Remember how pissed off you were when we found out Bush ignored that August 6, 2001 PDB?

[NNN0LHI]

The now-famous President's Daily Brief entitled, "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US", that Bush decided to stay on vacation and ignore.

Remember how you felt when you found out Bush ignored that?

President Obama receives a PDB every single day too. We never see them except when when something spectacular occurs, like on 9/11.

When Obama receives a PDB he can ignore it too. Just like Bush did. Or, he can act on it, using the best information available to him. But in the end it is his call.

See what you are up against? There is no black and white here. This is all shades of gray way too complicated for most of us to comprehend. Obviously Bush proved he was out of his league when he failed to do the most important job there is as president. He couldn't protect out country. Bush was too lazy or too stupid or both, to even do that.

We have to trust someone to make these kinds of decisions. And you know something? I trust President Obama completely on this kind of thing. Not saying he is perfect. But I am saying I would rather have him making these kinds of decisions more than anyone else I can think of.

Don

[treestar]

1. I agree. That's why we voted for the smartest person

there, with a smart running mate. We can't micromanage this stuff as voters.

And it's a big difference between the R and D. The Rs would definitely misuse this authority.

[grasswire]

2. maybe there is a daily financial briefing detailing the enemies of our..

......economic safety? Would he ignore that kind of briefing considering that his administration is filled with crony banksters?

I submit that the war on the middle class is as dangerous as Middle Eastern extremism.

What say you?

[orpupilofnature57]

4. I agree , so did Thomas Jefferson in 1814

" Beware of the Monied interests that would pluck the eagle ,to feather their own nest. " or something like that.

[truedelphi]

26. The disturbing thing about the two Administrations DU has focused on

Is both of them have the Top People helping out the Big Financial Masters.

Geithner apparently pulls Obama's chains, and not the other way around. This is not at all what we voted for in 2008.

Anyone who does not understand the implications of some 15 to 16 Trillions of dollars "securitizing" the Too Big To Fail Crowd is missing the big Terror play of our times. And this terror play is not at all about bombs going off in our buildings - it is about the deliberate transfer of wealth from the middle-incomed to the 1 percenters.

With no one in either the Bush or Obama Administration really squawking about it, and according to "Sixty Minutes," fewer white collar Big Shot criminals have been indicted over the last four years, for their major apprehensions of the nation's wealth, than any time previously in the last twenty years!

[orpupilofnature57]

3. Shrub was a called in favor ,nothing more.

Poppy is the one to blame.

[morningfog]

5. I don't think anyone is suggesting that PDB be ignored. Nor do I think that the PDB that

Bush ignored could have or should have been dealt with through any type of military action.

It required a response of good intell and police diligence. The same type of efforts that have proven successful at preventing attacks since then. Like the copy machine bomb and others.

The problem with the drone strikes, which is what I am assuming you are referring to, is the unitary and unilateral use as well as the radicalization of local populations that occur as a result. And the unnecessary loss of innocent life.

The emphasis should be on prevention of attacks through intell, monitoring and police work. Bombs do not actually solve the problems of terrorism, they exacerbate and grow the problems.

I don't put my trust to carry out deadly force attacks in anyone. I want to see the evidence, I want Congress to have oversight and authorize any acts of war.

[truedelphi]

27. The money thing-ee needs to be dsicussed as well.

Examine how Obama's top money man, Tim Geithner, refuses to loan the people of California some 20 billions of dollars, as the loan would "contribute too much to the defiict."

Yet then the Administration can over the next fourteen months spend 255 millions of dollars on "modernizing the military" and offering up weapons to the UAE and to Israel, (and this sum doesn't even take into account any of the Irq/Afghan war expenditures), it does seem that the Administration is more interested in the MIC than our economy here at home!

[KansDem]

6. To be honest, I was more pissed-off with this...

How the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of its armed forces could sit and do nothing while his pals and business partners attack our country and murder over 3,000 of our citizens, had me in disbelief.

But you're correct: the whole PDB thing pissed me off too...

[jp11]

7. I doubt the 'shades of gray' are way too complicated for me to comprehend nor do I

completely trust President Obama to make those decisions. I hope more Americans question those kinds of decisions and policies.

[TheDebbieDee]

8. I trust him to make the smart decisions in order to protect this country, too..............

In fact, he's already several smart choices to protect our nation (that we know of, that is).

[Cronkite]

9. How do you know he ignored it? Maybe it was the plan.....

Ok, I know this sounds like something right out of the "tin foil hat society" but how do we know for sure that there wasn't a decision to ALLOW the terrorists to strike? With all our intelligence assets and informants are we to believe that "we never saw it coming"?

There was ample evidence that they "should" have been at least noticed. Why the failure?
Now, I am not one of those people that say an airplane didn't hit the pentagon or that the WTC was a controlled demolition. I DO question whether a decision was made to allow it to happen.

Why you ask? It was a republican "stimulus plan" to drag us out of the 2000 slump. What better way to justify pumping borrowed funds into the economy than a direct threat to national security? It also facilitated the war in Iraq which was another "stimulus plan". Nothing like spending a trillion dollars on "anti- terrorist" stuff, hiring tens of thousands of "homeland security" workers. Spend another trillion on a war in Iraq as "payback" for Saudi citizens attacking us and now you are on a roll. It is just a coinydink that those that profited the most happened to be the defense industry and service suppliers close to Bush's cronies?

I know how "whacked" my suspicions may seem to some people but could it be even remotely possible? Could a decision have been made that 3000+ lives were an acceptable loss in order to "stimulate" the economy?

[grasswire]

11. I don't believe it was a stimulus plan to pull us out of a slump.

I DO believe it was a plan to "break the egg" that would lead to enormous profiteering for some, and to advance what is called the "great game" -- domination of Middle East.

You see, the industrial elites and banksters believe that making chaos opens opportunity for fortunes. They are Malthusians.

[Cronkite]

14. Or what about justification for more control over citizens?

Look at all the freedoms we have lost in the "war on terror".

[kestrel91316]

16. [phone]

[lastlib]

23. "'They' hated us for our freedom."...

...So, since we've had our freedoms taken away (thank you, KGWB), 'they' shouldn't hate us any more...

[Ezlivin]

17. It handed the DoD the greatest gift ever - a never-ending war on terror

Since terror can never be defeated, the DoD has secured funding for the rest of our lives.

And if anyone threatens to cut that funding, one little terrorist attack will get us back in line.

9/11 was the largest and most successful psy-ops on the American public ever.

[leveymg]

10. Probably not safe to assume that Bush ignored the PDB. His response was "OK, you covered your ass"

Last edited Sun Jun 3, 2012, 03:23 PM - Edit history (1)

to the CIA briefer. See, http://www.salon.com/2006/06/20/911pdb/

Bush also had a meeting withe George Tenet on either 8/17 or 8/23, about which Tenet wrote in his autobiography that he and Dubya followed up on the PDB. If it were that later date, Condi, the heads of the JCS, along with Rummy would have been in on that discussion with the CIA Director. Tenet went so far as to perjure himself before the 9/11 Commiss. when he initially denied his communications with Bush about the al-Qaeda threat had happened during the 30 days before the attacks. See, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/05/07/332122/-THEY-KNEW-Tenet-s-Book-Reveals-9-11-Perjury

[grasswire]

13. ignored = "didn't act"

That's what ignored means in this context.

[leveymg]

18. "Didn't act" could be a willful, thought out act, which would be a criminal act.

We just don't have direct evidence of that willful, intentional element, yet. No doubt, 9/11 happened despite abundant prior indicators, and to simply ignore them would show incredible stupidity.

[lastlib]

24. Or deliberate malice aforethought.

[dkf]

12. If Bush had decided to send a drone in I'd be okay with that.

Same for Obama.

If we can't decide to defend ourselves from an imminent threat then our entire defense system is pointless.

[Enrique]

15. I can't argue with you trusting Obama completely

just like I couldn't argue with people who trusted Bush completely. I'm talking about actual people, no matter what I said about WMDs or the August PDB or whatever, none of it registered, because they trusted him. Maybe they thought, ok it looks bad but I'm sure he has a good reason. And I accepted that, who am I to tell people who to trust?

But presumably this is your answer to people who are questioning him, who don't trust him as completely as you do. It's not a very good answer, imho. In general we should trust leaders somewhat short of "completely" and in particular with Obama he imo has given us reasons to distrust him in this area. Off the top of my head, his flip on FISA, and now his prosecutions of whistleblowers, among other reasons.

[TheKentuckian]

19. The power is to an office not a person, what is granted to one is granted to all.

Plus, the argument requires one to accept an argument of do nothing or just do whatever the fuck you want, however you want, with no consideration or oversight other than internal deliberation which is a false paradigm. BushCo could have responded to the threat and done so within the existing powers of his office.
The situation you lay out could actually give one the impression that BushCo sat on their hands because they had no option under the law than to do just that.

Also, while I disagree with anyone making these decisions I fail to get the logic of what would make Barack Obama the very best choice of people to make them. No military experience, not a career diplomat, no substantive criminal law background, no clandestine services experience, no intelligence background, no counter-terrorism background of any sort run the gambit from police, financial, computer, special forces, you name it, not a middle east expert, hell, not even a demonstrated policy guy in any of these areas.
In fact, it would seem almost anyone who's career has been electoral politics would seem unlikely to be the best possible fit for such decision making IF one was of the thought that such decisions should be made by an individual rather than employing our justice system and an assortment of all our resources in addressing this issue, including our military but logically not principally as we have foolishly done.

This is not just a management issue and even if it was management is not only subject to change but inevitable. IF Obama is magically the optimal choice then a lesser choice by definition will soon take control be it a little less or drastically worse their powers will be the same. They will be the same if the next person or the person after that makes Junior Bush look like FDR, Washington, TDR, and Lincoln all rolled up into one and it will be soon whether it is in months or a few years.

Obama can only serve one more term and it is unlikely he is immortal if he could serve forever so his fit or lack there of is a very limited consideration. I'd go with none the powers are an end around the Constitution, indeed about any concept of limited power and through checks on limited power.

[secondwind]

20. Amen... I agree 150%

[Bluenorthwest]

21. But what you are saying is that you also trust Bush, or anyone else who gets that office

because the powers in question do not belong to Obama, they belong to the office he holds for a limited time. Trusting the current holder of office is not sufficient reason to support any powers that office is assuming.

[woo me with science]

22. ...

The Authoritarian Mind
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002760904

[Tennessee Gal]

25. Mitt has no spine. Can't imagine putting him in that position.

It is scary to think of him being in charge during a time of crisis.

[frylock]

28. can't wait to revisit this post when president jeb bush takes his oath in 2017

[Dawson Leery]

29. k/r

[bvar22]

30. A Government that Acts in Secret...

...using Secret Information and answering to no one is NOT a "democratic" government.
It is especially troubling when civilians are killed by these secret "shades of gray".

I trust NO ONE to kill in my name without public accountability.

I am surprised at the numbers here who are OK with it because it is Obama doing it.
Will you be OK with the established precedent of a Unitary Executive killing in your name without accountability and answering to NO ONE when the next Republican takes over the White House?



... but maybe thats just me.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[sudopod]

31. Clearly, Bush's problem was that he didn't bomb enough things. nt

[FSogol]

32. Agreed. Well said. n/t

[librechik]

33. thank goodness for your level headedness, Don

I'm swamped with posts from folks with their hair on fire about the baby killer in the WH. and those are the lefties!

All presidents are baby killers. Nobody is happy about that. But for all we know it's the most compassionate choice in a tough situation that could become far worse.

I have to believe that. We still have to trust them to make the decisions. And from what I've seen Obama is worth trusting a HELL of a lot more than any Repub. Oh boo hoo.