SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Two Congressional reports have found that CENTCOM manipulated intelligence reports related to the Islamic State, including altering reports that questioned the effectiveness of airstrikes:
Senior officials at U.S. Central Command manipulated intelligence reports, press statements, and congressional testimony to present a more positive outlook on the war against the Islamic State, a House Republican task force concluded in a damning report released Thursday. The report, written by the members of the House Armed Services and Intelligence committees and the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, confirmed more than a year of reporting by The Daily Beast about problems with CENTCOM analysis of the war against ISIS. House Democrats, who conducted their own separate investigation, reached a similar conclusion as their Republican colleagues, finding that CENTCOM "insufficiently accommodated dissenting views," Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement [link].
The altering of intelligence reports, which included information that made its way into briefings to President Obama, was systematic, lawmakers found. "There was a consistent trend that across four specific campaigns against [ISIS] in Iraq throughout 2014 and 2015, assessments approved by the J2 [CENTCOM's Joint Intelligence Center] or leadership were consistently more positive than those presented by the [intelligence community]," the report found.
Also at The Washington Post, Tampa Bay Times, and NYT.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ilPapa on Saturday August 13 2016, @05:01AM
That's "the press"?
This is from an actual history of ISIS:
I invite people to read the Breitbart article and decide for themselves which is the more reputable story.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday August 13 2016, @05:30AM
Your post (from some source you prefer not to name - but which seems lifted from TheWeek) pretty much says the same thing as BOTH OF THE LINKS I posted.
So why are your trying to put down Breitbart?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Saturday August 13 2016, @07:07AM
So why are your trying to put down Breitbart?
What? Froj, let me get this straight: you think someone on SoylentNews is impinging upon the credulity of Brietbart? Oh, be still, my beating heart! Except, his is not. Breitbart is dead. The zombie alleged "news" organization that continues in his stead is, as he ever was, completely brain-dead. Inconsequential, non-intellectual, completely bereft of thought. If someone had not nailed it to the internet, it would be pushing up daisies! This is a dead news source! It has gone to join the choir invisible! This is a Late Breitbart!
"We've got a slug."
"Does it talk?"
"No, but it's name is Roger Ailes. . ."
Well, hardly a suitable replacement then, is it!
(Score: 2) by ilPapa on Saturday August 13 2016, @01:00PM
I think you know very well why Breitbart is not taken seriously as being part of "the press". It's pretty obvious if you take a look at their stories and comments section.
And if you don't know very well why Breitbart is not taken seriously as being part of "the press", then nothing I say could possibly make you understand.
You are still welcome on my lawn.