Raw Story⁠93%

Trump admin caught withholding several attacks on US forces that 'injured dozens': report ⁠82%

By Alexander Willis⁠88%

7/20/2026, 12:28:56 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Quote-first Misdirection, Unattributed Quote, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 81% saturation with 264 hits. Analysis detected 1,518 faulty-reasoning hits from 326 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠82% (3,836 of 21,147 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.90% of the article peer group.

While the Trump administration publicly shared details on an Iranian attack on a U.S. military base in Jordan last Friday that killed at least two U.S. service members, it withheld information on three other Iranian strikes from the week prior that hurt many members of the U.S. military, officials revealed Monday to The New York Times . 
“Those attacks injured dozens of U.S. service members and damaged several helicopters, according to several U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss operational matters,” the Times’ report reads. 
“But the Pentagon did not disclose the earlier strikes, nor the casualties and damage they inflicted.” 
A total of 17 U.S. service members have been killed in the deeply unpopular U.S. war against Iran and hundreds wounded. 
Throughout the conflict, however, the Pentagon’s casualty figures have been contested , with reports suggesting they are far greater than what the Pentagon has officially acknowledged. 
The defense department has also been accused of withholding information on the damage inflicted on U.S. military installations in the Middle East, with the scale of destruction far exceeding what the Pentagon has officially acknowledged, according to one Washington Post analysis of satellite imagery. 
Furthermore, the Times reported that the Pentagon has withheld figures on the war's broader drain on U.S. military resources. 
“In the past several months, the Trump administration has failed to disclose how the Iran war has drained U.S. supplies of critical, costly weapons, and how Iran retained and rebuilt substantial missile capabilities,” the Times reported. 
The Trump administration’s withholding of information related to the war has led to some confusion among President Donald Trump's supporters, including Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, who on Sunday said she couldn’t “understand” how Iran was capable of attacking U.S. assets in the Middle East given Trump’s claim that its military capabilities had been “ destroyed 100% ” as early as March 14. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 36.5%Alexander Willis: 6.9%Rawstory: 7.8%Confirmation Bias36.5%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 23.3%Alexander Willis: 7.2%Rawstory: 4.4%Availability Heuristic23.3%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 19.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias19.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.7%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%Alexander Willis: 18.2%Rawstory: 13.6%Framing Effect10.4%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Alexander Willis: 3.1%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias6.4%This article: 81.0%Alexander Willis: 27.9%Rawstory: 21.8%Negativity Bias81.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.3%Rawstory: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 19.0%Alexander Willis: 2.1%Rawstory: 2.6%In-Group Bias19.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.4%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 24.8%Alexander Willis: 2.7%Rawstory: 1.7%Recency Bias24.8%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 3.7%Rawstory: 6.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 40.2%Alexander Willis: 4.2%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority40.2%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.5%Rawstory: 2.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.1%Rawstory: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.4%Alexander Willis: 8.6%Rawstory: 12.0%Hasty Generalization6.4%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.7%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 11.1%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 11.0%Alexander Willis: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.5%Begging the Question11.0%This article: 19.0%Alexander Willis: 2.5%Rawstory: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)19.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.9%Alexander Willis: 2.2%Rawstory: 1.6%Burden of Proof4.9%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 19.0%Alexander Willis: 6.5%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal19.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 25.5%Alexander Willis: 2.9%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)25.5%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 43.3%Alexander Willis: 7.7%Rawstory: 5.4%Unattributed Quote43.3%This article: 45.4%Alexander Willis: 5.8%Rawstory: 4.2%Quote-first Misdirection45.4%This article: 10.4%Alexander Willis: 13.1%Rawstory: 15.5%Biased Writer Voice10.4%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.0%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 6.4%Alexander Willis: 7.1%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 13.5%Alexander Willis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…13.5%

326 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers38%attributed speech201writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 57 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageThe defense department • 44 words • 100.0% coverageThe New York Times • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageMaria Bartiromo • 62 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Maria Bartiromo

100%flagged-word coverage
62 attributed words50% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+57.2 ptsWriter: 42.8%Maria Bartiromo: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-70.1 ptsWriter: 70.1%Maria Bartiromo: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-16.9 ptsWriter: 16.9%Maria Bartiromo: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-10.4 ptsWriter: 10.4%Maria Bartiromo: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.