Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Instead of doing his job ... what did Rumsfeld do?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 09:56 AM
Original message
Instead of doing his job ... what did Rumsfeld do?
The world was brought into a "war on terror". The argument was that the U.S.A. were attacked. There is a ministry of defense in the Pentagon building, and it is hard to argue that it is and that it was not equipped well enough to do its job.
The world has a right to know what kind of security, what kind of safety, what kind of help against terror the Pentagon can provide - when we all are forced into this unwanted war.

So the simple question is: what did Mr. Rumsfeld do in the very first time when he had to defend his country ?

At 9:05 his boss, Mr. Bush, was told: "America is under attack". Mr. Rumsfeld just began his meeting with senator Cox, having breakfast together.

At 9:30 Mr. Bush went lamely to the cameras and made the conclusion that if America is under attack it has to defend itself. At this time the whole world was looking TV, it was half an hour after the second impact. Mr. Rumsfeld continued to have his coffee talk.

It took one more hour to find Mr. Rumsfeld with his staff in the "war room". When we have to understand that the whole world did not know if there are maybe 10 or 20 more machines heading into terror attacks I would kindly ask why Mr. Rumsfeld did not even care about the amount of danger and about the precautions taken in the meantime. I.e. there are fighter jets on Andrews AFB - why are they not scrambled? It is their mission to protect Washington.

One could conclude that Mr. Rumsfeld KNEW about the danger. As we could conclude that Bush an his staff KNEW that no jet from Tampa, Orlando, Sarasota, Talahassee, Miami, Jacksonvolle or any other international airport would try to hit the national symbol : the president of the U.S.A.

How could they know ? And how can it happen that they who were informed much earlier than the rest of the world about the hijackings taking place were so relaxed ?

More details and original sources see: http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/rumsfeld.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 10:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. Since 9/11 was an inside job, there is no defense for Mr. Rumsfeld.
Apologists and disinfo agents can take pot shots at minor details, but the truth is that 9/11 was an inside job. Most intelligent, informed people are not at all surprised at the manner in which they have already laid the foundation for limited, modified hang-outs, and the ultimate defense (20 years from now, when there's no one left to lie to, who'll believe it)...is also predictable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I agree.
and Rumsfled is scum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Last Lemming Donating Member (806 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. Yes
--think about it--buildings don't fall down like that unless you have a controlled demolition--we have been fantastically brainwashed by our own government

Murder and Treason

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
26. He said he had more important things to do than the NMCC conference
call monitoring the 9/11 planes and went to his office to make some phone calls. but his assistant was in on the phone conference when he wasn't there. Its not clear she did anything however, or that he did anything effective.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-13-05 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
3. Rumsfeld's appalling behaviour clearly shows complicity.
Same with Bush.

And Cheney was most likely directly involved in the attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Sentry ...
What happens with a soldier/officer who

- ignores the signs of an upcoming attack
- who is not on his sentry when needed
- who blocks decisions by not being available
- who draws attention on harmless opponents
- who needs lies to argue the need to attack a homemade "enemy"
- who is not able to gain a full victory even if the enemy is much weaker than the own army
- who is unable to hold the post there
- who ignores all knowledge obtained in the defeats in other wars

What I do point out is that Rumsfeld is even in a Republican way of looking into the world is a disaster, a complete catastrophe. The American people should be able to impeach Bush and his head of DoD even by taking their words face value. The greatest Chicago mobster Al Capone was imprisoned because of - tax fraud.

Then in a second step after ripping them off their power it should be possible to ask some gentle questions about 9/11. I heard about electric chairs in Texas. Still operational ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-14-05 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Comments from "la red", M-atc, VV, "sweet" pea, azCat et al. What say U?
This ought to be interesting. Now, come on all of you great big true believers -- no evasions, no misdirections, no shooting the messenger, no dancing, no nothing, for once, except straight talk.

How about it? Who'll be first?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-05 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. silence is golden, golden ...
It makes them so dangerous.


When they know they are wrong they drop silent and get unpredictable. Or they "silence" the opponent. The lie is just an envoy if the umcoming crime. And the others who are shocked by the realization of a real crime stay silent. Who knows what lines are drawn back to my Personal Computer and its owner ...

This is the system of fear we as Germans know so much.

It is a big difference to say "all poiticians are criminals" or: "I hate Bush" (nobody cares about theses phrases) and to state: now I am going to ask my Senator or my congressman if he knows and dares to ask piblicly, what the DOD Master of Defense really did on 9/11.

A big difference too to conspiracy theorists and pixel wankers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-05 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Silence can also mean there is little
Edited on Sat Jan-15-05 01:30 PM by LARED
worthwhile to comment on. The article is just sub-standard revisionist sophistry that has been hashed over about 50 times.

You surely don't believe it's research. Do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-05 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. It´s not research?
It is going through the information that we have on what Rumsfeld was up to.
Do you mean to say that you have better information on what he was up to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-05 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. sub-standard revisionist sophistry
I'm just curious:
Did you actually bother to check out medienanalyse's page?
And if you call it "sub-standard revisionist sophistry" then I would like to ask you like k-robjoe if you can provide us some real infos about Rumsfeld on 911.
And btw:
Did Rumsfeld do his job as Secretary of Defense sufficiently on 911 according to you? I'd be happy to read your opinion about that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-05 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
23. Well, LARED
so what's your opinion on Rumsfeld's behaviour??
You called medienanalyse's thread (and you didn't specify if you include his homepage btw) a "sub-standard revisionist sophistry". But you have refrained so far from explaining your judgement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-15-05 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Failure to rebut or even offer excuses means guilty, as charged.
The Official Conspiracy Theorists know that they don't have truth on their side and the response of "la red" is typical of how they all respond when they can't get away with simply ignoring powerful evidence of guilt. They should pool their money and hire a smart lawyer to advise them on the best way to defend a guilty client.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. a timeline like that in Europe ...
When a German Verteidigungsminister (secretary of defense) would BEGIN to care about where the fighter jets are about 2 haours after the begin of a hijacking, the airplane woul be begind Moscow or over the open Atlantic or beginning to enter the African airspace.

The QRA status of fighter jets with the mission "air policing" was substantial in times of the cold war as well. They must be up in the air in at least 15 minutes, better scrambled in 19 minutes. That is NATO standard. NATO still exists. Hijackings are "normal" and other causes to scramble jets too.

we have discussed in this forum that the dod head has to be informed immediately. It is normal, logical, fact, part of the legal SOP.

So Rumsfeld KNEW about the hijackings - and he KNEW about the impacts, and he KNEW about his responsibility.

As Mr. Struck, the German Verteidigungsminister would know.
We would not NEED any airdefense, any fighters, any air policing in Europe when a timeline like Rumsfelds would be agreed to.

Rumsfeld must be asked about that. Publicly, again and again. The others too (Bush about the Pet Goat, Cheney and so on. But get concentrated on Rumsfeld. His day and his responsibility are documented best of all pf them. he is the key to open 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Actually, Mr. Rumsfeld could claim that he DID do his job on 9/11.
In the same twisted way that most Government officials rationale actions which are harmful to the nation, Mr. Rumsfeld was being a "good soldier" in obeying the orders (lawful?) of his Commander in Chief. He would probably say that questions about morality are best directed at the clergy, and that all he did was follow orders on 9/11.

Should he be punished for following orders?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-16-05 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. a wonderfull answer
a) the facts need to be spread

b) If Rumsfeld would make THIS kind of interpretation he would say "Bush ordered me to do nothing" - which

c) cast a certain light on Bush

d) must be proved

e) orders do not excuse any deed. I.e. not torture. And not to do the job (imagine he and Bush would habe had a different understanding of the situation) And so on.

But I do not care what somebody might answer IF he would be asked. Let us do what we can do to spread the fact: Rumsfeld was sitting on his hands. Hundreds of millions of people do not know that. let them decide after they know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tngledwebb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-05 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. Bs bs bs bs bs.
The context and the referenced articles do a little something you have never attempted- build a convincing case based on objective research. You ARE good at quoting parts of official BushCo reports as if infallible, or stating your professional qualifications as if made credible by a link to Drexel U homepage. No small feat of the absurd, but no cigar.

But stick to engineering - just let everyone know what projects you are involved in ahead of time- or anything, except investigative reporting or detective work. That kind of thing seems to dangerously tax the limits of your engineering mind.

Btw, if you do need a second job, the Ministry of Disinfo, Evasion and Disruption is presently hiring. They seemed to have lost a few folks in the past months, as you may have noticed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-05 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Is their silence consent?
I think so. The Truth Ministers get awfully quiet whenever the topic veers away from something that they can't respond to by citing any of the "Warren" Commission reports (NIST, ASCE).

Wherdy Go?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-05 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. silence consent
Edited on Tue Jan-18-05 10:14 AM by medienanalyse
the facts are undeniable. To scranlbe fighter jets is S.O.P.
The standard is always and everywhere in the NATO countries operational. See i.e. : http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,337273,00.html,
just some days ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-05 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. who do you think you are ?
tngledwebb,

I do not care if you or anybody else tries to get personal instead of discussing facts. I get bored when guys like you try to send notes like : "You ARE good at quoting..."
"But stick to engineering"
"limits of your engineering mind"
"second job"

Stick to your job, mind, abilities and do not care about mine. Just het lost.

Or tell us about your indictment against mr. Rumsfeld, who is the subject of this thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tngledwebb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-18-05 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Beg pardon , medianalyse, I'm on your side.
Edited on Tue Jan-18-05 10:46 AM by tngledwebb
My post was not intended for you, if you look at the 'response to' #.

Tho perhaps it was a bit over the top...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-05 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. no problem. get a goodie:
About Uncle Sam without Clothes:
http://druckversion.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Uncle%20Sam%20$.htm

Good read. In comparison to what is posted here to keep this thread down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-05 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
15. Rumsfeld caught lying
Worth having a look at. Because he is caught right there, ( saying he never said that Saddam was an imminent threat )and ofcourse, he does not show any sign of even a slightest blush, even as he is caught.

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-17-05 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Eine güldne, gute Tugend: lüge nie - what is a palindroma ?
The above sentence means a good and golden virtue: never lie !

Nothing special ? There is something very special. You can read the German sentence letter by letter from the END to the beginning. Like ATTA. A palindroma.

And whatever end you catch - it is a true and worthy sentence.

But:
A lie is just a lie. Not more. Shamelessness the same. It makes people not criminal. The lie is just a tool. So thank you for the short video - but we must go deeper. Do not forget:

Criminals and murderers do lie. They are liars. So what ? Where is the focus`? We are taljing about 300 US-civilians, 100.000 Iraqui civilians, again more than 1000 GIs and 10.000 Afghans. And oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-12-05 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
24. Question still stands! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-21-05 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
25. Let's add: Wolfowitz and Myers
Ok: The fact that the acting Joint Chieff of Stuff had more interesting topics to talk about (his promotion) that to be worried by 911 (well, if we are to believe that the acting Joint Chieff of Stuff really is without any assistant that gurantees his connection to the outside world but that's another issue). So, why is he not grilled about his behaviour? Dos Max Cleland's tough critic on the Independent Commission having anything to do with the fact that he was the one that spend the whole morning with Myers? And how can one accept that Myers lied about the Air Defense saying on 913 that the first plane was scrambled after the Pentagon was hit? (But maybe that wasn't a lie and all the other air defense stories were lies ....)

Second on the grilling list: Paul Wolfowitz. He didn't enter the NMCC apparently before UA 93 crashed neither but prefered to talk about something he doesn't even recall what the topic actually was .....

Wolfowitz: We were having a meeting in my office. Someone said a plane had hit the World Trade Center. Then we turned on the television and we started seeing the shots of the second plane hitting, and this is the way I remember it. It's a little fuzzy.
Q: Right.
Wolfowitz: There didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately and we went on with whatever the meeting was. Then the whole building shook. I have to confess my first reaction was an earthquake. I didn't put the two things together in my mind. Rumsfeld did instantly.
Q: Did he really?
Wolfowitz: Yeah. He went charging out and down to the site where the plane had hit, which is what I would have done if I'd had my wits about me, which may or may not have been a smart thing to do. But it was, instead the next thing we heard was that there'd been a bomb and the building had to be evacuated. Everyone started streaming out of the building in a quite orderly way. Congregated on the parade ground basically right in front of the Pentagon which would have been about the worst place to have a crowd of a couple of thousand people in that moment if we'd again had our wits about us. But we were out of the building anyway.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030509-depsecdef0223.html


So, till the Pentagon was hit at 9:37 there was nothing the Departement of Defense actually could do........ Really?
And keep in mind that he went outside the building after the attack. Not into the NMCC.
Btw he's the only one to recall a bomb threat AFTER the attack. Interesting!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-22-05 05:16 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. General Myers' Senate testimony: 9/13/01
Edited on Wed Jun-22-05 05:16 AM by stickdog
General Myers was acting head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on September 11th, 2001. This is the most important day of his life because on this day Myers, an Air Force General with thousands of hours of time flying fighter planes, is acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff —- and it’s the only day in history that the continental United States has ever been attacked from the air.

Myers claims he was at Senator Max Cleland's office at 8:40 EDT. He claimed on Armed Services Radio that -- after somehow watching the FIRST plane hit the WTC on TV -- he went in to Cleland's office and met with Cleland for an hour. Nobody called him and told him that a second plane had hit, that the air corridor had been closed between Washington and Cleveland, that a plane had been hijacked in Ohio and was flying back to the Pentagon. Then he also claims that when he walked out of Cleland's office over an hour later, he was handed a portable phone and it was the head of NORAD -- the North American Aerospace Defense Command -- telling him that the Pentagon had been hit.

Now these are unbelievable assertions. Doesn't the man have a beeper? Doesn't the man have a cell phone? Doesn't the man have a secretary who knows where he is? General Myers was, after all, acting head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US military. Wouldn't anybody inform him that planes were being hijacked and flying into buildings? And you know what Myers said he talked to Max Cleland about? He claims he sat there for a full hour while the Continental USA was suffering its worst attack via air power in its entire history, and they discussed the dangers of terrorism. Now this is like a satire, isn't it?

Here are some excerpts from General Myers' testimony at his Joint Chiefs of Staff Senate confirmation hearing on 9/13/01, just two days after 9/11. Note Senator Max Cleland's out-of-the-blue non sequitur that gives Myers his alibi.


Senate Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing On Nomination of General Richard Myers to be Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, D.C., SEPTEMBER 13, 2001.


SENATOR LEVIN: Was the Defense Department contacted by the FAA or the FBI or any other agency after the first two hijacked aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center, prior to the time that the Pentagon was hit?

GENERAL MYERS: Sir, I don't know the answer to that question. I can get that for you, for the record ... That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck. ... I was with Senator Cleland when this happened and went back to the Pentagon. And they were evacuating, of course, the Pentagon at the time. And I went into the National Military Command Center because that's essentially my battle station when things are happening.

SENATOR LEVIN: Was the Defense Department contacted by the FAA or the FBI or any other agency after the first two hijacked aircraft crashed into the World Trade Center, prior to the time that the Pentagon was hit?

GENERAL MYERS: Sir, I don't know the answer to that question. I can get that for you, for the record.

SENATOR LEVIN: Thank you. Did the Defense Department take -- or was the Defense Department asked to take action against any specific aircraft?

GENERAL MYERS: Sir, we were . . .

SENATOR LEVIN: And did you take action against -- for instance, there have been statements that the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania was shot down. Those stories continue to exist.

GENERAL MYERS: Mr. Chairman, the armed forces did not shoot down any aircraft. When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked. But we never actually had to use force.

SENATOR CLELAND: General, it's a good thing that, as I look back at that morning, that you and I were meeting. It's a good thing we were meeting here and not us meeting in the Pentagon because about the time you and I were having our visit, discussing the need to boost our conventional forces, to look at the question of terrorism and attacks on the United States, at just about that very moment, the Pentagon was being hit.

GENERAL MYERS: Yes, sir. {stickdog's note: Thanks for coming to my rescue with a bullshit alibi, sir!}

SENATOR BILL NELSON: ... General Myers, The second World Trade tower was hit shortly after 9:00. And the Pentagon was hit approximately 40 minutes later. That’s approximately. You would know specifically what the time-line was. The crash that occurred in Pennsylvania after the Newark westbound flight was turned around 180 degrees and started heading back to Washington was approximately an hour after the World Trade Center second explosion. You said earlier in your testimony that we had not scrambled any military aircraft until after the Pentagon was hit. And so, my question would be: why? {stickdog's note: why, indeed!}

GENERAL MYERS: I think I had that right, that it was not until then. I'd have to go back and review the exact time-lines.

SENATOR BILL NELSON: ... If we knew that there was a general threat on terrorist activity, which we did, and we suddenly have two trade towers in New York being obviously hit by terrorist activity, of commercial airliners taken off course from Boston to Los Angeles, then what happened to the response of the defense establishment once we saw the diversion of the aircraft headed west from Dulles turning around 180degrees and, likewise, in the aircraft taking off from Newark and, in flight, turning 180 degrees? That's the question. I leave it to you as to how you would like to answer it. But we would like an answer.

GENERAL MYERS: You bet. I spoke, after the second tower was hit, I spoke to the commander of NORAD, General Eberhart. And at that point, I think the decision was at that point to start launching aircraft...

{stickdog's note: OK, so if General Myers talked to General Eberhart after the second tower was hit, why did he then meet with Cleland for over 30 minutes to talk about "the question of terrorism and attacks on the United States"? I mean, wasn't he aware that America was currently experiencing just such an attack--the very worst such attack in its entire history? How in the world did he manage to while away 30+ minutes with Cleland such that he didn't arrive at the National Military Command Center, his admitted "battle station when things are happening," until the Pentagon was being evacuated (about 9:40 at the earliest)? Didn’t having hijacker terrorists hit the two tallest buildings in the United States with passenger jets qualify as a time "when things are happening"?}

In this case, if my memory serves me -- and I'll have to get back to you for the record -- my memory says that we had launched on the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania. I mean, we had gotten somebody close to it, as I recall. I'll have to check that out. {stickdog's note: Now Myers memory is failing him just TWO days after the most memorable day in many Americans' lives!}

SENATOR BILL NELSON: ... Commenting from CNN on the time-line, 9:03 is the correct time that the United Airlines flight crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center; 9:43 is the time that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. And 10:10 a.m. is the time that United Airlines flight 93crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. So that was 40 minutes between the second tower being hit and the Pentagon crash. And it is an hour ands even minutes until the crash occurred in Pennsylvania.

SENATOR LEVIN: The time that we don't have is when the Pentagon was notified, if they were, by the FAA or the FBI or any other agency, relative to any potential threat or any planes having changed direction or anything like that. And that's the same which you will give us because that's . . .

GENERAL MYERS: I can answer that. At the time of the first impact on the World Trade Center {stickdog's note: at 8:46 EDT}, we stood up our crisis action team. That was done immediately. So we stood it up. And we started talking to the federal agencies. The time I do not know is when NORAD responded with fighter aircraft. I don't know that time.

SENATOR LEVIN: Or the time that I asked you for, which was whether the FAA or FBI notified you that other planes had turned direction from their path, their scheduled path, and were returning or aiming towards Washington, whether there was any notice from any of them, because that's such an obvious shortfall if there wasn't.

GENERAL MYERS: Right. {stickdog's note: Right???}

SENATOR LEVIN: And in any event, but more important, if you could get us that information.

GENERAL MYERS: It probably happened. As you remember, I was not in the Pentagon at that time, so that part of it is a little hazy. {stickdog's note: Remember again that is just two days after 9/11.} After that, we started getting regular notifications through NORAD, FAA to NORAD, on other flights that we were worried about. And we knew about the one that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania. I do not know, again, whether we had fighters scrambled on it. I have to . . .

SENATOR LEVIN: If you could get us those times then. We know you don't know them.

GENERAL MYERS: But we'll get them. {stickdog's note: Yes, we'll get them, all right. Just as soon as we figure out SOME sort of cover story.}
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-22-05 05:36 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. Great post!
Well done, stickdog!
Could you please make your post into a new thread on Myers? That would be great and assure that it gets the attention it deserves. Just one comment: Myers arrived at the NMCC basically just like Rummy: at 10:30.
Btw, stickdog, you have a PM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov 03rd 2024, 08:08 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC