Protocol changed june 2001 and restored after 9/11. Why?

I never argued one way or another that Rumsfeld should or should not be brought up on charges... While attempting to show a contradiction you have only showed your own inability to read, as neither post you quoted was me making such an argument.. The first post was me asking another poster if he should have faced discipline (not necessarily be criminally charged), not me stating he should have.. The second post was me simply clarifying that I hadn't actually made the argument he should have been charged, pointing out the lie that you stated I said that when I never actually did.

Can't even read simple English.. tsk tsk.

 

It's the only possible explanation I can think of. There is certainly a motive. Have you got a different explanation for why he wasn't curious about what was going on in New York and the further hijacking(s)? Neither the 9/11 commission nor Rumsfeld himself could offer one, but if you have an alternate explanation for Rumfeld being out of the loop then I'm all ears. Otherwise I believe mine's the only working theory on the matter.

What was he doing that "prevented" him from being in the loop or attempting to find out what was going on?

And he was "out of touch" a lot more than half an hour.. In fact, even his own account, as well as photographic evidence, place him as STILL not having reported to his post until, at the earliest, 10:00 a.m. as his immediate response to the big crash he claims he had no idea what caused, was him making the journey to the other side of the building and then playing pretend EMT for a photo-op. During this time of course, everyone was wondering where the hell he was, his presensce was requested for that teleconference, and his phone was ringing off the hook.

Rumsfeld was notified almost immediatily after the SECOND collision, at which point the idea of it being an "accident" was completely eliminated in favor of the clear operating conclusion that it was a terrorist attack.. This is why I clearly stated the period I am concerned about as that from soon after 9:00 a.m. NOT 8:46 a.m.

What "accounts" specified he was "working actively on the situation"? Not even Rumsfeld's accounts claimed this. What was he doing to "work actively on the situation"? Rumsfeld himself admitted he didn't have any clue what was going on when he suddenly heard the big noise at 9:37.

Report to the NMCC (National Military Command Center) where he was expected to be, where various other leadership personnel were gathered in order to coordinate a crisis response, or otherwise at least answer the bloody phone.. Staffers for the chairman of the joint cheif of staff, National security advisor Condaleesa Rice, and numerous others all stated he was needed in the NMCC, and were wondering where the hell he was.

First of all, the 9/11 commission report SHOULD have "fleshed out" all that in meticulous detail.. Of course they failed, as they don't care to tackle the obvious questions they were charged with addressing. Nevertheless, he was allegedly, according to him, in his office, "making some phone calls" (to who? Nobody bothers to ask him who he was talking to that was outside the loop?) As for who and what else he was doing, it's anyone's guess.. One thing we know he wasn't doing was his job. What he was supposed to be doing I have now clarified for you.

First of all, this is a fallacy, as hindsight and MMQBing has ZERO bearing on explaining what he was, and should have been doing during this period when such hindsight was not available.. Rumsfeld is not phychic, and didn't make the decision to not act based on a determination that there was nothing he could do anyway which he ascertained by looking in a crystall ball, did he? He KNEW there was an attack taking place, therefore the conclusion is he SHOULD have been in the loop and playing a leadership role based on this knowledge alone, regardless if later we found out it would have been useful or not, to at least find out if there is something he could do or not.

Second of all, there was a difference he could have made.. As those who were in the loop were operating under the assumption that a hijacked plane was bearing straight for Washington DC, evacuation of non-essential personnel from the Pentagon, near the top if not at the top of the list of potetial targets there, would have saved lives.. Shooting down flight 77 may have been possible as well prior to its impact, also potentially saving lives.. The official account claims the fighters dispatched to the area were just slightly too late in having the ability to do this, arriving mere minutes after the collision.. Fighter pilots have stated they were actually chomping at the bit to take action and defend the skies of their country, sitting on the tarmac awaiting orders, and the orders they did evenutally receive could have easily been issued sooner, by someone in such a perfect leadership position to do so, e.g. the SECDEF, therefore not needing to be just a couple minutes too late.

Although the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented in their entirety, prior to the date, I don't argue that anything much could have been done, on the morning itself, to save the WTC or the lives in New York.. No better results could have been achieved for flight 93, because it didn't kill anyone outside the aircraft anyway.. There were lives however that I think it is apparent that could have been saved that morning, and those lives were at the Pentagon, the place that Rumsfeld was supposed to be in charge of.

 

The HFD hair splitting machine is due for a tune up...you're not making a lick of sense. You should start writing down your lies to keep them straight.

 

The only one lying is you.. You claimed I said things I simply never said.

Your lies are already recorded for all to see.

 

he he he...you're funny.

 

It couldn't have possibly been "incompetence", as I have clearly explained.

I ascribe this dereliction of duty on the part of the SECDEF as malfaescense as the most probable.

These people keep disputing that, insisting it couldn't be with such wicked intentions, and yet completely fail to put forth ANY OTHER possible explanation for his complete lack of interest and action, the SECDEF being possibly the only person IN THE WORLD not interested in what was unfolding.

They nor the 9/11 commission will address this problem..

Except in cases like these, where the old usual "incompetence" excuse is used.. Yet this is not proven, and in cases like this, I've even disproven.

It's all just "incompetence".. If that's the explanation it should be proven or at least explained.. This is where these people, and the 9/11 commission report, fall short.

You could literally find a guy with a knife in his hand, kneeling over somebody butchering them, stabbing him 57 times, all captured on video, and they'd just say "that's not evil murder, that's just incompetence". He tripped and fell and stabbed the guy 57 times.

If you are charged with, as your official job, the DEFENSE of the USA, then you can't just "accidentally" not care and not seek information about an obvious deadly large scale attack occuring against it in real time.

It's like a bank is being robbed, and the security guard looks up and clearly sees the bank being robbed, it isn't "incompetence" when he looks back down and continues playing with his rubix cube.. That's simply not doing your job.

 

Since his behaviour was never "officially" addressed, it becomes a NONE issue for the Ozians and their support of the "official" BS report.

This is why they dance

 

The protocol was changed twice. Shortly prior to 9/11 and shortly afterwards. Those two times constitute the only two times since the seventies, and both within literally weeks of each other. Why?

 

He was on the lawn of the building helping the wounded. But keep on trying to libel Secretary Rumsfeld; after 10 years and zero traction, its REALLY working.

 

First of all that's not his job, so he still abandoned his post... How exactly did he "help" any wounded anyway? You have a picture of him "helping" lift a stretcher they clearly needed NO MORE help in lifting... Does he have EMT training? What did he do to help? Secondly that's not what he was doing between 9 and 9:37 a.m... What was he doing then? You know the time period while they all knew both towers were burning and another hijacked aircraft was headed for DC.... The time period I was CLEARLY referring to. If you bothered to read the thread you could respond with something relevant, not the after the fact pretend mitigation of the devestation caused by his own failure.

By the way candycorn, you still never answered... What exactly have YOU accomplished in 10 years? Feigning victory on a web forum?

 

It was a human reaction by an exceptional individual but then again, such concepts as that are, I'm sure, foreign to you.

Your movement is nowhere; you are nowhere.

 

yeh exceptionally AWOL DUH

 

Nonsense.. The human reaction was what was universally shown throughout the world by all but people catatonic and/or in straight jackets, and Donald Rumsfeld... That is a sense of shock, and urge to find out what happened and what was going on.. That's why pretty much everyone, universally, who were able to were glued to their telivision/radio... NOBODY else just decides not to care.. That is highly abbarent. Your claim of that as a "human reaction" is ludicruous. The human reaction was universally displayed around the world, which is why Rumsfeld's complete departure from that and blatant indifference is so obvious.

No doubt you are his biggest fan, but I'd like to know what you think makes him "exceptional"... What traits and accomplishments can you tell me are so great about him?

As the last time you failed to answer this question, I hope you do this time..

You can't even tell me how he "helped" anyone on the lawn.. In a day of doing nothing about the problem until after the fact on 9/11, the ONLY thing you can name Rumsfeld as doing or accomplishing is "helping" people on the lawn... What really did he do? Besides decide to help carry a stretcher that they didn't even need help for.

Well since it didn't sink in the last ten thousand times you were told it, I'm not part of any movement... And what is it I'm supposed to have acheived? The same thing you acheived, which is what exactly besides spamming personal attacks in leue of debate?

 

I'm not the biggest fan of Rummy (actually, him and Cheney are both on my most hated government officials list), but condemning him for trying to help recover the injured at the Pentagon is pretty lame and monday morning quarterbacking.

That's one of the few things I'd give him a pass on frankly.

 

I'm condemning him for dereliction of duty.

Had he gave a (*)(*)(*)(*) and did his job then they may not even have to be injured in the first place.

 

Like I said, monday morning quarterbacking.

There are plenty of legitimate reasons to vilify Rumsfeld, but this isn't one of them. Others may disagree, obviously.

 

So basically, this would include ANY time that ANYBODY points out when ANYONE fails to do their job... That mother let her baby starve to death, that's wrong... Oops can't say that, that's MMQBING... That pilot didn't stay awake long enough to land the plane safely.. That's MMQBING... The 911 dispatcher chose to text on her phone instead of put a call out to an ambulance.. That's MMQBING.

That aren't "MMQBING"?

No doubt this statement is true.

Do you mean just the few minutes while he helped recover the injured?

What about before then, while the plane was en route to the Pentagon, and he was hiding in his office, unreachable?

Do you at least acknowledge that this is condemnable?



Others may disagree, obviously.[/QUOTE]

 

You're speculating while wildly gesticulating.

 

And suddenly now you're trolling.

What exactly am I "speculating"?

 

I'm not the one who went running with the Monday Morning Quarterbacking comment. You know, using terms like "ANYTIME", "ANYBODY", OR "ANYONE". That's you going around the bend with hyperbole attempting to defend your opinion on what you think Rumsfeld should of and shouldn't have been doing at that moment.

That isn't proof of anything. As I said, that's you wildly gesticulating. I'm more than willing to entertain ANYTHING that would properly condemn Rumsfeld, because, as I already stated, I detest the man and what he's done. This not being one of those things......

As to the other reasons to vilify Rumsfeld, I'm referring to one's with actual backing evidence (authorizing torture of detainees for instance). That wouldn't fall under the category of MMQBing.

 

But you haven't though!

You only just addressed a bit about Rumsfeld running out onto the lawn, which was more a tangeant than anything else, the only thing allegedly uselul that candy corn could proclaim as Rumsfeld doing.

But it's like eight pages already and I have thoroughly outlined where Rumsfeld went wrong and provided full explanation and support and defended all statements.

Please go back and read my posts in the thread, and make your assessment based on the full case that I've presented.

 

Go read my post again, because that's specifically what I was referring to.

 

Do you have evidence that he was 'hiding' in his office, or is this speculation?

 

Then why didn't you say so when I asked you that?

I asked you if you at least agree about what I said about all the other time on the clock that he wasn't being EMT.