If Centcom wanted accurate news about ISIS, they should have been reading this website’s ISIS reportage going back to 2011.
Obama lied, millions died.
Centcom, at Obama’s insistence, has been putting a smiley emoticon on our fictional successes in our limp-wristed war efforts against the Islamic State.
As bad as they are now saying it is…… It’s worse than that.
Where are the Pentagon Papers on Obama’s perfidy? His airstrikes were purely cosmetic and did nothing to stop ISIS.
He armed “moderate al-Qaeda” and Syrian “rebels” — American military fell into the hands of ISIS. The Syrian rebels he armed had the same jihad goal that ISIS does. In Iraq, the people he supported and armed became the enemy. This is treasonous and incoherent.
“Inquiry Weighs Whether ISIS Analysis Was Distorted,” The NY Times, August 25, 2015
The Pentagon’s inspector general is investigating allegations that military officials have skewed intelligence assessments about the United States-led campaign in Iraq against the Islamic State to provide a more optimistic account of progress, according to several officials familiar with the inquiry.
The investigation began after at least one civilian Defense Intelligence Agency analyst told the authorities that he had evidence that officials at United States Central Command — the military headquarters overseeing the American bombing campaign and other efforts against the Islamic State — were improperly reworking the conclusions of intelligence assessments prepared for policy makers, including President Obama, the government officials said.
Fuller details of the claims were not available, including when the assessments were said to have been altered and who at Central Command, or Centcom, the analyst said was responsible. The officials, speaking only on the condition of anonymity about classified matters, said that the recently opened investigation focused on whether military officials had changed the conclusions of draft intelligence assessments during a review process and then passed them on…
Legitimate differences of opinion are common and encouraged among national security officials, so the inspector general’s investigation is an unusual move and suggests that the allegations go beyond typical intelligence disputes.