Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday August 13 2016, @03:34AM   Printer-friendly
from the only-the-good-news dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday August 13 2016, @05:30AM

    by frojack (1554) on Saturday August 13 2016, @05:30AM (#387398) Journal

    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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Saturday August 13 2016, @07:07AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday August 13 2016, @07:07AM (#387412) Journal

    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

    by ilPapa (2366) on Saturday August 13 2016, @01:00PM (#387475) Journal

    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.