in the State Department," Powell said Sunday. "It's a very big mistake. And we are not happy about this big mistake," he added. The department has said that one of the mistakes was that only part of 2003 was taken into account. When the annual report was issued April 29, senior administration officials used it as evidence the war was being won under Bush. "We weren't saying terrorism has gone away. The report clearly says terrorism is a main problem facing the world today. We've got to continue going after terrorists," Powell said. "But based on the data we had within the report, there was a suggestion that the number of incidents had dropped and it was the lowest since 1969," he added. "That turns out not to have been correct. We were wrong. We will correct it."
June 14, 200422 yr I don't mean to belittle your analogy, but the consequences of mistakes in a tech-manual are not of the same magnitude as those in a threat assessment report. If newspapers have fact-checkers, then surely the CIA can too.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.