Dan Froomkin, of the Washington Post, whom I consider a genius, stated today on his blog...
Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing is an everyday must-read. (I garner a lot of material from his column.) I do wish he would inject more of his personal opinion and wit, however. (Hint hint, Dan.)His Secret Service detail reportedly decided that since he wasn't personally in danger, he didn't need to know.
But wouldn't the president want to know about a potential terrorist threat serious enough to evacuate major government buildings? And when he is clearly safe, doesn't he deserve the option to decide if he wants to lead the response?
The official White House line yesterday was that "protocols" established post-9/11 were being followed.
But what are those protocols? Are they wise? Do they really call for the president not to be bothered if he's personally not in danger? Is that what Bush wants?
After September 11, 2001, it was reasonable to assume that lessons had been learned, and that the next time there were signs of a possibly unfolding terrorist attack the president would be promptly and fully informed -- and would be ready to leap into action.
Bad assumption.
Source: Washington Post
