My Job Was Telling Bush Things He Didn’t Want To Hear

"You go in there and you're nervous. This is the most important guy on the planet and you're going in there and you're giving him your view on something. But as an intelligence analyst ... I was always taught that regardless of what it is, you've got to tell him the truth. As long as you can back up what you're saying and you believe this ... you give him your best truth."

That worked out well for John on his first trip to the White House. Yes, that was foreshadowing. Good on you for spotting it!

"That morning, I was not supposed to brief him -- someone else was briefing him on a different topic, and Bush turned to me and said he wanted an update right then and there." This update was on Muqtada Al-Sadr, who was no longer chilling out in Iran, but now controlled one of the most potent militias in Baghdad.

"I didn't have a lot of time to prepare one, but I told him what I thought." At that time, the standard thinking was that Al-Sadr was your run-of-the-mill extremist militia leader: "I knew that throughout the intelligence community ... they didn't like Sadr, they thought he was a nutcase ..."

At one point John would have agreed, but it turns out that -- while still and always and forever a dick -- Saddam was right about some things. During their sessions together, he'd warned John that his ousting would lead to a resurgence in terrorism throughout Iraq. John had spent years at the CIA watching Saddam's prediction come true, and now he saw the president making the same wrong assumption about Muqtada al-Sadr -- another dangerous, intelligent, total asshole.

"I thought they had an unrealistic and unrealistically negative view of him, and didn't quite appreciate some of the nuances and certainly some of the pressures he was facing. In many ways, it was similar to how we viewed Saddam. And that's the thing that really kinda struck me after my meeting with him that day. Y'know, these people have learned nothing."

Muqtada Al-Sadr wasn't exactly sporting a stars and stripes thong, but he wasn't entirely averse to working with us or the government in Baghdad. John thought he was someone the U.S. ought to try to understand and maybe work with, rather than just try to murder. But George W. Bush friggin' hated that guy.

"I think it's kinda true in every administration. We kinda expect to deal with people who are gonna be strong and strong leaders, but are also gonna accept everything we say at face value ... that they will sorta bow down and accept our dictate. And when that doesn't happen, I think guys like President Bush get confused. 'Why won't they do what we say?' The same happens today in Iran, today, with policymakers ... the minute you attach yourself to that person, you discredit them. And I think it's very hard for policymakers to accept that ... it's a classic case of what Fulbright, [the] former senator from Arkansas, called the arrogance of power."

After all, everyone else does what the president says. If this one jerk won't, he must be the enemy! That seems simplistic, but it's not like humble men seek the presidency. A lot of our presidents were narcissists. You don't strive to be the most powerful person on Earth unless you think you're pretty fuckin' sweet in the first place.

To the point where understanding the actual definition of the word "humble" seems in question.

And our current president may force the CIA to take "brevity" to a whole new level. He's already complained about the length of his President's Daily Brief (an intel report the CIA compiles for every president). And he's taken fewer of them at this point in his administration than any of his predecessors. How does John think today's CIA will need to communicate with 45?

"I don't think we've ever quite had a president like this. I think it's going to be one of the more challenging times for the agency. The president doesn't like to read a great deal, from what I hear in the media ... but I think he is capable of taking in information, I think he likes it visually ... I think he might like what he reads presented very small, kind of like tweets. If they are handing him written product, it's probably very short. And that may change over time, you never know. And it also may mean that others, other policymakers ... are going to get briefed up a great deal more."

Which is either very comforting or very terrifying. It swings back and forth depending on who got fired today.

"When there was disagreement between myself and the president, almost the entire group of advisers who were there, and they were all there -- it was Condoleeza Rice, Steven Hadley ... the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the DNI, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates -- they all kinda circled the wagons around the president, and I became the enemy. They were going to try to repudiate what I was saying. And I thought to myself, 'This is bizarre.' It was sorta like shoot the messenger at this point. And I remember thinking, 'How does this guy function surrounded by people who are filtering news to him in order to show the president how loyal they are?'"

John was clearly frustrated by this. But he also kinda understood it. "There also is this weird dynamic ... where you get in proximity to the president of the United States, and you're there to tell him something, there is a strong, strong impulse to want to give him good news. It's just natural, y'know? You realize it's a tough job, and it's going to benefit you if he walks away with a smile on his face. And you have to fight that at all costs."

On that day, John managed to resist the temptation to make the most powerful man on earth happy. But it's a battle that every one of every president's briefers needs to fight, and it's sure as shit not any easier in 2017 than it was in 2007. This isn't merely an ego thing; pleasing the president also means protecting your agency's budget.

"That's one of the problems that plagues the agency from time to time ... it's really a hard message to say to people because when you have agencies all vying for the federal budget ... there's a strong impulse to kind of, y'know, be the good soldier ..."

President Bush and his advisers mocked John for suggesting that Al-Sadr was more than a simple thug and would remain a force in Iraq for years to come. But guess who was right?

No, guess again.

Nope. Way off that time.

One more- Jesus, you're terrible at this. We'll just tell you: John. John was right.

"The positive side is, I think President Trump did go out to CIA headquarters on the first day, and I think that's very good ... y'know, and he said he's going to back the CIA ... Time will tell, and certainly when the first crisis hits, we'll see how he handles that ... But speaking to some of my colleagues, they were very reassured by that. And ... they think it was very poorly covered by the media, and very slanted. He spoke in front of the wall of stars, which commemorates people who have died ... and people who crowed the loudest are from my vantage point usually the people who are least likely to get their star up on the wall."

Since the CIA has literally deployed John to an active war zone, he's probably allowed to say stuff like that.

Now, John's opinion is certainly not universal. Former CIA director Brennan gave 45 hell for the speech. But the CIA depends on the president's good graces, and many care less about what the president says, and more about whether or not he's even paying attention to them.

"The CIA's been treated like a pinata the last 15 years. So for him to come out and say, 'I'm going to back you,' that's pretty good."