When it comes to intelligence briefings, Obama isn’t even voting ‘present’
Marc Thiessen asks a good question in the Washington Post today: Why is President Obama skipping more than half of his daily intelligence meetings?
Writes Thiessen:
Clint Eastwood re-enacts a scene from the president's daily intelligence briefings. (AP Photo)
President Obama is touting his foreign policy experience on the campaign trail, but startling new statistics suggest that national security has not necessarily been the personal priority the president makes it out to be. It turns out that more than half the time, the commander in chief does not attend his daily intelligence meeting.
The Government Accountability Institute examined President Obama’s schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) — the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.
Thiessen relays a comment by a spokesman for the National Security Council, who points out that Obama still receives the information from the briefing daily. But, as Thiessen points out, the administration has portrayed Obama’s participation in these meetings as evidence of his deep “exploration of foreign policy and intelligence issues.” That’s rather at odds with the reality that he skipped almost 700 of these meetings in three and a half years.
And, of course, we would like for our president to get into just such an exploration of these issues with his resident experts on foreign policy and intelligence. Thiessen cites former security officials who say the meetings are an important way for Obama and his security advisers to ask questions of one another. When the president isn’t there, that isn’t happening.
This is certainly of a piece with the reporting from Bob Woodward’s latest book that “gaps” in presidential leadership mean, at times, “no one is running Washington.”
Of course, attending these meetings would make it harder for the president to fulfill one of his other priorities in, ahem, unprecedented fashion.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
394 comments Add your comment
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
September 11th, 2012
8:33 am
Shortly thereafter Obama and Biden shamelessly travel to Ft. Campbell to congratulate member’s of SEAL Team Six and make their visit known to the public for political grandstanding thus endangering the lives of these men and their families.
What a great American this Del person is. You should be ashamed.
Del
September 11th, 2012
8:38 am
Pennypacker, I don’t listen to Limbaugh nor do I have time to watch Hannity, however, it may be that you spend much of your time on the left wing Web sites and blogs. That may explain why you don’t seem to be very much aware of the events associated with the OBL operation both pre and post. I’d attempt to educated you but I don’t have time for that either and I suspect such an attempt would be futile anyway.
Del
September 11th, 2012
8:45 am
“What a great American this Del person is. You should be ashamed”
Yes I am a proud American and I’m proud of my own military service to this country and yes, I am ashamed of an administration that compromises, complicates and therefore endangers those who’re put into harms way.
H.E. Pennypacker
September 11th, 2012
8:58 am
Poor Del, can’t cite one single source to support his case, but tries to distract with the age old, “I’m not, but you are”.
I am currently holding Vol. CLXI….No. 55,891 of The Grey Lady, the best resource around for foreign news and a paper to which I subscribe. For stories like this they actually have a foreign bureau in Pakistan and a reporter at the Pentagon. I know many far right conservatives like to dismiss any news from the Times as liberal, but that would be as mistaken as ignoring the financial news of the Wall Street Journal just because I disagree with its editorial page and its owner.
Come on, just give me a link to something…..even if it is Breitbart, The Daily Caller, or The Blaze, it will be based upon some hard hitting research I’m sure.
Lil' Barry Bailout - Vote American
September 11th, 2012
9:03 am
The smartest thing Obozo has done is continue each and every one of Our President Bush’s anti-terror programs, including keeping Gitmo open for business.
fair and balanced
September 11th, 2012
9:05 am
“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”.In June 2001, German intelligence warned the US, Britain, and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft Within the American intelligence community, “the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified” but “there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented.” This warning came from Echelon, a spy satellite network that is partly based in Germany. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01]
.In late July 2001, Egyptian intelligence received a report from an undercover agent in Afghanistan that “20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas.” To the Egyptians, pilots of small planes didn’t sound terribly alarming, but they passed on the message to the CIA anyway, fully expecting Washington to request information. “The request never came.” [CBS, 10/9/02]
.In late summer 2001, Jordan intelligence intercepted a message stating that a major attack was being planned inside the US and that aircraft would be used. The code name of the operation was Big Wedding, which did in fact turn out to be the codename of the 9/11 plot. The message was passed to US intelligence through several channels. [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02]
. Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly stated that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the US in the summer of 2001 that suicide pilots were training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02] “”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”
And where was George Bush? On the ranch vacationing after six months on the job .
gm
September 11th, 2012
9:07 am
What a bunch of Ani Americans, hypocrites on the right, when 911 happen under Bush watch these fake Americans were running around with the flag in their hand and soon as Obama gave the order to kill bin laidn who killed other Americans these scum bag such as hannity and limbaugh refuse to give Obama credit.
It makes you think should Obama have allowed more terrorist to wipe out some of these shameful scum on the right ? who refuse to rally around this President because he is black, our inside terrorist on the right have done more harm then any terrorist ever across the water, untill you have loss a love one in that tower, the scum bags on the right need to shut up””””
Lil' Barry Bailout - Vote American
September 11th, 2012
9:09 am
Obozo spent 412 hours in economic meetings, 600 hours on the golf course.
Obozo: Lazy.
Darwin
September 11th, 2012
9:20 am
Bush caused 9/11. Obama ended it. Enuf said.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
September 11th, 2012
9:22 am
Standing up to Rahm:
Since Rahm Emanuel’s election in the spring of 2011, Chicago’s teachers have been asked to eat shi$ by a mayor obsessed with displaying to the universe his “toughness” — toughness with the working-class people that make the city tick; toughness with the protesters standing up to say “no”; but never, ever toughness with the vested interests, including anti-union charter school advocates
salon.com
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
September 11th, 2012
9:24 am
I think the embarrassment of the 8 W years is what is driving the vitriol of the right.They can’t blame those on the left for his horrible performance and well, we sure know they aren’t going to blame themselves.
MarkV
September 11th, 2012
9:25 am
Del @ 8:06 am
Secretary (Robert) Gates: “this is one of the most courageous calls — decisions — that I think I’ve ever seen a president make.”
The raid commander) Admiral (William) McRaven: “At the end of the day, make no mistake about it, it was the president of the United States that shouldered the burden for this operation, that made the hard decisions, that was instrumental in the planning process, because I pitched every plan to him.”
InAtl
September 11th, 2012
9:25 am
Hennypacker says: “I am currently holding Vol. CLXI….No. 55,891 of The Grey Lady, the best resource around for foreign news and a paper to which I subscribe. For stories like this they actually have a foreign bureau in Pakistan and a reporter at the Pentagon. I know many far right conservatives like to dismiss any news from the Times as liberal…”
Far right? Not exactly. Their public editor says they’re liberal. In fact, he recently said that their progressivism bleeds through the very fabric of the paper. But it’s red meat for folks like you, H.E., so keep eating it up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/success-and-risk-as-the-times-transforms.html?_r=4&smid=tw-share
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
September 11th, 2012
9:35 am
We were attacked on 9/11 by a Saudi-dominated group –> most of the hijackers and OBL were Saudi.
W goes and attacks Afghanistan and Iraq…..
WTF?
Obama wasn’t going to hold hands with the Saudi Prince and make promises of everlasting love like W did.
Blue
September 11th, 2012
9:41 am
JamVet; and the intelligence gleaned from terrorists that identified the messenger that led them to Bin Ladin? It came from waterboarding…something Obama said he would not stoop to.
H.E. Pennypacker
September 11th, 2012
9:43 am
InAtl, I never said the Times did not have a progressive slant, just like I said the WSJ has a conservative slant. My point was to simply dismiss everything that comes from either source is close minded and foolhardy.
At the end of the day, facts are facts and my point was that Del has evidenced zero facts and although he might be diligently conducting his own research to support his outrageous claims, I doubt that very much.
Corey
September 11th, 2012
9:45 am
Mr. Wingfield, please don’t tell us that you are not aware that the oval office travels wherever the POTUS travels and at the POTUS’s beckoning call wherever he travels is a plethora of advisers and policy experts. Unless you are that fly on the wall on Air Force One, the black bus, the presidential limo etc. you do not know what you are writing about.
H.E. Pennypacker
September 11th, 2012
9:47 am
Blue, I would love to read your source for the waterboarding claim.
fair and balanced
September 11th, 2012
9:48 am
“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"•In late 2000, British investigators teamed up with their counterparts in the Cayman Islands and began a yearlong probe of three Afghan men who had entered the Cayman Islands illegally. [Miami Herald, 9/20/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01] In June 2001, the Afghan men were overheard discussing hijacking attacks in New York City, and were promptly taken into custody. This information was forwarded to US intelligence [Fox News, 5/17/02].
In late August 2001, shortly before the attacks, an anonymous letter to a Cayman radio station alleged these same men were al-Qaeda agents “organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines.” [Miami Herald, 9/20/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, MSNBC, 9/23/01]
In late July 2001, Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil learned that Osama bin Laden was planning a “huge attack” on targets inside America. The attack was imminent, and would kill thousands.. Muttawakil sent an emissary to pass this information on to the US Consul General, and another US official, “possibly from the intelligence services.” Sources confirmed that this message was received, but supposedly not taken very seriously, because of “warning fatigue” arising from too many terror warnings. [Independent, 9/7/02, Reuters, 9/7/02]
“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”
This is called leading from behind. NEVER AGAIN
Lil' Barry Bailout - Vote American
September 11th, 2012
9:56 am
Obozo bowed to the Saudi king.
Loser.
fair and balanced
September 11th, 2012
10:04 am
“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"The report discloses that the Federal Aviation Administration, despite being focused on risks of hijackings overseas, warned airports in the spring of 2001 that if “the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable.”
The report takes the F.A.A. to task for failing to pursue domestic security measures that could conceivably have altered the events of Sept. 11, 2001, like toughening airport screening procedures for weapons or expanding the use of on-flight air marshals. The report, completed last August, said officials appeared more concerned with reducing airline congestion, lessening delays, and easing airlines’ financial woes than deterring a terrorist attack.
The Bush administration has blocked the public release of the full, classified version of the report for more than five months, officials said, much to the frustration of former commission members who say it provides a critical understanding of the failures of the civil aviation system. The administration provided both the classified report and a declassified, 120-page version to the National Archives two weeks ago and, even with heavy redactions in some areas, the declassified version provides the firmest evidence to date about the warnings that aviation officials received concerning the threat of an attack on airliners and the failure to take steps to deter it.
Among other things, the report says that leaders of the F.A.A. received 52 intelligence reports from their security branch that mentioned Mr. bin Laden or Al Qaeda from April to Sept. 10, 2001. That represented half of all the intelligence summaries in that time. “”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/politics/10terror.html
SBinF
September 11th, 2012
10:05 am
“George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.”
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I mean, really? The guy who was in charge on the day of the worst mass killing in U.S. history?
Kyle, I don’t know if it’s possible for you to have any less credibility, but you might have topped yourself with this one.
Del
September 11th, 2012
10:07 am
” outrageous claims”
Pennypacker, I don’t read the NYT and you say that you rely on its news reports. Since I don’t read the Times I could be wrong with this assumption but I’m almost certain that the NYT reported how the identity of SEAL Times Six came into existence and news reports about Obama’s visit to Ft. Campbell to meet with the SEAL Team that carried out the OBL operation. Now I’m certain you wouldn’t have read any of this in the NYT but I read reports that convincing Obama to green light the operation was a tough sell and it was mostly Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton who finally convinced him to move forward. Joe Biden and Vallarie Jarrett were trying to convince him otherwise. What do you think Panetta and Clinton said that got Obama to move? Not hard to connect the dots. As for revealing the identity of SEAL Team Six and announcing publicly details of meeting with the team members and making a movie that was to be released just before the election but now postponed until December is an “outrageous claim”; I find accusing me of being outrageous is outrageous. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid maybe it helps you to not have to draw your own conclusions.
spiker
September 11th, 2012
10:11 am
George Bush may have almost never missed a briefing but what good did it do? The Cheney national security record is the worst in modern history.
Suggest you visit
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=2&hp
to put this into perspective.
You’ve admitted that the President still gets the information from his briefings… it’s clear that his predecessor didn’t “get” much of anything.
GApolicyanalyst
September 11th, 2012
10:11 am
The point of this article is based on an unproved premise – the President’s physical attendance at the daily national security briefing makes us safer. But is that true? So Bush attended all the time – 9/11 happened and Obama doesn’t attend all the time and Bin Laden is dead. The premise has emotional appeal, but is not proved. I consider it bad journalism, when a journalist appeals to a readers emotions to create a sensation, rather than giving them facts to make a reasoned judgment.
Del
September 11th, 2012
10:16 am
Amazing well not really how the left wingers will go read something on media matter, the daily kos or Huffington Post and accept it as absolute fact. They haven’t learned that there’s slant in every report regardless of the source and you have to digest information from many sources and then formulate your own conclusions. They’re inability or lack of will explains how they become such tools for the far-left.
getalife
September 11th, 2012
10:17 am
We united after 9/11 but failed to unite after the collapse and getting obl.
History recorded these facts.
Divided we failed.
ragnar danneskjold
September 11th, 2012
10:18 am
I don’t think I can top the clever line by “I Report (You Whine)” at the opening of the blog comments.
I think I can take exception to the intelligent essay by our host and the underlying argument by Mr. Thiessen. Broad dissemination of intelligence is a great thing, and suggests that even Obama has learned from the errors of the Jaime Gorelick “wall of separation” of the Clinton days. However, by encouraging Obama to be “hands on” with every issue – a position he admittedly has claimed he holds, even down to the execution of bin Laden – we would urge recreation of the worst instincts of the Carter administration (he famous for keeping the tennis court schedules.)
I am somewhat relieved that Obama is not involved in every security briefing, and if I thought he was delegating real authority to someone competent to analyze, I would be greatly relieved.
Oblama
September 11th, 2012
10:28 am
Obama’s extreme plan to gut the military shows his priorities are more about “gay” marriage than the defense of this country. Obama has no interest in any thing but social engineering.
Oblama
September 11th, 2012
10:31 am
As Jay pointed out a while back, Obama is the most divisive President we have ever had. Obama is the “Great Divider”.
Oblama
September 11th, 2012
10:32 am
Why should Obama attend an “intelligence” meeting concerning the military when he has no interest in the military and wouldn’t have a clue what they are talking about.
H.E. Pennypacker
September 11th, 2012
10:34 am
Del,
I don’t think you understand the definition of “source”. By simply retyping your beliefs without citation you have not advanced your cause, you are simply rambling.
I would enjoy hearing how you could logically explain how the President went from not wanting to conduct the raid to finally choosing the highest risk option, which was to send a Seal team in….but then again logic and facts do not appear to be your strong suit.
Rewatch this and get back to me:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57435322/robert-gates-concern-about-osama-bin-laden-raid-was-he-there/
Oblama
September 11th, 2012
10:35 am
Why should Obama vote “present” – he isn’t present. To busy with his socialist engineering to be bothered by the defense of the USA.
H.E. Pennypacker
September 11th, 2012
10:36 am
Hey Oblama, given that the President has overseen yearly increases to our military budget, when does the nefarious plan to “gut” the military kick in? I think I now know Del’s source, its Oblama.
David R. Boag, DDS
September 11th, 2012
10:46 am
SBinF @ 10:05
If you are going to blame Bush rather than his predecessor for the events that led up to 9/11, will you then also blame Mr. Obama for the present economic condition of this country?
You can’t have it both ways. At least have the intelligence to take a position on when we hold out leaders accountable for current events and defend it. To want it one way when it is convenient for your purposes and then the other way when it does not makes you look somewhat ridiculous.
wow
September 11th, 2012
10:47 am
whoa
wow
September 11th, 2012
10:48 am
i’m sure OSAMA will be glad to hear that the president is weak on defense
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
September 11th, 2012
10:49 am
This is what happens when the Republicans start getting desperate.
Now they are talking about Obama taking God off US Coins etc etc.
Its nonsense but they know it will fire people up and win votes.
If you think this stuff is silly. What and see what they come up with next.
The black helicopters are circling boys.
wow
September 11th, 2012
10:50 am
KYLE wrote this article because 9/11 is DUBYAS legacy. The repubs can’t stand that OBAMA got OSAMA. this article is an example of their anger and hatred toward Obama by right wingers
I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please
September 11th, 2012
10:50 am
Osama is dead.
GM is alive
Enough said.
wow
September 11th, 2012
10:52 am
Thank god we have a competent president who can defend this country. Remember DUBYA and the gang that couldnt shoot straight?
SBinF
September 11th, 2012
10:57 am
“If you are going to blame Bush rather than his predecessor for the events that led up to 9/11, will you then also blame Mr. Obama for the present economic condition of this country?”
Apples to oranges. 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. The economy was bleeding jobs before Bush left office.
Haha, are you really trying to make that argument? That Clinton is Responsible for something that happened after he left office and Obama is responsible for something that happened before he took office?
I mean…really??
wow
September 11th, 2012
10:57 am
9/11 is BUSHS legacy . This day reminds everybody of BUSH’S INEPT incompetence and hightlights OBAMAS foreign policy strenghths…REPUBS HATE BRINGING UP 9/11 …but can u blame them..
wow
September 11th, 2012
10:58 am
most repubs and rightwing columnists wanted the mission to get OBAMA to fail. sad and pathetic but true.
David R. Boag, DDS
September 11th, 2012
11:01 am
SBinF are you suggesting that the moves being made by Al Quaida were not being made before 2000 und Clinton’s watch?
As you said, apples to apples.
wow
September 11th, 2012
11:01 am
THE WORLDS BIGGEST LIE;
REPUBS are better at defending this country…yeah right that myth has been blown out the water hasnt it.
Mr. Dithers
September 11th, 2012
11:01 am
Oblama
September 11th, 2012
10:35 am
Why should Obama vote “present” – he isn’t present. To busy with his socialist engineering to be bothered by the defense of the USA.
Yes, that’s right, that’s why the US has been attacked over and over again by terrorists in the last three and half years, because President Obama can’t be bothered with the defense of the country. A truly insightful critique of the Obama presidency by another on the right who “won’t be dictated to by fact checkers”. Good job, guys. Keep ignoring the facts. It really boosts your credibility.
wow
September 11th, 2012
11:04 am
today must be a sad day for petty petulant rightwingers. They wont give credit to OBAMA for getting OSAMA and they blame 9/11 on CLINTON…what a sad pathetic worlds of denial they live in. Must the magic mushrooms.
wow
September 11th, 2012
11:05 am
Kyle has about as much credibility as ANDREW BREITBART….
David R. Boag, DDS
September 11th, 2012
11:05 am
wow,
As much as most conservatives dislike the policies of our current president, if there was a mission to “get Obama,” a VAST majority of conservatives do not support such a mission. I would hope that you would join us in supporting the failure of that mission.