Can We Expect Intelligence from the Director of National Intelligence?
November 29, 2012 - 7:51 am
These are intelligence agencies and officers we’re talking about. They exist to investigate things. They exist to obtain information amid the most difficult circumstances in the most hostile places on earth. They also exist to sniff out and stop agents from within who are operating on our enemies’ behalf.
Supposing that the talking points weren’t changed to shore up the Obama campaign’s line that “al-Qaeda is on the run,” does not the changing of the talking points raise the possibility that we have an enemy agent working high up in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence? Is it not possible that this agent is so influential that their handiwork comes out of the mouth of no less than the president, his top diplomats, and his CIA chief?
In fact, isn’t the possibility that someone changed the talking points to help Obama’s re-election the most benign explanation available? Isn’t there a much darker and more dangerous possibility lurking behind the author of the changes?
Instead of looking at the possibility that we have a dangerous enemy mole lurking within the nation’s intelligence stovepipe, we’re told that the top intelligence office in the most powerful nation on earth cannot determine who changed a set of talking points in Washington, D.C., during a span of five days.
Is this a believable defense?
Shouldn’t we expect more capability than this from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence?