Pentagon lying about alleged progress in war against ISIS. So what else is new?

PkrBum wrote:"Good afternoon. Today,as part of an international coalition of some 60 nations -- including Arab countries --our men and women in uniform continue the fight against ISIL in Iraq and in Syria.

More than 2,000 coalition airstrikes have pounded these terrorists. We’re disrupting their command and control and supply lines,making it harder for them to move. We’re destroying their fighting positions,their tanks, their vehicles,their barracks,their training camps,and the oil and gas facilities and infrastructure that fund their operations. We’re taking out their commanders,their fighters and their leaders.

In Iraq,local forces have largely held the line and in some places have pushed ISIL back. In Syria,ISIL failed in its major push to take the town of Kobani,losing countless fighters in the process -- fighters who will never again threaten innocent civilians. And we’ve seen reports of sinking morale among ISIL fighters as they realize the futility of their cause." Guess who?

Obamasucks wrote:Obama gives them the talking points he wants discussed. Every flag officer that leads their specific services is on a short leash in what they can and cannot talk about on a subject. They have all been vetted as keepers due to their willingness to support liberal PC politics. The Great Purge from 09- current day ensures that they will stay in line to stay on the job. Are they lying about fighting ISIS? Heck, we aren't even really fighting them per se. We have an air war against a mosh pit of Islamists. If winning is putting warheads on foreheads, then we surely are.... But Obama's definition of winning isn't the standard of the past.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Obamasucks wrote:Obama gives them the talking points he wants discussed. Every flag officer that leads their specific services is on a short leash in what they can and cannot talk about on a subject. They have all been vetted as keepers due to their willingness to support liberal PC politics. The Great Purge from 09- current day ensures that they will stay in line to stay on the job. Are they lying about fighting ISIS? Heck, we aren't even really fighting them per se. We have an air war against a mosh pit of Islamists. If winning is putting warheads on foreheads, then we surely are.... But Obama's definition of winning isn't the standard of the past.

How many Iraq War generals did George W. Bush purge before he finally settles on Petraeus? You know, the one who was copulating with his biographer instead of his wife, and who now faces criminal charges for allegedly leaking classified information.

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:"Good afternoon. Today,as part of an international coalition of some 60 nations -- including Arab countries --our men and women in uniform continue the fight against ISIL in Iraq and in Syria.

More than 2,000 coalition airstrikes have pounded these terrorists. We’re disrupting their command and control and supply lines,making it harder for them to move. We’re destroying their fighting positions,their tanks, their vehicles,their barracks,their training camps,and the oil and gas facilities and infrastructure that fund their operations. We’re taking out their commanders,their fighters and their leaders.

In Iraq,local forces have largely held the line and in some places have pushed ISIL back. In Syria,ISIL failed in its major push to take the town of Kobani,losing countless fighters in the process -- fighters who will never again threaten innocent civilians. And we’ve seen reports of sinking morale among ISIL fighters as they realize the futility of their cause." Guess who?

I presume you are referring to Obama -- who, in turn, is given daily reports from NSA, CIA and the Pentagon on what's happening in the Mideast.  In War Hero's scenario, the military lies about its progress against ISIS because it's ordered to do so.

If indeed, that IS the case, then our leaders at the Pentagon should say so and resign.  By lying in order to keep their positions, they're far worse than the President -- who is, after all, a political entity.  The generals and admirals are allegedly non-political and every last one of them, as an officer in our military, is sworn to speak the truth.

According to War Hero and his ilk, the President lies about such matters to maintain support for his policies and image.  That the heads of our military services acquiesce to that political business is absurd and disgusting.  No wonder we don't win wars anymore.

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:"Good afternoon. Today,as part of an international coalition of some 60 nations -- including Arab countries --our men and women in uniform continue the fight against ISIL in Iraq and in Syria.

More than 2,000 coalition airstrikes have pounded these terrorists. We’re disrupting their command and control and supply lines,making it harder for them to move. We’re destroying their fighting positions,their tanks, their vehicles,their barracks,their training camps,and the oil and gas facilities and infrastructure that fund their operations. We’re taking out their commanders,their fighters and their leaders.

In Iraq,local forces have largely held the line and in some places have pushed ISIL back. In Syria,ISIL failed in its major push to take the town of Kobani,losing countless fighters in the process -- fighters who will never again threaten innocent civilians. And we’ve seen reports of sinking morale among ISIL fighters as they realize the futility of their cause." Guess who?

I presume you are referring to Obama -- who, in turn, is given daily reports from NSA, CIA and the Pentagon on what's happening in the Mideast. In War Hero's scenario, the military lies about its progress against ISIS because it's ordered to do so.

If indeed, that IS the case, then our leaders at the Pentagon should say so and resign. By lying in order to keep their positions, they're far worse than the President -- who is, after all, a political entity. The generals and admirals are allegedly non-political and every last one of them, as an officer in our military, is sworn to speak the truth.

According to War Hero and his ilk, the President lies about such matters to maintain support for his policies and image. That the heads of our military services acquiesce to that political business is absurd and disgusting. No wonder we don't win wars anymore.

PkrBum wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:"Good afternoon. Today,as part of an international coalition of some 60 nations -- including Arab countries --our men and women in uniform continue the fight against ISIL in Iraq and in Syria.

More than 2,000 coalition airstrikes have pounded these terrorists. We’re disrupting their command and control and supply lines,making it harder for them to move. We’re destroying their fighting positions,their tanks, their vehicles,their barracks,their training camps,and the oil and gas facilities and infrastructure that fund their operations. We’re taking out their commanders,their fighters and their leaders.

In Iraq,local forces have largely held the line and in some places have pushed ISIL back. In Syria,ISIL failed in its major push to take the town of Kobani,losing countless fighters in the process -- fighters who will never again threaten innocent civilians. And we’ve seen reports of sinking morale among ISIL fighters as they realize the futility of their cause." Guess who?

I presume you are referring to Obama -- who, in turn, is given daily reports from NSA, CIA and the Pentagon on what's happening in the Mideast.  In War Hero's scenario, the military lies about its progress against ISIS because it's ordered to do so.

If indeed, that IS the case, then our leaders at the Pentagon should say so and resign.  By lying in order to keep their positions, they're far worse than the President -- who is, after all, a political entity.  The generals and admirals are allegedly non-political and every last one of them, as an officer in our military, is sworn to speak the truth.

According to War Hero and his ilk, the President lies about such matters to maintain support for his policies and image.  That the heads of our military services acquiesce to that political business is absurd and disgusting.  No wonder we don't win wars anymore.

You would never extend the same excuses if the president were a pub under the exact same circumstances.

Obamasucks wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:"Good afternoon. Today,as part of an international coalition of some 60 nations -- including Arab countries --our men and women in uniform continue the fight against ISIL in Iraq and in Syria.

More than 2,000 coalition airstrikes have pounded these terrorists. We’re disrupting their command and control and supply lines,making it harder for them to move. We’re destroying their fighting positions,their tanks, their vehicles,their barracks,their training camps,and the oil and gas facilities and infrastructure that fund their operations. We’re taking out their commanders,their fighters and their leaders.

In Iraq,local forces have largely held the line and in some places have pushed ISIL back. In Syria,ISIL failed in its major push to take the town of Kobani,losing countless fighters in the process -- fighters who will never again threaten innocent civilians. And we’ve seen reports of sinking morale among ISIL fighters as they realize the futility of their cause." Guess who?

I presume you are referring to Obama -- who, in turn, is given daily reports from NSA, CIA and the Pentagon on what's happening in the Mideast.  In War Hero's scenario, the military lies about its progress against ISIS because it's ordered to do so.

If indeed, that IS the case, then our leaders at the Pentagon should say so and resign.  By lying in order to keep their positions, they're far worse than the President -- who is, after all, a political entity.  The generals and admirals are allegedly non-political and every last one of them, as an officer in our military, is sworn to speak the truth.

According to War Hero and his ilk, the President lies about such matters to maintain support for his policies and image.  That the heads of our military services acquiesce to that political business is absurd and disgusting.  No wonder we don't win wars anymore.

If anyone lies, it's you.  You lie so much you can't even believe what you say most days.

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PkrBum wrote:"Good afternoon. Today,as part of an international coalition of some 60 nations -- including Arab countries --our men and women in uniform continue the fight against ISIL in Iraq and in Syria.

More than 2,000 coalition airstrikes have pounded these terrorists. We’re disrupting their command and control and supply lines,making it harder for them to move. We’re destroying their fighting positions,their tanks, their vehicles,their barracks,their training camps,and the oil and gas facilities and infrastructure that fund their operations. We’re taking out their commanders,their fighters and their leaders.

In Iraq,local forces have largely held the line and in some places have pushed ISIL back. In Syria,ISIL failed in its major push to take the town of Kobani,losing countless fighters in the process -- fighters who will never again threaten innocent civilians. And we’ve seen reports of sinking morale among ISIL fighters as they realize the futility of their cause." Guess who?

I presume you are referring to Obama -- who, in turn, is given daily reports from NSA, CIA and the Pentagon on what's happening in the Mideast.  In War Hero's scenario, the military lies about its progress against ISIS because it's ordered to do so.

If indeed, that IS the case, then our leaders at the Pentagon should say so and resign.  By lying in order to keep their positions, they're far worse than the President -- who is, after all, a political entity.  The generals and admirals are allegedly non-political and every last one of them, as an officer in our military, is sworn to speak the truth.

According to War Hero and his ilk, the President lies about such matters to maintain support for his policies and image.  That the heads of our military services acquiesce to that political business is absurd and disgusting.  No wonder we don't win wars anymore.

You would never extend the same excuses if the president were a pub under the exact same circumstances.

I have no idea what you mean with that line.  What does "if the president were a pub" mean please.