Free Markets, Free People


President Obama attends less than 50% of his intel briefings

Besides improving his golf game, you have to wonder what we pay this guy for:

A report by the Government Accountability Institute found that in his first 1,225 days in office, Obama only attended 43.8% of his daily intelligence briefings.

And in the days leading up to Benghazi, well, he had more important things to do than sit in on what should be the first thing he does everyday:

As Breitbart News exclusively reported the day after the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack, Obama did not attend his intelligence briefings (known officially as the presidential daily brief, or PDB) for the week leading up to the attacks.

Hard to lead when you don’t know wtf is going on, isn’t it?

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

23 Responses to President Obama attends less than 50% of his intel briefings

  • Obama NEVER has governed in any normal application of that term.
    He has no idea of what an executive does, and has never sought to get one.
    He has never shown any intent to fill his office.

    • If this had been Bush, and he skipped intel meetings and Benghazi happened, we would never have heard the end of it.

  • Same old same old with this bum.
    ¬
    I asked months ago, if you’re responsible for the daily Presidential security briefing, and he doesn’t show up, who do you give it to?¬†¬† What’s Obama’s dogs name?¬† I mean, the one that he hasn’t eaten yet, maybe they brief the dog.

  • Throw him a frickin’ bone will ya’? Undermining the Constitution is tiring business.

  • But Govt is big, he can’t really know what’s going on! He has to get it from CNN like everyone else.
    ¬
    PRESIDENT BYSTANDER.

  • Dr Ray Stantz: Personally, I liked the university. They gave us money and facilities, we didn’t have to produce anything! You’ve never been out of college! You don’t know what it’s like out there! I’ve *worked* in the private sector. They expect *results*.

  • Why would The Dear Golfer have to attend any intel meetings when he is more intelligent than any of us? Well that’s what the media tells us…

    • I thought this was the one part of the government that he was paying attention to, with drone strikes and “death lists” and such.
      Alas, even playing God must get old.

    • Recall back in 2009 when he was quoted by the WSJ as telling people he hired for various positions that he could do whatever job he was hiring them for better than they could.
      ¬
      Now “he knows nothing…he knows nothing”.

  • Golf = funDrone Strikes/Death Lists = Dart Board¬†= funCampaign = Speeches = Fund Raisers = Getting away from Mooch = funGoverning and all that stuff = not so much fun

  • Let’s try this again.¬†Golf = fun¬†Drone Strikes/Death Lists = Dart Board¬†= fun¬†Campaign = Speeches = Fund Raisers = Getting away from Mooch = fun¬†Governing and all that stuff = not so much fun

  • C
    Clint Eastwood had it right.

  • Oh, NOW the spin is back to “no one really knew” what was happened in Benghazi.¬† Now the intel community was just stumped on who might attack the United States in a Muslim country on the anniversary of September 11th (again, we’re back to that after 9 months eh?)
    ¬
    Uh huh.     This is based of course on the e-mails released by the White House.
    I’m loving the idea that some of the emails ‘contradict’ the WH and Hillary, or Carney.¬† Always in very small ways of course, you know.¬† Sorta like saying the WH said there were 30 people involved, whereas the emails said there were 27…it’s THOSE kinds of contradictions.
    ¬
    How old are the people reading these and reporting this shit?¬† 12?¬†¬† They want us to think some collection of Obama enthralled drones hasn’t poured over these documents endlessly?¬† They want us to think they’re discovering something that the people who released them didn’t damn well plan for, didn’t anticipate, and didn’t, frankly PLANT.¬† They want us to think this news is leaked and important?¬† THEY WANT US TO THINK THEY HAVE ALL THE DOCUMENTS?¬†¬†¬† They want us to think the White House has really given them all there is, and that what little they gave is even accurate?
    ¬
    I’ve been party to email blame trails and analysis, between 10 people, over business issues that haven’t been show stoppers and certainly didn’t involve the deaths of Americans that have easily generated THIS amount of email traffic
    ¬
    Good Lord.¬†¬†¬† This is such a F*ing Kabuki show it can’t even be labeled as ridiculous.
    ¬
    Prediction РAll of them walk unscathed, this is a garage play written by 10 year olds for people with the analytical capacity of 7 year olds.   The MSM is just numbing the audience, as intended.

    • ‚ÄúFBI says AQ (not AQIM) was involved and they are pursuing that theory.‚ÄĚ
      From the emails.
      http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/16/the-amazing-shrinking-benghazi-talking-points/
      What was known is apparent in these emails.
      WHY the talking points were dumbed down is also apparent.
      As is WHO did it, and for WHAT interest.

      • I keep hearing (reading…) “The CIA edited the talking points….”
        ¬
        Wait….if the F*ing CIA didn’t WRITE the talking points in the first place, to be edited by?¬†¬† The CIA?¬† WHO?¬† Who the F wrote the talking points that the CIA felt they had to edit?!!!
        What, they came from God?¬† Who?¬† How is the CIA editing talking points that start out mentioning Al Queda and Ansar Al-Shariah (whatever…).¬† Who wrote the ones the CIA felt they had to edit?
        They sent the talking points to the White House and then decided to edit them AFTERWARDS on their own?  What?   Huh?  WTF?
        ¬
        How does the White House get talking points from the CIA that the CIA then feels they have to edit?
        ¬
        I’m so tired of these assholes pissing on my leg and telling me it’s raining.

  • Not really a useful statistic without comparison to other presidents.
    Anyone have that data?

    • Really? ¬†So you’re satisfied with any president who misses over half his DIBs if others have done it too?

      • I think the stats on sitting presidents going to bed when they had a report of a missing ambassador and real-time video of an attack by terrorists on our mission are pretty limited.
        But I could be mistaken…

    • Simple enough….if Bush missed many, and someone died, the press would have been on it like stink on shit.¬† There would have been demands for accountability as “chimpy mcHitler” skipped briefings and men DIED!¬† Remember, Bush LIED, people DIED!
      ¬
      Get a grip, Bush couldn’t pause to brush his teeth without the left getting offended.
      Obama, he could spend 4 years on the golf course and the excuses would be manufactured without him lifting a finger.
      ¬
      But those stats are probably out there (in fact I just found them with a 4 word search) and when it’s demonstrated that Obama is the miserable lying failure that he is, people who want to compare the stats will suddenly become very quiet about them, cause that’s how Obama’s little worshipers roll.
      ¬
      the fact is Bush held them 6 days a week, no exceptions.   Course you can say he ignored them, but he attended them.
      this issue came up when President lying sack of crap was running for his second opportunity to destroy the country – September of 2012, which would be a result of that little video caused demonstration that killed a US Ambassador and 3 other Americans, the one that Liar in Chief didn’t call a Terrorist attack, the one that Campaigner in Chief ignored.
      ¬
      You have your stat, now what…
      ¬
      So, now what.

  • Do we have comparative statistics about Bush (or even Clinton)?

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet