The CINC’s empty chair

Chrissy’s Site Bites @

Click on graphic to embiggen.

When queried, Obama’s spokesman did not dispute the numbers, but said they were “not particularly interesting or useful.” According to this White House, it’s enough for Obama to read his briefing book.

But former officials who have detailed knowledge of the briefing process disagree. THEY say it is enormously important both for the president and those who prepare the material to meet IN PERSON.

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.

If you like this, you might also want to read @



Filed under Armed Forces, Barack Obama, George W. Bush

13 responses to “The CINC’s empty chair

  1. It’s kinda like playing golf in the simulator. It’s just not the same. That’s why he always does that for real. Funny, though; I hear he still sucks at it.


  2. Ting

    I guess that is why he can’t manage to meet with Netanyahu – that “Incomplete” of his would become an obvious “F”, since Obama doesn’t bother to show up for class.


  3. He obviously thinks that he is omnipotent and that he does not need the opinion of others.


    • chrissythehyphenated

      And he doesn’t give a crap about national security, our military or our troops in harm’s way except in so far as they impinge on his personal political well-being.


      • My condolences to the American people over the death of Ambassador Stevens. This was the work of the Salafists.

        I agree, that idiot does not give a crap about security and it is disgusting.

        This is so much like Carter it is not funny.


        • chrissythehyphenated

          Certainly not funny to those of us who understand how Carter managed to remove an American ally, the Shah of Iran, and put those extremist whack jobs in power.


          • and Obama is far worse than Carter.

            Carter was motivated by religion but he had a very limited understanding of religion. He seemed to think that the Mullahs were not dangerous.

            As he has grown older, Carter has proved himself to be an anti-Semitic of the worst kind.

            I continue to have no time for Jimmah Carter. He was a fool as President. His understudy is far worse than him.


            • chrissythehyphenated

              I’m feeling like Carter was just the warm-up act. KWIM?


              • yes, sadly you are correct.

                I have been reading and I feel a lot of anxiety…. not about Libya because I do think it was confined to the Salafists in and around Benghazi…. but because there is an outbreak of violence at US embassies in Yemen, Tunisia and a number of other Middle East countries.

                This whole thing is a blood libel. Have you seen anything of the documentary? I saw a very small part and it was extremely poor.

                What smacks of blood libel is the following:

                1. Egyptian producer pretending to be Jewish with Jewish backers.

                2. Egyptian producer attempting to drag in the Copts as being responsible for the documentary

                3. dragging in that fool in Florida Terry Jones.

                All of these three ingredients are screaming at me: blood libel.

                This is an Al Qaeda plot all the way… its purpose was to stir up the types that get angry very easy and get them to cause a riot. This has been achieved.

                What people are not getting is that the rioting was the pretext for the real action that was to be carried out by Al Qaeda under cover.

                Yes, the action at the Libyan embassy was carried out under the cover of what else was happening. They had grenades and other weapons. The Libyan group responsible are tied to Al Qaeda. They have no ties to the Libyan government or even the people of Benghazi.


                • chrissythehyphenated

                  Dearest and I both felt the 9/11 timing was way too significant for this to be about some dim-witted YouTube video nobody saw.


                • Yes, you are on the right track. I have up a piece at my blog where I am openly speculating that the documentary was a blood libel. I am totally convinced that this is the case.

                  Do you remember the Palestinian case of Mohammed Durrah and everything that was caused by it? That was a blood libel. The boy was not shot and he did not die. It was a set up… but the picture went around the world and people have hated Israel ever since because of that false narrative. It was blood libel.

                  This time they are trying to set up the Coptic Christians, Israel and the US in one hit.

                  The imams have been successful in sending out rage boy all over the place… then it is easy for Al Qaeda operatives who have their weapons to step in and do the rest. This is what happened in Libya.


  4. GP

    A leopard never changes its spots.
    Barry has been phoning it in his whole life. I think he really is convinced that he is the all powerful OZ and just his voice is all that is needed.
    I still blame the fools of this country who voted for this fool and are foolish enough to still think he needs four more years.
    But I guess it takes one to know one.


  5. Pingback: Attack and Response | PoliNation