be delivered in writing because it upsets him, it makes him feel like his victory is being questioned. we also have subsequent reporting saying he doesn t read the written pdb. so we don t know what the president knows or doesn t know about russia. how does the intelligence community continue to serve a president who doesn t know or doesn t read the russia intel, and how does that look on a day like today when all of the intel chiefs go before congress in their open session, we don t know what they said in the closed session, and affirm that russia is, indeed, a threat? well, here s where the notion of a deep state may come in handy for us. you know, the save america? exactly. the one thing i know from my time in government is the mission focused on who are our enemies, who are our adversa adversaries, what do we need to do? we oftentimes didn t need the president necessarily to be telling us to do this because it was the right thing to do and it was clear and the intelligence
security, and that is where we got most of the information and that and the written pdb, and he authorized it and knew it, and the statement by the senate democrats for partisan purptss that the president didn t know what was going on is a flat out lie. in fact, it is a cheap shot piece of political business that was not bipartisan nor involving this any discussion of the people involved in the program. you have why would you give that credence? and let me ask you this, why would you have thumbed out in the cia the same intelligence community that didn t get it right on wmds in iraq are and why are you so confident that they are telling you the truth on this? because i though them, and i have known men for years that i have trusted intimately with the difficult problems they have dealt with.
director of the director of security, and that is where we got most of the information and that and the written pdb, and he authorized it and knew it, and the statement by the senate democrats for partisan purptss that the president didn t know what was going on is a flat out lie. in fact, it is a cheap shot piece of political business that was not bipartisan nor involving this any discussion of the people involved in the program. you have why would you give that credence? and let me ask you this, why would you have thumbed out in the cia the same intelligence community that didn t get it right on wmds in iraq are and why are you so confident that they are telling you the truth on this? because i though them, and i have known men for years that i have trusted intimately with the
program at that time. the suggestion, for example, of the president didn t approve it, wrong. that s a lie. that s not true. we were, in fact how was he briefed? how was the president briefed? he was briefed by cia or by you? i was heavily involved as was the national security council, condi. the president writes about it in his own book. three pages into the book he talks about it. you were briefed directly. he was briefed indirectly most of the time. is that fair to say? that s not fair to say. what happened was he and i met every single morning with the director of the cia, with the national security adviser six days a week and reviewed everything, basically, in the intelligence arena. that s where we got most of our information. that and the written pdb. there would be special meetings from time to time on various subjects that he would be directly involved in. this man knew what we were doing. he authorized it. he approved it. a statement by the senate democrats, w