ISIS Intelligence Cooked?

#26
#26
More

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/16/us/politics/analysts-said-to-provide-evidence-of-distorted-reports-on-isis.html?_r=1

WASHINGTON — A group of intelligence analysts have provided investigators with documents they say show that senior military officers manipulated the conclusions of reports on the war against the Islamic State, according to several government officials, as lawmakers from both parties voiced growing anger that they may have received a distorted picture about the military campaign’s progress.
Click to expand...


The revisions presented a more positive picture to the White House, Congress and other intelligence agencies, the officials said.

“The senior intelligence officers are flipping everything on its head,” said one government intelligence analyst, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. The analyst said that the complaints involve the highest-ranking officials in Centcom’s intelligence unit, run by Army Maj. Gen. Steven R. Grove.

The Pentagon’s inspector general would not examine disputes over routine differences among analysts, and so it is highly unusual that an investigation would be opened about the intelligence conclusions in an ongoing war. The allegations raise the prospect that military officials were presenting skewed assessments to the White House and lawmakers that were in sharp contrast with the conclusions of other intelligence agencies.
Click to expand...
 
#27
#27
Disagreements over analytical conclusions are both commonplace and encouraged. Just as in the peer review process in academia, the government wants analysts to consider opposing viewpoints and revise reports as necessary. Analysts who disagree are encouraged to publish rival papers, but changing someone else’s conclusion is forbidden.


The matter is complicated because the analysts who made the complaint work for the Defense Intelligence Agency — it was created to be immune from the pressures and biases of the officers leading the war — but are supervised by officers at Centcom. At least one analyst complained to the inspector general in July. Last week, The Daily Beast reported that those complaints were supported by a cadre of more than 50 intelligence agents.
Click to expand...



As I said before, there will always be disagreements within a particular unit, and between units. We have to be careful on the one hand not to allow dissenting points of view that have legitimate points to get squashed. At the same time we cannot allow sibling rivalries to paralyze the decision makers with doubt.

It sounds like a major part of the problem is that this one particular intelligence gathering group, which is supposed to be a-political, is ultimately itself overseen by people who might be. The solution may be to make them more independent. Give them a way to directly report, or at least to include their original assessments with the summary by Centcom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#32
#32
lawgator1 said:
Somebody else posted a thread about this. It's a little hard to give it much weight since it's three unnamed sources talking about two unnamed employees.
Click to expand...

You'd be orgasmic with 30 unnamed sources talking about 90 unnamed elementary school children if it made Bush look bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#33
#33
volinbham said:
SIAP

Exclusive: 50 Spies Say ISIS Intelligence Was Cooked - The Daily Beast

Will be interesting to see what the IG turns up.
Click to expand...

None of this really matters, vbham. You posted yourself a few weeks ago a story about CIA operatives in Syria fighting against Pentagon operatives in Syria. That story, in addition to this one you posted does nothing to remove the doubt from those that have been saying for the longest time that Al Qaeda and ISIS are indeed the CIA proxies/mercenaries. Whenever a country doesn't go along with the US agenda, they send in their proxies to bring disruption and bring destabilization to the country, just like they are doing in Syria and Libya right now, and how they did in Iraq about 2 years ago to force the Al-Maliki to sign an extension to the US security agreement. When Al-Maliki balked at the notion, the CIA sent in their jackals and you ended up with a farce election where it took John Kerry to come in and resolve the dispute.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#35
#35
lawgator1 said:
Somebody else posted a thread about this. It's a little hard to give it much weight since it's three unnamed sources talking about two unnamed employees.
Click to expand...

Did you feel the same when the Watergate story broke?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#36
#36
hog88 said:
Did you feel the same when the Watergate story broke?
Click to expand...

unnamed sources, can't be true especially if it was a foxnews report because lord knows they never produce anything that is actual reliable news
 
#37
#37
hog88 said:
Did you feel the same when the Watergate story broke?
Click to expand...


Actually, the initial reports were anonymous but then they confirmed multiple sources before they printed things.

The right wing blogs just either make it up, or fail to confirm, before they "report."

And there's a reason for that. They don't want to even try to confirm for fear they'll be told it's not true. Click bait doesn't work if there's nothing to click.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#38
#38
lawgator1 said:
Actually, the initial reports were anonymous but then they confirmed multiple sources before they printed things.

The right wing blogs just either make it up, or fail to confirm, before they "report."

And there's a reason for that. They don't want to even try to confirm for fear they'll be told it's not true. Click bait doesn't work if there's nothing to click.
Click to expand...

E&B never revealed their sources when they reported. You are making **** up again.
 
#39
#39
lawgator1 said:
Actually, the initial reports were anonymous but then they confirmed multiple sources before they printed things.

The right wing blogs just either make it up, or fail to confirm, before they "report."

And there's a reason for that. They don't want to even try to confirm for fear they'll be told it's not true. Click bait doesn't work if there's nothing to click.
Click to expand...

The DB broke the original story and has been following it since the beginning.

This is not made up and it's not, not confirmed.

Whether the reassignments were indeed retaliatory is open to question and could never be sourced unless someone openly admitted it to be true.

The fact these people were reassigned is not made up. There is an ongoing investigation at many levels into these allegations.
 
#40
#40
Rasputin_Vol said:
That story, in addition to this one you posted does nothing to remove the doubt from those that have been saying for the longest time that Al Qaeda and ISIS are indeed the CIA proxies/mercenaries.
Click to expand...

Obviously.

Wait, are you saying you have doubts?
 
#41
#41
Rasputin_Vol said:
None of this really matters, vbham. You posted yourself a few weeks ago a story about CIA operatives in Syria fighting against Pentagon operatives in Syria. That story, in addition to this one you posted does nothing to remove the doubt from those that have been saying for the longest time that Al Qaeda and ISIS are indeed the CIA proxies/mercenaries. Whenever a country doesn't go along with the US agenda, they send in their proxies to bring disruption and bring destabilization to the country, just like they are doing in Syria and Libya right now, and how they did in Iraq about 2 years ago to force the Al-Maliki to sign an extension to the US security agreement. When Al-Maliki balked at the notion, the CIA sent in their jackals and you ended up with a farce election where it took John Kerry to come in and resolve the dispute.
Click to expand...

Great Success! US-Backed Fighters Seize US-Made Missiles Heading To Other US-Backed Fighters In Syria | ZeroHedge
 
#42
#42
lawgator1 said:
Somebody else posted a thread about this. It's a little hard to give it much weight since it's three unnamed sources talking about two unnamed employees.
Click to expand...

Oh, my...

I really love it when Ras bumps one of the old threads and we find diamonds like this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#46
#46
Grand Vol said:
Your insistence that unnamed sources aren't legit.

My, how that changed pretty quickly.
Click to expand...


Which unnamed sources did I rely on where it turned out to be wrong? I don't doubt but that it is possible that it occurred. But let's be real, the mainstream media adhere to much higher standards for quoting unnamed sources than does a lot of the minor league right wing media. Right wing bloggers eager to make a name for themselves so as to monetize their otherwise amateurish operations and so as to justify their own agendas have repeatedly been shown to leap at the chance to quote an unnamed source without knowledge versus mainstream media, including Fox, which are generally going to require some vetting or some corroboration.

Big difference between CNN or Fox quoting unnamed sources and Breitbart doing it.
 
#47
#47
lawgator1 said:
Which unnamed sources did I rely on where it turned out to be wrong? I don't doubt but that it is possible that it occurred. But let's be real, the mainstream media adhere to much higher standards for quoting unnamed sources than does a lot of the minor league right wing media. Right wing bloggers eager to make a name for themselves so as to monetize their otherwise amateurish operations and so as to justify their own agendas have repeatedly been shown to leap at the chance to quote an unnamed source without knowledge versus mainstream media, including Fox, which are generally going to require some vetting or some corroboration.

Big difference between CNN or Fox quoting unnamed sources and Breitbart doing it.
Click to expand...

You have got to be ****ing kidding me? MSM adhering to higher standards is a joke.
 
#48
#48
hog88 said:
You have got to be ****ing kidding me? MSM adhering to higher standards is a joke.
Click to expand...


While none is perfect, the reality is that the MSM are in it for the long haul. Embarrassing episodes of having to retract something or having been misled by unnamed sources damages them over the long term. Right wing bloggers or pretend media are much more short sighted about such things. Their value is getting to the fore of the right wing thinking right now, make some money. Get a mention by Hannity or Carlson or even Trump, to drive traffic to their websites.
 
#49
#49
lawgator1 said:
While none is perfect, the reality is that the MSM are in it for the long haul. Embarrassing episodes of having to retract something or having been misled by unnamed sources damages them over the long term. Right wing bloggers or pretend media are much more short sighted about such things. Their value is getting to the fore of the right wing thinking right now, make some money. Get a mention by Hannity or Carlson or even Trump, to drive traffic to their websites.
Click to expand...

CNN was often guilty of running with anonymously sourced stories that they reported as fact, only to later be proven fabricated. They let their hate of Trump ruin what little journalistic credibility they had.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst and hog88
#50
#50
lawgator1 said:
While none is perfect, the reality is that the MSM are in it for the long haul. Embarrassing episodes of having to retract something or having been misled by unnamed sources damages them over the long term. Right wing bloggers or pretend media are much more short sighted about such things. Their value is getting to the fore of the right wing thinking right now, make some money. Get a mention by Hannity or Carlson or even Trump, to drive traffic to their websites.
Click to expand...

How many retractions have the various MSM made over the last 4 years?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top