Here are three sources (there's thousands the story is everywhere) reporting that intelligence reporting on Operation Inherent Resolve was 'cooked' or manipulated to look more positive than the situation warranted. Enjoy this sobering look into transparency...
Lying to the American people, in an election year, about Obama's failed terrorism policy is news? It may not have been given the coverage it should have. But I always saw that as common knowledge and wonder about anyone who did not already know this. Yes they are liars and always have been liars.
Fuck yes this is news! We cannot assume that our most trusted sources for information are lying to us all the time. We cannot know anything is true under that paradigm. The number one source for information concerning the battle against ISIS is CENTCOM's own site for Operation Inherent Resolve. It's one thing to keep info secret for security purposes, but that's not what happening here. We're being flat lied to believing a narrative that isn't true. That's a problem.
Do we need congressional oversight for everything we are told, to make sure we are being told the truth?
It begs the question, what else is this administration lying to us about?
This is no joke, it's actually pretty serious stuff. If this happened under Bush, it would be front page for weeks. What did he know? How far up is this? Is the president being lied to or is he telling the lie? etc. etc. etc.
This is like, the most important story of the day. Naturally, it reflects badly on obama so they bury it.
Fuck which of the two assholes running for the top office is more annoying. Our government was caught in a lie on a matter of grave importance. This is a big deal...
I agree with you. I was just being a smart assed cynic. The way I see it, if anyone did not already know that the Obama administration was unusually dishonest at all levels. And that it has corrupted every level of the executive branch from the Justice department, to the FBI, the IRS and yes the military as well. They have not had their eyes open. I doubt they will pay attention to this. They talk about Trumps bad hair, pretty wife, or he talks mean, as if any of that crap matters in comparison to what this administration has done.
The more I look into this the worse it gets. It seems that CENTCOM was not only lying to the public but that it was possibly lying to the obama administration itself. If true, then that means that the administration is acting on bad intel and the government agencies that need to cooperate are providing each other with bad intel. If that's true that's extremely dangerous. If say, obama is in on it, then at least he knows the real situation and the public is just getting shafted. I prefer that to the agencies lying to each other and not being able to make decisions on accurate data. That's very dangerous behavior.
Heads need to roll and heads need to roll right now. Everybody found to be distorting intelligence needs to be fired outright and oversight needs to be placed in immediately. These are human lives they are fucking with. If the president makes a bad decision because he's a moron that's one thing. But if it's based on inaccurate intel that was willfully doctored, that's a much more dangerous issue. The former is at least transparent, the latter is more dangerous by miles....
You can go ahead and find the post of mine you're referring to: I'll wait. I have never cited overblown CENTCOM brass prognostications or positive assessments made to the press. In fact, as I recall, the only thing I've ever cited vis-a-vis OIR is the daily target report, the authenticity of which is not being questioned. And I generally cite it only because many people (you included, I very strongly suspect) would not otherwise know that we are bombing ISIS day in and day out...and, indeed, would much rather we weren't, because that would align better with their preferred fantasyland.
The contention is they were pressured to say what they did. it was the middle of a campaign and Obama was heavily pushing that he had wiped out alquida. If you recall when Romney brought up the fact that he had not done a good job on terrorism, he was accused of being full of shit due to lies like this one
That's totally irrelevant to this story of course Isis has suffered casualties. the point is back in the day it was reported that Isis really didn't even exist that the terrorists have been pushed back to nothing that was right before they took over half of Iraq and half of Syria
I don't think that's totally irrelevant. It calls into question the credibility of the reports of the entire operation.
When you get language like this from the government it's often put mildly.
It just happens to be ironic that the reports from CENTCOM line up with the narrative the administration has been putting forth from the start... Especially when independent reporting did not square with the language coming from the government. I am going to question it even more if discipline does not come swiftly and definitively. These are, without a doubt, fireable offenses. I repeat, heads need to roll and need to roll now. It's completely unacceptable to falsify military reports. Lives are at stake, literally. There is a lot wrong with this whole picture and this isn't a silly game.
2) Bismark did however note 24,000 assholes dead and counting, which you did not refute.
3) In hindsight of Brass being called out, you act like you were privy to this all along, but everyone else is just too slow, dense, hated Obama so much we wished he weren't killing more Muslim terrorists. I didn't see that you have revealed any of this insight before - I wonder why.
4) I will look forward to your 1000+ word condescending reply on how I put a comma in the wrong spot and how brilliant, topic versed, and politically connected you are.
I'm putting this here because this should also be a thread about scattering these assholes across the desert like a Jackson Pollock drawn in meat. I'm also putting it here because almost nobody follows it (in fact, almost nobody knows what "Inherent Resolve" is), and it's important for us to understand every term in the equation.
24,000 of these assholes dead, and counting. If only Obama were willing to say the words radical Islamic terrorism. Say what you will about Bush, but he would never say "Islam is peace". smh_23 16d
24,000 of these assholes dead, and counting. If only Obama were willing to say the words radical Islamic terrorism. Say what you will about Bush, but he would never say "Islam is peace".
(And the real question is: was that softness too? Or maybe are there a bunch of military and strategic advisors who have for decades, literally since before the 9/11 rubble stopped steaming, been aware of the ideological component of this war? I admit that I'm skeptical that this has much real-world, material benefit, and I further admit that I have an Orwell-level commitment to plain speech, but I am not willing to lie about what motivates the rhetoric. Actually I don't even think most Americans are lying. I think they just don't have the slightest curiosity beyond what their gut and favorite propaganda website say.)
They do present a threat both actually and philosophically. Me and Bis have gone back and forth about the implications of using their own tactics against them to a nauseating extent. Fact of the matter is, it has permeated our conscience to not just go as low as they have, but to go even lower.
Even though I antagonized him about it, I actually agree that torture and wholesale murder of an entire population would dehumanize us as a people and be a forfeiture of our principals as a nation, thus handing them victory. But theres still that dark icky part of me that wants to pound nails into their jawbones then kick them in the chin until they soil themselves. Or maybe a syringe full of vinegar into the nerve channel...
Yes, Mr. Holmes: because it is splashed all over the desert, every single day, without question. This is not an opinion, as much as you'd like it to be so. The commission report you're excited about does not dispute it, does not alter it, and does not render it irrelevant. The daily target reports are very clearly a product of operational reporting rather than serialized intel briefings -- they are posted like 12 hours after the fact, and they are explicitly labelled "initial" assessments, and they are presented as nothing more than a list of shit the good guys blew up and/or shot at. They do not make any attempt to represent themselves as something else, and neither did I. And they are very, very far from useless, because if you think it's anything other than informative to read, on a daily basis, operational reports made by soldiers on the ground of their activities on the battlefield, then you're an idiot. What about the possibility that, say, five percent of the tabulated targets turns out, in the last IC analysis, to have been off somehow? Say we think we destroyed twenty fighting positions, but we actually only destroyed seventeen? Or one of the buildings we think we cooked turned out to have a basement within which a group of lucky bastards survived? OK, great, but that doesn't change any of this, at all. If you thought that a thousand days' worth of "initial" reporting was supposed to be a 1000/1000 Flawless Record of All That Has Happened, then, again, you were just an idiot.
So, you're 0 for 1. (Incidentally, do you know what it's called when someone minimizes the work done / risks taken by American servicemen by preferring to pretend that that work is not being done and those risks aren't being taken? Do you know what it's called if this someone has never and will never come within a thousand miles of a battlefield? That you would like to pretend it illegitimate for me to describe in their own reported assessments the day-to-day operations of guys who are sweating their balls off in Iraq right now for you is...what's the word...disgusting? Repugnant?)
Are you refuting it? No? Then kindly grit your teeth and return this observation to its point of origin.
Put another way, it's unclear why you think I would "refute" the number. I have no specific evidence that it is off, and I have no evidence of what number it might be off by, if it is indeed off. If you have some better estimate, be my guest. I'll wait.
But I do have a question: say for the sake of argument that the actual number is 22,500. What do you think this changes? In what possible universe is this some kind of victory for you or loss for me? Because I didn't correct somebody who didn't correct operational reporting that turned out after the fucking fact to be off by some number of ISIS casualties? (And note here that the point -- viz., that we are bombing ISIS literally every day and dumbasses like you wouldn't know it if you weren't being beaten over the head with it by people who follow this stuff [and you still don't want to believe it, because err dur Obama!] -- remains unchanged and unchallenged regardless.) What material affect does this have on a single word I've said about ISIS or OIR? None. Next.
These allegations have indeed been public, in one form or another, for a good while. If you were to read a real newspaper and not Breitbart or whatever similar masterpiece of intellectual bankruptcy and moral confusion you get your news from, you would have known about them too! But more importantly, as we've seen, nothing I've written about ISIS is altered by them, so whatever you're trying to do here isn't working. Sorry!
I've tried to live up to the condescending part, and I do hope I broke 1000 words.
I've got to tell you: it makes ME feel kind of odd to know that I make YOU feel so fucking ideologically impotent that you have twice turned to the comfort of smh must be a part of some shadowy conspiracy. It's stupid and pathetic and funny and just all-around wonderful, but it's kind of sad, too. Enjoy your paranoia.