Reply
Fri 24 Feb, 2006 12:38 am
Quote:Blogger bares Rumsfeld's post 9/11 orders
Julian Borger in Washington
Friday February 24, 2006
The Guardian
Hours after a commercial plane struck the Pentagon on September 11 2001 the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, was issuing rapid orders to his aides to look for evidence of Iraqi involvement, according to notes taken by one of them.
"Hard to get good case. Need to move swiftly," the notes say. "Near term target needs - go massive - sweep it all up, things related and not."
The handwritten notes, with some parts blanked out, were declassified this month in response to a request by a law student and blogger, Thad Anderson, under the US Freedom of Information Act. Anderson has posted them on his blog at outragedmoderates.org.
The Pentagon confirmed the notes had been taken by Stephen Cambone, now undersecretary of defence for intelligence and then a senior policy official. "His notes were fulfilling his role as a plans guy," said a spokesman, Greg Hicks.
"He was responsible for crisis planning, and he was with the secretary in that role that afternoon."
The report said: "On the afternoon of 9/11, according to contemporaneous notes, Secretary Rumsfeld instructed General Myers [the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff] to obtain quickly as much information as possible. The notes indicate that he also told Myers that he was not simply interested in striking empty training sites. He thought the US response should consider a wide range of options.
"The secretary said his instinct was to hit Saddam Hussein at the same time, not only Bin Laden. Secretary Rumsfeld later explained that at the time he had been considering either one of them, or perhaps someone else, as the responsible party."
The actual notes suggest a focus on Saddam. "Best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit SH at same time - not only UBL [Pentagon shorthand for Usama/Osama bin Laden]," the notes say. "Tasks. Jim Haynes [Pentagon lawyer] to talk with PW [probably Paul Wolfowitz, then Mr Rumsfeld's deputy] for additional support ... connection with UBL."
Mr Wolfowitz, now the head of the World Bank, advocated regime change in Iraq before 2001. But, according to an account of the days after September 11 in Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack, a decision was taken to put off consideration of an attack on Iraq until after the Taliban had been toppled in Afghanistan.
But these notes confirm that Baghdad was in the Pentagon's sights almost as soon as the hijackers struck.
Source
Report on the blog with lots of links.
Why not hit a dictator who had invaded his neighbor, thus starting a war, and then refused to comply with his surrender treaty to allow free WMD inspections, tying up the US military for many years? Sounds intelligent to me.
That was an intelligent response, too, Brandon.
Quote:The handwritten notes, with some parts blanked out
Tell me,what was in those blanked out parts,and how do those parts fit in to what was released?
In other wordsHow do the blanked out parts affect the content of the parts released?
Why not hit Sadaam, tying up the US military for years?
Hmm.. I can think of lots of reasons not to.
parados wrote:Why not hit Sadaam, tying up the US military for years?
Hmm.. I can think of lots of reasons not to.
Some people just aren't capable of learning!
Anon
parados wrote:Why not hit Sadaam, tying up the US military for years?
Hmm.. I can think of lots of reasons not to.
They probably pale in comparison to the negative consequences of a nuke destroying New York.
Anon-Voter wrote:parados wrote:Why not hit Sadaam, tying up the US military for years?
Hmm.. I can think of lots of reasons not to.
Some people just aren't capable of learning!
Anon
You know what's so fascinating about you liberals? You just have to make the conversation personal, even when your opponent is merely posting opinions calmly.
That's what you do when you have a position, but no understanding, knowledge, or arguments to back it up.
The Jedi Wannabe speaks ... yea, you gotta great grip on reality!
Anon
Anon-Voter wrote:The Jedi Wannabe speaks ... yea, you gotta great grip on reality!
Anon
Don't you get it? He's accusing you of responding to the calmest and most dignified statement of opinions with personal insults because of having no ability to actually argue your position.
Brandon9000 wrote:Anon-Voter wrote:The Jedi Wannabe speaks ... yea, you gotta great grip on reality!
Anon
Don't you get it? He's accusing you of responding to the calmest and most dignified statement of opinions with personal insults because of having no ability to actually argue your position.
"Don't you get it" ?? You're hilarious! The reasons we shouldn't have invaded sit before you ... That's what so sad, you can't see failure even with the benefit of retrospect!
Anon
Anon-Voter wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Anon-Voter wrote:The Jedi Wannabe speaks ... yea, you gotta great grip on reality!
Anon
Don't you get it? He's accusing you of responding to the calmest and most dignified statement of opinions with personal insults because of having no ability to actually argue your position.
"Don't you get it" ?? You're hilarious! The reasons we shouldn't have invaded sit before you ... That's what so sad, you can't see failure even with the benefit of retrospect!
Anon
How about giving me one of the incredibly obvious reasons?
The judgements of history generally take much longer than a few months. The framers of the Treaty of Versailles that redrew the map of Europe and the Middle East after WWI were confident that they had created a new era of peace at the conclusion of what was then biled as "The War to End all Wars". This too was the popularly accepted view - that is for about twelve years, when it became clear that Versailles had finally revealed itself to be, what one author has described as "The Peace to end all Peace". The whole unhappy 20th century was a series of aftershocks to that supremely unwise Treaty framed by supremely confident, greedy, and popular leaders. Indeed we are still dealing with the aftereffects - in Iraq and throughout the Middle East.
The track record for popular "obvious" contemporary historical judgements is not very good, and not a sufficient argument for any serious observer.