I'm sure most of you recall that Democrats and the media (redundant, I know) were all over W. Bush after 9/11 for an ambiguous briefing about Osama bin-Laden and his plans to attack the US that was briefed to the former president just prior to the WTC attacks. HE KNEW! they screamed and were adamant that he was going to suffer for this catastrophic failure in intel gathering. They seemed extremely worked up that the president hadn't acted in time to stop the plot.
Fast forward to today and the administration of Obama. As of 2014, Obama missed half of his daily briefings, which are a rundown of events throughout the world and the potential effect on the US. They are easily the most important part of the presidents day...or were until now. Perhaps this is why he called ISIS the "jayvee team" not so long ago--but I digress. The PDB is critical in the decision making process for any president and Obama flat out ignored a large part of them.
Now we may know why; he was fudging the intel to make ISIS seem less aggressive and successful:
At issue is whether analysts at Central Command, which oversees U.S. Department of Defenseoperations in the Middle East, altered assessments of the campaign against ISIS to make it appear as though the United States and Western partners were making more progress than they really were, at least according to claims from a whistleblower assigned to Centcom.The inquiry, which started in September, has grown to include congressional investigations, including the House Intelligence and Armed Services committees. The chairmen of both committees are also forming a task force in the "near future" to investigate allegations of intelligence manipulation, aides with both panels confirmed.As a vet and a guy with a bunch of ex-military and active duty friends, I find it extremely hard to believe that the military took it upon themselves to skew intel lowering the threat of ISIS. The military may sometimes indulge intel to make a threat seem greater so they can get more funding, training and weaponry. They never, ever would knowingly make the threat seem less than it is. That means they were forced to do so or are the scapegoats for Obama. I'm inclined to believe the latter but the former is possible because the senior leadership in the military is immensely more political than even 8 years ago. But no, I'm pretty sure it was Obama through Valerie Jarrett or his staff who tamped down the information that would make their boss look bad. If the intel showed massive gains by ISIS, Obama would have to act and he does not want to act. To act would mean he would have to make a decision and take action and the former "Senator Present" hates to make decisions that protect America.
This is not shocking nor is it surprising but it sure will be interesting to see just how this shakes out. Obama threw the military under the bus and other low level staffers but if there's any proof of it being someone higher up, the public will be out for a senior scalp. Unfortunately it will not be Obama since the bucks stops anywhere but on his desk.