In Search of Common Ground: A Conversation with Ron Wieck

[triforcharity]

My nephew was awarded a Purple Heart and a Silver Star after saving his friends in combat in Afganistan. He ignored his commander's orders to stay put. Saved 3 other guys from certain death.

Did not receive a general courtmartial nor did he receive any kind of demotion. None whatsoever. He received medal. A few of them. Including two of the most prestigious medals awarded to service members.

Or, you know, he could be lying......

 

[LSSBB]

Shouldn't you be telling us how Cheney was part of the NCA and in the military chain of command, and how in the military you don't need to follow orders by commanding officers?

The Veep can be part of the NCA if duly deputized. Was he?

 

[shure]

I'm glad to hear that your nephew was able to save his friends in that situation. Its unfortunate they had to be put in a situation they shouldn't have been put in the first place.

Although, that doesn't excuse Bush and Rumsfeld from being derelict in their duties that day. Also, at the level of operations in this circumstance, things were being done by the book. As we can see from the actions of the military that day.

 

[beachnut]

Shouldn't you be telling us how Cheney was part of the NCA and in the military chain of command, and how in the military you don't need to follow orders by commanding officers?

Or have you given up on those lies?

...
Like the Passengers of Flight 93, I can take action to stop terrorists who are a threat to the United States. My oath of office tells me so. You claim to be a veteran, did you forget your oath?. You make up nonsense, your claims sound like something McVeigh would say, "Bush and Rumsfeld from being derelict in their duties", McVeigh was a veteran too. What duties were they suppose to do?

Nothing in this Directive prevents a commander from exercising his or her immediate emergency response authority ...

...
... the key you are missing, ... why Bush and Rumsfeld are not needed, commanders can take action. Guess what the pilot is... ?

You claim the VP "authorized" a shoot down, and the military would take that as a stand down. The fact is jets were in the air faster than what a normal hijacking would take (an hour, or hours). There was no round-about idiotic logic "stand down" order. The "stand down" claim is nonsense no matter how much junk you tie together to form the nutty claim. It would have taken past 10 am EST to get permission down the chain to just follow the "hijacked" aircraft... Looks like worker bees "broke" the rules, used judgement, exercised initiative to launch fighters for something that was not a "hijacking", it was an attack.

The pilots would have launched on their own had they the knowledge of what was going on ... big problem is flying in controlled airspace, but a quick climb above FL500 would keep them from hitting airliners. A trick, flying higher than other traffic my crews used in Desert Storm to by pass the "official orders", and return to base 50 percent faster!

I would haress the terrorist plane, it was not hijacked.

You use google references to make up nonsensical claims with a spam load of quotes, hearsay, all carefully cherry-picked to form your illogical connections and claims. Your work is like Loose Change, a bunch of talk, topped off with made up claims. Your nonsense sounds like nonsense found at PrisonPlanet.

 

[Oystein]

Even knowing this won't get us anywhere, let me highlight a different part of your quote, just to be clear on why it's a non-sequitur that everyone had negative clearance:

“At 10:10, the pilots over Washington were emphatically told “negative clearance to shoot.”
​

More importantly, at 10:10 there was no plane left to be shot down. UA93 had crashed at 10:03. So this whole line of arguing about orders is inconsequential, silly and moot.

ETA: And that's why Shure ought to have attended to post 16 a long time ago:

shure.
...
If you have a claim to discuss here can you not state that claim concisely?

Spamming the thread will win you no friends.

Are you suggesting that one or more of the hijacked aircraft should have been shot down?

If so show us your time line indicating the earliest time that a shoot down decision could have been plausible, indicating which aircraft was or were the targets and explaining the "cost - benefit" of shoot down or not for that/those aircraft. (Risk analysis either way if you prefer those terms). For your first explanation the latter can be simply stated as likely deaths either way - I will excuse you the need to assess the world wide political cost of such an act at this stage.

And, if you are not claiming there should have been one or more shoot downs, then kindly stop talking about it and tell us your real concern.

 

[tfk]

Also, at the level of operations in this circumstance, things were being done by the book. As we can see from the actions of the military that day.

No, things were being done in a way that has become a proud tradition in the American military: adapt, improvise & get the job done.

The way that has given the US victories over hind bound, by-the-book militaries since about 1775.

You pick very select quotes from the 9/11 Commission Report, but ignore the ones that refute your claim.

Such as the officer that ordered the launch of the fighters from Otis AFB, with a comment approximately "Do it, and we'll worry about authorization later."

That officer did exactly what beachnut (& others) are saying. And what you are denying.

It's amazing to me that you, who have spent not one moment in the US military (nor, I'd wager, in Canada's) refuse to listen to the informed comments of US military veterans.

It's amazing to me that the significance of the fact that, even tho there are millions of US military vets who hold Bush in relative contempt, yet none of them have prattled on about his alleged "desertion of his post", hasn't occurred to you.

I'm a rank amateur in the matter, but I frankly doubt that it's even possible for the Pres to "dessert his post", since there is no one who has the authority to assign him a post that he could possibly dessert.

 

[Sabretooth]

Although, that doesn't excuse Bush and Rumsfeld from being derelict in their duties that day. Also, at the level of operations in this circumstance, things were being done by the book. As we can see from the actions of the military that day.

You're still ignoring a key element in the timeline of events from that morning to build conclusions that aren't accurate.

I can help you out if you need it.

BTW, I took the time to read your wall of nonsense in post #11 and responded to it in Post #85. I'd expect that a "researcher" such as yourself would have the courtesy to discuss it, or at least respond. So much for searching for the truth, eh, chief?

 

[shure]

No amount of ranting and blowing hot air is going to take away from the fact that Bush and Rumsfeld didn't do what they were supposed to do that day.

It doesn't matter how much vigilantism or false patriotism comments are filled with to make excuses.

The public record shows otherwise!

 

[DGM]

No amount of ranting and blowing hot air is going to take away from the fact that Bush and Rumsfeld didn't do what they were supposed to do that day.

It doesn't matter how much vigilantism or false patriotism comments are filled with to make excuses.

The public record shows otherwise!

I'm wondering if anyone ever considered if there actually was an order not to shoot down the planes that it could be the correct course of action?

Obviously there was no time to do anything about the first three but if United 93 actually got close enough to Washington DC it would be over a very densely populated area. Why would it be out of the question for a decision based on risk verses benefit? The government buildings were mostly at that time evacuated but, places like malls and schools were not. In many ways it could be better to let it crash into their target than to shoot it down and hope it doesn't kill more innocent people on the ground on the ground.

 

[LSSBB]

No amount of ranting and blowing hot air is going to take away from the fact that Bush and Rumsfeld didn't do what they were supposed to do that day.

It doesn't matter how much vigilantism or false patriotism comments are filled with to make excuses.

The public record shows otherwise!

What were they supposed to do that day? I have bones to pick with them on how they handled intel and counterterrorism before 9/11/2001, and with how they reacted afterwards and chose to employ American troops, but there was no script to follow for what transpired that day. To me it appears they reacted as well as they could given the executive structure they had in place and the information available, sad as that was. The only thing that saved them were the actions of the passengers of flight 93. They flat out were just not ready for the day, in my book.

 

[NoahFence]

Hmmm, it seems odd that you're referring to Shure's posts as your own. Your username is jimd3100....

Most obvious troll is obvious.

 

[NoahFence]

I'm glad to hear that your nephew was able to save his friends in that situation. Its unfortunate they had to be put in a situation they shouldn't have been put in the first place.

Although, that doesn't excuse Bush and Rumsfeld from being derelict in their duties that day. Also, at the level of operations in this circumstance, things were being done by the book. As we can see from the actions of the military that day.

Rumsfeld had an airplane plow into his office. I think he was preoccupied.

 

[alienentity]

Most obvious troll is obvious.

Nah, he didn't mention anywhere that he was extensively quoting someone else. The only clue was the final link at the bottom of the post, which I didn't bother to check...

I still maintain that this style of post is disorganized to begin with. Shure could be a lot more concise and offer the links for reference, or provide footnotes.
There is a good reason why an academic paper is organized that way...

 

[Oystein]

No amount of ranting and blowing hot air is going to take away from the fact that Bush and Rumsfeld didn't do what they were supposed to do that day.

It doesn't matter how much vigilantism or false patriotism comments are filled with to make excuses.

The public record shows otherwise!

If you would be so kind as to cut out all the rantingm, blowing and patriotism^* from my and ozeco's post... You'll notice that they'll survive unchanged.

So please, the available timeline, the legal basics and opinion, your base premises, your claims ... concisely! Please. You have not shown that Bush and Rumsfeld were supposed to issue a shoot-down order, or that it would have made one iota of a difference.



* I am German, ozeco is Australian. We have no love and patriotism for the US armed forces.

 

[alienentity]

Shure and Jimd3100 - ok, I get it. I'm sorry to be critical, Shure, but your presentation was not at all clear about the issue of authorship.

So I take it your position is that Bush and Rumsfeld were 'derelict in their duties that day'.
That's fine with me, you're entitled to your opinion. My main objection to your conclusion is that the events of 9/11 were unprecedented in the American experience, certainly in GW Bush's experience. He was not a worldly man: notoriously ignorant of affairs outside America's borders, and only on the job a few months.
His apparent reaction (hesitation and confusion) does not ring any alarm bells for me, given the context. By the time leadership gathered their wits (again, a limited commodity in GW's case) the attacks were over. There is a legitimate case to be made for shock and disbelief, even in the case of so-called 'leadership'.
(On a sidenote I was a bit horrified that Ron admitted voting for Bush, and it is interesting that Ron realizes that was a serious lapse in judgement. I recall having some heated conversations with some American friends during the Gore/Bush campaign where I scoffed at the idea that people would actually vote for such an obviously poor candidate - no, I'm not talking about Gore . Mind you the popularity of Sarah Palin during the last election gave me no confidence that the American people have learned much since the Bush years... The point is I've had little regard for GWB at any time, so my expectations are probably quite low )

There is certainly not, judging by the materials you've presented, any evidence of a conspiracy by Bush and Co to allow flight 93 to continue to its unknown destination, for example. Obviously there was nothing they could have done about the attacks on the twin towers, surely we can all agree on that - in the sense that, from the evidence that day, Bush did not even recognize the first plane as a terrorist attack!

There is, as Beachnut has also pointed out, no evidence of any kind of a 'stand down' order. If anything there is evidence that the VP tried to authorize a shootdown order, even if he wasn't actually authorized to do so.
IMO it takes an unreasonable twist in logic, and a lack of comprehension of the facts, to derive a claim that somehow this amounts to some kind of military 'stand down'.

Now on the other hand I do think there is work to be done uncovering possible coverups of Saudi malfeasance by the Bush administration. To be perfectly clear I don't see a shred of evidence of MIHOP or LIHOP, only a potential desire of Bush and Co. to avoid public embarrassment and political fallout.

 

[NoahFence]

Nah, he didn't mention anywhere that he was extensively quoting someone else. The only clue was the final link at the bottom of the post, which I didn't bother to check...

I still maintain that this style of post is disorganized to begin with. Shure could be a lot more concise and offer the links for reference, or provide footnotes.
There is a good reason why an academic paper is organized that way...

The guy started in August 2007. Four+ years ago with only a handfull of posts. I'm thinking sockpuppet.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Don't take what I'm saying the wrong way or anything, but that alone isn't enough to call it. I've done the exact same thing on other sites... it may be common in this subforum for the very reasons you cite but I maintain this is really something for forum management to handle anyway if it is.

 

[tsig]

No, things were being done in a way that has become a proud tradition in the American military: adapt, improvise & get the job done.

The way that has given the US victories over hind bound, by-the-book militaries since about 1775.

You pick very select quotes from the 9/11 Commission Report, but ignore the ones that refute your claim.

Such as the officer that ordered the launch of the fighters from Otis AFB, with a comment approximately "Do it, and we'll worry about authorization later."

That officer did exactly what beachnut (& others) are saying. And what you are denying.

It's amazing to me that you, who have spent not one moment in the US military (nor, I'd wager, in Canada's) refuse to listen to the informed comments of US military veterans.

It's amazing to me that the significance of the fact that, even tho there are millions of US military vets who hold Bush in relative contempt, yet none of them have prattled on about his alleged "desertion of his post", hasn't occurred to you.

I'm a rank amateur in the matter, but I frankly doubt that it's even possible for the Pres to "dessert his post", since there is no one who has the authority to assign him a post that he could possibly dessert.

I agree, wherever the president is is his post

 

[DGM]

......................only a potential desire of Bush and Co. to avoid public embarrassment and political fallout.

The funny part is, Almost all of us think of this as , no ****! Something "truthers" would find hard to believe, how can "official story" supporters say this about their government? Personally I'm suspicious when they don't lie (and cover crap up).

 

[Reheat]

There is, as Beachnut has also pointed out, no evidence of any kind of a 'stand down' order. If anything there is evidence that the VP tried to authorize a shootdown order, even if he wasn't actually authorized to do so.
IMO it takes an unreasonable twist in logic, and a lack of comprehension of the facts, to derive a claim that somehow this amounts to some kind of military 'stand down'.

Alienientity, This entire post is a very wise insightful series of comments you've made here...

While I'm attempting to stay out of most threads here, it's time to post in this one...

Beachnut is absolutely correct with most of all of his comments. While technically the VP is not in the normal chain of command it is murky because Bush was out of pocket at the time and there were communication problems in addition to that. Who was suppose to be in charge for immediate decision making, the White House janitor? While officially he was not normally a part of the NCA, it's a questionable issue which has no absolute right or wrong answer.

Several have addressed the flexibility of the American Military command structure and the ability/obligation of people to make wise decisions and wise choices based on good judgment regardless of "official and formal orders".

The crux of the lack of NCA involvement from the beginning of the attacks was the FAA's neglect to follow proper notification procedures to the NCC as they were suppose to do in the first place. Instead individual commanders lower in the system made the decision to act. There was not the slightest hint of a "stand down" in any shape or form. To try and contrive one is simply made up poppycock.

Whether or not there was shoot down authorization from the NCA is a moot point because of the time line of events. It would have made no difference in the final outcome in the first place.

What Shure and his support don't understand is how the US Military really works in practice. The US Army is more strict on following written or verbal orders simply because of the fact that there are more and less educated folks at the tip of the spear. In the US Army enlisted folks do the fighting. That is in contrast to the USAF where the fighting is done by well educated Officers at the tip of the spear. Since the late 1950's/early 1960's all pilots have had a minimum of a University Degree and are all Officers, no exceptions. So, in effect all USAF pilots are Commanders of one type or another from young Lieutenants to the top of the chain. The ANG has very few Lieutenants in their organizations with most of the pilots having active duty experience and are at least Captains or above. As a result the USAF and the ANG have a more open and looser structure where folks follow certain guidelines which are specifically designed to allow judgment to play an integral part. The US Army does this too to some extent, but it is not as prevalent or as common in practice.

I do agree that virtually no one would have shot down and Airliner full of people without higher level authorization, but it is not totally out of the question. If there were positive proof that one of the aircraft were carrying WMD, there would be no question virtually everyone involved would have acted with or without authorization to shoot it down. Shooting down an airliner without WMD involved, but with folks on board is not an easy decision for anyone to make whether it be the NCA or someone else in the command structure... It is simply not a given and there are specific Rules of Engagement to follow even today that are subject to change in the proper scenario.... An individual pilot is authorized to make those kinds of decisions and accept the responsibility for it.

I could offer many examples of this principle, but don't want to bore everyone with "War Stories" from years past.

The Saudi issue mentioned is certainly open to debate, but the items I've addressed above are not subject to serious debate because it is how the system really works in practice, which those making accusations are obviously ignorant about and seem unwilling to learn in addition to that.

The claims being implied or in some cases actually being made regarding the President and the Sec of Def are simply a bunch of made up malarkey from ignorant know nothings with typical twoofer mentality...