IG Investing Report that Intel on ISIS was Altered
“The People on the Ground and the Analysts Gathering Intel are Going to Deliver the Hard Truth.”
When we look back at September 11, 2001, it’s easy to wonder: How could we have been so blindsided? Why didn’t we even fathom the possibility of such a highly organized, targeted attack that was years in the making?
What we didn’t know hurt us greatly as a nation.
On the 14th anniversary of the worst terror attack on U.S. soil, a startling news announcement makes us wonder if we’re being left in the dark once again.
As reported by FOX News: the Inspector General is now looking into a formal complaint from more than 50 intelligence analysts working with the U.S. military’s Central Command. Their grievance: paperwork they developed on the Islamic State terror army was inappropriately altered by senior officials.
Appearing on Outnumbered with FOX News anchors Harris Faulkner, Andrea Tantaros and Sandra Smith, along with democratic strategist Julie Roginsky, former Navy SEAL and FOX contributor Robert J. O’Neill shares his insights on the breaking news.
Major points from their lively exchange:
Faulkner: “They reported that their words were changed to portray the terror group as weaker than the analysts believed them to be. Perhaps in an effort to stick to the Obama Administration’s public line that the United States is winning the battle against ISIS.
My big question, Rob, is whether or not something like this would have informed or would have had any effect on how we are going to fight these savages.”
O’Neill: “These are intelligence analysts from Central Command, so that’s going to be a variety, pretty much all four branches of the military and other government agencies. The people on the ground and the analysts gathering intelligence…they’re not going to be the ones altering anything. They’re going to deliver the hard truth. At some point up the chain of command in both government and military it starts to get political. It wouldn’t surprise me if someone altered it to tow the line a little bit.”
Tantaros: “Intelligence shouldn’t be political. It’s not about right or left. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this come from this administration. In June, Republican Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee called out James Clapper and said in your intelligence report you downplayed the threat of Hezbollah and Iran. Now, why would they do that? Because they want to remove the label of ‘state sponsor of terror’ on Iran so that they could push through the Iran deal. Rob, is it because they are managing up to a president that does not want to acknowledge we’re at war with radical Islam?”
O’Neill: “I can see that they do want to put out a positive message and not admit that we’re even at war with Islamic terrorists. I can also see to the point where rival intelligence agencies don’t want to share information with one another. Mismanaged intelligence, it’s probably a reality. Intelligence shouldn’t be right or left. It should be an American thing. That’s what it’s got to be.”
Roginsky: “If this is rival intelligence agencies…we’re competing with each other and not sharing information…this is exactly what the 9/11 Commission said was one of the reasons we had an intelligence failure.”
O’Neill: “It’s one of the reasons we got attacked on 9/11.”