While this article is about the things this POTUS never knows about until he reads it in the paper, I was equally disturbed by this quote by a Reagan aide:
As a perennial optimist I keep hoping that this will be instructive to the staff of future Presidents ... also to the Presidents, themselves. It makes no good sense to make a POTUS look incompetent, either domestically or internationally. Somebody has to figure out a better system of keeping a President informed. I don't think that the voters will continue to accept the "I don't know" excuse ad infinitum.John Tuck, who was a White House aide under Reagan, said he was not as bothered as other Republicans about Mr. Obama’s not knowing about the problems with the health care system in advance. “I would never put the finger on somebody saying he should have known or might have known,” Mr. Tuck said. “What difference does it make if he knew or he didn’t know?”
For starters, he might have negotiated some delay in the rollout, and the govt might not have been shut down? What other info is not given to the POTUS ... anything about Syria; anything about Benghazi? Could lack of pertinent info result in bad decisions?
Maybe it would keep the POTUS from looking like an incompetent jerk, along with the rest of his staff? They say Obama can have a temper ... he should have been furious with anyone who made him look bad by giving him faulty information.
But in any White House, he said, the typical pattern is to try to insulate the president from responsibility for bad news. “If you had a good story, you brought it to the White House,” he said. “If you had a bad story, you put it out to the department that was responsible for it.”
Well, that's comforting ... that bureaucrats who create a problem continue to make it worse, until it becomes such a mess that it is no longer deniable? If those agencies are screwing up, shouldn't the POTUS know?