9/11 Note Shows Rumsfeld Ready to Hit Iraq even if Saddam was Innocent in 9/11 Attacks

[rubydick]

The following was just sent to me by a friend in Chicago. It shows pretty clearly the intent of BushCo. in the hours following the 9/11 attacks. Following a FOIA request, the world has been allowed to peek at the notes of Department of Defense staffer Stephen Cambone''s notes from meetings with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. Cambone''s notes were cited heavily in the 9/11 Commission Report''s reconstruction of the day''s events.

The released notes document Donald Rumsfeld''s 2:40 PM instructions to General Myers to find the "est info fast . . . judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time - not only UBL [Usama Bin Laden]" (as discussed on p. 334-335 of the 9/11 Commission Report and in Bob Woodward''s Plan of Attack).

In addition, the documents confirm the contents of CBS News'' Sept. 4, 2002 report "Plans For Iraq Attack Began on 9/11," which quoted Rumsfeld''s notes as stating: "Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not." These lines were not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report or Woodward''s Plan of Attack.

These documents unveil a previously undisclosed part of the 2:40 PM discussion. Several lines below the "judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. at same time" line, Cambone''s notes from the conversation read: "Hard to get a good case."

Read the full story here:

DoD Staffer''s 9/11 Notes Obtained via FOIA

Note what Rumsfeld said: "Go massive... sweep it all up. Things related and not."

And that telling final statement: "Hard to get a good case."

 

[strmrdr]

That dont prove crap on 9-11 hitting every country in the world was likely discussed at one point or another until it became clear who hit us.

 

[rubydick]

Strmrdr,

Yes, by itself, it proves nothing. But in hindsight, there is a strong suggestion.

Motivation is a difficult thing to prove. Much of life is not about the black and whites, but sorting out the various shades of gray. Basically police work. One of the great myths is that fingerprints are conclusive. Actually, according to many authorities, they are not nearly so absolute.

And so it is with history. It is rare that we can say something conclusively. All we are left with is those shades of gray.

And how do we make decisions? We weight the evidence, no different from juries that do this job every single day. Are they perfect? Of course not. But we hope this system is mostly accurate.

Not unlike a voter going to the polls. Unlike a jury, the average voter has vast gap in terms of who is informed and who is not. Because the jury listens to the same evidence together, but the voter is subject to complete extremes. Do they get their news from Fox, from CNN, or do they troll a variety of media around the world?

This possibly explains why the populations around the world had such radically different views of the US invasion of Iraq. For those fed on Fox News and the other corporate US media, it was simple: invade the evil empire.

And yet, in other countries, the US invasion was opposed by majorities, even in nations that Bush declared as allies.

Why such differences? I suggest that it is a combination of distance, of perspective. And it is also a question of propaganda. The US media has become a propaganda machine. All humans are influenced by propaganda. Today, sadly, the propaganda outwieghs ordinary reportage.

 

[strmrdr]

Ill come back to this and discuss it when i'm feeling better but wanted to apologize for my grumpy tone in answering earlier.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Anywhere the national slogan is "Death to America" needs to be at the top of the list.

If Rumsfeld were NOT ready he wouldn''t be doing his job.

 

[Momoftwo]

Media has always been used for propoganda. It doesn't matter who it is, Fox, CNN, or whoever, each tells the facts based on someone's spin. Everyone has an opinion and anyone who says they don't are just avoiding voicing it. There isn't and never has been such a thing as unbiased news anywhere. Someone, the owner, editor, producer, whoever puts their own personal opinions in stories no matter how much they're saying they're "just reporting the news". It just doesn't happen. I think taking "notes" from meetings and making a story out of it, is unfair. Lots of things are tossed out in meetings that never get heard, reported or even used in every environment. Not just the government, but every board room, conference room and email in every company, business, non-profit, etc. You can make any story meet your needs by pulling out only what you think is important or pertinent, whether it is or not. Why is it everything ever said on a subject should be reported? Not everything is imortant to the case. Obscure notes from one of many meetings doesn't prove or mean anything. That's how conspiracy theorists work.

 

[colormyworld]

You are so right momof2. Actions speak louder than words. Where are we now?

 

[moon river]

This just validates Michael Moores ''Farenheit 9/11'' documentary.

 

[rubydick]

Mom,

Again, by itself it means nothing. But when you weigh the body of evidence, a rather damning case can be made. People get convicted every day based on circumstantial evidence.

In Rummy's case, we have the Project of the New American Century (which he was part of). In Jan. 1998 he signed a letter asking Clinton to effectively invade iraq. We have Paul O'Neil, who said that attacking Iraq was brought up in the first cabinet meeting in Jan. 2001. We have Richard Clarke, who claimed Rumsfeld wanted to attack Iraq in the moments following the 9/111 attack. And we have this note, which basically verifies what Clark said.

Then we have the Downing Street memos. We have the reports that our pilots were bombing Iraq in an attempt to goad Saddam into starting the war. We have the bogus WMD reports. And so it goes, on and on, including the fact that we did attack Iraq.

It hardly seems fair to dismiss this as "conspiracy theory." Applying the standard you suggest, we shouldn't believe anything about anyone. Perhaps all the 9/11 hijackers were simply lone nuts that happened to have the same idea on the same day?

 

[Mr Majestyk]

I think Rumsfeld summed it up this way:

"Reports that say that something hasn''t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don''t know we don''t know."

 

[rubydick]

Date: 2/27/2006 10:17:27 PM
Author: Mr Majestyk
I think Rumsfeld summed it up this way:


''Reports that say that something hasn''t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don''t know we don''t know.''

Love it. Finally, someone who speaks Rummy. Tell me, Mista M, can ya also speak Dubaiya?

 

[Mr Majestyk]

Actually, I can''t speak it, but they can, which is of course even scarier...

GWB said:

"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself."

Dan Quayle was even better, but lets not go there.