More on Rumsfeld's Role

Regarding Criminal Mastermind, Donald Rumsfeld

Revised May 30, 2007

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 8:13am, 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 9:37am, 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 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, AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS." [1]

These are the standing orders to the military as to how to respond to hijackings over United States territory. The June 1, 2001 document updated 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)."



The usage of the word "approval" here is relevant. It appears as though the Defense Secretary's approval is required BEFORE providing any "assistance" at all.

The orders appear to have 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 "hardening" and "reinforcement" project had been underway including kevlar, and 2500 lb. blast resistant windows) .

In this manner, fighter plane interceptors may have been held up from immediately responding to the hijacked commercial jets on September the 11th, 2001.

It's inconceivable that New York City could be struck by two wayward jumbo jets, and still over 30 minutes later (80 minutes since the start of the emergency) 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. [2]

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


The Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction is explicit, however, and it mentions Rumsfeld's position and it requires his "approval," not White's.

Just where was this "approval" on September 11th 2001?



It is difficult to clearly establish how the 2001 rule changes affected the performance of the military on September 11th 2001. What we know for certain is that the first three attacking planes were not intercepted, and that the fourth is still in dispute. Therefore these "Air Piracy (Hijacking)" procedures were proven inadequate that day, and that is beyond dispute.

Another 1997 order, Department of Defense Directive 3025.15 provided a way for the military to respond to an "emergency":

"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))." [3]

Some have argued that this order would supercede the requirement of getting "approval" from Rumsfeld, and that somehow the Secretary of Defense's actions are irrelevant to the attacks.

I do not believe that to be the case for several reasons.

1) The "Air Piracy (Hijacking)" (June 2001) procedures are more specific and more directly related to hijackings than are orders concerning unspecified "imminently serious conditions." In case of doubt, the default position is to refer to the "Air Piracy (Hijacking)" rules, and not to the less applicable "serious conditions" rules.

The very presence of a conflict between "immedate response" and seeking "approval" is sufficient to delay action, because multpile actors would have to decide which route(s) to take.

2) The "immediate response" orders (3025.15 / 1997) appear to be directed to base commanders, and not to the centralized NMCC/Pentagon command structure, whose offices are next door to the Secretary of Defense.

"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..."

It is unlikely that the NMCC/NORAD personnel would refer to these orders.

They have control of the military, and are not "components" but the actual central command.

NMCC/Norad would not need "informal planning", because established procedures are on the books, and their role is granting permission for others closer to the action to act.

3) It could be argued that the passage: "save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage" did not apply to September 11th 2001 UNTIL 8:46am, when the North Tower was struck (and even this fact was allegedly unclear to FAA and NORAD for some time afterward).

Since the "Air Piracy (Hijacking)" rules would have come into play first, those rules were more likely to remain in effect.

4) By relegating these "immediate response" orders to a "reference", and therefore to a footnote, minimizes their apparent relevance. If the choice is between following highly specific "Air Piracy/(Hijacking)" instructions, or going back and researching a footnote (3025.15 / 1997) which references another footnote (3025.1 / 1993), the most likely choice would be to stick with the most current and most closely related guidelines.

In an emergency, that is what can be expected.

In addition to "Air Piracy," very specific orders concerned "Military Escort Aircraft," which people lower down the chain of command would certainly not want to screw up during an actual attack:

"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.

Rumsfeld never responded! For two hours, there was no response from Donald Rumsfeld on this very central and crucial request.



Obviously we had fighter 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.

"It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a--a protective cover over Washington, DC." --NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET), September 11 2001

"Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said."

"But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon..." --San Diego Union-Tribune, September 12, 2001

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?



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, ashington, D.C., September30, 2001

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. (LA 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" (Ari Fleischer aboard Air Force One, 9/11/01) 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."


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 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.