shotbanner.jpeg

April 30, 2004

Terror Drops

According to the left, attacking Iraq was supposed to make the Arab Street fly into a paroxysm of rage - and bring terrorists out of the woodwork.

How has that played out? Hint: how has every other trope of the left played out?

Got your answer? How do you think it's going?

According to the State Department:

There were 190 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight decrease from the 198 attacks that occurred in 2002, and a drop of 45 percent from the level in 2001 of 346 attacks. The figure in 2003 represents the lowest annual total of international terrorist attacks since 1969.
A total of 307 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, far fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 1,593 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, down from 2,013 persons wounded the year before.
In 2003, the highest number of attacks (70) and the highest casualty count (159 persons dead and 951 wounded) occurred in Asia.
There were 82 anti-US attacks in 2003, which is up slightly from the 77 attacks the previous year, and represents a 62-percent decrease from the 219 attacks recorded in 2001.
Read the whole fascinating thing.

Posted by Mitch at April 30, 2004 06:39 AM
Comments

I think it's great that terrorism is on the downswing. I also think that the white house is "cooking the books." This regime has a long record of changing the data to fit the conclusion. Please read THE BOOK ON BUSH by Alterman and Green--available now wherever finer books are sold--for literally hundreds of examples of this.

Posted by: Don Myers at May 1, 2004 01:48 PM

*YAWN* Another sore loser from the left. Wellstone's gone, your side lost. Get over it.

Posted by: Bunkergurl at May 1, 2004 11:03 PM

Jesus, bunkergirl...is that the best you can come up with? No wonder the Right needs millions of dollars in soft money and a brigade of White House liars just to find its own ass.

Posted by: Don Myers at May 2, 2004 03:42 PM

Er, Don? That last comment made no sense at all.

Think Bush "cooks the books"? Citing Alterman, a man whose relation to objectivity and, er, context is dubious at best is, to say the least, delightfully ironic. The man's no more credible than a Montana Freeman.

And of course we know that no White House EVER spun the news before Karl Rove, right?

Posted by: Mitch at May 2, 2004 04:09 PM
hi