Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

April 21, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

IF YOU CAN'T DAZZLE THEM WITH BRILLIANCE, BAFFLE THEM WITH....I don't really know what this is all about, but my best guess is that the Bush administration is trying to make its annual terrorism report so complicated that it's impossible to even try to make a year-to-year comparison. Now why would they want to do that?

Kevin Drum 2:01 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (90)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

You all just hate what a popular President George W. Bush is. Sad, really.

Posted by: IOKIYAR on April 21, 2006 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK

...my best guess is that the Bush administration is trying to make its annual terrorism report so complicated that...

It simply reinforces the administration's assertion that Iraq is part of the GWOT. Transparent BS, but what else is new.

Posted by: has407 on April 21, 2006 at 2:09 AM | PERMALINK

Well, duh. The British have no experience with terrorism and so they've never had to deal with things spontaneously blowing up before. Except for the IRA, the Luftwaffe, that Guy Fawkes practical joker, and Hollywood film crews.

Posted by: judy miller on April 21, 2006 at 2:09 AM | PERMALINK

Well, you can't have a war on terrorism without terrorism.

So, the more, the merrier.

Posted by: frankly0 on April 21, 2006 at 2:11 AM | PERMALINK

IOKIYAR: "You all just hate what a popular President George W. Bush is."

"Norman, can you hear the loons? Listen to them!" - Ethel Thayer (Katherine Hepburn), On Golden Pond (1981)

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 21, 2006 at 2:15 AM | PERMALINK

Is it possible that the Bush administration has been so occupied (Iraq, Katrina, poll numbers, Plame) that they forgot to pressure the State Department folks into fudging the numbers?

I mean, they did leave Afghanistan out of the budget when they were turning their focus to Iraq.

Posted by: enozinho on April 21, 2006 at 2:21 AM | PERMALINK

Folks, this stuff is complicated.

Leave it to the experts.

Posted by: obscure on April 21, 2006 at 2:25 AM | PERMALINK

My "best guess" is that the report itself might be a little clearer than this article. The article can't seem to decide if the numbers are being artificially kept down, or if Johnson is right, artificially inflated.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 21, 2006 at 2:33 AM | PERMALINK

My "best guess" is that the report itself might be a little clearer than this article.

Good point tbrosz. Reporters aren't very bright and couldn't understand the complexities of terrorism. That's why they're constantly getting the terrorism situation in Iraq and Iran wrong also.

Posted by: Al on April 21, 2006 at 2:36 AM | PERMALINK

Ok, there's more terrorism, but, as with the insurgency in Iraq, the ability of the enemy to strike more targets more effectively and at will is a "sign of desperation."

Posted by: Jonas on April 21, 2006 at 2:39 AM | PERMALINK

Al is right. Except that he accidentally spelled "Republicans" as "reporters".

Posted by: craigie on April 21, 2006 at 2:59 AM | PERMALINK

The numbers used in the reports are provided by the National Counterterrorism Center; you can browse the NCTC incidents database (here) to see what they're including. (However, the data isn't very current, and beware, as it seems to be a bit finicky when doing more than simple searches.)

Posted by: has407 on April 21, 2006 at 3:04 AM | PERMALINK

you know, every once in a while, you just have to shake your head in admiration for both Al and craigie!

Posted by: howard on April 21, 2006 at 3:06 AM | PERMALINK

has407:

I'm hoping the report described shows up at that same site in a week or so.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 21, 2006 at 3:44 AM | PERMALINK

has407:

Where else in the past 4 years have we killed more al Qaeda than in Iraq?

Posted by: Don P. on April 21, 2006 at 3:44 AM | PERMALINK

Where's evidence that we've killed ANY Al Qaeda in Iraq? Oh, right: they're A-rabs. Close enough!

Posted by: Kenji on April 21, 2006 at 3:49 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure if the NCTC publishes any reports. As far as I know they just collect data; reporting and analysis is left to other agencies (e.g., the State annual Country Reports on Terrorism).

Posted by: has407 on April 21, 2006 at 3:57 AM | PERMALINK

Don P:

Where else in the past 4 years have we incubated more al Qaeda than in Iraq?

Posted by: has407 on April 21, 2006 at 4:00 AM | PERMALINK

No where else - can you answer my question now?

Posted by: Don P. on April 21, 2006 at 4:20 AM | PERMALINK

At least we can take comfort in the fact that the war against terror has made us safer. Oh, wait ...

Posted by: bad Jim on April 21, 2006 at 4:55 AM | PERMALINK

Where is there evidence that we have actually killed al Qaeda members in Iraq? At least, people who were in the group before we invaded?

Talk about Hydra-headed monsters.

The best comment on the flypaper strategy remains Steinbeck's, from The Moon Is Down: "The flies have conquered the flypaper."

Posted by: bad Jim on April 21, 2006 at 4:59 AM | PERMALINK

Al: "Reporters aren't very bright and couldn't understand the complexities of terrorism."

Al, of course, would have exempted those "reporters" who toil diligently for Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp, i.e., Fox News, the Washington Times, etc. -- had he not been so busy.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on April 21, 2006 at 5:48 AM | PERMALINK

A rather confusing initial post, followed by a rather trivial thread. Next topic.

Obviously the administration is counting every act of insurgency or civil war in Iraq as a terrorist act. If that is the standard I am surprised the number is so low.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 21, 2006 at 6:29 AM | PERMALINK

They are trying to hide the fact that terrorism has increased since 2002, not decreased.

Before you post again, you need to ask ron byers what he wants to read about. Or he just might take his business elsewhere.

Posted by: merlallen on April 21, 2006 at 6:54 AM | PERMALINK

办公用品行业,办公用品教育,办公用品科学,办公用品知识,办公用品门户
办公用品行业
办公用品科学
办公用品教育
办公用品知识
办公用品门户

Posted by: office on April 21, 2006 at 7:31 AM | PERMALINK

merlallen,

Judging from the other responses I am not the only one who finds the article confusing and the topic boring. After all who gives a shit about the incompetence of the Bush counterterrorism number crunchers. That is old news. Just remember back to a few years ago when they tried to make the point that terrorism was down, only to be reminded that they had changed their fiscal year and were only counting 11 months instead of 12.

Posted by: Ron Byers on April 21, 2006 at 7:36 AM | PERMALINK


about more info Car InsuranceDon't be punished for paying monthly
Want to pay your car insurance rate monthly? Most companies will happily charge you extra for the privilege. Not us. We let you break-up your payments into bite-size monthly morsels at no extra cost for car insurance qoute. Monthly cheap car insurance payments subject to status.
Buy online and save at least 10% discount car insuranceGet a car insurance quote online and we'll knock a tidy 10% off the cost.
Car Insurance mesothelioma is a disease in which asbestos cancer(malignant) cells are found in the sac lining the chest (the pleura) or abdomen (the peritoneum)

Posted by: sunshine on April 21, 2006 at 7:48 AM | PERMALINK

I just know that I feel safer in the knowledge that Martha Stewart has paid HER debt to society.

Posted by: Dan on April 21, 2006 at 8:17 AM | PERMALINK

My "best guess" is that the report itself might be a little clearer than this article.

And I'll give the "best guess" of a dishonest hack like you the consideration it deserves, tbrosz. Shame on you.

Posted by: Gregory on April 21, 2006 at 8:43 AM | PERMALINK

Does anyone remember when the last terror alert[color coded]was issued.Any guesses when the next one will happen[close to elections].

Posted by: gandalf on April 21, 2006 at 8:51 AM | PERMALINK

I'm sure the report is full of good news. If the number of terrorist attacks goes down, that means our anti-terrorism policy is working. If the number goes up, that means that the terrorists are getting desperate, which means that our policy is working. If the number is staying the same, then we have succeeded in preventing an escalation in terrorism, so our policy is working.

You don't have to read the report.

Posted by: Daryl McCullough on April 21, 2006 at 9:03 AM | PERMALINK

Every Child Left Behind . . .

Roadmap to Nowhere . . .

Global Wonderland for Terrorism . . .

The Bush hits just keep on coming, and coming, and coming with the regularity of the Everyready bunny.

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 21, 2006 at 9:04 AM | PERMALINK

Opinions are like Assh*les. Everyone has one, and no one wants to hear it. But here's my wind, anyway.
Most things that come out of the inner beltline of DC stinks of rotting lies, on both sides of the party line. Kerry would likely have made for a much worse leader for this country, and the middle east would be in total chaos & total civil war by now, because he would have run away. Returning soldiers are reporting great improvements and progress there, that does not make it to CBS or CNN frontpage. We should support the troops and their actions regardless of what any terrorist report states. They are working hard to make the world better.

Here's a suggestion... If we don't like the leaders that WE elected, and you want other choices to vote for...have someone worth their weight actually run for the office. It seems to me, that we actually elected the better of two sad candidates. We need better people with more integrety to run for offices from both parties. I don't vote for the party, I vote for the individuals who will have the most to bring to an office. It is sad that the Democrats could only bring someone like Kerry. It cost them the election.

Thanks

Posted by: Bill on April 21, 2006 at 9:05 AM | PERMALINK

'"The numbers are a very small part of the picture" and "can't be used as a metric," the counterterrorism official said.'


More Orwellian than Orwell. The numbers always measure SOMETHING. Just tell us what.

Posted by: mugball on April 21, 2006 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINK

Bill: Kerry would likely have made for a much worse leader for this country, and the middle east would be in total chaos & total civil war by now, because he would have run away.

That would be bullshit coming from your assh*le, not wind.

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 21, 2006 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

Bill is right. If the Democrats want to run the government, they need to, you know, win elections.

Posted by: BigRiver on April 21, 2006 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

Bill: We should support the troops and their actions regardless of what any terrorist report states.

We do.

Not supporting an incompetent administration is not the same as not supporting the troops.

I know that's a hard concept for a lemming to understand, but that is just the way it is.

That you say these things pretty much shows that your real intent is to generate support for Bush, not the troops, while pretending to be independent.

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 21, 2006 at 9:25 AM | PERMALINK

Most things that come out of the inner beltline of DC stinks of rotting lies, on both sides of the party line. Kerry would likely have made for a much worse leader for this country, and the middle east would be in total chaos & total civil war by now, because he would have run away.

You said it, brother.

Posted by: Advocate for Satan on April 21, 2006 at 9:26 AM | PERMALINK

BigRiver: If the Democrats want to run the government, they need to, you know, win elections.

Stop defaming (lying about) them and they might.

If you can also stop the GOP from lying and cheating their way to office.

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 21, 2006 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

John Dean hits the nail on the head . . .

Currently, President Bush is busy reshuffling his staff to reinvigorate his presidency. But if Dr. Barber's work holds true for this president -- as it has for others - the hiring and firing of subordinates will not touch the core problems that have plagued Bush's tenure.

That is because the problems belong to the President - not his staff. And they are problems that go to character, not to strategy.

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 21, 2006 at 9:29 AM | PERMALINK

Stop defaming (lying about) them and they might.

You do-goody, two-shoes you, Advocate for him! Apostate! That is not as things should be. Thank Satan for Republicans!

And stop interfering with what we're trying to do!

Posted by: Advocate for Satan on April 21, 2006 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

Dean again writes the truth . . .

There is, however, the possibility of another terrorist attack, and if one occurred, Americans would again rally around the president - wrongly so, since this is a presidency that lives on fear-mongering about terror, but does little to truly address it. The possibility that we might both suffer an attack, and see a boost to Bush come from it, is truly a terrifying thought.

Terrorist incidents are up world-wide since Bush took office and have increased during his tenure.

Why does Bush love the terrorists?

Why does Bush aid the terrorists?

Why does Bush make the world safer for terrorists?

Why do lemming conservatives continue to aid and abet the enemy by supporting Bush?

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 21, 2006 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

Advocate for Satan . . .

I didn't know you was here, Dubya!

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 21, 2006 at 9:55 AM | PERMALINK

Why does advocate for God have his head up his ass?

Posted by: Jay on April 21, 2006 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

Slightly OT, a question for grammarians. From the article:

"The official said that worldwide last year, there wasn't a large change in the number of high-fatality attacks, in which 10 or more people were killed, compared with 2004."


What kind of punctuation is this? A comma here. A comma there. A comma everywhere?

Posted by: Emma Zahn on April 21, 2006 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

No where else - can you answer my question now?

I can. We have the same number of confirmed killed al Qaida members in Iraq as we have in Paraquay.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on April 21, 2006 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

I caught an obvious mistake in the Post article. When it reads:

State Department counterterrorism coordinator Henry Crumpton told Congress earlier this month that the leadership of al Qaida, responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, "may be isolated and under pressure, unable to communicate effectively."

surely that should be

State Department counterterrorism coordinator Henry Crumpton told Congress earlier this month that the Bush Administration, responsible for the Iraq War, "may be isolated and under pressure, unable to communicate effectively."

shouldn't it?

Posted by: Stefan on April 21, 2006 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

Where else in the past 4 years have we killed more al Qaeda than in Iraq?

Where else in the past 4 years have more Americans been killed than in Iraq?

Posted by: Stefan on April 21, 2006 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

Where else in the past 4 years have we killed more al Qaeda than in Iraq?

Where else in the past 4 years have we killed fewer chickenhawks than in Iraq?

Posted by: Sorta on April 21, 2006 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

Don P.

Four years ago, where were there practically zero al-Qaida members? I'll give you a hint - it's Iraq.

Posted by: phleabo on April 21, 2006 at 10:15 AM | PERMALINK

From those America-hating traitors at Fox News:

President Bushs approval hits a record low of 33 percent this week, clearly damaged by sinking support among Republicans.....

Overall, 57 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Bush is doing, and the most frequently mentioned reason is Iraq (48 percent). The other top reasons include generally "doing a bad job" (24 percent), disagreement on issues (22 percent) and the economy/jobs (17 percent)....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192468,00.html

Posted by: Stefan on April 21, 2006 at 10:19 AM | PERMALINK

Where else have more Americans been killed? How about right here with drunk driving and domestic abuse. Those two issues alone have killed three times the amount of people than in Iraq the last four years.

Bush's low approval numbers - wish upon a star Stefan. The key word in your tripe is "President". Still is and will be for the next three years.

Posted by: Jay on April 21, 2006 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

Jay,
The grownups are talking about important issues with wide ranging consequences that may well extend beyond the near past, present, and future. If you don't have anything pertinent to contribute, you should have quiet time. Now, be a good boy and run along and play.

Posted by: phleabo on April 21, 2006 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

Where else have more Americans been killed? How about right here with drunk driving and domestic abuse. Those two issues alone have killed three times the amount of people than in Iraq the last four years.

Uh...so? Those people are still being killed by drunk driving and domestic abuse, only now we're also enduring losses in Iraq.

Man, this is probably a new low in desperate wingnut rationalization: "our losses in Iraq don't count because of...drunk drivers!"

And isn't it amazing how every time you mention Bush, the subject of drunk driving seems to come up....?

Posted by: Stefan on April 21, 2006 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

Jay, you are an idiot.

Posted by: Ace Franze on April 21, 2006 at 10:36 AM | PERMALINK

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Losers extraordinaire!!!!!!!

By the way, phleabo, you are not grown ups, not by a long shot, You're nothing more than naive immature liberals. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Stefan, simply answered your asinine question and you don't like the answer. Wow, what a shock.

Posted by: Jay on April 21, 2006 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

Where else have more Americans been killed? How about right here with drunk driving and domestic abuse. Those two issues alone have killed three times the amount of people than in Iraq the last four years.

Way to support the troops, scumbag. And way to ignore all the Iraqi civilians killed as a result of Bush's invasion--I guess brown-skinned people don't count in your mind anyway.

Posted by: haha on April 21, 2006 at 10:42 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan, simply answered your asinine question and you don't like the answer.

That wasn't an answer, it was a diversion, but we wouldn't expect a pea-brained moron such as yourself to know the difference.

Posted by: haha on April 21, 2006 at 10:44 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: Why does advocate for God have his head up his ass?

Why does Jay have his head up Bush's ass?

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 21, 2006 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

And don't forget rollerblading accidents. At least as many Americans killed in those, so I don't see the need to weep over a few soldiers killed in Iraq. Big whoop.

Posted by: Jay on April 21, 2006 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

Where was your concern of the "brown-skinned" people (that's extremely racist, aren't they just people?) when Saddam was killing them at three times the rate? And oh BTW, Al Qaeda has killed more muslims in Iraq than we have, so your "concern" is a little disengenous, huh?

Posted by: Jay on April 21, 2006 at 10:46 AM | PERMALINK

A weak and late response from advocate, much like the way Democrats handle elections.

Posted by: Jay on April 21, 2006 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

that's extremely racist

my point exactly: you're extremely racist.

Posted by: haha on April 21, 2006 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

I know you are but what am I? Isn't recess over yet haha?

Posted by: Jay on April 21, 2006 at 10:50 AM | PERMALINK

much like the way Democrats handle elections.

hm, doesn't say much for the Republicans who lost in Va. and NJ last year.

this is so easy, I love it!

Posted by: haha on April 21, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINK

I know you are but what am I?

Jerkoff Jay's most substantive comment yet.

Posted by: haha on April 21, 2006 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: The key word in your tripe is "President".

There are lots of key words that precede that key word: incompetent, mendacious, ineffective, idiotic, traitorous, illegitimate, cheating, cowardly . . .

You're nothing more than naive immature liberals.

Yes, grown ups use their all caps keys, phleabo.

Didn't you know that?

Where else have more Americans been killed? How about right here with drunk driving and domestic abuse. Those two issues alone have killed three times the amount of people than in Iraq the last four years.

Actually, there are a number of causations of death that exceed the number of deaths caused by Saddam Hussein, especially as proven to date.

Therefore, according to Jay logic, the deaths caused by Saddam are irrelevant.

If one cause of death is bad, then another can't also be bad.

Or at least this is so under Jay-logic.

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 21, 2006 at 10:53 AM | PERMALINK

Let's see POTUS vs Governorships of two small states. hmmm..............

OK I will take POTUS.

Posted by: Jay on April 21, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan nailed it!

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on April 21, 2006 at 10:54 AM | PERMALINK

I can tell you, as someone who attends the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq, that their families cheer right up as soon as I give them those drunk driving numbers.

You see, it's all just a matter of perspective.

Posted by: Jay on April 21, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: Where was your concern of the "brown-skinned" people (that's extremely racist, aren't they just people?) when Saddam was killing them at three times the rate?

Where was your concern when Bush 41 was aiding and abetting Saddam's murderous ways?

Supporting Bush.

Where was your concern when Milosovich was committing genocide in the Balkans?

Refusing to support Clinton and supporting the GOP members trying to stop Clinton from stopping the genocide.

Where was your concern during the first three years of the Bush 43 administration when Bush 43 did absolutely nothing and made no public case against the alleged continuing genocide in Iraq?

Supporting Bush 43 and ignoring the alleged genocide that you now say was going on there - in other words, your concern was strangely absent between 2000 and 2003.

Unlike you, our concern for killing is consistent and doesn't depend on who is in the White House.

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 21, 2006 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

Let's see POTUS vs Governorships of two small states.

Those were the two most recent and biggest ones(check the populations of those "small" states too, genius)--and Democrats won. So what does that say about how Republicans handle elections?

I know it's probably asking too much for you too actually think before you type, but you might want to give it a shot. You wouldn't look quite as stupid as you do now.

Posted by: haha on April 21, 2006 at 10:59 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: . . . as someone who attends the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq . . .

Liar.

And oh BTW, Al Qaeda has killed more muslims in Iraq than we have, so your "concern" is a little disengenous, huh?

It would be if we were supporting al Queda, but we aren't; you and Bush, however, are aiding and abetting the interests of terrorists in every respect.

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 21, 2006 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

Jay: OK I will take POTUS.

I think you meant . . .

"OK I will take POTUS up the ass."

You are his b*tch, after all.

Posted by: Advocate for God on April 21, 2006 at 11:01 AM | PERMALINK

As long as its foreigners (or our soldiers or damn NGO's) getting slaughtered by terrorists, we are winning the war on terror. Dead enders, last throes, and all that. Yippee!

Posted by: zimmy on April 21, 2006 at 11:33 AM | PERMALINK

Where else in the past 4 years have we killed more Iraqi's than in Iraq?

Posted by: Charlie, posting as Don P on April 21, 2006 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

What is astonishing is the attitude of dead-ender Republicans that all that matters is that they won last time. Bush could sink half the country into the Ocean and Bushistas would say "But who won the last election?" You can be sure, when the next Republican loses the White House, it will be the typical Burlusconi "refuse to admit defeat moment." Their attitude is - Screw America, its all about being in power. What they do in power does not matter. This is like team sports for these cretins. They picked their team, and, come hell or high water, these rubes will support their team. It would be quint and amusing if we all didn't suffer for their stupidity.

Please war loving, Bush backing trolls, please enlist in the military, make that your team. We have a shortage of recruits and need more immediately! Show your love of Bush and war and fight for him. You too can die and have your death equated with traffic accidents or hang nails.

Posted by: zimmy on April 21, 2006 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

Jay, April 2006: Bush's low approval numbers - wish upon a star Stefan. The key word in your tripe is "President". Still is and will be for the next three years.

Jay, April 1974 Nixon's low approval numbers - wish upon a star Stefan. The key word in your tripe is "President". Still is and will be for the next three years.

And, heck, by the backward-looking, election based triumphalist standards of Jay and his fellow trolls, Nixon was even more invulnerable than Bush, having won a 49-state landslide with 60% of the popular vote in 1972, far better than Bush in 2004.


Posted by: cmdicely on April 21, 2006 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

Frankly it's still a dramatic underestimate. Just last week some eco-terrorist broke the window on my SUV and stole my stereo. Probably something about my bass hurting the ears of walrus pups.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 21, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

Too funny, fake tbrosz. Circular strawman, indeed.

Posted by: zimmy on April 21, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

I have a great idea, Let's build a strawman and knock it down, Somthing that has never been done on this site before.

Posted by: Booo on April 21, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

turn about's fair play

Posted by: toast on April 21, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

That really was a funny fake tbrosz.

Posted by: shortstop on April 21, 2006 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

I don't have an SUV. I drive a 13-year-old Eurovan. Somebody did steal my radio a couple of months back, though.

My wife has a Honda Pilot, which I suppose barely qualifies as an SUV.

It's a known fact that walruses love those bass beats. When I visited Alaska they were annoying everyone by cruising up and down the main street in lowriders, blasting eardrums out with their big speakers. The cars did need extra hydraulics to be able to bounce up and down with a couple of walruses in the front seat.

The moose were more ecologically sound, and rode bikes. Caribou mostly walked, but they do like designer sneakers. Polar bears tended to hang out on the street corners in groups, making rude comments, and shoving passers-by off the sidewalks.

Posted by: tbrosz on April 21, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, dear. I think I liked the humorless tbrosz better. He was funnier.

Posted by: shortstop on April 21, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

More terrorists. Looks like we're making enemies faster than we can kill them.

Posted by: sparky on April 21, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK
More terrorists. Looks like we're making enemies faster than we can kill them.

Its hard to maintain a perpetual state of war if you run out of enemies.

Of course, eventually, we'll run out of foreigners altogether, so that might be a problem.

Posted by: cmdicely on April 21, 2006 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

Witty post at 3:35, shortstop!

Posted by: Ace Franze on April 21, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

How about a simple answer: the professional personnel at the National Counter Terrorism Center are trying to collect data on all events that meet a broad, non-politicized definition of terrorism. This properly includes bombings against western embassies AND attacks against civilians in small villages in Nepal. Within this dataset, one can apply any definition of terrorism that fits your political purpose. Capturing the entire universe of data would be a huge advance in the study of terrorism and should not be attacked as an effort to confuse the public. It's an effort to study an important phenomenon properly going forward.

Posted by: jns on April 21, 2006 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

jns -- Well said, and I agree completely (in spite of my first comment).

Posted by: has407 on April 21, 2006 at 8:32 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly