My must read of the day is "Intel Officials Take Issue With Obama on ‘Underestimate’ of ISIS Threat," in NBC News:
During an interview with "60 Minutes," Obama said the nation’s top intelligence official, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, had "acknowledged that … they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria."
But intelligence officials from U.S. partner nations took issue with the president’s choice of words. "We have been talking about [ISIS] for quite some time," said one. "They were in the mix right from the start." […]
A former senior U.S. intelligence official who has been briefed on what the White House might have known about ISIS told NBC News there is a "paper trail" of warnings about ISIS, and policy makers "should have known" about the threat.
A current U.S. intelligence official said the CIA expressed concern over the ISIS threat during the past year, and "did provide warning of the intent to strike" prior to the ISIS offensive that captured Mosul in June.
Intelligence officials are rightly frustrated with the president’s comments, and everyone else should be as well.
It is official record that intelligence officials warned about the threat of ISIL and terrorist groups in Syria as early as November 2013, when the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, Brett McGurk, discussed ISIL at length in prepared testimony given before a House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee.
McGurk wasn’t the only one warning about the group. CIA Director James Clapper and even Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) also made public statements about the threat.
Clapper did say intelligence officials underestimated the threat and overestimated the capability of Iraqi forces, but that does not mean the administration is blameless. One person did not fail here. There were failings on numerous fronts, but the president was irrefutably warned about the terrorist groups in Syria, and the fact that he and his administration had knowledge of the threat means they also have the blame for failing to recognize the severity of it.
There’s an argument to be made that action is more important than words, and because Obama is taking steps to deal with ISIL, now the question of who misread the threat becomes less important, but this in an instance in which the words matter. If Obama wants the public to trust him and the actions he’s currently taking in Iraq and Syria, it starts with what he says at home. It is not too much to ask our top political leader to be honest when he messes up and to take responsibility where it is deserved—and it should have come directly from him, not a press secretary.