http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/07/1628578.php
Criminal Mastermind: Donald Rumsfeld
by D. Rumsfeld Thursday July 17, 2003 at
06:52 PM
Download the actual Joint Chiefs of Staff
Document this article is based on (Adobe PDF):
www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
Criminal Mastermind: Donald Rumsfeld
(please help to disseminate this
information)
By Donald
Rumsfeld's own admission, he was unaware of any threats to the Pentagon -- the
building where he was located during the September 11th attacks -- until an
aircraft crashed into the side of it, and he ran out "into the smoke"
to see if it might be a "A bomb? I
had no idea." (ABC News This Week, Interview 9/16/01).
Well, that's a
pretty tall tale by any standard. The
New York Times reported that by 8:13 a.m., the FAA was aware of the first
hijacking out of Boston. The Pentagon
explosion, which Donald Rumsfeld claimed he had "no idea," did not
occur until approximately 9:37 a.m., nearly an hour and a half later, this
after two of the tallest buildings in the world were devastated. Note that a plane hijacked out of Boston can
reach Washington D.C. as easily as it can reach New York City.
It was widely
reported that Pentagon personnel were indeed aware of the threats to their
security, and they took security measures on that morning. But not the "Secretary of
Defense." Why should the man
charged with defending the United States of America concern himself with
hijacked aircraft?
There is a set
of procedures for responding to hijackings.
In particular, these procedures were changed on June 1, 2001, while
Rumsfeld was in power as our Secretary of Defense, in a document called:
"CHAIRMAN
OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION, J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A"
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
"AIRCRAFT
PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS"
These are the
standing orders to the military as to how to respond to hijackings over United
States territory. The June 1 '01
document deliberately changed the existing policies. Previous directives were
issued in 1997, 1986 and before.
What is shocking
about this entire sordid episode is the total disconnect between what Donald
Rumsfeld's story alleges (ignorance of inbound hijacked aircraft), and what
these Chief of Staff Instructions require of the Secretary of Defense:
"b. Support.
When notified that military assistance is
needed in conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency, the DDO,
NMCC, will:
(1) Determine
whether or not the assistance needed is reasonably available from police or
commercial sources. If not, the DDO,
NMCC, will notify the appropriate unified command or NORAD to determine if
suitable assets are available and will forward the request to the Secretary of
Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7 (reference
d)."
"APPROVAL"
The usage of the
word "approval" is the major change here to the existing hijacking
response procedures. While the text of
the document tries to link this "approval" to the previous orders
"DODD 3025.15," the approval is now required BEFORE providing any
assistance at all. Previously, approval
would be required to respond to a situation with lethal force.
This June 1st
update to the orders stopped all military assistance in its tracks UNTIL
approval from Donald Rumsfeld (the "Secretary of Defense") could be
granted -- which, by his own admission, it was not. Rumsfeld claimed total ignorance of the inbound aircraft that
attacked the Pentagon (on the opposite side of the building complex, where a
construction project had been underway) .*
In this manner,
fighter planes were held up from immediately responding to the hijacked
commercial jets on September the 11th.
The flight base
commanders were ordered by the June 1st "Joint Chiefs of Staff
Instruction" to wait for "approval" from the Secretary of
Defense before they could respond to hijackings, where they would have
routinely responded in the past.
It's
inconceivable that New York City could be struck by two wayward jumbo jets, and
still over 30 minutes later there remained no defenses over the skies of
Washington D.C., easily one of the most heavily defended places in the world.
This reality led
Anatoli Kornukov, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force to say:
"Generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario
which was used in the USA yesterday. (...) As soon as something like that
happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all
up."
The Plot Thickens
Enter the
patsy. Rumsfeld wouldn't be a
mastermind if he hadn't thought of a fall guy to take the blame, if
needed. This brings us to Tom White,
the former Enron executive, appointed to be Secretary of the Army, and more importantly
the "executive agent for the Department of Defense" on May 31, 2001
-- ONE DAY BEFORE THE NEW HIJACKING INSTRUCTIONS WERE ISSUED!
The first public
statement of Donald Rumsfeld on September 11th, 2001 makes an issue of Tom
White's "responsibility" for the situation:
"Secretary
of the Army Tom White, who has a responsibility for incidents like this as
executive agent for the Department of Defense, is also joining me." (The Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia,
September 11, 2001 6:42 P.M. EDT):
http://www.patriotresource.com/wtc/federal/0911/DoD.html
It should be
noted that Rumsfeld eventually fired White, allegedly for disagreeing about a
weapons system. But, what about the
introduction cited above? This is
clearly an attempt to divert blame and responsibility away from the Secretary
of Defense, and over to the "executive agent" a position that the
general public would have no knowledge.
That way, if inquisitive reporters started asking questions about the
procedures and failures, Rumsfeld would have an easy scapegoat as to who the
*real* person in charge of the situation should have been. Amazingly, no mainstream reporters bothered
to investigate these matters at this level, and so the patsy wound up being
unnecessary.
The Joint Chiefs
of Staff Instruction is explicit, however, and it mentions Rumsfeld's position
and it requires his "approval."
Just where was
this "approval" on September 11th 2001?
There is no
mention of the Secretary of Defense approving anything related to the
hijackings. The Vice-President (Cheney)
is on record as approving the shooting down of the fourth plane over
Pennsylvania. Whether or not the
shoot-down occurred is not yet clear. But
there is no connection whatsoever to the Secretary of Defense, whose
"approval" is explicitly required before the military can respond to
a hijacking incident over the USA, according to its own instructions.
CHANGING THE RULES
The 1997
procedures provided a clear way for the military to respond to an emergency
such as a hijacking:
"4.7.1. Immediate Response.
Requests for an
immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD
Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or
mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made
to any Component or Command. The DoD
Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in
an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required,
immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference
(g))."
Rumsfeld went
ahead and clouded the waters. The
priority in the June 1st, 2001 directive is to place decision making power --
in the specific case of a hijacking -- into the hands of the Secretary of
Defense. This is repeated in multiple
paragraphs:
"c. Military Escort Aircraft
(1) When
notified that military escort aircraft are needed in conjunction with an
aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency, the DDO, NMCC, will notify the
appropriate unified command or USELEMNORAD to determine if suitable aircraft
are available and forward the request to the Secretary of Defense for approval
in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7 (reference d)."
This creates the
necessity for: 1) making a request to the Secretary of Defense, and 2)
receiving approval before military aircraft may respond.
The statement
"to determine if suitable aircraft are available" is also
suspicious. Can anyone imagine a
situation where the United States of America does not have a "suitable
aircraft" available to respond to a hijacked airliner?
NORAD tried to
spin such a story in the aftermath of September 11th. Supposedly, we just didn't have any fighter planes on the morning
of September 11th. What were they all
doing?
Obviously we had
planes available in Washington D.C., because press reports tell us about the
"air cover" or "air cap" that went into effect just after
the Pentagon was struck. Planes from
Andrews Air Force base were in the sky "just minutes" after the
Pentagon was struck. Why was no air
cover available BEFORE the Pentagon was struck, Mr. Rumsfeld? After all, the "Secretary of
Defense" is supposed to approve the launching of "Military Escort
Aircraft." Did you?
If not, why not?
Also, if you
take no interest in actually "defending" the people of America during
an attack, why do you remain in your position as the Secretary of Defense?
RUMSFELD SPINNING LIES
Both Rumsfeld
and Condoleezza Rice have maintained the fiction that:
"RUMSFELD:
(...) Never would have crossed anyone's mind that a commercial airline --
usually a hijacker who takes an airplane, of course, wants to get someplace or
wants to make a statement or wants to go on television or wants to hold
hostages, but this is a distinctly different behavior pattern than we've seen
previously, and now, obviously, it's something we have to be attentive
to."
NBC's Meet the Press, Washington, D.C.,
September30, 2001
http://www.patriotresource.com/wtc/federal/0930/SoDNBC.html
This is a blatant lie, which can be
disproved in numerous ways:
1) Threats of a
suicide skyjacking were known at the Genoa G-8 summit in July of 2001. The Italian government ringed the city of
Genoa and the airport with anti-aircraft guns and missiles because of a known
Al Qaeda plot to assassinate George W. Bush and other world leaders. (L.A.
TIMES, September 27, 2001)
2) The Pentagon
had staged response exercises, "Mass Casualty Exercises" in the case
of a crash by a jetliner, nearly a year before September 11th in October of
2000.
3) Since 1995,
the FBI had been aware of "Project Bojinka" a plan by extremists to
simultaneously seize and to crash multiple commercial jets as suicide
weapons. This prompted investigations
at US flight schools.
4) Numerous
warnings from Britain, Egypt, Germany, Russia, Israel, Jordan and others
alerted the US intelligence services that a plane would be used as a weapon to
attack "prominent symbols of American power," including World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, during the Summer of 2001.
5) A small
Cessna plane actually did crash into the White House on September 12, 1994.
6) In 1994,
suicidal Algerian hijackers plotted to use an Air France jetliner, loaded with
fuel and dynamite as a deadly weapon and crash into the Eiffel Tower.
7) Another
similar plan had Muslim militants hijack Pan Am Flight 76 in Pakistan in 1986
in order to attack Tel Aviv, Israel.
The plane was stormed before take-off.
8) At the 1996
Atlanta Summer Olympics, "Black Hawk helicopters and US Customs Service
jets were deployed to intercept suspicious aircraft in the skies over the Olympic
venues," (LA Times).
With the
numerous reports that came out in May of 2002 of Bush Administration warnings
prior to September 11th, it is the lack of action that is most telling. The American people were not warned. Instead lies were told that "no
warnings" were ever received. When
it became public knowledge that warnings were indeed received, the Bush
Administration spin changed to "warnings weren't specific enough." This is also a lie.
If US airport
security screeners were given the type of information that was widely known in
the intelligence community, then there is a good chance that thousands of lives
could have been saved.
But, in that case, we wouldn't have a
"new Pearl Harbor."
PRETEXT FOR AMERICAN AGGRESSION
The Project for
the New American Century (PNAC) is a Washington foreign policy "think
tank" created in 1997 by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Jeb
Bush and others. Their policy papers
are available on the web. In a document
called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" they spell out pretty
straightforwardly what it is they seek.
The "neo conservatives" want nothing short of total world
domination though military and financial supremacy.
It is about the
time that the PNAC was founded when Rumsfeld and others began to pressure
President Clinton to invade Iraq. A
January 1998 letter demands a new strategy of Clinton: "That strategy should aim, above all,
at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power."
Iraq, the second
largest oil reserve in the world, is a major strategic prize. And it is the strategic advantage that
drives the ideologues such as Rumsfeld, confident in the belief that whatever
means employed are justified in the pursuit of American "primacy" or
dominance over the entire world. The
Project for the New American Century will accept no challenge to American
supremacy around the globe, and the policies they are now implementing support
this belief. They intend to raise
military expenditures to absurd levels, in a world where the United States
already outspends the rest of the earth combined on military.
What the
September 11th attacks are then is stated explicitly in "Rebuilding
America's Defenses." It is the
"new Pearl Harbor." According
to Rumsfeld and company, the United States of America would slowly become the
unchallenged power of the world. But
this process would be speeded up satisfactorily if some new external attack,
"some catastrophic and catalysing event, like a new Pearl Harbor"
were to occur. This concept is also
state explicitly in "THE GRAND CHESSBOARD -- American Primacy And It's
Geostrategic Imperatives," Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic Books, 1997.
Both Rumsfeld
and Wolfowitz traveled around the media after September 11 repeating the phrase
"Pearl Harbor," and cementing it in people's minds. The "Pearl Harbor effect" is what
is sought. An America gung-ho for war,
for payback, for militarism, for sacrifice, for tears, for aggression, for the
kind of violence witnessed at Hiroshima or Nagasaki if need be, this is the
intended effect of September the 11th and ultimately the reason that day came
to pass.
These are the
true reasons that the September 11th attacks remain uninvestigated, covered-up
and classified. Motive, opportunity and
means -- the only thing needed here is justice.
Much ado was
made in the press about John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban" who
fought in Afghanistan. On September 11,
2001, there was another Al Qaeda operative, a man who did more to help the
attacks succeed than anyone else. It
was not Osama bin Laden, but Donald H. Rumsfeld who has earned his place in the
history books as the "American Taliban 2."
Don't forget
that it was Donald Rumsfeld shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein in 1983, even
while it was known that the dictator ("Hitler revisited") was using
prohibited poison gas weapons. Rumsfeld
assisted Saddam Hussein both financially and militarily, never once bringing up
any qualms about helping a "ruthless dictator who gasses his own
people."
"PROPHETIC"?
Larry King Live,
December 5, 2001, regarding the morning of September 11th:
LARRY KING: And
someone told me that you had spoken to a congressional delegation ...
DONALD RUMSFELD:
Right here in this room.
LARRY KING: ...
in this room about terrorism that morning.
DONALD RUMSFELD:
I had said at -- I had an 8 o'clock breakfast -- that sometime in the next two,
four, six, eight, 10, 12 months, there would be an event that would occur in
the world that would be sufficiently shocking that it would remind people,
again, how important it is to have a strong, healthy Defense Department that
contributes -- that underpins peace and stability in our world.
==========================================================
* A firestorm of
controversy erupted among independent investigators regarding the incident at
the Pentagon on September the 11th.
Photographs taken by Marine Corporal Jason Ingersoll in the minutes
after the crash, but before the building collapsed, reveal the entry hole into
the Pentagon being too small to accommodate a Boeing 757. Some of the photos and analysis can be found
here:
http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/
Further evidence
indicates that the Pentagon was attacked by a smaller aircraft which fired a
missile just before impact. The
missile's exhaust plume is visible in the video frames that were leaked to the
press from the Pentagon parking lot security camera (CNN, NBC). This smaller attack plane was likely an
Unmanned Attack Vehicle, or drone.
Eyewitnesses
told of a plane capable of holding "8 to 12 people" (Steve Patterson,
Washington Post, 9/11/01) and this size is consistent with the damage to the
face of the Pentagon, seen before the wall collapse. More photos here:
http://www.amigaphil.planetinternet.be/PentagonCrash.html
It should be
noted that the "leaked" (or planted) Pentagon video footage has been
doctored, badly, in an attempt to cover up the actual moment of impact, and to
obscure the view of the attacking plane.
More analysis can be found below:
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page.htm