Patterico's Pontifications

2/5/2007

Saving the Army of M.Croches Some Time (UPDATED)

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:13 am

Brad from Sadly, No! apologizes to me here for suggesting that I am “a loon conspiracy theorist who thinks the media want to help the terrorists.” Then he contrasts me with the other right-wingers who, he claims, do fit that description.

m.croche is no doubt busy digging up links to prove to Brad & Company that I am indeed such a loon conspiracy theorist. Let me save him the trouble.

While I don’t believe I have ever called anyone in the media a traitor, or deliberately in league with the terrorists or the enemy, I do believe that Big Media has shown on many occasions that they care more about The Big Story than they do about our country’s safety.

Case in point: look at this language from a Second Circuit Court of appeals decision:

After the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, the federal government launched or intensified investigations into the funding of terrorist activities by organizations raising money in the United States. In the course of those investigations, the government developed a plan to freeze the assets and/or search the premises of two foundations. Two New York Times reporters learned of these plans, and, on the eve of each of the government’s actions, called each foundation for comment on the upcoming government freeze and/or searches.

The government was planning to raid suspected terrorists’ offices and freeze their assets, and the New York Times warned the suspected terrorists.

I called the people who did this the “zany terrorist-alertin’ folks at the New York Times,” and said: “Remember: Bill Keller told us that the Times is not neutral or agnostic in this war on terror.”

Now, I don’t actually believe that the paper was deliberately out to help the terrorists, though I joke about it. But I do believe that that incident shows that they really don’t give the slightest crap about our efforts to fight the terrorists. They believed it critically important to run a story that smugly showed they knew what was going on — more important than letting our government fight the bad guys. As Beldar said:

[I]t’s another fine example of how the mainstream media, led by the New York Times, is absolutely willing to let you be blown to bits by terrorists in order to protect your “right to know.”

Case in point #2: the Swift disclosures. The New York Times and L.A. Times took a program that had caught several actual terrorists, including Hambali, the mastermind of the Bali bombing, which killed more people than the Oklahoma City bombing. It was a legal and effective program with adequate oversight, and you can spin like a top all day long about how the information was already out there and no terrorists were alerted, but once the story appeared on the front pages of the nation’s newspapers, I believe we were less likely to catch the next Hambali. (I am not going to reargue these issues; you can read three posts that explain my views here, here, and here — posts that Sadly, No! commenters will never bother to read.)

These are just two examples of Big Media showing no regard for our safety, in their zeal to get out The Big Story. And yes, I had some harsh words for these folks. Once again, I’ll save m.croche the trouble:

I am biting down on my rage right now. I’ll resist the temptation to say Ann Coulter was right about where Timothy McVeigh should have gone with his truck bomb. I’ll say only this: it’s becoming increasingly clear to me that the people at the New York Times are not just biased media folks whose antics can be laughed off. They are actually dangerous.

Now, I never would actually say that a statement as vile as that was right. I can’t stand Ann Coulter, as my readers are sick of hearing me say. I thought her comments about the Jersey Girls were reprehensible. But I was human enough to admit I felt the temptation to say this nasty thing, because I was angry. You know that righteous anger you and your commenters feel about the war, Brad? I had that anger over the release of this story. I cancelled my subscription to the L.A. Times over it. I genuinely believed this newspaper had just released information that might endanger my family at some point in the future.

And yes, I was even concerned about the revelations regarding the Rumsfeld and Cheney vacation homes, as you can see from UPDATE x2 to this post.

I don’t believe that Big Media is in league with the terrorists. When I appeared on a radio program in Boston and was asked whether I thought the New York Times were traitors because of the Swift disclosures, I said no. I said that they had just made a horrible, horrible mistake of judgment — something, by the way, that even their Public Editor has come to realize.

But I do think they assign an awfully low value to our safety. I think they show terrible judgment. And I think that most of the examples you give in your post are similar to my complaints here.

I gotta go to work now, so I can’t polish this post the way I’d like. I just know that you have an Army of M.Croches over there desperate to prove that I really am this crazy media-hatin’ guy, and I figured I’d save them the effort.

UPDATE: After this post was published, right on cue, m.croche was in the Sadly, No! comments trumpeting exactly the quote I said he would. He’s nothing if not predictable.

Meanwhile, Gavin interjects in Brad’s post that Brad is being too nice to “the enemy,” which is, of course, ~~the terrorists~~ me. (Gavin is probably joking about that — but I guarantee you a majority of his commenters see me as exactly that, and Gavin knows it. Pandering to the commenters keeps the traffic a’flowin’!) Meanwhile, in comments, Brad is busy pandering again himself — showing regret for having said anything nice about me, assuring commenters that he is not praising my morals, and saying that his praise for my skill at argumentation is analogous to praising someone for being skilled at farting. And what type of commenter is he pandering to? The type that says: “Patterico is a dick. He’s also a liar and an idiotic right-wing prick. you know this, you’ve dealt with it before. He also smells of poo and has cooties.”

In other words, everything is back to normal over there.

Comments (27)

27 Responses to “Saving the Army of M.Croches Some Time (UPDATED)”

I’d rather live with the dangers of a free press than the dangers of a military government.
Governments lie. The war was based on lies.
How much safer are we now than before we invaded Iraq?

Since there were two pieces today that just have to be read side by side, today’s must read is a twofer.

First up, The Washington Post on Gen. David H. Petraeus’ circle of war doctors, a brilliant, independent-minded bunch of PhDs whom he’s brought together to steer U.S. strategy in Iraq. “Essentially, the Army is turning the war over to its dissidents,” Thomas Ricks writes, “who have criticized the way the service has operated there the past three years, and is letting them try to wage the war their way.”

Among the “Petraeus Guys,” as they’re called, all “military officers with doctorates from top-flight universities and combat experience in Iraq,” there’s Petraeus (PhD, Princeton), Col. Michael J. Meese (PhD, Princeton), Australian Army. Lt. Col. David Kilcullen (who holds a PhD in anthropology), Col. Peter R. Mansoor (PhD, Ohio State), Col. H.R. McMaster (PhD, Univ. North Carolina), and other advisors, like Lt. Col. Douglas A. Ollivant (PhD in political science) and Ahmed S. Hashim (PhD, MIT).

Their job: “to reverse the effects of four years of conventional mind-set fighting an unconventional war,” as an officer puts it to Ricks.

Meanwhile, in Iraq…

A growing number of Iraqis blamed the United States on Sunday for creating conditions that led to the worst single suicide bombing in the war, which devastated a Shiite market in Baghdad the day before. They argued that the Americans had been slow in completing the vaunted new American security plan, making Shiite neighborhoods much more vulnerable to such horrific attacks….
In advance of the plan, which would flood Baghdad with thousands of new American and Iraqi troops, many Mahdi Army checkpoints were dismantled and its leaders were either in hiding or under arrest, which was one of the plan’s intended goals to reduce sectarian fighting. But with no immediate influx of new security forces to fill the void, Shiites say, Sunni militants and other anti-Shiite forces have been emboldened to plot the type of attack that obliterated the bustling Sadriya market on Saturday, killing at least 135 people and wounding more than 300 from a suicide driver’s truck bomb….

Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the American military spokesman in Iraq, called for patience as the new security plan rolls out. “Give the government and coalition forces a chance to fully implement it,” he said in remarks carried by several news agencies.

His comments, however, came as more than a dozen mortar shells crashed on Adhamiya, a Sunni area of eastern Baghdad, in what appeared to be an act of retaliation by Shiites. At least 15 people were killed and more than 56 wounded, an Interior Ministry official said.

Clashes in western Baghdad between Sunni and Shiite militias left 7 dead and 11 wounded, and the authorities found 35 bodies throughout the city, many showing signs of torture.

. Give me the risks of democracy and a free press any day of the god damn week.
AF (ec5f86) — 2/5/2007 @ 8:16 am
RF, your post was based on lies. Shut up and go away.
You're an Idiot (1147a4) — 2/5/2007 @ 8:49 am
“I’d rather live with the dangers of a free press than the dangers of a military government”

Is that really the choice we have? Military dictatorship or a free press. We had a free press in World War II too, of course. Maybe ‘free press’ isn’t the issue, after all. Maybe it’s ‘responsible press’. Though not listed as an option I’m going to go with a democratic republic and a responsible press. We’ve done it before, let’s do it again.
Sweetie (6071ae) — 2/5/2007 @ 8:50 am
The war was based on lies.

Which is, ironically enough, a self-serving lie based wholly on the lies of the “free press” as embodied by the NYTimes, LATimes, and WaPo.

Pick your poison, but in my opinion, one is no better than the other. This is evident from the wholly fabricated, sensational stories based solely on anonymous or made-up (AP, call Jamil Hussein’s office) sources that pass for news these days. And to think that there are people out there that truly believe that the media should be granted blanket legal protection against having to actually prove these sources exist and are telling the truth boggles the mind.
Hogarth (a721ef) — 2/5/2007 @ 10:47 am
Patterico,

I think this is one of the best off-the-cuff summary posts you’ve made. The content is comprehensive and effective and it is beautifully written. Well done, and I hope the Sadly No! visitors read and think about what you’ve said.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/5/2007 @ 10:56 am
How much safer are we now than before we invaded Iraq?
Comment by AF — 2/5/2007 @ 8:16 am

And the answer is Drum roll please NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON U.S. SOIL OR OVERSEAS IN FIVE YEARS! So much safer. What a moron!
Joe (09cc33) — 2/5/2007 @ 11:34 am
After burning getting lovely headaches going through the terrorist knowledgebase concentrating on the last year or so of Bush 41 and then on Clinton I can say that the upsurge in terrorism attacks on a global scale had sharply risen between 1997-2000. Even taking out duplicates and such in the database, the rise in the pure number of attacks globally and their lethality had been sharply climbing.

The idea of using law enforcement to go after those committing acts of war was not only inane, but highly dangerous in the face of the numbers of attacks. By not confronting any of the groups that were springing up and attacking not only the US, but all throughout South America and Europe, the ability of Nation States to stand up as autonomous and independent was being diminished. Radical Islam was only a part of that upsurge, and it had strong Kurdish Nationalist tones, especially against Turkey. Turkey was and still is finding itself in the cross-hairs between foreign sponsored insurgents, leftist insurgents, Kurdish Nationalists/Separatists, radicalized Islam and foreign terrorists. The North African based riots in France and Spain both morphed from their basic hooliganism to one of pointed Islamic radicalism. Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines all saw the founding of radical Islamic movements and terrorist attacks where, prior to that, racial and ethnic problems had been the norm. The advent of Burma sponsoring terrorist activities in China and other Nations in the Far East was no help in this. The number and lethality of attacks in India in the late 1990s is in stark contrast to any time since their last war with Pakistan stalled out in the high mountain country.

This does not even begin to speak of the spread of Hezbollah to the Balkans, Argentina, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia.

All of that while the US was distracted with Monica and Gennifer and Paula and stains on the blue dress. And so many ‘peacekeeping’ operations that two Army Divisions fell to the lowest readiness status since Vietnam. The ‘peace dividend’ made one of the foremost US divisions for mountain warfare unready for when the Nation needed them in Afghanistan: 10th Mountain Division.

There are a whole raft of others that have had a great time attacking the US, its Armed Forces and its people and the list does not either start nor stop at al Qaeda. The entire Transnational Terrorist internetwork system had given many groups the will to attack the US and know they would never face any consequences: FARC, Shining Path, ETA, Hezbollah, DHKP/C, RO-N17, Islamic Jihad, FPMR, Chukakuha, Tupac Ameru, FMLN, Red Army Faction, Abu Nidal oranization, M-20…. all having attacked US Embassies, Ambassadors, US Government officials and US Armed Forces personnel.
ajacksonian (87eccd) — 2/5/2007 @ 12:02 pm
Treason, in the US is defined in the Constitution, Article III, section 3:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

No one is claiming that any reporters are actually bearing arms against the US, but giving aid and comfort to our enemies, oh yeah. The NY Times on three separate occasions has revealed classified information to our enemies, any one of which I’d classify as treason. Certainly one is in violation of US Code Title 18, 798, and the other two are arguably violations of US Code Title 18, 793. And the reporters who revealed to the foundations the imminent raid certainly seem to be in violation of either Title 18,3 or Obstruction of Justice statutes.
larry (feb78b) — 2/5/2007 @ 12:39 pm
Saturday, April 16, 2005 WASHINGTON — The State Department decided to stop publishing an annual report on international terrorism after the government’s top terrorism center concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985, the first year the publication covered.

Several U.S. officials defended the decision, saying the methodology used by the National Counterterrorism Center to generate statistics had flaws, such as the inclusion of incidents that may not have been terrorism.

But other current and former officials charged that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s office ordered the report, “Patterns of Global Terrorism,” eliminated weeks ago because the 2004 statistics raised disturbing questions about the Bush’s administration’s frequent claims of progress in the war against terrorism.

Still your list of terrorists organizations is a joke. Hezbollah hasn’t mounted a major terror operation since the mid 90’s. it’s a military and political, and Lebanese nationalist organization. Read the USG and Israeli reports. And of course 40 years and counting of military occupation on the west bank.
And here’s another of your good guys.

José Efraín Ríos Montt (born June 16, 1926) is a former dictator of Guatemala, army general, and former president of Congress. In the 2003 presidential elections, he unsuccessfully ran as the candidate of the ruling Guatemalan Republican Front (FRG).
Huehuetenango-born Ríos Montt remains one of the most controversial figures in Guatemala. Two Truth Commissions, one sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church and the other conducted by the government as part of the 1996 Peace Accords, documented widespread human rights abuses committed by Ríos Montt’s military regime, including widespread massacres, rape, torture, and acts of genocide against the indigenous population. Supporters claim that he had to rule with an iron hand because the country was becoming unstable due to the civil war. Ríos Montt has, at times, had close ties to the United States who gave him aid to fight against left-wing guerrillas.
Ríos Montt is best known outside Guatemala for heading a military regime (1982–1983) that was responsible in some of the worst atrocities of Guatemala’s 36-year civil war. The war ended with a peace treaty in 1996. The civil war pitted left-wing rebel groups against the army, with huge numbers of Mayan campesinos caught in the crossfire. At least 200,000 Guatemalans were killed during the conflict, making it one of Latin America’s most violent wars in modern history.
Indigenous Mayans suffered greatly under his rule, and it is documented that his government deliberately targeted thousands of them since many of them in the countryside were suspected of harboring sympathies for the guerrilla movement. Some of his critics view this as a campaign of deliberate genocide against the population.

You defend democracy and freedom, except where others demand it against what you consider your own interests. And you call this “justice.”
what a bunch of fucking idiots
AF (ec5f86) — 2/5/2007 @ 12:59 pm
Surge Plan Violates Military Doctrine

While the Senate roils over the Levin-Warner kinda-sorta-anti-surge resolution today, one of the most important elements of the White House’s Iraq plan remains unclear: the dual chain of command in place for U.S. and Iraqi soldiers.

President Bush announced on January 10 that the Iraqis would appoint an overall Baghdad commander and two subordinate commanders for Iraqi units across the nine Baghdad districts. Those commanders would be responsible for the expected 18 Army and Police brigades to be deployed throughout the capital — who would work alongside the surged U.S. forces under the command of General David Petraeus.

Not many observers understood how this would actually work, but practically all worried about violating unity of command — a military necessity for any successful operation. The Army’s Operations Field Manual, 100-5, states clearly:

At all levels of war, employment of military forces in a manner that masses combat power toward a common objective requires unity of command and unity of effort. Unity of command means that all the forces are under one responsible commander. It requires a single commander with the requisite authority to direct all forces in pursuit of a unified purpose.

As it stands now, however, the surge possesses no such harmony. Even one of its intellectual architects, retired Army General Jack Keane, testified on January 25 that “it makes no sense to you, it makes no sense to me, but that’s exactly what we’re going to do, and that’ll be a problem for Petraeus and his commanders to sort out.”

Lets hear it for a free press. Or we’d all be ruled by the idiots you worship.
AF (ec5f86) — 2/5/2007 @ 1:03 pm
I think there’s a middle ground in evaluating whether liberal members of the MSM are committed free speech advocates or partisans who side with our enemies. I’ve come to the conclusion that most liberals are subjective in their approach to decision-making. This affects their actions and beliefs in a profoundly different way than how conservatives make decisions.

Specifically, I think conservatives are process-oriented and make decisions by applying accepted rules to specific events. Life is fairly black and white to conservatives. Liberals tend to be substantive, result-oriented, and to see more grays in life. As a result, their decision-making is often personality-driven, and they are comfortable with decision-making by trusted people but wary of decisions made by people they don’t trust. I think that is, in part, why they did not object to Clinton’s unilateral military actions but do object to Bush’s war in Iraq.

Because of this liberal tendency to rely on personalities, I think liberals object when people question their patriotism because they know many of them would support this war if only it were being led by someone they trust, like Bill Clinton, but not when it’s led by someone like they don’t trust like George Bush. Liberals don’t view this position as hypocritical – and I don’t think it is from their frame of reference – because of the importance of personality in liberal decision-making.

Conservatives have problems with this attitude because personality matters so little to our decision-making, as we’ve proven time and again by nominating candidates who lack charisma but embrace principles we support. Interestingly enough, liberals are starting to get a dose of this medicine to the extent some truly partisan liberals have become fixated on particular candidates because they are anti-war, regardless of their overall leadership qualities. In addition, I think this also explains why liberals are more accepting of Marxist ideology, which at heart is substance-based rather than process-driven, and why conservatives prefer capitalist, process-based economic and justice systems.

Anyway, this is my long-winded way of saying conservatives are from Mars and liberals are from Venus. Thus, while I don’t think liberals in the MSM are evil or intend to do harm to our country (although they may intend to harm Bush), I agree with Patterico that some of the MSM’s actions have resulted in great harm.
DRJ (e69ca7) — 2/5/2007 @ 1:49 pm
Is this m.croche loon still kicking around??

Here are some posts from nearly 3 years ago which show what a tool this guy is (read both the posts and comments to see why) –

http://www.calblog.com/archives/003412.html

http://www.calblog.com/archives/003413.html
Justin Levine (20f2b5) — 2/5/2007 @ 2:16 pm
We have known m.croche as “raj” over on GayPatriot. Nice to see that his uniquely stupid, demented and pompous brand of dishonesty has added glimmers of amusement to the lives of others as well 😉
ellersburgwhoresonellis (78a6f8) — 2/5/2007 @ 5:35 pm
DRJ: Good post! You have pretty well nailed it why the military is conservative, and why liberals would not function very well there: When given an order by a superior, it doesn’t mean squat what your personal relationship is. Superiors give orders to inferiors (they could all be PhD’s. but rank determines the relationship), and they are followed to the best of your ability. The liberal mind-set that you profile could never function in that atmosphere, and so, is either weeded out, or never joins to begin with.
AF, I have to admit, has the dialectic down pretty pat; but what he spouts is still drivel. It will be quite pleasant here when he just goes away – or goes over the edge, and Pat takes him down.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 2/5/2007 @ 6:24 pm
Hezbollah hasn’t mounted a major terror operation since the mid 90’s.

Except that little one where they attacked Israel, kidnapped Israeli soldiers, then hid behind women and children when called on it.
Barney15e (7f9027) — 2/5/2007 @ 6:55 pm
BTW AF, if you think Hezbollah is such a non-issue vis-a-vis the US, you should read this
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001379.html
Another Drew (8018ee) — 2/5/2007 @ 7:20 pm
Barney15e,
You’re referring to an attack on a military target. It was preceded by the kidnapping by Israel of two civilians in Gaza, whereabouts unknown to this day. It was followed by a full on assault on a country (an assault that had been in planning for a year, waiting for an excuse)

“…hid behind women and children…” The israeli army admitted these charges were bullshit.

And in re: Michael Totten: Read and Learn

g’night kids.
AF (ec5f86) — 2/5/2007 @ 7:52 pm
Joe#6- No attacks, except for the anthrax mailings, real and hoaxed, in the US. Overseas? That’s plain stupid to try and claim. Just to begin with, how’s about in London and Madrid? Do you remember anything besides 9/11?

As to the point of this post, while we don’t agree about the specifics or perhaps what should be done, I do agree with Patterico there are problems with the media and how the demands of its marketplace effect the way the news is reported. But, like before, I don’t agree with the examples. Instead of wasting time debating their applicability, I’ll just say that I think the problems with the media have effects that both sides of the aisle take issue with from different angles, and the harm isn’t so localized as to make it a partisan issue, or a case of (un)intentionally siding with the enemy. As many in this thread have pointed out, the Bush admin has just as often benefited as suffered from interaction with the media. I’m not saying we all really agree and can’t we all just get along, but that I think Patterico mistakes the nature of the problem. I don’t agree on the specifics, or perhaps really at all, but don’t confuse me or the left as dedicated defenders of the AP and the rest. We[‘re not blind to the problem, we just see it in different times and places.
brad (e1987a) — 2/5/2007 @ 8:54 pm
Oops. Somehow I left out a clause. Odd. After “Patterico mistakes the nature of the problem” I meant to qualify by adding “in that he seems to place too much emphasis on specific, partisan instances that make it seem like bias instead of something more profound.”
Dunno how I managed to do that, but anyway.
brad (e1987a) — 2/5/2007 @ 9:03 pm
“Patterico is a dick. He’s also a liar and an idiotic right-wing prick. you know this, you’ve dealt with it before. He also smells of poo and has cooties.”

I see the fifth graders are in the computer room again.
Bill M (afe2c3) — 2/5/2007 @ 9:08 pm
Either Sadly, No! is down or I have been banned. Whatever.
nk (2ab789) — 2/5/2007 @ 10:00 pm
AF,

I don’t think you want to hang your hat on the Seattle Times article about “The Patterns of Global Terrorism” report. The article appears to contain several significant errors or at minimum mischaracterizations.

1. The report (has to be done by law) still exists with a changed name – to delineate the transfer of the statistical data capture and generation over to the NCTC from the State Department
2. The NCTC database was started in 2004 (or the one available to the public). Usually when there is a systems cut-over, especially if the purpose changes, the type of information captured plus the methodology to evaluate would change.
3. The NCTC also has a disclaimer on the site stating not to compare year-to-year global acts because different regions could flare up, how acts are counted, etc. There are lots of ways to skew the data.
4. Given the overly broad criteria used to place incidents in this database and the uncertain aims of some of the incidents, the increase may not have been directed at the United States. This is primarily what most Americans care about.

So what are you trying to prove with this article? It seems like more information is being generated and better methods are being employed to evaluate it. Sounds very scary for democracy and the idiots trying to encourage it.

Patterico – Long time reader, first time commenter. Always enjoy the site and make it a point to direct people to the year in review. I am also in the neighborhood.
pwr (552469) — 2/6/2007 @ 12:31 am
” It seems like more information is being generated and better methods are being employed to evaluate it.”
More likely to you maybe, but then what you want to believe and what the facts show are two different things.
Are we winning the war on terrorism?

Although keeping score is difficult, the State Department’s annual report on international terrorism, released last month, provides the best government data to answer this question. The short answer is “No,” but that’s not the spin the administration is putting on it.

“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.”

Yet, a careful review of the report and underlying data supports the opposite conclusion: The number of significant terrorist acts increased from 124 in 2001 to 169 in 2003 — 36 percent — even using the State Department’s official standards. The data that the report highlights are ill-defined and subject to manipulation — and give disproportionate weight to the least important terrorist acts. The only verifiable information in the annual reports indicates that the number of terrorist events has risen each year since 2001, and in 2003 reached its highest level in more than 20 years.

To be sure, counting terrorist acts is not as straightforward as counting the number of SARS victims. Specialists have not agreed to any test that would unambiguously qualify an act as one of international terrorism. But in the words of the Congressional Research Service, the State Department’s annual report is “the most authoritative unclassified U.S. government document that assesses terrorist attacks.”

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.

International terrorism is defined in the report as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets” involving citizens or property from multiple countries, “usually intended to influence an audience.” An event “is judged significant if it results in loss of life or serious injury to persons” or “major property damage.”

A panel determines whether an event meets this definition, but the State Department refused to tell us the members of the panel or the practices used to count nonsignificant terrorist acts.

We do know that the definition leaves much room for discretion. Because “significant events” include such things as destroying an ATM in Greece or throwing a molotov cocktail at a McDonald’s in Norway without causing much damage, it is easy to imagine that nonsignificant events are counted with a squishy definition that can be manipulated to alter the trend.

The alleged decline in terrorism in 2003 was entirely a result of a decline in nonsignificant events.

Another curious feature of the latest report is that its catalogue of events 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. The bombings of the HSBC Bank, British Consulate, and Beth Israel and Neve Shalom synagogues in Istanbul by individuals associated with al Qaeda occurred on Nov. 20 and Nov. 15, respectively. Additionally, the report mentions the bombing of the Catholic Relief Services in Nasiriyah, Iraq, on Nov. 12 but somehow omits it from the official list of significant events.

So the record number of 169 significant international terrorist events for 2003 is undoubtedly an understatement. It is impossible to know if these and other terrorist events were left out of the State Department’s total of events.

Despite the lack of transparency and the rose-colored graphs, the department’s data reveal that administration policies in the past year have not turned the terrorist tide. Of course, it is impossible to know how many terrorist acts would have occurred absent the war on terrorism, but it is unambiguous that the number of significant international terrorist acts is on the rise.

The fact that the number of nonsignificant terrorist acts has headed down — even if true — is, well, nonsignificant. What matters for security is the number of significant acts. It is regrettable that one casualty in the war against terrorism has been the accurate reporting of statistics. This seems to be another fight we are losing.
AF (ec5f86) — 2/6/2007 @ 7:14 am
Pay more attention to the world and less to your desire to control it. It’s pretty fucking obvious.

Isn’t it?
AF (ec5f86) — 2/6/2007 @ 7:16 am
AF,

Sorry, I don’t track with your comment. Isn’t noting these incidents and broadening the net of information “paying attention”? Where did the control part come into the equation?

Pretty freakin’ obvious.

I am all for freedom of the press. I would like to think most people agree, but the problem is about determining whether the reporting is responsible or not.

Your other example, TPMMuckracker article was a lot to do about nothing. Do you not think commanders in the field should be able to control strategy, even organizational design? I understand the military needs to be more cautious about willy-nilly changes. However, I doubt military doctrine is sacrosanct, but reflects the wisdom and learnings over prior wars and conflicts. Non-story, unless they are really going to dig deeper.

The examples you give go more to proving Patterico than suppression of dissent. You present two worthless articles without context of the events surrounding the activity, solid facts, and the appearance of an agenda. Getting the “lefties” in froth seems to be the intent and the articles have made their impact.

Finally, I will concede I have never heard of the Guatamalan dictator. If as you say is true, then I wouldn’t defend him in a million years. I doubt a lot of the other people commenting here would do so as well.
pwr (552469) — 2/6/2007 @ 10:10 am
As a matter of law, does treason require treasonous intent? Or does gross negligence or depraved indifference – where the effect if not the intent is clearly treasonous – also rise to actionable treason?

It seems to me the question is important, because while I do *not* believe many (or perhaps any) members of the media are likely to intentionally engage in treason … I *do* think its indisputable that they would allow harm to come to America in pursuit of their “big scoop.”

Is that treason? Or not?

One more point: while I don’t believe there is an army of treasonous reporters out there – I also don’t think it’s entirely honest to so casually dismiss the meme that some MSM reporters “want to help the terrorists.”

I think a small minority (I hope its small) does at least support their political aims.

More damning is the fact that I think there are at least a handful out there who *clearly* cheer American losses.

Would they go over the line into clear treason?

I hope not. But I don’t think that notion is so easily dismissed. Not based solely on the facts.
Professor Blather (c65bfa) — 2/6/2007 @ 11:22 am
To successfully prosecute a treason charge, you have to prove intent:

“Intent is a distinct element of the crime, in addition to the required showing of an overt act. The requisite intent is one to benefit the enemy’s war effort and to harm that of the United States. *** The World War II cases added to previous doctrine on intent by responding to three kinds of claims that defendants had been of a divided state of mind — out of dual purposes, loyal motive, or dual allegiance.”
DRJ (605076) — 2/6/2007 @ 11:45 am

2/5/2007

Saving the Army of M.Croches Some Time (UPDATED)

27 Responses to “Saving the Army of M.Croches Some Time (UPDATED)”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out