Showing posts with label President Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Bush. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

The President's schedule...

...is publicly available information. Based on this information what percentage of daily intelligence briefings does POTUS attend? What percentage should he attend? (Bolding in the article has been done by me for emphasis.)  Read the original here.

Why is Obama skipping more than half of his daily intelligence meetings?
Marc A. Thiessen, Opinion Writer
Washington Post
Published: September 10

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, a new conservative investigative research organization, 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.

I asked National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor about the findings, and whether there were any instances where the president attended the intelligence meeting that were not on his public schedule. Vietor did not dispute the numbers, but said the fact that the president, during a time of war, does not attend his daily intelligence meeting on a daily basis is “not particularly interesting or useful.” He says that the president reads his PDB every day, and he disagreed with the suggestion that there is any difference whatsoever between simply reading the briefing book and having an interactive discussion of its contents with top national security and intelligence officials where the president can probe assumptions and ask questions. “I actually don’t agree at all,” Vietor told me in an e-mail, “The president gets the information he needs from the intelligence community each day.”

Yet Vietor also directed me to a Post story written this year in which Obama officials discuss the importance of the intelligence meeting and extol how brilliantly the president runs it. “Obama reads the PDB ahead of time and comes to the morning meeting with questions. Intelligence briefers are there to answer those questions, expand on a point or raise a new issue,” The Post reported. “One regular participant in the roughly 500 Oval Office sessions during Obama’s presidency said the meetings show a president consistently participating in an exploration of foreign policy and intelligence issues.”

Not so consistently, it seems. Since Obama officials have actively promoted the way the president runs his daily intelligence meeting as evidence of his national security leadership (even releasing a photo of him receiving the briefing on an iPad), it is fair to ask why he skips the daily meeting so often.

According to former officials who have detailed knowledge of the PDB process, having the daily meeting — and not just reading the briefing book — is enormously important both for the president and those who prepare the brief. For the president, the meeting is an opportunity to ask questions of the briefers, probe assumptions and request additional information. For those preparing the brief, meeting with the president on a daily basis gives them vital, direct feedback from the commander in chief about what is on his mind, how they can be more responsive to his needs, and what information he may have to feed back into the intelligence process. This process cannot be replicated on paper.

While the Bush records are not yet available electronically for analysis, officials tell me the former president held his intelligence meeting six days a week, no exceptions — usually with the vice president, the White House chief of staff, the national security adviser, the director of National Intelligence, or their deputies, and CIA briefers in attendance. Once a week, he held an expanded Homeland Security briefing that included the Homeland Security adviser, the FBI director and other homeland security officials. Bush also did more than 100 hour-long “deep dives” in which he invited intelligence analysts into the Oval Office to get their unvarnished and sometimes differing views. Such meetings deepened the president’s understanding of the issues and helped analysts better understand the problems with which he was wrestling.

When Obama forgoes this daily intelligence meeting, he is consciously placing other priorities ahead of national security. As The Post story that the Obama White House sent me put it, “Process tells you something about an administration. How a president structures his regular morning meeting on intelligence and national security is one way to measure his personal approach to foreign policy.”

Indeed it is. So is how often he holds it. With President Obama, it seems, the regular morning meeting on intelligence is not so regular.

Marc A. Thiessen, a fellow with the American Enterprise Institute, writes a weekly online column for The Post.

Thursday, October 13, 2011

Waterboarding is to torture, as Assassination is to ?

I understand if you don't approve of waterboarding. However, it may just be me, but it seems a bit disingenuous to rail against George Bush for have lawyers approve enhanced interrogation, but no one seems to care that Barack Obama's lawyers have approved a secret government hit list that may contain more than 1 confirmed US citizen. I didn't say it's secret. Press Secretary Carney said it was. Read the original here.

Carney On Secret Kill List: "Not Going To Engage In A Conversation About That"

Bill Press, questioner: "Jay, the New York Times reported Sunday on a memo that the Justice Department gave the White House authorizing the assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Can you confirm the existence of the memo, and will it be released as Senator Feinstein requested?"

Jay Carney, White House press secretary: "Bill, as you know I'm not going to discuss matters of that nature. I can simply say as a general matter of fact that Mr. Awlaki was an operation leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). He was directly involved in plots to perform terror that would have resulted in terrorist acts against the United States, and, you know, it is, I think it is important to remember that when we assess the overall question.

Press: "Were there any other Americans or targets on that list?"

Carney: "Again I'm not going to, as others who are here when this happened, I'm just not going to engage in a conversation about that."

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Double Standards...

Read the original here.

On Fox & Friends, MRC's Bozell Exposes Media's Double Standard On War Coverage

Unlike President Bush in both Afghanistan and Libya, President Obama chose not to seek congressional approval for the mainly-U.S. bombing campaign against Libya's Moammar Qaddafi, but the big broadcast networks are barely noticing.

On Friday's Fox & Friends, Media Research Center President and NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell offered the evidence of the media's glaring double standard on this issue, pointing out that Obama himself had explicitly said that it would be "unconstitutional" for a President to go to war without such approval -- and yet the media are by and large failing to hold the President accountable to his own standard.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdaGkU6U8z

Here's some of that exchange as it took place at 8:15am EDT on the FNC morning program:

BRIAN KILMEADE: President Obama seems to be getting a free pass from most media outlets for his failure to get congressional approval on military action in Libya (because we can't call it war). But in the weeks and months leading up to the war in Iraq, President George W. Bush got anything but a free pass.

That did not slip by the founder and President of the Media Research Center Brent Bozell, as, Brent, you're here to weigh in. Are you amazed at the double standard here, Brent?

BRENT BOZELL: Not only the double standard, but the re-write of history, because the media try to project the idea that George Bush went at this alone. In fact, he went to the Congress, like his father had in the first war, and he had a coalition of 30 nations behind him -- he had a bigger coalition than Barack Obama has right now....

Look at what Barack Obama said on the campaign trail. He said it was flat-out "unconstitutional" for a President to go to war -- to have a "kinetic military action" -- without getting congressional approval. Joe Biden thundered, as only Joe Biden can thunder, that if George Bush ever did this without congressional approval, that he would lead the impeachment of George Bush.

And, guess what -- the Obama-Biden administration just did that, and only ABC asked one question. Everyone's dropped it.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2011/03/25/fox-friends-mrcs-bozell-exposes-medias-double-standard-war-coverage#ixzz1ICJlusge

Who conducts wars with broader Coalitions?

Read the original here.

Fact: Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya
Coalition Forces / Iraq vs. Libya

Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003

Afghanistan,
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan

[Source: US State Department]

Coalition - Libya - 2011

United States
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Qatar
Spain
Greece
Germany
Poland
Jordan
Morocco
United Arab Emirate

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Quote of the Day

"In Cuba, the long rule of a cruel dictator is nearing it's end. The Cuban people are ready for their freedom. And as that nation enters a period of transition, the United Nations must insist of free speech, free assembly, and ultimately, free and competitive elections."
-- President George W. Bush, speaking to the United Nations General Assembly