Mark Thiessen: More Important to HEAR–Not Read–Daily Brief Than Actually Respond to It

Yesterday, Mark Thieseen made a what amounts to a complaint that, half the time, President Obama reads his daily brief rather than receives it from a briefer directly. Here’s Obama’s response.

I figured, as Thiessen’s bleatings often are, it was meant to distract from the incompetence of his Bush people, but it was not yet clear what he was distracting from.

Now it is.

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified [the August 6, 2001 PDB that warned "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"]  — and only that daily brief  in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.

The direct warnings to Mr. Bush about the possibility of a Qaeda attack began in the spring of 2001. By May 1, the Central Intelligence Agency told the White House of a report that “a group presently in the United States” was planning a terrorist operation. Weeks later, on June 22, the daily brief reported that Qaeda strikes could be “imminent,” although intelligence suggested the time frame was flexible.

But some in the administration considered the warning to be just bluster.

All that’s not to mean Obama’s not missing similarly grave threats: threats to the financial system and to the climate.

But this op-ed–and presumably the Kurt Eichenwald book it is based on–seems to confirm that the Bush Administration very arrogantly refused to listen to the warnings they were getting in their President’s (and Vice President’s) Daily Briefings.

And because they failed to heed that warning, they responded with all-out, Constitution eroding war, and not with the policing that might have prevented 9/11 in the first place.

Tweet about this on Twitter4Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook4Google+0Email to someone

10 Responses to Mark Thiessen: More Important to HEAR–Not Read–Daily Brief Than Actually Respond to It

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz RT @kevinjonheller: By “constructive engagement,” the oft-embarrassing @AmbassadorPower means “give #Israel everything it wants.” http://t.…
5mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel But trust me--the belly button redefinition of relevance is not a rubber stamp court.
6mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Then Claire Eagan cited 2010 Bates PRTT that cited 2006 no opinion relying on 2004 K-K thin air opinion. Voila! Foundational law.
7mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Still laughing that FISC's idea of precedents is: 2004 PRTT expands relevance out of thin air 2006 BRFISA, no opinion 2010 Bates cites 2006
8mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @TimothyS Which is a 5 year improvement off current performance!!! http://t.co/lBIKKBAb1V So count your blessings, you ingrate!
12mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @TimothyS: TRANSPARENCY 101 The NSA just told me they need at least 4 more years to tell me when they will complete a FOIA request filed…
13mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @HayesBrown That was very first statement, wasn't it? Very interesting. Thanks. Considering poss video was made earlier, only released now
24mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @MikeScarcella: DC Circuit today sets NSA surveillance oral argument for Nov. 4. Members of three-judge panel not yet announced http://t…
35mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @HayesBrown: I didn't see the vid. Which speech of Obama's did they show? 9th? 14th? 18th?
36mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel We okra appreciators will surely take over the world soon RT @nlanc: @EatYourBooks So good that I'm off to farmers' market for more okra!
44mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @brycecovert: No American is guaranteed paid time off, but even those who get it are too stressed to take it http://t.co/lqhTi3bfoD
48mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @mrosenbergNYT: NYT has not received expulsion order. Unclear if AG has right to issue order. We remain eager to cooperate w/in bounds o…
52mreplyretweetfavorite
September 2012
S M T W T F S
« Aug   Oct »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30