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 TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

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

Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel Saw 2 wild turkeys and one bald eagle today. Wild turkeys are prettier than domestic but how was that ever a debate?
15mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Sad, is a great human. https://t.co/dV6R27SZKF
19mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @ProFootballTalk: Did family football ties factor in to Bill Belichick's decision to draft Ted Karras? "No." (Still a chatty guy.) https…
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @IanPGunn Wade passed? RIP
1hreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @mellinger: After drafting a guy who beat up his pregnant girlfriend, the Chiefs asked for trust. Nope: https://t.co/BcQlpAoPeT
3hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Serious cred to @jaketapper for keeping the line where it should be as to the idiotic rump human wart asshole that is Ted Cruz.
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @armandodkos @BuzzFeedAndrew @NYTimesDowd Yeah, of course not. It never is when it comes to Clinton. It is always roses and champagne. #orBS
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @RMFifthCircuit Um, so the time I spent snow and water skiing is no good?
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @NYDailyNews: Ex-cop gets $108G disability pension while training aspiring cops https://t.co/JJZPak4kRe https://t.co/0CPVwkap62
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz By all means, because she is presumptive Dem nominee, we should blow off all concerns of warmongering as to Clinton https://t.co/XK9CPerotL
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @armandodkos @BuzzFeedAndrew @NYTimesDowd Duh. And, despite the normal Dowd stupid rhetoric, title is spot on about Clintonian warmongering.
5hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @BuzzFeedAndrew @armandodkos @NYTimesDowd Personally, will be glad to reach the point where Anti-Berners quit shitting on own side of party.
5hreplyretweetfavorite
September 2012
S M T W T F S
« Aug   Oct »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30