Is the Obama Admin. pressuring CIA to paint a Rosy Picture of War on ISIL?

Elliot Hill and Mark Sovel | (TheLipTV Video Report) | – –

“ISIS intelligence reports are being cooked by the Obama administration, according to over 50 intelligence analysts working out of the US military’s Central Command who have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials to reflect the White House line, according to The Daily Beast. We look at the report on the Lip News with Elliot Hill and Mark Sovel.”

TheLipTV: “Is ISIS Intelligence Being Altered By Obama?”

Posted in Barack Obama | 6 Responses | Print |

6 Responses

  1. Q: How can you tell if the government is lying?
    A: When their lips are moving.

  2. I’d wait a bit before getting too lathered up about this. The news cycle demands “news” and the assertions of some analysts at CENTCOM (here it says 50; I’ve read other places it was 2 senior analysts) may or not be that valid, even on the face of it. A few thoughts:

    1-DIA has analysts at area commands and bases like these, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some CIA people were at a place like CENTCOM, but CENTCOM is not CIA. And in the worse case this is hardly comparable to Cheney et al driving over to Langley to lean on people.

    2. There are layers of analysis used to refine thinking and put it into perspective. Especially with tactical intel from army analysts at a command, their thinking would be reviewed and but into better context by several layers of more senior people, as well as tempered by other intel branches, before it ever got to the policy level. By that time it might well be unrecognizable.

    3. ONCE it gets to the White House, it does become a political issue how they handle it. If some analysts who generated the raw input then hear policy makers say something different than what they believe it really speaks to their own lack of perspective and (misplaced and often nurtured) feelings of self-importance.

    • TB – Points 1 & 2 are well-stated but 3?

      Please consider – If current due-diligence was placed on “experts’ analysis” in 2001 and 2003, two completely unnecessary interminable wars would have been avoided or at least scaled to a proper response.

      Military assessment simply does not agree with the motives of loud cackling chickenhawks and frothing MIC war-mongers in Congress who have now become desperate.

      Unless another major war or orchestrated crisis occurs within the next year, the current GOP will lose the White House to a Democrat and in time, their highly reactionary content in Congress. (The absolute worst Congress(s) in U.S. history.)

      • My point would be, having only read how these orgs work, that analysis is what it is at any one level. Each level adds to it, including the (hopeful) wisdom of policy makers, who have to read it in context of their own plans, based on relationships with foreign policy makers and what have you.

        When analysts are leaned on, that’s one thing; when their work is put into a broader and more pertinent perspective by other analysts or policy makers that’s another. The cherry-picking and abuse of analysis back in 2003 was a disgusting sin; but that’s different than good-faith bad judgement or incompetence. In the case of Bush and Co, they were guilty of everything.

        On reflection, I wonder if the publicity surrounding this isn’t a tactical move by GOP operatives in preparation for 2016, to bolster the “everyone does it” case when people bring up 2003. This complaint apparently arose from the ranks, and my third point was based on having met a few of these people, who tend to be proud and sometimes a little bit narrow.

        • FAUXNews, war-mongers in Congress and non-indicted war criminal Cheney were the loudest in foisting this non-issue. There is desperation from the MIC.

          Time is running out for their continuous state of war.

Comments are closed.