Bombshell probe: Central Command reports skewed intel to the positive on ISIS fight.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by FieldingMellish, Aug 11, 2016.

  1. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #1
    Here’s an American government compromised, more likely from the top on down, in order to create the impression that things are going along very well in fighting ISIS.

    This is almost as bad as scientists skewing data to conform with global warming, cooling, change, whatever.

    From the report:

    “Intelligence reports produced by U.S. Central Command that tracked the Islamic State’s 2014-15 rise in Iraq and Syria were skewed to present a rosier picture of the situation on the ground, according to a bombshell report released Thursday by a House Republican task force. “

    “The task force investigated a Defense Department whistleblower's allegations that higher-ups manipulated analysts’ findings to make the campaign against ISIS appear more successful to the American public. “

    “The report, obtained by Fox News, concluded that intelligence reports from Central Command were, in fact, “inconsistent with the judgments of many senior, career analysts.””


    “The report also said senior leaders relied on details from coalition forces rather than “more objective and documented intelligence reporting,” using this as a rationale to change reports – sometimes “in a more optimistic direction.” “


    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...mmand-reports-skewed-intel-on-isis-fight.html
     
  2. DearthnVader, Aug 11, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2016

    DearthnVader macrumors regular

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #2
    Sounds familiar.



    We're still in the Operation Rolling Thunder stage, I wonder how many hundred-thousand ground troops they are telling Obama will be needed after the Election.
     
  3. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #3
    Do you start every thread with "bombshell" ? If you do - or continue to do so, it will lose all meaning. Actually - it already has. Perhaps try another click bait tactic?
     
  4. FieldingMellish thread starter Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #4
    It's about the administration covering up its tracks, prosecuting a war that didn't have to be, had Obama not carelessly withdrawn the troops. Now that dunderhead is painting optimistic figures for himself, all the while dangerously hamstringing the military and wasting sorties to boot.
     
  5. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #5
    I wonder if troop locations are being leaked in the war against ISIS like they were in Vietnam.
     
  6. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #6
    You think this is new? This is common-or-garden propaganda.
     
  7. DrewDaHilp1 macrumors 6502a

    DrewDaHilp1

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    All Your Memes Are Belong to US
    #7
    U Wot M8?

    I learned a new idiom.
     
  8. duffman9000 macrumors 68000

    duffman9000

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Location:
    Costa Mesa
    #8
    A war that didn't have to be... how long have you been paying attention? Speaking of dunderheads, who signed the order to pull troops out of Iraq? I agree with the reasons, but lets give the correct person the blame/credit.
     
  9. FieldingMellish thread starter Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #9

    Washington Times:

    "Obama adjusts Iraq narrative, now blames Bush for troop withdrawal
    U.S. military airstrikes against Islamic State prompt revisionist history."

    The article starts:

    The president who spent years touting the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq suddenly has had to distance himself from that action.

    At the White House on Saturday morning — less than 48 hours after authorizing airstrikes against Islamist militants and humanitarian air drops to save the lives of trapped Iraqi civilians — President Obama blamed his predecessor, George W. Bush, for the absence of American troops in Iraq and rejected the assertion that he could have left a small peacekeeping force in the war-torn nation.

    He uttered those after three years, and a successful re-election campaign, in which the full removal of U.S. forces from Iraq was cast as this White House’s most significant foreign policy achievement and one Mr. Obama had promised all the way back to the earliest days of his first presidential campaign in 2008.

    ————>> Now, however, with the terrorist force the Islamic State running roughshod through Iraq, capturing key territory, slaughtering Christians and promising to “raise the flag of Allah at the White House,” Mr. Obama has begun to adjust the narrative.


    More here:


    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/11/obama-adjusts-iraq-narrative-now-blames-george-w-b/
     
  10. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    #10
  11. duffman9000 macrumors 68000

    duffman9000

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Location:
    Costa Mesa
    #11
    Since you were asleep at the wheel, let's talk about how W signed an agreement committing us to pulling out troops by the end of 2011.
    http://www.factcheck.org/2015/08/bush-clinton-play-blame-game-in-iraq/
    http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/12/20081214-2.html

    Did you forget that part? Are facts jogging your memory now?
     
  12. pdqgp, Aug 12, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2016

    pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #12

    Obama did inherit that agreement but it was expected that he and his team would then negotiated once the original one completed at the close of 2011. There were no stipulations after that how many troops would be left there to train their men and keep the peace.

    Obama was told by the military leaders at the Pentagon and over in Baghdad that they wanted 24,000 troops. Obama and Kerry supposidly negotiated with Maliki to get the number down to 10,000 but then he go push back from the public and other Iraq nationals and decided it was more important to get re-elected and pulled them all out thus leaving the door open for the mess we have today.

    He and Kerry should have grew a pair and kept troops there but they chose not to. Iraq was out bitch once and we should have just told their Parliament how it was going to be and did it.
     
  13. duffman9000 macrumors 68000

    duffman9000

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Location:
    Costa Mesa
    #13
    I think there were multiple reasons as to why we didn't leave troops. At least one was legal: we wanted our troops to be provided immunity from Iraqi law. I recall this is the same issue W faces. I agreed with this because after the stupid things our guys did in Iraqi, punishment for our troops would have been harsh under Iraqi law. I'd rather be tried according to the UCMJ.

    I think Obama failed by not convincing Malaki that the enemy is still in the area and how important it is to leave advisors or troops. If I were Obama I would have had to put aside Iraqi resentment over our stay over there. I think people forget Malaki's public statements about how much we were unwanted there. Well, he got what he wanted. Despite the animosity Obama should continued to press the Iraqis. Sometimes military commanders make highly unpopular assessments and the president has to make a difficult decision. I don't like the results, but I expect it to happen again.
     
  14. FieldingMellish thread starter Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #14

    A technicality that falls on its face when you consider how copacetic it was on the ground before Obama pressed on to create the power vacuum — against the advice of commanders and Leon Panetta, leading to an uprising and growth of ISIS power that subsequently went unchecked by the President.

    ________________________

    But back on topic:

    James Woolsey says that skewing ISIS intel makes you worse than worthless.

    One of the claims is that CENTCOM downplayed the ISIS threat. There’s been distortion and/or suppression of intelligence.


    http://video.foxnews.com/v/50811635...akes-you-worse-than-worthless/?#sp=show-clips
     
  15. duffman9000 macrumors 68000

    duffman9000

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Location:
    Costa Mesa
    #15
    Technicality? You're just trolling because you refuse to accept that there were valid and real reasons as to why troops were not left stationed in Iraq. Well if you want to get technical, the seeds for ISIS were planted during the end of Carter's term and then blossomed into what would become al-Qaeda during Reagan's administration. Did you forget about that too? Did you forget that the Reagan administration funded fighters in Afghanistan? Did you forget who these people became? Did you forget where al-Qaeda came from? Did you forget where ISIS came from? Let me know what you've forgotten and I'll keep reminding you.

    And if you still want to be technical, the W Bush administration tried and failed to secure an agreement to leave troops in Iraq. Since the W Bush administration failed, it punted to the next administration.
     
  16. Robisan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    #16
    Ahahahahaha! Trolled so hard.
     
  17. FieldingMellish thread starter Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #17


    If you don't believe me, then maybe you'll believe PBS' FRONTLINE?


    Somehow I doubt it. But I'll give it a try.


    ----> NY Times review of PBS documentary puts rise of ISIS squarely on Maliki and Obama's shoulders.



    "For those whose knowledge of the Islamic State is limited to televised beheadings, “The Rise of ISIS,” on PBS’s “Frontline” on Tuesday, is required viewing.





    Reported by Martin Smith, the hourlong program takes the story of this brutal, ever-growing militant group back to the ----->> final departure of American troops from Iraq in 2011.



    It’s a dense, fast-moving narrative focused on the failure of the Shiite-led Iraqi government to share power with the Sunni minority and the ------->> inaction of the United States while Sunni militants exploited the situation for their own gain.



    ------>> Blame is placed, quite directly, on the former Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and on President Obama."



    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/10/2...of-isis-a-pbs-frontline-documentary.html?_r=0
     
  18. duffman9000, Aug 15, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2016

    duffman9000 macrumors 68000

    duffman9000

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Location:
    Costa Mesa
    #18

    You just can't see the forrest for the trees...
    This mess in Iraq had its genesis more than 30 years ago. But since you want to talk about the rise of ISIS, did you forget about this:


    Still want to play that blame game? Maybe if we hadn't believed/fabricated dubious "evidence" of WMDs, we would have never destabilized Iraq. But, but, but, Obama didn't renegotiate Bush's treaty therefore it's Obama's fault, right guy? Maybe, if we would have been more careful about the "freedom fighters" turning on us one day this mess in Iraq could have been avoided.

    Bring out your best sources as to how we were supposed to leave troops in Iraq without an immunity deal in place. I want to read something else besides Obama didn't negotiate hard enough.

    EDIT:
    Let's talk some more about what an analyst thinks about the rise of ISIS:

    But, but, but, Obama didn't renegotiate Bush's treaty with Iraq, right?
     

Share This Page