Should the President of the United States' advisors withhold information from hi

1. 60

   dianetrotterposted 11 years ago

   Should the President of the United States' advisors withhold information from him?
   
   When should advisors to the President of the United States decide to "not" share information with the President.  The revelations about Petraeus' affair and the facts about Benghazi were withheld for some period of time after facts were known.  Why keep the facts from the President who selected you to advise him.

   replyreport
2. 53

   graceinusposted 11 years ago

   Hello dianetrotter,
   
   You can sure bet the President was FULLY aware of the events taking place on the ground in Benghazi AS THEY WERE HAPPENING. Sr. personnel at the Consulate had requested asistance from CIA personnal who were located in a safe house (which was within a mile of the consulate) to come and help protect the Ambassador and consulate personnel. Sr. SD officials at the HIGHEST level knew exactly what was happening  along with the president. CIA official at the safe house received ORDERS not to leave the safehouse. This came from the HIGHIST level of OUR GOVERNMENT. The firefight lasted for well over seven hours in Benghazi. Some of the CIA personnel watched from the rooftop of the safehouse as the firefight continued. Finially, two members of the CIA at the Safehouse defide the ORDERS not to asiste and made their way to the Consulate. These two CIA personnel died along side the Ambassador while trying to protect him.  Nothing can convince me that the President did not know this was happening. This is just one of many reason why I did not vote for Mr. Obama.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I cannot imagine hiring people to advise you.  Then the advisors decide what they want to tell you and when.  I think he had to know or get rid of the advisors.

      replyreport
3. 77

   Kathleen Cochranposted 11 years ago

   What any of the officials know at any given time in a crisis and what they make public are very different things for two major reasons. 
   1.  Have you had the time to hear from all those involved and have a clear picture of what is actually going on?
   2.  Have you accounted for all participating parties and verified what the situation on the ground is enough to make that information public?
   The administration was criticised, and rightly so, after the bin Laden operation for saying too much too soon.
   I have no problem with folks taking the time to be certain of the facts before they start telling the public they know what happened.  If that means not briefing the president until you are sure of your information, so be it.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Kathleen!  I can understand not telling the public.  My concern is not telling the President.

      replyreport
   2. 77

      Kathleen Cochranposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, but having been around the military for a lifetime or two, I know there are things you don't report until they are verified.  That doesn't mean you keep him in the dark completely, which I don't think was done here.

      replyreport
4. 70

   Conservative Ladyposted 11 years ago

   The President should always be informed on information pertaining to an incident such as Benghazi - I honestly believe he was completely informed on this terrorist attack and was part of the discussion on how to "spin" it to help his campaign.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I hate politics.  It seems you have to be a liar to be a politician.  You don't even have to be a good liar.

      replyreport
   2. 70

      Conservative Ladyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      dianetrotter - I hear you loud and clear - it is getting ridiculous all of the lies that are often so blatant.

      replyreport
5. 82

   Attikosposted 11 years ago

   Of course he was aware of it. It was on the monitors in the Situation Room. He was probably there.
   
   When something goes well, a pol was at the center of it from the beginning. When it goes badly, he was nowhere near and knew nothing about it. Standard issue story.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree Attikos!

      replyreport
6. 78

   billd01603posted 11 years ago

   I believe that they should tell the President everything, but I could understand why they don't. In certain circumstances they can keep info from the President so he is not aware of any political scandal. I think it's called "plausable deniablity.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      dianetrotterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you bild!  That's plausable!

      replyreport
7. 0

   ahorsebackposted 11 years ago

   The answer is 'selective accountability' , If you don't know - you're not accountable .  He knew as much as the agents on the street !  What president doesn't know about all that happens?  He gets written breifs each and every day about intel !  But here's the thing , he was off campaigning !

   replyreport
8. 67

   Michele Travisposted 11 years ago

   Never.  The President should always know what is happening.  After all the President is the one who makes the choices.

   replyreport