"
It’s being called a ‘revolt’ by intelligence pros who are paid to give their honest assessment of the ISIS war—but are instead seeing their reports turned into happy talk."
More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military's Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials, The Daily Beast has learned.
The complaints spurred the Pentagon’s inspector general to open an investigation into the alleged manipulation of intelligence. The fact that so many people complained suggests there are deep-rooted, systemic problems in how the U.S. military command charged with the war against the self-proclaimed Islamic State assesses intelligence.
“The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” one defense official said. (read more)
I thought this kind of thing had been made illegal.
11 comments:
You mean to tell me it's lies lies and more lies from Hillary and Obama?
CIA head John Brennan is a Muslim.
Evidence that whatever has gone on during Obama will only increase (maybe not 50 fold) in the next administration, regardless of party.
Of course the books are cooked. Democrats have suggested Bush lied about US Intelligence on Iraq for a decade now (despite top Democrats including Hillary! And Bill saying they believed the Intelligence community at the time). Most of us consider these suggestions as near (the intel wasn't perfect) baseless attacks on the Bush Administration. They weren't the attack so much as the battle space preparation to provide rational for Obama cooking the Intel books. And the Democrats will suggest historians will forgive this because Obama was cooking the books to avoid war. I think history will note his cooking just gave the initiative to the enemy on when and where to start the war.
Well, this is what Obama's new military leadership looks like. And you wonder why he was replacing generals and admirals everywhere.
And you wonder why he was replacing generals and admirals everywhere
Cant replace you if you always give him good news.
As of 2013 Obama had 'relieved' 197 military commanders.
There is some discussion of a military coup in the United States. It is surprisingly popular.
Remember how everyone was sooo upset that Bush fired all those (8) U.S. Attorneys because ... er, it was totally within his discretion and purview and he actually did it? Unlike Bill Clinton who ... dismissed all the U.S. Attorneys upon taking office and replaced them with his own appointees. I can't even remember this was a scandal, but it was. Maybe it was a scandal because the press was incensed, like with the Bush lied, people died thing. Obviously, Bush didn't lie, or if he did so did nearly every other person on Capitol Hill and all the capitals of Europe, but you couldn't get away from the theme. Meanwhile, in the present, Obama draws down the military, "relieves" nearly 200 military commanders, lies about fucking EVERYTHING and that's not an exaggerration and ... crickets in the papers and on tv.
Senior bureaucrats, in or out of uniform, modifying or out right changing an analysis is not "news" to me. In fact just such a scenario was the cause of my first whistle-blowing endeavor. My cost/benefit analysis work was radically adulterated, while retaining my signature, and I objected. I also won, with some clandestine Congressional help. The project died and disappeared. As it should have.
I'll never understand why some "honchos" insist on wrecking some one else's work. Why not just draw up their drivel of personal agendas and put some phony name on it. That way they'd dodge full responsibility...maybe. Anyway my name wouldn't be on the crap. My guess is they prefer to have handy identifiable scapegoats who will comply with nonsense and then get thrown under the bus if stuff goes south. Nope, not my style.
Post a Comment