I posten etter blir jeg omtalt (av Provo) som en "Putinista" som ser spøkelser på høylys dag.

Nå ser jeg at tidligere CIA-sjef Michael Morell har skrevet dette om rapporten :

"The report was written by a DIA official in Iraq. It was his take on the early days of the insurgency in Syria. It was just one person’s view. It was written by an individual who was far from the policy discussion in the Situation Room. And, it was simply wrong in its facts when it indicated that the West was supporting extremists in Syria."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ory-fbi-213970

Han sier at rapporten er feil, men hans tolkning av den er altså at den indikerer at USA støttet ekstremister. Er Morell også en Putinista med en ekstrem tolkning?

Eller kanskje vidarlo, må du ikke ta det Provo sier for fasiten, og utbasunere at jeg har ekstreme tolkninger.

-------

Her er et sitat fra en veldig god artikkel om dette, der det sies litt mer om hva DIA-sjef Flynn sa om saken :

"Flynn would later tell the New York Times that this 2012 intelligence report in particular was seen at the White House where it was “disregarded” because it “didn’t meet the narrative” on the war in Syria. He would further confirm to investigative journalist Seymour Hersh that DOD officials and DIA intelligence in particular, were loudly warning the administration that jihadists were leading the opposition in Syria – warnings which were met with “enormous pushback.” Instead of walking back his Al Jazeera comments, General Flynn explained to Hersh that “If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic.” "

http://original.antiwar.com/brad_hof...a-vs-pentagon/