Still not taking terrorism very seriously

The administration continues to either misunderestimate or misunderstand the nature of terrorism in the 21st Century. At least that's the impression I take away based on their need now to revise upwards the 2003 report on terrorist attacks. A report the administration hailed as proof of their victory over global terrorism.

The reason for the underreporting? It's unclear whether it was political manipulation to make the numbers look better than they are, or whether it's because they still don't really "get it" when it comes to stateless groups such as al Qaeda. Or, maybe just a combination of the two.

The congressional study said that the State Department report — despite the perception of its objectivity — was unduly influenced by political and economic considerations.

Also, it said the department had failed to take into account the shift from state sponsorship of terrorism to Al Qaeda's use of a far-flung network of affiliates and cells. Though some might question the findings, the congressional report noted that the State Department appeared to be using outdated criteria to determine what constituted a terrorist incident.

For instance, the many deadly attacks on coalition forces in Iraq were not included in the "Patterns" report because they did not meet the State Department's long-standing criteria of targeting civilians or soldiers not on duty.

Potentially dozens of other terrorist strikes were left out because they were not "international" in scope, including attacks by local Al Qaeda affiliates against targets within their own countries.