Disturbing Questions about the Intelligence Community
John Geen for American Thinker
In the run-up to the 2020 election, 51 “intelligence experts” signed a letter claiming that the Hunter Biden laptop bore all the hallmarks of a Russian disinformation operation. In recent months, we’ve learned that the letter was just a piece of campaign subterfuge, organized by Antony Blinken, to insulate candidate Biden from evidence on the laptop of corruption.
Since the 2020 election, we’ve learned that the FBI validated the laptop as authentic, and its contents have not been tampered with. The evidence on the laptop was even of such fidelity that it was used by the DoJ to prosecute Hunter Biden for tax evasion. The 51 knew that the letter — not the laptop — was complete disinformation, yet went along with Blinken’s plan to provide plausible deniability to candidate Biden until after the election.
We are justifiably outraged that the 51 used their credentials to dishonestly influence an election. We should also consider the implications of having people of such limited integrity serving in the Intelligence Community (I.C.).
Graeme Wood, writing for The Atlantic, points out that the 51 included professionals who had built careers in the I.C. by objectively assessing data and providing rigorous analysis. Yet they skipped the discipline of their profession when they flagged the Hunter Biden laptop as Russian disinformation. Wood writes,
Why these titans of intelligence were willing to risk their hard-won credibility on the possibility that Hunter Biden might not be a slimeball is deeply mysterious.
Yes, it is, but that is a statement based on a false assumption — that the signatories were people of honor. The 51 “titans of intelligence” didn’t risk their credibility; they revealed that they had none.
The most important question now isn’t “why” (as Wood seems to ask); it is “what.” We know they did it to influence an election and were willing to jeopardize national security to do it (that’s the “why”). The more important question is, what other damages have such ethically challenged people done to America?
Some professions require honesty (adherence to facts) and integrity (adherence to principles). When a professional is discovered to have ethical deficits, it is reasonable to question whether he was ever trustworthy.
If a police detective is caught tampering with evidence, it doesn’t merely undermine his current case. It calls into question every case he has ever investigated. Were there statements made under oath that were false? Was the evidence presented collected, preserved, and accounted for as claimed? Is there any proof other than the word of a demonstrated liar?
The 51 all served in professions requiring honesty and integrity, at the highest levels of the I.C. — some as directors of the CIA, NSA, and Office of National Security. How much of the analysis and advice provided by their departments was honest intelligence, and how much was political prevarication? Given their signatures on the letter, why should we presume the former rather than the latter? If it’s the latter, how much damage was done to America during their decades of building their organizations and advising executive decision-makers?
Consider the recent conduct of the I.C.
- They failed to recognize the growing danger of al-Qaeda — until too late.
- They assured President Bush that Iraq had WMDs.
- They didn’t anticipate the fall of Libya or the rise of ISIS.
- They were wildly over-optimistic with their nuclear assessments of Iran and North Korea.
- They were convinced that the Taliban would be a trustworthy partner during our retreat from Afghanistan.
- They haven’t said a word about the national security implications of an open border.
Have members of the I.C. just been bad at their jobs, or was something else going on? How many flawed executive decisions have been made based on political manipulation presented as rigorous intelligence analysis?
Given that the people who populate our I.C. agencies were hired, trained, and guided by the 51 liars, can they be trusted to provide sound advice as
- China threatens Taiwan,
- Russia intimidates its neighbors,
- Iran expands its terror networks,
- Venezuela devolves into chaos,
- Mexico is commandeered by narco-terrorists, and
- Cuba sits 80 miles off our coast praying for our demise?
President Trump must surely be questioning the credibility of the advice he receives from his intelligence services. I can just imagine the questions running through his head during his daily briefing. What have they missed, what are they hiding, and what are they lying about?
The 51 didn’t just expose their own lack of credibility. They cast suspicion over the entire Intelligence Community.
John Green is a retired engineer and political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He is a contributor to The American Spectator and the American Free News Network. He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
Frankly, it has become an oxymoron to call them “intelligence”.