Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Raymond Duray who wrote (19257)	1/24/2003 7:51:55 AM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

America seems to be rapidly losing interest in this matter. From what I've seen here, most Americans don't WANT to know what really happened. Did you see the Parade interview where Rumsfeld admits a missile hit the Pentagon? You have to read the entire transcript, though. Of course, the vital quote was excised from the article. Here's part of the transcript with a link to the entire thing: thememoryhole.org Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was interviewed on 12 October 2001 by Lyric Wallwork Winik (yes, that's her real name), a columnist for Parade, the magazine that comes in many Sunday newspapers across the US. Although Parade is one of the most mainstream magazines imaginable (think People meets the Saturday Evening Post), Winik blindsided Rumsfeld with a question that few reporters/interviewers have the guts to ask: "This is a question that's been asked by many Americans, but especially by the widows of September 11th. How were we so asleep at the switch? How did a war targeting civilians arrive on our homeland with seemingly no warning?" Rumsfeld is apparently shaken by this young reporter's forthrightness. First, he admits what few else dare: "There were lots of warnings." Immediately after this sentence, though, the Secretary starts to qualify it. He subtly plays the "we didn't connect the dots" card: "The intelligence information that we get, it sometimes runs into the hundreds of alerts or pieces of intelligence a week. One looks at the worldwide, it's thousands. And the task is to sort through it and see what you can find." Although he doesn't directly say it, it would seem that Rumsfeld is insinuating that the poor, understaffed, shoestring intelligence and defense establishments can't put together intelligence in a timely manner. Now things get really bizarre. After admitting that there were plenty of warnings, he says it was up to the FBI and especially state and local law enforcement to deal with the imminent terrorist attack: "And as you find things, the law enforcement officials who have the responsibility to deal with that type of thing -- the FBI at the federal level, and although it is not, it's an investigative service as opposed to a police force, it's not a federal police force, as you know. But the state and local law enforcement officials have the responsibility for dealing with those kinds of issues." To sum up Rumsfeld's explanation: 1) The warnings were there; 2) the Defense Department and the intelligence community couldn't figure them out; but anyway 3) it was up to the FBI, state law enforcement, and local police to uncover and prevent the worst terrorist attack in US history. And here's something to kick around. Still answering this question, Rumsfeld goes on to make a strange statement: "It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them." "Missile"? What missile would that be? Did he let something slip? Or was this just a gaffe? A bad choice of words? A transcription error? Until we know for sure, it deserves scrutiny. The article based on this interesting interview was "We Have to Defend Our Way of Life" by Lyric Wallwork Winik in Parade, 18 Nov 2001. The only part of the above exchange to be included is this: To Rumsfeld, the Sept. 11 attacks did not come as a complete surprise. "There were lots of warnings," he says bluntly. "The only way to deal with this problem," he continues, "is by taking the battle to the terrorists and dealing with them." Now, it is pretty bold for Parade to quote him about the warnings. Of course, the magazine then skips Rumsfeld's subsequent shifting of blame and use of the word "missile," jumping right to the innocuous final sentence of the exchange.