Shame

Since I read the PDB on Saturday I've been trying to put my finger on just why it's taken 2 1/2 years to declassify this seemingly innocuous document. I've read and re-read it trying to surmise what issues of national security are compromised by its release. I've examined the 11 short paragraph for the important "sources and methods" that must be protected at all costs (Joe Wilson's wife notwithstanding).

I realized this morning why I was having such trouble. I was seeking to understand the Bush administration's action (or inaction in this case) by assuming they value honesty, procedural integrity and the security of the American people above their callow electoral concerns.

With an adjusted perspective, viewing this document as the Bushies view it, it's much easier to see why it's taken such tremendous pressure to drag this document into the light. This document was hidden away out of shame.

In the damage assessments that followed 9-11 (the White House political damage assessments, not the important assessments) the Bushies concluded that they hadn't paid enough attention to the signs. The political operatives immediately recognized that Dick, Condi, Don, Andy, and especially George didn't do enough -- didn't lead. The lack of action and leadership becomes more starkly apparent in light of the warnings of the Clarkes, Beers, Bergers, and others.

Attuned to the looming political disaster should anyone recognize Bush's failure to lead, the political operatives took the obvious action. They buried the evidence and changed the facts. Thus, the PDB disappeared and Bush was positioned as a strong leader.

Whether or not the Bush administration could have prevented 9-11 is not the point. The issue is whether the best possible effort was put forth in light of the obviously heightened threat level. The former is debatable. The latter really is not.

Josh Marshall nails it.

The CIA didn't need to deliver him a turnkey solution to rolling up the terrorist plot wrapped in a bow. The question is whether, when faced with a dire warning and given a few clear hints as to where and when, the president exerted some leadership and got everyone focused on the problem.

This is precisely where the "George Bush as leader" theory breaks down. The man -- this leader blessed with preternatural clarity of purpose -- failed in the simplest of tasks. Lacking "actionable intelligence" he pronounced himself "satisfied" with inadequate information in the face of an obvious and imminent threat. His satisfaction bred complacency. And complacency was the root cause for Bush's continuing lack of actionable intelligence.

Their failure to take action is perhaps forgiveable. Bush's failure to lead and the claims of masterful leadership in a time of tragedy, however, are unforgivable. Their obvious shame demonstrates that they recognize this too.