Why would we trust U.S. intelligence about anything, including the lack of an ISIS threat?

http://www.nationaljournal.com ^ | 09/15/2014 | Ron Fournier

[SeekAndFind]

What is the enduring lesson of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, when the Bush administration overestimated and, in some cases, exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein? Some say it's to be skeptical of government officials who are making the case for war.

I say the legacy should be skepticism toward government officials, period—all of them. Their hidden agendas can shade the case for peace as well as war, which might explain why there's no consensus among so-called experts about the threat posed today by ISIS.

On a scale of zero to panic, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, set the dial on apocalypse when he described the Islamic State as having "end-of-days vision." Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel called ISIS "an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it's in Iraq or anywhere else."

Less alarming were the likes of Rear Adm. John Kirby, who said ISIS did not have "the capability right now to conduct a major attack on the U.S. homeland." National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olson said that "we have no credible information that [ISIS] is planning to attack the United States."

President Obama initially dismissed the Islamic State as a "JV team" that could be "managed," and more recently called ISIS a threat to the United States that must be eradicated.

What should be made of the contradictions? Some people understandably assume that the U.S. government, aided by a compliant media, is overselling the threat. Appearing on CNN's Reliable Source, The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel said there is a "trivialization—a tabloidization of news coverage that has infected and affected" the way global news is presented.

According to this school of thought, evidence of a successful propaganda campaign lies in polls showing that 90 percent of Americans consider ISIS a serious threat.

[Starstruck]

I would say our intelligence is really bad if we believe Obama when he says he is getting his information from the press because we know how inept they are.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

our intelligence is really bad if we believe Obama when he says he is getting his information from the press

That's because he doesn't attend briefings and pretends to "read" the reports.

[Starstruck]

That's because he doesn't attend briefings and pretends to "read" the reports.

It's difficult for him to read anything that doesn't have a lot of "I's" and "me's" in it.

[marron]

OK. But please do understand that when I say that the Turks and Saudis backed them, in that mix is our State Department I believe. See Benghazi. So, the only panic on the part of our government is at the bad PR. Otherwise, ISIS is doing what its supposed to do which is drive a wedge between Iran and Syria, and ultimately to close Iran’s window on the Mediterranean.

If it weren’t for the highly public head-chopping, no one would say boo. Well, a bit of public hand wringing, but that would be the end of it. Just my view.

[Lorianne]

I agree. I just don’t see why we should get involved ... until the people of the region show some backbone first.

And even then we should not do it for free.

[Theoria]

If ISIS Islamist were such a threat, neighboring countries and regions would be panicking and they would be joining together to meet the threat with equal force we would have secured our borders years ago. We would have opened up all of our natural resources for development, supported additional refinery capacity and formed alliances against said threat.