Sorry for the confusion.
The stats collection was not a direct link to the terror attacks, more a question of the War on terror.
Personally I think that 9/11 was a terror attack. But one which the USA knew could happen and one which the USA failed to deal with, at which point Bush and his advisers saw an opportunity to do something the US has wanted to do for some time, which was to get into the Middle East and develop a strategy for dominance (something which unfortunatly they have failed to do, at least with success the death toll is lower).
The stats on the other hand, are just as you say, stats. They highlight the US commitment to this 'war' and how a frightening amounts of money is pouring out of the US economy, which it really can't afford.
The NewsCorp stats are all subject to opinion. It can be argued that NewsCorp have started to back the Dem. so that they are seen as being more 'central' (The image of FOX as GWB's voice is no longer a viable commercial identity) however Personally I think it has a LOT more to do with the fact that the race for the 2008 Presidency is looking more and more like a Dem. win every day.
When you look historically at how, in '94 Murdoch met with Tony Blair, 3 years before he became PM and 2 years before the Sun became a Labour 'paper again I think that assuming what I have is justifiable.
Especially when you consider that, a couple of weeks ago (I don't have time to find the article to get the dates) Murdoch met with H. Clinton for meetings to discuss 'the future'.
I've lost track of my main point, but I have to go. So I'll let you reply first then debate some more