August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing - Some Questions

This particular PDB has received much attention, not the least of which was by neoCondi Rice yesterday. She made two claims regarding this PDB: (1) that it did not contain a specific warning of an impending attack, and (2) that it was "historical" in content.

Disregarding the weasel-words for a moment, I'm puzzled that anyone in this administration would say that a (purported) daily briefing would contain "historical" information. Does this not make it even more obvious that Junior requires frequent and repeated tutelage? Isn't this merely another indication that everyone in this administration spends their time and taxpayer money tutoring, guiding, coaching, managing, and manipulating this Sock Puppet?

Why would it be at all noteworthy that a (purported) daily briefing didn't contain a specific warning of an impending attack? Does that make any sense at all? Who'd expect anyone to wait for a PDB to tell a President of a specific warning? How could that possibly be legitimate content for a PDB? It seems rather obvious that a PDB is to provide updates and input for the management of policy and strategy -- not as a call for some specific decision or a "call to arms." It seems obvious, then, that Junior is "out of the loop" when it comes to the management of policy and strategy - making the PDB useless in that regard. Thus, it would seem, the PDB is being used for Ding Dong School: just another form whose substance is gutted because the audience (Dim Son) is neither engaged nor competent.

Does anyone believe Junior gets these daily? Does anyone believe he reads them? Does anyone believe he understands them? Does it really matter?

Thoughts?

Does he actually read them or does Tenet read them and leave him a written copy?

Does Temet take notes of follow-up or "action items"?

Ya just gotta wonder?

is a self avowed non-reader. One of the reasons he loves KindaSleezy
is that she will actually READ papers and briefings to him. Look
at O'neill's book for confirmation.

Look at this way, info on Al Quaeda's activities YESTERDAY could be considered "historical". Get it?

So if the memo had stuff on suspicious terrorist cell activity that was indicative of preparation for hijackings, but this activity happened last month, then it's "historical".

PDB's should theoretically be an up to date brief on current priority situations that the president NEEDS up to date info on. That's the SOLE purpose of PDB's. To tell the President what he needs to know in order to do his job TODAY! That's why it's daily.

The PDB should only contain "historical" info in order to contextualize something the President needs to act on TODAY. This is the huge elephant in the room regarding Condi's lies about this brief the title of which was "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US". Someone thought this was something the Pres needed to act on IMMEDIATELY as part of his job THAT DAY.

neoCondi was outside her notes at that point, and having to respond from her brain-pan. I regard that particular choice of words to be remarkable. Why wouldn't she use the word "background" or "general"? What would cause the retrieval of a term like "historical"?

I think, whether we realize it or not, this is what struck people as dissonant - why it seemed odd. Of course it's true that yesterday is "history". (Only Nancy Reagan got briefings on what actually happened tomorrow.)

Of all of the ways one could defensively characterize a PDB, seeking and finding the word "historical" seems to betray a perception of the context that's in the "suspicions confirmed" category.

I've got to believe a large part of neoCondi's attitude portrays the arrogance of someone who's abundantly aware of the vast difference between her own intellectual capacity and that of her (titular) "boss". I think it showed. She apparently deals with Junior like a caretaker at a school for the learning disabled - with a fear, to the degree any exists, of his parents. I think her only wariness of Dim Son is that he might throw a tantrum - NEVER that he'd actually think on his own.

________________

On edit: One further thought... Any skilled executive I've ever met was acutely aware of his own knowledge base. I'd expect a President, even a mediocre one, to request "background papers" and special briefings in areas of particular concern. I wouldn't expect such material to be packed into a daily briefing. I'd also expect a President, even a mediocre one, to review past PDBs and other file papers. It seems obvious that this particular "President" has no such inclinations. This remark seems to confirm it. I see no other explanation that fits.

the following which is very relevant:

PDB's should theoretically be an up to date brief on current priority situations that the president NEEDS up to date info on. That's the SOLE purpose of PDB's. To tell the President what he needs to know in order to do his job TODAY! That's why it's daily.

The PDB should only contain "historical" info in order to contextualize something the President needs to act on TODAY. This is the huge elephant in the room regarding Condi's lies about this brief the title of which was "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US". Someone thought this was something the Pres needed to act on IMMEDIATELY as part of his job THAT DAY and therefore made it the topic of his PDB.

... had little or no familiarity with this information whatsoever. This betrays the overt falsehood that his claim of "terrorisim was a high priority" was based on any substantive comprehension whatsoever.

I don't think Dimson had any familiarity w/ the issue at all either, but I just think this "historical" nonsense is a lie by Condi to obfuscate the issue. I don't think the PDB was used to educate the Chimp. I think it was actually used for what it was supposed to be used for, which is telling the President what he needs to know, right now, to do his job for that day. Condi's only putting in this "historical" context to cover the Chimp's ass, IMO.

"This betrays the overt falsehood that his claim of "terrorisim was a high priority" was based on any substantive comprehension whatsoever."

I think it just betrays the fact that Condi's lying about it. Terrorism WAS a high priority for SOMEONE who made it the topic of his PDB that day and expected/wanted the Chimp to act immediately on it. Condi needs to portray the PDB as something LESS than what it is in order to cover their asses. PDB's are the President's TO DO LIST for the day and I don't expect that changed, though I could be wrong.

I think Condi grabbed at a convenient half-truth - using an embarassing necessity in a temporally convenient way.

:shrug:

His PDB's I'm sure were quite different from Clinton's and things I'm sure had to have been contextualized MUCH more and therefore needed much more historical context. However, I very much doubt that ANY PDB would be STRICTLY historical. It just wouldn't make any sense given the nature of what a PDB is.

Thanks for bringing this up BTW, it really is an important point and discussion!

... in all the threads on this story. That particular "historical" choice of words has stuck in my craw for this entire time. I needed to digest it in some rational way. While I see it noted in a remarkable number of articles and columns (indicating that it struck a sour note with many), I haven't seen anyone satsifactorally deal with it.

I think it's something that hoists them on their own petard. While Condi may have thought it exculpatory, I think this single (un?)fortunate choice of words proves Clarke's case ... and much more.

It wasn't until your post that what was right under our noses dawned on me; The historical (pun intended!) nature of PDB's is that it's a daily to do list and an update on PRIORITY situations. If Condi is claiming that that nature has been changed under the Chimp, then she's got some 'splainin' to do.

I think it's supposed to facilitate the creation of "to do lists" as a (competent) President gives his various helmsmen course modifications.

The ship's bridge analogy seems apt for the "ship of state" -- too bad we've got someone who makes Hazelwood seem excellent. Isn't it darkly coincidental that Hazelwood could be captaining the "Condoleeza Rice"? :evilgrin:

I suspect a competent (or non-criminal) admin. would have got that briefing and gave the following orders (to do list) to his subordinates:

1. Alert the FAA and Trans. Sec of possible imminent hijackings
2. Alert security personnell at high risk targets
3. Leak some info to the media so the public has SOME awareness of possible imminent threats (ala the Millenium Plot)
4. Demand daily updates on the status of routing out the sleeper cells
5. Demand agency heads pro-actively reach out to subordinates for possible relevant current cases (would have become aware of Moussaoui, though apparently Tenet already was so I wonder how the Pres wasn't if he was briefed daily by Tenet, and PHX flight school problem)
6. Call a principle meeting

etc...

While, as you say, it's highly likely that "someone thought this was something the Pres needed to act on," I'm virtually certain that was an attitude that was diligently quarantined within the administration between January and September 2001. That quarantine was deliberate.

What's not so clear is whether the PDB broke through that quarantine or was deliberately let through as a "Cover Our Asses" step to backfill their "Plausible Deniability" policy. (Yes, I'm a LIHOPer.)

in addition to the comprehensive "plan" that was completed on 9/4.

"See! Look! We WERE concerned about terrorism!!"

As a semi-LIHOPer myself, my personal thoughts are that Condi (as well as Colin) wasn't in on it, so it's also possible she was responsible for the content of this PDB, not knowing they didn't really care to do something about it at the moment. Therefore the content could very well be damning, and so far the evidence suggest it is. If the memo discussed AQ cells currently in the US, the activities of which suggested imminent hijackings, and it seems the memo DID discuss this according to the Commissioners, then this would not be a serviceable CYA instrument, IMO, it would in fact be a bombshell.

Fascinating discussion!!

Wait until August 6th to give "historical" information? Gee, that's neither early enough to initiate any programmatic action nor so late as to say they weren't (allegedly) diligent. Wait until he's conveniently (again) on vacation -- away from Cheney (also on vacation) and various intelligence offices.

It's just too remarkably convenient. That's why I think it was deliberately allowed through the quarantine -- too little, too late, but not extremely so.

I could see them having some sort of history brief in them, just to explain context. However, she was suggesting it was all historical. If it was all historical, why can it not be declassified? If we already know all this information, why hide it?

Unless it actually contains something like, "during the Clinton years we did A,B and C to prevent attacks when we heard reports such as this."

As far as if he gets these daily briefs, I'm sure they are sent to him. If he actually looks at them (or has Condi read them to him), I'm not to sure. Does he understand them. In a word, no. If he did he would have gone to hight alert when he got the Aug. 6 PDB.

... information to fill the gap from the last time it was covered. Thus, if it covers any significant amount of time at all, it'd show he was clueless.

It'd also be interesting to note who was present to spoon-feed this particular PDB ... and compare this cast of characters to what's "normally" done.

I seem to recall that hardcopy PDB's have typically been given to a President before the day starts. It's one of the preliminaries of a (usual, qualified) President's day, along with newspaper clippings and wire service extracts. I think they then have had a morning meeting to (briefly) discuss it, offering the President an opportunity to issue instructions and directives regarding any alterations in strategy or attention.

I get the feeling Dim Son doesn't do a damned thing on his own. I think it must all be spoon-fed.

or understand them. How many times have we heard stories of Bush rejecting reports with a demand to "just give me the facts"? His boast that he doesn't read newspapers, scanning headlines is good enough for a busy guy like him? Seen his heavily medicated state during almost every major speech? A pre-stupid Hitchens column summarizes the problem well.

Couple that he can't read or capably process information of any depth with the fact that he's a petty kill-the-messenger shit, and you've got a classic dysfunctional imperial court, with its attendant intrigues and incompetance.

I think it further places the question of what "Bush Knew" into the trashbin of irrelevance. It's clear that those who're really running things knew.

She said Gov zero was informed on the PBD and all matters regarding counterterror. The "president (sic) is about as high up as there is." To me, that means the unelected moron is supposed to act as the repository of all the national security data -- from the FBI to the CIA to the guy emptying the Oval Office spittoon. The reason there was an intelligence failure is that this guy, George W Bush, is a failed intellect.

Important thread w/ great discussion!

It is important to consider. Here's a link to the National Security Archives, where they have liks to 10 declassified PDBs and a lot of background on the subject, um, historical background.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/

Must read!

"President Clinton complained that 'most days the PDB contained material he had already read elsewhere.'"

Even under the influence of an hallucinogenic, I cannot imagine Dim Son saying anything like this. He's the Incurious George, for sure. :grr:

... in the Congressional 9-11 report. Last July, John Dean's column at Findlaw.com pointed to this footnote in the Report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks Of September 11:

"National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice stated in a May 16, 2002 press briefing that, on August 6, 2001, the President�s Daily Brief (PDB) included information about Bin Ladin�s methods of operation from a historical perspective dating back to 1997. One of the methods was that Bin Ladin might choose to highjack an airliner in order to hold passengers hostage to gain release of one of their operatives. She stated, however, that the report did not contain specific warning information, but only a generalized warning, and did not contain information that al-Qa�ida was discussing a particular planned attack against a specific target at any specific time, place, or by any specific method."

--At the bottom of pdf page 79 of "Part Two -- Narrative -- The Attacks of September 11, 2001" {297 KB PDF} at http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/911rpt/

Dean says in his Findlaw column,

"What exactly did {the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief} say? We cannot know. But the Inquiry's 9/11 Report lays out all such threats, over that time period, in thirty-six bullet point summaries. It is only necessary to cite a few of these to see the problem: In September 1998, the {Intelligence Community} obtained information that Bin Laden's next operation might involve flying an explosive-laden aircraft into a U.S. airport and detonating it.

In the fall of 1998, the {Intelligence Community} obtained information concerning a Bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas. In March 2000, the {Intelligence Community} obtained information regarding the types of targets that operatives of Bin Laden's network might strike. The Statute of Liberty was specifically mentioned , as were SKYSCRAPERS, ports, airports, and nuclear power plans.

In sum, the 9/11 Report of the Congressional Inquiry indicates that the intelligence community was very aware that Bin Laden might fly an airplane into an American skyscraper. ..."

--From http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030729.html

The rest of the 36 bullet points Dean refers to also are in the online Joint Inquiry Report at the URL given above, on pdf pages 71-80 of "Part Two -- Narrative -- The Attacks of September 11, 2001"