Thursday, September 13, 2012

When Going It Alone May Not Be the Best Idea...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty
-vs- Tyranny


Following is an interesting article. From the Washington Post opinion pages Marc A. Thiessen points out President Obama is not a regular attendee of his daily intelligence meetings. Hm...

How long had it been since President Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting in the lead-up to the Sept. 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Egypt and Libya? After all, our adversaries are known to use the anniversary of 9/11 to target the United States.

According to the public schedule of the president, the last time the Obama attended his daily intelligence meeting was Sept. 5 — a week before Islamist radicals stormed our embassy in Cairo and terrorists killed our ambassador to Tripoli. The president was scheduled to hold the intelligence meeting at 10:50 a.m. Wednesday, the day after the attacks, but it was canceled so that he could comfort grieving employees at the State Department — as well he should. But instead of rescheduling the intelligence briefing for later in the day, Obama apparently chose to skip it altogether and attend a Las Vegas fundraiser for his re-election campaign. One day after a terrorist attack.

When I asked National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor if the president had attended any meetings to discuss the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) since Sept. 5, he repeatedly refused to answer. He noted that Obama had attended a principals meeting of the National Security Council on Sept. 10 and reiterated that he reads the PDB. “As I’ve told you every time you ask, the President gets his PDB every day,” Vietor told me by e-mail, adding this swipe at Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush: “Unlike your former boss, he has it delivered to his residence in the morning and not briefed to him.” (This new line of defense was echoed this morning by my Post colleague, Dana Milbank, who writes that Bush was briefed every day by his intelligence advisers because he “decided he would prefer to read less.”)

Vietor’s reply is quite revealing. It is apparently a point of pride in the White House that Obama’s PDB is “not briefed to him.” In the eyes of this administration, it is a virtue that the president does not meet every day with senior intelligence officials. This president, you see, does not need briefers. He can forgo his daily intelligence meeting because he is, in Vietor’s words, “among the most sophisticated consumers of intelligence on the planet.”

Truly sophisticated consumers of intelligence don’t see it as a sign of weakness to “be briefed” by the experts. Most of us, if we subscribed to a daily report on, say, astrophysics, would probably need some help interpreting it. But when it comes to intelligence, Obama is apparently so brilliant he can absorb the most complicated topics by himself in his study. He does not need to sit down for up to an hour a day with top intelligence officials, or hold more than 100 “deep dives” in which he invites CIA analysts into the Oval Office and gives them direct access to the commander in chief to discuss their areas of expertise. Such meetings are crutches this president does not need.{Read More}

It is not accurate to say the terrorist events of September 11th in Benghazi that took the American Ambassador's life, along with three others, or the violence in Egypt or Yemen would have been avoided had the President chose to attend his scheduled meetings. But it is a reasonable concern that he doesn't. Some meetings are considered so important that the CEO attend them all for the purpose of discussion and clarification. The meetings to discuss the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB)would seem, at least to this writer to be one of those meetings.

Via: Memeorandum

16 comments:

  1. The Obamessiah is all seeing and all knowing!

    He don't need to stinking intel briefings!

    ReplyDelete
  2. He doesn't need a meeting, to know what's going on. A petty complaint. Are you saying not going to a meeting is responsible for the attack on our embassy?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The administration said he does not need to attend the briefings because we are not at war anymore.

    "He doesn't need a meeting, to know what's going on"

    Perhaps if he took his job seriously and attending the meetings, he would have known that this attack was known about days before it happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Perhaps if he took his job seriously and attending the meetings, he would have known that this attack was known about days before it happened."

      And your evidence for that lie, is?

      The same delusional evidence that says there were WMD's in Iraq, even though Bush, the Army, and the whole Bush administration says there were no WMD's in Iraq.

      Thanks for playing, you flunk.

      Delete
    2. Rational Nations Closing Remarks... "It is not accurate to say the terrorist events of September 11th in Benghazi that took the American Ambassador's life, along with three others, or the violence in Egypt or Yemen would have been avoided had the President chose to attend his scheduled meetings. But it is a reasonable concern that he doesn't. Some meetings are considered so important that the CEO attend them all for the purpose of discussion and clarification. The meetings to discuss the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB)would seem, at least to this writer to be one of those meetings."

      Wasn't sure exactly to whom you were referring, the author of the subject article or Rational Nation. Making y position clear, just in case you were confused.

      Delete
    3. Anon: I did not lie. You did. I made no lie to give a source for. Try again.

      "The same delusional evidence that says there were WMD's in Iraq"

      Many WMD were found after the invasion. You are speaking of matters you know nothing about.

      Delete
    4. Please cite your source evidence for what you said:

      "he would have known that this attack was known about days before it happened."

      That is simply not true

      Delete
    5. I guess RN won't post it, but I'll ask again.
      Where is your proof that there was evidence of this attack prior to the attack?
      Where is your proof that there were WMD's found in Iraq after our invasion? Bush himself said there were not, and so did our military.

      Delete
    6. Here Anon is WHAT I SAID. COPIED AND PASTED HERE FOR YOUR READING....

      "It is not accurate to say the terrorist events of September 11th in Benghazi that took the American Ambassador's life, along with three others, or the violence in Egypt or Yemen would have been avoided had the President chose to attend his scheduled meetings. But it is a reasonable concern that he doesn't. Some meetings are considered so important that the CEO attend them all for the purpose of discussion and clarification. The meetings to discuss the Presidential Daily Brief (PDB)would seem, at least to this writer to be one of those meetings."

      Now, get some sleep.

      Delete
    7. Waiting for Dmarks to answer.

      Then why make a ridiculous point of it.

      Delete
    8. Didn't think Dmarks would answer. He can't. There are not facts to back up his false assertions.

      Delete
  4. If Obama didn't have to raise a zillion dollars to run against Romney, maybe he'd have more time for directly being President. And don't think any other president wouldn't be in the same jam. The administration is in a hot spot right now. If they handle it better, over the next month or so, Obama will probably win reelection.

    You conservatives created this mess, and it's time you come up with a way of addressing it - like an Amendment to the Constitution..

    An amendment that addresses all national, and interstate, and political, campaigning, as understood by the Stewart rule, by limiting contributions, advertising on the public space, and expanding the public space to those mediums that utilize the public largess, would go a long way.

    I wish you conservatives could support that.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  5. If Obama didn't have to raise a zillion dollars to run against Romney, maybe he'd have more time for directly being President. And don't think any other president wouldn't be in the same jam. The administration is in a hot spot right now. If they handle it better, over the next month or so, Obama will probably win reelection. If not? Well, that's not good no matter how you look at it.

    You conservatives created this mess, and it's time you come up with a way of addressing it - like an Amendment to the Constitution..

    An amendment that addresses all national, and interstate, and political, campaigning, as understood by the Stewart rule, by limiting contributions, advertising on the public space, and expanding the public space to those mediums that utilize the public largess, would go a long way.

    I wish you conservatives could support that.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jersey said: "If Obama didn't have to raise a zillion dollars to run against Romney"

      He doesn't have to do this at all. It is his own choice to do this. No one forced him to.

      Delete
    2. In fact, I don't recall Reagan, Carter, George H.W. or Clinton chucking their oath of office out the window in order to run for re-election. They were more dedicated, had better time management skills, etc. They were able to be President.

      ""directly being President" is what Obama was elected to do. It is what he swore to do in his Oath of Office. If, as you imply, he is incapable of doing this, perhaps he should end his re-election campaign (a good idea in general, as there is for many candidates in other officesa major problem where they neglect their duties in order to campaign).

      Or resign from the Presidency so he can devote his time to getting elected in November. Apparently he is so incompetent he can't do both.

      You painted a very unflattering picture of Obama there, Jersey.

      Delete
  6. "I wish you conservatives could support that."

    I would support limiting contributions, but am strongly opposed on our ruling elites limiting in any way the right of the people to criticize those in power. Your proposed "advertising on the public space" would do just this and rip the heart out of the First Amendment.

    ReplyDelete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.