HUMA ABEDIN, Hillary Clinton’s closest confidante, must be a racist, or say we say racist Muslim

Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s long time aide and advisor, has taken to Twitter for the first time, solely to malign a black American presidential candidate, Dr. Ben Carson, for daring to expose the ugly truth about Islam being incompatible with the U.S. Constitution – unleashing a torrent of responses – pro and con.


“Couldn’t agree more…. Welcome to Twitter,”Hillary Clinton tweeted back.

NY Post  Rival Carly Fiorina said Carson was “wrong” to say a Muslim shouldn’t be president. A Ben Carson super PAC reports that its fund-raising has spiked since his anti-Muslim comments.

A mainstay at Clinton’s side, Abedin is often seen in the background but rarely heard. She has been widely condemned in Congress for her deep, familial ties to the notoriously radical Muslim Brotherhood.

Her first jab at a GOP presidential candidate drew a feverish response — topping more than 2,700 retweets by Tuesday evening and 3,300 favorites.


While there were well-wishers who joined Clinton, there were also numerous critics.

“Sharia law is incompatible with American principles and values,” wrote @GayPatriot above a picture of men being hanged.

“Everything I know about muslims I learned on 9/11/01,” added @DissidentBiker.



This Is the ISIS Intel the U.S. Military Dumbed Down? Or would just like us to think this is the scenario.  

The intelligence pros said killing certain ISIS leaders might not diminish the group and that airstrikes might not be working. The bosses didn’t like those answers—not at all.
Senior intelligence officials at the U.S. military’s Central Command demanded significant alterations to analysts’ reports that questioned whether airstrikes against ISIS were damaging the group’s finances and its ability to launch attacks. But reports that showed the group being weakened by the U.S.-led air campaign received comparatively little scrutiny, The Daily Beast has learned.Senior CENTCOM intelligence officials who reviewed the critical reports sent them back to the analysts and ordered them to write new versions that included more footnotes and details to support their assessments, according to two officials familiar with a complaint levied by more than 50 analysts about intelligence manipulation by CENTCOM higher-ups.

In some cases, analysts also were urged to state that killing particular ISIS leaders and key officials would diminish the group and lead to its collapse. Many analysts, however, didn’t believe that simply taking out top ISIS leaders would have an enduring effect on overall operations.

“There was the reality on the ground but it was not as rosy as [the leadership] wanted it to be,” a defense official familiar with the complaint told The Daily Beast. “The challenge was assessing whether the glass was half empty, not half full.”

Some analysts have also complained that they felt “bullied” into reaching conclusions favored by their bosses, two separate sources familiar with analysts’ complaints said. The written and verbal pressure created a climate at CENTCOM in which analysts felt they had to self-censor some of their reports.

Some of the analysts have also accused their bosses of changing the reports in order to appeal to what they perceived as the Obama administration’s official line that the anti-ISIS campaign was making progress and would eventually end with the group’s destruction.

Lawmakers and even presidential candidates seized on the allegations of politicizing intelligence as the White House tried to distance itself from the very strategy it has been pursuing.

Army Gen. Lloyd Austin came under withering bipartisan criticism on Wednesday when he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that after spending at least $43 million over a 10-month period, the U.S. had trained only nine fighters to confront ISIS in Syria.

Senators were dumbfounded that the nearly year-long effort had produced such paltry results, calling it “a joke” and “an abject failure.”

Sen. John McCain, the committee chairman, called Austin’s testimony “grossly distorted” and said the general was attempting to convince senators that the military was making more progress against ISIS than he believes it is.

Asked whether he had ever ordered changes to intelligence reports, Austin replied, “Absolutely not.”

The Obama administration is now considering modifying the Syrian train-and-equip program, while the White House attempts to portray the president as having always been skeptical of it.

“There was the reality on the ground but it was not as rosy as [the leadership] wanted it to be. The challenge was assessing whether the glass was half empty, not half full.”

Meanwhile, Pentagon investigators are examining the back-and-forth between the intelligence bosses at CENTCOM and the analysts, which created a paper trail. Favorable reports had fewer comments written on them, and requests that were more critical showed heavy questioning, the two officials said.

The altering of intelligence led to reports that overstated the damage that U.S. strikes had on specific ISIS targets. For instance, strikes on oil refineries and equipment were said to have done more damage to the group’s financing of operations through illicit oil sales than the analysts believed. Also, strikes on military equipment were said to have set back the group’s ability to wage combat operations, when the analysts believed that wasn’t always the case.

The altered reports made ISIS seem financially weakened and less capable of launching attacks, the analysts allege.

New ISIS intel scandal developments- Our Government is Corrupt and it makes us look like fools. 

Barack Obama Lloyd AustinREUTERS/Larry DowningUS President Barack Obama next to Gen. Lloyd Austin III, the commander of Central Command, during a briefing from top military leaders while at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, in 2014.

Top US military officials used subtle manipulation tactics to influence the outcome of intelligence reports on the fight against ISIS in the Middle East, according to analysts who detailed specific allegations from the growing scandal to NPR.

Unnamed military sources told NPR that leaders at US Central Command, or Centcom, had tougher standards for reports involving bad news and changed the wording of reports to make them sound less negative.

When analysts wanted to include good news in a report, two military sources close to the investigation said, they needed little sourcing. Bad news, meanwhile, required extensive footnotes and intelligence data to back it up.

“The bad news didn’t just need to be footnoted,” one military source told NPR. “The intelligence data itself had to be attached to the report.”

“It became pretty clear if they wrote something bad, it was likely to be changed,” the source added. “Knowing that bad news on ISIS wasn’t welcome meant that, over time, the picture of the fight began being rosier.”

The Pentagon is investigating accusations that top military officials pressured analysts into conforming their reports to a more positive narrative of the fight against the militant group ISIS (also known as the Islamic State).

More than 50 intelligence analysts at Centcom, the Pentagon agency covering security interests in nations throughout the Middle East and Central Asia, have supported a formal complaint sent to the Defense Department that accuses senior intelligence officers of insisting on changing ISIS reports to make them reflect more positively on US efforts in the region, The Daily Beast reported last week.

Language was also sanitized, according to the NPR report.

A source described one report about an ISIS attack near the Iraq/Syria border. According to the source, the report initially said Iraqi security forces “retreated,” meaning they fled their positions, but it was then sent back for editing and later came to say that the soldiers reinforced another Iraqi position.

“The final draft suggested a strategic decision had been made,” Dina Temple-Raston wrote for NPR. “But that was not what happened, the source said — the Iraqi forces ran. A second source confirmed the account of the change in wording to put the Iraqi forces in a more positive light.”

ISIS mapReuters

Sources previously told The Daily Beast that senior military and intelligence officials also pushed analysts to portray ISIS “as weaker than the analysts believe it actually is.”

The concern is that the pressure from military officials, if true, may spring from a desire to align ISIS intelligence reports with what the Obama administration has been saying about the fight against the extremists.Sources told The Guardian that administration officials were not open to “the narrative that ISIS is winning.”

Centcom analysts are now in a full “revolt,” according to The Daily Beast. The work environment there has reportedly gotten so bad that it has been described as “Stalinist.” One source said that when analysts brought concerns to Centcom leadership, they were urged to retire, and some agreed to leave.

Gen. Lloyd Austin, the head of Centcom, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee this week to update members on the US-led fight against ISIS. He was asked to address the allegations surrounding manipulated intelligence reports and said “it would be premature and inappropriate for me to discuss this matter” because of the ongoing investigation.

Austin did point out, however, that Centcom reports did not go directly to the president and that Centcom had a wide variety of sources that provide its intelligence analysis, according to NPR.

A Centcom spokesman told Business Insider last week that it welcomed the Pentagon inspector general’s investigation.

“The IG has a responsibility to investigate all allegations made, and we welcome and support their independent oversight,” the spokesman said. “While we cannot comment on the specific investigation cited in the article, we can speak to the process. The Intelligence Community routinely provides a wide range of subjective assessments related to the current security environment.

“These products and the analysis that they present are absolutely vital to our efforts, particularly given the incredibly complex nature of the multifront fights that are ongoing now in Iraq and Syria. Senior civilian and military leadership consider these assessments during planning and decision-making, along with information gained from various other sources, to include the insights provided by commanders on the ground and other key advisors, intelligence collection assets, and previous experience. The multisource nature of the assessment process purposely guards against any single report or opinion unduly influencing leaders and decision-makers.”

%d bloggers like this: