President Obama is a true egomaniac. While it’s not uncommon for a politician to have a certain “spin” on facts, Obama contorts and suppresses reality to make it fit his preferred narratives. He will note that “90%” of gun owners agree with him on the need for more gun control; he will assert that “climate change” is an indisputable fact.
And when it comes to radical Islam, he refuses to address the growing threat and, instead, conjures his own, sympathetic narrative that serves in place of reality.
Now, a whopping 50 intelligence experts are blowing the whistle on the Commander-in-Chief and claiming that the national security intelligence concerning ISIS and Al Qaeda is being altered to fit President Obama’s narrative that concludes that ISIS is merely the “JV team” of terrorism.
50 intelligence experts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command (CENTCOM) have complained that the information is being altered to downplay ISIS’ strength.
According to a report from the Daily Beast, senior officials are changing the information.
“The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” one defense official told the reporter.
Two senior analysts have formally complained and a formal investigation is currently underway into the allegations. Since then, 50 other analysts have stepped-up to support the allegations.
The reports are alleged to have been changed by senior CENTCOM officials who are altering the reports to indicate that ISIS and the Syrian offshoot of Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, are weaker than they truly are in order to support the Obama Administration’s assurances that ISIS and other radical terrorist groups are being decimated.
50 have come forward to blow the whistle and 11 who have inside knowledge of the cover-up spoke on condition of anonymity.
The Daily Beast reports:
The accusations suggest that a large number of people tracking the inner workings of the terror groups think that their reports are being manipulated to fit a public narrative. The allegations echoed charges that political appointees and senior officials cherry-picked intelligence about Iraq’s supposed weapons program in 2002 and 2003.
Some of those CENTCOM analysts described the sizeable cadre of protesting analysts as a “revolt” by intelligence professionals who are paid to give their honest assessment, based on facts, and not to be influenced by national-level policy. The analysts have accused senior-level leaders, including the director of intelligence and his deputy in CENTCOM, of changing their analyses to be more in line with the Obama administration’s public contention that the fight against ISIS and al Qaeda is making progress. The analysts take a more pessimistic view about how military efforts to destroy the groups are going…
The complaints allege that in some cases key elements of intelligence reports were removed, resulting in a document that didn’t accurately capture the analysts’ conclusions, sources familiar with the protest said. But the complaint also goes beyond alleged altering of reports and accuses some senior leaders at CENTCOM of creating an unprofessional work environment. One person who knows the contents of the written complaint sent to the inspector general said it used the word “Stalinist” to describe the tone set by officials overseeing CENTCOM’s analysis.
Many described a climate in which analysts felt they could not give a candid assessment of the situation in Iraq and Syria. Some felt it was a product of commanders protecting their career advancement by putting the best spin on the war.
Some reports crafted by the analysts that were too negative in their assessment of the war were sent back down the chain of the command or not shared up the chain, several analysts said. Still others, feeling the climate around them, self-censored so their reports affirmed already-held beliefs.
“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 multi-front fights that are ongoing now in Iraq and Syria,” said Air Force Col. Patrick Ryder, U.S. CENTCOM spokesman. “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.”
Two of the officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said that analysts began airing their complaints in October in an effort to address the issue internally and only went to the inspector general when that effort failed. Some of those who complained were urged to retire, one official familiar with the report told The Daily Beast. Some agreed to leave.
In recent months, members of the Obama administration have sought to paint the fight against ISIS in rosy hues—despite the terror army’s seizure of major cities like Mosul and Fallujah.
“ISIS is losing,” John Allen, the retired Marine general charged with coordinating the ISIS campaign, said in July.
“I am confident that over time, we will beat, we will, indeed, degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in March, using the government’s preferred acronym for the group.
“No, I don’t think we’re losing,” President Obama said in May.
The Obama regime operates very much like a dictatorship. From maintaining an incestuous relationship with the press to maintaining a shocking lack of transparency with the American people, the Obama regime operates in a manner much more reminiscent of the former Soviet Politburo than an administration that is compatible with representative democracy.
From domestic spying programs to the IRS scandal to Fast and Furious and Benghazi, the Obama regime appears infinitely more interested in maintaining power and crafting narratives than they are with leading and governing as an executive branch should.