I admit that even if terrorist activity had slowed down as the State Dept. reported in 2003, I would argue that it was due to the war in Afgahnistan and the sweep of Al Queda and was not helped by the War in Iraq.
But I would think that anyone would agree that if terrorist attacks instead rose dramatically accountability should be accepted by the Bush Administration. And if in fact the Administration had lied again, this time about the number of attacks rather than about the types of weapons available, people would see a pattern of lying and then denying any fault for the mistakes that have cost thousands of Americans their lives.
That is exactly what has happened. The State Department last year initially released erroneous figures that understated the attacks, fatalities and casualties in 2003 and used the figures to claim the Bush administration was prevailing in the war on terrorism. It later said the number killed and injured in 2003 was more than double its original count and said "significant" terrorist rose to a 20-year high of 175. The State Department last week unleashed a new debate about the numbers by saying it would no longer release them in its annual terrorism report.
The number of "significant" international terrorist attacks rose to about 650 last year from about 175 (almost 4 times) in 2003 according to congressional aides briefed on the numbers by State Department and intelligence officials on Monday. Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Tuesday asking her to release the data. "The large increases in terrorist attacks reported in 2004 may undermine administration claims of success in the war on terror, but political inconvenience has never been a legitimate basis for withholding facts from the American people,"
The Bush Administration is once again lying to the American people in order to make Americans believe that their policy decisions have been successful, and then when the true facts are released there is no accountability. Instead they claim they made the right decision, even if the facts don’t support them, because they made a moral decision and since Bush is a moral man people should trust that his moral decision was right.
Well this is about morals. The morality of starting a war based on lies, claiming a successful end to the war, then keeping the military in the line of fire where more Americans lose their lives everyday. The morality of claiming a success in decreasing terrorism, then trying to hide that in fact more people are dying of terrorism than ever before. And the morality of blaming intelligence in both cases when the Commander in Chief and his top advisors are making the final calls and should not be passing the buck. Not to mention giving the head of intelligence who they blame these mistakes on (George Tenet) a special commendation and the highest praise for his work.
Where is the morality in this? |
