Is the US intelligence apparatus deliberately playing us false?

 

From Larry Lambert over at Virtual Mirage:

(h/t Sam Fadis) Steve Witkoff called out CIA for providing him and Jared Kushner with completely faulty intelligence regarding Hamas and the negotiations to end the fighting in Gaza. And he did it on air on 60 Minutes.

The President himself is directly involved. Witkoff and Kushner are the President’s personal envoys. For CIA to get the intel picture completely wrong is a monumental failure and leads immediately to the next, and most important question: Why? Why was CIA so wide of the mark with its analysis? Two possibilities present themselves immediately. Either CIA’s intelligence was just that bad, or people in CIA and likely the broader Intelligence Community (IC) were deliberately feeding the President’s top men bad intel.

Today’s CIA quite frankly has little or no insight into the inner workings of groups like Hamas. That would require risk. That would require moxie. That would require leaving Northern Virginia and talking to foreigners. If you don’t want to risk it, you can take whatever intel the Israelis pass you on the subject and base your analysis on that. If the Israelis are telling the truth and have solid sources, you may be OK temporarily. If the Israelis, the guys who did not see a Hamas offensive building on the other side of a wall a couple of years ago, have bad intel, then we do too. Most alarming of all, of course, if the Israelis decide to lie to us for political reasons, we will not know it. We will be led around by the nose and steered in the wrong direction.

The Intelligence Community (in all its manifestations) has only one job. One. Provide truth to power. Clandestine activity (Covert Action) must stem from that, as does everything else. If you can’t provide the truth to power, you’re part of the problem, not part of the solution.

People within the IC are deliberately feeding the President and his key people bad intelligence. And, just as bad, they are refusing to pass on certain information to the policy makers in this administration. There remain people within the IC who oppose this President and his appointees and are using intelligence as a weapon to frustrate President Trump’s political objectives. They want him to fail. They don’t care about the consequences for American national security. They want to inflict political damage because they are laser-focused on putting a Democrat in the White House in 2028 who will guarantee the continued existence of the Deep State and prevent the American people from regaining control over the vast federal bureaucracy.

Since Trump sat down in the White House for the second time, there has been no real reorganization. No meaningful change of any kind has actually occurred. Director Ratcliffe sits atop an organization that remains structured essentially as John Brennan wanted and run by people who made rank and climbed the ladder under either Brennan or his surrogate, Gina Haspel. All of the people who thought it was appropriate to designate “crying spaces” where employees could retreat to compose themselves when Trump won in 2016 are still there. All the folks who looked the other way when the attack on the CIA base in Benghazi was blamed on a peaceful demonstration that got out of hand are still there. All the individuals who sat and watched while a slow-motion coup against Donald Trump went on year after year are still there, just in much more senior positions now.

I can only hope that President Trump and his leadership team are fully aware of all this (which I assume they are), and are doing something about it (of which I'm not so sure).  One can't bring in complete outsiders to assume all intelligence agency leading positions without discarding literally generations worth of experience and insight.  Outsiders simply can't have that depth of insight.  However, if the existing leadership isn't using or providing that depth of insight, can we afford to keep them in place?

One has questions . . .

Peter